A quick observation, as a follow-up to yesterday’s post: There is a sense in which Trump’s apparent 232-306 loss in 2020 is closer than Clinton’s apparent 232-306 loss in 2016, but only slightly.
I noted yesterday that in order for the apparent outcome of the 2020 election to be reversed, the following margins in three states would need to be overcome, yielding a 269-269 tie that would presumably be broken by the House in Trump’s favor (due to the “one vote per state” rule in effect for such a situation):
- Georgia – Biden by 0.28%
- Arizona – Biden by 0.31%
- Wisconsin – Biden by 0.62%
Applying the same analysis to 2016, in order for Clinton to have won the following margins in three states would need to have been overcome, bringing about a 278-260 Clinton victory:
- Michigan – Trump by 0.23%
- Pennsylvania – Trump by 0.72%
- Wisconsin – Trump by 0.77%
In 2016, faced with a need to overcome margins in three different states to achieve a different outcome, Clinton conceded on the night of the election.
In 2020, faced with a need to overcome margins in three different states to achieve a different outcome, Trump remains completely defiant almost two weeks after election night.
Collectively, the three margins Trump faces average to 0.40%, while the three margins Clinton faced averaged to 0.57%. I would submit that, while Trump’s situation is objectively closer than Clinton’s, the difference between the two situations is not vast enough to justify the dramatic difference in the two candidates’ post-election behavior.
Put differently: If Trump is right to not concede in 2020 until states have certified their results, then why should Clinton have conceded in 2016? But imagine how berserk the Republican Party would have been in mid-November 2016 if Clinton had not conceded by then…