So important that he only had Harris winning the popular vote by a single point,which would be a loss for Harris in The EC.
Fair enough.I use history as a guide.The last time a Democrat won by less than +4 was 1976 and they won by +2 in 2016 and still lost so 3-4% seems whats likely needed for the Democrat to win.Biden won by 4.5 but only won The EC by less than 43,000 votes so I lean toward +4. I don't have a dog in the fight as I'm voting Jill Stein I just like predicting a winner like everyone else. Since 2004 I have only gotten 2016 wrong.
Since 1976, if the Democrat won the popular by +4 or greater,the Democrat won.If the Democrat won the popular by less than 4,the Republican won. I agree the swing states matter but since 1976 the popular vote margin predicted how the Electoral College would go.
A little more history from this history buff. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...ident-has-been-elected-president-in-188-years Kamala Harris’ election would defy history, only 1 sitting vice president has been elected president in 188 years Politics Aug 28, 2024 12:39 PM EDT NEW YORK (AP) — As Vice President Kamala Harris begins her fall campaign for the White House, she can look to history and hope for better luck than others in her position who have tried the same. Since 1836, only one sitting vice president, George H.W. Bush in 1988, has been elected to the White House.
So let us know the last time a former President was re-elected as President after being out of office for four years. This would certainly defy history.
What a stupid statement. How many times has it even been a thing where a President has served 4, lost and then come back again after winning his party's nomination? Sure, some have tried but never won the nomination. What are you left with? Grover Cleveland?
The U.S. electorate today is vastly different from what it was in previous decades. Voter demographics, priorities, and media influence are constantly shifting, there will be more young voters than ever this election. The success or failure of past vice presidents has more to do with the specific circumstances of their time than with any intrinsic barrier to a sitting VP becoming president.
When a former president was the nominee,they are 1-0. When a sitting VP was the nominee,they are 1-3.
So Grover Cleveland in the 1800s. Quite a long time ago. Bush winning after being the V.P. is in the recent era.