Reaction to Trump winning more raw votes than Bush 04' in California

[Woody]

?

[SnowLabrador]

Not surprised at all, given that turnout was so high.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Reaction to Biden winning Arizona, Woodbury?

I kid, I kid.  Seriously though, no reaction either way.  With mail-in voting + population growth, I would have been shocked if Trump didn't set a new high-water mark for the GOP in terms of raw vote.  

[Crumpets]

US population 2004: 292,354,663
US population 2020: 330,052,960 (+12.9%)

Not too surprising on the whole.

[Adam Griffin]

Perfectly expected...? It's not like he didn't do the same in 2016 (62.04m vs 62.99m) with a huge 3P vote share - combined with the fact that anybody paying attention (who wasn't a delusional idiot) knew 1) there'd be 15-20m more votes cast than 2016 and 2) that Trump was always going to get a minimum of 45%, and there's literally nothing at all surprising about it.

He'd have needed to get well under 40% of the PV to fail in surpassing this metric.

[Woody]

Sorry. I forgot to add CA in the title.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Sorry. I forgot to add CA in the title.

I'd argue that Trump should have garnered a larger advantage over Bush-2004 (he's at +12,000 atm) due to a presumably higher turnout in the state. 

[GeorgiaModerate]

When people tout raw vote numbers like this for Trump, it reminds me of a U. of Michigan fan talking up their 115-point performance against Loyola Marymount in the 1990 NCAA basketball tournament.

Unfortunately for the Wolverines, Loyola (known for its insanely fast offense) scored 149.

[Sir Mohamed]

The OP still tries to troll us with threads like these by insisting this election somehow ended well for Mr. Trump. He may have outperformed flawed polls, but make no mistake that he lost fair and square.