Trump could win reelection by one electoral vote

Rogifan

macrumors Core
Original poster
Nov 14, 2011
20,666
22,389
Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict)
6/18/19, 8:17 PM
A very plausible 2020 scenario Dems have to take seriously:

Trump loses popular vote by ~5 million as Dems narrow deficit in TX, expand lead in CA & flip MI/PA blue

BUT Trump narrowly holds onto AZ, FL, NC & WI and wins reelection by a single electoral vote.
Trump won Texas with an 807K. 2018 House results Democrats got 7.4M more votes than Republicans did. I think it’s entirely possible Trump barely gets re-elected but loses the popular vote by more than he did in 2016. And then the country will officially go nuts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hulugu

GermanSuplex

macrumors 6502a
Aug 26, 2009
963
9,978
The people who whine about the electoral college being needed so their voice is heard and big cities don't overwhelm them don't seem to understand that technically, their voice counts for more.

I truly don't see what's hard about a one person/one vote concept. People love to complicate things for no damn good reason. Perhaps people would be more willing to branch out to other states/cities if their voice was heard no matter where they were.

At any rate, as long as the electoral college is around, we will probably see liberals disenfranchised more and more. We're getting increasingly bad conservative presidents who win not by the will of voters, but an outdated system. 30 years since a conservative entered office with a majority of votes... that should mean something.

In the meantime, I do agree democrats would be smart to visit cities they normally wouldn't instead of visiting their usual stomping grounds. This time, its especially pertinent that democrats visit towns that went for Obama in 2012 but Trump in 2016.
 

raqball

macrumors 68000
Sep 11, 2016
1,957
8,901
Trump won Texas with an 807K. 2018 House results Democrats got 7.4M more votes than Republicans did. I think it’s entirely possible Trump barely gets re-elected but loses the popular vote by more than he did in 2016. And then the country will officially go nuts.
I wonder if some with chronic TDS would be able to survive 4 more years?
 

Rogifan

macrumors Core
Original poster
Nov 14, 2011
20,666
22,389
The people who whine about the electoral college being needed so their voice is heard and big cities don't overwhelm them don't seem to understand that technically, their voice counts for more.

I truly don't see what's hard about a one person/one vote concept. People love to complicate things for no damn good reason. Perhaps people would be more willing to branch out to other states/cities if their voice was heard no matter where they were.
Maybe something needs to be done so winning a state by less than 1% doesn’t give you that states entire electoral votes. Donald Trump won the Republican nomination even though he got less than 50% of the votes.
 

GermanSuplex

macrumors 6502a
Aug 26, 2009
963
9,978
I still shake my head at the notion that it’s the people who are opposed to a TV game show host as president who are considered “deranged.”
I think that's why he got elected. Just like Arnold in Cal-ee-for-nyuh, and Reagan as well. It's another form of reality TV. People may feel bad for those in car crashes, but they still can't help but look.
 

Rogifan

macrumors Core
Original poster
Nov 14, 2011
20,666
22,389
So did Obama in 2008.
Yeah well the Dems have their own issues with the whole super delegate stuff. Though I don’t hate super delegates that way some do. The parties should be choosing nominees. That clearly didn’t happen in the case of Trump (even though the GOP is now slavishly devoted to him).
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,611
24,583
Texas
Yeah well the Dems have their own issues with the whole super delegate stuff. Though I don’t hate super delegates that way some do. The parties should be choosing nominees. That clearly didn’t happen in the case of Trump (even though the GOP is now slavishly devoted to him).
Truth is the primary system is as messed up as everything else in the political system. D or R is just a matter of style.
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,346
29,981
Catskill Mountains
Trump won Texas with an 807K. 2018 House results Democrats got 7.4M more votes than Republicans did. I think it’s entirely possible Trump barely gets re-elected but loses the popular vote by more than he did in 2016. And then the country will officially go nuts.
The country has already officially gone nuts. But, I don't think Trump will be re-elected.

Yeah well the Dems have their own issues with the whole super delegate stuff. Though I don’t hate super delegates that way some do. The parties should be choosing nominees. That clearly didn’t happen in the case of Trump (even though the GOP is now slavishly devoted to him).
Yep. The Dems have a big field this time and all things considered that was necessary after the debacle of the 2016 thumb-on-scale primary season. But even though they tweaked their own super delegate rules, they didn't make it impossible for experienced party workers to weigh in as superdelegates during conclusion of the 2020 primaries.

Whatever the Dem honchos do, they're not going to permit the Democratic Party to collapse under the nominal leadership of a Donald Trump equivalent. That generic path to a party's ruin has been mapped out by the GOP for the past 4 years and made available for inspection by anyone not too distracted to notice a) how it started and b) how it evolved further into party-negative consequence of poor interaction between executive branch and party leadership as time has gone on.

People say what they say about Pelosi, for instance, but she managed to herd enough cats to keep Obama's key legislation from tanking over his own inexperience in dealing with Congress as an executive. People say other and less complimentary things now about how the GOP ended up letting their rump caucus wag their dog into rolling over for a party-wrecker like Trump using the oval office for his personal gratification. That's not what was supposed to be the culmination of almost 30 years of a from-the-pulpit on-message drive for Republican unity.

In the meantime the country suffers for not having a two party system that's more responsive to more of the potential electorate. The divisive shenanigans of Trump's appeal to his hardcore base drives a stake into the heart of the potential Republican vote for 2020, and I do mean that his antics are starting to piss off and divide the evangelicals.


They are still here screaming at the sky, trying to bring emotional support squirrels on airplanes and flipping their wigs over every tweet....
Wig flipping from within his tweets is Trump's specialty.


I still shake my head at the notion that it’s the people who are opposed to a TV game show host as president who are considered “deranged.”
I think that's why he got elected. Just like Arnold in Cal-ee-for-nyuh, and Reagan as well. It's another form of reality TV. People may feel bad for those in car crashes, but they still can't help but look.
Yeah but in car crashes people look and then drive on. In an election, unless one can maintain some kind of out-of-body, observational-only experience for four years, a person's vote as if merely for a reality TV show cast has unavoidably real consequences. This is starting to dawn on, not least, American farmers and biz owners.
 

ucfgrad93

macrumors P6
Aug 17, 2007
17,543
8,168
Colorado
Maybe something needs to be done so winning a state by less than 1% doesn’t give you that states entire electoral votes. Donald Trump won the Republican nomination even though he got less than 50% of the votes.
Would love to see more states do like Nebraska and Maine and get rid of the winner take all model. They divide their electoral votes by Congressional district. Winner of the vote in each Congressional district get that electoral vote, and the overall winner in the state gets the 2 senatorial electoral votes.
 

chown33

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 9, 2009
8,379
4,367
Pumpkindale
Would love to see more states do like Nebraska and Maine and get rid of the winner take all model. They divide their electoral votes by Congressional district. Winner of the vote in each Congressional district get that electoral vote, and the overall winner in the state gets the 2 senatorial electoral votes.
What's the plan when the state has an even number of electoral votes, and there's a tie in winning Congressional districts?

Are the Senatorial electoral votes split evenly?
 

ucfgrad93

macrumors P6
Aug 17, 2007
17,543
8,168
Colorado
What's the plan when the state has an even number of electoral votes, and there's a tie in winning Congressional districts?

Are the Senatorial electoral votes split evenly?
The Senatorial electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote in that state. Whether the state has an even or odd number of electoral votes is irrelevant. If there is a tie in the Congressional district, I guess they would have a recount or a revote.

For example, Colorado has 7 congressional districts plus two senators for 9 electoral votes. In 2016, 3 congressional districts elected Democrats while the other 4 elected Republicans. Hillary won the overall vote in Colorado. So, the electoral vote would have been split 5 for Hillary and 4 for Trump.
 
Last edited:

Apple OC

macrumors 68040
Oct 14, 2010
3,579
2,085
Hogtown
The people who whine about the electoral college being needed so their voice is heard and big cities don't overwhelm them don't seem to understand that technically, their voice counts for more.

I truly don't see what's hard about a one person/one vote concept. People love to complicate things for no damn good reason. Perhaps people would be more willing to branch out to other states/cities if their voice was heard no matter where they were.

At any rate, as long as the electoral college is around, we will probably see liberals disenfranchised more and more. We're getting increasingly bad conservative presidents who win not by the will of voters, but an outdated system. 30 years since a conservative entered office with a majority of votes... that should mean something.

In the meantime, I do agree democrats would be smart to visit cities they normally wouldn't instead of visiting their usual stomping grounds. This time, its especially pertinent that democrats visit towns that went for Obama in 2012 but Trump in 2016.
Voter ID would settle the popular vote once and for all.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,043
Criminal Mexi Midget
If only we could hold rallies where we lie to blind followers every time we needed emotional support, we wouldn't need squirrels.
IF you like your DR you can keep it,,,,,,,,,,, I will close GITMO,,,,,,,,,,,, my administration will be the most transparent one...................
[doublepost=1560977791][/doublepost]
Voter ID would settle the popular vote once and for all.
things will NEVER be settled as long as one side perceives a disadvantage but yes showing ID to vote should be a requirement and said I.D should be FREE to everyone regardless of income.
 
Last edited:

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,607
The Dems are not in a great place at all. Blacks are not going to show up for the Dems like they did the last three presidential elections. There's a ton of white liberals that still are going to vote for a candidate that has near 0% chance of winning. I can go on and on.

IMHO, there is only two reasons the Dems can take it this time.
1) Large enough voters of both parties are just that are disappointed in Trump and the GOP in general.
2) Biden, but ONLY because he's a familiar political face and represents the pre-wackiness (at least compared to today) of politics.

I truly think a normal reasonably articulate Conservative/Republican has the best chance at winning the next election for POTUS. And NO, that's NOT Trump o_O