ELECTION PREDICTION

[SnakeTom]

MY ANALYSIS.

Arizona, Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina & Florida are all toss up states. To win Trump pretty much has to sweep them but he is currently leading slightly in Arizona, Iowa & Ohio. So as usual it comes down to Florida, Ohio & No Carolina. If Hillary wins any one of those three she will be President. A Trump sweep of the above states is possible tho unlikely. OB swept all the battleground states last time so it is possible.

The polls are tightening as most of the undecided voters are moving to Trump. This is not unexpected though as Republicans who don't like Trump & previously said they were for Johnson will not vote for Gary Johnson when push comes to shove. Plus quite a few voters have said they were undecided previously because they were just embarrassed to say they were for Trump.

Now how much will the FBI announcement factor in? Some but not much. Most everyone knows how they are voting by now. My best guess is that Hillary wins a close election but the GOP retains the Senate.

Tom K

 

[Piratz]

I agree. While the national polls make for good discussion fodder, we obviously do not elect a President in that manner. He would have a ton of work to do in flipping enough states where she clearly leads, almost unprecedented at this stage.

I cannot imagine anything criminal comes from this email review over the next 9 days, but you never know. That would be fascinating; could Biden beat Trump without campaigning? lol

 

[shupat08]

HRC wins the election (278 EV) if Pa, Va, Colo, NH & Nevada go for her. She can lose Maine & NH and still win the election or lose Nevada and still win.

She literally does not have to worry about any of the states you listed to win.

 

[Merge]

looks like it will be a fairly large HRC win by 4-5% and over 320 electoral votes. I'm thinking between 323 and 347.

 

[SnakeTom]

Icould Biden beat Trump without campaigning? lol

Interesting question. I think Biden would win easily over Trump. I also think Kasich, Rubio or Ryan would have beaten Hillary fairly easily. Both party's screwed up with their choices for nominee. I do not include Cruz nor Warren in this because both are too far to the extremes in their party's. Now here is my hypothetical question what if it was a 3 way race Hillary, Trump or Obama. If such a thing was allowed I think Obama would win a third term.

Tom K

 

[cernjSHU]

Bernie would have won in a landslide election. But so would any other Dem against Trump, including Elizabeth Warren. Likewise, Romney, McCain and many others would have beaten HRC.

Pennsylvania is the key state. HRC wins PA, it is such an uphill battle for Trump. He would have to run the table and win all the toss up states and beat Hillary in a state like Colorado or New Hampshire. It is just not likely.

 

[Bobbie Solo]

Agree with Cern. Tom has this out of touch thing where he hangs on to this centrist, moderate at all costs mentality & thinks everyone else is the same way. Warren and Bernie are not extreme at all, & would have made this election a complete laughing stock against Drumpf. Look at polls on their stances on issues vs. the public. They are on the same wavelength as the majority on many of their biggest issues.

 

[HALL85]

Still HRC's election to lose although Comey's reopening the investigation will make it closer.

I don't have a feel for turnout which may be very different this cycle. Don't see any juice with Millenials. I work in PA and get some decent insight at some county and the state level government. Traditionally strong Democratic areas such as Lehigh and Luzerne counties have a weird vibe about HRC. I think she still takes the state but would not be the least bit surprised with a major upset.

 

[SPK145]

I see this as much closer in the popular vote, Clinton with a slight lead (1-3%), Trump still with a shot. Electoral vote though can still be any margin.

Most polls are pretty inaccurate (either way, of course):

I don't believe Bernie or Cruz would have had any chance at being elected. Warren, maybe, due to the woman card.

Sad, at the end of the day, Trump is not qualified to be president and Clinton is not qualified to run for president.

 

[SnakeTom]

Agree with Cern. Tom has this out of touch thing where he hangs on to this centrist, moderate at all costs mentality & thinks everyone else is the same way. Warren and Bernie are not extreme at all, & would have made this election a complete laughing stock against Drumpf. Look at polls on their stances on issues vs. the public. They are on the same wavelength as the majority on many of their biggest issues.

I voted Bernie in the primary so I can't be as out of touch as you think, but a general election is very different from a primary on who goes to the polls to vote. Those at the extremes do much better in primaries than in general elections. I do think that Warren or Bernie would have beaten Trump, but not the more rational GOP candidates (Romney, Kaisich. Rubio). I would like to think that either would beat Cruz but I'm not sure about that.

TK

 

[shu09]

Warren and Bernie are not extreme at all.

LOL! Warren not so much but Bernie is a radical leftist. He's just as crazy as Cruz is on the right. Both should never be president.

 

[Bobbie Solo]

I voted Bernie in the primary so I can't be as out of touch as you think, but a general election is very different from a primary on who goes to the polls to vote. Those at the extremes do much better in primaries than in general elections. I do think that Warren or Bernie would have beaten Trump, but not the more rational GOP candidates (Romney, Kaisich. Rubio). I would like to think that either would beat Cruz but I'm not sure about that.

TK

I stand corrected. I think I had that view b/c you tend to post alot on the horse race stuff.

Cruz would have probably been exposed as the ass he is on the nat'l stage. SO he would have lost too. Trump is obviously more of a clown so his thymping will be more pronounced b/c he's losing a large segment of the base for the right as well.

Warren or Bernie would have easily everyone listed except Kasich. I think Kasich would have deftly masked his ugly social issues views/record and it would be a close call. Warren & Bernie would have galvanized young people & minorities in a way that Hillary isn't. Anyone sick of typical politicians (but still has a brain) would have seen the both of them as refreshing candidates.

 

[shu09]

Even if you give Trump Arizona, Iowa, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Nevada, that only gets him to 265 (with Utah included). He would need to pull a shocker in Colorado, Virginia or one of the rust belt states (PA, MI, WI).

An interesting scenario is Trump winning all of the swing states above (AZ, IA, FL, OH, NC, NV), plus New Hampshire. That results in a 269-269 tie, sending the election to the House.

The McMullin factor in Utah can also throw the election to the House in a certain scenario while robbing Trump of 6 precious electoral votes.

It's hard to see Trump winning each and every swing state. If HRC gets just one of them + NH, she's president.

 

[Merge]

I see this as much closer in the popular vote, Clinton with a slight lead (1-3%), Trump still with a shot. Electoral vote though can still be any margin.

Most polls are pretty inaccurate (either way, of course)

Polls aren't supposed to be a pinpoint though. Their results are supposed to be within their margin of error, and if the results are outside their error then there is a problem with their methodology. Before the 2012 election, you actually posted about how Rasmussen and pew were the most accurate for 2008 and they both had it tied. Methodology can work very well in one election and relatively poorly the next.

On the other hand, data modeling is where they can look at every poll,analyzing the data and using it to create significantly better predictions has been incredibly reliable for the last several general elections. Princeton election consortium and 538 have both done a great job of dissecting the data that has been provided by the different polling companies. Princeton has the election at a 97% probability Clinton wins with a 3.7% advantage in the popular vote. 538 has it as a 78% chance of winning with a 5.2% advantage in the popular vote. 538 is slightly more conservative with their estimate and has built in a factor for instability. PEC goes the opposite way and feels the rules are more static.

 

[Merge]

I think she still takes the state but would not be the least bit surprised with a major upset.

I would be. It is possible but very unlikely and would indicate that every pollster who sampled PA voters methodology was broken. Trump hasn't had over 45% in one poll in PA since July. Hillary got over 45% in almost all of them. Still see PA as an easy Hillary win by 5+%.

 

[49ers10]

Throw-out all past data from previous elections; this election is different than all others preceding it. Too many corruption factors against her-- Hillary drip, drip, drip... Trump continues to prove the "experts" wrong. Trump wins in a squeaker. Just my opinion.

 

[Bobbie Solo]

Hillary is winning almost no matter what at this point. My biggest fear with things like this latest Hillary email nonsense is hurting the down ballot races. I'm no fan of the Democratic party in any way, but them taking control of the Senate would be a good sign at least when it came to appointments. Hillary's potential corporatist appointments have me fearful, but I'd rather have them in there than everything she wants to do getting held up. I can't criticize her agenda if she can't even implement it lol!

 

[Bobbie Solo]

DELETED BY ADMIN.

Let's stop the personal attacks.

 

[SnakeTom]

I stand corrected. I think I had that view b/c you tend to post alot on the horse race stuff.

.

??? What horse race are you talking about. Not sure what you are referring to.

TK

 

[Section112]

How does Bobby get away with such constant vitriol towards other posters? I just don't understand it?

 

[HALL85]

I would be. It is possible but very unlikely and would indicate that every pollster who sampled PA voters methodology was broken. Trump hasn't had over 45% in one poll in PA since July. Hillary got over 45% in almost all of them. Still see PA as an easy Hillary win by 5+%.

I've said all along that polls are just one piece of data, but more volatile and less reliable in this cycle. RCP today and the numbers have moved significantly in the past week in Trumps favor. Still think turn-out will dictate the election and sticking to my prediction that something outside what the candidates say or debate will determine the results.

CO Clinton +1
NV Trump +4
NC Trump +2
PA Clinton +2
FL Trump +4
VA Clinton +4
OH Trump +5

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

 

[Seton75]

Bernie would have won in a landslide election. But so would any other Dem against Trump, including Elizabeth Warren. Likewise, Romney, McCain and many others would have beaten HRC.

Pennsylvania is the key state. HRC wins PA, it is such an uphill battle for Trump. He would have to run the table and win all the toss up states and beat Hillary in a state like Colorado or New Hampshire. It is just not likely.

I do not think Bernie would have won in a landslide. In fact, I don't this he could beat a reasonable candidate, and maybe not even Don. He is too far left and sizzle would have been overcome by the steak in time.

 

[49ers10]

Throw-out all past data from previous elections; this election is different than all others preceding it. Too many corruption factors against her-- Hillary drip, drip, drip... Trump continues to prove the "experts" wrong. Trump wins in a squeaker. Just my opinion.

+1

 

[Save Continental]

did you just +1 yourself?

 

[anon_4htvdezyfe7k9]

did you just +1 yourself?

haha

 

[shu09]

+1

Instead of mocking you like the others, I'll say good call. Trump has a chance to be a great president. He's going to give the establishment a much-needed shakeup. If he moderates a bit, he can do big things. I think (and hope) that he will.