4 ms·
Would that mean there was no way Trump could have lost? No. It is unclear how using counties as a metric is useful. It would be quite significant if Clinton wo
by allemagne 10y ago
Would that mean there was no way Trump could have lost? No.
It is unclear how using counties as a metric is useful. It would be quite significant if Clinton won the equivalent of the population of LA county over Trump.
- talmand 10y ago>> It is unclear how using counties as a metric is useful. It's about as useful as referring to the popular vote in a contest that clearly established beforehand that it would not be considered.
- allemagne 10y agoThe popular vote is a relevant example of how the contest was not inevitable. More people voted for Hillary than for Trump... that's not what wins the election, but it's not meaningless to a democratic society. Counties, however, are completely arbitrary. Should winning the least populous 51% of counties matter to anyone? You're using it as a convenient way to sidestep the obvious implication of losing the popular vote.