• The GiftBot 2.0 Launch Giveaway Extravaganza has come to a close with an astounding 8073 games given away to the community by 696 members, a huge success thanks to you! The gifting now continues with more official prizes in the new Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Leftover Steam codes are also being given away to the PC Gaming Era community.

If Trump wins re-election while losing by 5 million votes.

BackLogJoe

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
676
https://theweek.com/articles/876201/trump-wins-reelection-losing-by-5-million-votes

In this alternative timeline, which The New York Times foreshadowed on Monday in an ominous analysis of recent polling data, the 2020 election unfolds differently. Trump wins but without a mandate. On the contrary, he earns something like an anti-mandate. George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000 while losing the popular vote by 550,000. Trump himself won in 2016 while falling short in the popular vote by 2.9 million. In 2020, Trump could prevail again, only this time while losing by as many as five million votes.
How could it happen? Trump remains quite competitive in the states that put him over the top in the Electoral College last time — Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Those are states he would likely carry, as he did last time, by a relatively narrow margin. Meanwhile, Trump's extreme and intense unpopularity among Democrats points to a 2020 vote in which the margin of his loss in "blue" states could be enormous. Instead of winning an anemic 31.6 percent of the vote in California, as he did in 2016, Trump might realistically pull in just 25 percent in 2020. If something similar happens in Oregon, Washington state, Illinois, New York, and throughout New England — in other words, if the country's bluest states become even bluer in 2020 than they were in 2016 — then the Democrat's popular vote win could climb quite a bit higher than it was then, with Trump still managing to win the presidency in the Electoral College.
That's when things could really go off the rails.
Democrats would be faced with a truly alarming situation. The president they loathe would be deeply unpopular on a national basis, as he has been for the entirety of his first term. They themselves would know they are favored by millions more voters than he is. And yet they would nonetheless be frozen out of the presidency. Again — for the third time in six presidential elections, and with the gap between the popular vote and Electoral College outcome growing each time.
And it's not just the presidency. Democrats face considerable obstacles to winning majority control of the Senate, too. Those who say they would have better luck with more centrist candidates have a point, but that wouldn't necessarily solve the party's problems. The Democratic Party is big and diverse along ideological and demographic dimensions, and its voters are very inefficiently distributed around the country. Add it all up and we're left with a party forced to do multiple contradictory things at once — win back centrist white voters who switched from Obama to Trump between 2012 and 2016, and excite minority voters who showed up in large numbers for Obama in 2008 and 2012 but stayed home in 2016, and keep the suburban Romney voters who flipped to the Democrats in the 2018 midterm elections.
That's a very tall, and maybe an impossible, order. But if it is, that means Democrats, despite their significantly greater popular support in the country at large, are likely to be denied control of the presidency as well as the Senate for some time to come. And because those branches of government play a decisive role in making lifetime appointments to the judiciary, Democrats could well end up thwarted across almost the entirety of the federal government (with only the lower house of Congress realistically winnable).
In that case, the will of the majority would not so much be checked, as the Constitution intends, as completely blocked on nearly all fronts — very much including those fronts that enable unpopular institutions (like the Electoral College) to be reformed. Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would find themselves trapped in a system in which they possess almost no institutionally legitimate means to reach and exercise meaningful political power.
I fear this happening so much. We really fucked ourselves in 2016. We have to rally around whatever Democrat is going to oppose Trump. Everywhere.
 

nsilvias

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,915
how many people have moved to big cities since the election?
more people hate trump more than ever now so that should balance things out
 

alr1ght

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,347
The Senate and Presidency (Electoral College) are so far weighted to give Republicans an advantage that it's comical to hear them complain about the government.
 

rjinaz

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
10,649
This country's election system is broken and won't be fixed because it benefits one party too greatly. This is not 1790. The internet exists and the majority of people live in large cities.

Just today a GOP member in Arizona argued that the state should be based on rural voting. In their minds, a group of 100 people that live close together should be counted the same as a group of 20 people simply because they live far a part. Of course the real reason is, they want Republicans to win. That's it and fuck actual Democracy.
 
Last edited:

Mulciber

Member
Aug 22, 2018
4,110
The electoral college is an abomination. It started out as a way to make sure the people didn't ultimately have the vote (in case they picked someone the elites didn't like), it then evolved into a way to help out slave owners with the 3/5 compromise, and today, it is utterly useless to reflect modern society. It must go.
 

Xx 720

Member
Nov 3, 2017
2,393
We have to win the electoral college, rust belt states specifically. Need to win over non partisan voters who went for trump last election. Hope somewhere along the line the democrats remember this, we need to win, all the feel good rhetoric is for shit if we lose again.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,906
In 2015, an accurate analysis of Trumps first 4 years of office would also be labeled as "Catastrophe Porn". Don't you think?
Probably not. Today the catastrophe porn involving Trump is about him refusing to leave the Oval Office the day of the inauguration and this somehow still making him president.

This article is just taking the worst outcome possible and saying “boy, imagine this happened!”
 

Ramjag

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,125
Probably not. Today the catastrophe porn involving Trump is about him refusing to leave the Oval Office the day of the inauguration and this somehow still making him president.

This article is just taking the worst outcome possible and saying “boy, imagine this happened!”
I heard that if he locks himself in the Whitehouse bathroom, he remains president forever.
 

Switch Back 9

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
3,676
Can an expert in American politics please ultra dumb down how someone can still become president after technically losing the election? I don't understand.
 

LCGeek

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,368
You win the Potus by winning the electoral. If dems give up on actually trying to win 50 states or a good bunch that's not on TRUMP.

This is partially why HRC lost last time.
 
OP
OP
BackLogJoe

BackLogJoe

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
676
Probably not. Today the catastrophe porn involving Trump is about him refusing to leave the Oval Office the day of the inauguration and this somehow still making him president.

This article is just taking the worst outcome possible and saying “boy, imagine this happened!”
Dude, please.

Russian interference.
Rolling back of refuge's rights.
Rolling back of Dreamer's rights.
Rolling back of Trans rights.
Building a big fucking wall.
Supporting murderous dictators.
The Nepotism involving Ivanka and his sons.

This was all worst case scenario shit and it happened.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,906
Dude, please.

Russian interference.
Rolling back of refuge's rights.
Rolling back of Dreamer's rights.
Rolling back of Trans rights.
Building a big fucking wall.
Supporting murderous dictators.
The Nepotism involving Ivanka and his sons.

This was all worst case scenario shit and it happened.
No it’s not. None of his legislative accomplishments, as limited as they are, are unexpected or even outside what a regular republican might accomplish given the house and senate Trump had for a bit there. His legal trouble is also not that crazy since even during the primary there was speculation.

Comparing the premise of this article to Trump’s nepotism is crazy. One was expected and this is just to get clicks. The argument isn’t that what Trump is doing isn’t terrible and unprecedented, but this article is based on pretty much nothing and throwing up a headline just to get people to click on it. It’s not worth worrying about now.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,202
My secret hope is that Trump wins the popular vote and loses the electoral vote, just to catch the wind from the Rs spinning their positions. It won't happen because Trump is so hated, but don't laugh, Kerry was 6k votes in NM, 11k in IA, and 21k in NV from doing the same thing in 2004.
 

Voyager

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,124
You win the Potus by winning the electoral. If dems give up on actually trying to win 50 states or a good bunch that's not on TRUMP.

This is partially why HRC lost last time.
I’d argue that trying to win 50 states is more representative with a popular vote. As it stands there are states you ignore because they will never vote for a certain party(overall). Get rid of the electoral college and suddenly every vote counts. You’d see republicans campaigning in New York, California, Washington, etc. and Democrats campaigning in Utah, Idaho, Texas, etc.
 
OP
OP
BackLogJoe

BackLogJoe

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
676
That still doesn't explain how someone can lose by 5mil votes and still win, that's what I'm not getting.
Because Presidential elections arent won by popular votes here. States get their own votes and those are the only votes that matter. So if the entire population of the United States minus 49 people lived in New York and voted for the Democrat, New York would then have 29 electoral college votes for the Democrats. If the remaining 49 people were evenly distributed amongst all the other 49 states (1 in each state) and they voted Republican, the states would award their electoral votes to the Republican and thus the republican would win in a landslide.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,202
That still doesn't explain how someone can lose by 5mil votes and still win, that's what I'm not getting.
Think of it like the World Series, the Astros can win three games by 10-0 each, but if the Nationals win the other four games by 1-0 each, then they win the World Series even though they were outscored 30-4 overall.

Now the EC isn't like that because those 10-0 games would have more EC votes than the 1-0 games (runs scored being the stand-in for population,) but it's a framework for understanding how the discrepancy happens.
 
Oct 30, 2017
1,759
Minority rule will continue. And people will be pissed.

People are tired of not being represented. Republicans continue to get a minority of votes in various elections but continue to hold a disproportionate amount of seats in our government.
 

Eoin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,723
Can an expert in American politics please ultra dumb down how someone can still become president after technically losing the election? I don't understand.
The US Presidential election is not an election for president. It's 51 separate elections in 50 states (plus Washington DC), to elect the 538 people who vote for the president.

In general winning a state gives a candidate all that state's electors. Think of these as being "points". The more people in the state, the more points they're worth. So if I win New York I get 29 points. If you win Texas, you get 38 points. If those are the only two states in the country, you win. If I win New York by 5m votes and you win Texas by one vote, you still get more points and you still win, even though I have 5m more votes.
 

mnz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,422
Can an expert in American politics please ultra dumb down how someone can still become president after technically losing the election? I don't understand.
Basically, overall number of votes doesn't matter in the presidential election. What matters is who wins a state. Those states then send a set number of electors to what is called the "electoral college". And it doesn't matter (with exceptions) if someone wins a state with 51% or 100% of the vote, all electors go to the winner.

That's why "swing states" matter so much. They are the ones where it will be a close call and a narrow win can decide the presidency.
 
Oct 25, 2017
245
That still doesn't explain how someone can lose by 5mil votes and still win, that's what I'm not getting.
Presidential elections are decided by electors. There are 538 total electoral votes available, and you need 270 or more to win outright. Each state is allocated a number of electoral votes equal to their federal representation in the house and senate (for example, Iowa has 6 electoral votes since they have 2 senators and 4 representatives).

States get to individually decide how their electoral votes are allocated during federal elections - most give all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote within their state.

For example: Candidate A wins 51% of the vote in Iowa. Candidate A will then get all six of Iowa’s electoral votes.
Because of this, presidential candidates can eke out small victories in enough states to garner the 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency, even if they were totally blown out in the remaining states and lost the country-wide popular vote by a huge margin.
 

OrbitalBeard

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,184
That still doesn't explain how someone can lose by 5mil votes and still win, that's what I'm not getting.
Because we have 51 mini elections for President and the winner of each receives a set number of electoral votes. Some states receive disproportionately more electoral votes than others, which is how the GOP can lose the popular vote by millions and still win. He who receives 270+ votes wins.
 

Conciliator

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,409
Can an expert in American politics please ultra dumb down how someone can still become president after technically losing the election? I don't understand.
I'll take a crack at this.

So we have a system called the Electoral College. In a real sense, the president is not determined by who got the most citizen votes nationwide - the popular vote. Instead, it's decided by who got the most 'elector' votes from the Electoral College.

Here's how the Electoral College works:

Any given state in the USA has a number of electors, determined mathematically by the population, which itself is determined by the census. North Dakota has 3 electors, whereas California has 55. My home state of South Carolina has 9. Every state looks at which candidate won the popular vote in their own state, and then ALL of the electors for that state will vote for that candidate. There are a couple states that work a little differently and there are some historical and legal asterisks to this, but for the sake of keeping it simple, that's basically how it works.

Here's the 2016 map of electoral college votes:


So, if you win the popular vote in texas by 4 million votes, you get 36 electors. If you win the popular vote in texas by 13 votes, you get...36 electors. So you can start to see how the electoral votes in any given state doesn't necessarily represent how the popular vote came down in that state.

So we have a situation currently where a significant number of democratic voters are more concentrated in certain states. States like California, Oregon, Washington and others tend to vote overwhelmingly blue, but they'd get the same number of electoral college votes even if hundreds of thousands of blue voters stayed home, as long as they still technically got the most votes.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,202
Because Presidential elections arent won by popular votes here. States get their own votes and those are the only votes that matter. So if the entire population of the United States minus 49 people lived in New York and voted for the Democrat, New York would then have 29 electoral college votes for the Democrats. If the remaining 49 people were evenly distributed amongst all the other 49 states (1 in each state) and they voted Republican, the states would award their electoral votes to the Republican and thus the republican would win in a landslide.
No. If the entire population of the US minus 49 people lived in NY, then NY would have 388 electoral votes (538-(50*3)), enough to win the Electoral College.

Your scenario is only possible between the time of this hypothetical mass migration and the next re-apportionment.