# Trump General Election Viability Predictions **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 27, 2016, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338 "2016-02-27T22:03:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![mack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mack)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/61 "2016-02-28T16:39:55Z")
Trump’s more odious personal qualities, while currently embraced by his supporters, won’t find such traction in the general. Then there will be the rectal probe into his financials that’ll turn up who knows what. He loses by double digits. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/62 "2016-02-28T16:57:27Z")
I don’t gamble at all, so would anyone care to comment on what the oddsmakers are all saying? I tried looking at a few tables like this one but have no idea what these numbers mean. Clinton -140 Trump +160 Rubio +750 Sanders +1000 Bloomberg +2500 Cruz +7500 Kasich +10,000 From here: [http://www.oddsshark.com/entertainment/us-presidential-odds-2016-futures](http://www.oddsshark.com/entertainment/us-presidential-odds-2016-futures) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/63 "2016-02-28T17:00:12Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Okay, here’s one more scenario from that 538 widget – very plausible, and very interesting, because the Dems win the popular vote (49.3% to 49.0%), but the Reps win the electoral college (290 to 248): > > College white 50-50, 82 turnout > Non-college white 73 R, 69 turnout (is that more realistic, DSeid?) > Black 89 D, 59 turnout > Hispanic 82 D, 60 turnout > Asian/Other 74 D, 52 turnout 😕 I just used the widget with those numbers and I get an electoral win with 294 for the Dems and 244 for the Reps, with the Dems winning the popular vote 49.9% to 48.4%. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/64 "2016-02-28T17:01:38Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Okay, here’s one more scenario from that 538 widget – very plausible, and very interesting, because the Dems win the popular vote (49.3% to 49.0%), but the Reps win the electoral college (290 to 248): > > College white 50-50, 82 turnout > Non-college white 73 R, 69 turnout (is that more realistic, DSeid?) > Black 89 D, 59 turnout > Hispanic 82 D, 60 turnout > Asian/Other 74 D, 52 turnout Yes. And since college-educated White is 50/50 it does not matter if the turnout there is over or under. If he indeed _can_ rev up the non-college White and that much with that share without driving college White all the way into Democratic territory … brrr. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/65 "2016-02-28T17:10:27Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 😕 > > I just used the widget with those numbers and I get an electoral win with 294 for the Dems and 244 for the Reps, with the Dems winning the popular vote 49.9% to 48.4%. I just did it again with those numbers, and the electoral college is closer than what I posted, but the basic results are the same as what I posted: Dems win popular vote, 49.4% to 48…8% Reps win electoral college, 274 to 264 [Here’s a screen shot.](http://i64.tinypic.com/e12lp1.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/66 "2016-02-28T17:30:09Z")
I see, the issue is that I had the college educated white at the 50% D. (Just a little tiny bit to the left from the 50%R) But that then makes more questions, I would had thought the 50% of R would be the same as 50% D. What I get from this is that it would be too close to call in that case. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/67 "2016-02-28T17:49:19Z")
I agree with Snowboarder Bo, much to his consternation I am sure. Look at it this way: Trump is winning with Republcans despite the fact that he believes in largely Democratic principles. He’s pro abortion, for single payer health care, doesn’t mind big government, etc. imagine what kind of support he might find among disaffected Democrats - especially blue collar men. Don’t think that can happen in your party? Neither did serious Republicans. They still can’t figure out what the hell happened. I think Trump is connecting with people at a deep emotional level. He’s tapping into something that isn’t about policy, and which spans the left and right. He’s a bull in a china shop - a lightning rod collecting the anger of people who feel disempowered and scared. And if you think these people only exist on the right, you haven’t been paying attention to the Bernie Sanders phenomenon. I wouldn’t be surprised to see significant numbers of black voters choosing him over Hillary in the general, too. Populists rise at times like this because they know how to tap into that fear. And populist movements often punch through existing political divides. And I say this as someone who would probably vote for Hillary over Trump. And I really, really dislike Hillary. But she isn’t dangerous in the way Trump is. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/68 "2016-02-28T18:00:38Z")
I had not yet looked at the Hispanic vote closely and using this widget, and looking at the “trump effect” with Hispanics I have to agree that we may see turnouts just over 60% and the incidents that had taken place recently with the black community leads me to believe that with Trump on the ballot a lot of Hispanics and about the same number of black voters from the previous election will go to vote, so leaving the other numbers the same as the **JKellyMap** Map :). I put my numbers thus ([Based on Trump in the ballot and historical black turnout](http://www.newsy.com/videos/trump-effect-could-drive-higher-latino-voter-turnout/)): Black: 89% D, 65% turnout. Hispanic: 80% D, 62% Turnout. We get: 284 electoral votes for the democrats against 254 for the Republicans. BTW I put the turnout slightly lower for these factors than the reported expected turnouts mentioned in the article/video. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/69 "2016-02-28T18:07:33Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I agree with Snowboarder Bo, much to his consternation I am sure. Things is that, as usual, the plural of anecdote is not data. [http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton) Polls are not reliable in a match up so early (and indeed very early Hillary was way ahead of Trump, but now she is averaging 5 points ahead of the diseased yak), but seeing how Trump did match very early polling for the primaries I do think that past and most recent polls point to what I voted for here, a close election but Hillary gets ahead. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/70 "2016-02-28T18:16:26Z")
> [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](#): > > I don’t gamble at all, so would anyone care to comment on what the oddsmakers are all saying? I tried looking at a few tables like this one but have no idea what these numbers mean. > > Clinton -140 > Trump +160 > Rubio +750 > Sanders +1000 > Bloomberg +2500 > Cruz +7500 > Kasich +10,000 > > From here: [http://www.oddsshark.com/entertainment/us-presidential-odds-2016-futures](http://www.oddsshark.com/entertainment/us-presidential-odds-2016-futures) IANA expert on that format for odds. But the punch line is Hillary is expected to win with about as much confidence as Trump is expected to lose. Call it a 55% confidence in favor of a Clinton win, 45% confidence in favor of a Trump win. The next closest competitor (Rubio) has 1/5th the chance (160/750) that Trump has. Reflecting mostly the (lack of) confidence that he’ll win the R nomination and even if he does he’ll likely get slaughtered in the general. The others are progressively longer and longer shots, with Cruz having only 1/10th the chance Rubio does. ---
**Author:** ![Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulf_the_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/71 "2016-02-28T19:07:34Z")
Populism is a tricky thing. It says to people who are disaffected and unhappy, “look, this isn’t your fault, it’s the fault of fill in the blank.” For Donald Trump, it’s really easy to see the populism: fill in the blank is the brown people, the immigrants, the Muslims, the Mexicans. He saying it’s their fault that people – ordinary Americans – are doing badly. Donald Trump has no coherent ideology as far as we can tell. So it’s pretty easy to determine that is a populist. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has a very clear ideology. But not enough to completely obscure the fact that he’s a populist too. For him, it isn’t immigrants that are the problem; it’s the banks, the hedge funds, Wall Street, the rich. It isn’t our fault that our lives are miserable; it’s their fault. Folks who support Sanders for his ideology sometimes have trouble seeing the similarities between him and Trump. But they’re definitely there. And populism has a funny way of shifting on us, where one target becomes another target. For William Jennings Bryan, it was the bankers. Earlier on, it was the immigrants. It’s always somebody, and who it is matters less than that there is Someone to blame. I’m sure that’s a great many Sanders supporterswouldn’t dream of voting for Donald Trump. But there’s not the huge gap between them that we might expect. Take this with a grain or two of salt, because it’s been years and I’m not sure what the original sourcing on it was. But my mom was a poli sci grad student in the early seventies, and a professor relayed to the class a piece of information that I used to find absolutely shocking. It was either the '68 Massachusetts or NH primary for the DEmocrats, when a lot of voters went for McCarthy. Obviously, McCarthy wasn’t on the ballot in the general election. What did the plurality (not majority) of those voters do in November? Stay home? Nope. Vote for Humphrey? Nope. Vote for Nixon? Nope. The greatest share of the McCarthy voters went for…George Wallace. One outsider/protest/anti-establishment candidate turns out in some important ways to be very like another. ---
**Author:** ![FlikTheBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fliktheblue/32/10972_2.png) [@FlikTheBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlikTheBlue)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/72 "2016-02-28T19:12:56Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Yes, because going negative on Trump has worked so well. > > Plus you’ve got the problem of Trump bringing out record numbers of voters, while the Democratic primaries are looking pretty moribund. My guess is that a not insignificant number of the Trump votes so far are from Democrats trying to get Trump to be the nominee. This would explain why the numbers in the Democratic contests so far have been lower than in previous years. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/73 "2016-02-28T20:26:57Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > \*There are a fair number of blue-state GOP senators up for re-election who are going to be seriously tempted to actively campaign against Trump. Its hardly rare for Senators in states dominated by the other party to put some distance between themselves and their parties candidates, and there have been a few cases where one or two Senators have actively campaigned against their parties nominee in the general. But I think this might be the first election I’ve been alive for where a sizable faction of Senators did so. I noted on another Trump thread that Mitch McConnell has been quoted as giving his blessing to senate candidates who feel the need to throw Trump under the bus to save themselves. True, it’s happened before to a less acute degree. In those cases, the Presidential candidate shrugged it off as a necessary tactical maneuver. Somehow I don’t see Trump doing that… :eek: 😃 ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/74 "2016-02-28T20:53:21Z")
I will add this. If the only way to keep Trump from becoming president is to prevent him from being on the ballot in November, then we are in very deep shit as a country, and a tactical maneuver will not doom us nor save us. I am more optimistic than that. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/75 "2016-02-28T21:12:45Z")
The caveats set by the OP will not be met. The Republicans will not let Trump face off squarely with Clinton. They are too afraid of a Trump victory. They’d rather split the vote and give the election to Hillary. Their donors are hers, and everyone would be fine with that. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/76 "2016-02-28T21:20:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > … leaving the other numbers the same as the **JKellyMap** Map :). I put my numbers thus ([Based on Trump in the ballot and historical black turnout](http://www.newsy.com/videos/trump-effect-could-drive-higher-latino-voter-turnout/)): > > Black: > > 89% D, 65% turnout. > > Hispanic: > > 80% D, 62% Turnout. > > We get: 284 electoral votes for the democrats against 254 for the Republicans. > > BTW I put the turnout slightly lower for these factors than the reported expected turnouts mentioned in the article/video. 🙂 Yeah, that’s what I’m hoping for (and I think is about the most likely scenario). If Black and Latino turnouts are that high, OR if college-educated whites go 51% or higher for the Dems, or both, the Dems likely win. If neither happens, the Republicans likely win. I think it’s more likely that minority turnout isn’t quite as high as you have it, BUT the college-educated whites will go more solidly Dem – more like 53% or 54%. This would give Hillary a close victory. But who really knows… ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/77 "2016-02-28T21:26:06Z")
> [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](#): > > …But my mom was a poli sci grad student in the early seventies, and a professor relayed to the class a piece of information that I used to find absolutely shocking. It was either the '68 Massachusetts or NH primary for the DEmocrats, when a lot of voters went for McCarthy. Obviously, McCarthy wasn’t on the ballot in the general election. What did the plurality (not majority) of those voters do in November? Stay home? Nope. Vote for Humphrey? Nope. Vote for Nixon? Nope. The greatest share of the McCarthy voters went for…George Wallace. One outsider/protest/anti-establishment candidate turns out in some important ways to be very like another. That’s a fascinating parallel situation – thanks for sharing. ---
**Author:** ![DerekMichaels00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f14d63/32.png) [@DerekMichaels00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DerekMichaels00)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/78 "2016-02-29T00:12:47Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The caveats set by the OP will not be met. The Republicans will not let Trump face off squarely with Clinton. They are too afraid of a Trump victory. They’d rather split the vote and give the election to Hillary. Their donors are hers, and everyone would be fine with that. I actually think the elites might want Trump to be the nominee, because if he loses (his KKK stuff seems to make that more likely), the GOPe/moderates have an excuse to purge the Tea Party as Goldwater’s loss gave them an excuse to purge the Birchers (people who thought Ike was a communist). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/79 "2016-02-29T00:43:41Z")
> [@DerekMichaels00](#): > > I actually think the elites might want Trump to be the nominee, because if he loses (his KKK stuff seems to make that more likely), the GOPe/moderates have an excuse to purge the Tea Party as Goldwater’s loss gave them an excuse to purge the Birchers (people who thought Ike was a communist). Whoa, I didn’t know that about the Birchers. [Quick search for that item] Hah, the horse’s mouth reports on their “Myths” section about them (No giving a link to their sorry site) that they actually do not deny it ‘Hey, that was just one conclusion! You guys on the media ignore the rest!’ :smack:, and then they demur to claim that they had other evidence of bad commie like behavior from Ike, so there! He was a commie. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338/80 "2016-02-29T04:03:08Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Yes. > > And since college-educated White is 50/50 it does not matter if the turnout there is over or under. If he indeed _can_ rev up the non-college White and that much with that share without driving college White all the way into Democratic territory .. brrr. Are you sure college educated whites are 50-50? College graduates went 51-47 for Romney in 2012, and that was all races: > **[Presidential Race - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com](https://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president/)** > > Latest on the 2012 National Elections from the CNN.com Politics team. Headlines and video, candidates' positions on the issues, fundraising totals, States to Watch news and analysis, and a unique side-by-side visual comparison of the Republican and... Seems to me that Trump can expect at least 55-45 among college educated whites. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-general-election-viability-predictions/747338.md?page=5)