True, but the word "blowout" in this case is just a crazy side-effect of our weird electoral college system.
Everyone knows that in all the swing states (except Arizona), the final vote margin was just a few percent, and that was well within the MOE for all the "50-50" polling in each of those states.
No one seriously believes that any President has had a blowout election since maybe Obama in 2008 or Bush in 2004, but the media sure loves the word "blowout".
So basically, if you ignore how the entire system works then it wasn't a blowout lol. I'm guessing the media was taking into account that we indeed use an electoral college system so that is all that matters.
I think "blowout" to some (most? vast majority?) without more context implies that the voting citizens strongly preferred a candidate. So people pushback against the clickbait word being used to drive engagement.
The only score that matters is the one used to call the game, because that’s the only score anyone is trying to win. We simply don’t know what would have happened under a different set of rules.
The “ground game” is extremely expensive: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4934604-kamala-harris-g.... Especially for republicans, whose voters are spread out over rural areas. In post-election interviews, Trump campaign strategists revealed that to save money they largely eschewed a traditional ground game in favor of target outreach to low propensity voters. Even then, Trump received a lot of criticism on the right for doing a handful of rallies in California and New York.
As it is, both campaigns focused most of their resources on the seven swing states, and Trump swept all of them. Had the election been close you would’ve expected by sheer chance each candidate to get some of the swing states, but that didn’t happen.
Certainaly there are no rules for what is a blowout or a mandate... But we can look back and see Reagan won all but one state, and say yeah, that was a blow out, and Reagan had a mandate.
IMHO, if you don't win in any of your opponent's stronghold states, it's not much of a blowout. Yes, it was a win and any win gets you the whole four years, so it doesn't really matter what you want to call it, but it's yet another gaslighting IMHO.
To be clear, I don’t think it was a blowout or a landslide or anything like that. I’m just saying it’s not as close as the PV would make it seem. Harris’s campaign said their internal polling never showed her ahead, and the result was consistent with that.
In particular, he wiped out two decades of immigration-driven leftward shift in the electorate, which was how Biden was able to win traditionally red states like Arizona and Georgia. Trump won Nevada, which is now under 45% white, by more than Bush did in 2000, when it was 65% white. He lost New Jersey by less than six points, doing better now that the state is only 55% white than Bush did in 2004 when it was 70% white. He won Texas by a similar margin to Bush in 88 and Florida by more than Reagan did in 1980.
When 0.1% of the total voters can swing the vote from being 60 for red to being 60 for blue, polling is obviously going to be pretty tricky to predict.
no, he means a blowout is entirely dependent on the few people that are in the states that count. Therefore your MoE is higher because your population size is significantly lower.
You can pretty much ignore every non-swing state and the result of polls would be the same.
How the specific electoral system works is irrelevant. In our case, our electoral system is designed to make most voters' votes not actually matter, so I really don't care about it one bit when talking about who had more or less support in the country as a whole. Trump only got 1.5% more votes than Harris did. That's not a blowout.
Even if you insist on going by electoral votes, 58% to 42% isn't a blowout either.
While there are clearly communities where this is a problem, I've lived in Chicago, now I live in the suburbs and still work downtown, and honestly outside of OTB and the Casinos, have never actually seen a video gambling machine in Illinois. So, this is not a state wide blight, but more of an isolated problem in various places.
As noted in the article, you most likely live in an affluent suburb. They don't have these things in Lake Forest or Barrington. On my way to work, on a short strip of road that runs through Hoffman Estates there are two Shelby's within a 1000 ft of each other. They are almost always empty apart from one or two patrons, yet they have been there for a couple of years now - I assume the few problem gamblers in the immediate area are literally supporting these places. Even if they were generating significant revenue for their municipalities, the whole enterprise is immoral.
The main east-west street corridors through the outer west burbs (Lake St, North Ave, Roosevelt Rd, etc) are choked with them. Addison for example has one every 5 feet.
Lots of those things would not be covered by a traditional health insurance plan.
But of course, it means we have chosen to forego health care and services in some cases, like the author of the article above. In one case we turned down an ambulance and drove ourselves to the hospital, which saved some money.
we have chosen to forego health care and services in some cases
Only in America do you choose to forgo healthcare when you are at a conference and caught food poisoning because you aren't really sure if the hospital will take your health insurance. Where do I apply for my medal for saving the system some money?
"because now the list of things I can spend my healthcare dollar on is much longer:"
Longer than what? 8 years ago, I could use HSA funds to pay for over the counter medications. Not anymore, and OTC is generally the first step before visiting a dr or clinic, but OTC is not HSA-usable.
That is not quite correct. Neither MasterCard nor Visa charge merchants any extra to use ApplePay. In fact, some merchant banks even lower merchant fees if they adopt secure payment methods like ApplePay.
MasterCard and Visa do pay Apple a minuscule fee (15¢ per $100.00, and less in Europe), however, it is smaller than the amount they expect to save due to reduced fraud from folks using ApplePay (and Apple apparently has also agreed to split some fraction of any fraud losses with them).
