Remaining votes (Update: about 500K ballots left to count nationwide)

[jaichind]

Using http://www.electproject.org/2016g as basis we can estimate the number of uncounted votes in various states which still have a bunch are

CA:    3.7 million
WA:  435K
AZ:   410K
OH:  325K
GA:    95K
FL:     85K
NY      60K
AK:     60K
AL:     50K

[StateBoiler]

and with that, republicans lose the PV in 6 of 7 elections, historic margins afaik.

that split happening 2 times in 20 years is something very rare too.....

I have an issue with saying you lose the popular vote when the winner is under 50 by a significant amount. The further away from 50 you are, the less "winning the popular vote" means, and this election more than any other recent election saw a larger dispersal of votes to multiple 3rd party candidates as opposed to just one main one. If Clinton had won 50% of the vote, she probably would've won the Electoral College. That makes 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2016 -four of the past 7 elections - where the person that received the most votes did not achieve a majority.

A Democrat has only gotten a majority of the vote twice in the past 10 elections.

[elcorazon]

and with that, republicans lose the PV in 6 of 7 elections, historic margins afaik.

that split happening 2 times in 20 years is something very rare too.....

I have an issue with saying you lose the popular vote when the winner is under 50 by a significant amount. The further away from 50 you are, the less "winning the popular vote" means, and this election more than any other recent election saw a larger dispersal of votes to multiple 3rd party candidates as opposed to just one main one. If Clinton had won 50% of the vote, she probably would've won the Electoral College. That makes 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2016 -four of the past 7 elections - where the person that received the most votes did not achieve a majority.

A Democrat has only gotten a majority of the vote twice in the past 10 elections.

this is truly a meaningless post. Clinton won easily both times he was elected. The fact that he didn't get 50% of the vote really isn't relevant. Bush didn't get 50% either and neither did Trump. Have Republicans EVER gotten 50% of the vote in the past 25 years?

[Redban]

and with that, republicans lose the PV in 6 of 7 elections, historic margins afaik.

that split happening 2 times in 20 years is something very rare too.....

I have an issue with saying you lose the popular vote when the winner is under 50 by a significant amount. The further away from 50 you are, the less "winning the popular vote" means, and this election more than any other recent election saw a larger dispersal of votes to multiple 3rd party candidates as opposed to just one main one. If Clinton had won 50% of the vote, she probably would've won the Electoral College. That makes 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2016 -four of the past 7 elections - where the person that received the most votes did not achieve a majority.

A Democrat has only gotten a majority of the vote twice in the past 10 elections.

this is truly a meaningless post. Clinton won easily both times he was elected. The fact that he didn't get 50% of the vote really isn't relevant. Bush didn't get 50% either and neither did Trump. Have Republicans EVER gotten 50% of the vote in the past 25 years?

Bush in 2004 got over 50%

[StateBoiler]

and with that, republicans lose the PV in 6 of 7 elections, historic margins afaik.

that split happening 2 times in 20 years is something very rare too.....

I have an issue with saying you lose the popular vote when the winner is under 50 by a significant amount. The further away from 50 you are, the less "winning the popular vote" means, and this election more than any other recent election saw a larger dispersal of votes to multiple 3rd party candidates as opposed to just one main one. If Clinton had won 50% of the vote, she probably would've won the Electoral College. That makes 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2016 -four of the past 7 elections - where the person that received the most votes did not achieve a majority.

A Democrat has only gotten a majority of the vote twice in the past 10 elections.

this is truly a meaningless post. Clinton won easily both times he was elected. The fact that he didn't get 50% of the vote really isn't relevant. Bush didn't get 50% either and neither did Trump. Have Republicans EVER gotten 50% of the vote in the past 25 years?

I'm sorry that mathematics offends you.

I don't give much credit to winning the vote when we start splitting the vote more than 2 ways. If we were basing who won the election on popular vote, you would change the vote of a lot of Johnson, Stein, and McMullin voters for starters which is 6 million votes right there.

2004 by the way.

[elcorazon]

yea. I forgot about 2004.  point still stands. Most 3rd party voters  are either non-voters or end up going both directions. Clinton was well ahead in 1992 while Perot wasn't in the race. His running may have diminished Clinton's victory, frankly.

Also, it's pretty rich of someone to focus solely on the EC when the states don't even require 50% either to give all of their votes to a candidate.

[StateBoiler]

yea. I forgot about 2004.  point still stands. Most 3rd party voters  are either non-voters or end up going both directions. Clinton was well ahead in 1992 while Perot wasn't in the race. His running may have diminished Clinton's victory, frankly.

Also, it's pretty rich of someone to focus solely on the EC when the states don't even require 50% either to give all of their votes to a candidate.

If I was made election dictator in this country I'd fully embrace the Louisiana system nationwide.

I'm working on a paper for the Electoral College based on different systems. One is what I call "Convention-style Rules" where if no candidate gets 50% you do a proportional split for all above a certain threshold. Playing with a 5% threshold for example:

2000-Gore 272, Bush 265, Nader 1 (Convention-style rules are the only one of the various methods I've looked at that Gore gets 270)
1996-Clinton 359, Dole 158, Perot 21
1992-Clinton 239, Bush 195, Perot 104 (not looked at Electoral Districts yet, but the current Electoral College is the only way this election does not go to the House of every method I've looked at, which is 12)
1980-Reagan 385, Carter 134, Anderson 19

As far back as I've gotten. I'd like to go back to 1868. Not done this year yet because results aren't final.

[Nyvin]

and with that, republicans lose the PV in 6 of 7 elections, historic margins afaik.

that split happening 2 times in 20 years is something very rare too.....

I have an issue with saying you lose the popular vote when the winner is under 50 by a significant amount. The further away from 50 you are, the less "winning the popular vote" means, and this election more than any other recent election saw a larger dispersal of votes to multiple 3rd party candidates as opposed to just one main one. If Clinton had won 50% of the vote, she probably would've won the Electoral College. That makes 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2016 -four of the past 7 elections - where the person that received the most votes did not achieve a majority.

A Democrat has only gotten a majority of the vote twice in the past 10 elections.

In every other election we have in this country, the candidate with the larger vote share wins the election.   The Presidential vote is the only one where huge chunks of the country can just be written off as irrelevant and the candidate can win with a smaller vote share than the one who got the most votes.  

No matter how you put it....it's a deeply flawed system.

Edit - Not to mention....in practically ANY election where there is a third party candidate(s) that get above 5% of the vote, it becomes practically impossible to get 50% of the vote in the polarized country we live in.

[Axel Foley]

Why did the networks call Arizona for Trump with all this votes allegedly to be counted? Isn't a Clinton upset still be possibile?

[jaichind]

Based on the current data coming in we have
 
Clinton        61.50 million     47.72%
Trump         60.67 million     47.07%


and then extrapolating based on current vote shares in each state and estimated votes outstanding we currently have

Clinton        64.68 million     48.10%
Trump         62.77 million     46.68%

For a Clinton victory of 1.42%

[rafta_rafta]

Nate Cohn said she might win the PV by 1.5%. The rust belt was the reason for the loss in EC

[jaichind]

Why did the networks call Arizona for Trump with all this votes allegedly to be counted? Isn't a Clinton upset still be possibile?

Not sure.  Could be they know a lot of those votes are in GOP leaning counties and/or there are a lot of military votes

[Lachi]

Why did the networks call Arizona for Trump with all this votes allegedly to be counted? Isn't a Clinton upset still be possibile?

Not sure.  Could be they know a lot of those votes are in GOP leaning counties and/or there are a lot of military votes

It's mostly in Maricopa county, so I have no clue how it could go.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

and with that, republicans lose the PV in 6 of 7 elections, historic margins afaik.

that split happening 2 times in 20 years is something very rare too.....

I have an issue with saying you lose the popular vote when the winner is under 50 by a significant amount. The further away from 50 you are, the less "winning the popular vote" means, and this election more than any other recent election saw a larger dispersal of votes to multiple 3rd party candidates as opposed to just one main one. If Clinton had won 50% of the vote, she probably would've won the Electoral College. That makes 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2016 -four of the past 7 elections - where the person that received the most votes did not achieve a majority.

A Democrat has only gotten a majority of the vote twice in the past 10 elections.

this is truly a meaningless post. Clinton won easily both times he was elected. The fact that he didn't get 50% of the vote really isn't relevant. Bush didn't get 50% either and neither did Trump. Have Republicans EVER gotten 50% of the vote in the past 25 years?

I'm sorry that mathematics offends you.

I don't give much credit to winning the vote when we start splitting the vote more than 2 ways. If we were basing who won the election on popular vote, you would change the vote of a lot of Johnson, Stein, and McMullin voters for starters which is 6 million votes right there.

2004 by the way.

Which is why we need RPV. I could live with RPV + the EC.

[jaichind]

Based on the current data coming in we have
 
Clinton        61.96 million     47.77%
Trump         60.96 million     47.00%


and then extrapolating based on current vote shares in each state and estimated votes outstanding we currently have

Clinton        64.86 million     48.11%
Trump         62.89 million     46.65%

For a Clinton victory of 1.46%

If these trends continue Clinton might cross 65 million and Trump might cross 63 million and Clinton will clear 1.5% in terms of vote share lead.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Based on the current data coming in we have
 
Clinton        61.96 million     47.77%
Trump         60.96 million     47.00%


and then extrapolating based on current vote shares in each state and estimated votes outstanding we currently have

Clinton        64.86 million     48.11%
Trump         62.89 million     46.65%

For a Clinton victory of 1.46%

If these trends continue Clinton might cross 65 million and Trump might cross 63 million and Clinton will clear 1.5% in terms of vote share lead.

So Trump could take the record for the most votes for a Republican nominee for both a primary and a general election, in the same cycle.

Bush presently holds the record with just slightly more than 62 million votes in 2004.

[Illiniwek]

Based on the current data coming in we have
 
Clinton        61.96 million     47.77%
Trump         60.96 million     47.00%


and then extrapolating based on current vote shares in each state and estimated votes outstanding we currently have

Clinton        64.86 million     48.11%
Trump         62.89 million     46.65%

For a Clinton victory of 1.46%

If these trends continue Clinton might cross 65 million and Trump might cross 63 million and Clinton will clear 1.5% in terms of vote share lead.

At this point, the larger her lead grows, the more it stings. I'm glad more people wanted her than him, but man this is demoralizing.

[jaichind]

Based on the current data coming in we have
 
Clinton        62.52 million     47.84%
Trump         61.30 million     46.90%


and then extrapolating based on current vote shares in each state and estimated votes outstanding we currently have

Clinton        64.94 million     48.11%
Trump         62.93 million     46.62%

For a Clinton victory of 1.49%

Most likely Clinton will exceed 65 million and Trump will exceed 63 million.  Trump will have won the most number of votes any GOP candidate in history beating out Bush II 2004's 62 million performance.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Nate Cohn suggests now that HRC may have won college-educated whites after all.

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/798982241141407744

[jaichind]

Nate Cohn suggests now that HRC may have won college-educated whites after all.

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/798982241141407744

If that was true then Trump won non-college Whites by an even greater margin than the 40% lead the exit polls suggested.

[Tender Branson]

Trump will have won the most number of votes any GOP candidate in history beating out Bush II 2004's 62 million performance.

Yeah, but there were 30 million fewer eligible voters back in 2004 ...

[Fuzzybigfoot]

So what does California look like right now?  I know Washington is down to 169,612 ballots.  

[Alcon]

Nate Cohn suggests now that HRC may have won college-educated whites after all.

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/798982241141407744

If that was true then Trump won non-college Whites by an even greater margin than the 40% lead the exit polls suggested.

Not necessarily.  The exit polls tend to come out too ethnically diverse, and also may have overestimated the proportion of white voters with college degrees.  Plus there's also sample poisoning because some people lie, and you'd figure that those people would be more likely to be Trump supporters (because they're not actually college-educated, not because they lie).

[Tender Branson]

Could MN end up voting very slightly to the right of the US ?

The current final margin there is H+1.51

Nationally, Hillary could also end up ahead with about 1.5% when all ballots are counted.

[Tender Branson]

Not the final map yet, but: