Which election do you consider to be "Closer"

[hangfan91]

2000- GW Bush defeats Al Gore 271 vs. 266, but Bush loses popular vote by a much smaller margin (47.9% vs. 48.4%)

2016- Donald Trump defeats Hillary Clinton 304 vs. 227, but loses popular vote by a relatively large margin (46.1 vs. 48.2%)

Which election do you think is closer?

[ElectionsGuy]

Empirically it's 2000 in every way. 537 votes in one state decided the outcome, I don't think any election will ever beat that. 2000 is closer in the popular vote, electoral college, and votes away from the tipping point (537 in 2000 vs around 70K in 2016).

[OSR stands with Israel]

Its 2000 without a doubt


A better comparison to 2016 would be 2004

[South Dakota Democrat]

2000.  How is this even a question?

[Mexican Wolf]

Definitely 2000.

[S019]

2000 (EV matters much more than NPV)

[Hope For A New Era]

2000.

2016 was not close at all.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

2000, because Gore was also just 7200 NH votes away from the presidency.

[Lechasseur]

2000

[Orser67]

I guess the one argument for 2016 being "closer" would be that the loser won the popular vote by a larger margin.

But for me, I think closeness is better determined by looking at how much the national popular vote would have to shift for the loser to have won (assuming a uniform nationwide shift), with the caveat that a small number of extremely close elections also contained some post-election maneuvering that could plausibly have affected the result. 2000 obviously has 2016 beat on both counts; it would have required a 0.01% shift for a Gore win, and the result may well have changed had Bush suffered adverse court rulings.

2020 was definitely one of the closer elections, though. Trump won the tipping point state, Wisconsin, by 0.77%. Excluding 2000, you'd have to go back to 1960 to find a closer tipping point state.

[morgankingsley]

2000 and its not even close

[El Betico]

Its 2000 without a doubt


A better comparison to 2016 would be 2004

In reverse...2016 is what 2004 would have been had John Kerry won Ohio.

But in the end 2004 was way closer, in EC terms, than 2016...John Kerry came nearer to the WH than Hillary Clinton did. Paradox?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Its 2000 without a doubt


A better comparison to 2016 would be 2004

In reverse...2016 is what 2004 would have been had John Kerry won Ohio.

yup

[UWS]

Definitely 2000. In 2016, Trump's EC lead was much wider than Bush's EC performance in 2000. Even if he lost FL, for example, Trump would still have won with 277 EVs.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Definitely 2000. In 2016, Trump's EC lead was much wider than Bush's EC performance in 2000. Even if he lost FL, for example, Trump would still have won with 277 EVs.

Not really if he lost FL he loses MI PA and WI as well.


The reason 2016 is closer is the tipping point state went to Trump by .77% while with Bush it went to him by less than .01%

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Its 2000 without a doubt


A better comparison to 2016 would be 2004

In reverse...2016 is what 2004 would have been had John Kerry won Ohio.

But in the end 2004 was way closer, in EC terms, than 2016...John Kerry came nearer to the WH than Hillary Clinton did. Paradox?

John Kerry lost the 2004 tipping point of Ohio by more than Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 tipping point of Wisconsin.

[Mr. Smith]

Its 2000 without a doubt


A better comparison to 2016 would be 2004

In reverse...2016 is what 2004 would have been had John Kerry won Ohio.

But in the end 2004 was way closer, in EC terms, than 2016...John Kerry came nearer to the WH than Hillary Clinton did. Paradox?

More like if Kerry had won Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. The numbers are nearly the same as Ohio and it highlights Kerry's comparative weakness with the Hispanic vote.