What I’m seeing of most intriguing and as yet not fully fathomed (if ever considering an erratic, uncentered individual) interest is how Trump changes when cornered into a situation where not even he can wipe the facts away. We see in interviews that he does, grudgingly, now seem to admit that he did lose the popular vote. But the position he now is taking (last I was able to discern) is that if the election was based on the popular vote, not the Electoral College total, he (Trump) would have been smart enough to campaign more in the most populous states, e. g., California, New York, Florida.

As he is saying lately, after having grudgingly admitted that he did not win the popular vote (i. e., lost this by a historically pretty wide margin) that he was smart enough, keen-minded and apparently prescient enough, to go after the Electoral College number for winning rather than, as Clinton did, foolishly try to win the popular vote. This is quite a claim — though not one uncharacteristic or rare from Trump — considering that in those states where he did win giving him overall an Electoral College victory, the won the popular vote giving him the victory by, say, 100,000 votes (more or less, the actual number has been batted around).

As I see it, what Trump is asserting is that he is so smart, he was able to calculate that he would be able to win by a hair’s breadth of a number of votes; and this would be done in some three to six states, say, i. e., the states of the northern Midwest and one or two others for good measure. I’ve got to tell you, this is one smart cookie.

I think it’s clear to most people that Trump lucked out. But Trump cannot admit that he won the presidency on the basis of luck, but rather comes up with an explanation of how he was able to win the presidency although losing the popular vote because he is such a great politician that he was able to figure the slimmest of margins of the popular vote in his favor over some three to six states.

What we see is another sample of Trump’s megalomania over facts in that when he is corned so as to have to face the overwhelming facts (Trump’s conscience, such as he has one), he resorts to a logic/rationale that he in fact “knew” how the election would go down to a few tens of thousands of votes in precincts across particular states. One smart cookie indeed. The good news is that Trump is not totally immune to admitting facts that cannot be denied. The bad news is that when he does admit facts that cannot be denied, he argues that he was aware of what would ensue so as to be accepted as factual, yet was able to in effect foil the facts so that he would come out on top.