Don’t think of the 2016 presidential election as a popularity contest. Think of it as a race to see who the American electorate detests slightly less.

These days, there’s a lot of excitement in Trumpland. Since March, the billionaire has picked up 11 points in The Washington Post-ABC News national poll, nudging him slightly ahead of Hillary Clinton with a 46-44 percent lead. In a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll we find a similar statistical tie, with Clinton leading by three points, 46-43 percent. Most polls show a predictable partisan split.

Trump is “surging,” they say.

Now, I’m not sure why we keep treating national polls with such deference. For one thing, it’s way too early. Obama, for instance, was leading McCain by a couple of points in April 2008 in the same NBC/WSJ poll. For another, as liberal columnist Juan Williams pointed out, it’s far more informative to take a state-by-state look at polls, where we see just how difficult it’ll probably be for the presumptive GOP nominee to win the general.

Still, naturally, it’s better to gain in the polls than not.

The relative closeness of the race might come as somewhat of a surprise to those who’ve seen the unprecedented antagonism of the GOP primaries, Trump’s general obnoxiousness, and ongoing efforts by intrepid conservatives to mount a third-party candidacy. It shouldn’t.

Although I’m still skeptical Trump will remain competitive, it’s not inconceivable that voters who loathe the political class with this much vigor may slap around conventional wisdom for a little bit longer. There are plenty of pundits warning Democrats not to underestimate Trump’s crossover appeal to independents, etc., but perhaps Democrats are just seriously overestimating Hillary’s appeal.

Voters who loathe the political class with this much vigor may slap around conventional wisdom for a little bit longer.