http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...re-increasing/
The Odds Of An Electoral College-Popular Vote Split Are Increasing
By Nate Silver
We’ve written about this before, but I wanted to call your attention to it again because the possibility of an Electoral College-popular vote split keeps widening in our forecast. While there’s an outside chance that such a split could benefit Clinton if she wins the exact set of states that form her “firewall,” it’s far more likely to benefit Donald Trump, according to our forecast. Thus, as of early Monday evening, our polls-only model gave Hillary Clinton an 85 percent chance of winning the popular vote but just a 75 percent chance of winning the Electoral College. There’s roughly a 10 percent chance of Trump’s winning the White House while losing the popular vote, in other words.
As an illustration of this, we can compare Clinton’s current margins in our polls-only forecast against President Obama’s performance in 2012. Clinton — despite Trump’s recent improvement in the polls — leads by 4.7 percentage points in the national popular vote, a wider margin than Obama’s 3.9-point victory over Mitt Romney in 2012.
But Clinton is performing worse than Obama in 10 of the 12 states that were generally considered swing states in 2012. In some cases, such as Florida and Pennsylvania, the difference is negligible. She’s underperforming Obama substantially, however, in Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Nevada and to a somewhat lesser extent in Wisconsin and Minnesota. She’s considerably outperforming Obama in Virginia and North Carolina, conversely, but that’s not enough to make up for her losses elsewhere.
So how is Clinton doing better in the popular vote overall, despite failing to match Obama’s performance in most of these swing states? A lot of it is her strong performance in red states, or at least red states where a significant number of Romney voters were whites with college degrees. Thus, Clinton is putting states such as Arizona into play and — although she’s unlikely to win them — states such as Texas, Georgia and even Utah are liable to be much closer than we’re used to. Texas, in particular, can cause a potential Electoral College-popular vote skew because of its large and growing population. If the Democrat goes from losing Texas by 15 percentage points to losing it by 5 points instead, that produces a net gain of about 0.6 or 0.7 percentage points of the popular vote — larger than the margin by which Al Gore beat George W. Bush in the popular vote in 2000 — without changing the tally in the Electoral College.
Clinton’s also making gains among Hispanic voters, but she may not replicate Obama’s turnout among African-Americans. African-Americans, though, are more likely to be located in swing states than Hispanics are. Roughly half the U.S. Hispanic population is in Texas or California, another state where Clinton is likely to outperform Obama (she currently leads in California by 25 percentage points, while Obama carried the state by 23 points) without getting any additional Electoral College benefit from it.
There’s one big qualification: Our model doesn’t account for any sort of ground game advantage for Clinton in the swing states, other than to the extent that advantage is reflected in the polls. That could make a split a bit less likely than our model infers. Still, Trump’s coalition of white voters without college degrees are overrepresented in swing states, especially in the Midwest, while Clinton’s voters are not.
"our polls-only model gave Hillary Clinton an 85 percent chance of winning the popular vote but just a 75 percent chance of winning the Electoral College.
There’s roughly a 10 percent chance of Trump’s winning the White House while losing the popular vote, in other words."
aka, GAMEOVER
But the media keeps scaring people into watching the media (selling eyeballs, clicks to advertisers)
Here’s the Election Day nightmare scenario that should terrify you
First, the tight finish produces an outcome that is contested well beyond Election Day, with Trump (should he lose) claiming the results are rigged.
Second, Trump supplements his claim about the rigged outcome by continuing to point to the FBI’s latest discovery of emails as proof of an ongoing cover-up of Hillary Clinton’s criminality.
This morning, election rules expert Michael McDonald argues that if the outcome is close, the election could very well “go into overtime,” adding that “in this environment,” this could “rip this country apart.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...t-draw7&wpmm=1
“rip this country apart.”Oh!, the (melo)drama. It's a telenovella!
But the media keeps scaring people into watching the media (selling eyeballs, clicks to advertisers)
Here’s the Election Day nightmare scenario that should terrify you
First, the tight finish produces an outcome that is contested well beyond Election Day, with Trump (should he lose) claiming the results are rigged.
Second, Trump supplements his claim about the rigged outcome by continuing to point to the FBI’s latest discovery of emails as proof of an ongoing cover-up of Hillary Clinton’s criminality.
This morning, election rules expert Michael McDonald argues that if the outcome is close, the election could very well “go into overtime,” adding that “in this environment,” this could “rip this country apart.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...t-draw7&wpmm=1
“rip this country apart.”
LOL. You think you can use a non-Liberal biased propaganda outlet that is so inept that a Youtuber exposed them as exposing themselves in their lies about Trump making fun of the crippled writer who actually wrote about Donald Trump, his good friend of 16 years, IN THE WASHINGTON POST, 16 years prior???LO INGL
Boutons is becoming the Avante of the Politics Form, just not strong enough to hold down kids to rape them.
go back to Mexico
TheSanityAnnex read this as well.
That's racist
Trash's racists hate it when racism is thrown in their face.
Chucho, how's it taste? Needs more comino?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...re-increasing/
The Odds Of An Electoral College-Popular Vote Split Are Increasing
By Nate Silver
We’ve written about this before, but I wanted to call your attention to it again because the possibility of an Electoral College-popular vote split keeps widening in our forecast. While there’s an outside chance that such a split could benefit Clinton if she wins the exact set of states that form her “firewall,” it’s far more likely to benefit Donald Trump, according to our forecast. Thus, as of early Monday evening, our polls-only model gave Hillary Clinton an 85 percent chance of winning the popular vote but just a 75 percent chance of winning the Electoral College. There’s roughly a 10 percent chance of Trump’s winning the White House while losing the popular vote, in other words.
As an illustration of this, we can compare Clinton’s current margins in our polls-only forecast against President Obama’s performance in 2012. Clinton — despite Trump’s recent improvement in the polls — leads by 4.7 percentage points in the national popular vote, a wider margin than Obama’s 3.9-point victory over Mitt Romney in 2012.
But Clinton is performing worse than Obama in 10 of the 12 states that were generally considered swing states in 2012. In some cases, such as Florida and Pennsylvania, the difference is negligible. She’s underperforming Obama substantially, however, in Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Nevada and to a somewhat lesser extent in Wisconsin and Minnesota. She’s considerably outperforming Obama in Virginia and North Carolina, conversely, but that’s not enough to make up for her losses elsewhere.
So how is Clinton doing better in the popular vote overall, despite failing to match Obama’s performance in most of these swing states? A lot of it is her strong performance in red states, or at least red states where a significant number of Romney voters were whites with college degrees. Thus, Clinton is putting states such as Arizona into play and — although she’s unlikely to win them — states such as Texas, Georgia and even Utah are liable to be much closer than we’re used to. Texas, in particular, can cause a potential Electoral College-popular vote skew because of its large and growing population. If the Democrat goes from losing Texas by 15 percentage points to losing it by 5 points instead, that produces a net gain of about 0.6 or 0.7 percentage points of the popular vote — larger than the margin by which Al Gore beat George W. Bush in the popular vote in 2000 — without changing the tally in the Electoral College.
Clinton’s also making gains among Hispanic voters, but she may not replicate Obama’s turnout among African-Americans. African-Americans, though, are more likely to be located in swing states than Hispanics are. Roughly half the U.S. Hispanic population is in Texas or California, another state where Clinton is likely to outperform Obama (she currently leads in California by 25 percentage points, while Obama carried the state by 23 points) without getting any additional Electoral College benefit from it.
There’s one big qualification: Our model doesn’t account for any sort of ground game advantage for Clinton in the swing states, other than to the extent that advantage is reflected in the polls. That could make a split a bit less likely than our model infers. Still, Trump’s coalition of white voters without college degrees are overrepresented in swing states, especially in the Midwest, while Clinton’s voters are not.
Trash's racists hate it when racism is thrown in their face.
Chucho, how's it taste? Needs more comino?
LOL. Looks like Boutons is now the resident expert on how ass tastes.
Pretty much nailed it to the T. I always worried after the primaries would Berner's come out for her. She needed them to have any real shot. I personally know alot of Bernie followers who just didn't vote, or was thinking about going Trump. Most were in VA. Kinda surprised she carried that state tbh.
Yeah I'm the only Bernie fan I know who voted (and for Clinton). All my conservative friends voted Trump even though most hate him (or claim to).
Trump Spent Less Than $5 for Each Vote
Donald Trump pulled off a bargain basement victory over Hillary Clinton by spending less than $5 per vote — about half of what Clinton spent.
I guess a small silver lining in this horrible result is that at least money didn't buy the election.
Freakin Ducks rubbing it in! He got abused the last few days so I guess we deserve some of it.
That and votes really still do matter in this country.
No they don't. Only swing state votes do.
the longer view is that money and inequality did create, through 40 years of VRWC strategy, the huge white resentment about the economic plight.
Money is America's most cherished value, not Christ, not freedom.
I partially agree, but who would had thought until last night that WI and MI were all of the sudden a swing state. I had no idea they were even in play until the weekend before the election. Heck MI hadn't gone red since Bush 1 IIRC. Like you said the minute she lost MI to Bernie that should a thrown up a red flag. But the DNC got arrogant and y. Popular outgoing President, Rep party in disarray, etc....
You thought Michigan likes sending their manufacturing jobs out? You thought d +10 was a good sample? And undersampling independents? Somehow trump knew it was in play, therefore it wasn't an invisible secret all along. I posted a map in the predictions thread showing Michigan going red and was scoffed. Knew he'd get one of mi or pa didn't know it would be both
I was scared as of Michigan. Michael Moore made a pretty strong case that Clinton was going to lose it and she did. The second I saw Virginia close I figured Michigan was going to be a toss up and if Michigan was a toss up then so were Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and that Ohio was a complete lost cause. Nate Silver argued over and over again that those three states and Ohio had very correlated votes which made the Clinton firewall extremely fragile. Don't get me wrong, I expected a Clinton victory, but as I posted before, I didn't figure it would be a huge upset to see Trump take it.
Michael Moore also gave an amazing endorsement of trump on video which went viral, we just cut out the ending where he slammed him
No he didn't, he said it would feel good for a day or maybe a month to vote Trump and then pleaded with people to vote Clinton.
I'm saying we used it as propaganda and cut out the part where he slammed trump, you haven't seen it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
