What these polls overlook is election [vote count] fraud, which studies tell us is the major factor in a close race. What voters want is just a starting point. Hillary and the DNC showed they could rig their own primary to push out the more popular sanders, but the republicans have control of most swing states in the presidential, meaning good news for Trump. p.s. For those that aren't aware, the United States is dead last in electoral integrity among established Western democracies. http://bit.ly/truevote-models
1
I live in Pennsylvania. I am a 55 year old white woman. My husband and I were provided the benefit of college educations by our parents. We work hard and pay every cent of the federal taxes imposed on our low six figure incomes. We have sent both of our children to college without financial aid of any kind. We have managed to save an amount in the very low seven figures and we have invested that in stocks, bonds and our one and only house. We feel lucky. We also feel disenfranchised. We cannot bring ourselves to support either "the crazy guy" or the "experienced public servant". We cannot tell which one, if either, will help us to realize our dream of safety and opportunity for our children and financial security when we can no longer work. We are not rich and we are not poor. We care about our fellow Americans and we are frightened. If someone would address our concerns, acknowledge that we already pay enough in taxes, and respect our intelligence enough to be honest with us; we will vote for him, or her. I promise.
Not sure who you're comparing yourself to, or who is advising you. But if you have "low six figure incomes", and you've saved up "in the very low seven figures", you already are financially secure. I don't see how you can call yourselves "disenfranchised".
Yes, you were extremely lucky that you were provided the benefit of college educations by your parents. My father told all eight of us that he expected us to go to college, but that he wasn't paying for any of it. And he stayed true to his word. And we all went to college, and paid for it ourselves. Some of us also paid for our own graduate degrees. I paid for both of my graduate degrees myself. We all received scholarships, and worked to make up the difference. Yes, you were very fortunate indeed if this was provided to you both.
Not sure why you're having such difficulty in figuring out who to vote for.
You state that you pay enough taxes already. I don't doubt that at all. Wouldn't you like to feel that everyone is paying their fair share, also, and not avoiding paying taxes, like a certain candidate just boasted about.
And as for protecting your quite substantial nest egg, there is already talk about how the stock and bond markets will react if Trump is elected.
So, if you were voting for just your own personal financial needs, the choice would be Hillary Clinton. And if you say that you care for your fellow Americans, as well as your children, the choice should be crystal clear - Hillary Clinton.
Yes, you were extremely lucky that you were provided the benefit of college educations by your parents. My father told all eight of us that he expected us to go to college, but that he wasn't paying for any of it. And he stayed true to his word. And we all went to college, and paid for it ourselves. Some of us also paid for our own graduate degrees. I paid for both of my graduate degrees myself. We all received scholarships, and worked to make up the difference. Yes, you were very fortunate indeed if this was provided to you both.
Not sure why you're having such difficulty in figuring out who to vote for.
You state that you pay enough taxes already. I don't doubt that at all. Wouldn't you like to feel that everyone is paying their fair share, also, and not avoiding paying taxes, like a certain candidate just boasted about.
And as for protecting your quite substantial nest egg, there is already talk about how the stock and bond markets will react if Trump is elected.
So, if you were voting for just your own personal financial needs, the choice would be Hillary Clinton. And if you say that you care for your fellow Americans, as well as your children, the choice should be crystal clear - Hillary Clinton.
9
@ FNL:
That "Crazy Guy", as you call him -- correctly -- will destroy everything you accumulated if he makes it to the Oval Office. Bet on it.
If that isn't enough to get you off your fat rump and vote to preserve what you have created and enjoy then no other argument I could possibly make has the slightest chance of penetrating that thick block of moldy cheese between your ears you mistakenly call a brain for some reason.
Elections always boil down to choosing the lesser of two evils. Trump is the greater. The third-party alternatives aren't even bad jokes.
That "Crazy Guy", as you call him -- correctly -- will destroy everything you accumulated if he makes it to the Oval Office. Bet on it.
If that isn't enough to get you off your fat rump and vote to preserve what you have created and enjoy then no other argument I could possibly make has the slightest chance of penetrating that thick block of moldy cheese between your ears you mistakenly call a brain for some reason.
Elections always boil down to choosing the lesser of two evils. Trump is the greater. The third-party alternatives aren't even bad jokes.
3
thank you! couldn't have said better.
I will be going on a bus trip from New York to Pennsylvania this weekend to canvass for Hillary. I encourage others to do the same. We will be signing up voters and hopefully tilting the election in favor of sanity.
This is crunch time.
This is crunch time.
7
... and therefore why it is critical pennsylvania voters agree that at its essence the election will be a moral litmus test for every american voter. it is simply unacceptable to vote for trump from a moral perspective. he is literally depraved. he has absolutely no redeeming personal traits.
12
If you don't want Trump to win, sign up with the Hillary campaign to volunteer in a swing state. If you cannot do this, the campaign can give you a list of voters in a swing a swing state to call from your home. It's important that every person who does not want Trump to win do this now!
4
I lived in Pennsylvania for five years. Allentown. One "quip" I heard repeatedly from Pennsylvanians themselves about their home state was that they "had Pittsburgh at one end, Philadelphia at the other, and Alabama in-between.
6
I think James Carville said that back in 1992
1
Yes, and his in-between comparison was Arkansas.
1
Coal country poisons more than just the environment.
On the matter of third party candidates:
There is a popular sentiment, "A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump," which understandably irritates Stein-voters. Can I suggest that those who wish to concentrate voting on the two major candidates re-phrase their message.
"A vote for Stein is a vote against Clinton"
I think most Stein voters would agree - indeed for many the "not-Clinton" bit of the vote is the most important.
But the Clinton supporters have a way forward too. They can point out that a vote against Clinton is a vote - against a progressive Supreme Court, against positive action against climate change, against a sane approach to American healthcare provision, against science and science-based education, against an individual's right to control her own healthcare, against a fair future for black, Latino and other minorities, against the EPA, against the National Parks, against a reality-based foreign policy. And so on. Because that will the effect of your vote, at least in any state where the outcome is in doubt.
A Clinton defeat will mean that all of the causes dear to the heart of those who might vote Stein will also take a beating. All that you will get out of it is exactly what you say you want - Not Clinton.
So is your hatred of Hillary worth the price you will pay for it? I acknowledge that for some the answer will be "Yes". For the rest, I will just say, "Look at the cost of that hatred."
There is a popular sentiment, "A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump," which understandably irritates Stein-voters. Can I suggest that those who wish to concentrate voting on the two major candidates re-phrase their message.
"A vote for Stein is a vote against Clinton"
I think most Stein voters would agree - indeed for many the "not-Clinton" bit of the vote is the most important.
But the Clinton supporters have a way forward too. They can point out that a vote against Clinton is a vote - against a progressive Supreme Court, against positive action against climate change, against a sane approach to American healthcare provision, against science and science-based education, against an individual's right to control her own healthcare, against a fair future for black, Latino and other minorities, against the EPA, against the National Parks, against a reality-based foreign policy. And so on. Because that will the effect of your vote, at least in any state where the outcome is in doubt.
A Clinton defeat will mean that all of the causes dear to the heart of those who might vote Stein will also take a beating. All that you will get out of it is exactly what you say you want - Not Clinton.
So is your hatred of Hillary worth the price you will pay for it? I acknowledge that for some the answer will be "Yes". For the rest, I will just say, "Look at the cost of that hatred."
19
If voters "do not swing between Clinton and Trump, but between undecided and/or third-party support [versus] Clinton or Trump," (which though overstated, makes sense and seems supported by the polling data), then why are Clinton boosters investing such a colossal effort in trying to woo (or more often fearmonger) Johnson and Stein voters in states such as New York where those voters have no impact on the electoral college outcome?
1
There is an interesting science fiction story where this premise has been taken to the extreme: the election hinges on a test done on a single most representative voter who is selected based on analysis of computerized records. It is fascinating. And also, ironically, a bit anachronistic - because it assumes absolute trust in voter models, which is more something that might have been conceivable in the 60s or 70s when people trusted more in science. The story is called "Franchise" by Isaac Asimov.
1
If Trump wins Pennsylvania, then he surely would become president, for the reason stated here (a win in Pennsylvania means wins in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina). If Clinton wins Pennsylvania, there's still a narrow path for Trump. I think Clinton will win Pennsylvania, and for that reason I see Florida as decisive. It's amazing that Trump is getting 62-63 percent of the white vote in Florida -- one would have thought his support among white women would be considerably less than their support for Romney in 2012. In any case, I predicted back in July that a heavy minority turnout in Florida would give Clinton a slim margin of victory there. I'm sticking to that prediction.
6
This prediction research is fascinating in the extreme. Has Mr. Rothschild run a scenario where one of the major candidates is seriously incapacitated, or dies, either through illness, plane crash, traffic accident, etc. And has this happened in the past in national elections? It's not a crazy question, with the health and ages of both main candidates being discussed publicly. I for one would be seriously interested in seeing his simulations.
1
Hillary had better rest up before the debate, even if it means losing more ground in the polls. If she starts coughing during the debate Trump will be President. When she's well she'd better come up with a simple, strong message that will appeal to simple people.
4
Like yourself, perhaps.
1
I'm not sure why Mr. Rothschild puts all the importance on Pennsylvania and barely mentions Colorado. Colorado was the state that put Obama over 270 electoral votes in both 2008 (8.95% winning margin) and again in 2012 (5.36% winning margin). Pennsylvania was the next state up from Colorado in 2012 (5.38% margin) but was four states ahead in 2008 (10.31% margin). By that reckoning, Pennsylvania is a "must-win" for Clinton, but Trump could get to 270 without Pennsylvania if he carries Colorado.
5
Don't release any projections while the voting is in progress.
12
Hear, hear! That is really an unconscionable thing to do. NO projections should be made until LATE in the day, if not AFTER all the polls have closed.
12
@Everyone:
I voted yesterday.
"Early voting" started here Thursday. No long lines, quick and easy.
I highly recommend it.
I voted yesterday.
"Early voting" started here Thursday. No long lines, quick and easy.
I highly recommend it.
I supported Bernie all the way until he said he was out of the race. And like him, I know that Drumpf isn't qualified to hold any elected or appointed office.
Rodham Clinton isn't who I wanted, but given the choice I have, she's way better then anyone else in the running. So I will vote for her.
I'm hoping other Bernie supporters realize a vote for anyone else is a vote for Drumpf.
Rodham Clinton isn't who I wanted, but given the choice I have, she's way better then anyone else in the running. So I will vote for her.
I'm hoping other Bernie supporters realize a vote for anyone else is a vote for Drumpf.
15
Really? again with this nonsense of voting for anyone other than Clinton is voting for Trump. You live in WA, I live in the surprisingly but slightly less, blue state of CA. Our presidential ballots are barely worth the ink they're printed on, in the larger scheme of an election decided by the electoral college. I haven't decided precisely what or whom to write in, but I'll never willingly choose Clinton or Trump, because in effect, I simply don't have to. Had I lived in PA or OH or any other swing / close / purple state, I might give it more thought.
Battleground State is NOT Equal Swing State
This writer and many others in the media including NYT continue to refer PA, MI, and WI as swing states. There is a difference between swing state and battleground state or competitive state. These 3 states together have consistently voted for Democratic presidential nominees since 1992. Wisconsin did vote for Democrats even longer years (Dukakis in 1988). Yes, they have been consistently competitive states and very close in some elections but they have not been carried by a Republican nominee as other swing states (FL, CO, IA, NH, and NV). If it did not swing in consecutive elections ( may be 3 or more), then don't call it swing state. Let us call these battleground states.
To confuse swing state with a battleground state is misleading and readers deserve better I am not sure whether this confusion is due to intellectual laziness ( going with the flow as is common within the MSM) or lack of understanding the history.
This writer and many others in the media including NYT continue to refer PA, MI, and WI as swing states. There is a difference between swing state and battleground state or competitive state. These 3 states together have consistently voted for Democratic presidential nominees since 1992. Wisconsin did vote for Democrats even longer years (Dukakis in 1988). Yes, they have been consistently competitive states and very close in some elections but they have not been carried by a Republican nominee as other swing states (FL, CO, IA, NH, and NV). If it did not swing in consecutive elections ( may be 3 or more), then don't call it swing state. Let us call these battleground states.
To confuse swing state with a battleground state is misleading and readers deserve better I am not sure whether this confusion is due to intellectual laziness ( going with the flow as is common within the MSM) or lack of understanding the history.
7
Regarding the comment about James Carville's quote........He wishes that Alabama were like PA. This dumb comment was made years ago and the only people who still quote this are people who live in the South or people who believe Carville is worth quoting. He is not exactly a national figure. I could say other things, but I want to abide by the rules of this venue.
Perhaps the most rural parts of PA have mountain men who still live like most Alabamans, but this represents .000001 of the state's population. Nothing of any importance ever happened in Alabama. I suggest you pick up a history book and read why PA is the Keystone State.
Perhaps the most rural parts of PA have mountain men who still live like most Alabamans, but this represents .000001 of the state's population. Nothing of any importance ever happened in Alabama. I suggest you pick up a history book and read why PA is the Keystone State.
2
Carville's comment actually was "PA is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in the middle". What he meant was the middle of PA is similar demographically, educationally and in other ways to states like Alabama. And having lived in Philadelphia, in the suburbs in Bucks County, PA, and now north of Pittsburgh, Carville was and still is correct. The middle of PA is another world, and yes it's probably leaning toward Trump. The state legislature in PA would be very happy if Philadelphia and Pittsburgh fell out of PA. I believe the only thing that will prevent Trump from winning PA is Philadelphia and it's suburbs.
8
Marylouise is right, both on Carville's quote and its interpretation, as well as her assessment of the state. Central PA is indeed another world, and I don't believe pollsters can count on frank disclosure from people here. That's one of the oddities in the regional character--they don't like directness, and a poll is nothing if not direct. They won't get straight answers.
I also think there are a lot of people who will vote for Trump but not say so. They'll probably declare themselves "undecided." But smart people simply won't participate in the polls. I was game--once--this election season, and realized a few questions in that I was being push-polled. I'll never participate in a poll again.
Even barring an experience like that, I think simply answering your phone when a stranger is calling and cooperating with intrusive questions is a differentiator. If the outcomes are very different from the polling, that might be one factor in the explanation.
I also think there are a lot of people who will vote for Trump but not say so. They'll probably declare themselves "undecided." But smart people simply won't participate in the polls. I was game--once--this election season, and realized a few questions in that I was being push-polled. I'll never participate in a poll again.
Even barring an experience like that, I think simply answering your phone when a stranger is calling and cooperating with intrusive questions is a differentiator. If the outcomes are very different from the polling, that might be one factor in the explanation.
8
And then there is the totally unscientific data predicting likely outcome in a state. We drove 180 miles in a meandering path starting in moderate Franklin (Columbus) county for 20 miles then driving through what have always been heavy Republican bastions. Just for kicks I began counting bumper stickers and yard signs. We are a month away from early voting and, in the past cars, and yards have been plastered with them. Here are my results for this election:
Bumper stickers
Hillary 0 Trump 0
Yard signs
Hillary 0 Trump 10 Johnson 1
Conclusion.
People in Ohio seem to be not excited for either candidate. 180 miles off interstate is alot of miles for only 11 yard signs.
Bumper stickers
Hillary 0 Trump 0
Yard signs
Hillary 0 Trump 10 Johnson 1
Conclusion.
People in Ohio seem to be not excited for either candidate. 180 miles off interstate is alot of miles for only 11 yard signs.
10
I'd be interested to know what kind of "correlation matrix" he runs. If he is talking about factor analysis, that is a method that describes a multivariate data set but is not reliably predictive. If he had said he runs a mutivariate correlation analysis, that would lend more credence to his model.
2
Pennsylvania is a state with Pittsburgh in the west, Philadelphia in the east and Alabama in the middle. ~ James Carville
10
Something similar can be said of other states as well.
2
It wouldn't be easy, but we could test this idea... just get 30% of Pennsylvania the trade places with people in Callifornia, New York, Texas, Alaska... wherever.
Fascinating stuff. The most interesting bit to me is his view that if the election were held today, it would be a colossal polling failure if HRC lost. I have a sense this is Trump's high water mark, and in retrospect there was a lot of drama to keep us clicking and reading. As shown by his unbelievable birther sideshow yesterday and today, Donnie just can't help revealing his true character. As for the Johnson bros, if you vote for a man who has zero chance of winning one state, doing so when he calls Trump a fascist, you are helping to elect a fascist. You will have to live with that the rest of your life. It happened in 2000, and compared to Trump, W was Obama.
18
" If only Pennsylvania voted, then the outcome of Pennsylvania would be affected by the billions of dollars swarming into the state"
This is a good example of why it should be illegal for out-of-state people or companies to attempt to influence the election in another state. It should be prohibited just as accepting donations from out of the country is now prohibited.
This is a good example of why it should be illegal for out-of-state people or companies to attempt to influence the election in another state. It should be prohibited just as accepting donations from out of the country is now prohibited.
14
By 2020, we could end having a handful of 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.
Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, 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 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 the country—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 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
National Popular Vote
Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, 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 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 the country—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 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
National Popular Vote
10
Clinton is running a traditional campaign in many ways--not just ads. Talking to voters one-on-one still works. This is ongoing. As we've seen in recent elections, polls are only as good as their samples, their methodologies, their "corrections"...and perhaps the phase of the moon. We'll see what's what on November 8th.
6
It does? She could talk to me forever and never make a dent, she lies, and is incompetent, not qualified by successful experience. Now perhaps those weak minded people that can be bribed with promises might listen, but then they already are voting for her.
Mr. Rothschild says he trusts his model, and its 70% likelihood that Clinton wins. And he certainly gives a layperson like me every indication he's designed it in a knowledgable and sensible way. But doesn't his model _also_ put her shot at 75%? She's at 78% in PA; 6% of the time she wins PA she loses per the model, and 3% of the time she loses PA she wins anyway. I don't see how this squares.
It is true that outside of Philly and Pittsburgh people are not doing as well as in the rural areas, but that is very true of other states, including California, Washington, North Carolina and Illinois. This is not unique to Pa.
If Pa resembles Ohio in anyway, it is in the rural areas. Ohio has nothing compared to PA in terms of the large numbers of great universities and colleges, the great cities, and one more million people. PA was called the Key Stone state for a reason. It is still among the top 6 states in population and no state can rival its history, including Mass and New York. I am glad PA is getting the attention it deserves, but I am sad that it is getting this attention because people in the rural areas are attracted to Donald Trump. Those Pennsylvanians whose families came from places other than northern Europe should be careful about believing people like Trump. His ancestors are the same people who treated Irish, Italians and Slavs as pigs in the mines. He does not care about people in the lower middle classes. How an Irish-American could vote for Trump (after the Molly Maguires) is crazy.
Ohio is much redder than PA, they are not the same. Ohio is a backwater compared to the eastern states. It only looks good because this country also has states such as Idaho and Kentucky.
If Pa resembles Ohio in anyway, it is in the rural areas. Ohio has nothing compared to PA in terms of the large numbers of great universities and colleges, the great cities, and one more million people. PA was called the Key Stone state for a reason. It is still among the top 6 states in population and no state can rival its history, including Mass and New York. I am glad PA is getting the attention it deserves, but I am sad that it is getting this attention because people in the rural areas are attracted to Donald Trump. Those Pennsylvanians whose families came from places other than northern Europe should be careful about believing people like Trump. His ancestors are the same people who treated Irish, Italians and Slavs as pigs in the mines. He does not care about people in the lower middle classes. How an Irish-American could vote for Trump (after the Molly Maguires) is crazy.
Ohio is much redder than PA, they are not the same. Ohio is a backwater compared to the eastern states. It only looks good because this country also has states such as Idaho and Kentucky.
14
My Sicilian Grandfather frequently spoke ill of the Irish Cops and labor bosses who had arrived before the Italians. The cops thought they were all criminals and the bosses thought they were stupid.
Some of his Grandchildren married Irish people. My red haired wife and her three red haired Irish cop brothers weren't seen by us the same way my Grandfather saw them.
How many generations are you going to carry the national hatreds?
By the way I am also Dutch and French Huguenot, Welsh and Scottish. How much hate could I hold for the Catholics and the English and their church if I thought like you?
Some of his Grandchildren married Irish people. My red haired wife and her three red haired Irish cop brothers weren't seen by us the same way my Grandfather saw them.
How many generations are you going to carry the national hatreds?
By the way I am also Dutch and French Huguenot, Welsh and Scottish. How much hate could I hold for the Catholics and the English and their church if I thought like you?
4
You totally misread my statement. I was talking about how British Americans had abused Irish, Italians and Slavs. You brought up the comments about Irish and Italians. They have intermarried to great degrees. The same can not be said for Italian-Americans and British-Americans, etc. If you live in Charlotte, I could see why you want to defend British-Americans. Your grandparents obviously have nothing to do with who you are today!
I moved to Pennsylvania within the past couple of years, and while the rural areas are heavily Republican, I don't think it tells the whole story. I think the progressives keep their heads down and don't say much because there's real danger in angering your neighbors, and that's true anywhere nowadays. On my street are 3 houses with signs out for Trump and none at all for Clinton. But most homes have no signs -- like mine -- so who knows? It'll be interesting to see what happens here.
18
Go ahead, Bernie Bros. Vote for Jill Stein on "principle" (or out of spite). Then enjoy your next President, who would make Joe McCarthy look like a learned liberal scholar.
People we are in a dark place, and the more we minimize the fundamental, easy slide downward that Trump represents, the darker it will get. It will not be pretty.
You may not like it, and I may not like it, but in America, presidential elections are binary. So please be smart!
People we are in a dark place, and the more we minimize the fundamental, easy slide downward that Trump represents, the darker it will get. It will not be pretty.
You may not like it, and I may not like it, but in America, presidential elections are binary. So please be smart!
68
There really is no way around it. You have to get to 270 electoral votes, which means that both Stein or Johnson would be spoilers. I can understand why some former Sanders supporters might want Stein, because her positions are generally in line with Sanders, but then again, so are Clinton's. There is no way for Stein to win.
What does frustrate me about this race is the idea that Clinton and Sanders were far apart. They never were--it was more a question of emphasis. For those who don't believe that Clinton is a progressive, you can look at her voting record and her ranking among her Senate peers. They put her firmly to the left of most of her Democratic colleagues. As Obama said, it's easy to get sucked into rejecting what seems old, but our challenge as informed voters should be to research records as opposed to repeating right-wing talking points and social media memes.
I think she will win, but that requires everyone on board. Volunteer and vote. President Obama's ground game carried him. Despite what some believe, he didn't run away with the campaign against Romney, but most voters prefer consistency, unless an incumbent is doing a terrible job. The president's approval rating is up and despite the notion of a disruption election, many Democrats are happy with his policies.
What does frustrate me about this race is the idea that Clinton and Sanders were far apart. They never were--it was more a question of emphasis. For those who don't believe that Clinton is a progressive, you can look at her voting record and her ranking among her Senate peers. They put her firmly to the left of most of her Democratic colleagues. As Obama said, it's easy to get sucked into rejecting what seems old, but our challenge as informed voters should be to research records as opposed to repeating right-wing talking points and social media memes.
I think she will win, but that requires everyone on board. Volunteer and vote. President Obama's ground game carried him. Despite what some believe, he didn't run away with the campaign against Romney, but most voters prefer consistency, unless an incumbent is doing a terrible job. The president's approval rating is up and despite the notion of a disruption election, many Democrats are happy with his policies.
5
Calling people "Bernie Bros." is spiteful itself, but speaking of spite, a vote for Jill Stein is just taking an alternative position. A Bernie supporter voting for Trump, that's a spite vote.
2
@Penn ~ The term "Bernie Bros" bothers me as well since it seems like a put down. And I'm someone who supported Hillary so I have no personal ax to grind about the term. At this point everyone banding together for our common good and burying the hatchet of animosity is the best way forward. I do think the hard fought primary season poisoned the well of the Democrats more than is ideal. If Trump wins we all lose.
1
Decades ago there was a prescient Sy-Fy story whose premise was that the science of polling had been perfected to the point where one person could be selected to be "The Elector" for the whole country. His name was George. There was a twist in the ending .......... but I don't remember what it was. Perhaps someone remembers the story ....
3
"Election" by Isaac Asimov. A computer picked the median voter and it turned out to be some guy named George in Indiana.
BTW, the story was written in 1955 about the 2008 election.
BTW, the story was written in 1955 about the 2008 election.
1
Clearly, some of you folks don't know anything about the electoral college, or why the founding fathers created it. There are two basic reasons. The first was to prevent a tyrant from manipulating public opinion and coming to power. Never has their wisdom proven more prescient than in the 2016 presidential race. The second reason was to give MORE POWER to the smaller states - which is exactly what it does, and why you folks from smaller states complaining about it don't really know what you're talking about.
20
Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes, 2 have district winner laws. Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 15 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
If a tyrant wins the popular vote in states with 270 electoral votes, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent that tyrant from being elected President of the United States
The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 15 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
If a tyrant wins the popular vote in states with 270 electoral votes, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent that tyrant from being elected President of the United States
2
They're the same people who don't know why the Senate was designed to represent the states against the populist House Of Representatives who pandered for votes from the people.
Of course I understand how they could be confused since the 17th Amendment gave election of the Senate to the people as well. The Senate seems to have forgotten its mission to protect the states as well and panders today as much as the House does.
Of course I understand how they could be confused since the 17th Amendment gave election of the Senate to the people as well. The Senate seems to have forgotten its mission to protect the states as well and panders today as much as the House does.
7
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits.
State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.
In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits.
State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.
In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.
1
When are we going to stop this electoral college nonsense and make EVERY vote for president in America count? Out here in Idaho, and in far too many states, the votes of people not in the prevailing party might just as well be put in the wastebasket. We do no other voting that I know of like this. When we vote for U.S. Senators, all votes for that person statewide count. When we vote for our U.S Representatives, all votes for that person in the (gerrymandered, another travesty) district count. The idea that the race could basically be held in one state or even a few counties or neighborhoods, where the concentration of all of that power could be easily manipulated, is outrageous. My vote does not matter. No presidential candidate does any serious campaigning or spend any money in Idaho. Many people only vote in presidential elections, unless they are concerned about some down-ballot issue. I want my president to be as concerned about my vote as any other vote. This is total nonsense.
6
By 2020, every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, could be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, 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 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 necessary to go into effect.
National Popular Vote
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, 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 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 necessary to go into effect.
National Popular Vote
2
this is what happened the first time GW got elected. It was because of a few neighborhoods in Ohio and Florida.
1
Perhaps we could give you and others a chance to see what could happen with direct votes for a couple of elections?
Then you could see how five states have enough population to override the other 45 state's votes and that no candidate would even bother to stop in the small states.
Then you could see how five states have enough population to override the other 45 state's votes and that no candidate would even bother to stop in the small states.
9
This is preposterous and thinking and talking like this is what prevents people from voting - they have become convinced that their vote doesn't count. Stop trying to turn America into a country run by a few robber baron multi-billionaires and start talking about the need for EVERY American who is eligible voting.
I'm sick of hearing about what "experts" think. It is time for people to wake up and start thinking for themselves.
I'm sick of hearing about what "experts" think. It is time for people to wake up and start thinking for themselves.
10
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in presidential elections in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate.
In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to candidates.
In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.
In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the then 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.
In the 2012 presidential election, 1.3 million votes decided the winner in the ten states with the closest margins of victory.
With National Popular Vote, presidential campaigns would poll, organize, visit, and appeal to more than 7 states. One would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80%+ of the country that is currently conceded months in advance by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.
NationalPopularVote
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in presidential elections in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate.
In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to candidates.
In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.
In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the then 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.
In the 2012 presidential election, 1.3 million votes decided the winner in the ten states with the closest margins of victory.
With National Popular Vote, presidential campaigns would poll, organize, visit, and appeal to more than 7 states. One would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80%+ of the country that is currently conceded months in advance by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.
NationalPopularVote
2
How do you construct your (between state) correlation matrix? I suspect "Ad Buys" in a state does not correlate as strongly as in has in the past. Trump gets nightly news coverage for no cost, and Clinton has been so one-sidedly pervasive with ads, since the beginning of summer, that voters just tune out her messages.
2
Voting for a third-party candidate can seem like such a noble (vote your heart) decision to those who don't see politics as a mechanism for accomplishing an agenda. Without a competent and substantial legislative third-party, any proposal by a third party President is doomed to fail. In any event voting for Gov. Johnson is a vote for Mr. Trump. So go ahead and vote your heart, but know the consequences to the US and our democracy.
21
How many proposals by Pres. Hillary Clinton will not be "doomed to fail" in the GOP-controlled U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives? Pres. Obama can probably give us some idea about that.
1
This article is a good example of computerizing human behavior. It does well in pointing out probabilities and likely-to-happen scenarios but this is projected based on past performances and subtle but present prejudices. Pennsylvania is like East Ohio and Ohio is like West Pensylvania...if you remove Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is Ohio. Interest in this election in this area of the country is huge, not because things are going well but because they aren't. Big turnout - Trump, moderate turnout - even bigger for Trump. Interesting article but far from convincing
1
If you remove Philadelphia (and Pittsburgh), Pennsylvania is NOT Ohio; it's Alabama.
3
Rothschild discounts the impact of real-time projections far too much. I know this from personal experience. When the 1980 election was called before the polls closed and before I had gone out to vote, I didn't bother to vote. Not much point of doing it in the face of a forgone conclusion. Real-time projections would discourage voting.
1
This is a really wonderful conversation! I was going to add that we don't know the dynamics of the vote, hence a data-driven approach, but the statistical analysis gives us the probability distribution that describes the state of voter sentiment; there is some chance that voting dynamics could turn the election either to Hillary or Trump, for whatever reason that we don't know.
And Trump is the, uh, outre candidate, hence it seems as if his behavior skews the distribution to Hillary. Trump is no Mitt Romney. Or any other intelligent, rational candidate of the past. It seems to me that the markets would take Trump's nonconformity into account and would therefore be an even more reliable predictor of the election results, supporting David Rothschild's work.
I guess Trump's nonconformity pollutes the sample data a bit; Trump has no history of being a politician, unlike those who have gone before him. Romney was a governor as well as a successful businessman. Maybe the betting markets are more capable of handling this completely different situation with Trump.
We all know people who are voting for Trump. It can be said that they are indeed deplorable (I would have been chastised for such irrationality when I was a child) and it feels that there should be a statistically significant smaller number of them. It supports the notion that Clinton's victory is more probable. But statistics allows for a less probable, alternative outcome. The best bet is on Hillary.
And Trump is the, uh, outre candidate, hence it seems as if his behavior skews the distribution to Hillary. Trump is no Mitt Romney. Or any other intelligent, rational candidate of the past. It seems to me that the markets would take Trump's nonconformity into account and would therefore be an even more reliable predictor of the election results, supporting David Rothschild's work.
I guess Trump's nonconformity pollutes the sample data a bit; Trump has no history of being a politician, unlike those who have gone before him. Romney was a governor as well as a successful businessman. Maybe the betting markets are more capable of handling this completely different situation with Trump.
We all know people who are voting for Trump. It can be said that they are indeed deplorable (I would have been chastised for such irrationality when I was a child) and it feels that there should be a statistically significant smaller number of them. It supports the notion that Clinton's victory is more probable. But statistics allows for a less probable, alternative outcome. The best bet is on Hillary.
6
Oh god, there's nothing more annoying than a swing state...
I can see it now: lots of so-called "undecided" Pennsylvania voters who simply crave the attention and desire to be fawned over in order to make what is a clear choice between two vastly different candidates.
Reason #937 as to why the Electoral College needs to be abolished.
I can see it now: lots of so-called "undecided" Pennsylvania voters who simply crave the attention and desire to be fawned over in order to make what is a clear choice between two vastly different candidates.
Reason #937 as to why the Electoral College needs to be abolished.
8
Unless it's the electoral college that saves us from Trump- it can work both ways. As a Pennsylvanian, I don't crave any attention.. I just want it to be over. I hate waking up to the news every morning with a knot in my stomach, which is exactly how I've felt every day of this endless election cycle. There has never been an election where I felt such personal anxiety about the outcome (because, frankly, there often isn't a world of distance between moderate Rs and Ds). If Trump wins this state, I will retire elsewhere. (Worth doing because anyway given the R-controlled backwards legislature.) If he's actually elected, I'll be retiring to another country. I find it odd that I never meet anyone who supports Trump- they walk on eggshells until they're sure that I don't. So if it turns out that even a small majority of Americans support him, I will honestly be able to say that my country is deplorable.
34
There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College – more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
Instead, 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, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
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 necessary to go into effect.
National Popular Vote
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
Instead, 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, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
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 necessary to go into effect.
National Popular Vote
2
There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 15 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
If Trump wins the popular vote in states with 270 electoral votes, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent Trump from being elected President of the United States
States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
If Trump wins the popular vote in states with 270 electoral votes, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent Trump from being elected President of the United States
2
Pennsylvania is critical.
The latest Washington Post polling which was released on 6 September shows Johnson and Stein getting 19% with 80+% of that for Johnson.
The numbers for Johnson have since risen.
I am 67 and have only voted Democrat. Unable to stomach voting for someone so flawed, so prone to hubris, to quote Colin Powell on Hillary, I have become a volunteer for Gov Gary Johnson.
We have a very robust operation in Pennsylvania with Gov Johnson having made several trips there.
It is a three way race now and as we approach election day this will become more apparent.
We have over 50,000 volunteers and are on the ballot in every state. The Libertarian Party has become the new centrist party, rejecting the "government is the solution to everything" of the Dems and the personality cult of Trump as well as the hate of the GOP.
We will carry several states in a three way race. Today Hillary announced she will pour many millions into stopping us.
Too late.
The Dems and Republicans both have nominated the most unpopular candidates in decades. They are toast.
The only wasted vote is voting for someone you don't believe in.
johnsonweld.com
The latest Washington Post polling which was released on 6 September shows Johnson and Stein getting 19% with 80+% of that for Johnson.
The numbers for Johnson have since risen.
I am 67 and have only voted Democrat. Unable to stomach voting for someone so flawed, so prone to hubris, to quote Colin Powell on Hillary, I have become a volunteer for Gov Gary Johnson.
We have a very robust operation in Pennsylvania with Gov Johnson having made several trips there.
It is a three way race now and as we approach election day this will become more apparent.
We have over 50,000 volunteers and are on the ballot in every state. The Libertarian Party has become the new centrist party, rejecting the "government is the solution to everything" of the Dems and the personality cult of Trump as well as the hate of the GOP.
We will carry several states in a three way race. Today Hillary announced she will pour many millions into stopping us.
Too late.
The Dems and Republicans both have nominated the most unpopular candidates in decades. They are toast.
The only wasted vote is voting for someone you don't believe in.
johnsonweld.com
6
I’m 61 and will gladly vote for Hillary, because I have been voting Democratic my entire life.
There is no reason to support a minor party which sees little value in the public sector. We need an EPA. FDA, and Consumer Protection B bureau (thanks Elizabeth Warren), and there is no rationale to support a fringe movement like Libertarianism to undo these tremendous safeguards.
A vote for Johnson is a vote to Trump. Simple.
There is no reason to support a minor party which sees little value in the public sector. We need an EPA. FDA, and Consumer Protection B bureau (thanks Elizabeth Warren), and there is no rationale to support a fringe movement like Libertarianism to undo these tremendous safeguards.
A vote for Johnson is a vote to Trump. Simple.
40
Why would you waste time on someone who has no chance whatsoever of winning, especially when you might end up making it possible for Trump to win?
10
I don't believe you're a Democrat, just another troll. Your claim that we Dems believe "government is the solution to everything" gives you away. Fie on your rotten dishonesty!
31