• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conventional wisdom and the Electoral College, but is it true?

Conventional wisdom and the Electoral College, but is it true?

Most prognosticators are giving us a 247-191 head start to the Democrats this election season. They tell us there are only 8 tossup or swing states containing 100 electoral votes. Those tossup states are Florida 29, Ohio 18, North Carolina 15, Virginia 13, Colorado 8, Iowa 6, Nevada 6 and New Hampshire 4. I have in the past went along with this stating the Republicans have to win 79 out of this magic 100 to win the White House which means Florida, Ohio and North Carolina are must win states for the GOP.

But I have heard a lot of talk lately about how the Democrats think Georgia and Arizona is in play, the Republicans are talking about Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. But are they? Is conventional wisdom wrong about the tossup states? Let’s take a look at these states one at a time.

Georgia – The last time Georgia went Democratic was for Bill Clinton in 1992, a fellow southerner. Current polling gives Trump a 9-point advantage over Clinton. Romney won Georgia by 8 points in 2012. I think having Georgia in play by the Democrats is wishful thinking. By no means is Georgia a solid Republican state, but it falls into the likely category. Likely means this state is not competitive, but it might become so at some time in the future. It will go Republican by 6-10 points. Take Georgia off your wish list Democrats.

Arizona - In 1952 Arizona began a string of voting Republican that has been broken only once, in 1996 when it went to Bill Clinton. Since then Bush won the state by 9 points both in 2000 and 2004, McCain won by 9 in 2008 as did Romney in 2012. That is very consistent to say the least. There hasn’t been a poll matching up Clinton vs. Trump yet. But as is the case in Georgia, I would place Arizona in the likely Republican column. I think the Democrats have a better chance in Arizona than Georgia, but not much. I would leave Arizona on their wish list, but that is all it is, a wish.

Pennsylvania – 6 straight presidential elections Pennsylvania has gone to the Democratic nominee. Pennsylvania hasn’t voted Republican since 1988 when Bush the elder won the state. Like Arizona there has been no presidential polling of a Clinton vs. Trump match up. With Pennsylvania’s voting history I see no reason for it to change its stripes. I would place Pennsylvania in the likely Democratic column. But like Arizona I wouldn’t take it off the Republican wish list quite yet. Not until we see some presidential polling in the state anyway. Pennsylvania is probably a wish that will never materialize for the GOP.

Wisconsin – Wisconsin is one better than Pennsylvania, the state has gone to the Democratic nominee in the last 7 straight presidential elections. That isn’t going to change this election. Hillary Clinton is up by 9 points over Trump in the latest poll. The Republicans need to take Wisconsin off their wish list as it isn’t going to become true. Wisconsin is another state that belongs in the likely democrat column.

Now for the tossup/swing states since we are back to the 247-191 conventional wisdom produced electoral college.

New Hampshire – New Hampshire has gone to the Democratic nominee in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. 2000 being the exception. According to RCP averages Clinton has an 8-point lead over Trump in this state. Taking the history of New Hampshire along with the latest polls, make New Hampshire likely democrat.

Virginia – From 1968 until 2008 when Virginia went to President Obama, it has been a solid Republican state. President Obama also carried Virginia in 2012. Virginia is definitely trending blue if it is not there already. According to RCP averages Clinton has a 12-point lead over Trump. So throw out Virginia’s long history as a red state, it isn’t anymore. Obama won by 6 and 4 points over McCain and Romney. Normally that is bordering on lean and likely. Lean means the state is competitive, but one party has the advantage. But a double digit lead should put Virginia into the solid Democratic column. But I won’t put it there. I think there is still an outside chance Virginia becomes competitive, so Virginia goes into the Likely Democrat Column.

North Carolina – This state has gone Republican in 8 of the last 9 presidential elections. The exception was 2008 when it went to President Obama over Senator McCain by a single point. In 2012 Romney won the state by 2 points. According to the RCP averages, Clinton leads Trump here 44-43 which makes North Carolina dead even. Throw the long history of North Carolina out the window. The last two election cycles have made this state a pure tossup/swing state. Too close to call.

Florida – Florida is the ideal tossup state; it has split evenly 3-3 in the last 6 presidential elections. President Obama won Florida in 2012 by just 0.88%, less than one percent. Then too who can forget the 2000 election. To top all this closeness off, Trump is up just 0.6% on Clinton according to RCP averages. Another state that is too close to call. Like North Carolina we may be waiting days for these two states to decide who won them.

Ohio – In the last 10 presidential elections Democrats have won 5 and Republicans 5. Another ideal tossup state to join North Carolina and Florida. Quinnipiac has Trump up by 2 over Clinton with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points, within the margin of error. Ohio is another dead even state. Too close to call.

Iowa – Iowa has gone to the Democratic nominee in 6 of the last 7 elections with 2004 being the lone exception. One has to wonder why Iowa is considered a tossup/swing state with its history. Since Bush’s victory in Iowa in 2004, Obama has won the state by 10 and 6 points. Not even close. To top that off, Clinton has an 8-point lead in the latest NBC/WSJ poll over Trump. All of this makes Iowa likely democratic.

Colorado – Colorado is another split state, 3-3 in the last 6 presidential elections. But President Obama has taken Colorado twice. By 9 and by 5 points. But Colorado has not been polled for the presidential matchup of Trump vs. Clinton since last year which makes that poll worthless. With just the history to go on, Colorado will remain in the pure tossup column for the time being.

Nevada – Nevada has gone Democratic in 4 of the last 6 presidential elections. President G.W. Bush won Nevada twice, Clinton took Nevada twice as did Obama. There hasn’t been any presidential polling of Nevada on a Trump vs. Clinton matchup. So Nevada will also remain in the pure tossup column.

Below is a synopsis:

Solid States electoral count Hillary 217 Trump 164
Wish list states
Georgia likely Republican Hillary 217 Trump 180
Arizona likely Republican Hillary 217 Trump 191
Pennsylvania likely Democratic Hillary 237 Trump 191
Wisconsin likely Democratic Hillary 247 Trump 191

Tossup/Swing States
New Hampshire likely Democratic Hillary 251 Trump 191
Virginia likely Democratic Hillary 264 Trump 191
Iowa likely Democratic Hillary 270 Trump 191

Pure Tossup/Swing States
North Carolina 15 electoral votes
Florida 29 electoral votes
Ohio 18 electoral votes
Colorado 9 electoral votes
Nevada 6 electoral votes.

Even without the 5 remaining pure tossup/swing states Hillary Clinton is posed to amass the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. The only thing that could stop her is if she loses one of Maine’s congressional districts. Maine awards one electoral vote to the winner of each of its two congressional districts and then two electoral votes to the overall winner of the state. Nebraska does the same with its 3 congressional districts along with awarding the final 2 of that state’s 5 electoral votes to the overall winner. Maine is solid Democratic, so the chance of Trump winning one of its congressional districts is almost non-existent. But if Trump did that would drop Hillary to 269 which then she would need one of the 5 remaining pure tossup/swing states to win the Oval Office. Trump would have to win all three of Nebraska’s congressional districts and all 5 of the remaining pure tossup states to effect a tie at 269 each. Which case the election would go into the House of Representatives to decide the winner.
 
Interesting read. A couple comments:

History is a great indicator, right up until it isn't. With as weird as this election season has been, I suspect there are going to be some surprises in terms of which states are or are not battleground states. Until, both parties have picked a candidate, and people have had time to digest that, it is all just guesses.

I really strongly suspect that polling is going to be less reliable than in the past. I think turnout is going to be what decides the election, which candidate gets their supporters to the polls, and which candidate turns off their base more.

Going to be a long, strange year.
 
Redress;bt3426 said:
Interesting read. A couple comments:

History is a great indicator, right up until it isn't. With as weird as this election season has been, I suspect there are going to be some surprises in terms of which states are or are not battleground states. Until, both parties have picked a candidate, and people have had time to digest that, it is all just guesses.

I really strongly suspect that polling is going to be less reliable than in the past. I think turnout is going to be what decides the election, which candidate gets their supporters to the polls, and which candidate turns off their base more.

Going to be a long, strange year.


Its been very strange and unconventional on the Republican side, but over all very conventional on the Democratic side of things. Then we may have Bloomberg enter the race as an independent which would be an outlet to those who dislike both Trump and Clinton and there are many. Independents haven't liked Trump since December and in poll after poll they give Trump a 60% unfavorable rating give or take a point of two depending on the poll. But Trump has been consistently right there. Normally I would say that is death to Trump. But since December Hillary's unfavorable among independent has risen from 45% to 60% matching Trump's. Not a good trend.

Then sticking with independents, 20% of them have stated if the November election is between Trump and Clinton, they would not vote or vote for someone else. Normally this number is in single digits, around 5%, not 20% This may be an indication that less than 50% of eligible voters will turn out in November. If that is the case, it will depend on whom gets their base out more.

But barring a Bloomberg entry, I feel pretty confident with the above synopsis. That is barring some unforeseen major event or happening. An FBI request for indictment would be one of them. I doubt that will happen, but one never knows. Trump might make one outrageous statement too many against the wrong people. There you have it.
 
I appreciate the effort and time it took you to put this together. I enjoyed reading it. Thanks.
 
haymarket;bt3428 said:
I appreciate the effort and time it took you to put this together. I enjoyed reading it. Thanks.


I love elections and I love doing this. Then I make my final predictions and compare them with the experts like Charlie Cook, Larry Sabato, Stuart Rothenberg, Nate Silver and more. I have done pretty dog gone good in the past. Nothing like patting myself on the back.

But this is a labor of love. I try to do this monthly as elections are very dynamic and change constantly. One major unforeseen event or happening can turn an election on its ear. What is valid today may be totally wrong tomorrow. So all I can say is, stay tuned.
 
It's been said that Americans are fickle and constantly changing their mind about things - I'm not sure that's true, though - but since polls are constantly being taken about all sorts of things happening in politics, that's the reason I wait to hear what you have to report after you study them. How much of your time does it take to do this each month, cause I think we owe you some drinks! :lol: I realize it's a hobby for you, but I just wish you were here, because you are missed!
 
polgara;bt3430 said:
It's been said that Americans are fickle and constantly changing their mind about things - I'm not sure that's true, though - but since polls are constantly being taken about all sorts of things happening in politics, that's the reason I wait to hear what you have to report after you study them. How much of your time does it take to do this each month, cause I think we owe you some drinks! :lol: I realize it's a hobby for you, but I just wish you were here, because you are missed!


Once you have all the sites that provide the vital information and read several newsletters from the like of Charlie Cook, Larry Sabato, Rothenberg and Silver. Go over the polls, reading inside the polls themselves. It really doesn’t take that long. What took time was getting all your information sources together, which ones to trust and which ones not to. RCP is also invaluable in finding polls at a click instead of having to search the internet.

What is fascinating to me this time around is how the public at large disdains the two prospective nominees. Among national adults, the electorate as a whole both Trump and Clinton have only a 37% favorable rating. I wish the first Bush and Bill Clinton had that low of favorable ratings back in 1992, Perot would have been president. One has to wonder what the heck are the two parties thinking giving us two candidates that are not liked at all by the electorate as a whole. Basically only liked within their own parties. Here are some past favorable ratings of presidential candidates with the national electorate, not just parties.

Final National favorable ratings
2012 Romney 47% Obama 52%
2008 McCain 57% Obama 61%
2004 Bush 53% Kerry 51%
2000 Bush 58% Gore 55%
1996 Clinton 56% Dole 51%
1992 Clinton 51% Bush 46%

The bottom line is that the majority of Americans are not comfortable with both Clinton and Trump or either one becoming president. They do not want either one, but will be forced to choose between them. Look for a very low turnout in November, less than 50%. Lots of people will stay home rather than choose between these two.
 
My best guess is that Hillary will win at least 3 of the five tossups, just based upon the fact that presidential elections tend to be a referendum on the economy more than any other one factor.

As long as our economy stays solid for another seven months, and as long as she doesn't have criminal charges brought against her, I can't come up with a scenario in which Hillary looses.
 
imagep;bt3435 said:
My best guess is that Hillary will win at least 3 of the five tossups, just based upon the fact that presidential elections tend to be a referendum on the economy more than any other one factor.

As long as our economy stays solid for another seven months, and as long as she doesn't have criminal charges brought against her, I can't come up with a scenario in which Hillary looses.


I totally agree. Also President Obama's approval rating has climbed from 45% to almost 50% over the last two months. Along with the economy, how the electorate as a whole views the president influences the election. The president was below 45% in both 2010 and 2014 and the Republicans gained the House in one and the senate in the other. In 2012 the presidents approval rating was at 52% which ended up being a Democratic year. How the public at large views the president, good or bad, will rub off on his party's nominee.
 
Back
Top Bottom