If a seer told you before election that Trump would get 46%...

[The Mikado]

On Nov 7th, a strange man offers you your fortune. He tells you that on Election Day, Donald Trump would receive 46% of the Popular Vote. He will give no other information.

Who do you assume will win?

[Bigby]

Honestly, I'd be worried sick that Hillary was going to win. I did not expect the third parties to do so well, so I was expecting Johnson et al to not even crack one percent each.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I knew there was a possibility that Hillary would win the popular vote and still lose, and that there was a decent possibility 3rd parties would do well, so I wouldn't be sure Hillary would win.

[vileplume]

I would have thought Clinton comfortably but people (including me) missed Trump's natural advantage in the electoral college despite the fact it was staring us in the face. We knew Clinton was going to do extremely well in California and severely slash the Republican margin in Texas so if someone had told us that Clinton would be ahead nationally by 2 or even 3 it should have been obvious she'd lose the electoral college as a lot of the rest of the country would have to shift hard Republican to counteract the large Democratic trends in the two biggest states.

[Pericles]

I thought third parties would in fact do better than they did. So 100-2% for other/McMullin, -2% for Stein, -4% for Johnson. 92-46=46%. I knew Trump had an Electoral College advantage so at that point I would be ****ing my pants.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would have been guardedly optimistic.  I saw a split EV/PV outcome as a possibility, but I didn't see MI and WI coming for Trump.  I didn't see CO and NV going for Clinton in a Trump win, however.

But if all you told me was the 46% stat, it would make me wonder how that was spread out. 

[emailking]

so if someone had told us that Clinton would be ahead nationally by 2 or even 3 it should have been obvious she'd lose the electoral college

Obvious? Flip 100,000 votes in the rust belt and she wins the electoral college while being ahead less than 2 nationally.

[TC 25]

My election morning pick was Clinton by 2 point and Trump to win with 280 EV, so I would have thought Trump could win with 46

[Mr. Morden]

With 46%, I would not have been shocked by Trump losing the popular vote but winning, say, Pennsylvania and thus the electoral college.  But the fact that Trump lost the popular vote yet won, not just one, but *three* states from the so-called firewall surprised me a great deal.

[vileplume]

so if someone had told us that Clinton would be ahead nationally by 2 or even 3 it should have been obvious she'd lose the electoral college

Obvious? Flip 100,000 votes in the rust belt and she wins the electoral college while being ahead less than 2 nationally.

Well given that we know California and Texas were going to trend hard Democratic it should have been obvious that much of the rest of the rest of the country especially places with lots of non-college educated whites e.g. the rust belt and rural America would trend hard Republican. So a 2-3 point Hillary loss would have put Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the cusp of flipping. Wisconsin especially should have been seen because if rural Iowa was largely accepted to being shifting hard right it stands to reason that rural Wisconsin would do exactly the same thing. I'm not trying to claim I saw this coming, I didn't, but in hindsight it should have been obvious that it would be difficult for Clinton to win with a relatively small national vote share win as she was 'wasting' so many votes in California and Texas.

[vileplume]

so if someone had told us that Clinton would be ahead nationally by 2 or even 3 it should have been obvious she'd lose the electoral college

Obvious? Flip 100,000 votes in the rust belt and she wins the electoral college while being ahead less than 2 nationally.

Well given that we know California and Texas were going to trend hard Democratic it should have been obvious that much of the rest of the rest of the country especially places with lots of non-college educated whites e.g. the rust belt and rural America would trend hard Republican. So a 2-3 point Hillary loss would have put Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the cusp of flipping (Michigan being more surprising). Wisconsin especially should have been seen because if rural Iowa was largely accepted to being shifting hard right it stands to reason that rural Wisconsin would do exactly the same thing. I'm not trying to claim I saw this coming, I didn't, but in hindsight it should have been obvious that it would be difficult for Clinton to win with a relatively small national vote share win as she was 'wasting' so many votes in California and Texas.

[zorkpolitics]

so if someone had told us that Clinton would be ahead nationally by 2 or even 3 it should have been obvious she'd lose the electoral college

Obvious? Flip 100,000 votes in the rust belt and she wins the electoral college while being ahead less than 2 nationally.

Or flip 100K votes in NH, MN, NV, and ME and Trump picks up 4 more states and another 23 Electoral votes but still loses the popular vote

[jaichind]

If I was told that Trump got 46% I would think he would win while losing the PV vote.  I figured Trump had a cap of 45% and Clinton had a cap of 48%.  So If Trump got 46% then I would think the result was Clinton 47% Trump 46% or even Clinton 46% Trump 46%.  I made the assumption that Clinton need to beat Trump by 1.5% or more to win the EC.

Now if someone told me that Clinton will win 48% of the PV I would have said that Clinton won since I would expect the result to be Clinton 48% Trump 45% or even Clinton 48% Trump 44% for a PV margin well above the 1.5% threshold I set.

It turned out that Clinton had to win by 2.7% to beat Trump given she lost PA by 0.8%  I also overestimated the third party vote.

[peterthlee]

Clinton, by 51-46-3. (sane on Nov 7th)

[bagelman]

I would expect 48-46 or maybe 49-46

[emailking]

so if someone had told us that Clinton would be ahead nationally by 2 or even 3 it should have been obvious she'd lose the electoral college

Obvious? Flip 100,000 votes in the rust belt and she wins the electoral college while being ahead less than 2 nationally.

Or flip 100K votes in NH, MN, NV, and ME and Trump picks up 4 more states and another 23 Electoral votes but still loses the popular vote

Sure. It would not be obvious that 306 would be his maximal result, just as it would not be obvious that 270 would be his minimal result.

[Sir Mohamed]

Hillary, by about the 2012 margin.

50-46%; and about 2012 map minus IA.

[jaichind]

My election morning pick was Clinton by 2 point and Trump to win with 280 EV, so I would have thought Trump could win with 46

My pick was for Trump to lose by 2.5% and be very close in the EC with 260 EV and Trump getting very close in PA MI and MN (I did not think WI would be close.)  I was thinking of something like Clinton 47.5o 45 or Clinton 47 to 44.5.  In the end my PV spread was close but not as close as you.  I totally overestimated third party candidates.  I guess there were Johnson -> Trump and Stein -> Clinton tactical voting at the end.

[RaphaelDLG]

I'd take no need of the advice of a scam artist, though I'd be very amused at the kind of fortunes psychics are giving out these days, and would laugh so hard I might tip them just for this reason.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

I'd still say Trump because I knew he was going to win PA and figured that would mean the blue wall was falling in the Midwest, too. Why would I believe this random stranger anyway?

[Mr. Smith]

On the 7th: Trump still, courtesy of no EV majority thanks to some funny business in WI, NH, NC, PA, and that Comey letter still being on mind.

Before Comeyghazi: Clinton.

~dips out~

[bagelman]

I would expect 48-46 or maybe 49-46

Oh, and clinton win because firewall

[Fuzzy Bear]

I wonder if this was the most extreme example of targeting voter constituencies in the history of Presidential elections.  If so, the strategy was brilliant.  It's something that has always been "theoretically" possible, but in 2016 it actually was played out.

I've got to believe that the EC's days are numbered.  If Trump is re-elected in the same manner, there will be a moral impetus to eliminate the EC that will be hard to ignore, in that it will undermine our position as the leader of "the free world". 

[jaichind]

I wonder if this was the most extreme example of targeting voter constituencies in the history of Presidential elections.  If so, the strategy was brilliant.  It's something that has always been "theoretically" possible, but in 2016 it actually was played out.

I've got to believe that the EC's days are numbered.  If Trump is re-elected in the same manner, there will be a moral impetus to eliminate the EC that will be hard to ignore, in that it will undermine our position as the leader of "the free world". 

Had Dewey gained around 0.5% of the vote across the board in 1948 he would have won the EC while losing the PV by 3.6% which is even more impressive than the theortical 2.7% for Trump could lose by while winning the EC.  If seems that it is a function of Dewey winning by very narrow margins in all the states he won.

[Wisconsin+17]

46-49 Comfortable Hillary win.

My models all had 47 as a minimum line for Trump winning. I thought he would fall short.