I think you bring up an interesting point that can actually be used to illustrate one of the main points in my article, that facts are only true in context.
Secretary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes.
It must be understood that in the context of the US presidential election, there is no popular vote to be won or lost, so while your “fact” is true in the context of what it would mean to win a popular contest had one existed, it is not properly contextualized as a hypothetical. Instead, your “fact” is mis-contextualized as an actuality despite the truthful context of the electoral college.
Furthermore, even if we were to assume that the popular vote was a contest to be won or lost, Clinton won by 4 million votes in CA. We could easily recontextualize the false assumption and say that the electoral college preserved the popular vote of 49 states despite the factional tyranny of majority by a single state interest putting the rest of the country at it’s mercy. I say this with hyperbole, but I do not think it is fair to say that your “fact” is in fact a fact, when it is actually a hypothetical conjecture for a different system altogether.
The point here is that your fact is only true for your made-up national winner-take all system. Once we stray from the system itself as it is defined by our laws, and consider alternative systems that hold no significance in reality, we end up perpetuating the falsehoods of our own biases. This shared self-perpetuated other world of ideals is exactly what lead to the media bubbles and the perpetuation of false paradigms in the first place.
Instead of believing that Clinton lost in reality because of the electoral college, it makes much more sense to consider the high likelyhood that Trump would have probably won the popular vote under your made up system. There is ZERO chance he would have had a targeted by state get out the vote effort and he would have had a much more nationally focused election campaign if we counted votes the way you proposed.
Even if he only gained 3% across the board (which is within a reasonable margin of error), and then lost the swing states by the same margin he won them by, he’d have won the popular vote. This is not a fact like your fact, but it is the truth of the matter.