@lundos saidOk, I'll accept it.
Yeah, don't used unupdated sources.
https://elections.wi.gov/node/7220
The State of Wisconsin had 3,684,726 active registered voters on November 1, 2020.
I know going to the source is not your thing, but it actually helps a lot instead of reading opinion pieces or watching YouTube content.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI'm not going to engage in the childish pissing match Duchy wants, but she is lying as usual. Yesterday I posted this as part of the OP in "For Tomorrow":
no1: I predicted a long time ago (pre COVID) that Biden would win the popular vote by 51% to 46% and get a clear EC victory. I see little reason to change that forecast though Biden make get a percentage point or so more. I don't think the EC is going to be terribly close; Biden should garner at least 300 EC votes and probably more.
Is 5% a "wide margin if not a landslide"?
IF the States wind up as projected now but Biden eventually wins Pennsylvania and Georgia (which is quite possible perhaps even likely), he'll wind up with 306 pledged EC Votes. Ironically, this is exactly what Donald Trump got in 2016.
In Georgia, the absentee ballots being reported today have been breaking about 70% to 30% in Biden's favor and Trump's lead is down to 38,000. https://results.decisiondeskhq.com/2020/general/georgia
Furthermore: "About 107,751 ballots — mainly from Democratic-leaning counties — remained outstanding as of 8:30 p.m., according to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger."
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-11-04/election-trump-margin-narrows-georgia
It's going to be a nail biter there, but if present trends hold, Biden will probably eke out a win in Georgia.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI suspect when all the votes are counted, Biden's popular vote margin will approach the 5% I predicted. Late vote counts in most States are running about 2:1 in his favor and there's a lot of votes left in Democratic strongholds in the State of California and New York City.
@no1marauder saidI don't think this is true. I don't think an HRC win would, necessarily, have produced big Republican wins in later elections. What tends to govern this is economic performance.
I'd say I was indifferent. I recognized that Trump would be a terrible President but also saw that an HRC win given her unpopularity would set up the Republicans for big wins in 2018 and 2020.
Looking at the U.K. the economic problems of the '70s kept Labour out of office for a decade and a half. Then the Conservatives finally lost because of the recession after the Pound fell out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, then Labour were in for another 15 years until the banking crisis and now the Conservatives have it until the next economic disaster when Labour will get back in. What seems to govern election results is the economy, period.
The US has the peculiarity that the President can only have two terms which means there isn't an incumbent to win the election. So it's a sort of even contest after at most 8 years. I think an HRC victory could cost the Democrats at most one election they weren't going to lose anyway, and she would have been the candidate. It would have had no long term consequences.
@deepthought saidOff year elections for the President's party usually result in Congressional losses in the US unless the President is extremely popular and/or successful. HRC wasn't the former and with both Houses of Congress firmly in Republican hands she wouldn't have been the latter.
I don't think this is true. I don't think an HRC win would, necessarily, have produced big Republican wins in later elections. What tends to govern this is economic performance.
Looking at the U.K. the economic problems of the '70s kept Labour out of office for a decade and a half. Then the Conservatives finally lost because of the recession after the Pound fell out ...[text shortened]... to lose anyway, and she would have been the candidate. It would have had no long term consequences.
"The party of the incumbent president tends to lose ground during midterm elections[7]: since World War II the President's party has lost an average of 26 seats in the House, and an average of four seats in the Senate."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election#:~:text=Historically%2C%20midterm%20elections%20often%20see,or%20both%20houses%20of%20Congress.
This would have been particularly unfortunate in 2018 when the Democrats were defending 26 of 35 Senate seats. Even in a good Democratic year fueled by anti-Trump backlash which led to strong turnout, the Dems had a net loss of two seats which gave Republicans 53 out of 100 Senators. I suspect an ineffectual HRC two years would have led to a bloodbath with the Republicans perhaps gaining up to 60 seats.
And there would have been no 41 seat Democratic gain in the House either that propelled them to a majority; the Republicans would have almost certainly held on and probably expanded their 242 seat majority.
So the Democrats would have been stumbling into 2020 with an unpopular President and large Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress. Instead, by Trump winning and being the divisive unpopular figure he is, they were set up to win a trifecta of the Presidency and both Houses.