By changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of battleground states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 needed.
National Popular Vote
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of battleground states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 needed.
National Popular Vote
14
The contrast between the two conventions is more than superficial. The GOP convention was a poorly planned and executed stage production of fear, hatred, and authoritarianism for white men. The Democratic convention, not yet over, is a bright, upbeat, well planned and beautifully executed production aimed at a universal audience -- Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, Asian, Native American -- in short, anyone and everyone whose connection with the world is not via resentment, suspicion, and grievance -- young, old, male and female alike, gay or straight. Welcome! And unlike the blindingly white GOP convention, the Democratic convention is truly a tossed salad of humanity.
President Obama gave a wonderful speech in support of his own legacy and the woman he hopes will extent it. But his optimism is, sadly, a bit overstated. If Donald Trump has any chance of winning in November, then there is something deeply wrong with a huge number of American voters.
I watch Trump and I keep asking myself: What is wrong with people? How can they not see this man for what he is -- a narcissistic, mean-spirited, selfish, authoritarian demagogue? A man with absolutely no qualifications to be president. How can so many people be so blind, so deluded, so filled with resentment that they can convince themselves that Donald Trump should ever be president?
And I have no good answer.
President Obama gave a wonderful speech in support of his own legacy and the woman he hopes will extent it. But his optimism is, sadly, a bit overstated. If Donald Trump has any chance of winning in November, then there is something deeply wrong with a huge number of American voters.
I watch Trump and I keep asking myself: What is wrong with people? How can they not see this man for what he is -- a narcissistic, mean-spirited, selfish, authoritarian demagogue? A man with absolutely no qualifications to be president. How can so many people be so blind, so deluded, so filled with resentment that they can convince themselves that Donald Trump should ever be president?
And I have no good answer.
74
The graphic assumes that both Ohio and Florida will be red states.
Whoever carries Ohio and Florida has the election, given their combined impact as swing states and their large electoral vote tally.
I question the validity of allocating either as red states at this point in time of the Presidential race.
Incidentally, since 1964, each winner of Ohio has been inaugurated as President the following January.
Whoever carries Ohio and Florida has the election, given their combined impact as swing states and their large electoral vote tally.
I question the validity of allocating either as red states at this point in time of the Presidential race.
Incidentally, since 1964, each winner of Ohio has been inaugurated as President the following January.
12
Fascinating, intelligent stuff, all of it: the analysis and the hand-wringing, endless scenarios and heated rebuttals. And for what? So we can immerse ourselves even deeper in the politics of fear (the headline reads...)? That hypothetical blue vs. red future isn't actually happening in three months: it's happening right now in the present, in what we choose to believe, in what we can learn, how we choose to act and share as fellow citizens, at this very moment. There comes a time to ignore the pundits and simply use our voices well; none of us has any real say over this future other than our own solitary, amazing vote.
14
You're ignoring how many people are angry about the Clinton corruption and plan to vote third party, write Bernie in, or even vote for Trump just so she loses. I expect Trump to carry my state of Rhode Island.
14
A tight race is the best thing possible for the Democrats. It will ensure highest possible voter turnout, giving the highest chance of also winning back control of the Senate. Forecasting a close race is also in the best interest of the media, who thrive on 24/7 frenetic news cycles.
My expectation (or maybe blind hope?) is that the polls are showing a tight race mostly because Bernie supporters refuse to admit that they are ready to support Hillary, in any sort of polling environment. But, when push comes to shove, 7 out of 10 Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary, 1 will vote for Trump, 1 will vote 3rd party, and 1 will sit out. I expect the polls to stay close until early October and then start to diverge steeply as Bernie supporters get pragmatic.
My expectation (or maybe blind hope?) is that the polls are showing a tight race mostly because Bernie supporters refuse to admit that they are ready to support Hillary, in any sort of polling environment. But, when push comes to shove, 7 out of 10 Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary, 1 will vote for Trump, 1 will vote 3rd party, and 1 will sit out. I expect the polls to stay close until early October and then start to diverge steeply as Bernie supporters get pragmatic.
11
One thing here that was not discussed was the funds each campaign has and the organization each candidate has. To make any use these kind of polling numbers and create a on the ground strategy in the battle ground states to effect the vote the candidates need a political organization to carry it out. From the little that the press has covered on this subject HRC has the money, state offices, staff and volunteers in place that can convince those undecided voters and get core democratic voters to the polls. Trump's strategy seems to be relying on flying around the country and getting free press by spouting outrageous sound bytes.
Even if a good political organization can make a small only a percentage of change 2%, 3%, 4%, in the vote if you add that to that factor to each of the battle ground states, the fact that HRC has a very big organization in place and Trump has little or none means we can see HRC winning most of the battle ground states.
Even if a good political organization can make a small only a percentage of change 2%, 3%, 4%, in the vote if you add that to that factor to each of the battle ground states, the fact that HRC has a very big organization in place and Trump has little or none means we can see HRC winning most of the battle ground states.
3
Trump will win PA. (Anyone who visits the state will see many Trump signs and no Clinton signs.)
Clinton has no chance.
Clinton has no chance.
7
If Ohio goes red, so will Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia. I'm not going to vote for euther Trump or Clinton, but I have to say that if Trump's elected, I will at least briefly laugh -- HARD -- at the shock and dismay from the liberal tribe.
11
Here's a happy thought. In 2008, Obama won the "Blue Dot" that is the 2nd Congressional District (Omaha and environs) to take one of Nebraska's five electoral votes. The state awards 2 of the 5 electoral votes to the state-wide popular vote winner, but reserves each of the 3 remaining electoral votes to the individual Congressional districts. This angered the "Husker Nation" types, so in 2010 a nice Blue chunk was reapportioned from the 2nd into the very Red 1st District (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/nebraska-g-o-p-draws.... Despite this flip, an African American candidate for the House barely lost in 2012 and a white fairly conservative "Democrat" won the seat back in 2014. With enough of a push, the map we are looking at in this article could mean that a big push in the Omaha metro area could swing the election. Yes, I know this is a crazy headline: "Nebraska District Saves Western Civilization", but how much fun can a Nebraska Democrat have these days?
11
I do think that after Trump gets bashed by every day by every commentator and comic for three months outside of Fox, Hillary's voters might be a little more motivated to vote for her than Trump's are for him. I wouldn't be surprised to see some big name Republican endorsements for her. He has almost no qualified surrogates and I suspect his shelf life will wither.
12
Think it's unlikely that Trump would win New Hampshire where he won with a little over one third of the Republican primary vote and where Massachusetts ground help streams across the border in presidential races. It has a demographic which is turning the state blue (one of the highest percentage of college educated voters in the nation) and where the Republican incumbent senator is behind to a popular governor. In the increasingly Hispanic and unionized Nevada a Trump win also seems doubtful.
9
If Trump can keep it close, his chances vastly increase, as the media has been saying he never had a chance.
People tired of the "same old same old politics for the rich" just might decide
to take a chance on Trump.
People tired of the "same old same old politics for the rich" just might decide
to take a chance on Trump.
13
It is insane that in 2016 we still have to deal with the electoral college. Why don't we just have a popular vote? Anything else is not only undemocratic, but it also distorts the whole election campaign. Why should the issues that are hot in an important "battleground" state become the focus of the presidential battle? Who says those issues are the most important issues for the country? Also, the electoral college means that people in small states like mine get more electoral votes per capita than large states like California. Or, if you belong to the minority in a strongly partisan state, your vote essentially doesn't even count, since it is a foregone conclusion where the electoral votes will go. In this day and age of media and travel, if we just had a popular vote, there would be campaigns in all states, because every vote would count equally. These are serious flaws with the electoral college, even when the popular vote ends up in line with the electoral college vote.
BTW - this problem could be solved without a constitutional amendment - if enough states would just pass laws that say that all of their electoral college votes go to the candidate who wins the popular vote, it would effectively change the election into a popular vote.
BTW - this problem could be solved without a constitutional amendment - if enough states would just pass laws that say that all of their electoral college votes go to the candidate who wins the popular vote, it would effectively change the election into a popular vote.
8
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President, in any way they want. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Most Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Most Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
3
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in AZ (11), AR (6), ME (4), MI (16), NV (6), NM (5), NC (15), and OK (7), and both houses in CO (9).
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in AZ (11), AR (6), ME (4), MI (16), NV (6), NM (5), NC (15), and OK (7), and both houses in CO (9).
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
2
I don't think it's 'scaring'. It's warning. America is not a country full of democrats and decent conservatives. Although I can fully understand a party favored someone contribute to it for over 30 years instead of another person who just joined last December, I am feared about WikiLeaks combined with Russia hackers because the politics is never a Snow White.
I'm worrying because I'm just merely a foreign labour, not yet with a green card. I cannot vote, donate, participate primary, though I pay same tax as citizens. But I can still speak. I come to U.S. and wish to work here because I believe U.S. is a country embrace the world citizens who believe in universal values, who believe in fairness instead of naive equality, who believe democracy instead of ochlocracy, who believe hard work earn you a better life instead of your father, your color skin, your sexual orientation or your religion and where my talent will be more recognized. However, if Trump was elected, I'm afraid that my American Dream is half-broken, because this country chose isolationism, racism, trade-protectism, political-extremism.
I fully understand HRC is not flawless and even believe she has rather flaws. But I understand her. When you have enough toughness in your life, you will understand more about the value of compromise and cooperate.
I'm worrying because I'm just merely a foreign labour, not yet with a green card. I cannot vote, donate, participate primary, though I pay same tax as citizens. But I can still speak. I come to U.S. and wish to work here because I believe U.S. is a country embrace the world citizens who believe in universal values, who believe in fairness instead of naive equality, who believe democracy instead of ochlocracy, who believe hard work earn you a better life instead of your father, your color skin, your sexual orientation or your religion and where my talent will be more recognized. However, if Trump was elected, I'm afraid that my American Dream is half-broken, because this country chose isolationism, racism, trade-protectism, political-extremism.
I fully understand HRC is not flawless and even believe she has rather flaws. But I understand her. When you have enough toughness in your life, you will understand more about the value of compromise and cooperate.
7
So Trump can't win MI and WI? I beg to differ.
6
"There are conservative white men who disapprove of Obama and Clinton, but still consider themselves Democrats."
There are antiwar progressives who disapprove of Obama and Clinton too.
There are antiwar progressives who disapprove of Obama and Clinton too.
5
Trump is going to win easy when it's all said and done.
12
I think Hillary Clinton's chances of winning are not even closely represented in the maps I have looked at. She will be crushed.
15
Given the number of longshot states Trump has to win just to tie Hillary, this article sure took a lot of words to say "Trump has almost no chance."
4
The West Coast will be divided. Michigan would if the U.P. voted separately.
Trump will surpass 300 Electors.
Trump will surpass 300 Electors.
7
Here is what takes place:
Fox News: "We are fair and balanced. We are fair and balanced. We are fair and balanced...repeat incessantly..."
Republican Voter: "I trust Fox News, they are fair and balanced"
Any more questions?
Fox News: "We are fair and balanced. We are fair and balanced. We are fair and balanced...repeat incessantly..."
Republican Voter: "I trust Fox News, they are fair and balanced"
Any more questions?
11
My fantasy:
Neither Clinton nor Trump gets enough electoral votes to be elected president. It falls to the House of Representatives to choose.
House members say to themselves, "We don't have to elect either of these clowns!" They debate for a while and nominate other candidates. They ultimately elect Tim Kaine.
Sadly, this is nothing more than my fantasy.
Neither Clinton nor Trump gets enough electoral votes to be elected president. It falls to the House of Representatives to choose.
House members say to themselves, "We don't have to elect either of these clowns!" They debate for a while and nominate other candidates. They ultimately elect Tim Kaine.
Sadly, this is nothing more than my fantasy.
3
This article reveals the scariest possible outcome of this election: a Trump victory via the House of Representatives deciding an electoral college tie with the popular vote going to Hillary. Not only would we be saddled with a divisive, incompetent president but he would also be ushered in by an arcane constitutional process that has never before been used and runs counter to every democratic instinct in America. Even a competent president would find it difficult to build consensus amid the inevitable public blacklash against the perceived "illegitimacy" of his or her administration. I fear that having a thin-skinned, incompetent loudmouth with authoritarian leanings at the helm will lead to four years of unprecedented civil unrest.
6
If there is indeed civil unrest, an authoritarian will declare martial law and suspend the normal orders of political elections. Trump will not be able to carry out the few promises he's made, such as building a wall which Mexico pays for, or rounding up 11 million people for deportation. What happens when his voters realize that we are less respected with Trump as President, rather than more? "Law and order immediately" won't be achieved without a military-style crackdown that foregoes Constitutional protections.
The real rage will come when Trump decides to lower our national debt by "renegotiating" the 2.7T owed to the Social Security Trust Fund. Constitutionally, he can't renegotiate Treasury debt. But the Trust Fund debt is ‘special obligation securities," not subject to the same strictures. Trump says he ill protect Social Security payments because he expects the American economy to boom in growth, which will increase its revenue stream. But all he has to do is claim that growth hasn't met our expectations yet, and thus payments must be slashed.
This man's idea of "leadership" is embodied by authoritarians who suspend elections and jail their opponents when it looks like they won't win democratically. As enraged betrayed voters sink Trump's polling numbers, he won't run the risk of losing. He will simply suspend elections. He has told us what he is about: being a "strong leader" who "wins." We are fools if we elect a would-be tyrant over more of the same.
The real rage will come when Trump decides to lower our national debt by "renegotiating" the 2.7T owed to the Social Security Trust Fund. Constitutionally, he can't renegotiate Treasury debt. But the Trust Fund debt is ‘special obligation securities," not subject to the same strictures. Trump says he ill protect Social Security payments because he expects the American economy to boom in growth, which will increase its revenue stream. But all he has to do is claim that growth hasn't met our expectations yet, and thus payments must be slashed.
This man's idea of "leadership" is embodied by authoritarians who suspend elections and jail their opponents when it looks like they won't win democratically. As enraged betrayed voters sink Trump's polling numbers, he won't run the risk of losing. He will simply suspend elections. He has told us what he is about: being a "strong leader" who "wins." We are fools if we elect a would-be tyrant over more of the same.
5
Very interesting. This was written by some of her most ardent cheerleaders, yet just a month ago the same people would have said it was impossible. I would like to see a second version of this after the scandals at the DNC, after the Bernie people were not allowed to have a say, after the DNC built a wall to keep out the unwelcome ones. Will wait patiently
11
Long ago the national polling numbers showed Hillary having a tough time with just about any Republican & that Bernie did far better, but the Cram Hillary Down Your Throat faction of the Media and the DNC made sure that we would never get Bernie as nominee. Closed Primaries & huge victories in Red Republican states gave Hillary the nomination, but Independents will decide in November- not Emily's List, The Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood, The AFT & NEA.
The reasoning applied by many professional pundits who rarely travel outside the bubble of the top 5% or so of American society is ludicrous & desperately out of touch. Hillary us strongly disliked and distrusted by far more people than like & trust her. They are also firmly set in their opinion of her and most would rather lick a toilet than vote for her.
This is not so much Hillary's election to win as it is Trump's to lose. Independent Progressives like myself who worked our backsides off for Bernie will not lift a finger, give a dime, knock on one door or give our vote to someone so completely opposite us in values despite the whitewashing Bill gave her on TV the other night. We know about her time as a Corporate Director at Wal-Mart, her shady financial dealings, her still hidden Goldman Speeches & her family's use of the Clinton Global Initiative as a private ATM/Slush Fund for Close Associates.
She thinks like Obama she can play Progressive and then forget all that once she gets our vote. No way.
The reasoning applied by many professional pundits who rarely travel outside the bubble of the top 5% or so of American society is ludicrous & desperately out of touch. Hillary us strongly disliked and distrusted by far more people than like & trust her. They are also firmly set in their opinion of her and most would rather lick a toilet than vote for her.
This is not so much Hillary's election to win as it is Trump's to lose. Independent Progressives like myself who worked our backsides off for Bernie will not lift a finger, give a dime, knock on one door or give our vote to someone so completely opposite us in values despite the whitewashing Bill gave her on TV the other night. We know about her time as a Corporate Director at Wal-Mart, her shady financial dealings, her still hidden Goldman Speeches & her family's use of the Clinton Global Initiative as a private ATM/Slush Fund for Close Associates.
She thinks like Obama she can play Progressive and then forget all that once she gets our vote. No way.
14
I agree wholeheartedly with every word, David. I'm with you!
5
The mid-west rust belt could be Hillary's Achilles heal, but the rust belt has large numbers of descendants of eastern European immigrants, many of whom fear Putin and Russian expansionism. The Democrats should make the most of their opportunity to publicize Trump's ties to and praise for Putin.
5
As a Granite Stater, I can assure you that Trump will not win New Hampshire in November. We're smart enough to see through his bombast and his lies.
4
It's early - let's see how the debates go. Trump can only go so long in saying he will look into it, eventual he will need more than one sentence to explain his programs and solutions. Keep pushing on releasing his taxes etc. the man doesn't read, doesn't study hopefully even those low educated white men will see he is not qualified to be president.
5
I don't care what the maps say, Mrs. Clinton will win this hands down, just based on the USA population:
Hispanic: 17%
African American: 12%
White women: 125 million
Hispanic: 17%
African American: 12%
White women: 125 million
6
This article presumes that Trump will win Florida, a state that is 23% Hispanic and 15% black. It simply won't happen. And if he loses Florida, he's toast.
8
Hillary Clinton has squandered her big advantage going into this election season with a lot of unnecessary, self-inflicted wounds. Clinton's lead shrunk with every month and some statistical predictions now put Trump ahead.
Sure, both Republicans and Sanders attacked her, but that has to be expected for the front-runner. It is, after all, politics. Every Presidential candidate after George Washington had to fend off attacks. The Clinton camp has handled everything in the most tone-deaf way possible. Sure, Hillary Clinton might not be a people person, but doesn't she have campaign staff?
I don't know if Sanders would have done any better. It's hard for any Democrat to win in battleground states without mobilizing large number of African and Latino American voters, and as we have seen during the primaries Sanders was never able to make deep inroads with those communities, particular African-American. But as we get closer to the general election, I have more and more doubts. Clinton seems to trip all over herself with every attack and scandal, while Trump remains Teflon and garners more and more support from former Republican enemies.
Sure, both Republicans and Sanders attacked her, but that has to be expected for the front-runner. It is, after all, politics. Every Presidential candidate after George Washington had to fend off attacks. The Clinton camp has handled everything in the most tone-deaf way possible. Sure, Hillary Clinton might not be a people person, but doesn't she have campaign staff?
I don't know if Sanders would have done any better. It's hard for any Democrat to win in battleground states without mobilizing large number of African and Latino American voters, and as we have seen during the primaries Sanders was never able to make deep inroads with those communities, particular African-American. But as we get closer to the general election, I have more and more doubts. Clinton seems to trip all over herself with every attack and scandal, while Trump remains Teflon and garners more and more support from former Republican enemies.
4
I think you underestimate the number of women who are highly educated and who support Trump. There are a lot of them.
13
Actually as a former Bernie Sanders supporter and a current Jill Stein supporter, a tie is the outcome for POTUS is exactly what I am hoping for in this election.
It will serve the "vote for the lessor of two evils" and the "Shut up and fall in line" folks in both parties right and will serve as a wakeup call to the electorate. But most especially it will be a rebuke to the Democratic Party Establishment. The only thing that would make it sweeter for me is if Dr. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson both break into double digits in the election qualifying both for matching funds next time around!
I would love to see the old mechanism in the constitution for this situation rolled out of the barn and dusted off and watch the House or Representatives figure out how it works!
It would also richly serve right the plutocracy on Wall Street who funds both of the Duopoly establishment political parties to hedge their bets, in that it would create uncertainty and mess up the stock markets for months...
It is most especially exactly what the folks in the Democratic Party and in the media who worked so hard against Bernie Sanders so richly deserve.
It will serve the "vote for the lessor of two evils" and the "Shut up and fall in line" folks in both parties right and will serve as a wakeup call to the electorate. But most especially it will be a rebuke to the Democratic Party Establishment. The only thing that would make it sweeter for me is if Dr. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson both break into double digits in the election qualifying both for matching funds next time around!
I would love to see the old mechanism in the constitution for this situation rolled out of the barn and dusted off and watch the House or Representatives figure out how it works!
It would also richly serve right the plutocracy on Wall Street who funds both of the Duopoly establishment political parties to hedge their bets, in that it would create uncertainty and mess up the stock markets for months...
It is most especially exactly what the folks in the Democratic Party and in the media who worked so hard against Bernie Sanders so richly deserve.
5
Keep scaring us. You're doing a public service by showing that there are enough people--hurting though they may be--that are ill-informed, exploited continuously by demagogues by right-wing politics and the media, and uneducated about history enough to elect this American Mussolini called Trump. Keep scaring us.
74
Not much attention paid to turnout. No attention paid to third party drain. Remember, both candidates are disliked more than they're liked. Either factor could very well tip the scales in meaningful and unpredictable ways. I guess political forecasters prefer to step around this issue for now.
16
enjoy life in the bubble. i bet these guys never thought Trump had a chance a year ago, and that Brexit was all but impossible.
30
yes, and the UK work up the next morning and wanted to take the vote back ! Let's not make a mistake of much greater proportions. Let's not put the world in the hands of an imbecile like Trump and his authoritarian dictator buddy, V. Putin.
5
Nate Cohn wrote a mea culpa after Trump became the one man left standing, saying he had not seen this coming.
3
I've lived in states outside the bubble, and now live in Bubble Central. Believe me, it is way better in the bubble.
2
Just another reason to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the Republican'ts and their ilk so far down that they will never recover.
C'mon Americans, let's all join the civilized world and the 21st century rather than go backwards to the first century where the Republican'ts and the corporations and their ilk wish to take us.
C'mon Americans, let's all join the civilized world and the 21st century rather than go backwards to the first century where the Republican'ts and the corporations and their ilk wish to take us.
61
Well, at least it would be interesting. The House appointing America's last president would be a fitting end.
23
Personally, I think super delegates are a good idea. They are, for the most part, the professionals in the party and have a stake in party unity and in nominating a strong candidate. Their judgement should be respected. If they vote against a candidate who has more delegates than were elected in the primary, they must have good reasons for doing so, as they would not want to alienate their base.
Sanders wants to get rid of super delegates and to allow people who are not in the party to vote in the primary because--he is not in the party. He has never been in the Democratic Party except when he wanted to run for President and said today that he will return to being an Independent next year. That is his prerogative for sure, but the Party shouldn't accommodate him on this issue.
What Sanders really ought to do -- and ought to try to get Democrats to do -- is push for proportional voting everywhere in the US. That would allow minority perspectives to have a voice and representation in Congress. It would make third parties tenable. While professional politicians who are leaders in each party wouldn't like this very much as it would be likely to dilute their power, there are many other people who would support it. And as an added bonus, it end the curse of gerrymandering if House representatives were awarded on a proportional basis in each state rather than by district as is currently done.
Sanders wants to get rid of super delegates and to allow people who are not in the party to vote in the primary because--he is not in the party. He has never been in the Democratic Party except when he wanted to run for President and said today that he will return to being an Independent next year. That is his prerogative for sure, but the Party shouldn't accommodate him on this issue.
What Sanders really ought to do -- and ought to try to get Democrats to do -- is push for proportional voting everywhere in the US. That would allow minority perspectives to have a voice and representation in Congress. It would make third parties tenable. While professional politicians who are leaders in each party wouldn't like this very much as it would be likely to dilute their power, there are many other people who would support it. And as an added bonus, it end the curse of gerrymandering if House representatives were awarded on a proportional basis in each state rather than by district as is currently done.
23
Why are we made to choose which primary to be in. Why in the world can't vote in both? Why must we be put in a position like this time where we want so badly to vote against someone in both parties, in order to have a likable candidate in both slots come November. One more divisive policy. We have a *democracy. Not we don't, we have a *republic. Not we have an asterisk. A government of the people, for the people, and by THOSE people.
2
House of Cards
9
Counting on the suburbs of philly on this. they really really determine the winner. Thank goodness it's been voting dem for ten years.
16
If Mitt Romney can't win in 2012 when demographics were more favorable than 2016, there is no way that Donald Trump can win this year. Romney offended Hispanics voters with "self deport" and his 47 percent comment on poor people. Trump offends even his own Republicans with things he has said about NATO and Jon McCain's prisoner of war status as a real American hero.
Trump would have to run the table and win all the battleground states. His path is so narrow. The Koch Brothers and many Republican billionaire donors are refusing to back Trump. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan swatted back at Trump's statements on Russia today and 10 Republican Senate candidates in close elections will now have to answer if they are with Trump.
More Puerto Ricans (with American citizenship and voting rights) have moved to Central Florida with the commonwealth's financial crisis. This Hispanic group is much more favorable to Democrats. Younger Cuban-Americans are leaning more to Democrats than their aging first generation counterparts exiled by Castro. Despite polls, no way is Trump going to win Florida.
A poll this week put Georgia in a dead heat between Trump and Clinton. The adding of Arizona and Georgia as battlegrounds expands Clinton's path to victory and puts Trump's Midwest strategy in question. Georgia now has the same number of electoral votes as Michigan, which has been losing population.
Trump would have to run the table and win all the battleground states. His path is so narrow. The Koch Brothers and many Republican billionaire donors are refusing to back Trump. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan swatted back at Trump's statements on Russia today and 10 Republican Senate candidates in close elections will now have to answer if they are with Trump.
More Puerto Ricans (with American citizenship and voting rights) have moved to Central Florida with the commonwealth's financial crisis. This Hispanic group is much more favorable to Democrats. Younger Cuban-Americans are leaning more to Democrats than their aging first generation counterparts exiled by Castro. Despite polls, no way is Trump going to win Florida.
A poll this week put Georgia in a dead heat between Trump and Clinton. The adding of Arizona and Georgia as battlegrounds expands Clinton's path to victory and puts Trump's Midwest strategy in question. Georgia now has the same number of electoral votes as Michigan, which has been losing population.
27
Romney lost to a person with very high favorable numbers. Hillary Clinton is no where close to the trust and popularity of President Obama.
Let's face it, NAte Cohn has nailed it. If you go to Nate Silver's web site, Trump has is seen more favorable.
And by the way Georgia has not voted Democratic since the election of Jimmy Carter, 40 eyars ago.
As fro Florida, a lot of snow birds from the rust belt also moved there.
And Ohio? The Columbus Dispatch Poll poll had Clinton and Trump tied; that was before the conventions.
Ms. Clinton, should be making this map much more bluer, she will not be able to.
Let's face it, NAte Cohn has nailed it. If you go to Nate Silver's web site, Trump has is seen more favorable.
And by the way Georgia has not voted Democratic since the election of Jimmy Carter, 40 eyars ago.
As fro Florida, a lot of snow birds from the rust belt also moved there.
And Ohio? The Columbus Dispatch Poll poll had Clinton and Trump tied; that was before the conventions.
Ms. Clinton, should be making this map much more bluer, she will not be able to.
24
Orlando, with Florida's largest Puerto Rican community, has been trending Democratic for a decade or so. Meanwhile, Republicans have tightened their grip on state politics, other than the outcomes of presidential elections.
The state, professing to be following Federal guidelines, has made it difficult to establish one's identity as a voter; voting requires photo ID with signature, so a mere passport isn't adequate. Also, felons can't vote unless they go through a fairly elaborate process.
The state, professing to be following Federal guidelines, has made it difficult to establish one's identity as a voter; voting requires photo ID with signature, so a mere passport isn't adequate. Also, felons can't vote unless they go through a fairly elaborate process.
2
Please stop printing this stuff suited for Las Vegas bookies.
What America needs, and has been short-changed on since last summer, is reporting and analysis regarding our priority issues and dangers.
Climate change.
Nukes, esp. nuke war.
Economic inequality.
Seizure of our economy and government by the money-insider royalty.
Could the New York Times cut back on its electoral fluff, and fill the space thus opened with coverage of the priority issues?
What America needs, and has been short-changed on since last summer, is reporting and analysis regarding our priority issues and dangers.
Climate change.
Nukes, esp. nuke war.
Economic inequality.
Seizure of our economy and government by the money-insider royalty.
Could the New York Times cut back on its electoral fluff, and fill the space thus opened with coverage of the priority issues?
68
What *really* depresses me is that, win or lose, Donald Trump is going to be the choice of at least 60 million American voters, and win the majority of votes in about half of the states.
Even if Hillary wins, the Repubs will almost certainly control the House, and they will do everything in their power to prevent her from accomplishing anything. I fully expect them to initiate impeachment charges shortly after January 20th (Benghazi and email again), and I would not be surprised to learn that they are already being drafted. Above and beyond the issue of confirming Supreme Court nominees, it's just another reason why it's absolutely essential for Dems to regain the majority in the Senate.
Even if Hillary wins, the Repubs will almost certainly control the House, and they will do everything in their power to prevent her from accomplishing anything. I fully expect them to initiate impeachment charges shortly after January 20th (Benghazi and email again), and I would not be surprised to learn that they are already being drafted. Above and beyond the issue of confirming Supreme Court nominees, it's just another reason why it's absolutely essential for Dems to regain the majority in the Senate.
71
This is what happens when the political class is thoroughly corrupt and self serving. People become desperate and fall prey to horrible con men.
32
Nate's take on New Hampshire misses a key point. It's the suburban counties near the Massachusetts border that -- like the like the contiguous parts of suburban Massachusetts -- tend to vote Republican. It's New Hampshire's rural towns that vote Democratic, just like Vermont and Western Massachusetts. In Western New Hampshire and Eastern Vermont, the economy revolves around health care, higher education, and technology. It's a region where direct, local democracy is vibrant and where interest-group machine politics is viewed very negatively across the left-right spectrum.
9
Just Switch out New Hampshire with Colorado, and you end up- with Trump winning by 4 Electoral Votes.
7
Colorado has 9 and New Hampshire 4.
Actually I mad a mistake, Trump wins 274 - 264.
A nice map to play with. Have fun, scare or excite your friends. You can even set states to gray, to effectively designate them as going to a third party.
Actually I mad a mistake, Trump wins 274 - 264.
A nice map to play with. Have fun, scare or excite your friends. You can even set states to gray, to effectively designate them as going to a third party.
7
Maybe Trump winning the popular vote and Clinton winning the electoral vote (and the election) would be a win/win for everyone. Trump retains his honor and influence ("i'm the most popular") while Clinton becomes President but has to govern with strong Trump and Republican "oversight." Not a perfect outcome but everyone gets something.
5
How can you link congressional republicans with oversight?
Unless it's over a reproductive matter that is none of their business.
Unless it's over a reproductive matter that is none of their business.
5
Why should Trump get anything? What "honor" does Trump have? If he wins the popular vote and loses, there will be hell to pay in many parts of the USA -- no doubt more violent attacks on minorities, etc. I don't like Hillary Clinton and I'm not telling people that they have to vote for her, but for Pete's sake, we are talking about a Presidential Election here -- not a way to divide up a birthday cake so that none of the children cry.
5
I do enjoy reading all the thoughtful civilized discourse here. It's a breath of fresh air in this rubbish strewn polarized cyberspace. If only Congress could converse like this!
24
I'll bet once Trump shares his tax returns it will have an impact on these maps. Oh, wait a minute - he has not shared that info and NOBODY is asking him about it!
47
Maybe the Russians will hack him and release them....
19
Gawd, it is sad the way people who are paid political commentators will twist and turn to keep up the illusion that they are doing some kind of special job.
First, while these two paid political pundits want to chuckle at people who point out that Al Gore won in 2000, the only way they can even begin to mount an argument that Trump has a chance of winning is to use the bogus result in 2000 as the basis for the claim that a candidate can lose the popular vote and win the electoral college. That's why it's important to point out that this did not happen in 2000. Bush was appointed by a biased Supreme Court with the assistance of a corrupt Florida state administration.
The point is, there is absolutely no possibility that Trump will win the popular vote - he will be lucky, exceptionally lucky, to get more than 45% of the popular vote. Thus, there is absolutely no chance of him being elected president.
These pundit people seem to want to premise their every argument on the assumption that the majority of Americans are really, really stupid. They are not. I think about 45% of Americans are, indeed, either really, really stupid or really, really corrupt, but they will never constitute a majority of American voters - so America and the world is safe.
I understand these people can't just write "the election is over, analysis is pointless, Trump has no possible chance of becoming president" (which is what could have been said about Romney 6 months out) but that is the reality.
First, while these two paid political pundits want to chuckle at people who point out that Al Gore won in 2000, the only way they can even begin to mount an argument that Trump has a chance of winning is to use the bogus result in 2000 as the basis for the claim that a candidate can lose the popular vote and win the electoral college. That's why it's important to point out that this did not happen in 2000. Bush was appointed by a biased Supreme Court with the assistance of a corrupt Florida state administration.
The point is, there is absolutely no possibility that Trump will win the popular vote - he will be lucky, exceptionally lucky, to get more than 45% of the popular vote. Thus, there is absolutely no chance of him being elected president.
These pundit people seem to want to premise their every argument on the assumption that the majority of Americans are really, really stupid. They are not. I think about 45% of Americans are, indeed, either really, really stupid or really, really corrupt, but they will never constitute a majority of American voters - so America and the world is safe.
I understand these people can't just write "the election is over, analysis is pointless, Trump has no possible chance of becoming president" (which is what could have been said about Romney 6 months out) but that is the reality.
23
So the half of the country that disagrees with you are stupid, great argument.
20
Keep in mind that after the 2000 election was over, the New York Times and the Miami Herald went back and counted all the votes in Florida. They found that Bush received 1500 more votes than Gore. That's more than double the margin than when the vote was first certified.
The Supreme Court did not anoint anyone. They simply said that Gore could not keep counting and recounting ONLY the Democratic counties.
The Supreme Court did not anoint anyone. They simply said that Gore could not keep counting and recounting ONLY the Democratic counties.
3
Virginia is the swing state. After a malicious political prosecution of Gov. Bob McDonnell (who took less in bribes then Vice Presidential Candidate Tim Caine)- democrat Terry McAuliffe tries to re-enfranchise over 200,000 convicted felons. Tim Caine- a Virginia favorite son- is the Veep candidate.
The Democrats must believe that Virginia will decide the election.
The Democrats must believe that Virginia will decide the election.
5
At least spell Tim Kaine's name right. And by the way, he did nothing illegal under Virginia law.
1
Considering that not only can you not spell Kaine's name correctly, and Trump's lie about the amount of "bribes" (actually gifts, which were not bribes) that Kaine took relative to the bribes that McDonnell took, your comment demonstrates precisely why people like me are very scared.
3
"Re-enfranchising" convicted felons might seem to be unethical (though I'm not sure why if they've paid their debt -- what purpose is served by making them outsiders to the process?) but in any case, "re-enfranchising" is a hell of a lot more ethical than the massive voter suppression (closing registration and polling places in low income neighborhoods?) that the Republicans have done in numerous states.
4
In other words, these are the author's best (worst?) case scenarios of how this country does a repeat of Germany, circa 1932. In that case, all I can say is God help us!
21
I would encourage you to seek out anyone you can who actually lived under Hitler's heel and get their thoughts.
The consensus from the handful of surviving relatives on my mother's side is that Trump is at most Mussolini--preening and posturing.
Hitler was a level of evil perhaps unreachable in the West these days. Please don't demean those who suffered his hand by comparing him to someone who says mean stuff.
The consensus from the handful of surviving relatives on my mother's side is that Trump is at most Mussolini--preening and posturing.
Hitler was a level of evil perhaps unreachable in the West these days. Please don't demean those who suffered his hand by comparing him to someone who says mean stuff.
5
I think it's plausible that Trump could win PA. Although it was blue in 2008 & 2012, the description "Philadelphia in the East, Pittsburgh in the West and Alabama in the middle," paints an accurate and damning picture for Clinton/Kaine. Being from Western PA, but living in Eastern PA for some time, they are two different beasts. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia themselves will obviously be blue, but the Clinton's must focus on the Philadelphia suburbs. A much more diverse crowd than Pittsburgh's suburbs that will have a big impact on which color PA turns in November.
11
It should be extremely disturbing to ANY politician to know that huge swaths of the country feel so desperate and disconnected from their government that they would throw their lot in with Trump. Unfortunately, Hillary is spending her political capital at the Democratic Convention to convince Sanders voters to come over to her vs. being able to try to peel away some working class votes from Trump.
14
A vote either for Mr. Trump or for Ms. Clinton is madness. Now is the time to reject the so-called two-party system. Depending on your inclinations, vote either for Mr. Johnson or for Ms. Stein. It's long past time to abandon the good-cop/bad-cop hustle that has dominated American elections. Choosing between the lesser of the two evils guarantees only that we keep moving towards more evil. We should and must demand more of ourselves than this.
20
Sure, because a vote for Stein isn't a vote for Trump. Grow up and realize the seriousness of this situation. Throwing your vote away will only help the fascists, and if you believe in even a tiny portion of what Stein is selling, you can't let that happen.
42
If you want to determine your vote by cliches, how about don't make the great the enemy of the good. Pay attention to the DNC. Good enough for Michael Moore and Bernie Sanders - good enough for me.
5
Been saying this all along:
Those 'Red States' that Hillary Clinton touted as showing she's received more primary votes than anyone in history will all turn 'Red' during the general election and vote for Trump in the electoral college. If Trump pulls off Florida and Ohio, the Democrats are doomed.
In other words, the bias toward Clinton within the DNC will also be its death rattle - and they will lose the White House.
Moral: You can buy a party's nomination but you can't guarantee an electoral college victory in November.
Hope it was all worth it ladies - because you may have just saddled this country with an orange haired carnival barker that couldn't give a rip about the welfare of this nation.
Fashion statements in politics are nice but they can cause incredible harm to the lives of real people.
Those 'Red States' that Hillary Clinton touted as showing she's received more primary votes than anyone in history will all turn 'Red' during the general election and vote for Trump in the electoral college. If Trump pulls off Florida and Ohio, the Democrats are doomed.
In other words, the bias toward Clinton within the DNC will also be its death rattle - and they will lose the White House.
Moral: You can buy a party's nomination but you can't guarantee an electoral college victory in November.
Hope it was all worth it ladies - because you may have just saddled this country with an orange haired carnival barker that couldn't give a rip about the welfare of this nation.
Fashion statements in politics are nice but they can cause incredible harm to the lives of real people.
13
So, I've little doubt that if elected, the Donald will be a pretty abysmal president. Having spoken with a not totally insignificant number of Trumpistas, my impression is that'd be just fine with them. They hate government, and sending a big, loud-mouthed, orange-haired baboon to the White House is as good a way of breaking Washington as any. That said, I am just not getting the Munich 1934 vibe that half the people in these sidebars seem to be feeling. I'm sure that may stampede a few Sanders voters to embrace HRC, but anyone who thinks this doof is the next Stalin must be freebasing. Why do Americans love cataclysmic predictions so much? If it ain't the Rapture it's Donald is the new Hitler. I mean come on people, let's all chill out a little.
25
Of course, Pennsylvania, FLorida and Ohio are vital. but don't forget....so goes New Mexico, so goes the election. New Mexico has never been been off the mark in choosing the winner....except for that dreaded 2000 election...now maybe they really did choose the winner that time, but it was just that activist, partisan Supreme Court that inserted itself into the election instead of allowing the FLorida Supreme Court decision to stand and the recount to continue. If there isn't diligence this time, there could be another Katherine Harris moment where people rule out huge swaths of votes under the guise of non-existing voter fraud claims. The Brennan Center at NYU has done a brilliant job of cataloguing the phony claims of voter fraud. It is the modern version of the Reconstruction era's greatest calamity, when Mississippi voters, for one example, were denied their rights under threat of death in the mid 1870s AFTER a War that had divided our nation...after constitutional recognition. Voter rights mustn't be abridged again. Be as firm about exposure of this issue as you are about statistics representing to be the actual results.
20
And what will happen if we have another nightmare scenario where the now evenly divided Supreme Court decides the outcome?
9
Every independent recount of Florida post election showed Bush as the winner. The US Supreme Court made an activist decision to intervene, but it didn't change the outcome. Bush still got more votes.
7
Remember Gary Johnson, the Libertarian, is from New Meico. He can throw a wrench in the works if New Mexico goes to him. As close as this is going to be, The Democrats losing New Mexico, to the Libertarians will hurt Clinton more than Trump. And chances are very good, in my purple state of Colorado, that it won't go to Clinton, either.
5
I read somewhere there's a push to get the Amish to vote in Pennsylvania. Not sure how realistic that is since they tend to avoid politics, but in a close race, would make a difference.
1
There are plenty of people in prison who are denied the vote also felons who have completed their incarceration.
Might be easier to go this route rather than try to impugn the Amish culture.
Might be easier to go this route rather than try to impugn the Amish culture.
The discussion of the electoral college and the national voting percentages almost always going together is irrelevant and a distraction. The national polling does not matter. We have a ridiculous system in which my vote in Massachusetts is not going to matter. This changes the entire campaign strategy: There is no effort to campaign for my vote. If a national vote decided the election, it would be totally different: A vote in TX and a vote in NY would be worth as much as a vote in OH. It is not now. So, doing national polls is a waste of time/energy.
11
The non- white, female, white liberal and Asian voters in cities and suburbs of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh will give the state to Clinton. And remember, women are over half of all voters and they are not voting for trump. And that goes for working-class white women.
19
My hometown in northern Pennsylvania is very working class, very Republican. In fact, you could paint the entire county that way. The women will all vote Repulican, I predict. (Except for the few liberal outliers)
They would never vote Democratic any more than you would vote Republican. They despise Democrats with the same strong passionate zeal that people who comment here feel toward Republicans. One of my earliest memories was the relief and pretty much, it hurts me to say, because this includes my aunts and uncles, but glee, when somebody named JFK , and later when someone named Bobby, were killed.
As you see from my name, I moved away. I am a registered Democrat. Please don't blame the messenger.
They would never vote Democratic any more than you would vote Republican. They despise Democrats with the same strong passionate zeal that people who comment here feel toward Republicans. One of my earliest memories was the relief and pretty much, it hurts me to say, because this includes my aunts and uncles, but glee, when somebody named JFK , and later when someone named Bobby, were killed.
As you see from my name, I moved away. I am a registered Democrat. Please don't blame the messenger.
17
I wish I could believe that were true. My lefty Facebook field says otherwise. The internalized sexism on the Left in this country is very real.
1
Some Democrats need to go to the eye doctor and get their glasses adjusted. Have you ever looked at the gender makeup of the crowds at Trump events? Looks to me like there are a lot of women present. I can assure you, anecdotally speaking - that in Trumpland (where I live) - most of the white, college educated women I come in contact with are going to vote for Trump. And, these women surely must have like-minded "sisters" in other parts of the country who are going to be voting the same way. God forbid! I hope not, but please don't assume that other choirs are listening to the same preacher.
2
One point that neither Nate or Toni made is that either scenario shows that Republicans have a fairly low ceiling, meaning 270-289 electoral votes is a hard ceiling for Trump. Whereas Democrats are playing on a field with solid floor of 240-250 electoral votes, and a ceiling of as many as 347 electoral votes. While swing states may vote together, a state-by-state analysis shows that Clinton can force Trump to contest more states, and Trump, with a smaller aperture for victory cannot afford to lose to many of those contested states. If Trump is unable to match Clinton in fundraising and organization, Trump will have difficulty orchestrating the requisite number of state victories.
18
Beyond the statistics that support the race being closer than many can imagine, there is a lot of news between now and November. If Julian Assange can dispose of the DNC chair on the day the convention starts, what other PR nuggets does he have waiting for the right time in October?
Hillary worked for the company everyone targeted. Donald was a TV bully. There is a lot more for her to hide than him, and in this respect Trump has a huge advantage. We know he's [insert negative trait here], that's old news. The negative news risk is squarely on Hillary.
A lot can happen in 4 months, and the forces of evil appear to be outstanding card players.
Hillary worked for the company everyone targeted. Donald was a TV bully. There is a lot more for her to hide than him, and in this respect Trump has a huge advantage. We know he's [insert negative trait here], that's old news. The negative news risk is squarely on Hillary.
A lot can happen in 4 months, and the forces of evil appear to be outstanding card players.
12
It is shameful and embarrassing that this election, so important to the world's harmony, is even a race. Scary scary.
32
Cheer up, fellow Democrats-- the really important election is 2020. Reapportionment will be at stake then, and a loss to Trump now will really motivate us to take back congress and the White House. They will not have the minority voters to defend all that territory with Trump in charge. The Country Club Republicans are extinct or Democrats, now. Howard Dean was right-- make them defend every state. They don't have the troops. Not as many angry white men will work to register voters, etc., as pissed off Hispanics in Florida. I understand that many Puerto Ricans are moving to Florida, and voting. En Bloc. Recruit recruit recruit. Numbers count.
8
You are right about reapportionment, but the problem is the reapportionment is generally a function of State Legislatures, and in a number of states, the ship has sailed. The rigged deck is less pronounced in the south than it is in the industrial midwest. In the six elections since 1992, Democrats have won the states of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania 16 out of 18 times (Ohio in 2000 and 2004 are the only exceptions). Yet the Congressional delegations are currently 34 Republicans and 13 Democrats. The fight needs to be at the State Legislature level, or if that is also hopelessly rigged, statewide ballot initiatives to make redistricting non-partisan.
8
True. If Trump wins we KNOW what a disaster he'll be and 2020 will squarely fall to a Democratic candidate. I called it when Bush won in 2000, and watched with horror as he nearly destroyed the U.S. and the Republican Party. With Trump, he will damage the U.S., but he will definitely put the final nail in the coffin of the sputtering Grand OLD Party. Sadly, if he wins, our chance of putting a woman in the White house will be another generation away.
4
No guarantee this country or the world will exist in 2020 with Donald's fingers near the nuclear button. I'm serious.
14
May i suggest that it is not just the Democrats who should fear the map you posted but the entire country should fear such an outcome.
37
But instead of sitting back & letting "the Pundits" tell us who's gonna' win, let's work as hard as we can to "get out the vote", do phone banking, emailing, swallow hard & endure signage on our persons, cars & yards.
Citizenship requires not only rights but responsibility, too.
Citizenship requires not only rights but responsibility, too.
20
A British prime minister was observed that you can always count on Americans to make the right decision -- after they've exhausted all the alternatives.
4
I know Wisconsin seems to fall into the Democrat category almost by accident historically but I'd consider the state a real toss up this year. There is no real love lost here for either candidate; turnout may be anemic. Whoever can get out the vote will take it.
7
Technically it's possible to win the election with not much over one-quarter of the popular vote: just over half the vote in states making up just over half the number of electoral votes, even with zero votes in any of the other states.
1
It's this easy:
Assuming CA, NY and IL are in the bag for Democrats, then they MUST win 3 of these 4 or there is NO WAY to 270: PA, OH, MI, FL.
That is all you need to remember.
Assuming CA, NY and IL are in the bag for Democrats, then they MUST win 3 of these 4 or there is NO WAY to 270: PA, OH, MI, FL.
That is all you need to remember.
7
I think the statisticians are ignoring the fact that one candidate will have a large surge when debates and television advertisements are unleashed (Trumps awful behavior and record, and Clintons advantage in fund raising) . Basing predictions on polls now is unwise. I really believe that the election will be an electoral landslide with Clinton winning North Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, the Midwestern states and New Hampshire. Trumps support is firm and fixed with an inadequate base to compete. The undecided will flow to Clinton and demographics will be more powerful than in 2012.
40
You forget the high # of white working class males in the Midwest states & PA.
Noticeable #s of them changed their party to vote for Trump. They don't like black men & white women running their country or party. Hatred & resentment are motives for them to vote for Trump. How to counter that in those states??
Noticeable #s of them changed their party to vote for Trump. They don't like black men & white women running their country or party. Hatred & resentment are motives for them to vote for Trump. How to counter that in those states??
1
Only the Democratic nominee can address this problem and it is a crisis that requires a forthright connecting with voters that acknowledges their concerns. The time for surrogates has passed.
5
Here's the canary in the [PA] coal mine:
My Pennsylvania sister and brother-in-law, both COLLEGE EDUCATED from long lines of Irish Catholic union-household Democrats, changed their registration in the Spring so they could vote for Trump.
Why? Stagnant wages, partly, but mostly because the stagnation is blamed not directly on the Wall Street -Washington axis so clearly represented by Obama-Clinton, but rather because of xenophobia against the small but ever more visible Hispanic presence in the state, which is linked to drug gangs, crime, and the proliferation of section 8 housing in communities devastated by free trade de-industrialization.
Unconscious racism no doubt plays a part. But there is resentment every time Spanish is heard either on the street, in the supermarket, or wherever, because, they tell me, earlier generations of immigrants assimilated, but these people demand we speak their language in our own country.
Why should Spanish speakers get special treatment? Why not 'press 2 for Chinese'? This is what they say.
If Trump is elected, the corporate elites will have no one to blame but themselves. Drive around Northeastern or Western PA. So many once vibrant towns and cities that absorbed and Americanized generations of immigrants are devastated and destroyed by the policies the thoughtless and greedy and complacent elites have visited on this state and many others.
The elites and the Clintons in particular richly deserve Trump.
My Pennsylvania sister and brother-in-law, both COLLEGE EDUCATED from long lines of Irish Catholic union-household Democrats, changed their registration in the Spring so they could vote for Trump.
Why? Stagnant wages, partly, but mostly because the stagnation is blamed not directly on the Wall Street -Washington axis so clearly represented by Obama-Clinton, but rather because of xenophobia against the small but ever more visible Hispanic presence in the state, which is linked to drug gangs, crime, and the proliferation of section 8 housing in communities devastated by free trade de-industrialization.
Unconscious racism no doubt plays a part. But there is resentment every time Spanish is heard either on the street, in the supermarket, or wherever, because, they tell me, earlier generations of immigrants assimilated, but these people demand we speak their language in our own country.
Why should Spanish speakers get special treatment? Why not 'press 2 for Chinese'? This is what they say.
If Trump is elected, the corporate elites will have no one to blame but themselves. Drive around Northeastern or Western PA. So many once vibrant towns and cities that absorbed and Americanized generations of immigrants are devastated and destroyed by the policies the thoughtless and greedy and complacent elites have visited on this state and many others.
The elites and the Clintons in particular richly deserve Trump.
46
Sounds like if you were in PA you'd change your registration to trump as well. Trump will solve all the problems in NE and W Pa. All by himself.
3
Same story across all of upstate New York.
3
The authors failed to consider the possibility that the Green or Libertarian candidates could win a state or two, given the highly unfavorable ratings of the two leading candidates. Please acknowledge there will be at least four choices on most ballots in the country (likely all 50 states for Libertarian Gary Johnson).
If Gary Johnson and the Green's Jill Stein are included in the presidential debates (which they should be), it could be a game changer. Johnson already polls in a statistical tie with Trump and Clinton in Utah.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/utah-poll-gary-johnson-in-statistical-...
If Gary Johnson and the Green's Jill Stein are included in the presidential debates (which they should be), it could be a game changer. Johnson already polls in a statistical tie with Trump and Clinton in Utah.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/utah-poll-gary-johnson-in-statistical-...
7
In the real world, there are only two candidates.
7
They failed to consider those possibilities because the cumulative probability attached to them is 0%.
6
Emily, in the real world that are more than two. And thisi year, Johnson and Stein have a chance to overturn the apple cart.
I guess you expect Sanders voters, who refuse to vote fro Clinton, to stay home. You also expect upset Republicans to stay home. Guess what? They are seeing the alternatives.
I guess you expect Sanders voters, who refuse to vote fro Clinton, to stay home. You also expect upset Republicans to stay home. Guess what? They are seeing the alternatives.
4
FYI, in Colorado, as reported here last night, independents are the majority here, followed by Republicans and then by Democrats. Most of the eastern plains and western slope, are staunch Republican. Boulder, Denver and Pueblo, are staunch Democrat. The rest fiercely independent scattered throughout. Making this state "purple".
Clinton pulled her ads here; indicating she has Colorado sewn up. Problem is, no one told Colorado. Trump will be here tomorrow, as at least he thinks this state is in play, as do most people I know.
Colorado going to Clinton can only occur is people choose not to vote. There are a number of Trump signs around here, very few Clinton.
One has to remember, Clinton is not very popular among independents
A few weeks ago, a similar set of maps appeared indicating that Clinton would win by a very high margin; now, it is 50 --50. Nate Silver has it Trump 55% - 45%. If nothing else, she is declining, more than Trump is rising.
Where there is a rise is with Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Voters are noticing there is an alternative.
Clinton pulled her ads here; indicating she has Colorado sewn up. Problem is, no one told Colorado. Trump will be here tomorrow, as at least he thinks this state is in play, as do most people I know.
Colorado going to Clinton can only occur is people choose not to vote. There are a number of Trump signs around here, very few Clinton.
One has to remember, Clinton is not very popular among independents
A few weeks ago, a similar set of maps appeared indicating that Clinton would win by a very high margin; now, it is 50 --50. Nate Silver has it Trump 55% - 45%. If nothing else, she is declining, more than Trump is rising.
Where there is a rise is with Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Voters are noticing there is an alternative.
18
In order to win PA, Trump has to say and do the very things that will increasingly alienate Hispanics in increasingly Hispanic Florida. I predict a win in one comes at the expense of a loss in the other for Mr. Trump. Ditto NV, but NV is less critical to Trump than FL.
11
But Bush did not "win" the electoral college in 2000. A corrupt and intensely partisan Supreme Court *gave* it to him.
130
Except that nearly every news organization on the planet recounted, after the SCOTUS ruled, and Georgie won by around 150 votes.
Cool story, though...
Cool story, though...
3
Bush won by 1500 votes according to the recount done by the New York Times and the Miami Herald.
Not according to The New York Times. Read the article.
If the libertarian gets enough electoral votes to finish third and it went to the house, Conservatives could/would prefer him over Trump. It's a definite maybe.
3
Read this week's "New Yorker" article.
4
I'd like to suggest a small alteration: It's not what Democrats should fear the most, but what humanity should fear the most.
Many rational Republicans, such as P.J. O'Rourke, understand that this is no longer a contest between competing brands. Serious analysts understand that Democracy is well and truly absent in American society. We know that. This election is to decide what we're going to replace it with.
Many rational Republicans, such as P.J. O'Rourke, understand that this is no longer a contest between competing brands. Serious analysts understand that Democracy is well and truly absent in American society. We know that. This election is to decide what we're going to replace it with.
28
Would be wrong to discount new developments now 'til November as affecting the mix.
In that regard, Hillary would be more vulnerable to just about any negative national or global news, in that she represents the party in power and is biased toward viewing the world/nation as generally in good shape.
That said, the likelihood of major negative (domestic terrorist attack or evidence of a weakening economy) news between now and the election is much greater than that of major positive (think collapse/capitulation of ISIS or big gains in employment/GDP) news.
She better hope that the FBI's Comer, the CIA's Brennan and the NSA's Rogers are really on their game.
In that regard, Hillary would be more vulnerable to just about any negative national or global news, in that she represents the party in power and is biased toward viewing the world/nation as generally in good shape.
That said, the likelihood of major negative (domestic terrorist attack or evidence of a weakening economy) news between now and the election is much greater than that of major positive (think collapse/capitulation of ISIS or big gains in employment/GDP) news.
She better hope that the FBI's Comer, the CIA's Brennan and the NSA's Rogers are really on their game.
5
Why is the NYTimes continuing to give Trump free publicity, even during the DNC? Isn't the ridiculous media coverage in his favour part of the reason he's even running for president at this point in time?!
105
It is called "Equal Time Laws". or, do Clinton supports not believe in that either?
5
That law in no way applies here.
3
Believe in what? The Equal Time Law (a provision of the 1934 Communications Act (section 315) which "requires radio and television stations and cable systems which originate their own programming to treat legally qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time") largely does not apply to the news business, including "(1) regularly scheduled newscasts, (2) news interviews shows, (3) documentaries (unless the documentary is about a candidate), (4) on-the-spot news events."
1
Democrats’ biggest fear is when Trump quits wisecracking and delivers a serious and coherent speech. Even worse, he sometimes forgets himself and accidentally sounds intelligent in public. In New York, we know that he fits in quite comfortably in both higher and lower segments of society, but I don’t think he wants word to get out.
8
It seems that HRC will take--
- New Hampshire -- Old Friends from HRC's earlier campaign, VT next door and Bernie is coming out for her, used it for his endorsement of her
- Ohio--that governor who is well respected is telling his constituents: don't vote for Trump. Ohio may go HRC.
- Virginia has that sparkly new VP to get excited about.
If she gets Ohio, NH, and Virginia, she gone over at 271 without including Florida.
- New Hampshire -- Old Friends from HRC's earlier campaign, VT next door and Bernie is coming out for her, used it for his endorsement of her
- Ohio--that governor who is well respected is telling his constituents: don't vote for Trump. Ohio may go HRC.
- Virginia has that sparkly new VP to get excited about.
If she gets Ohio, NH, and Virginia, she gone over at 271 without including Florida.
15
She is polling tied in Ohio, that was before both conventions, and before the latest e-mail scandal, by The Columbus Dispatch. She won Ohio, because independents, and some Democrats, chose to vote for Kasich over Trump; as reported by the Ohio Attorney Genera;'s office.
The only paces Clinton can win in Ohio is in parts of Cleveland and Columbus; forget about anywhere else. This, as indicated by friends in Ohio.
The only paces Clinton can win in Ohio is in parts of Cleveland and Columbus; forget about anywhere else. This, as indicated by friends in Ohio.
5
How many friends?
1
And before Hillary's convention bump that's sure to come. And before Trump's seditious call upon Russia to hack US government servers.
11
I was born and raised in Ohio. Trump ain't gonna win it.
20
Would you bet your citizenship on it ?
If you want Democracy to survive,
vote Democratic
It's that simple and painfully clear
vote Democratic
It's that simple and painfully clear
87
This is not a problem for the voters to solve. They need to be sold on their leaders.
1
After they refuse to get rid of the undemocratic superdelegates system and after the DNC emails, you still think so? Both parties are tools, not democracy itself. In 20 years or even 10 years, people can look back at this year and have some real materials to discuss how the relative fortunes of the two parties have changed. As for now, who knows?
3
Not "democracy," but "humanity."
2
Bernie would have won all the blue states and most of the swing states.
Just saying...
Just saying...
40
A Bernie map would be much bluer, in comparison. He could win Colorado, Clinton no way.
11
I just got a little known James Michener book from Amazon called Presidential Lottery. Michener wrote this book back in 1968 during an equally heated three way presidential battle between Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey and third party wild card George Wallace. Presidential Lottery argued for the abolition of the electoral college. This book should be a must read during this most bizarre election year. Read it!! There's a test on Friday.
5
In the event that there is an electoral college tie, does the House have to vote for either candidate. I can see the house voting for Kasich or Bush. Of course, there would be a lot of unhappy Trump voters.
1
only candidates who are on a ballot for President may be considered by the House. It's a tie-breaking mechanism, not a replacement for the popular vote.
2
The House wold have to vote between Clinton, Trump, and whoever ends up getting the next most electoral votes. If neither Stein nor Johnson (nor anyone else) get any electoral votes, then I suppose the House only gets to pick between Trump and Clinton.
"If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House." http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#no270
"If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House." http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#no270
2
About all these projections that still have Utah firmly Republican - will that be true this time? Isn't there enough animosity toward Trump within the state's Mormon majority to possibly give the Libertarians their first Electoral College win?
34
Having lived in the State for more than 20 years, I find it unlikely. The Utah Mormons are a homogeneous population that sticks to tradition. They don't rock the boat, they follow the lead of their peers in priesthood meeting/relief society, and they vote Republican. The ones that can't stomach Trump will likely just stay home.
6
And, in Colorado, which has the second largest Mo0rmon population; expect the same things. Not to mention Colorado Springs and the eastern plains/western slope; Heavily non-Democrat.
2
My guess (and it's only a guess) is that at least some parts of Johnson's record will come off as too, well, libertarian to be acceptable to most Utahans. (Utah is a socially conservative state that actually holds itself and its representatives to those standards rather than using them merely as a proxy for political power or racial resentment, which is a big reason why Trump is struggling there.) I expect that voter turnout in Utah will fall through the floor compared to 2012, as a significant percentage of voters there find none of the choices to be acceptable.
3
Huge [yuge] assumption here, stated twice:
The House, controlled by the G.O.P., would mostly break the tie in favor of Trump.
Really? There aren't at least some in the House GOP caucus who are hard-core conservatives who hate Trump's guts, and would never make him President? Are there aren't at least some in the House GOP caucus who would rather fight President Hillary Clinton tooth and nail, and have her be the big enemy that allows them to raise campaign funds, than have to work with the narcissistic, think-skinned sociopath President Trump? Don't assume that the House GOP caucus would unanimously vote for Trump, in the event of an Electoral College tie!
PS: does the outgoing House vote, or does the incoming House vote, in the event of an Electoral College tie? I assume it's the outgoing House, because the Electoral College meets in December, and the new House members aren't sworn in until January?
The House, controlled by the G.O.P., would mostly break the tie in favor of Trump.
Really? There aren't at least some in the House GOP caucus who are hard-core conservatives who hate Trump's guts, and would never make him President? Are there aren't at least some in the House GOP caucus who would rather fight President Hillary Clinton tooth and nail, and have her be the big enemy that allows them to raise campaign funds, than have to work with the narcissistic, think-skinned sociopath President Trump? Don't assume that the House GOP caucus would unanimously vote for Trump, in the event of an Electoral College tie!
PS: does the outgoing House vote, or does the incoming House vote, in the event of an Electoral College tie? I assume it's the outgoing House, because the Electoral College meets in December, and the new House members aren't sworn in until January?
16
The electors meet on December 19 to cast their votes for President and VP, and they must transmit them to Congress by December 28.
The electoral votes are then opened and counted by the NEW Congress (which takes office January 3) on January 6 - unless Congress passes a law to change the date.
The electoral votes are then opened and counted by the NEW Congress (which takes office January 3) on January 6 - unless Congress passes a law to change the date.
Except that any Republican who voted for Clinton would have a huge target on his/her back in the next primaries. Party before country, remember?
Well, I guess it's the old House, because the 12th Amendment to the Constitution says that when Congress announces the Electoral College results, if no candidate wins a majority of electors, then from the candidates with the highest number of votes, the House shall "choose immediately by ballot the President".
But 12th Amendment also says that each state delegation gets just one vote! And with Dems controlling only 14 state delegations and 3 states evenly split, that leaves 33 state delegations controlled by Republicans. So, unlikely that anti-Trump GOP House members would prevail in enough GOP-controlled states to turn enough of these state delegations for Hillary -- or is it???
But 12th Amendment also says that each state delegation gets just one vote! And with Dems controlling only 14 state delegations and 3 states evenly split, that leaves 33 state delegations controlled by Republicans. So, unlikely that anti-Trump GOP House members would prevail in enough GOP-controlled states to turn enough of these state delegations for Hillary -- or is it???
2
We'll be seeing a lot of this sort of writing from now until November:
- Hillary is losing - how can she shore herself up?
- Why doesn't anyone like Hillary?
- What does an expert say about Hillary's predicament?
- How can Hillary grab some "demographics" like white Pennsylvanians?
In other words, how can this weak, unlikable candidate, with email AND electoral fraud scandals hanging over her head now, be made palatable? Why isn't Trump enough to scare people into running to her with open arms?
There are no answers.
- Hillary is losing - how can she shore herself up?
- Why doesn't anyone like Hillary?
- What does an expert say about Hillary's predicament?
- How can Hillary grab some "demographics" like white Pennsylvanians?
In other words, how can this weak, unlikable candidate, with email AND electoral fraud scandals hanging over her head now, be made palatable? Why isn't Trump enough to scare people into running to her with open arms?
There are no answers.
41
There is an answer. A "normal" (i.e. unencumbered) Democratic nominee (Joe Biden, for example) would mop the floor with Trump in November. The fact that Hillary is struggling shows how truly bad a candidate she is.
24
Here's an answer. A large portion of the American public are cretinous fools? No insult to cretins intended of course.
12
Hillary Clinton polls very well, and is top of the list in most-admired-women surverys--except when she has the nerve to seek office. I ran across a graph--and I wish I could find it again!--that shows her favorability ratings rise when she is actually in office, and stay up after she leaves office--but as soon as she is mentioned as a candidate for another office, they plummet.
Hmm. Could it have anything to do with the way all the old (disproved) stories about her mendacity, lack of good judgement and arrogance pop up again at the same time?
Hmm. Could it have anything to do with the way all the old (disproved) stories about her mendacity, lack of good judgement and arrogance pop up again at the same time?
12
Democrats should fear repeat of Walter Mondale defeat winning only 1 or 2 states and the district of Columbia. The global trend and influence favors Trump.
10
Good joke.
6
If more scandals keep piling up, on Ms. Clinton, it could look like Nixon - McGovern. McGovern only won DC and Massachusetts.
4
A Trump win will at least have the beneficial effect of signaling to the world that this country has sunk as low as it's capable of falling.
46
As we thought with Nixon, Reagan, George W....
3
It's always darkest before the dawn, or before it gets really, really dark.
1
Oh, I think President Trump could sink us much, much lower--and would.
12
I cannot see Trump winning Florida, given the Latino opposition. Trump will not win Pennsylvania either because of the two large urban areas - Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. And, between now and election day, Trump will probably utter more ridiculous statements that will turn voters off in all states. I predict a Clinton victory by a large margin. For the past twenty years, the GOP has incubated a candidate like Trump, and now they must suffer the consequences.
128
Latinos are not a monolithic group. Floridian Latinos are mostly Cubans and Puerto Ricans--the latter have been Americans for about a century, and the former have the most privileged immigration status of any group. All they have to do is arrive on our shores and they are guaranteed asylum. Immigration is not an issue that resonates with them.
1
No one ever said Hispanic voters were monolithic. What is true though, is that if you insult an entire group of voters, as Trump has done, few of them are likely to vote for you.
5
Statements like asking Russia to hack into the DNC servers? I'm getting the feeling that Trump could say anything and still have a large (angry) support base.
4
I've yet to see a projection that addresses turnout probabilities of the subgroups each candidate needs to win. Lower education level, for example, usually translates to lower turnout. Will such groups be sufficiently motivated to show up for Trump, especially in the absence of a campaign "ground game?" Poll registration status screens matter too. Some respondents who claim to be registered in fact are not. In states without same day registration - and again, without a Trump ground game to register people - that could make a difference.
31
Go to 538 webpage. There's an interactive tool that let's you play with turn out for subgroups and which they favor, R or D.
1
JJ--
You are absolutely correct. Those of us that will be working for or with the DNC have already received indications that the main goal will be to get out the vote--not by rousing slogans targeting demographics--but to physically get out the vote. See that voters remain registered. See that ground transportation is provided even if we need to provide buses.
in many contested states, the only way Clinton loses is with low voter turnout among democratic voting groups. The votes are there---make sure they go to the polls.
You are absolutely correct. Those of us that will be working for or with the DNC have already received indications that the main goal will be to get out the vote--not by rousing slogans targeting demographics--but to physically get out the vote. See that voters remain registered. See that ground transportation is provided even if we need to provide buses.
in many contested states, the only way Clinton loses is with low voter turnout among democratic voting groups. The votes are there---make sure they go to the polls.
3
You are neglecting the fact that these states are not independent, their votes may be correlated. It is not the same as tossing a single coin 5 times. You are tossing 5 coins, but three of them may be weighted 60-40, the remaining two 50-50 (just as an example). What Trump needs to do in one state to win will no doubt affect how he does in other states, not necessarily positively. You would be doing a great service by discussing which swing states in effect form blocs in terms of common interests and voting behaviors, what the positive and negative correlations between state voting behavior are likely to be.
27
This is an excellent point. Politics doesn't happen in a vacuum. Doubling down on the white working class strategy (xenophobia, trade demagoguery, etc) helps drive up black and Latino turn out and continues to alienate educated suburban white voters. At least that's the theory I keep telling myself so I can sleep at night!!
4
This continues to be an interesting and weary election (2 year) process full of twists and turns. There are many uncommitted Republican, Democratic and Independent voters scratching their heads waiting to see what happens in the next few months before committing their vote. After all this is playing out to be who is the most popular unpopular candidate. All these silly polls just keep a lot of people employed which on a good note does help the employment picture.
12
The candidates are polar opposites, as are the parties. It is unlikely that many voters can be undecided between the two.
The fear is that some people have already decided to vote for Trump but do not want to admit it, preferring to be thought of ass undecided.
The fear is that some people have already decided to vote for Trump but do not want to admit it, preferring to be thought of ass undecided.
4
A map that gives Florida to Trump seems unlikely to me. No other candidate has ever motivated Latino/a voters to turn out against him, and that's a very high percentage of voters in South Florida as well as in the area around Orlando. Kaine's fluent Spanish also provides a plus. I don't know what to say about Pennsylvania, because of its larger percentage of displaced industrial workers and coal miners in the west. But Florida has never had heavy an industrial base such as this.
Polls also have become increasingly unreliable because of the many younger people without land lines. And somehow, the disappointment over Sanders aside, I can't see millennials voting for Trump (though they might well cast a ballot for a third-party candidate).
Polls also have become increasingly unreliable because of the many younger people without land lines. And somehow, the disappointment over Sanders aside, I can't see millennials voting for Trump (though they might well cast a ballot for a third-party candidate).
86
From what I understand, the northern half of Florida LOVES Trump. And while the Republican establishment in South Florida is not a fan of his, given how he roughed two of its native sons (Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio) during the primary, I don't see a mass defection to Hillary in the cards (although some of them could go for Gary Johnson instead). My guess is that FL will be close again, and will likely be decided by the vote in the I-4 corridor in the middle of the state again.
9
At 31, I know a shockingly large number of people my age who at least claim they're going to vote for Trump. And by shockingly large, I mean "not zero." I take some solace in the fact that some of my conservative friends are much more interested in Gary Johnson.
33
Florida's Latinos feel oppressed by Obama's mania for illegal immigration and the way he has devastated employment for job-seekers. I would put money on Florida going GOP this time.
9
From my perspective, a firm Democrat living in a blue-collar suburb of Boston, I am very worried. Most white people in my area probably support Trump. I'm not saying that Massachusetts will swing to Trump; educated white voters and voters of color together probably outnumber blue-collar white voters statewide. But I am worried about New Hampshire, which has a much smaller nonwhite population. I am worried about Maine, which is overwhelmingly white and less educated than Massachusetts. I am very worried about Pennsylvania. I am not familiar enough with Florida to understand the dynamics there. But there is a strong, visceral revulsion to Hillary Clinton among many white blue-collar voters, especially men. Her arrogance and elite status make her an easy target for the resentments less educated whites feel, given their declining relative status in this country. I strongly support Clinton, especially given the alternative, but I fear race, class, and gender resentments may lead most white people to a vote that will be disastrous for them and for our country.
122
Hillary Clinton's arrogance and elite status!? Is she a billionaire with a tower on Fifth Ave. emblazoned with her name in huge gold letters?
274
I agree, but the irony, as was the case with the Tea Party voters, is that those with less education and lower earnings are more dependent on government programs and will continue to shoot themselves in the foot with their votes. The GOP has exploited race resentment for decades. Those of us with higher earnings and solid retirement plans have less to fear - assuming he doesn't start WW III and we get our cash out of the market and into our mattresses before he takes office. That and make sure you see all the national parks before he turns them into Casinos.
87
I was worried when the only alternative to Hillary was a democratic socialist. She was always going to struggle with a sub-set of the population that made up their mind about her in 1992 and for whom logic takes a back seat to emotions. Hopefully some of them see Trump for the fraud that he is. I think ads with people who were stiffed by Trump and how they suffered while he just kept exploiting more people would be effective. I also agree that Hillary's campaign needs to rebrand her and highlight her human qualities, how she treats others versus Trump's thin skinned, petulant narcissism.
41
"It’s far from clear that he actually will win Florida. But it would be pointless to do our mapping otherwise. So let’s assume Trump wins by a hanging chad or two."
Didn't we already see this movie?
Didn't we already see this movie?
13
yes, but the article suggests that this time it could be settled in the House rather than the Supreme Court.
4
Yes. I recall a vote among 9 justices that choose the President of the United States.
This article is a grabber.
This article is a grabber.
8
But now we only have 8 justices which would result in a possible 4-4 split. Should the election be thrown into the House of Representatives then Donald Trump wins because Republicans control the House and the Senate.
1
So given all of these possibilities isn't it time for someone introduce a constitutional amendment that simply says that the presidential election will be decided by the popular vote?
While so far the winner of the electoral college and the popular vote have coincided, it can easily go otherwise. Also, if we look at our history the founders were in favor of a very limited form of democracy. The limitations on who could vote, including the requirement for land ownership assured that government would be in the hands of the elite. It's time to change that assumption that has been built into our electoral system and now reinforced by the impact of big money on elections.
While so far the winner of the electoral college and the popular vote have coincided, it can easily go otherwise. Also, if we look at our history the founders were in favor of a very limited form of democracy. The limitations on who could vote, including the requirement for land ownership assured that government would be in the hands of the elite. It's time to change that assumption that has been built into our electoral system and now reinforced by the impact of big money on elections.
45
Alternatively, we could just let the vote in California, Texas, New York, and Florida determine the outcome.
9
A more productive change – perhaps hand-in-hand with the one you mention – would be to establish some sort of preferential voting, wherein voters could rank the candidates in order of preference, rather than making a single choice. It would go a long way in opening a path for minor parties, since it would eliminate the risk of indirectly supporting one's least favorite candidate (e.g. Trump) in an attempt to show support for a favorite candidate with little chance of winning (e.g. Jill Stein).
4
Coming from a country (Ireland) with proportional representation, I agree wholeheartedly that this would be hugely beneficial in shaking up American politics. However, the two parties would never allow this to happen as it will allow the other parties to gain a lot of ground on them and become viable parties in time (and with the current state of the D/R parties, methinks this will be a very short period of time).
It is a nice thought though to see the parties having to compete from both sides on all issues rather than just having to be mildly to the left/right of the other one to keep their core supporters voting for them!
It is a nice thought though to see the parties having to compete from both sides on all issues rather than just having to be mildly to the left/right of the other one to keep their core supporters voting for them!
1
Trump is terrifying. Under him it would be like during the Nazis in the 30’s or during the Communists in the 50’s in Eastern Europe. “If you are not with us, you are against us” No middle way, no “live and let live”. But, maybe it has to get worse before it gets better. Maybe Trumpism would bring a new wave into politics, when the elites would start to listen to the little people. But to get there, 4 years of Trump?