• Ostrichgrif@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 day ago

    Trump by no means barely beat Harris, she and Clinton were both around 220 votes and Trump has an easy 300.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      The electrical college will always look different ways because winner takes all voting. It’s all that matters at the end, but a 1.5% change in the voters would have flipoed most of the battleground states. It was closer than many make it out to be

      • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        …60 goddamn percent of the country either voted for Trump, or didn’t vote at all, meaning they voted for Trump. Explain to me how she barely lost.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          That’s not even true. Less than 50% of the people who voted, voted for Trump.

          He didn’t do much better than 2020 when he lost. The U.S. population increased by 2.5% from 2020 to 2024.

          Numerically with the population growing by the 2.5% we saw a 4.5% drop in voting in 2024.

          Reasons are all speculation.

      • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        The fact that “closer” can be so diametrically opposed indicates a failure in the system.

        If it was close we’d have gotten, I don’t know, Mitt Romney or somebody.

        But the winner-take-all aspect means we get the dumbest, ugliest fascists ever. Just for a 1.5% difference.

        This is what a broken system looks like.