Trump-Clinton: Handicapping the Race

[The Archregimancy]

This link may help explain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_(Last_Week_Tonight)

Interesting.

Drumpf is apparently Trump's actual family name though.

Except it isn't. It's a deliberate attempt to use a disputed archaic form of the name that hasn't been used for at least 130 years, and possibly much longer, to ridicule Trump and his policies.

I think it's fairly well known that I'm no fan of the presumptive Republican nominee, but given the intent is ridicule, it won't be tolerated here as a political nickname; we do have Trump supporters on this site.

[Imperializt Russia]

Interesting.

Drumpf is apparently Trump's actual family name though.

Except it isn't. It's a deliberate attempt to use a disputed archaic form of the name that hasn't been used for at least 130 years, and possibly much longer, to ridicule Trump and his policies.

I think it's fairly well known that I'm no fan of the presumptive Republican nominee, but given the intent is ridicule, it won't be tolerated here as a political nickname; we do have Trump supporters on this site.

Like I said though, I could call Goldsmith "Frank" to mock him.
I concede that I regularly call Farage "Niggle Farridge" in reference to a HIGNFY one-liner (and almost every time I do, explain the reference to boot).

If I really wanted to, I could call Cameron "Willie" to make fun of him.

Trump's name doesn't even need to be changed to openly make fun.
I'm afraid I honestly don't see the difference.

Unlike say "Shillary" or "Hameron" which are actual insults, rather than a mocking joke.

[The Archregimancy]

Except it isn't. It's a deliberate attempt to use a disputed archaic form of the name that hasn't been used for at least 130 years, and possibly much longer, to ridicule Trump and his policies.

I think it's fairly well known that I'm no fan of the presumptive Republican nominee, but given the intent is ridicule, it won't be tolerated here as a political nickname; we do have Trump supporters on this site.

Like I said though, I could call Goldsmith "Frank" to mock him.
I concede that I regularly call Farage "Niggle Farridge" in reference to a HIGNFY one-liner (and almost every time I do, explain the reference to boot).

If I really wanted to, I could call Cameron "Willie" to make fun of him.

Trump's name doesn't even need to be changed to openly make fun.
I'm afraid I honestly don't see the difference.

Unlike say "Shillary" or "Hameron" which are actual insults, rather than a mocking joke.

If you want to discuss political nicknaming rulings, then by all means please start a discussion thread in Moderation; this isn't the place to have that discussion.

[Alien Space Bats]

Let's talk numbers.

Specifically, PVI.

PVI is short for "Partisan Voting Index" (or, more formally, "Cook Partisan Voting Index", named after The Cook Political Report, founded, published, and edited by political guru Charles Cook, Jr.). Loosely defined, it is a measure of the degree to which a political unit has deviated from the National average outcome over the last two Presidential contests.

So, using my home State of Michigan as an example:

Year	State Democratic Vote	State Republican Vote	National Democratic Vote	National Republican Vote	Difference
2012	54.80%	45.20%	51.97%	48.03%	D +2.83%
2008	58.37%	41.63%	53.69%	46.31%	D +4.68%

Averaging these two differences gives us a PVI of D +3.76 (which, for purposes of this thread, I will designate as +3.76, using negative values to express Republican leaning [so that R +3.76 would be designated -3.76]; in truth, you could make the sign run either way, and logically, it wouldn't make any difference). What this PVI tells us is that over the last two Presidential races, Democrats have exceeded their National performance in Michigan by an average of 3.76%.

Traditionally, PVI values are rounded to the nearest whole number (which would give Michigan a PVI of +4 from a Democratic perspective).

A sorted table of PVI values can be used as a kind of electoral map, giving a rough idea of what the political landscape looks like going into the coming Presidential election:

State or District	PVI	Electoral Votes
District of Columbia	D+40	3
Hawaii	D+20	4
Vermont	D+16	3
New York	D+11	29
Rhode Island	D+11	4
Maryland	D+10	10
Massachusetts	D+10	11
California	D+9	55
Delaware	D+8	3
Illinois	D+8	20
Connecticut	D+7	7
Maine	D+6	4
New Jersey	D+6	14
Oregon	D+5	7
Washington	D+5	12
Michigan	D+4	16
New Mexico	D+4	5
Minnesota	D+2	10
Nevada	D+2	6
Wisconsin	D+2	10
Colorado	D+1	9
Iowa	D+1	6
New Hampshire	D+1	4
Pennsylvania	D+1	20
Virginia	EVEN	13
Ohio	R+1	18
Florida	R+2	29
North Carolina	R+3	15
Indiana	R+5	11
Missouri	R+5	10
Georgia	R+6	16
Arizona	R+7	11
Montana	R+7	3
South Carolina	R+8	9
Mississippi	R+9	6
North Dakota	R+10	3
South Dakota	R+10	3
Texas	R+10	38
Alaska	R+12	3
Kansas	R+12	6
Louisiana	R+12	8
Nebraska	R+12	5
Tennessee	R+12	11
Kentucky	R+13	8
West Virginia	R+13	5
Alabama	R+14	9
Arkansas	R+14	6
Idaho	R+18	4
Oklahoma	R+19	7
Utah	R+22	6
Wyoming	R+22	3

This particular method of arranging the States (called a "tipping point" table) was first employed by Nate Silver back in 2012 and has since come into widespread use. It provides us with a convenient way of visualizing the race, but only if we add in two more columns, like this:

State or District	PVI	Electoral Votes	Democratic EV	Republican EV
District of Columbia	D+40	3	3	538
Hawaii	D+20	4	7	535
Vermont	D+16	3	10	531
New York	D+11	29	39	528
Rhode Island	D+11	4	43	499
Massachusetts	D+10	11	54	495
Maryland	D+10	10	64	484
California	D+9	55	119	474
Illinois	D+8	20	139	419
Delaware	D+8	3	142	399
Connecticut	D+7	7	149	396
New Jersey	D+6	14	163	389
Maine	D+6	4	167	375
Washington	D+5	12	179	371
Oregon	D+5	7	186	359
Michigan	D+4	16	202	352
New Mexico	D+4	5	207	336
Minnesota	D+2	10	217	331
Wisconsin	D+2	10	227	321
Nevada	D+2	6	233	311
Pennsylvania	D+1	20	253	305
Colorado	D+1	9	262	285
Iowa	D+1	6	268	276
New Hampshire	D+1	4	272	270
Virginia	EVEN	13	285	266
Ohio	R+1	18	303	253
Florida	R+2	29	332	235
North Carolina	R+3	15	347	206
Indiana	R+5	11	358	191
Missouri	R+5	10	368	180
Georgia	R+6	16	384	170
Arizona	R+7	11	395	154
Montana	R+7	3	398	143
South Carolina	R+8	9	407	140
Mississippi	R+9	6	413	131
Texas	R+10	38	451	125
North Dakota	R+10	3	454	87
South Dakota	R+10	3	457	84
Tennessee	R+12	11	468	81
Louisiana	R+12	8	476	70
Kansas	R+12	6	482	62
Nebraska	R+12	5	487	56
Alaska	R+12	3	490	51
Kentucky	R+13	8	498	48
West Virginia	R+13	5	503	40
Alabama	R+14	9	512	35
Arkansas	R+14	6	518	26
Idaho	R+18	4	522	20
Oklahoma	R+19	7	529	16
Utah	R+22	6	535	9
Wyoming	R+22	3	538	3

The logic behind this table is as follows: If past electoral performance (as manifested in the form of PVI) is an accurate predictor of future electoral performance, then we can eyeball the state of the race by looking at PVI. For example, in a race in which the Democratic candidate is leading her Republican counterpart by 4%, then not only should we expect that Democratic candidate to win all States with a Democratic-leaning PVI, but also those States with a Republican-leaning PVI of less than 4. As the race then evolves and the margin between the two candidates changes, we can then use such a tipping point table to see where things stand at a glance. For example, in the aforementioned race in which the Democrat leads her Republican rival by 4, the expected Electoral College outcome would be 347-206 in favor of said Democratic candidate.

By way of a contrast, in a dead-even race, the Electoral College map can be seen to favor the Democratic candidate, in so far as the Democrat would lead the Republican 272-253 with Virginia and its 13 Electoral Votes being deemed a toss-up. To tip the race in favor of the Republican candidate, then, said Republican candidate would have to lead his Democratic rival by at least 0.5%; otherwise, he'd win the popular vote but likely end up losing the Electoral College

Such an analysis is hardly ironclad; but it DOES at least offer a good back-of-the-envelope view of the Presidential race. Over the last several cycles, such an approach has been right far more often than it's been wrong.

<more to come>

[Arkinesia]

So here's my way-too-early-to-be-doing-this-shit map:



I started from Cook's PVI and went from there. My logic is as follows for the states that I know will raise some questions:

Utah - Trump did very poorly in this Republican-favoring state, and the general consensus on the ground was that the public was not going to support Trump, the end. A couple of days after the primary, some polling was conducted that showed Clinton had a headstart—I suspect this will grow, not recede.

Florida - This one will be controversial. That said, I don't think this will be a landslide for Hillary, but the Latino vote in Florida is significant enough to tip the scales in her favor. Additionally, white Floridians in the state's biggest cities are liberalizing, which is fertile ground for Clinton.

North Carolina - Surely you can't be serious? I am. Pat McCrory is wildly unpopular and HB2 has exacerbated this. Also of note—a highly motivated college-town contingent in this state is more than enough to tip the scales away from Trump's rural support base.

Alaska - Nothing in particular, just a gut feeling. I dunno.

A notable point about this map is that it would mark yet another historic play for Trump—he could be the first Republican ever to win Ohio and not the Presidency. Would go in line with his primary wins…no other contesting candidate has won all the states he has in the primaries on the GOP side.

[Khadgar]

As expected voter registration among Democrat voting blocs is way WAY up. The biggest spikes tend to happen whenever Trump makes news.

[Greed and Death]

Interesting.

Drumpf is apparently Trump's actual family name though.

Except it isn't. It's a deliberate attempt to use a disputed archaic form of the name that hasn't been used for at least 130 years, and possibly much longer, to ridicule Trump and his policies.

I think it's fairly well known that I'm no fan of the presumptive Republican nominee, but given the intent is ridicule, it won't be tolerated here as a political nickname; we do have Trump supporters on this site.

Just like BO are in fact Obama's initials the intent is solely to mock.

[Eol Sha]

So here's my way-too-early-to-be-doing-this-shit map:

(Image)

I started from Cook's PVI and went from there. My logic is as follows for the states that I know will raise some questions:

Utah - Trump did very poorly in this Republican-favoring state, and the general consensus on the ground was that the public was not going to support Trump, the end. A couple of days after the primary, some polling was conducted that showed Clinton had a headstart—I suspect this will grow, not recede.

Florida - This one will be controversial. That said, I don't think this will be a landslide for Hillary, but the Latino vote in Florida is significant enough to tip the scales in her favor. Additionally, white Floridians in the state's biggest cities are liberalizing, which is fertile ground for Clinton.

North Carolina - Surely you can't be serious? I am. Pat McCrory is wildly unpopular and HB2 has exacerbated this. Also of note—a highly motivated college-town contingent in this state is more than enough to tip the scales away from Trump's rural support base.

Alaska - Nothing in particular, just a gut feeling. I dunno.

A notable point about this map is that it would mark yet another historic play for Trump—he could be the first Republican ever to win Ohio and not the Presidency. Would go in line with his primary wins…no other contesting candidate has won all the states he has in the primaries on the GOP side.

Just a note, but Thomas Dewey won Ohio in 1944, but lost to FDR. James G. Blaine also won Ohio, but lost the election in 1884. So Trump wouldn't be the first.

[Aethrys]

If florida is projected to vote Democrat I can only assume that they'll be out in force for trump.

[Great Feng]

Clinton surprisingly has a better chance in Utah than Trump, due to Mormons hating him.

[Theodolia]

So here's my way-too-early-to-be-doing-this-shit map:

(Image)

I started from Cook's PVI and went from there. My logic is as follows for the states that I know will raise some questions:

Utah - Trump did very poorly in this Republican-favoring state, and the general consensus on the ground was that the public was not going to support Trump, the end. A couple of days after the primary, some polling was conducted that showed Clinton had a headstart—I suspect this will grow, not recede.

Florida - This one will be controversial. That said, I don't think this will be a landslide for Hillary, but the Latino vote in Florida is significant enough to tip the scales in her favor. Additionally, white Floridians in the state's biggest cities are liberalizing, which is fertile ground for Clinton.

North Carolina - Surely you can't be serious? I am. Pat McCrory is wildly unpopular and HB2 has exacerbated this. Also of note—a highly motivated college-town contingent in this state is more than enough to tip the scales away from Trump's rural support base.

Alaska - Nothing in particular, just a gut feeling. I dunno.

A notable point about this map is that it would mark yet another historic play for Trump—he could be the first Republican ever to win Ohio and not the Presidency. Would go in line with his primary wins…no other contesting candidate has won all the states he has in the primaries on the GOP side.

Just a note, but Thomas Dewey won Ohio in 1944, but lost to FDR. James G. Blaine also won Ohio, but lost the election in 1884. So Trump wouldn't be the first.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that no Republican has won the Presidency without winning Ohio, which is a slightly different statement.

[Occupied Deutschland]

So here's my way-too-early-to-be-doing-this-shit map:

(Image)

I started from Cook's PVI and went from there. My logic is as follows for the states that I know will raise some questions:

Utah - Trump did very poorly in this Republican-favoring state, and the general consensus on the ground was that the public was not going to support Trump, the end. A couple of days after the primary, some polling was conducted that showed Clinton had a headstart—I suspect this will grow, not recede.

Florida - This one will be controversial. That said, I don't think this will be a landslide for Hillary, but the Latino vote in Florida is significant enough to tip the scales in her favor. Additionally, white Floridians in the state's biggest cities are liberalizing, which is fertile ground for Clinton.

North Carolina - Surely you can't be serious? I am. Pat McCrory is wildly unpopular and HB2 has exacerbated this. Also of note—a highly motivated college-town contingent in this state is more than enough to tip the scales away from Trump's rural support base.

Alaska - Nothing in particular, just a gut feeling. I dunno.

A notable point about this map is that it would mark yet another historic play for Trump—he could be the first Republican ever to win Ohio and not the Presidency. Would go in line with his primary wins…no other contesting candidate has won all the states he has in the primaries on the GOP side.

I highly doubt Alaska will go for Hillary. That said, I have no justification for that beyond anecdotal knowledge of Alaskans opinions towards Hillary and the state's electoral history.

North Carolina could use some closer scrutiny as well. Trump came out almost immediately with his opposition to the trans-bathroom law, so opposition to that might not correlate to opposition to him. Though it could well go blue for other reasons.

Utah...I don't know. I'm sure he's still heavily opposed (Mormons and Trump have capital-I Issues with each other) but I'd hesitate to call it immediately a Hillary pick-up just on that.

[Eol Sha]

Just a note, but Thomas Dewey won Ohio in 1944, but lost to FDR. James G. Blaine also won Ohio, but lost the election in 1884. So Trump wouldn't be the first.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that no Republican has won the Presidency without winning Ohio, which is a slightly different statement.

This indicates as much.

[Arkinesia]

I highly doubt Alaska will go for Hillary. That said, I have no justification for that beyond anecdotal knowledge of Alaskans opinions towards Hillary and the state's electoral history.

North Carolina could use some closer scrutiny as well. Trump came out almost immediately with his opposition to the trans-bathroom law, so opposition to that might not correlate to opposition to him. Though it could well go blue for other reasons.

Utah...I don't know. I'm sure he's still heavily opposed (Mormons and Trump have capital-I Issues with each other) but I'd hesitate to call it immediately a Hillary pick-up just on that.

Like I said, it's a way-too-early map. It's subject to change as the polls paint a clearer picture. I really don't like his chances in NC, though. Its population is heavily urbanized, a demographic that has strong negatives for Trump. He won South Carolina, for instance, but lost in Columbia and Charleston and nearly lost Spartanburg as well.

[Dinake]

Clinton surprisingly has a better chance in Utah than Trump, due to Mormons hating him.

I'll buy that strong social conservatives don't like trump. I do think that will change when Trump picks a very socially conservative VP. I also would not be surprised to see third parties do very well there.

[Khadgar]

Clinton surprisingly has a better chance in Utah than Trump, due to Mormons hating him.

I'll buy that strong social conservatives don't like trump. I do think that will change when Trump picks a very socially conservative VP. I also would not be surprised to see third parties do very well there.

Given Trump's character I wouldn't place a bet on him picking a VP that will actually help him. I'd instead believe him inclined to pick a fawning toady who'd stroke his ego. If Trump were wise he wouldn't have attacked Governor Martinez after all.

[Valaran]

Clinton surprisingly has a better chance in Utah than Trump, due to Mormons hating him.

I'll buy that strong social conservatives don't like trump. I do think that will change when Trump picks a very socially conservative VP. I also would not be surprised to see third parties do very well there.

tbh I think the trend towards party unity (which appears to be happening right now) means that this will likely change before a he even picks a VP. Its likely that Hillary's poll lead there will fade. (though a third party could tip the scales)

[Ethel mermania]

Tee hee

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... mobile-us#

[Khadgar]

Trump has decided he wants a white male VP due to the logic that anything else would be pandering.

A white man who's spent his entire campaign insulting women and minorities decides that women and minorities just aren't good enough to be on his ticket. That's how it'll play.

[Ashmoria]

Trump has decided he wants a white male VP due to the logic that anything else would be pandering.

A white man who's spent his entire campaign insulting women and minorities decides that women and minorities just aren't good enough to be on his ticket. That's how it'll play.

my takeaway from that little interview was that he doesn't expect to DO the job of president. he will delegate the yucky parts to his VP.

his new campaign guy gives me the creeps.

[Khadgar]

Trump has decided he wants a white male VP due to the logic that anything else would be pandering.

A white man who's spent his entire campaign insulting women and minorities decides that women and minorities just aren't good enough to be on his ticket. That's how it'll play.

my takeaway from that little interview was that he doesn't expect to DO the job of president. he will delegate the yucky parts to his VP.

his new campaign guy gives me the creeps.

Manafort? He should, he's consultant to tinpot dictators the world over.

[Ashmoria]

my takeaway from that little interview was that he doesn't expect to DO the job of president. he will delegate the yucky parts to his VP.

his new campaign guy gives me the creeps.

Manafort? He should, he's consultant to tinpot dictators the world over.

yeah. he is super creepy even when you don't know his history.

and he says shit that his candidate isn't saying. that's just weird.

[Khadgar]

Manafort? He should, he's consultant to tinpot dictators the world over.

yeah. he is super creepy even when you don't know his history.

and he says shit that his candidate isn't saying. that's just weird.

Gives you a glimpse of Trump's management style though. Demand results, don't worry about details. He'd make a wonderful president. At the impeachment hearings he could honestly say he knew nothing.

[Ashmoria]

yeah. he is super creepy even when you don't know his history.

and he says shit that his candidate isn't saying. that's just weird.

Gives you a glimpse of Trump's management style though. Demand results, don't worry about details. He'd make a wonderful president. At the impeachment hearings he could honestly say he knew nothing.

just like Reagan except he wont have to say he believed it in his heart.

[USS Monitor]

Trump has decided he wants a white male VP due to the logic that anything else would be pandering.

A white man who's spent his entire campaign insulting women and minorities decides that women and minorities just aren't good enough to be on his ticket. That's how it'll play.

my takeaway from that little interview was that he doesn't expect to DO the job of president. he will delegate the yucky parts to his VP.

his new campaign guy gives me the creeps.

His old campaign guy assaulted someone. If the new one just gives you the creeps and nothing more than that, then it's an improvement.