HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » A question for those who ...

Sat May 28, 2016, 04:49 PM

A question for those who think Trump will defy the consensus and win in November.

Outside of the DU bubble, there's a pretty broad consensus that Clinton is a heavy favorite come November. But many DU posts suggest that Trump will not only win but that he'll win with ease.

So, I'm curious, which traditionally blue states and which swing states do those folks foresee Trump winning?

206 replies, 6589 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 206 replies Author Time Post
Reply A question for those who think Trump will defy the consensus and win in November. (Original post)
Garrett78 May 2016 OP
cali May 2016 #1
Garrett78 May 2016 #2
cali May 2016 #4
Garrett78 May 2016 #6
CobaltBlue May 2016 #141
Garrett78 May 2016 #148
CobaltBlue May 2016 #160
Garrett78 May 2016 #161
CobaltBlue May 2016 #174
AntiBank May 2016 #170
Garrett78 May 2016 #171
AntiBank May 2016 #172
Garrett78 May 2016 #175
AntiBank May 2016 #185
Garrett78 May 2016 #186
AntiBank May 2016 #188
Garrett78 May 2016 #190
AntiBank May 2016 #192
Garrett78 May 2016 #193
CobaltBlue May 2016 #184
AntiBank May 2016 #189
JudyM May 2016 #3
Garrett78 May 2016 #5
JudyM May 2016 #8
Garrett78 May 2016 #13
Blanks May 2016 #183
Garrett78 May 2016 #187
Blanks May 2016 #203
Garrett78 May 2016 #206
bettyellen May 2016 #137
Garrett78 May 2016 #139
MFM008 May 2016 #153
sacto95834 May 2016 #191
CobaltBlue May 2016 #142
Garrett78 May 2016 #143
DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #7
sacto95834 May 2016 #195
braddy May 2016 #25
CobaltBlue May 2016 #177
Garrett78 May 2016 #178
CobaltBlue May 2016 #194
sacto95834 May 2016 #196
ibegurpard May 2016 #9
Garrett78 May 2016 #16
JudyM May 2016 #26
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #10
Garrett78 May 2016 #14
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #17
Garrett78 May 2016 #19
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #27
Garrett78 May 2016 #31
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #32
Garrett78 May 2016 #39
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #41
Garrett78 May 2016 #43
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #44
skepticscott May 2016 #76
Garrett78 May 2016 #123
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #166
skepticscott May 2016 #180
Garrett78 May 2016 #181
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #182
JudyM May 2016 #29
Garrett78 May 2016 #34
yeoman6987 May 2016 #47
MFM008 May 2016 #155
RKP5637 May 2016 #58
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #63
Garrett78 May 2016 #66
skepticscott May 2016 #77
saltpoint May 2016 #82
RKP5637 May 2016 #87
saltpoint May 2016 #81
RKP5637 May 2016 #90
saltpoint May 2016 #91
RKP5637 May 2016 #93
saltpoint May 2016 #94
RKP5637 May 2016 #95
MFM008 May 2016 #156
Garrett78 May 2016 #100
saltpoint May 2016 #116
ebayfool May 2016 #11
Garrett78 May 2016 #15
ebayfool May 2016 #42
Garrett78 May 2016 #45
CobaltBlue May 2016 #150
ebayfool May 2016 #173
CobaltBlue May 2016 #199
DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #21
Garrett78 May 2016 #54
DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #62
Garrett78 May 2016 #70
EL34x4 May 2016 #78
DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #83
EL34x4 May 2016 #84
DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #85
Garrett78 May 2016 #106
DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #110
PowerToThePeople May 2016 #12
Chemisse May 2016 #60
PowerToThePeople May 2016 #96
Chemisse May 2016 #99
Dems to Win May 2016 #18
Garrett78 May 2016 #22
DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #23
Contrary1 May 2016 #20
Garrett78 May 2016 #24
DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #30
Garrett78 May 2016 #36
yourout May 2016 #28
Garrett78 May 2016 #37
DVRacer May 2016 #119
BootinUp May 2016 #33
Garrett78 May 2016 #49
skepticscott May 2016 #80
Garrett78 May 2016 #121
pmorlan1 May 2016 #35
Garrett78 May 2016 #38
pmorlan1 May 2016 #40
davidn3600 May 2016 #46
Garrett78 May 2016 #48
MFM008 May 2016 #157
Garrett78 May 2016 #159
Recursion May 2016 #50
Garrett78 May 2016 #52
Recursion May 2016 #53
saltpoint May 2016 #51
Garrett78 May 2016 #55
saltpoint May 2016 #57
Chemisse May 2016 #61
saltpoint May 2016 #64
99Forever May 2016 #56
Garrett78 May 2016 #65
99Forever May 2016 #67
Garrett78 May 2016 #69
99Forever May 2016 #71
Garrett78 May 2016 #72
99Forever May 2016 #73
Garrett78 May 2016 #101
99Forever May 2016 #105
Garrett78 May 2016 #107
99Forever May 2016 #112
Garrett78 May 2016 #117
99Forever May 2016 #122
Garrett78 May 2016 #129
forthemiddle May 2016 #89
Garrett78 May 2016 #104
DJ13 May 2016 #59
Garrett78 May 2016 #68
CobaltBlue May 2016 #146
Garrett78 May 2016 #149
CobaltBlue May 2016 #154
Garrett78 May 2016 #158
Vinca May 2016 #74
Garrett78 May 2016 #108
Vinca May 2016 #133
Garrett78 May 2016 #136
Vinca May 2016 #144
Garrett78 May 2016 #152
Vinca May 2016 #162
Garrett78 May 2016 #164
B Calm May 2016 #75
Garrett78 May 2016 #109
Thinkingabout May 2016 #79
bigwillq May 2016 #86
geek tragedy May 2016 #88
saltpoint May 2016 #92
Garrett78 May 2016 #111
saltpoint May 2016 #114
Garrett78 May 2016 #120
MFM008 May 2016 #168
restorefreedom May 2016 #97
Garrett78 May 2016 #113
restorefreedom May 2016 #126
Garrett78 May 2016 #134
restorefreedom May 2016 #198
Garrett78 May 2016 #202
Exilednight May 2016 #98
Garrett78 May 2016 #115
Exilednight May 2016 #145
Garrett78 May 2016 #151
Exilednight May 2016 #200
Garrett78 May 2016 #201
Exilednight May 2016 #204
Garrett78 May 2016 #205
larkrake May 2016 #102
Scootaloo May 2016 #103
Garrett78 May 2016 #118
Scootaloo May 2016 #124
Garrett78 May 2016 #132
ms liberty May 2016 #125
Garrett78 May 2016 #130
ms liberty May 2016 #138
Garrett78 May 2016 #140
CobaltBlue May 2016 #147
marions ghost May 2016 #131
CobaltBlue May 2016 #127
napi21 May 2016 #128
gollygee May 2016 #135
AntiBank May 2016 #163
Garrett78 May 2016 #167
AntiBank May 2016 #176
Buzz cook May 2016 #165
Garrett78 May 2016 #169
beachbumbob May 2016 #179
CobaltBlue May 2016 #197

Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 04:52 PM

1. I think she starts with a considerable advantage but I think she could easily lose

 

Florida and New Hampshire and possibly Ohio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #1)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:04 PM

2. I suspect Clinton will win all 3 of those.

The Republican candidate (presumably Trump this time around) pretty much has to win *both* FL and OH to reach 270.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #2)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:12 PM

4. You asked.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #4)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:13 PM

6. I did, and I appreciate your response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #2)

Sun May 29, 2016, 02:52 PM

141. Garrett78—No Republican can pull together a winning map without both Florida and Ohio

 

Since 1928, Florida has voted for every presidential winner with exceptions of Democratic pickup winners John Kennedy (1960) and Bill Clinton (1992). And they narrowly missed flipping Florida. The state has been carried during this period by every winning Republican. Given that, with the realigning and counter-realigning of the electoral map, the Republicans have averaged between 7 and 9 electoral votes per carried state since after the 1980s. And the two winning Republican victories, for George W. Bush, averaged 9 electoral votes per carried state. (Since the 1990s, no presidential winner carried more than the 32 states won by Bill Clinton with his first election in 1992.)

Ohio has been on its bellwether status since 1896—it has voted for all winners except Democrats Franklin Roosevelt (for his last term won in 1944) and John Kennedy (in 1960, and the last presidential candidate elected while both Florida and Ohio carried for his losing opponent). The record still stands that every Republican presidential winner has carried the state of Ohio. In 2012, Ohio was the only state whose gender votes reflected national support for re-electing President Barack Obama—45 percent from men and 55 percent from women. (Obama won the U.S. Popular Vote by D+3.86 and carried Ohio by D+2.98. I feel it is 100 percent likely Ohio will once again back the presidential winner of Election 2016.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CobaltBlue (Reply #141)

Sun May 29, 2016, 03:22 PM

148. Agreed. I don't see Trump or any Republican reaching 270 w/out both of those states.

And even with both of those states there's a chance the Republican candidate could still fall short of 270. The electoral map is very favorable to the Democratic candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #148)

Sun May 29, 2016, 04:03 PM

160. Garrett78—Not likely

 

In 2012, Mitt Romney needed about 4 more points nationally (he lost by 3.86 percentage points) to win over the U.S. Popular Vote and, with it, Electoral College.

Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado would have done it for him.

Those are the four biggest bellwether states nowadays. Fla. and Ohio are about a couple points in spread from each other (since 1992, even though they carried differently that year; so you can cite, if you'd prefer, 1996). So, too, are the other pair of Virginia and Colorado (since 1996 they have been no more than a spread of 3.53 percentage points and have carried the same in all five elections of 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012).

A winning Republican and a winning Democrat will get all four to carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CobaltBlue (Reply #160)

Sun May 29, 2016, 04:13 PM

161. No, it's not likely that Clinton can win without either FL or OH.

But it's not impossible. Obama won 332 electoral votes in 2012. Take away Florida and Ohio and he still has more than 270. Of course, that's just hypothetical...in the real world, losing both of those would likely mean he's lost other swing states, as well.

Anyway, the Republican candidate pretty much has to win *both* of those states. Meaning it's a done deal if Clinton wins either one.

Hypothetically, Romney could have picked up 4 more points nationally without necessarily reaching 270. Bigger wins in some of the states he won and winning a state that he didn't win (such as FL or OH) could have given him a popular vote victory without him winning the electoral vote. Increasing his margin of victory in places like Utah and Missouri would have impacted the popular vote but wouldn't have had any impact on the electoral vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #161)

Sun May 29, 2016, 04:53 PM

174. Garrett78—I think we agree

 

F.Y.I. In 2012, Barack Obama was re-elected under historically uncommon circumstances: his electoral-vote score and his popular-vote margin were underperformances of his 2008 results. Usually a second-term re-elected incumbent gains.

In 2012, Mitt Romney shifted only 3.40 of the 7.26 percentage points by which fellow Republican John McCain lost in the U.S. Popular Vote from 2008.

44 states shifted in Romney's direction. There were three 2008 Democratic-carried states which shifted in Obama's direction: Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. But there were also three 2008 Republican-carried states which shifted in Obama's direction: Alaska, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Alaska, home state of McCain v.p., Sarah Palin, stood out: McCain won it by R+21.54. Romney won it by R+13.99. That meant that, while Romney needed to shift +7.27 to win a Republican pickup of the U.S. Popular Vote by at least R+0.01, the state of Alaska actually shifted D+7.55.

All in all, Romney only saw nine states shift by the +7.27 level he needed to win over the popular vote: President Obama's home state Illinois; Indiana (Republican pickup); Missouri; Montana; North Dakota; South Dakota; Utah; West Virginia; and Wyoming.


What was I essentially saying about Florida and Ohio (as well as Virginia and Colorado) is that they are voting close to national outcomes. That's a part of why they are bellwether states. We would have to have a presidential election in which the winner carried the popular vote by no more than a full percentage point (say, 50 to 49 percent) in order for any one of those four states to not carry. Given that Barack Obama won nationally by a margin of nearly D+4, and that the 2000 and 2008 party-flipping presidential elections were national shifts of about +8 and +10, if Donald Trump wins a Republican pickup of the presidency, here in 2016, he will get all four of Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. But, if the White House gets retained by the Democrats, with likely nomination for Hillary Clinton, and the party wins a third consecutive presidential election cycle, Hillary could dip a couple percentage points…but, if the U.S. Senate flips Democratic, that means no Republican pickup of the presidency for Donald Trump, and because a Democratic shift took hold nationally for those U.S. Senate seats, it's likely there would be further Democratic support at the presidential level. In that case, all four of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado would carry for a presidential election-winning Hillary Clinton.


But, again…the Republicans are averaging between 7 to 9 electoral votes per carried state, post-1980s. George W. Bush won 9 electoral votes per carried state in 2000 (he won 30 states for 271 electoral votes) and 2004 (he won 31 states for 286 electoral votes). On this trajectory, the Republicans appear to need to carry 30 states. (Although flipping Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado brings the electoral-vote score to a winning 275. That score divided by 28 states averages 9 electoral votes per carried state.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CobaltBlue (Reply #141)

Sun May 29, 2016, 04:39 PM

170. here is a way, not likely but is in the realm of possibilty

 



Michigan could go for Trump due to auto industry if he plays it right, Nevada could go to Trump due to 2 factors, Sanders people so pissed off they don't vote HRC or vote Trump, and also the gaming ties of Trump

the twin swing states of NC and VA of course would have to go Trump, and also WI and IA and CO, but Clinton still can win FL, OH, and PA and lose

never rule out anything in this insane year

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Reply #170)

Sun May 29, 2016, 04:44 PM

171. I do appreciate your replies in this thread.

And "not likely" is putting it mildly. Romney was born and raised in Michigan and still lost the state by 10 points. And that was before the Flint water crisis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #171)

Sun May 29, 2016, 04:49 PM

172. if Trump is going to win, he will take OH, I doubt he wins MI, and he absolutely needs

 

to win CO, and one or both of VA and NC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Reply #172)

Sun May 29, 2016, 04:54 PM

175. OH+CO+VA+NC alone would't be enough.

Not if FL, WI, MN, et al. remain blue.

This is why the idea of a Trump landslide seems so far-fetched. Just getting him to 270 is a stretch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #175)

Sun May 29, 2016, 05:27 PM

185. agreed, if all the states you listed went that way Clinton wins 276-262, flip just WI TRump wins 272

 

to 266. Thats really hard to see happening, AND all thats is giving Trump NV, NH and both NC and VA

gun to my head atm


this is what I see, provided no indictment or rec for indictment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Reply #185)

Sun May 29, 2016, 05:30 PM

186. Make Florida blue and I pretty much agree.

Maybe NC, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #186)

Sun May 29, 2016, 05:35 PM

188. you and I are basically in agreement, NC and FL were my 2 hardest to give to Trump

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Reply #188)

Sun May 29, 2016, 05:45 PM

190. Some other possibilities:

Iowa, Georgia, Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #190)

Sun May 29, 2016, 05:52 PM

192. If those go Blue we are looking at 1984 in reverse

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Reply #192)

Sun May 29, 2016, 05:55 PM

193. I wouldn't bet on it due to Clinton being so polarizing but it's not out of the realm of possibility

I'll put it this way, a Clinton landslide is far more likely than a Trump landslide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Reply #170)

Sun May 29, 2016, 05:16 PM

184. AntiBank—No. Think of states' estimated partisan identifications

 

Bellwether states Florida and Ohio have a slight Republican tilt within their bellwether status. (Just as, with 2008 and 2012, Colorado and Iowa are a couple points titled Democratic. And Nevada, which has voted for every winner since 1912, except in 1976, is also a bellwether state which had even more Democratic tilt than Colorado and Iowa over both 2008 and 2012.)

Ohio, due to the fact that its gender votes matched President Obama's national numbers with re-election in 2012 (45 percent from males; 55 percent from females), is 100 percent likely going to go to the 2016 winner as well…but very close to the national margin.

Florida is about two points more Republican than Ohio.

Virginia did the best job of coming closest to matching the national margins of both 2008 and 2012—the quintessential ideal of a bellwether state which carries for winners and reflects where the nation is at. And Colorado and Iowa were no more than 0.59 in spread from each other in both 2008 and 2012—and they tilted Democratic in both cycles. (Colorado was an extra +1.50 in 2012. In 2008, it was an extra +1.69.)

Michigan has more level of blue to it than it's best companion state, Pennsylvania.

They have only disagreed five times since the younger of the two, Michigan, first voted in 1836. Three of those cycles had a Pennsylvanian or Michigander as a major-party home state nominee who did not carry the other state: 1848 (Democratic nominee Lewis Cass of Michigan), 1856 (Democratic winner James Buchanan of Pennsylvania), and 1976 (unseated and never elected Republican president Gerald Ford of Michigan) . From the remaining two cycles, they happened during Democratic pickup winner Franklin Roosevelt's four elections: In 1932, he won over Michigan but Pennsylvania was one of the six states the unseated Republican president Herbert Hoover managed to hold. In 1940, losing challenger Wendell Wilkie won a Republican pickup of Michigan while re-elected Roosevelt held Pennsylvania.

Nowadays, Michigan is about +5 or +6 above national margins. Pennsylvania varies between +1.50 and +5. The Republican win of the popular vote for George W. Bush, in 2004, left a spread of about +5 between Pa. and the nation (while Mich. was +6). Between those two states, if another split happens, in which they carry differently, it would be Pa. which colors red while Mich. colors blue.

With Wisconsin, its Democratic advantage with 2008 and 2012 is between +3 and +6. A winning Republican would have to get the popular vote by +3 in order to maybe carry Wisconsin. Maybe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CobaltBlue (Reply #184)

Sun May 29, 2016, 05:40 PM

189. yes, I agree, I was just posting basically the only theoretical way it could happen, I give it less

 

than 1% chance of happening

I see Clinton winning



and possibly NC and FL too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:10 PM

3. CNN had a map on this morning... In addition to FL, also VA and MI and CA, couldn't make out the

rest before they changed the visual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #3)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:12 PM

5. Trump's going to win CA?

If you can find a link, I'd love to see it.

Anyway, I'm asking posters here at DU what blue states and swing states they think Trump will win. What say ye?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to JudyM (Reply #8)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:34 PM

13. That piece is about where Trump thinks he can win. I'm not asking what Trump thinks.

Many on DU have suggested that Trump will beat Clinton with ease, so I'm asking which blue states and which swing states those folks foresee Trump winning. This shouldn't be a difficult task.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #13)

Sun May 29, 2016, 05:15 PM

183. The folks who think Trump is going to win...

Are going by the (meaningless) national poll that says Trump is in a dead heat or slightly ahead.

Mostly it's sour grapes because the folks can cite some other national poll that puts Bernie at a slight advantage over Trump.

You're fishing for intelligent responses in a pool unequipped to respond.

Thanks for providing good information though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #183)

Sun May 29, 2016, 05:33 PM

187. Yeah, hypothetical general election match-up polls are historically worthless.

I have, though, gotten some reasonably intelligent responses. I disagree with most of them, but I knew I would going in...since I think Clinton will win. I was, though, genuinely curious which blue states and which swing states the "Trump will win" folks foresee Trump winning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #187)

Mon May 30, 2016, 07:58 AM

203. I think Trump is going to lose red states...

This is a big election because the tea party senators (that won in 2010) are up for reelection. If the party leaders would quit begging for money and start pointing out what the tea party did and didn't do, and compare that to what the democratic controlled government accomplished in 2009, we could even take over the house.

Trump is perfect (as the republican candidate) because he personifies exactly what is wrong with the country right now (different set of rules for the wealthy). Those differences need to be pointed out repeatedly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #203)

Mon May 30, 2016, 02:35 PM

206. I think that's certainly more likely than Clinton losing blue states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #8)

Sun May 29, 2016, 02:30 PM

137. Did you even read that- it is hilarious. Trump is full

 

Of shit and full on delusional- and here you are carrying water for him. Pretending that was anything CNN projected is bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #137)

Sun May 29, 2016, 02:44 PM

139. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #8)

Sun May 29, 2016, 03:41 PM

153. The left coast will

Stay sapphire blue.
CA. WA.OR. for Trump will not ever happen. We in WA voted for Dukakis for God's sake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #153)

Sun May 29, 2016, 05:47 PM

191. Oregon

Hate to rain on your parade but the most recent Oregon poll had HRC up by only 2 points over Trump. This is Oregon!! This should be the canary in the mine shaft - we are in trouble. And something drastic has to happen.

I would have given HRC a much better chance before the IG report emerged. She polls horribly for trustworthiness and the IG report I think will see her sink further. As much as I would like a Democrat to win, I don't think it will be easy as many think.

I think the once reliable blue states of New Hampshire, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico will be in play. Slight favor to the Dems due to history, but HRC is weakened by the IG report. If the FBI report is similar, even without an indictment, I think the game will be over.

I think Virginia and North Carolina will turn Red. Ohio, Florida and Colorado will favor the Pugs, but winnable. We cannot hope that Trump will implode - he may be many things, but he is very skilled at reading a crowd and saying what they want to hear.

Trump holds some very interesting foreign policy views - he's basically an isolationist. I think there is a large block of voters this will appeal to. I think there are many voters who are tired of the "wars" we have been engaged in and want it to stop.

For victory in November, HRC must unite the Democratic party - tough challenge given the primary; and I'm talking about just the lifelong Dems that supported Bernie this time. HRC is not a natural politician. She is rather stiff when speaking and she has a condescending tone when she is challenged. She is not the natural charismatic politician Bill or Barrack are and it will be hard to charm the party together as has been done in the past.

More importantly HRC MUST win the Independents that supported Bernie in the primaries and then some. Without the Independents we cannot win. There will be no favorable map to the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #5)

Sun May 29, 2016, 02:58 PM

142. [ Never mind. ]

 

I was going to mention the same link. (Never mind.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CobaltBlue (Reply #142)

Sun May 29, 2016, 03:00 PM

143. See posts #8, #13 and #137.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #3)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:14 PM

7. Do you think Trump is going to win California?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #7)

Sun May 29, 2016, 06:02 PM

195. No*

If the election were today, I think he will make it closer than I like, but I hope to all that is good in the world he cannot pull off that coup.

If there is an indictment - very likely. We would loose the Independents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #3)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:49 PM

25. Trump won't be winning California, that isn't even a remote possibility.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to braddy (Reply #25)

Sun May 29, 2016, 04:58 PM

177. braddy—It would take a landslide in the U.S. Popular Vote

 

A Republican winning California would require a landslide in the U.S. Popular Vote close to +15 (say, 57 to 42 percent). No Republican presidential candidate has reached that level since Ronald Reagan's +18.21 and 49 states, for 525 electoral votes, back in 1984.

California has moved far from the Republicans. It is the opposite of Texas, which would also require a Democratic to win nationally by about +15 (again, that would be an estimate of 57 to 42 percent) in order for that winning Democrat to be able to carry Texas.

None of this impossible. The scenarios are highly unlikely. If a winning Republican or a winning Democrat were to manage to pull in the other's turf…it's because that winning Republican or Democrat won 40 states and more than 400 electoral votes in an epic landslide (which happened to pull in a host of states which are normally carried by the opposition party).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CobaltBlue (Reply #177)

Sun May 29, 2016, 05:00 PM

178. Under current demographic shifts, Texas will flip before California does.

Unless the Republican Party changes its ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #178)


Response to CobaltBlue (Reply #177)

Sun May 29, 2016, 06:07 PM

196. We have Pete Wilson to thank....

he and the Republican legislature single handily galvanized the minority vote for the Democrats. Case closed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:24 PM

9. I could see her losing

Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ibegurpard (Reply #9)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:38 PM

16. Thanks for your response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ibegurpard (Reply #9)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:52 PM

26. And VA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:26 PM

10. You could use the google

 

and answer that question for yourself and what states they intend to target. Yes, use the google, the answer is out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #10)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:37 PM

14. Google won't tell me why DU posters think what they think.

I'm asking DU posters a very straightforward question. Since many here believe Trump will win (with ease) in November, I'd like to know which blue states and which swing states those folks foresee Trump winning.

It's an honest question, and one that should be easy to answer. After all, there are only so many swing states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #14)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:38 PM

17. I amgiving you an answer

 

and this race I would not discount any of what Trump intends to target coming true.

My record is pretty good. I said he would be the nominee, and took him seriously now a year ago. You guys keep dismissing him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #17)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:42 PM

19. But you aren't answering. It's not a gotcha question. It's very straightforward.

While I'm of the opinion that Clinton is likely to become the next POTUS, I'm simply wanting to know which blue states and which swing states others foresee Trump winning.

Obviously most states will be targeted, and swing states will be a focal point. That's a given. I'm asking you to use your "pretty good record" to take a stab at predicting which blue states and which swing states you think Trump will win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #19)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:52 PM

27. I gave you an answer

 

use the google, His strategy is on the web

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #27)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:57 PM

31. I'm not asking about anyone's strategy.

We already know every swing state and some borderline states will be targeted by both candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #31)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:58 PM

32. And I already told you that the dynamics this year

 

make it very hard to make any predictions, But if you think he cannot get the full enchilada I have a bridge for sale

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #32)

Sat May 28, 2016, 06:06 PM

39. It may be hard, but it's not impossible. It's just a prediction, not a sworn affidavit.

Anyway, I don't think it's especially hard. I think Clinton will win the 19 states (plus DC) that have been won by the Democratic candidate in each of the last 6 presidential elections, in addition to most swing states.

But if you don't want to answer, you don't have to, of course. I was just hoping you might.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #39)

Sat May 28, 2016, 06:09 PM

41. My prediction was that he woudl be the nominee and could get the full enchilada

 

there are a few not very conventional routes that they will go for, and might very well work

The Dems are committing suicide, partly becuase they have YET to take this man seriously, and we will pay for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #41)

Sat May 28, 2016, 06:19 PM

43. "Not very conventional routes" implies this is more complicated than it really is.

There really aren't very many swing states, and the demographics are well known.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #43)

Sat May 28, 2016, 06:21 PM

44. Continue to think this is a normal year

 

have a good day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #43)

Sun May 29, 2016, 07:37 AM

76. When someone dodges a simple, straightforward question

 

over and over, coming up with a new excuse every time, you know they're full of shit, and you know THEY know they're full of shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #76)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:07 PM

123. Yep. But some managed to answer my question, so that's good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #76)

Sun May 29, 2016, 04:28 PM

166. Or some of us are tired of warning

 

Of the danger ahead. This is not a fucking normal election. Keep underestimating Trump. Historians and myself will blame your party for it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #166)

Sun May 29, 2016, 05:05 PM

180. Warn all you want

 

but claims have to be backed up with evidence in the world that sane, sensible people inhabit. If you can't produce it, despite being asked for it multiple times, don't be surprised if people dismiss your claims as raving, unsubstantiated bullshit. You want to persuade people? Put up or shut the fuck up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #180)

Sun May 29, 2016, 05:07 PM

181. Mic drop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #180)

Sun May 29, 2016, 05:07 PM

182. After more than a few conversations

 

Partisans are unable to see the tip of their noses. The problem is that we get to pay for your idiocy...for the record, both national parties. So spare me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #19)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:53 PM

29. If you don't like what people are posting in this link why don't you put up a poll. That will limit

the responses for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #29)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:59 PM

34. The question isn't really suited for a poll.

A few folks have answered my straightforward question with a relevant answer, and I appreciate those responses. It's not a trick question. Which swing states and which blue states do folks foresee Trump winning. Simple as that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #19)

Sat May 28, 2016, 06:32 PM

47. Ohio, Florida. and maybe New Jersey and Michigan

 

Blue collar could be a problem for Hillary. I don't think he will take Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia or California.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #19)

Sun May 29, 2016, 03:46 PM

155. Honestly

The only 2 he may get close in is PA and MI. Only because I know I have loony right-wing relatives in Pennsylvania but we could also pick up Arizona and Georgia so I think the map stays the same and you have to Discount whatever Trump says because he's a delusional Pig.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #17)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:11 PM

58. Many keep dismissing Trump, yet he keeps winning. Trump, is not a politician, he's

a ruthless businessman. IMO many are not seeing him for what he is. The establishments do not know how to deal with Trump. He makes his own rules and executes them. And Trump put the republican party under his rule, they have no control of him. The democrats had best be very leery, very leery indeed. The old game well might not work with Trump. I've very concerned about Nov. 2016, as I know are many.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #58)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:20 PM

63. I am going to use the word I have used in the past

 

the Donald is a Fascist. Not quite the Hitler kind, but he is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #58)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:31 PM

66. Trump is a monster of the Republican Party's making.

And I think his success says more about the state of the Republican Party than anything else. It's one giant clown car.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #58)

Sun May 29, 2016, 07:44 AM

77. Well, but winning against who?

 

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and others just as fucked-up as he is? Kasich is the only person he's run against with even a glimmer of sanity or intelligence. Being the most appealing of that group to the people who are shit-baggy enough to think that they're wonderful is a long way from being a favorite in the GE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #77)

Sun May 29, 2016, 07:52 AM

82. Agree. The game changes after those 16

or so GOP aspirants are out of the picture.

The general election demographics are extremely unfavorable for Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #77)

Sun May 29, 2016, 09:34 AM

87. Kasich, was IMO the most sane one of the group from outward appearances. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #58)

Sun May 29, 2016, 07:49 AM

81. Trump's wins have been in the Republican

primaries. His competition was made up of 16 or so other Republicans, all of them very deeply flawed candidates, and all of them saying whatever it took to get the crazyasses in the GOP base to swoon.

Santorum, Perry, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz.

A couple were just marginal nobodies with no chance whatsoever to begin with -- Pataki, Gilmore.

Trump was able to bully the whole pack and now he stands alone having vanquished said crazyasses and nobodies.

If he accepts the nomination in Cleveland, he enters an entirely different arena of competition. The electorate is not the insane GOP base, but a wide and diverse demographic, one for which Trump is extremely ill-suited as a representative.

Yes, Trump kept winning the Republican primaries. But those players aren't the same as the players in a general election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saltpoint (Reply #81)

Sun May 29, 2016, 09:52 AM

90. Definitely!!! My hunch is he will look/act/sound like an absolute fool in the GE, a fish out of

water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #90)

Sun May 29, 2016, 09:56 AM

91. I'm on board with that, RKP5637, and I'm

looking forward to Trump falling flat on his face between the Pukes' convention in Cleveland and his crushing defeat in November.

He's too isolative to be as egotistical as he is. Now that he's out in the exposed daylight a lot more, his flaws will become increasingly apparent. There are high school kids with more personal maturity than Donald Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saltpoint (Reply #91)

Sun May 29, 2016, 10:23 AM

93. Also, he's used to generally holding/pulling all the strings and having those at his beckon

call to give orders too. In short, he's like an arrogant CEO who uses aggression and a paycheck to push others around, used to screaming all day/night long. A GE and also running a country is totally different, millions/billions are not beholding to you. And, he will find in the GE millions are not lackeys/guppies and do not share his political ideologies as a captured group. He's already turned millions off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #93)

Sun May 29, 2016, 10:28 AM

94. Bam. You are nailing the lad at all extremities.

You have probably already seen this, but just in case, The Atlantic's June issue had this about "The Mind of Donald Trump":

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saltpoint (Reply #94)

Sun May 29, 2016, 10:32 AM

95. Thanks for the link! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saltpoint (Reply #94)

Sun May 29, 2016, 03:51 PM

156. That shouldn't be an article

A cartoon would suffice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saltpoint (Reply #81)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:30 PM

100. Yep, Trump's success says more about the state of the Republican Party than anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #100)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:59 PM

116. Agree, Garrett. And what it's

saying about them ain't real purty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:29 PM

11. Well, the people in this country were dumb enough to put in ...

Bush, Reagan, LittleBoots, Nixon (while Watergate was ongoing no less!) etc.


Never overestimate the American public, they have frequently gone to the dark side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ebayfool (Reply #11)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:37 PM

15. Demographics are much different today.

If you're one who believes Trump will become the next POTUS, which blue states and which swing states do you foresee him winning?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #15)

Sat May 28, 2016, 06:11 PM

42. Of which states - I have not a clue! My response is based on people in general.

By all rights, if voters in this country had half a brain Trump would never gotten as far as he has now. I live in Calif and it's downright shameful how many TrumpHumping bumperstickers I see when I step out. These are the same dolts that voted for Awnald, fer-gawds-sake!

Demographics are not my field nor forte. But I'm rarely let down by believing the average American voter is clueless about WHY they vote for someone. Which means I hope for better but am not surprised by lesser. Obama was one of those supremely pleasant surprises - I don't put money on 2 surprises in a row. Will be tickled and buying lottery tickets if it happens!

Purely unscientific, I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ebayfool (Reply #42)

Sat May 28, 2016, 06:24 PM

45. That Trump has any support at all is certainly disheartening, if not surprising.

But I don't think this issue is as complicated as some make it out to be. Nate Silver got a lot of press for getting 49 of 50 states correct in 2008, but I think almost any political junkie can have a very high rate of success. There simply aren't very many swing states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ebayfool (Reply #42)

Sun May 29, 2016, 03:32 PM

150. ebayfool—Lots of people aren't familiar with the map (and they don't need to be). But…

 

I went ahead and responded with numerous answers.

I am curious as to which county you are living in in the state of California.

To me, a big county which stands out is Orange County (Santa Ana).

According to Wikipedia.org, Orange County, California is, "As of the 2010 census, the population was 3,010,232[5] making it the third-most populous county in California, the sixth-most populous in the United States, and more populous than twenty-one U.S. states."

When Lyndon Johnson landslided Barry Goldwater by +22.58 percentage points, winning about 61 percent of the vote in the U.S. Popular Vote, and 44 states plus District of Columbia, for 486 electoral votes, Orange County actually carried for Goldwater.

At the presidential level, it is a notoriously Republican-voting country.

Orange County hasn't carried for a Democrat, at the presidential level, since Franklin Roosevelt won 46 (of a then-48) states and 523 (of a then-531) electoral votes with his second-term re-election back in 1936.

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_County,_California

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CobaltBlue (Reply #150)

Sun May 29, 2016, 04:51 PM

173. You sure did! I enjoyed the read, as well!

I do hesitate putting down my location - last time I did that I had a very imperious nose turned up (yes, a DUer!) because it's famously called the armpit of Calif. She informed me that if I did not move to another area, no matter the finances or family involved, that I was basically trash. No loss there, she was not what I would call a friend - but it rankled a bit.

Oh well. Kern County. Bakersfield, specifically. Think a piece of Texas plunked down smack in the middle of the state!

Pure GOP country, when most are not served well by that loyalty. The poverty and unemployment rates are through the roof, with a swath of scared low-middle classers hanging on for dear life and pointing the finger at the swath of poor, unemployable or farm workers slowing losing what little ground they stand on. With a few pockets of well off and self-entitled snots that think their bankbooks prove their superior worth on the planet. Why would I leave a paradise like that, huh?!

on edit: Ha! I'd forgotten another DUer said knowing where I was from, they would suspect me of being a troll! 2005. I told 'em I would too! Now that is red country!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ebayfool (Reply #173)

Sun May 29, 2016, 06:52 PM

199. ebayfool—Thank you for mentioning your county. (I'll tell you mine—and I have more to say….)

 

Thank you, ebayfool!

Taking this into account…

Kern County, California, with its county seat Bakersfield, hasn't carried for a Democratic presidential nominee since 1964 for Lyndon Johnson. (LBJ won the U.S. Popular Vote by D+22.58. He carried California by D+19.68. Back then, with the Old Confederacy states the base for the Democrats, numerous of today's Democratic base states were base states for Republicans. So, LBJ underperformed his margin from winning a Democratic pickup that year from California versus his national result.)

According to Wikipedia.org:

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kern_County,_California

The county has had around 200,000 votes for cast for president of the United States in recent election cycles. It looks to me, looking at the 1930s and 1940s Democratic carriage of Kern County, like it voted like the Confederacy States in terms of its Democratic margins. In the 1950s and 1960s, it voted close to statewide and/or nationwide results. But, after the 1960s, Kern County trended Republican. And that it is voting like some Confederacy States—with strong Republican identification. In 2008 and 2012, Kern County was about +40 percentage points in its Republican tilt. (President Obama won the state of California by more than +20 each time. And that is where Kent County performed in carrying for losing Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney over those two election cycles. So, yeah, that means that Kent County is one hell of a Republican stronghold. A Democrat would have to win about 69 percent of the vote statewide, at the presidential level, in order to manage to pull in Kern County. (Obama received 60.92 and 60.16, respectively, of the California vote in 2008 and 2012.)



By the way: (Thanks for letting me know your county. The detail that is too private, and I don't recommend sharing, is one's congressional district. That can more carefully pinpoint one's location. I don't recommend sharing that in public.) I am in Wayne County, Michigan, with its county seat Detroit. With the Democratic realigning election of Franklin Roosevelt, in 1932, my county hasn't carried for a Republican since Herbert Hoover in 1928. (Back then, the Republicans' base states included Michigan. Michigan had voted for all winning Republicans from the party's first nominee, John Fremont, in 1856 right through to Herbert Hoover in 1928, along the way with one exception—Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party run in 1912. Michigan was one of six states that carry for Progressive Teddy—along with California, Minnesota, Pennsylvania. South Dakota, and the state of Washington.)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ebayfool (Reply #11)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:47 PM

21. With today's demographics Bush Pere and George W Bush loses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #21)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:08 PM

54. Yeah, I think some underestimate how favorable the electoral map is for Dems these days.

Demographics, demographics, demographics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #54)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:20 PM

62. I don't want to get cocky but it looks like Trump will need > 65% of the white vote to win.

Only Nixon in 72 and St. Ronnie in 84 ever reached that rarefied territory.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #62)

Sat May 28, 2016, 11:56 PM

70. Romney got 59% of the white vote and still won just 206 electoral college votes.

At some point, the Republican Party has to be less obvious with its bigotry if it wants to win another presidential election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #21)

Sun May 29, 2016, 07:45 AM

78. Hillary has a huge problem with male voters who see her as corrupt.

 

in 2012, Romney beat Obama among male voters by 8 points. He lost with female voters by 12 points. According to a recent Fox News poll (yeah, I know) Trump has a 14 point deficit among female voters but a staggering 22 point lead among men.

This translates into millions of votes.

Additionally, if he makes gains among minority voters by just a couple of points over Romney, again, millions of votes.

So while changing demographics do favor Democrats, it won't take much to flip a few battleground states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EL34x4 (Reply #78)

Sun May 29, 2016, 08:32 AM

83. The magic number is > 65% of the white vote. Everything else is commentary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #83)

Sun May 29, 2016, 08:57 AM

84. If the same voter who voted GOP in 2014

 

Voted for Romney in 2012, Romney would've won.

Anyhow, it's a moot point. People are still trying to apply the old rules, old demographics and alliances to this election.

This election will be nothing like I've ever seen in my 47 years. On one hand, you have Hillary Clinton, perhaps the most polarizing figure in modern politics. Think Republican voters didn't like Obama? Nothing compares to the white hot loathing they hold for Hillary. On the other hand, you have Trump, a political novice running a populist, nationalist campaign that largely ignores the social issues of God, gays, guns and abortion (issues Republicans used to lock up the evangelical south and ensured the liberal coastal areas remained solidly blue).

Nobody knows where we are going here but one thing we do know is that the rules of past elections do not apply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EL34x4 (Reply #84)

Sun May 29, 2016, 09:02 AM

85. You can't compare mid term participation with presidential election participation because

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #85)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:45 PM

106. Not to mention the mid-terms don't involve national candidates.

They involve gerrymandered districts and statewide (Senate) races. When discussing a national campaign and US demographics, it's a whole other ball of wax. Plus, the party in the White House often suffers losses during mid-terms.

And the idea that Trump might do better than Romney among POC and women is, I think, pure fantasy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #106)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:50 PM

110. Presidential election electorates are much larger and heterogeneous than mid term electorates.

That's Poli Sci 101 stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:30 PM

12. Good questions

 

I do not know or care. I just know that I, personally, will never cast a vote for Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #12)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:18 PM

60. The Republicans thank you for your (non)vote.

They are banking on people like you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #60)

Sun May 29, 2016, 10:32 AM

96. Oh, I will not be a non vote.

 

I will vote, just not for any Republicans ir Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #96)

Sun May 29, 2016, 10:57 AM

99. Ahh. No matter. The result is the same.

The Republicans will appreciate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:40 PM

18. Trump might win California. Schwarzenegger did.

 

The only Repub in 20 years to win statewide office in California was a celebrity, just like Trump.

People who are sick of the current system might be willing to go with a Reality TV star rather than return the married couple who left the White House 16 years ago. I would not be surprised to see it happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #18)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:47 PM

22. A Californian won a race for governor via a recall election.

We're talking about a race for POTUS and a state that the Democratic candidate won by 23 points in the last presidential election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #18)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:48 PM

23. Schwarzenegger courted Hispanics here. He didn't call them rapists , murderers , and drug dealers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:43 PM

20. Indiana. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Contrary1 (Reply #20)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:49 PM

24. Anywhere else?

I only ask because I'm asking those who think Trump will reach 270+ electoral college votes. Winning Indiana wouldn't do the trick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Contrary1 (Reply #20)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:55 PM

30. Indiana

is a very reliable red state:

http://www.270towin.com/states/Indiana

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #30)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:59 PM

36. Yeah, as I wrote above, Indiana wouldn't cut it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:53 PM

28. Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, probably Missouri, Virginia as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yourout (Reply #28)

Sat May 28, 2016, 06:01 PM

37. Well, that would certainly do the trick, assuming the red states stay red.

I don't see Trump winning most of those, but I appreciate your response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yourout (Reply #28)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:03 PM

119. I would add

Indiana and Florida to that list. Any state the Obama won by 5 points or less I'd say are in play. I think he will lose Az and NV solidly. His target will be the upper Midwest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:58 PM

33. Quite a brain teaser I suspect. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #33)

Sat May 28, 2016, 07:02 PM

49. To their credit, quite a few have, in fact, put forth answers.

Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin seem to be popular responses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #49)

Sun May 29, 2016, 07:47 AM

80. But none that has dared to answer

 

has provided any evidence, either polling or otherwise, to show that Trump is a real threat to win the "swing" states they mention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #80)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:06 PM

121. No, but evidence isn't a big priority on DU.

I was just happy to get the responses I got. Well, those that actually addressed my question, that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:59 PM

35. To think this contest is in the bag

would be foolhardy considering the "consensus" was that Trump wouldn't even get the nomination. Well he did, so I don't have much confidence in those same people, who got it so wrong then, actually knowing what they're talking about now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pmorlan1 (Reply #35)

Sat May 28, 2016, 06:02 PM

38. Okay, but do you have an answer to my question?

Which blue states and which swing states do you foresee Trump winning?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #38)

Sat May 28, 2016, 06:06 PM

40. Nope

That's all I wanted to say. Carry on with your science project.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 06:29 PM

46. Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia, PA, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, etc...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #46)

Sat May 28, 2016, 06:36 PM

48. Wowzer.

That would certainly win it for Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #46)

Sun May 29, 2016, 03:55 PM

157. OK you think trump gets a 50

State sweep. Wow. Hillary hatred knows no bounds in DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #157)

Sun May 29, 2016, 03:57 PM

159. That was my thought, but at least he put forth an honest answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 09:59 PM

50. The argument is Romney + FL, PA, and MI (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #50)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:07 PM

52. Those are popular answers in this thread.

Romney was born and raised in Michigan and still lost the state by 10 points. And I don't think Republicans are terribly popular in Michigan right now with the Flint crisis going on.

Pennsylvania is another one of those states that I have a hard time seeing Clinton lose.

Anyway, thanks for the response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #52)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:08 PM

53. I agree it's a longshot but he's unpredictable (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:05 PM

51. I'm in the Trump Will Lose camp.

The demographics are strongly aligned against him. He is antagonistic and hostile to the major constituencies that comprise an electoral college majority. He doesn't seem to have one veteran staffer running his campaign. He's poorly spoken. And more than a bit of a horse's ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saltpoint (Reply #51)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:10 PM

55. Yeah, he actually makes Dubya seem articulate and nuanced.

That's quite the accomplishment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #55)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:11 PM

57. True. I thought Dubya was the pure dregs until

this guy walked onto the Pukes' debate stage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saltpoint (Reply #51)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:19 PM

61. Imagine meeting up with an arrogant braggart like him at a party.

You wouldn't be able to get away fast enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #61)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:22 PM

64. LOL. Yep. I'd be looking around

for the nearest exit, no question.

There are so many other people who had money who didn't act like Donald Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:11 PM

56. Outside of the DU bubble, there was a pretty broad consensus...

... Trump couldn't possibly win the GOP nomination. No way in Hell. Impossible.

They were dead fucking wrong.

History repeats itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #56)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:27 PM

65. Which blue states and which swing states do you think he'll win?

I think his success says more about the state of the Republican Party than anything else. He's a monster of their making.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #65)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:33 PM

67. Doesn't matter.

I claim no expertise in predicting such things. But what I do know for damn sure, is that those who do claim that expertise don't know what the fuck they are talking about in this cycle. Every damn one of them does NOT even begin to fathom just how PISSED OFF We the People are.

Watch and learn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #67)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:42 PM

69. Different people are pissed off for different reasons. And have been or years.

The Democratic Party base is obviously more okay with an establishment candidate than the Republican Party base is, and that's largely the result of the Republican Party establishment having gone batsh*t crazy. They planted the seeds for Trump's rise. You reap what you sow.

There's a reason why many Republicans are pissed off that Trump is the presumptive nominee. Simply put, they don't think he stands a snowball's chance in hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #69)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:21 AM

71. Been hearing that since Trump announced.

How'd that work out so far?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #71)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:27 AM

72. Again, him winning the nomination says a lot about the Republican Party.

It doesn't say anything about his ability to reach 270 electoral college votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #72)

Sun May 29, 2016, 07:18 AM

73. Actually it does.

It not my desire to convince you nor do I much care if you acknowledge it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #73)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:32 PM

101. How does him winning the Clown Car Battle speak to his chances in November?

The US is becoming less and less white. How do you think Trump will do among non-white males?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #101)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:43 PM

105. Trump isn't facing a very likely indictment(s) at end of several ongoing FBI investigations.

How Trump will do among non-white males means jackshit to me, I wouldn't vote for that asshat if every person of color in the Nation support him or despise him. But I'll gawddamned if I'll vote for the other corrupt corporate tool either. And I'm far from alone. Deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #105)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:46 PM

107. But how he does among non-white males is key to this whole discussion.

Clinton's been a target for decades, and not much has stuck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #107)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:52 PM

112. No, actually it isn't.

What's "key" to "this discussion" is the American voters almost universal distrust of all things Clinton.

Go ahead, pretend it ain't so. Matters not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #112)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:00 PM

117. Yet you can't say which blue/swing states you think Trump will win.

If you're so confident, you shouldn't shy away from predicting in which states Trump will pull an upset.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #117)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:07 PM

122. We already went down that road.

Ain't my fucking job, pal.

You've now made the jump into badgeringly boring.

Bye bye, off to Ignore with you. Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #122)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:32 PM

129. I didn't say it was your job. But it was the point of this thread.

It was a straightforward, simple question. Your non-answer speaks volumes. Thanks for playing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #72)

Sun May 29, 2016, 09:49 AM

89. He (and Bernie)

seem to be responsible for record amounts of new voters voting in the Primaries.
If he has been able to bring out so many new voters why does the Republican Party matter?

I don't know if they are independents, or just unaffiliated voters that never bothered to vote before?

I see Trump campaigning as the populist vs the establishment (Clinton). Will that work, I'm not sure but there seems to be a lot of working class resentment piling up that may not stick with Dem vs Repub this year? It seems to be the year of the outsider, and he certainly fits that mold. Will it last? I'm not sure of that either, but with Bernie out (or almost out) how does Clinton harness the enthusiasm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:15 PM

59. Whether he wins or loses depends mostly on whether

Last edited Sun May 29, 2016, 01:58 AM - Edit history (1)

Hillary's unfavorables continue to increase at a rate faster than Trump's.

I dont yet have any idea which states that could most impact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #59)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:36 PM

68. 19 states (plus DC) have been won by the Dem candidate in 6 straight presidential elections.

I don't see that streak ending just because of a high unfavorable rating (mostly attributed to Republicans and others who likely don't ever vote Dem).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #68)

Sun May 29, 2016, 03:08 PM

146. Garrett78—Make that 18 (not 19) states.

 

The 18 states Democrats have carried in every presidential election since after the 1980s are:

01. California

02. Connecticut

03. Delaware

04. Hawaii

05. Illinois

06. Maine

07. Maryland

08. Massachusetts

09. Michigan

10. Minnesota

11. New Jersey

12. New York

13. Oregon

14. Pennsylvania

15. Rhode Island

16. Vermont

17. Washington

18. Wisconsin


(You may have been thinking of New Hampshire.)

Those 18 states, plus District of Columbia (which first voted in 1964 and is the most overwhelmingly Democratic area of the nation), add up to 242 electoral votes. They are worth 89.62 percent of the 270 electoral votes needed to win election (and re-election) to the presidency of the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CobaltBlue (Reply #146)

Sun May 29, 2016, 03:31 PM

149. It seems WaPo had it wrong.

I was going by this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/02/republicans-have-a-massive-electoral-map-problem-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-donald-trump/

Anyway, the more important point is that it totals 242. And doesn't include quite a few states that could easily be won by Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #149)

Sun May 29, 2016, 03:45 PM

154. Garrett78—It was in his phrasing.

 

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, in that May 2, 2016 report, wrote, "Because if Clinton wins Florida and carries the 19 states (plus D.C.) that have voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in each of the last six elections, she will be the 45th president."

The chart included in that article listed non-state District of Columbia and correctly stated that they add up 242 electoral votes. It may have been Cillizza. It may have been a Post editor.

F.Y.I. I mentioned elsewhere that, post-1980s, Republican presidential candidates have carried between 7 to 9 electoral votes on average of each carried state. (For two-term George W. Bush, it was 9 in both 2000 and 2004.) The Democrats have carried between 10 and 13 electoral votes on average of each carried state. (For a 1992 Bill Clinton, he won 32 states and District of Columbia for 370 electoral votes to average out to 10 electoral votes per carried state. For a losing 2004 John Kerry, he won 18 states and District of Columbia for 252 mathematical electoral votes, revised to 251 over a faithless elector, to average 13 electoral votes per carried state.)

So, the Republicans are at roughly 50 percent a disadvantage to the Democrats as is the inverse that Democrats are at about a 50 percent advantage over the Republicans with stringing together winning Electoral College maps.

I think it's because Nixon's Southern strategy set the Republicans on a limited path as was the case with the Democrats when their base of support were the states of the Old Confederacy. (Look at old maps on a reliable website. You see that California has been carried by presidential winners much more than Texas has. And, while they rank as the Nos. 1 and 2 most-populous states, they are close in age.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CobaltBlue (Reply #154)

Sun May 29, 2016, 03:55 PM

158. Yeah it obviously should have said 18 (plus DC). Oh well.

It's about demographics and the increasingly extremist viewpoints pushed by the Republican Party. The US is becoming less and less white, while the Democratic Party is becoming more and more diverse. No Democratic candidate for POTUS has won the white vote since LBJ. That didn't keep Carter from winning, Clinton winning twice, and Obama winning twice. And both Gore and Kerry came damn close. No telling what would have happened if RFK hadn't been killed.

And this year we have an election that features someone who is especially hostile to persons of color and women.

At the district and state level, Republicans can maintain power (especially with the help of gerrymandering), but on a national scale they'll have to stop pissing off POC and women if they have any hope of winning back the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 07:26 AM

74. I think there is a very good chance he'll win in my state, New Hampshire.

Trump is a bizarre, Teflon candidate. He should have been gone when he made the McCain crack way back when. I know I've seen Trump signs up for months, but I have yet to see a Hillary sign (lots of Bernie stickers, though) in New Hampshire. I spotted one in Vermont the other day, though. But there's also a Trump sign on the same street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #74)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:49 PM

108. Which other blue states and which swing states do you think he'll win?

Because New Hampshire alone won't cut it obviously.

Throughout this campaign, posters have brought up how they see lots more Sanders signs and stickers, yet Clinton has gotten more votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #108)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:56 PM

133. I think he has a chance for Ohio and Florida.

Apparently he intends to target some blue states, too, such as New York. It's more than a little scary. You have to hope mainstream Republicans will vote for the Democrat or Libertarian in the privacy of the voting booth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #133)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:58 PM

136. Florida and Ohio are crucial.

The Republican candidate has virtually no shot at 270 without winning *both* Florida and Ohio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #136)

Sun May 29, 2016, 03:01 PM

144. Quite honestly, I think our only hope is the Libertarians splitting the vote on the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #144)

Sun May 29, 2016, 03:38 PM

152. I don't see any 3rd party candidate impacting the result in any of the states.

I don't think Stein will do well enough in, say, Oregon for it to impact the result there. I don't think the Libertarian candidate will do well enough in, say, Wyoming for it to impact the result there.

There really aren't very many swing states, and I don't think 3rd party candidates have much appeal in those swing states that do exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #152)

Sun May 29, 2016, 04:20 PM

162. I think the Libertarians will attract mainstream Republicans.

The candidates - I assume they agreed to Weld for VP - are former governors and represent the conservatism Trump lacks. They don't need a huge showing, just enough to nibble away at the Trump vote. I don't think the Green Party will impact anything, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #162)

Sun May 29, 2016, 04:24 PM

164. If so, that's all the more reason to believe Clinton will win.

It would just make Clinton's win bigger, especially if it means a traditionally red state is suddenly in play.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 07:29 AM

75. You left out one inconvenient truth, the GOP is more united.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #75)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:50 PM

109. More united than when? The GOP establishment is up in arms over Trump being the nominee.

Anyway, that's irrelevant. Which blue states and which swing states do you think Trump will win?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 07:46 AM

79. It will be on Democrats to make sure Trump is never president, as Michael Moore

Said we do this together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 09:07 AM

86. It's Clinton's map to lose

 

I think Clinton will win, since the map is in her favor. But a Trump upset is possible. All depends on turnout (duh)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 09:39 AM

88. They assume everyone hates Hillary as much as they do nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #88)

Sun May 29, 2016, 10:11 AM

92. In late April of this year --

- - - - -

"A majority of US voters — 54 percent — say Hillary Clinton is not honest or trustworthy according to a Quinnipiac University poll..."


- - - - -

All people ("everyone" are not polled, but in the polling sample, over half felt Clinton "not honest or trustworthy."

In a political campaign, that's hardly a plus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saltpoint (Reply #92)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:51 PM

111. So, which blue states and which swing states do you think he'll win?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #111)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:57 PM

114. My emphasis was Hillary's weakness related

to voters' perception that she is not honest and untrustworthy.

I think Trump will hold onto the "antebellum South" states. I don't think he wins any swing states. He's going to have to fight for Georgia, too.

I think he rolls up a red spread on the election night map on tv but loses the electoral colleges by near-landslide proportions.

The map lights up blue in Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, the Pacific coast states, all of New England, plus Michigan, Iowa, and Hawaii. I may be missing some blue states.

Trump could be close in N. Carolina and Indiana, but again, he'll still have to fight for it, and he's not going to have the same organization we do in either state. The GOP in Indiana is a goddam mess by any standard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saltpoint (Reply #114)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:04 PM

120. That's pretty much how I see things going, as well.

As polarizing as Clinton is, it's still all about demographics and the electoral map.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saltpoint (Reply #114)

Sun May 29, 2016, 04:32 PM

168. I agree with ^^^

Even if we are plunged into the Twilight Zone and Trump wins the popular vote he will lose in the Electoral College. And then I see him hanging himself like Judas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 10:36 AM

97. its easy to figure out imo

every state where bernie won, esp where he won big, is at significant risk of going red in nov if clinton is the nom.

so outside the south,which is usually red anyway, and a few other states she won (some just barely and under suspicion of voting issues), basically its game on for the ge

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #97)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:53 PM

113. Oh no, not this again.

It's Sanders who has done best in the 'reddest' parts of the US. See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511559961

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #113)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:16 PM

126. hillary can barely keep off bernie except in the south

and when she does, it is often close in races where there has been suspicion of voter "irregularities."

she is going to be pummeled in nov if the dem elite is arrogant and stubborn enough to try and force her on the country.

and that is if she is not indicted first, which is looking like more of a likelihood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #126)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:56 PM

134. Your perception is not reality.

Again, it's Sanders who has done best in the 'reddest' parts of the US. And Sanders benefited greatly from caucuses, which suppress the vote (many working people, parents, persons with disabilities and others are not inclined to or able to take part in caucuses). Look no further than how much the results differed between the WA caucus and the WA primary. Even though it was meaningless, the WA primary had much greater turnout.

Your previous post suggests that Trump will win in WA, OR, VT and other New England states. Do you really believe that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #134)

Sun May 29, 2016, 06:43 PM

198. i believe that states are in play that would not be normally

this is a huge antiestablishment year and we may have an antiestablishment candidate vs one who embodies everything people are sick of.

so yeah. watch the battleground and many previously blue or purple states.

this is not a normal year.

thanks for being concerned about my reality. i like it just fine. sadly, i think hillary supporters are about to hit a brick wall and may not be prepared for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #198)

Mon May 30, 2016, 01:56 AM

202. I'm sure you like your personal reality just fine.

But you continue to subscribe to a terribly flawed Clinton-Dixie meme, you've bought into the conspiracy nonsense about 'irregularities' and you ignore the fact that Clinton beat Sanders (quite handily) in the 2 states that matter most in the general election (Florida and Ohio).

I'm sure, though, you find comfort in your imagined reality, so knock yourself out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 10:50 AM

98. I'm not exactly sure who will win, but given the current mood of

The country it will not be a cake walk for either candidate.

Florida is always trouble, and PA and OH are going to be up for grabs and VA has a good chance to go Trump.

Trump outlined his strategy for taking on Clinton, he admits that he doesn't have a good chance to win California or New York, but he's going to campaign hard in both states and force Hillary to spend money and n both - and those are the two most expensive markets in the country.

I never thought Trump would get past super Tuesday, but here we are several months later and he's now running a major political party.

Hillary's two biggest problems are white women and the Obama coalition. One of which is not voting for her and the latter who has yet to show up this election cycle.

Trump's transgressions are more of a personal nature and the type of things an electorate will forgive. Hillary's are governance transgressions (i.e. Benghazi, private email server, IWR vote) and show her ability to make good governing decisions.

People who take Trump as a chump do so at their own peril. Hillary needs every vote she can get and needs to reach out to those to the left of her like Bernie supporters and the Obama coalition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #98)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:57 PM

115. What?!? The Obama Coalition is the reason she's well on her way to being nominated.

Why do you think she's winning in so many of the places where Obama won in the 2008 primary?

And I think she'll do pretty well among white women. It's white men where she'll struggle the most, but no Democratic presidential candidate has won the white vote (much less the white *male* vote) since LBJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #115)

Sun May 29, 2016, 03:01 PM

145. the Obama coalition isn't even turning out to the polls. exit polling

Has shown that they aren't turning out to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #145)

Sun May 29, 2016, 03:33 PM

151. Do you have a link?

Why do you suppose Clinton is doing so well where Obama did so well in the 2008 primary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #151)

Sun May 29, 2016, 07:04 PM

200. what makes you think she's doing well? she's 4 million votes behind where she was in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #200)

Mon May 30, 2016, 01:55 AM

201. So, that's a no, you don't have a link to back up your claim. Didn't think so.

In 2008, the race was closer and the outgoing POTUS was despised by Democrats nationwide. So, turnout was higher. And "Primary Turnout Means Nothing For The General Election."

Again, Clinton is well on her way to the nomination precisely because of the Obama Coalition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #201)

Mon May 30, 2016, 09:23 AM

204. Here's over 40 links. All you need to do is look at exit polling for every state and look for the

Question of who they voted for in 2008. Very few who voted for Obama are voting in this primary. Hillary is getting slightly lower turnout this cycle than she did in 2008, and sanders is getting less than her.

I'll give it to you in simple math. If Hillary received 100 votes in 2008 in Illinois, and Obama received 110; that's a total of 220 votes with Obama winning in 2008.

Fast forward to today and (Round numbers to keep it simple) Hillary receives 90 votes in Illinois, and Bernie receives 80 votes; Hillary wins with her most of her same voters from 2008, but less overall voters.

If the Obama coalition were turning out for Hillary, she would have over 30 million votes this primary cycle, but the reality is she actually has less than she did in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #204)

Mon May 30, 2016, 02:35 PM

205. That's such an epic logic fail that I don't even know how to respond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:35 PM

102. I doubt he will win-he will take red states

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:36 PM

103. I simply think taking victory for granted is a bad idea

 

NEVER be complacent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #103)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:02 PM

118. I agree, but that isn't the question.

Many have suggested Trump will crush Clinton. So, they shouldn't have any trouble predicting which blue states and which swing states they foresee him winning. Quite a few have listed some, and I appreciate those responses, because I really am wondering why it is some think Trump will make it to 270 and beyond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #118)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:08 PM

124. "Many"? Like who?

 

You might want to avoid weasel words when you're demanding other people be specific.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #124)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:51 PM

132. You can hardly walk hrough GDP without tripping over a poster who says Trump will beat Clinton.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2078602

And that's just one single thread. You see it in the various threads about hypothetical general election match-up polls (which are historically worthless). You see the 'Trump will beat Clinton' sentiment expressed in a variety of other threads, as well.

I'm not demanding anything. I'm asking a simple, straightforward question, which quite a few people have answered (because, again, quite a few people clearly believe Trump will beat Clinton). Which blue states and which swing states do you foresee Trump winning? I'm not demanding that you answer. I'm just asking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:14 PM

125. I believe he will win NC

Hillary is detested by many here, and Bill is just as unpopular. She could name Michael Jordan or Dean Smith as her VP and they'd suffer more than she would benefit, and both of those men have a godlike status in this state. I live in a very small, rural county and I could go into town right now and find at least one vehicle with an anti-Clinton bumper sticker clean and well preserved on someone's ancient old pickup. I have seen zero Hillary signs or bumper stickers, either here in my home county, or out and about in neighboring counties with larger cities. I've seen Bernie stickers, and I've seen Trump stickers and signs, plural to both. Here in my county, in our primary, Bernie got only 25 votes less than Hillary; the total number of dem votes added together was less than the GOP number for either Trump or Cruz, who were the top 2 vote getters here. She will energize every fucking republican to get out and vote against her. Outside the cities NC is more conservative, but what is not discussed as much is that rural areas are far more anti-establishment as well. In a Trump/Clinton match up, that will translate into Trump votes. Obama won NC in 08 because he won the overwhelming majority of PoC and young people, but he also got a large percentage of whites as well. In 12 he did not win NC. Hillary I believe will get less than Obama did in 12. Additionally, we now have these god-awful voting laws enacted by the moron repugs, and it will dilute the Dem vote more than the GOP.
Could I be wrong? Yes. But I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ms liberty (Reply #125)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:34 PM

130. But NC wouldn't be enough for Trump to reach 270.

Him winning both Florida and Ohio might do the trick, but not North Carolina.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #130)

Sun May 29, 2016, 02:36 PM

138. if he can't win NC

He probably won't win Fla or Ohio, and perhaps some others, but I have no intention of prognosticating in detail on other states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ms liberty (Reply #138)

Sun May 29, 2016, 02:47 PM

140. NC being a swing state is a recent development.

Florida and Ohio have been crucial swing states for several election cycles now.

A Republican candidate can certainly win NC without winning FL or OH. Not that I think Trump will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ms liberty (Reply #138)

Sun May 29, 2016, 03:20 PM

147. ms liberty—That is correct.

 

North Carolina has been trending away from the Republicans since 2000.

In 2000, it was a Republican tilt of +13.

In 2004, it was a Republican tilt of +10.

In 2008, with Barack Obama's Democratic pickup of the state, North Carolina was a Republican tilt of +7.

In 2012, when Mitt Romney won a Republican pickup of North Carolina, it was a Republican tilt of +6.

The state of North Carolina is on a trajectory to become the next bellwether state in presidential elections. (It's about a couple election cycles after Virginia reached this status in 2008. Virginia was the No. 1 state which best reflected national margins with its statewide margins. It was 0.96 and 0.02 in spread from the national results in 2008 and 2012. No state was better than Virginia.)

So, if a Republican fails to carry North Carolina…that means the Democrat won comfortably. That Florida and Ohio already carried for the winning Democrat. By today's numbers, a Democrat winning the U.S. Popular Vote by about +6 will bring in North Carolina. (Barack Obama won the popular vote, in both 2008 and 2012, by whole-numbers estimates of +7 and +4. That +4, from 2012, explains why he didn't hold onto North Carolina with his re-election.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ms liberty (Reply #125)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:42 PM

131. Totally agree

that Trump would win over Hillary in NC. For the reasons you list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:20 PM

127. Garrett78—The path for Donald Trump to win a 2016 Republican pickup of the presidency…

 

Last edited Sun May 29, 2016, 03:12 PM - Edit history (3)

Garrett78,

In 2012, losing Republican presidential nominee and challenger Mitt Romney lost in the U.S. Popular Vote by –3.86 percentage points—that is, 47.16 percent for Romney to the winning 51.02 percent for re-election for President Barack Obama.

I am not predicting yet; but, a 2016 Republican pickup of the presidency would start with carrying every state in Romney’s 2012 column—24 states and 206 electoral votes.

Republican pickups would come from bellwether states Florida (29 electoral votes), a margin of D+0.88; Ohio (18 electoral votes), D+2.98; Virginia (13 electoral votes), D+3.88; and Colorado (09), D+5.36.

The level of a national shift is what helps shape the map. The above-mentioned states is assuming a 4- or 5-point national shift, for Donald Trump to win a Republican pickup of the U.S. Popular Vote by up to R+1 (which would be: Trump, 50 percent; Hillary Clinton, 49 percent). Any more of a Republican national shift would bring in additional states. But the four I mentioned would be enough to win with at least 275 electoral votes.


ALSO FACTOR

• Iowa (06 electoral votes)—A 2012 margin of D+5.81. This state is voting like former bellwether neighbor Missouri. It, along with New Mexico, are the only two states which backed all popular-vote winners after the 1980s—including Al Gore (2000) and George W. Bush (2004). Within its bellwether status, Iowa tilts Democratic by +2. If a Democrat wins, Iowa will carry.

• Nevada (06 electoral votes)—A margin of D+6.94. The state is a bonafide bellwether, because it has carried for every presidential winner since 1912 with exception of Jimmy Carter not carrying it (when he unseated Gerald Ford) in 1976. Since 1992, Nevada has been carrying within +5 of the national result. But, the good thing for Democrats is that the state moved from a Republican to a Democratic tilt, with Barack Obama's first election in 2008, and that could mean a Democrat wins Nevada while a Republican wins the presidency. (That would be based on a low national margin for a winning Republican to a narrow margin for a losing Democrat to hold Nevada.)

• New Mexico (05 electoral votes)—A margin of D+10.15. Its bellwether days may be over. This was indicated to possibly be the case, over 2008 and 2012, with Missouri (which had voted for every presidential winner since 1904 while getting it wrong in 1956 and then being really off in 2008 and 2012). It also needs to be said that, since New Mexico entered the union and first voted in 1912, this state plus Nevada have carried the same in every presidential election except 2000. And that, of course, was attributed to the split outcomes of the Electoral College (George W. Bush, who carried Nevada) and U.S. Popular Vote (Al Gore, who carried New Mexico) winners. Typically, Nevada is about +3 points more Republican than New Mexico as the inverse is true that New Mexico is about +3 points more Democratic than Nevada. (Its demographics show that whites are severely lower in their numbers—their size of the vote—in New Mexico than in other states. So, a winning Republican getting to carry New Mexico will have to perform sufficiently well with non-whites, particularly Hispanics, in order to have a feasible shot at winning the state.)


FROM BLUE TO RED
I mentioned a combined 69 electoral votes with pickups from bellwether states Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado—added to the 2012 Republican column states for the 206 electoral votes won by Mitt Romney—would give Donald Trump a pickup of the presidency with at least 275 electoral votes. You can consider Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico as the next tier. Any more would involve these.…

Since you wanted some mention of “blue” states, and some which I am about to list are "Blue Firewall" states, the estimated order would be…

• New Hampshire (04 electoral votes)—A margin of D+5.58. This state carried for George W. Bush in 2000 but flipped Democratic for losing challenger John Kerry in 2004. Other than that 2000 exception, New Hampshire favors the Democrats. (Prior to 2004, all winning Republicans carried the state of New Hampshire. But, given realigning and counter-realigning of the electoral map, we're in a period in which all winning Democrats will carry New Hampshire.) This state tends to tilt +2 for Democrats; but, it is prone to swing and carry for either party if the national margin is at least +2.

• Wisconsin (10 electoral votes)—A margin of D+6.94. George W. Bush came within a half-point of flipping Wisconsin in 2000 and 2004. But the state hasn't carried for a Republican since Ronald Reagan's 49-state re-election in 1984. The Democratic tilt for Wisconsin can vary. It was pretty even with Al Gore's popular-vote win in 2000. In 2004, it tilted by nearly +3. In 2008, it tilted between +6 and +7. In 2012, it was in between +3 and +4.

• Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes)—While Democrats would really love to win Texas, the same is true for Republicans with Pennsylvania. Its tilt varies. When Bush won the popular vote, in 2004, by R+2.46, Kerry carried this state by D+2.50. That was a Democratic tilt of nearly +5. But when Barack Obama won a Democratic pickup of the presidency, in 2008, the state spotted him an extra +3 points. (He won nationally by D+7.26 and Pennsylvania carried by D+10.32.) With re-election, in 2012, Pennsylvania gave Obama an extra 1.52 as he won the state by D+5.38. It needs to be noted that Pennsylvania has had a Democratic tilt in every presidential election since after the 1940s. This also means every Republican who carried Pennsylvania after the 1940s—Dwight Eisenhower (1952, 1956), Richard Nixon (re-election in 1972), Ronald Reagan (1980, 1984), and George Bush (1988)—won the state wit a percentage-points margin lower than their national numbers. What this means, ultimately, is that when Democrats win the presidency, the state of Pennsylvania definitely carries.

• Minnesota (10 electoral votes)—A margin of D+7.69. Minnesota hasn't carried for a Republican since Richard Nixon won 49 states with re-election in 1972. Come to think—since after Dwight Eisenhower won 39 and 41 (of a then-48 states) in 1952 and 1956, and carried Minnesota both times, the state has given Republicans carriage only once—and it was with a 1972 Nixon. Like with the state of Massachusetts, every winning Democratic ticket has carried the state of Minnesota since Franklin Roosevelt's first election back in 1932. What makes Minnesota persuadable is that its Democratic tilt is not overwhelming. It has hovered between +3 and +5 as a Democratic tilt since 2000. (That year, Al Gore won the U.S. Popular Vote by +0.52. He carried Minnesota by only D+2.41.) In 2004, it was +5 as a Democratic tilt. It 2008, it was +3. In 2012, it was +4.

• Michigan (16 electoral votes)—A margin of D+9.48. Michigan hasn't carried Republican since 1988, the last year on record that party also carried the likes of other double-digit, electoral-vote states Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, President Barack Obama's home state Illinois, and No. 1 most-populous California. When Bill Clinton flipped Michigan, in 1992, it still had its "swing state" reputation. In 1984 and 1988, Michigan's percentage-points margin was less than a full point from the national margins for Reagan and Bush. In 1992, its Democratic pickup became a tilt for the party by +2. But it trended Democratic after that, with typically +5 or +6. In 2008, it was extra generous—it was +9 as Obama won the popular vote by D+7.26 and Michigan by D+16.44. This is the last state on the last I would expect to flip from Democratic to Republican. But a strong enough shift, nationally, can do. I'd say that a Republican would have to win by R+6—that is, 52 to 46 percent in the U.S. Popular Vote—to have a feasible shot at winning over Michigan.


Every state on this list assumes a Republican shift in the U.S. Popular Vote—that is, from 2012 to 2016—of +8 to +10. (It's an estimate of potential that played out in party-flipping presidential years 2000 and 2008.) That is, with mentioning the potential if the numbers are just right for the 2016 Republicans. (This would give Donald Trump a potential of 36 states and 352 electoral votes.) But, of course, if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination and the general election—in what would be a Democratic hold of the presidency—none of the listed states would switch party support. In fact, if she has a national shift of up to +5, that would yield Barack Obama's 2012 re-election map and involve flipping between North Carolina (which carried in 2008 for Obama, R+2.04), Georgia (R+7.80), and Arizona (R+9.03). If she were to gain an additional +8 to +10 level of Democratic support—suggesting, at best, Hillary Clinton (56 percent) to Donald Trump (43 percent)—following would be Missouri (R+9.36), Indiana (which carried in 2008 for Obama, R+10.20), and Montana (R+13.64) to become ripe for flipping from Republican to Democratic. (This would give Hillary Clinton a potential of 34 states, plus District of Columbia, and 398 electoral votes.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:25 PM

128. I'm afraid of Pa., Oh. & Mi. IF all the very angry ex-steel workers BELIEVE

the Trumpster when he promises to "Bring back jobs", they'll vote for him! I grew up in PA, and there are a LOT of ex-steel workers (and related industries) there and most live in the deep blue areas of Pgh. & Philly. Central Pa. is often described as Alabama!


The same situation exists in OH & MI. Cars are made in Mx., lots of appliance mfgs. moved to Mx. like Maytag, etc.

I'm really scared their anger and wishful dreaming will gt them to vote for him, and if we loose almost all of those people, we loose the presidency!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:57 PM

135. She's going to easily win, and I think Bernie and Busters really know this

And that's why they are choosing the Bernie or Bust route. They know she'll win. If they didn't, they wouldn't actually sacrifice the country with an "I didn't get what I want!" toddler-style tantrum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 04:23 PM

163. here is a scenario map

 



or



tie and House elects Trump

In any case the battlegrounds will be the same old same old 10

CO, IA, WI. OH, NH, NC, VA, FL, PA, MI

if any 3 or 4 of the other 40 vary from my maps above, then you are looking at a semi-landslide either way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Reply #163)

Sun May 29, 2016, 04:30 PM

167. Those maps show the best case scenario for Trump. There won't be a Trump landslide.

Those maps demonstrate just how favorable the electoral map is for the Democratic candidate. The top map makes nearly every swing state red (including the 2 most significant ones: FL and OH) and it barely gives Trump a victory.

As I've said before, the Republican candidate has virtually no shot at reaching 270 without *both* Florida and Ohio.

I appreciate your reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #167)

Sun May 29, 2016, 04:56 PM

176. here is the best case for Trump (within reason)

 

and all my postings are predicated on 2 giant things

Clinton is not indicted or recommended for indictment

plus Trump doesn't have a melt down (he is so unpredictable)



I do NOT expect this, but this is probably about the most he could possibly hope for

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 04:26 PM

165. It's up to the media

Negative reporting about Trump has gone down, while negative reporting about Clinton has gone up.

Bias confirmation amongst Sanders supporters and voter suppression might make it a perfect storm like election 2000 and it'll be close enough for the republicans to steal again.

If it's just democrats against republicans, the democrats tend to win. If the media didn't put its thumb on the scale we'd have a majority democratic congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz cook (Reply #165)

Sun May 29, 2016, 04:35 PM

169. Gerrymandering and favorable demographics allow the GOP to win congressional seats.

That doesn't work at the national level. Voter suppression and the media's desire for a horse race might have some impact, but demographics ultimately rule the day. Trump will have a tough time reaching 270 when POC and women give him even less support than they gave Romney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 05:02 PM

179. Denigrating our nominee is the last resort...

 

The extreme leftist and anarchist that sanders appeals to don't care...and matter of fact would enjoy seeing America destroyed...as a way to teach all of us a lesson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 06:25 PM

197. Scenario Maps of up to +10 national shifts: Trump and Hillary

 

Last edited Sun May 29, 2016, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Please excuse my faulty presentation. (I'm not entirely certain how to do this.)

Below are scenarios of pretty extreme levels suggesting wave elections either Republican or Democratic for Election 2016.

The color-coding shows that the solid shades are party holds while the light shades indicate what would be pickup states.






<div align="center"><a href="http://www.270towin.com/maps/aNwQd"><img src="" width="800"></a><br><small><img style="vertical-align: middle;" src="" alt="" /> Click the map to create your own at <a href="http://www.270towin.com/maps/aNwQd">270toWin.com</a></small></div>


^ This is a scenario suggesting the following:

• Donald Trump (R-New York), 52 percent; 36 states (356 electoral votes)
• Hillary Clinton (D-New York), 46 percent; 14 states plus District of Columbia (182 electoral votes)

Margin: R+6 (compared to 2012: Shift of R+10)







<div align="center"><a href="http://www.270towin.com/maps/qK7Oy"><img src="" width="800"></a><br><small><img style="vertical-align: middle;" src="" alt="" /> Click the map to create your own at <a href="http://www.270towin.com/maps/qK7Oy">270toWin.com</a></small></div>


^ This is a scenario suggesting the following:

• Donald Trump (R-New York), 42 percent; 18 states (140 electoral votes)
• Hillary Clinton (D-New York), 56 percent; 32 states plus District of Columbia (398 electoral votes)

Margin: D+14 (compared to 2012: Shift of D+10)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread