[dantillberg]

> This is why we can have an election outcome that no one in the media predicted.

I presume you're referring to the 2016 presidential election in the US, and if so that's patently false. FiveThirtyEight estimated a ~28% probability[0] that Trump would win, and other major media outlets had similar outlooks prior to the election. Many willfully interpreted "28% chance" as "with any luck it won't happen," but you can't say that the media didn't think it was possible.

[0]: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

(edit: updated with link to actual prediction by FiveThirtyEight)

[rorykoehler]

I predicted a Trump win. Actually I said that Trump would win against Hillary but lose to Bernie. I still believe that to be the case. Though I like many of Hillary's ideas (such as freedom of movement in the western hemisphere) Hillary had too much baggage to win. She doesn't have the charisma to shake the baggage. Added to that after the DNC debacle (also after my prediction) there was no transfer of support from Bernie to Hillary. This was the final nail in her campaign. The main surprise to me was how close it ended up being. In hindsight Trump is the inevitable result of decades of gas-lighting. It may also be the pivotal moment in US democratic history where the majority re-assumes responsibility for their government. An awakening of sorts.... if it doesn't get hijacked by subversive political operatives.

[boreas]

Also relevant to note that Trump wasn't supported by a majority, as OP seems to be implying. He won in the arbitrary schema of the electoral college.