2016 was an establishment referendum election for many Americans. The number of people struggling economically rose to a majority during Obama. That has not g

2016 was an establishment referendum election for many Americans. The number of people struggling economically rose to a majority during Obama. That has not gone without notice. Trump, whether it's true or not, positioned himself as an outsider. That's savvy, and potent in these times. Economic performance from both parties, in terms of ordinary working people, has been poor. It's tough for way too many people and being networked now, they know it, flat out. Clinton was seen as Obama 2.0, and that tepid performance, along with 1000+ seat party losses made for a difficult election, given Trumps positioning and willingness to work the crowds. (It's not really a debate as to whether he intended to follow up on any of that rhetoric. He had no intent other than to win.) All of that added up to populism. People responding to messages aimed at them. Again, I'm not speaking the merits of the current POTUS. Just that his messaging and positioning was solid populist on economic fronts, and moderate enough on social fronts to make for a compelling package. One must also consider very large numbers of people not voting. That share of people is actually quite large, and is larger than either party base right now. Getting those people involved basically means populist messaging right now too. It's still going to be a referendum. The economic difficulties are still in play. Anyway, maybe that helps frame it a bit. And it's just one way to look at it. There are several, likely valid. Populist may not = popular, and in this case didn't.