The Trump Landslide

American Thinker ^ | November 9, 2016 | Bruce Walker

[Kaslin]

Presidential landslides traditionally require a ten-point margin of victory in the popular vote, but this year, political traditions don't matter. President-Elect Trump has carried at least 28 of the 50 states, and if the leads hold, he will have carried 30 of the 50 states, or 60 percent. This landslide includes states Democrats assumed were reasonably solid for Hillary like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Republicans will control the Senate without needing the tie-breaking vote of Vice President-Elect Pence, although the margin of control will depend upon the final count in New Hampshire. It will not matter, though, whether the majority is 52 seats or just 51, because in 2018, Democrats face the prospect of losing as many as a dozen seats because of the composition of the Senate class that year. This election required Republicans to defend seats in difficult states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Illinois, and New Hampshire. In 2018, not a single Republican Senate seat will be in jeopardy, which will give President Trump and the Republican Senate breathing room to act boldly.

The loss of only six seats in the House leaves House Republicans with 235 seats. Because Louisiana will have runoffs in two districts and Republicans are running ahead in two California districts still undeclared, it is likely that Republicans will end up with 237 seats, or a loss of only four. Reapportionment and redistricting after the 2020 election will almost certainly have Republicans even more firmly in control of redistricting of House and state legislative districts than ever before, which means that Republicans in the House will see their numbers grow after Trump wins re-election in 2020.

[Rockitz]

Maybe 307 if the one Washington state elector stays true to their word.

[Innovative]

“And we voted. “

And it did make a difference. It contributed directly to the election of President Trump to “make America great again” for everyone.

[LS]

Nebraska as well.

[TBP]

Paul Ryan is from Wisconsin, but couldn’t carry it when he was on the ticket four years ago. But Trump-Pence carried it.

[Pelham]

So it is up to each state. Apportioning EVs by Congressional district in California would at least give future candidates a fighting chance in Presidential elections. Otherwise the Democrat hold on 55 EVs will be endless and brutal. Unless there’s a way to ship out about 50% of our recent imports to CA, who have done a stellar job of shifting California permanently Left. When the GOPe thinks that a Neel Kashkari is an acceptable candidate for Governor you know that it is the enemy.

[packman]

The difference between now and then is that Wisconsin now has voter ID. We didn’t in the last presidential election. Ryan is highly thought of in our state.

[Gargantua]

I predicted for the past year a Trump 65%-to-Skankles-27% landslide. Does anyone know what the actual percentages were this time out?

[spokeshave]

When you consider he now only beat Hillary, but Hollywood, The GOPe, Megyn, Rosie, CBS, NBC, Faux, MSNBC ... it is absolutely a landslide.

...and LaRaza....Lobbyists....special interests....SEIU....Acorn etc......

[cynwoody]

Apportioning EVs by Congressional district in California would at least give future candidates a fighting chance in Presidential elections. Otherwise the Democrat hold on 55 EVs will be endless and brutal.

If I could change the Constitution, it would be one electoral vote per congressional district carried plus two for carrying the majority of the state's congressional districts or, in the event of a tie, the state's popular vote. And no need for human electors!

Such an arrangement would firewall vote fraud to the congressional district(s) in which it took place. E.g., in a big state, with one or more urban cesspools, fraudsters might steal one or more districts, but the damage would be limited to the stolen districts. The rest of the state's districts would still be counted honestly. In the present system, the stolen votes would steal the whole state, honest districts included!

Apportioning EVs by congressional district would also alleviate the undue influence urban cesspools currently exert upon result. E.g., under the current system, all of California's 55 electoral votes went to the Crooked Skank. But, under CD voting, California's inland red areas would have had a meaningful voice in the election!

[freedumb2003]

It looks like 30 States for Trump, 20 for hiLIARY, the other 7 tried to vote obozo for the 3rd time.

[FreedomPoster]

Not to mention Muslim Brotherhood types.

[Rastus]

They said the same thing in 2014. And the Republicans picked up record majorities (not that the likes of Ryan did anything with that).

[Kaslin]

First of all Paul Ryan didn’t run for President, it was Mitt Romney who did. Second Wisconsin has not voted Republican since 1984

[Moonman62]

When you consider he now only beat Hillary, but Hollywood, The GOPe, Megyn, Rosie, CBS, NBC, Faux, MSNBC ... it is absolutely a landslide.

...

That’s the way I’ve been looking at it. Trump also showed you win by running as a Conservative, not Democrat-lite as McCain and Romney did.

[Reagan80]

Yep....and Trump got all 6 EV’s in Nebraska, and picked off 1 from Hillary in Maine.

[Deo volente]

This election is the perfect example of what the Electoral College was designed to do, give each state a proportional say in the election based on the number of representatives each state has. Brilliant design and execution!

That's why we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a simple "democracy". You're right, it was a brilliant concept by the Founders.

[Deo volente]

The popular vote totals were skewed by California, where Clinton got 2.5 million more votes than Trump. In New York he lost by 1.5 million. That’s 4 million right there in only two states.

He won the election with broad support across many states. California and New York are liberal bastions, and pretty much hopeless.

[Pelham]

I wonder if we could find out how each California Congressional district voted to see how many EVs Trump would have won under an apportioned system.

I bet if that information is available LS will have it.

[LS]

Sorry, no.

[cynwoody]

I wonder if we could find out how each California Congressional district voted to see how many EVs Trump would have won under an apportioned system.

Here is Politco's map showing how California's House races came out:

You can peruse an interactive version of the map and see the vote counts here.

The green one by San Francisco went Democrat. The green one down by San Diego went Republican (Darrell Issa's district).

If you make the bold assumption that Trump carried the districts that elected a Republican House member, then Trump would have gained 15 of California's 55 electoral votes, if the system were changed to go by district, with the two extra EVs going to the majority.