Something I've heard from some people, even in the media, every since election night 2016, is that Trump didn't get as many votes as Romney. Of course on election night you don't know what the final vote tallies are going to be so you sort of have to wait until the counting is done. I used the numbers from wiki, which they have sourced, to compare the party vote for President from 2012 to 2016. A positive number means the 2016 candidate had more votes for that party than the candidate in 2012. A negative number would say the 2012 candidate had more votes. Trump states have his vote shaded red, Clinton states have her vote shaded blue. Maine gave an electoral vote to Trump (from CD-2) so I shaded Maine yellow. Trump had over 2 million more votes than Romney and Clinton had only around 62 thousand votes less than Obama 2012. It's where the vote differences by state occurred that really changed the outcome of the election in 2016 vs the outcome in 2012. The table is sorted by Trumps state performance compared to Romney. This table has nothing to do with the margin of victory between the two parties, only comparison of the performance of their 2016 candidate vs their 2012 candidate.
There was a lot of analysis after the 2016 election which claimed that Trump flipped a lot of votes in a number of states from blue to red. I think that's true. I think Trump's Texas performance, while he won, may have been adversely impacted by Cruz's refusal to endorse him at the Republican National Convention. As it stands now I think Trump will do a lot better in Texas and other typically red states this time around, including especially Utah. The democrats lost a lot of voters in 2016, for whatever reason, and they were unable to offset that in key states with their "changing demographics" strategy. The blue firewall in the Midwest collapsed in 2016 because voters either switched sides or stayed home. 2020 should be very interesting. jmo.
View attachment 261113