Sabato's Crystal Ball: Electoral Map

[KSRBEvans]

Larry Sabato is a UVA Government Professor, the head of UVA's Center for Politics and a straight shooter when it comes to political prognostication. His Center for Politics puts out Crystal Ball predictions on House, Senate and Presidential races.

Here's what they had for an early electoral map in May 2015:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/content/images//2015_05_07_pres_600.png

Here's what they have now:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/content/images//2016_03_31_pres_600.png

Sabato doesn't think it gets into 1964 or 1972 landslide territory, but Clinton would win the swing states and probably North Carolina (which went for Obama in 2008).

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-only-thing-that-matters/

[suncat05]

I hope he's way off.
Of course, this criminal investigation into her e-mail server and the contents therein, and this Benghazi situation will be the "flies in the ointment" for her. Especially if the FBI comes back with indictable offenses and the DOJ refuses to indict her over this e-mail server case.
Americans still have a very strong sense of 'fair play'. If it is determined that she broke federal laws and in any way endangered American interests with her conduct, then she IS NOT fit to be the President of the United States. Period.

[KSRBEvans]

His projected map is pretty close to the 2008 electoral map:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/electoralroadmapforcbsite.gif

Obama beat McCain by 7 points (52.9-45.7).

In that article, Sabato estimates that Hillary wouldn't beat Trump by 1964-1972 landslide numbers, but could get around 55%, which would be a little better than the 2008 numbers.

You can't go just by "this popular margin=this electoral margin", but it's something to consider.

[dan_bgblue]

BE does his crystal ball have any result predictions if Trump is not the candidate and say, Rubio is?

[KSRBEvans]

Dan, I voted for him, but I don't think Rubio's going to be anyone's nominee anytime soon. I could see the convention turning to Cruz, or as a compromise turning to someone who didn't run at all (like Paul Ryan, although I think it's unlikely he'd accept), but I doubt that someone who got trounced would get the nomination.

He talks in the article about what happens if Cruz is the nominee (short version: the outlook improves), but doesn't do a separate map. Here's a snippet:


Now, let’s suppose the Republican nominee is Ted Cruz and not Donald Trump. How much difference would it make in November? Probably, a Clinton-Cruz contest would be closer. RealClearPolitics’ polling average has Clinton defeating Cruz by about three points, while HuffPost’s average has Clinton winning by about four points. Unquestionably, Cruz would have a better chance of overcoming a gap of three or four points than Trump would of bridging a 10 or 11-point difference. At the least, Cruz could firm up the GOP’s chances in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, and Missouri, and he could turn some of our Leans Democratic states back into Toss-ups.

[dan_bgblue]

Thanks

[StuBleedsBlue2]

If Trump is denied the nomination, he'll run as a 3rd party, or his supporters will stay at home. The Republican party has killed itself by aligning itself with extremists. The inability to nominate a rational moderate in Kasich, or even Rubio to an extent, has basically resulted in the moderate nation to turn its back on considering their nominee, be it Trump or Cruz.

That 2008 map is most likely going to be replicated and considering the high unfavorable ratings, it will be an indictment on the party, more than a coronation for Hillary. However, Democrats will take it and will continue to move a positive, progressive agenda, with the first line of action to appoint the most, hardcore liberal judge to the court, as a punitive action to Republicans.

[CitizenBBN]

Yeah, if the gop was only reasonable Hillary would appoint a moderate.

The gop and the democrats have the same problem, a huge percentage of Americans are sick of their corrupt politics. That's why a guy like trump is willing and why a 74 year old socialist is doing do well too. Same exact reasons, both sides are full of people reaching out to extremists as the only answer to party politics.

Kasich is the obvious choice and the gop would love that choice, but trump keeps winning votes for the same reason Sanders does. If the gop had a choice trump wouldn't win and if the democrats had a choice Sanders wouldn't be running.

My hope is that for once justice prevails and Hillary is indicted. Then this whole thing becomes a chaotic mess and maybe done good comes from it.

Sent using Forum Runner

[suncat05]

Probably not going to happen CBBN.

[bigsky]

Hilary will not only not be indicted; she will be the next president

[CitizenBBN]

I said it was a hope, I didn't say it was much of one.

it's stunning really. Against any reasonable candidate, literally anyone in the initial GOP field but Trump, she loses. Even half the people voting for her don't think she can be trusted.

[KeithKSR]

It's too early to predict electoral votes, as there are unpredictable events that will happen between now and the election that will impact the outcome. Without hurricane Sandy it is likely Romney is running for a second term right now. Hillary is losing ground quickly to Sanders.

People want a change and not politics as usual, Hillary is most definitely politics as usual.

[Doc]

Well, now that Syracuse is out of the NCAA tourney, Bernie can get back to campaigning

http://thekevinburkeproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/boeheim.jpg

vs

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/121005120813-bernie-sanders-story-top.jpg

[KSRBEvans]

Graphic showing average Democratic Presidential vote in each state from 2000-2012. Interesting to see trends in states like FL, OH, VA, NC, CO, etc.:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Clo54v8WEAAz0Ov.jpg:small

[KeithKSR]

Those numbers are based upon the 2012 turnout. I'm doubting that Hillary will get the turnout Obama got in 2012.

[ShoesSwayedBlue]

Those numbers are based upon the 2012 turnout. I'm doubting that Hillary will get the turnout Obama got in 2012.

Yeah she will. Trump's mouth assures it.

[KeithKSR]

Yeah she will. Trump's mouth assures it.

Turnout for Hillary will be nothing like it was for Obama, not even close.

[badrose]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

[dan_bgblue]

That is interesting. Thanks badrose

[KeithKSR]

That is interesting. Thanks badrose

That poll hasn't gotten much play in the national news. I think this election will be difficult to project, you can't use the 2012 election turnout as a basis for the poll.

[badrose]

That poll hasn't gotten much play in the national news. I think this election will be difficult to project, you can't use the 2012 election turnout as a basis for the poll.

She'll get a bump when this fiasco investigation clears her from wrongdoing.

[CitizenBBN]

She'll get a bump when this fiasco investigation clears her from wrongdoing.

I'm praying, quite literally, that the FBI Director stands up for the rule of law and the future of this nation and publicly calls for an indictment.

Even if one doesn't come and the politicians bury it, if he were to stand up and say the FBI has concluded there is sufficient proof of these felonies, it would at least send a message that these things are still wrong and that the rule of law is still important.

Forget the election, this is about losing our way as a people and putting the rule of individuals ahead of the rule of law. NO ONE can be above the law, no one can be too powerful or too popular to be held accountable for legal wrongdoing.

It is the most bedrock principle of this nation and of Western ideals. we desperately need good people at the FBI and career DOJ offices to stand up and defend that principle even if it costs them their careers. That is a small price to pay for defending the foundation of this nation's liberty.

[Catonahottinroof]

We could only hope for that. I don't see that happening though. It may be a very slow leak of data from disgruntledntled FBI informants or WikiLeaks.


I'm praying, quite literally, that the FBI Director stands up for the rule of law and the future of this nation and publicly calls for an indictment.

Even if one doesn't come and the politicians bury it, if he were to stand up and say the FBI has concluded there is sufficient proof of these felonies, it would at least send a message that these things are still wrong and that the rule of law is still important.

Forget the election, this is about losing our way as a people and putting the rule of individuals ahead of the rule of law. NO ONE can be above the law, no one can be too powerful or too popular to be held accountable for legal wrongdoing.

It is the most bedrock principle of this nation and of Western ideals. we desperately need good people at the FBI and career DOJ offices to stand up and defend that principle even if it costs them their careers. That is a small price to pay for defending the foundation of this nation's liberty.

[CitizenBBN]

We could only hope for that. I don't see that happening though. It may be a very slow leak of data from disgruntledntled FBI informants or WikiLeaks.

I hope for it, but I sure don't hold out hope of it. The Clintons are vicious, they will have made it clear they will go after anyone who dares stand up to them, so it will take a lot of guts to do the right thing.

Obama has already shown the way, with use of the IRS and other agencies to harass people who just have the gall to be donors to the GOP cause. Imagine what they'll do to this guy.

but he MUST take that on and see that what happens to him is nothing compared to the principle he's there to uphold. Law enforcement officers put their very lives on the line every day, he's being asked to do far less.

[KSRBEvans]

FWIW, since 1972 the leader in every polling average 30 days after both conventions has gone on to win the popular vote:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnvK2ThWgAAjFy4.jpg:small

https://mobile.twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/755420452932161537?p=v

[dan_bgblue]

Thanks BE. That is interesting info to me. Appears that the voting public has their minds made up way ahead of the the actual election and campaigning afterwards does little if anything to change their minds

[KeithKSR]

FWIW, since 1972 the leader in every polling average 30 days after both conventions has gone on to win the popular vote:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnvK2ThWgAAjFy4.jpg:small

https://mobile.twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/755420452932161537?p=v

Other than the Obama elections, which are turnout anamolies, it appears that the polls undercount the GOP numbers and over count the DNC numbers.

It should also be noted that the earlier than normal convention dates mean 30 days after the conventions are not as close to the elections as they were in the past.

[MickintheHam]

I have no hope that anyone other than the Hildabeast wins.

[badrose]

Rasmussen: Trump: 44% Clinton: 37% (as of Monday)

[KSRBEvans]

BTW, if you want to start freaking out (either positively or negatively), here's Nate Silver's "now cast," a snapshot of what they predict would happen if the election were held today, 7/25:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoNjE1xXYAAH_9p.jpg:small

Of course, the election's not being held today. Dems have their convention this week which will probably move the needle at least a little for them, and lots of time between now and November for events, debates, Russian leaks :D , etc. But I think the picture's interesting if for nothing else than to see what a Trump road to victory needs to look like: Ohio (no GOP candidate has ever won without winning Ohio), Florida, Pennsylvania. He could lose some group of North Carolina, Nevada, Iowa and/or New Hampshire and still have 270, but he can't lose any of the other big ones and still get there. That's a tough group to win, but if anyone's going to flip rust-belt states it's Trump.

BTW, if you like playing a what-if game, if Trump won all of the states listed above EXCEPT Pennsylvania, you get a 269-269 tie. To the House of Representatives!

[CitizenBBN]

Throwing it to the House would be fun. In the House each state gets one vote, not by Representative. That would be a potential war as well.

[badrose]

FWIW, since 1972 the leader in every polling average 30 days after both conventions has gone on to win the popular vote:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnvK2ThWgAAjFy4.jpg:small

https://mobile.twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/755420452932161537?p=v

I think Dukakis lost a lot of ground after everyone saw him riding in a tank with a helmet on.

[KSRBEvans]

The House has decided 2 elections: 1800 and 1824, and was part of a 3rd (1876).

http://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Electoral-College/

[CitizenBBN]

1800 wasn't all that interesting, though it did in part lead to the 12th Amendment.

But 1824 was a rabble rousing, fascinating election that then had all the intrigue of Henry Clay presiding as Speaker and having been the 4th largest vote getter for President as well. Now that was an interesting situation.

Of course Clay put his weight behind JQA who then made him Sec of State (at the time that was considered the best stepping stone to the Presidency), but Jackson got his revenge later.

[KeithKSR]

1800 wasn't all that interesting, though it did in part lead to the 12th Amendment.

But 1824 was a rabble rousing, fascinating election that then had all the intrigue of Henry Clay presiding as Speaker and having been the 4th largest vote getter for President as well. Now that was an interesting situation.

Of course Clay put his weight behind JQA who then made him Sec of State (at the time that was considered the best stepping stone to the Presidency), but Jackson got his revenge later.

I always found the 1800 election to be more interesting. It was a change election, and as mentioned, it led to a change in the way the President and Vice-President are elected.

[KSRBEvans]

Speaking of the 1800 election, here's an article by Mental Floss (a good follow, BTW):

12 Facts About The Election of 1800 (http://mentalfloss.com/article/82871/12-facts-about-election-1800)

Pretty interesting stuff, including some things I didn't know (like Pennsylvania was ready to send its militia to march on Washington!).

[CitizenBBN]

Speaking of the 1800 election, here's an article by Mental Floss (a good follow, BTW):

12 Facts About The Election of 1800 (http://mentalfloss.com/article/82871/12-facts-about-election-1800)

Pretty interesting stuff, including some thing I didn't know (like Pennsylvania was ready to send its militia to march on Washington!).

I'm tickled they mentioned Callender. That's a name I haven't thought about in a very long time. Studied him in a class I had on this period long long ago, I had a great prof who loved these kinds of side stories.

I love they mentioned him b/c we talk today about how bitter and divisive things are and how it's all about sound bytes and negative ads and then people long for the good old days of statesmanship.

I've studied a fair amount of US history, and I have yet to run across that era of compromise and statesmanship to which people refer. There has been some, but not a lot and even then there has always been bitter division and yes bitter underhanded attacks and negative campaigning. It's as old as democracy.

[KeithKSR]

Interesting stuff, Brian.

[KeithKSR]

I'm tickled they mentioned Callender. That's a name I haven't thought about in a very long time. Studied him in a class I had on this period long long ago, I had a great prof who loved these kinds of side stories.

I love they mentioned him b/c we talk today about how bitter and divisive things are and how it's all about sound bytes and negative ads and then people long for the good old days of statesmanship.

I've studied a fair amount of US history, and I have yet to run across that era of compromise and statesmanship to which people refer. There has been some, but not a lot and even then there has always been bitter division and yes bitter underhanded attacks and negative campaigning. It's as old as democracy.

That's just like the gridlock people complain about. That gridlock, the checks and balances system, is an intentional part of the Constitution in order to laws hard to pass.

There is also an erroneous will of the people philosophy. Just because an event occurs and 60% of the people suddenly make a bad idea popular it doesn't mean a law should be passed.

[MickintheHam]

Speaking of the 1800 election, here's an article by Mental Floss (a good follow, BTW):

12 Facts About The Election of 1800 (http://mentalfloss.com/article/82871/12-facts-about-election-1800)

Pretty interesting stuff, including some thing I didn't know (like Pennsylvania was ready to send its militia to march on Washington!).

Brian, you have good taste in what you read. Mental Floss was started by a kid right here in Hoover, Al. He was two years ahead of my son at HHS. It's been amazing to see what the magazine/website has become.

[dan_bgblue]

CBBN, I think much of the idea about statesmanship is derived from elected officials in Washington being able to enter negotiations with compromises on their minds as opposed to strict party line voting regardless of the consequences. At least that is how I view statesmanship. I have known 2 KY US Senators and have had the opportunity to discuss issues with them in their offices. They were both what I would call statesmen and understood that compromise and deal making was part of the process at the national level.

btw, neither of those gentlemen are in office today and have not been for many years.

[CitizenBBN]

Dan I think that's a good point, and there have no doubt been times when people have gotten together and hammered out deals, but overall most of our history is exactly this kind of feuding and party politics.

I sure agree with the sentiment we need more statesmanship, esp. just guys who could sit down at a bar in Washington after hours and talk things out, but those moments have and will continue to be rare.

Honestly the statesmanship that did exist if it was ever higher back then, was IMO due to the fact that the election process was vastly different. When state legislatures picked Senators they didn't have to raise huge sums for big media campaigns, and were thus less beholden to the national party. Things all over were much less directly done with the People, but that also allowed them to sit down in a room and hammer out deals with the usual greasing of the wheels with some pork barrel and log rolling and such.

Now the show is far more important now, mass marketing has overtaken political networking. That has positives, but also negatives.

[KeithKSR]

Dan I think that's a good point, and there have no doubt been times when people have gotten together and hammered out deals, but overall most of our history is exactly this kind of feuding and party politics.

I sure agree with the sentiment we need more statesmanship, esp. just guys who could sit down at a bar in Washington after hours and talk things out, but those moments have and will continue to be rare.

Honestly the statesmanship that did exist if it was ever higher back then, was IMO due to the fact that the election process was vastly different. When state legislatures picked Senators they didn't have to raise huge sums for big media campaigns, and were thus less beholden to the national party. Things all over were much less directly done with the People, but that also allowed them to sit down in a room and hammer out deals with the usual greasing of the wheels with some pork barrel and log rolling and such.

Now the show is far more important now, mass marketing has overtaken political networking. That has positives, but also negatives.

Many pieces of legislation have always been decided among party lines. Look at the issues that were decided before and after the Civil War, party line votes all the way.

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/03/fox-news-poll-clinton-leads-trump-by-10-points-both-seen-as-flawed.html

Wasn't Trump leading in several polls 30 days before the conventions, or did I just dream that?

[Darrell KSR]

I trust no polls just yet.

[CitizenBBN]

I trust no polls just yet.

The undecided is huge this year, 20+ points, and I don't care about national polls anyway. The only ones that matter are in battleground states.

Trump stunk it up this week, but it's not the first week he has and he's survived all the others. I saw that Gingrich and Guliani and others are going to stage an intervetion, and I sure hope they do, with the kids in the meeting. He listens to them.

All he has to do is stay on message and stop firing back at every piece of bait and he'll win this thing. I still doubt he can do it, just as I did months ago.

[KSRBEvans]

It's hard to wait, but as that 538.com graph shows, 30 days after the last convention (end of this month) historically is a better gauge of the final result.

Both candidates doing their best to throw this away--I don't think I've ever seen an election year like this.

[badrose]

Trump is an amateur politician. Someone close to him needs to reign him in a bit. Way too much BS coming out of his mouth. Needs to stay on point.

[KSRBEvans]

Hillary apparently is ready to skip the election and go right to planning her transition:

https://mobile.twitter.com/nationaljournal/status/761261430100332544?p=v

[CitizenBBN]

Barring Trump getting his mouth wired shut or more fun from Wikileaks (both of which are reasonably possible), she might as well. But if Trump can stay on message and talk about nothing but the economy and ISIS and Hillary's negatives, in that order, and Wikileaks can dump some more well timed stuff, then he can win.

[KeithKSR]

Barring Trump getting his mouth wired shut or more fun from Wikileaks (both of which are reasonably possible), she might as well. But if Trump can stay on message and talk about nothing but the economy and ISIS and Hillary's negatives, in that order, and Wikileaks can dump some more well timed stuff, then he can win.

IMO, Assange is holding the juiciest stuff to dump in an October surprise.

[Darrell KSR]

....and Wikileaks can dump some more well timed stuff....

You know that's coming. The sad thing is, there must be a plethora of material they could use for her. I'm not sure there's a limit.

[CitizenBBN]

You know that's coming. The sad thing is, there must be a plethora of material they could use for her. I'm not sure there's a limit.

Given that I'm sure the Russians, Chinese and about everyone else already has it, I hope it's all in the hands of Wikileaks as well b/c we need someone to expose the corruption and failings of our government.

That's why I could never get too upset with Snowden. This government is far too removed from the people, I can't be too upset about it being exposed for the corrupt influence peddling cesspool that we know it to be.

[KSRBEvans]

FWIW, since 1972 the leader in every polling average 30 days after both conventions has gone on to win the popular vote:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnvK2ThWgAAjFy4.jpg:small

https://mobile.twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/755420452932161537?p=v

Today is the 30th day after the Democratic convention. If Trump wins, he'll be the first one since 1972 to be behind in the polling average 30 days after the last convention and win. The RCP average has him down 6.3 points:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

[badrose]

When Americans were sane...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/1984/president/1984_elections_electoral_college_map.html

[KeithKSR]

Today is the 30th day after the Democratic convention. If Trump wins, he'll be the first one since 1972 to be behind in the polling average 30 days after the last convention and win. The RCP average has him down 6.3 points:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

The average of recent polls is much closer, most are within the margin of error.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

The average of recent polls is much closer, most are within the margin of error.

False.

Clinton's poll of polls, according to RCP as of today, 8/29 gives her a 6.1% lead.

FiveThirtyEight.com Polls-Only also shows a 6/1% lead. It's Now-Cast shows a 5.7% lead.

Those are well beyond the margin of error.

As I've mentioned before, it's about the state polls. Hillary leads comfortably, in excess of 6% in states that give her 273 electoral votes. That's NOT including Florida, Ohio, N Carolina, Iowa and Nevada. The closest two states are Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, where she holds 8-9% leads in both states.

Trump will have to win all 5 and flip one of those. He's within the margin of error in each of those states, but still trailing.

[Doc]

Jerry Meyers will make his crystal ball prediction on November 9th.

[Darrell KSR]

Jerry Meyers will make his crystal ball prediction on November 9th.
:)

[KeithKSR]

False.

Clinton's poll of polls, according to RCP as of today, 8/29 gives her a 6.1% lead.

FiveThirtyEight.com Polls-Only also shows a 6/1% lead. It's Now-Cast shows a 5.7% lead.

Those are well beyond the margin of error.

As I've mentioned before, it's about the state polls. Hillary leads comfortably, in excess of 6% in states that give her 273 electoral votes. That's NOT including Florida, Ohio, N Carolina, Iowa and Nevada. The closest two states are Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, where she holds 8-9% leads in both states.

Trump will have to win all 5 and flip one of those. He's within the margin of error in each of those states, but still trailing.


Do you understand the meaning of "recent?" RCP Poll at that time went back a few weeks.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Do you understand the meaning of "recent?" RCP Poll at that time went back a few weeks.

I understand the definition of recent. I'm not sure you understand the meaning of most.

Most recent polls are NOT showing the race is within the MofE. A couple are, like LA Times(which has a very unique methodology) and Rasmussen(which always skews Republican, but is actually trending TOWARDS Clinton recently, and last poll is outside of MofE (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch)). The other thing with these two polls is that they're ALWAYS within the MofE.

Again, I point to the state polling. Clinton has a consistent, minimum 6-8% point lead(all well beyond any MofE) in states now totalling 279 electoral votes. The 5 battleground: Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Iowa and North Carolina, Clinton is leading in most of those polls too, but within the MofE. However, with poll of polls, especially with Nate Silver that MofE greatly decreases.

Most recent polling still indicates a strong(but definitely off the highs of the post convention bounce) lead for Clinton.

[dan_bgblue]

Jerry Meyers will make his crystal ball prediction on November 9th.

:unworthy:

[KeithKSR]

I understand the definition of recent. I'm not sure you understand the meaning of most.

Most recent polls are NOT showing the race is within the MofE. A couple are, like LA Times(which has a very unique methodology) and Rasmussen(which always skews Republican, but is actually trending TOWARDS Clinton recently, and last poll is outside of MofE (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch)). The other thing with these two polls is that they're ALWAYS within the MofE.

Again, I point to the state polling. Clinton has a consistent, minimum 6-8% point lead(all well beyond any MofE) in states now totalling 279 electoral votes. The 5 battleground: Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Iowa and North Carolina, Clinton is leading in most of those polls too, but within the MofE. However, with poll of polls, especially with Nate Silver that MofE greatly decreases.

Most recent polling still indicates a strong(but definitely off the highs of the post convention bounce) lead for Clinton.

The RCP average, which includes the Quinnipiac outlier poll, was at about 5 points yesterday. When the margin of error is about 3.5 that puts it in a veritable dead heat. Many of these polls still use 2008 and 2009 turnout models, and the Dems won't turn out like they did in 2008 and 2012. Primary data indicated Dem registrations are down, GOP up.

[KSRBEvans]

The author says it's not a prediction, but an interesting discussion of how Trump could pull a Bush 43 (lose the popular vote but win the electoral college). Money section:


Using a prototype of a demographic election calculator that FiveThirtyEight will be unveiling in the next few weeks, I decided to simulate a few election scenarios. Starting with 2012 results as a baseline and adjusting for demographic changes over the past four years, I tested what the map would look like if African-American turnout dipped, GOP support among college-educated whites and Latinos slightly declined, and noncollege whites rallied to Trump in large numbers.

More specifically, here are the conditions I used to set up a fairly plausible scenario that would scare the heck out of Democrats:
1.Latino turnout rises from 48 percent in 2012 to 54 percent, and their support for Democrats increases from 71 percent to 74 percent.
2.Asian/other turnout rises from 49 percent in 2012 to 54 percent, and their support for Democrats increases from 69 percent to 74 percent.
3.African-Americans continue to give Democrats 93 percent of the vote, but their turnout falls from 66 percent to 60 percent.
4.Among college-educated whites, turnout remains steady at 78 percent and Republicans’ share falls from 56 percent to 47 percent.
5.Among whites without a college degree, turnout surges from 55 percent to 66 percent and Republicans’ share rises from 62 percent to 67 percent.

The result? Clinton would carry the popular vote by 1.5 percentage points. However, Trump would win the Electoral College with 280 votes by holding all 24 Romney states and flipping Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Maine’s 2nd Congressional District from blue to red. And the real disparity between the electoral and popular votes could be larger, because this model doesn’t even factor in Trump’s Mormon problem.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trump-could-win-the-white-house-while-losing-the-popular-vote/

[KSRBEvans]

BTW, more fun with 269-269:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/0b1oR

Basically this is the 2012 map with Trump flipping Florida (currently narrowly ahead (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5963.html)), Ohio (currently narrowly ahead (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5970.html)), Iowa (currently up 4 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5981.html)), Colorado and getting 1 of the Maine congressional districts.

Tough road for Trump (he's down about 5 in Colorado right now (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/co/colorado_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5974.html)) but not impossible.

[MickintheHam]

BTW, more fun with 269-269:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/0b1oR

Basically this is the 2012 map with Trump flipping Florida (currently narrowly ahead (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5963.html)), Ohio (currently narrowly ahead (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5970.html)), Iowa (currently up 4 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5981.html)), Colorado and getting 1 of the Maine congressional districts.

Tough road for Trump (he's down about 5 in Colorado right now (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/co/colorado_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5974.html)) but not impossible.

The debates will change it all. There are way too many people that are not solid with their preference. Buckle you seat belt. Bumpy road ahead.

[KeithKSR]

The debates will change it all. There are way too many people that are not solid with their preference. Buckle you seat belt. Bumpy road ahead.

Gotta wonder how Hillary will do without someone feeding her answers. There is a reason she has abstained from pressers.

[Darrell KSR]

Gotta wonder how Hillary will do without someone feeding her answers. There is a reason she has abstained from pressers.
Bet you a Coca-Cola she'll have some device that will be deep inside her ear during it.

[badrose]

Bet you a Coca-Cola she'll have some device that will be deep inside her ear during it.

Yeah, I won't put anything past her.

[Doc]

That would be cheating and unethical. Hillary would never do anything like...... never mind

[MickintheHam]

A new Sabato Crystal Ball reading is coming out today or tomorrow. Haven't seen it yet.

[badrose]

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

[Catonahottinroof]

Funny how Sabato's poll has went from a Hillary slam dunk, to The Donald now having a chance.

[KSRBEvans]

So with a poll showing a 3-way statistical tie between Trump, Clinton and Even McMullin in Utah (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ut/utah_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein_vs_mcmul lin-6154.html), how about another way this ends up in the House?

http://www.270towin.com/maps/Gw39Y

http://www.270towin.com/maps/Gw39Y

Trump flips 2012 Obama states Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and Colorado (most likely to least, IMHO), and McMullin wins Utah, denying anyone 270 votes and throwing it to the House.

[dan_bgblue]

If he can flip the 5 you mention, then it is my guess that either Michigan or Pennsylvania flips as well.

[CitizenBBN]

IIRC the House can pick anyone they want can't they?

I'd love to see that play out, or any scenario where someone other than these two win the office. So would about everyone else, which makes you wonder just how bad a system we've put in place.

[KSRBEvans]

If he can flip the 5 you mention, then it is my guess that either Michigan or Pennsylvania flips as well.

Yeah, it's asking a lot to flip those 5. If it happens, like you said, it means other purple states like Michigan and Pennsylvania will be in play.

I think it's more likely he flips none or maybe 1 of them (Iowa's most likely IMHO), but another 2012 red state or 2, like North Carolina or even Arizona, flips blue. I saw a story (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-sending-michelle-obama-top-surrogates-campaign/story?id=42862392) today where Hillary is making a new ad buy in Arizona and Michelle Obama will campaign there. Maybe she's throwing $ down a hole, like late in the 2000 election when W thought he could win Pennsylvania and spent a lot of $ there. But then again maybe they see something happening there & they're taking a shot.

[KSRBEvans]

IIRC the House can pick anyone they want can't they?

I'd love to see that play out, or any scenario where someone other than these two win the office. So would about everyone else, which makes you wonder just how bad a system we've put in place.

Basically the House would pick, by state delegation, among the top 3 vote-getters in the Electoral College. So for example, they couldn't elect Doc (although that would be awesome, on many levels).

http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xii/

[Doc]

I DO HEREBY DECREE THAT UNC-CH SHALL FORFEIT ALL BASKETBALL VICTORIES BETWEEN THE YEARS 1998 and 2015

[Darrell KSR]

I DO HEREBY DECREE THAT UNC-CH SHALL FORFEIT ALL BASKETBALL VICTORIES BETWEEN THE YEARS 1998 and 2015

I'll write you in now on my absentee ballot. Can I be first to vote for you?

[Doc]

I'm all about unification and I think we can all be unified in our hate of the Tarheel's academic fraud

[KSRBEvans]

Sabato's final call:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/content/images//2016_11_07_pres_600.png

[CitizenBBN]

Like I've said before, if we could get San Francisco and New York City to leave the union we'd really be in business. It would flip those two states and we could start fixing things.

[dan_bgblue]

Like I've said before, if we could get San Francisco and New York City to leave the union we'd really be in business. It would flip those two states and we could start fixing things.

DC also needs to sink about 3 feet into the ocean and the capitol moved to St Louis. All though I do like St Louis and really hate to dump the DC crowd on them. Maybe it would be better if they just located the capitol in the middle of the Kansas Prairie surrounded by Native American reservations and illegal immigrant tent cities

[KeithKSR]

Sabato's final call:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/content/images//2016_11_07_pres_600.png

I'm surprised Sabato made his call prior to early voting numbers coming out.