**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

Huh? This doesn't follow from you premise.

He can't be everywhere at once. If he's out campaigning and winning over voters in one state, he can't be doing it in another at the same time. So if he spends the whole campaign in CA, NY, and IL and gains 10m votes in those places, he won't have been gaining those 10m votes from campaigning in FL, OH, NC.

[wufwugy]

He can't be everywhere at once. If he's out campaigning and winning over voters in one state, he can't be doing it in another at the same time. So if he spends the whole campaign in CA, NY, and IL and gains 10m votes in those places, he won't have been gaining those 10m votes from campaigning in FL, OH, NC.

Your premise was that the opposition would campaign differently too for a national election. Since Trump beat her where they campaigned, your premise is not a counter.

[Poopadoop]

Your premise was that the opposition would campaign differently too for a national election. Since Trump beat her where they campaigned, your premise is not a counter.

Ya, that's correct. Ok let's start over.

Let's assume his campaigning advantage over Clinton is what won him the vote in certain states, and not something else. So when campaigning, Trump always won over more voters each day than Clinton did when she campaigned.

Let's oversimplify and say that for every day Trump spends in a particular state, 25k more people decide to vote for him. Let's say Clinton is much less effective, and only gets 10k more voters for every day she spends. So if they both spend a day in the same state Trump is making 15k votes profit (25k-10k). If Trump spends a day in one state and Clinton spends it in another he makes a 25k profit in one state and a 10k loss in the other. But in terms of popular vote, he still made 15k profit.

Make sense now? It doesn't matter whether he's gaining a 15k profit every day in CA or in OH. It's still 15k.

Edit: It's also not necessarily the case that because they both campaigned in close states and he won them, it was because he had a campaigning advantage. He might have been winning those states already and still have won them if neither candidate had campaigned in them.

[wufwugy]

Ya, that's correct. Ok let's start over.

Let's assume his campaigning advantage over Clinton is what won him the vote in certain states, and not something else. So when campaigning, Trump always won over more voters each day than Clinton did when she campaigned.

Let's oversimplify and say that for every day Trump spends in a particular state, 25k more people decide to vote for him. Let's say Clinton is much less effective, and only gets 10k more voters for every day she spends. So if they both spend a day in the same state Trump is making 15k votes profit (25k-10k). If Trump spends a day in one state and Clinton spends it in another he makes a 25k profit in one state and a 10k loss in the other. But in terms of popular vote, he still made 15k profit.

Make sense now? It doesn't matter whether he's gaining a 15k profit every day in CA or in OH. It's still 15k.

The profit would be larger in larger and more dense regions.

National campaigns would change so much. Areas of focus, messages, etc., all would undergo major changes.

[Poopadoop]

The profit would be larger in larger and more dense regions.

National campaigns would change so much. Areas of focus, messages, etc., all would undergo major changes.

All the campaigning was done in dense regions. No-one holds a rally on a farm in Wyoming.

[Poopadoop]

Also, all the evidence shows he won the rural areas and got crushed in the cities. Density would hurt him more than help him.