Curious Hair wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
"Many Republicans are under the dramatic misimpression that Trump boosts Republican ballot chances rather than hurting them, but the evidence simply isn’t there for that. Trump radically underperformed nearly every Republican Senate candidate in 2016. He won fewer votes than Mitt Romney did in Wisconsin; Romney lost the state, Trump won. He won fewer votes in Michigan than Bush did in 2004; Bush lost the state. Trump won because nobody showed up to vote for Hillary. But Hillary’s not on the ballot anymore, which means many Republicans will stay home; furthermore, Hillary’s absence means that more Democrats will show up."
Maybe it was a good thing that Hillary ran up the score in a meaningless California race. Imagine if she underperformed George W. Bush in key states
and lost the popular vote.
I don't really get the whole "ran up the score" thing. More people live in CA. More people vote in CA. This isn't another discussion about the fucked up Electoral College, but if more people vote for somebody, it's not "running up the score" because they all live in the same area. It's like Trump still showing the electoral map to try and claim how big his victory was. Yes Donald, there is a lot of red. Sadly for you cattle and tumbleweed don't vote.
Well the point is Trump did not even attempt to campaign in California and did not care how many millions of people he lost by there because it did not matter.