Would you laugh if the map ended up the exact same as 2012?

[Matty]

Not laugh as in happy that clinton won, but laugh that all the talk about trump changing the dynamics or clinton expanding the map that dominated the news for months and months ended up a huge buzzkill.

I mean, I think the map would be 2012 right now.

[Crumpets]

Yes, loudly. And people would stare.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

I would find it more interesting than funny. IIRC, it would be the first time ever that the EC results were the same twice in a row.

[ProudModerate2]

It would be funny.
But in all seriousness, I actually could happen.

[TarHeelDem]

No, because that would mean that my home state voted for a psychopath.

[RR1997]

I could see Donald Trump doing twice as bad as Romney did in terms of PV (8% loss instead of 4%) and the map still staying exactly the same.

[Bojack Horseman]

Nah, so long as we win, I'm happy.

[Vosem]

Yes. Even more so if (as seems very possible) the popular vote totals change radically from 2012 and the map remains the same anyway.

[Higgs]

Wow that would be boring.

[i4indyguy]

I could see Donald Trump doing twice as bad as Romney did in terms of PV (8% loss instead of 4%) and the map still staying exactly the same.

Possible. But a lack of change in electoral college does NOT mean there was no 'shifting' within the electorate.

[Wisconsin+17]

That would be hilarious.

[RFayette]

Not necessarily.  Keep in mind that McKinley only beat Bryan by 4ish.  As others have said, it would be really interesting if it's the 2012 map with a Clinton +0.5 or Clinton +7 PV.  I could totally see either scenario: Trump only being down 8-12 in NY/NJ/MA/IL combined and being up 30 in WV/KY/TN/AR/LA/AL combined or Trump being down 30 in CA , only up 8-12 in TX and barely winning AZ/GA.

Agreed.  And I do think the 1896 analogy is appropriate.  What's sad though, is that states have shifted very little election-to-election.  This is a pretty dull period in American politics.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Yes, loudly. And people would stare.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Utah, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

[Hammy]

I would probably facepalm rather than laugh. I'd be sitting there all night hoping that whatever last holdout state that wasn't called would flip just to make it interesting. As long as it's not California.

[Chaddyr23]

Nah, so long as we win, I'm happy.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I'll cry. Because the Republicans should be doing a lot worse.

[Wells]

According to the demographics of most recent polls, this is what I would expect at this time.

[Thomas D]

I would find it more interesting than funny. IIRC, it would be the first time ever that the EC results were the same twice in a row.

I think it would be the first time any 2 maps were exactly the same.

If I'm wrong, someone feel free to correct me.

[Bull Moose Base]

10 months ago...

2012 map

5 months ago...

I'll stick with what I've said before: 2012>2016 is the least changed electoral map in American history.

Now…

5 months from now

[ag]

Yeah, that would be really funny

[RFayette]

What's incredible is that someone like Trump could very well get us the same map as in 2012 shows just how inelastic things are right now.  Seems like it'll be pretty tough to change the map.

[emailking]

Since it seems like there are always a few states whose results are only gradually known, there may not be a definitive aha moment where it becomes known that the map is the same. So I don't think I would ever laugh about it. It might be cool looking back on it in hindsight.

I think the chances of this are pretty small though. 538 looks at this when they do their election simulations. The chance of a repeat map is a couple percent at most. There are too many swing states for it to be likely they all line up the right way.

[Sir Mohamed]

I could see Donald Trump doing twice as bad as Romney did in terms of PV (8% loss instead of 4%) and the map still staying exactly the same.

No, he'd lose at least NC in that scenario. Probably GA, AZ and NE-2 as well.

[pbrower2a]

Since 1930 we have seen two states and one Congressional district changing (2008 to 2012), three states (2000 to 2004) , four states (1932 to 1936, 1952 to 1956) and five states (1980 to 1984 and 1992 to 1996)... but all of these involved an incumbent. Usually for an open-seat election, personalities between the two main candidates differ from one electoral year to another. Is Hillary Clinton the same sort of cultural match for the states as Barack Obama was, or is Donald Trump really much like Mitt Romney? I doubt it.

Favorite Son status is unlikely to decide any state in 2012.

Electoral polarization among the states might do it this time. States within the margin of error in 2012 were

0.88% Florida
2.04% North Carolina
2.97% Ohio
3.87% Virginia

Four states were between 5% and 6% from being even (CO. PA, NH, IA); four were between 6.5% and 8.0% (NV, WI, MN, GA); only three more were under 10% (AZ, MO, MI). This year not many states  are even on the fringe of contention.  Big swings are possible in some states that went 10% or more one way or the other -- and that would at most make them close.