top of page
  • Writer's pictureDonald V. Watkins

Achieving Victory in the 2024 Presidential Election, Despite Losing the Popular Vote

By: Donald V. Watkins

Copyrighted and Published on June 1, 2024

IMAGE: Presidential nominees Donald J. Trump (left) and Joe Biden (right). Both men are deeply flawed.

An Editorial Opinion


It has happened five times in the history of this nation  In five presidential elections, the loser of the popular vote won the presidency.  This outcome occurred in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.

Here are the three most recent elections where the loser of the popular vote won the White House:

This "lose the popular vote but win the White House" scenario seems likely to occur again for Donald Trump in 2024.  What is more, neither Trump, nor Joe Biden, is positioned to win the White House with more than 50% of the popular vote.  


Barring divine intervention, Donald Trump is poised to win the presidency by defeating Biden in the Electoral College vote.  This will be the second time Trump has positioned himself to win the Electoral College vote, despite losing the popular vote. 


My Circle of Independent Voters/Influencers/Mega-Donors Love the Way the Race for President is Shaping Up

The race for the White House is shaping up the way my close-knit, ethnically diverse, circle of independent voters/influencers/mega-donors anticipated and like.  Winning the Electoral College will boil down to which nominee has the most campaign cash to ramp up his "get-out-the-vote" strategy in the key swing states between September 1st and November 5th.  


The last chunk of donor money that goes into a presidential nominee’s campaign coffers is often viewed as the most valuable money.  My group of independent voters/influencers/mega-donors is prepared to channel $50 to $75 million in cash donations to the preferred Super-PACs of the nominee we support.

We are NOT a campaign expense item. Instead, we are a potential source of fresh campaign cash in the home stretch.

We do NOT require a star-studded gala filled with political sycophants, rambling speeches, and meaningless photo ops as a prelude to giving out the campaign money. We only need the names, addresses, and wire transfer instructions for the nominee's preferred Super-PACs.

At this juncture, we are NOT committed to any candidate for president. Our campaign donations are up for grabs.


What is more, we are NOT slaves or sharecroppers who till the soil on political party plantations. Additionally, we have NOT compromised our personal value systems and principles of decency to point where we have become mindless zealots for Donald Trump or Joe Biden.  We view both men as deeply flawed.

As it stands today, Donald Trump is fighting to stay out of jail, while Joe Biden is coping with an obviously deteriorating mental condition -- senility. These two men are viewed by many independent voters as undesirable choices. But, this is the political hand that has been dealt to independent voters.

Third-party candidates, write-in candidates, and single-issue protest candidates will NOT get our financial support.

Finally, we are NOT acting as a "front" or surrogate donor for anybody. Individually and collectively, we are "unbossed" and "unbought."

What is the Process for Gaining Our Political/Financial Support?


As a group of independent voters/influencers/mega-donors, we have a well-defined but sensible political agenda. We are fiscal conservatives, social moderates, political centrists, and strong advocates for national defense and homeland security.  As successful, diversified business men and women, we have plenty of practical experience in dealing with those who operate in the political arena.

The nominee who can best advance and/or protect our political interests will win our financial support.  Our level of financial support requires a direct conversation with the presidential nominee, not with his campaign surrogates.  If the nominee does not have the time for this conversation, he will not get our financial support.


We are re-activating, turbo-charging, and narrowing the scope of the approach Voter News Network (VNN) used to dole out more than $1 million in campaign contributions to a handful of candidates for public offices in the early 2000s.  Our money will flow directly from the donors to the Super-PACs specified by the preferred presidential nominee. Like VNN, our friendship circle, as a group, will decide who our preferred nominee will be.


The presidential nominee who can align himself with our political agenda is the one who will pick up $50 to $75 million in financial support from our tight circle of independent voters/influencers/mega-donors. 

We are NOT focused on Donald Trump's recent criminal conviction in New York. We know from U.S. Supreme Court cases dating back to the 1900s that state and federal prosecutors in America enjoyed the unfettered power to turn any law-abiding citizen into a convicted felon without credible evidence of criminal misconduct. The "Scottsboro Boys" rape case and thousands of state and federal criminal convictions obtained against innocent "COINTELPRO" victims are documented proof of this unchecked prosecutorial power. We also know that healthy doses of injustice in civil and criminal cases continues to be meted out in American courtrooms every day.

For all practical purposes, my circle of independent voters/influencers/mega-donors wants to function much like the last gas station on the road to the White House. We will see which presidential nominee wants and needs our campaign fuel in the home stretch.

1 Comment

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
Donald V. Watkins
Donald V. Watkins
Jun 01

"The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty and reputation than any other person in America," said former U.S. Attorney Robert Jackson in 1940. Today, state and federal prosecutors are “armed with more and better weaponry” than their opponent, exercise “inordinate influence” over trial court and appellate judges, and they can “cheat without getting caught or suffering any penalty.” Prosecutors have honed their craft, finding new ways to “strike foul blows.” Empirical evidence reveals “serious and pervasive misconduct.” What is worse, courts, lawmakers, and professional disciplinary bodies have been unable or unwilling to impose meaningful sanctions upon prosecutors. Their unchecked power is documented in this insightful article:

bottom of page