Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

unblock

(52,483 posts)

4. ok, but then, any two of the 3 states could be considered "icing on the cake"

Reply to moose65 (Original post)

Wed Dec 9, 2020, 03:14 PM

Dec 2020

if you're trying to say how many extra votes hillary needed to win, then hillary needed all 3 states, so, 77-78k votes in the right places.

you could say that all he needed was wisconsin, while michgan and pennsylvania were unnecessary.
or you could say that all he needed was michigan, while wisconsin and pennsylvania were unnecessary.

depending on the order in which you count the states, you could make most any of them be the one that "put him over".

even within wisconsin, he you could say that 22,747 of those votes were "icing on the cake" because he only needed to win by one vote....

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Trump's win in 2016 [View all] moose65 Dec 2020 OP

Trump called it "a massive landslide victory," even though it was as close as you say, and he Doodley Dec 2020 #1

But Wisconsin would have mattered only if he lost elsewhere, such as Michigan and Pennsylvania unblock Dec 2020 #2

I'm saying that Michigan and Pennsylvania were icing on the cake moose65 Dec 2020 #3

ok, but then, any two of the 3 states could be considered "icing on the cake" unblock Dec 2020 #4