If Pennsylvania had full VBM in 2016, would Hillary have done better there than Wisconsin?

[MARGINS6729]

I think people forget that PA had no in-person early voting and also required an excuse for a VBM ballot before they changed things in 2019. Hillary did a good job during her campaign in getting voters out in early voting states like Nevada and Florida(she actually had a huge lead in Florida prior to Election Day that had most predicting she would take the state but Election Day voting there was an absolute Trump tsunami). If Pennsylvania had offered no excuse mail voting, I think it's likely we would have seen Hillary perform better there than she did but still lose the state since things were overall going well pre the Comey letter. Pennsylvania has somewhat surprisingly to me been bluer than Wisconsin pretty consistently after Trump's 2016 win. Of course, in 2018 there wasn't no excuse needed mail voting but I think this is an interesting question. Thoughts?

[South Dakota Democrat]

I think people forget that PA had no in-person early voting and also required an excuse for a VBM ballot before they changed things in 2019. Hillary did a good job during her campaign in getting voters out in early voting states like Nevada and Florida(she actually had a huge lead in Florida prior to Election Day that had most predicting she would take the state but Election Day voting there was an absolute Trump tsunami). If Pennsylvania had offered no excuse mail voting, I think it's likely we would have seen Hillary perform better there than she did but still lose the state since things were overall going well pre the Comey letter. Pennsylvania has somewhat surprisingly to me been bluer than Wisconsin pretty consistently after Trump's 2016 win. Of course, in 2018 there wasn't no excuse needed mail voting but I think this is an interesting question. Thoughts?

Clinton did in fact do better in PA than WI in 2016.

[MARGINS6729]

No, she didn't. She lost PA by 44,292 while she lost Wisconsin by 22,748. I go by the raw votes, not the percentages.

[South Dakota Democrat]

No, she didn't. She lost PA by 44,292 while she lost Wisconsin by 22,748. I go by the raw votes, not the percentages.

That's a silly way to look at it.

[MARGINS6729]

No, it isn't.

[NorCalifornio]

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. Clinton lost Georgia by 211,141 votes, while she lost Wyoming by 118,446 votes.

Would you really say that Hillary Clinton did better in Wyoming than in Georgia?

[JohnAMacdonald]

No, she didn't. She lost PA by 44,292 while she lost Wisconsin by 22,748. I go by the raw votes, not the percentages.

By that logic, Donald trump did better in DC (lost by 270 107 votes) than New Jersey ( lost by 546 345 votes)

[MARGINS6729]

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. Clinton lost Georgia by 211,141 votes, while she lost Wyoming by 118,446 votes.

Would you really say that Hillary Clinton did better in Wyoming than in Georgia?

When it comes to states with different sized populations, that's different.

[MARGINS6729]

No, she didn't. She lost PA by 44,292 while she lost Wisconsin by 22,748. I go by the raw votes, not the percentages.

By that logic, Donald trump did better in DC (lost by 270 107 votes) than New Jersey ( lost by 546 345 votes)

See my response above.

[NorCalifornio]

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. Clinton lost Georgia by 211,141 votes, while she lost Wyoming by 118,446 votes.

Would you really say that Hillary Clinton did better in Wyoming than in Georgia?

When it comes to states with different sized populations, that's different.

Pennsylvania's population is over twice the size of Wisconsin's.