It’s true that Trump had a simple majority of votes, but you can win the electoral college and lose the popular vote; this is typically what happens for Republican victories. Kamala lost MI, PA, and WI by 3% or less. If those had flipped, she would have had her 270. You are right that third party votes wouldn’t have been enough though. The bigger problem was reduced turnout from people not voting at all.
The fact that Republicans also managed to do so well in Congress to me suggests that the problem for Democrats wasn’t really just their choice for presidential candidate. Voters really care about immigration and inflation right now, and those tend to be stronger for Republicans.
inv3r510n@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Thankfully trump won both instead of winning the electoral and losing the popular. If it was remotely close or god forbid a repeat of the 2000 election we would be in a hot shooting civil war right now with states threatening secession. So as much as I hate the guy im grateful it wasn’t close as it buys us more peace and more time to organize against his worst impulses.
The democrats lost the senate and likely the house because they didn’t have a candidate worth voting for for president. I think they would of had much closer margins if they were able to turn voters out but they couldn’t because their unelected anointed nominee was trash.
KombatWombat@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Yeah maybe you’re right about Kamala’s unpopularity being reflected on Democratic congressional candidates. Everyone’s quick to point fingers about why the election results are the way they are (myself included of course), but it’s honestly hard to say which factor had the most impact.
And I feel the same way about the electoral + popular vote thing. If the Democrats are going to lose anyway, a convincing defeat can at least be a wake up call for change. And this way we don’t have to worry (much) about people claiming it was rigged.