We saw that in 2016. Before that, the assumption was that an election had to be razor-thin to wind up with an electoral/popular vote split. But a three-million-vote margin wasn't slim.
First of all, it's highly doubtful that, going into Election Day, the gap will be this large. If nothing else, the media (which has no slant greater than the bias in wanting an exciting "horse-race," will be doing all they can to make sure the gap has narrowed. Trump will finally get some rallies in places where people do turn out, allowing the press to present his campaign as "resurgent," while all we'll hear about Biden are "questions" about everything from his age to a whole TaraReade'O'Thon.
Given that the race is bound to narrow, even if Biden gets more votes than Clinton did in 2016, the big question is "where will those votes be cast?" The race is clear: either Biden has to win back all three of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin while not losing any other 2016 states, or he has to win enough other Trump 2016 states (Florida/North Carolina/Arizona) to make up whatever he doesn't win in the "key three." If we can't do one of those two, it's four more years of Trump...no matter how many more people who sat out 2016 cast their votes for him in solid blue states.
= new reply since forum marked as read
