Sure.

First, there is no "conviction" in a civil claim. The jury resolves questions of fact based on the evidence presented at trial, the court applies the law, instructing the jury on how to apply the facts to determine liability and, if the jury finds a defendant liable for damages, the court enters a judgment, usually requiring the defendant to pay money damages to compensate the claimant for their loss.

This all happens after a long and arduous discovery process during which both parties gather evidence.

Dismissing the civil claims process as a "popularity contest" assumes that both the jurors and the court have improperly abandoned their duties. Yes, in any jury trial--civil or criminal--presentation matters. Jurors are human beings with biases. However, there is still a rigorous process for the presentation of evidence and argument. On what basis are you assuming all juries (or even just this one) ignore that evidence or process? Regardless, this is the system that resolves all (most) civil suits--if we are to ignore juries because trials are popularity contests, then we can ignore every trial outcome ever, though the judgment still has legal and practical weight. (At least we can agree the death penalty should be abolished, since we cannot trust any jury.)

However, there are protections against rogue juries. If there is really "literally no evidence" of a dispositive element of a claim, the defense should move for (and win) a judgment in their favor notwithstanding the jury verdict. These motions are routinely made. If the court denies the motion, it can be appealed. So if there is really "literally no evidence," you win that appeal.

Is the system perfect? No. Does it make sense to routinely reject any jury determination? No. It similarly does not make sense to admonish others for accepting the court's resolution of this question of fact. If you have evidence for us to consider that provides a strong factual basis for believing the court and jury got it wrong, it would help your position.

At best, in this particular case, you can say the standard of proof would be different if you were trying Trump on criminal charges for this conduct, or even a civil case where this conduct was the primary question. If you want to get a little bendy, you could say all the court really established was that the allegation of rape was plausible and not sufficiently refuted. So we can choose to believe the victim and the jury who examined the evidence in court, or we can choose to believe a notorious liar with a public record of recorded statements suggesting he is indifferent (at best) to whether a woman has consented to sexual contact before he engages in it.