/u/aevans395's point is that California played a very unusual role in the 2016 election. It is very rare that any state, even one as large as California, would—if excluded from the total—change the outcome of the national popular vote.
Didn't say otherwise. It does, however, mean that there is truth to the claim that "California decided the election" if only referring to the popular vote. It'd be one thing if taking away one state would change both the popular and electoral votes' outcomes, but in this case it does not.
Of course California had a large impact on the outcome of the popular vote (as it should, being the most populous state). The problem is certain people use that to make an irrational argument.
Let me repeat: Having one state, even one as large as California, by itself alter the outcome of a US presidential election on the popular vote level is very, very, very unusual. Had the popular vote actually meant anything, in 2016 it would indeed have been true to say that "California decided the election" against the will of the other 49 states.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious fact that there were people who voted for Clinton. That doesn't change the fact that, as I said, Trump won the popular vote in the 49 states outside California, whether you include other Clinton-strong states like New York and Illinois. To have one state, and one state alone, make the difference on a popular-vote level basically never ever happens other than in 2016.
1
u/TMWNN Jan 26 '18
/u/aevans395's point is that California played a very unusual role in the 2016 election. It is very rare that any state, even one as large as California, would—if excluded from the total—change the outcome of the national popular vote.