It was early this morning when I made this but my projected map (as of now) looks like this:
Maine will probably have one delegate for Trump, as they divvy up their delegates. I’ve got Trump winning FL but Hillary winning NV to respond to your comment.
Silver lining #1. Trump immediately becomes problematic to House republicans’ chances of reelection in November and they find something to impeach him on. It would be quite interesting to see if the democrats would help their republican colleagues in the senate impeach him, or per chance vote to light him fight the good fight and let him drag down the entire congress.
Silver lining #2. Because Trump really and truly has no ideology, maybe he tries to be a bipartisan president of the people and fights with hard-lined republicans, thus proving Ted Cruz a prophet in establishing that he really isn’t a conservative.
The most likely outcome of a Trump Presidency is that voters have two straight godawful Republican Presidencies to look back on, compared with two middling to good Democratic presidencies, and that will factor into their decisions for the next couple of decades.
Should Trump win the Presidency, the most likely outcome is a crushing GOP defeat in 2020. From there, Democrats can have the White House and probably Congress as well for as long as they do the people’s will. That’s the silver lining.
The question is whether there will be anything left to govern by 2020.
Anyone got a paper bag I can breathe into?
I think the biggest worry of a Trump presidency is what he will do with Obama’s promising but fragile climate change initiatives. He will certainly try to wreck them and there is no guarantee that it will be easy to put the pieces back together in 4 or 8 years especially when you require the agreement of diverse countries like China, India and Russia. Who knows what the global political order will look like after 4/8 years of Trump ? The fate of the planet may literally be at stake in this election.
Shit just got real. Trump possibly winning in Nevada.
If so, that cuts Clinton’s EV count to 272 according to my analysis. New Hampshire will matter.
An additional problem is that there simply aren’t very good polls in either NH or Colorado, relying on polls like Google Consumer Surveys and SurveyMonkey. The media report that Clinton has a lead but we’re essentially in the dark until better polling comes out.
I wouldn’t worry much about the state polling. It’s interesting to look at, but the winner of the popular vote will almost certainly win the electoral vote as well. If we had more quality polling in all the key states, that would be one thing, but we don’t, so the national polls are the only reliable guide.
No, not with early voting. It’s a lot more variable now. We could have popular polling the last two days which could put Clinton or Trump ahead in various swing states, but you also have to factor in early voting, which could account for 20-40% of voting in some states. Polling that shows one candidate beating the other by 1-2% on election day may or may not be enough to overcome a slow start. And in some states, candidates are going to run up the scores.
The pollsters should be counting people who have already voted.
Strongly conflicts with the early voting numbers in NV. Also, the same thing happened with NV in 2012 – polling said Obama was only up by 2 or 3 points or less, but he won by 7. Pollsters still may have not yet figured out how to accurately poll Hispanic voters.
More here: The Early Vote In Nevada Suggests Clinton Might Beat Her Polls There | FiveThirtyEight
Here is my current map I’d say Trump is favored in all the states I marked red (in some cases very slightly), but he still needs to pick up one of the Clinton-favored states I’ve marked as undecided (or the pair of NV + NH). Looking at 538’s “snake view”, I’d put those in order of probability like this: CO, PA, NV+NH, WI, MI, MN.
Basically, Trump still has to pick off one of Clinton’s “firewall” states.
For more current updates, directly from the source, I’d encourage you to read Jon Ralston’s blog
That’s a good source – the article I cited also cites Ralston, who agrees with the conclusion.
I agree that there’s not enough really good data to say for sure that Trump is leading, but he’s almost certainly gaining on Clinton there.
RCP’s no tossup count is 273-265. 538 now has a 30% chance for Trump. The gradient of the trendlines on both sites is unsettling. If the numbers don’t stabilize in the next couple of days it’s going to be panic time. It’s also worrying that Hillary’s lead on RCP both nationally and in CO is now less than half the percentage of undecided voters. She is far from closing the deal and there is always the worry that the undecided are just Trump voters who don’t want to admit it.
On the other hand the intangibles do seem to favor Hillary. She has a lot more money and is cutting some pretty effective ads which should help sway the genuinely undecided. The breadth and quality of her surrogates:a popular President, ex-President and First Lady among others is perhaps unparalleled in US election history. And you would back her data-driven GOTV operation which is building on highly successful Obama efforts to squeeze out every last voter on election day.
I agree. Also, when they do post-debate polls asking who won, they should leave one full day before they start polling, and they should proportionally include people who didn’t watch it.
Friday is coming up, and I wonder if there’s another shoe drop or another dirty trick.
The problem with paying so much attention to early voting is that it’s not a true snapshot of the population. It may be one day when it’s more widespread but at the moment different demographics use it to greater or lesser degree. I think those demographics vary from state to state too.