Breitbart is pushing the theory that if Jo Jorgensen hadn't run, Trump would have won (assuming that he didn't). Is this correct? Is there objective proof that all (or enough) of her votes would have been for Trump if she hadn't run, such that he would have won? And that all of her voters would have voted, as opposed to not voting?
I'm not convinced on either count.
TL;DR: It's a virtual impossibility, but mathematically possible. If Trump won a large majority of Libertarian votes, he could have won key states. Four states are in play. One combination gives him a tie and a possible win in the House. Winning all four gives him a win. The rest are Biden wins.
With all races called, Biden has 306 electoral votes, needing to lose 37 to tie the election and send it to the House, and lose 38 to lose outright.
The most obvious states to flip are Pennsylvania (20), and at least one 16-vote states (Michigan, Georgia) plus Nebraska's 2nd congressional district (Omaha, 1 vote), OR Pennsylvania, Arizona (11), and Nevada (6). Wisconsin (10) is also a candidate.
I'm assuming this question is something like "If only Trump and Biden were on the ballot, would Trump have won after Jorgenson's voters realigned?"
I have rounded because results1 aren't final. "%B" is the percentage of the Libertarian votes (L votes) which would need to go to Trump to tie with Biden in the the state, assuming Biden gets none of the other votes.
However, for Trump to win, he needs B% of the L vote, and he needs the remainder of those voters to be split evenly between him and Biden so they cancel out. "Split" is the minimum Trump needs, assuming Biden gets the rest (Split = %B+ 0.5 * (100 - %B)). If Trump were to win "Split"% or higher of the Libertarian vote, then he would win in that state.
Values are left out where the L vote was smaller than the margin.
| State | EV | Margin | L votes | %B | Split |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AZ | 11 | 11,000 | 51,000 | 22% | 61% |
| GA | 16 | 14,000 | 62,000 | 23% | 62% |
| NV | 6 | 37,000 | 14,000 | ||
| MI | 16 | 148,000 | 60,000 | ||
| NE-2 | 1 | 22,000 | 6,000(2) | ||
| PA | 20 | 54,000 | 78,000 | 69% | 85% |
| WI | 10 | 21,000 | 38,000 | 55% | 78% |
Arizona and Georgia (27) doesn't give him the win, but Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as well would. Trump would have to take Libertarian voters 80-20 to win, which strains credulity, but isn't out of the question.
However, this USANews article says:
There is disagreement over which of the two main parties takes a bigger hit when a Libertarian is in the race. Boaz pointed to a 2016 CBS exit poll that showed that 25% of Libertarians who voted that year would have supported Democrat Hillary Clinton if there had been no Libertarian candidate. For Trump that figure was 15%, while 55% said they would have not voted.
If we surmise that 50% of L votes wouldn't have voted if there was no Libertarian candidate on the ballot, Trump can no longer win Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. He can only win Arizona and Georgia if he takes about 73% of the voting Ls (37% of the original number). This is more plausible, IMO, but he would not win flipping only Georgia and Arizona (27).
| State | EV | Margin | 0.5 L votes | %B | Split |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AZ | 11 | 11,000 | 25,500 | 43% | 72% |
| GA | 16 | 14,000 | 31,000 | 45% | 73% |
| PA | 20 | 54,000 | 39,000 | ||
| WI | 10 | 21,000 | 19,000 |
Conclusion It is mathematically possible for Trump to have won if there was no L candidate. However, if Biden wins any sort of a significant fraction of the former L voters - or they don't turn out, as is common for them - it makes it virtually impossible for Trump to win. If turnout patterns reflected 2016, it is impossible for Trump to win based on the L vote.
1: Data from NYT, except for NE-2 which came from Cook Political.
2: Votes listed as "other," not for Jorgensen specifically, but it doesn't matter either way.
