[chicagobob]

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".

[nightski]

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.

[DangitBobby]

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.

[ta1243]

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.

[notTooFarGone]

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.

[kelnos]

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.