I have no idea what you are talking about. Swing voters voted for Trump thus he won the election,not sure what is hard to understand here.
You said moderate voters voted for Trump (and from what I have seen there were several, as opposed to the normally don't vote set turning out in force or something) and then posted the county level results map for the election, resulting in something of a sea of red (in this case indicating votes for Trump). One does not have the most to do with the other but fair enough. It should be noted that sometimes such a map is used to make out that more support is enjoyed than might actually be so some are wary of such things.
It was however then noted that the county map is just a projection of the land area. If you modified it for population rather than area (which given people are supposed to be represented in voting rather than areas, though there are modifiers for area which some take issue with but we will get back to that shortly) it shows a rather different picture, something of an even split and more in line with totals.
It was also noted as part of the post that the popular vote did not go Mr Trump's way, by some margin at that. While I would agree the rather oddly setup electoral college system is in play* and by virtue of its rules Mr Trump still won the final call then is it not worth considering in all this that it does also mean he does not enjoy a particularly high support among the population at large, said large also including a great many highly populated cities (said cities also being the economic powerhouses of the country, and large numbers of the presently working people). Similarly if we are now talking about the electoral college then a county map is still of limited use as the electoral college modified vote counts still go either majorities (so called winner take all) or are split along voter totals at state level.
You then said swing voters which is a broadly analogous term to moderate voters but can have some other meanings, and might be confused for swing states which is a slightly different matter again (there are some states which reliably return a given result election on election, but others that vary presumably by strength of the candidate in that area) or the voters in said states that achieved the necessary results for the final result to happen, and again makes the county map of dubious use.
*while I can appreciate the idea that is supposed to increase the potency of smaller states which might not have as much say if their population alone dictated things I am not entirely sure how it is achieving it in the modern world, and what heed might be given to them that would otherwise not be so, and the rules of it are rather variable between states too. Measuring what heed is given to states is not something I am entirely sure how to measure (visits/addresses during campaign is poor, concessions to is terribly hard to quantify but something at least worth noting), and if said small states are also not swing states then it gets even more fun.
Short version. You almost seem to be acting like the final result was job jobbed, done, all sorted when in fact there is something of a demonstrable majority that did not fall in line with his setup. To then write off the opposition as some kind of minor rabble rouser types does rather stand in stark contrast to the raw numbers, economic power of said same, likely future voters and more besides, something someone looking to play the game would likely have a vested interest in attempting to please at least a tiny bit. There are times when serious majorities have been won in more relevant metrics and opposition can be more readily ignored but I can't see it as being a sensible plan here. This also says nothing of the rather contentious choice in the eyes of some of his opposition; personally she seemed pretty run of the mill and otherwise unremarkable to me but among the US populace at large she seemed to have more a history so I will have to go look further into that one.
