Top 10 Swing States in U.S. Elections

Good for you, Chocolate Moose!

She won her states by large margins? Did you see the results in New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, Minnesota? On average, he won his states by larger margins than she did.

Here you go! The big winner is 1936,with 531 electoral votes, of which FDR got 523 and Alf Landon got 8. FDR had 98.5%, compared to Reagan's 97.5% in 1984. 1984 and 1972 saw one candidate win all but one state. Four elections have had the winner get > 60% of the popular vote, the highest being Johnson's 61.1% in 1964. So the fact that the candidates are polling within five percentage points is too close for comfort.

That's not counting the three uncontested elections, which I'd place before modern history. In terms of voter turnout, since 1968 it's been in the mid-50%'s. The exception is 1996, which saw only 49.0% of eligible voters show up. I'm guessing today will not be a record high there, either.

Donald J Trump has a bigger chance of winning than Mitt Romney did last election

Oops

This group is changing steadily. Missouri is pretty safe for the GOP - even in Trump's worst polling periods it never looked like going blue. Virginia is increasingly behaving as a blue state, not a swing state. Pennsylvania, on the other hand, could become more of a swing state and North Carolina looks to be following Virginia's trajectory. Meanwhile I think Iowa could follow Missouri and move towards becoming a more GOP-leaning state.

North Carolina was won by Obama in 08, but since then has mainly gone GOP in national and local races. It seems like it was more of a fluke than anything.

It's not troubling at all. The electoral college protects small states and keeps them in the participation process. Otherwise we'd have the 2-3 biggest states picking all the winners in every election.

LOL what a silly argument. Voters in WY already do not have more say than voters in CA. WY has 3 electoral votes, CA has 55 which is about a 1700% increase over WY. States are assigned a number of votes based on their population. The higher the population, the more electoral votes. The presidential election is NOT a popularity contest, and the founders didn't want it to be. They formed a republic, and they knew that direct democracy (which is what the popular vote is, not the EC) always leads to fascism. The founders were brilliant when they created the Electoral College. The election gives States the right to send delegates to the Electoral College. Otherwise we wouldn't be the United STATES, and also, the Electoral College protects the minority, not the majority as you say, by giving power to ALL the states and giving a voice to the people who don't live in the 5 biggest cities.

So if the Electoral College votes against Trump, it's doing what it is "supposed to do?" No. The electoral college is supposed to vote the way the citizens voted according to their respective state. Yes they could go and vote the other way if they wanted to, but they'd disgrace themselves and trash their careers in the process. But you're right, it probably won't happen. Just getting one to switch will be problematic. They need how many to overturn Trump, about 46? That'd be like winning the lottery 46 times. Not gonna happen.

So Trump is a "demagogue?" Demagogues don't use rational arguments. I watched all the debates. Trump had nothing but rational arguments, unlike his opponent, who basically had no message at all, other than "vote for me because I am a woman" and "I will continue Obama's policies" which are proven disasters. Trump laid out specifics and she didn't have an answer for anything. She thought if she smiled and laughed a lot, that would be enough. The laugh is on her.

The Electoral College votes are unevenly distributed, and the bigger states like California and Texas don't get the representation they deserve, while tiny states like Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska all get 3 votes. It also gives the majorities in each state an advantage, so in safely Democratic states like California and solidly Republican ones like Alabama the minor party really has no shot at winning, rendering their votes essentially useless for the purpose of electing the candidate they voted for. It's only in the swing states that people's votes really count since that is what can tip the election in favor of either candidate. This can barely be called democratic, as in a democracy all votes count equally. I find this system absurd, and don't see any reason as to why the US doesn't go by popular vote, since that is after all what determines what the majority of people want. Also, in the Electoral College, a candidate can technically win with only 21.91% of the vote.

Also, the Electoral College doesn't actually benefit the small states, since presidential candidates don't really care about them unless it's an insanely close election. This means that the EC doesn't really benefit anyone and should be abolished altogether. Popular vote benefits everyone equally, no matter if you live in a big city of in the countryside.

I love going back and reading comments before the election and then those since trying to justify how Clinton should be President even though she lost the popular without California by 1.4 million votes. Lets face it, California is NOT a good gauge for the country as a whole. As for those not happy about the electoral college (and making excuses about it because Hillary lost), the candidates enter into it knowing how the system works and they accept it. It is the most fair, giving every state a total number based on the percentage of their population of that state. It is how the system has always been. The infants love it only when their candidate wins and throw temper tantrums when they don't. Us grown ups accept when we don't like who won and hope for something else in the next election.

For a "grown up," it's pretty weird to make an argument by casually removing millions of voters from California from consideration because that state isn't, you know, a "good gauge" for the country as a whole.

Salty! Trump until 2024 and your girl lost! lol

Donald, is that you?

Yes. There is verified proof that criminal illegals voted in the election. Obviously this had the largest affect in California, but democratic cheating also likely costed Trump New Hampshire. Many democrats from the Northeast voted twice. People from Massachusetts voted in their own state and then crossed the border and voted in New Hampshire because they knew it would be an extremely close race.

That's why democrats are calling for felons to be able to vote and fighting against voter ID with such vigor. They realize that they've alienated law-abiding American citizens with their hatred and identity politics. Their party now relies completely on the votes of criminal illegal aliens and felons.

Trump tried to fix the system by creating a national voter database that would only allow people to vote once. Democratic states refused to comply and provide voter rolls because they knew that if the election was conducted fairly they would lose.

There's no proof of any of this beyond posts on cancerous fever swamps sites like Breitbart. Democrats are calling for felons to be able to vote because they believe voting is an inalienable right that a (potentially wrongful) conviction (that may be for a nonviolent crime) shouldn't rob one of rights after a prison sentence is completed. Voter ID laws have been specifically designed to disenfranchise minority citizens (see North Carolina). Trump tried to launch a commission to validate his hurt feelings and BS claims over losing the popular vote, not because he has any interest in "fixing the system." You should know by this point that the only things that hold his interest are things he can make money off of or things that will get people talking about him.