I'm pretty sure that's exactly what people are claiming when they say things like "Trumps win should have an asterisk next to it". That somehow, because he won the election without winning the popular vote, it makes his win less of a win (or less "legitimate", right?).
No. Maybe it hurts your feelings that someone would point out exceptional circumstances but that's not the same as saying it's not legitimate.
There are no exceptional circumstances though. That's the point. The mere act of claiming there's something wrong, unusual, or exceptional about a popular vote count not matching the EC vote count is about delegitimizing the outcome. The underlying assumption is that Trump shouldn't have won because Clinton won the popular vote, followed by an argument to change the election process to match how it should be. There's no point in saying it if you don't think that the system we use is wrong. Which means you think that the outcome is wrong. He only won by a technicality which we should fix, right? You're splitting linguistic hairs to argue that's not the same as saying his win isn't legitimate.
They're the ones who know the rules of the game, but then embark on a strategy that fails to win, but succeeds in something else (and then complain about it, apparently). That's the disconnect. And IMO, that's what should be fixed. You don't fix the rules. You change the way you play.
It's the presidency, not a sports contest.
And? The disconnect is still on the person who used the wrong strategy.
I'm not trivializing though
Said the guy comparing the presidency to baseball...
It's an analogy, not a comparison.