The Difference in the Vote

Had Hillary Clinton won Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — states that normally go blue — she would have won an Electoral College majority and she would be President-elect.

She didn’t — despite winning the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes — and Donald Trump is President-elect.

Russia worked to influence the election. Did they succeed? Did their efforts matter?

I don’t know how you’d gauge that. But it’s interesting to note just how close it was.

Wisconsin: 1,405,284 - 1,382,536 = 22,748

Michigan: 2,279,543 - 2,268,839 = 10,704

Pennsylvania: 2,970,733 - 2,926,441 = 44,292

That adds up to Trump winning those states by 77,744 votes.

That’s a small number of votes. That’s 0.06% of the total votes cast (128,824,833) — or 0.82% in Wisconsin, 0.24% in Michigan, and 0.75% in Pennsylvania. Not even 1% in any one of those states.

If you grant that Russia’s efforts had a small effect — well, there’s the difference.

You may think otherwise: you may think their efforts had an even greater effect, or none at all, and I suspect what you think depends on which candidate you backed.

For me: I believe that everything mattered. Russia’s attack on our democracy isn’t the only issue of consequence. But, still, take away just this one thing, and I strongly suspect Clinton would have won.

PS In contrast, Clinton won the popular vote by 2,865,075 votes, which is 2.2% of the popular vote.

06 Jan 2017