Donald Trump is telling us he has a 15 state strategy, including California and New York, solidly “blue” states.
Trump is living in a parallel universe, as there is no chance that he will win ANY “blue” state, as this blogger sees it, except possibly New York, his home state.
In an article for History News Network (HNN) by this author, available under “Articles” on the right side of this blog, I come to the conclusion that Trump COULD win New York, by a small margin, being that he is a resident of New York, and should carry upstate New York and Long Island, and could possibly outpoll Hillary Clinton statewide, even with New York City staying strongly Democratic.
However, California, most assuredly will NOT go for Trump, with Barack Obama having won the state by 23 points in 2012.
As I state on that article, which has had high readership, I forecast that Clinton will win two states that were “red” in 2012, North Carolina and Georgia, with a total of 31 electoral votes, which would make up for the possible loss of New York, with 29 electoral votes.
So I forecast an Electoral College vote of 334-204, instead of the 332-206 results for Obama in 2012.
In 2012, the results were:
• Mitt Romney, 47.16% (24 states, 206 electoral votes)
• Barack Obama, 51.02% (26 states plus D.C., 332 electoral votes)
If, as the general-election nominee, Hillary Clinton wins a third consecutive election for the Democrats, her popular-vote margin will determine changes on the map. (To date, no electoral map from one election has later been duplicated.)
If she receives declined support, Florida is the first to go. But, if she gains, then Florida gets retained. North Carolina would be the first pickup. After that, the combo of Georgia/Arizona. Any more would bring in the combo Missouri/Indiana. And then Montana.
For Donald Trump to win a Republican pickup of the presidency, all of Mitt Romney’s 2012 states carry for Trump’s starting point. Leading bellwether states combo Florida/Ohio/Virginia/Colorado would be enough to put Trump over the top with 275 electoral votes. Any more would come with Iowa followed by New Hampshire. Next tier would the majority or all six of declining bellwethers Nevada and New Mexico as well as “Blue Firewall” states Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan.
Maximum potential, with up to a 10-point shift on either party’s direction, is as follows:
* TRUMP WINS *
• Donald Trump, 52% (36 states, 352 electoral votes)
• Hillary Clinton, 46% (14 states plus D.C., 186 electoral votes)
* HILLARY WINS *
• Donald Trump, 42% (18 states, 140 electoral votes)
• Hillary Clinton, 56% (32 states plus D.C., 398 electoral votes)
These are not my predictions. They’re a general estimate of potential for either party winning this 2016 presidential election.
D: You analysis and numbers are very enlightening.
D: Do you see any possibility of a third party or a “Never Trump” candidate affecting the election in any way? Like Perot might have in the 90″s?
This posting perfectly explains why I also have become a staunch Hillary supporter throughout the primaries. http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/5/29/in-her-corner-how-the-2016-democratic-primary-has-made-me-a-staunch-hillary-clinton-supporter
Paul Ryan has endorsed Trump. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/paul-ryan-endorses-donald-trump/index.html
Mercy,
I’m going to answer both parts of your questions.
I want to start with the 20th-century presidential elections in which a third-party candidate was viable with respect for being able to carry any states. After all, in 1992, Ross Perot didn’t win any.
* ELECTION 1912 *
• William Howard Taft (R-Ohio; incumbent), 23.18% (2 states, 8 electoral votes)
• Woodrow Wilson (D-New Jersey), 41.83% (40 states, 435 electoral votes)
• Teddy Roosevelt (P-New York), 27.39% (6 states, 88 electoral votes)
Note: Teddy won California (by only 174 raw votes over Wilson) and each of Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington by less than 100,000 votes. (That’s a small number if one will momentarily focus on for those more populous states.)
* ELECTION 1948 *
• Thomas Dewey (R-New York), 45.07% (16 states, 189 electoral votes)
• Harry Truman (D-Missouri; incumbent seeking first full term), 49.55% (28 states, 303 electoral votes)
• Strom Thurmond (SR-South Carolina), 2.41% (4 states, 39 electoral votes)
Note: Strom carried his home state, South Carolina, plus Alabama and Mississippi each with more than 70 percent their statewide votes. In Louisiana, he carried it over Truman by just over +16. (In 1964, all four states ended up having carried for Republican Barry Goldwater. Except for the Palmetto State, they all carried in 1968 for American Independent George Wallace.) Thurmond finished behind Truman and Dewey in all other states.
* ELECTION 1968 *
• Richard Nixon (R-New York), 43.42% (32 states, 301 electoral votes)
• Hubert Humphrey (D-Minnesota), 42.72% (13 states plus D.C., 191 electoral votes)
• George Wallace (AI-Alabama), 13.53% (5 states, 46 electoral votes)
Note: Wallace carried his home state Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. At +7, Arkansas was his lowest margin. Wallace finished second place in three states carried by Nixon: North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
In Election 1992, George Bush (R-Texas) was unseated with 37.45% (along with 18 states, 168 electoral votes). Bill Clinton (D-Arkansas), the winner, received 43.01% (carriage of 32 states plus D.C., 370 electoral votes). Ross Perot (Independent-Texas) received 18.91% (with 0 states and 0 electoral votes).
The way I’m looking at it is this: I’m mindful that two-candidate matchups tend to reap between a combined 96 percent (as was the case in 2000) and 99 percent (as it was in 2004) of the U.S. Popular Vote, leaving at least a one-percent buffer for the combined support of all candidates outside the two major parties.
If we were to have a viable third-party candidacy, for a given presidential election, and the race was a tossup, you could probably figure: A) 35%; B) 34%; C) 30%. The third-party nominee gets the lowest support.
In a situation like that, that third-party nominee would carry at least one state for sure. But, in order to win at least one state, I think support of at least 26 percent would do it. That is pretty much what Ross Perot would have needed. (He finished in second place, in 1992, in Republican hold Utah and Democratic pickup Maine.)
This leads me to conclude that the impact of a third-party candidate, when looking at those past examples of ones who managed to carry at least a single state, would be limiting. Strom Thurmond and George Wallace were more about, “Where can they carry?” And they won among confederacy states. With Teddy Roosevelt, he won six states which all carried in 1908 for William Howard Taft. (States like Pennsylvania and Michigan and Minnesota had carried for the Republican Party in all elections since their first winner, Abraham Lincoln, in 1860, to the re-election of Dwight Eisenhower, in 1956.) So, those third-party candidates had their audience (so to speak).
What I notice is that the third-party candidacies played in a way like Alternative Republicans or Alternative Democrats. Not happy with your party’s nominee. Here’s you alternative. And if they carried any states…they carried Republican or Democratic base states.
In 2016, I think both the Republicans and Democrats could have flirted with this. And an Alternative Republican would carry at least one Republican base state for which that party’s nominee, Donald Trump, runs rather weakly (between, say, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming). It would be that way on the Democratic side, with Bernie Sanders, if that party were to have a split and Bernie could carry in a state where he could make Hillary Clinton finish second (like his home state Vermont).
I don’t think it will happen.
For all that went on with the 2016 Republicans, they’re getting in line for Donald Trump. With the direction of the platform of the Democratic Party needing to be reshaped, a split is not what is wanted with the efforts to merge Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders differences to get more organized. To get the two camps together as best they can.
Today’s two major political parties know their history. (The Republicans first competed in 1856.) And they typically make a point to avoid the emergence of a viable third-party candidate who can actually bring some color to the electoral map that is neither red or blue. (Reason: When that happens, in most cases it means the party closer to that third-party candidate ends up having lost that election.)
If anyone wants to see a third-party candidate reap some electoral votes…it’s either going to get confined to a certain area on the map (like with the small percentage of support for Strom Thurmond) or that candidate will receive around 30 percent of the vote nationwide (in order to carry any Top 10 and/or Top 20 populous states).
Paul Ryan is like the other Republicans, putting Party first.
Southern Liberal – Leia, Former Republican, Rustbelt Democrat, Rational Lefty, and I all second that.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-international-foreign-policy-global-risk-security-guide-213936
(“The definitive guide to the global risks of a Donald Trump presidency.â€)
Nancy Letourneau, who writes the progressive blog, Horizons, and also writes in the Washington Monthly, has an excellent article about Trump and the courts.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_06/donald_trump_and_the_courts060714.php
Hilarious Trump tidbit of the day per TPM: The PGA is going to move a tournament formerly held at the Doral because no major sponsors wanted to associated with Trump. It will be held in …… Mexico City.
Ms. Letourneau also has an excellent article about Hillary’s speech. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_06/clinton_is_defining_trump060723.php
D: Thanks very interesting.
Mercy – The Libertarian Party, which is right wing, has Gary Johnson chosen as their candidate. Since you are right wing and into libertarianism, that may be your alternative to vote for.
The Green Party is the most well-known left wing third party. According to Wikipedia, they are still having their primaries and Jill Stein is the candidate leading. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016)
Rational Lefty, I am not a libertarian, but I did see the convention. They were debating the legalization of all drugs, including heroin and whether they favored heroin being sold to a 5 yr old and if that is something the government should prevent. Also they were debating drivers licenses! Really? For a moment I thought I was watching SNL! The country has a massive debt which we will begin to suffer terribly once the interest rates go up just a few percentage points. Our naval forces are at pre-WWII levels, while China and Russia are on the move. We have lost world wide readiness. And the future of the dollar as the reserve currency of the world is in doubt, not to mention that I don’t even want to imagine what will happen once the Wall Street bubble created by the financial repression going on bursts. And these clowns are wasting time debating whether government has the right to issue drivers licenses?! In other words I am still waiting for a conservative candidate. I have been waiting for one since the 84 election, which in effect was the last time we had a conservative option. 32 years and counting.
Looks like you’ll just have to sit out more elections. People don’t want to go backwards to Saint Ronnie and his it ain’t trickling down economics.
Princess Leia: You repeat the lefts and Obama’s understanding or shall I say “purposeful misunderstanding” of conservative economic philosophy: “If the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else.â€-B.Obama
“Trickle down†is a disingenuous misnomer invented by the left to stigmatize conservative supply-side economic policies. It implies favoring the rich—that doing so will “trickle down†to everyone else. Nonsense. Conservatives don’t care any more or less about the rich than do liberals. The point for conservatives is not to help the rich, but to limit the harm done to incentives by tax policy so individuals have greater opportunities to become rich. As for the phrase “trickle down economics”; it was never used by neither Milton Friedman, nor Ronald Reagan and for that matter anyone in his administration. In a free economy wealth doesn’t trickle down, up or sideways, it is earned. And that is something the left seems not to be able to understand. Hence their worldview needs to create the term “trickle down economics.”
It’s not misunderstood, troll.
Thank you so much, D, for your perceptive comments about the Electoral College.
I always know I can count on you for intelligent, thoughtful analyses of the facts and figures!
Exactly right Pragmatic. What Bernie is saying about the economy is true.
Self-described “zillionaire” tech entrepeneur Nick Hanauer destroys trickle-down economics: “The real threat to the opponents of the minimum wage posed by the fight for $15 isn’t that it would raise wages for nearly half of Americans (although it would certainly do that). It is that it exposes trickle-down economics for what it truly is—an intimidation tactic, a con job, a scam—a rhetorical negotiating strategy that has been deftly used to pick the pockets of American workers for the past 40 years.”
More about that here:
http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/41/a-threat-not-a-theory/
I agree with this. Open primaries don’t make sense. http://bluevirginia.us/2016/06/idea-open-primaries-another-thing-doesnt-make-sense
Pragmatic Progressive,
I don’t see how can you be progressive and want closed primaries.
There has never been, according to the United States constitution, requirement that elections of presidents come from political parties.
The two parties do not fund 100 percent of the primaries throughout in every contest en route to determining a year’s nominee.
All contests should be open primaries. They should be open just as the general election is open. Open for all. Open for encouragement of participation. Open for democracy. Open for freedom.
D, I have to say I totally agree with you on open primaries, and if I had my way, there would be no caucuses, only primaries, and no super delegates in the future in either party national convention.
To be truly progressive, anyone should be able to vote in either, but of course not both, party primaries for nomination for President.
The only disadvantage, of course, is the ability of members of the opposition party to attempt to influence and undermine the other party, but that is a risk worth taking, in order to open up the voting process, as party loyalties change.
Parties should not control the process, but instead the people should, a reminder of Fighting Bob La Follette of Wisconsin, Mr. Progressive, in the first quarter of the 20th century!
Here’s what the article says D. I totally agree with it.
http://bluevirginia.us/2016/06/idea-open-primaries-another-thing-doesnt-make-sense
By Andy Schmookler –
June 5, 2016
A few days ago, I wrote here about how the media’s focus on who “won†some narrowly-decided primary between the two Democratic presidential candidates didn’t make sense. Here’s another idea that, though it has its supporters, makes no sense to me: the idea of “open†primaries. That is, the idea that people who are not affiliated with a given political party should be able to vote in the elections to determine whom that party should nominate for office.
Recently, the Bernie Sanders campaign has argued for open primaries, saying that many young people identify as “Independents,†and a closed primary deprives those young people of a voice.
That argument makes so sense to me. Of course, it is true that a closed primary does keep those who choose to be “Independents†from participating. But there is nothing that forces those people to remain independent of party affiliation– nothing that keeps them from registering as a member of the Party in which they wish to have a voice.
Why should anybody who isn’t part of a political party have any voice in deciding who will be the leaders to represent that party in the contest for political office? If someone doesn’t want to affiliate, then they can participate in the general election which is open to all registered voters, and choose then among the options provided by the parties. That is, they get to choose among the candidates put forward by those citizens who, unlike them, have come together to achieve some common goals through the organization of their political party.
I am not a member of the Rotary Club, or the Kiwanis, or Ruritan, or Lions, or any other organization of that kind. And I would not claim to have any right to tell them who their leaders should be. Why should a Democrat or Independent have the right to tell Republicans, for example, who have formed a party, who their leaders should be?
At the obvious outer edge of the question, there is the question of why someone who might wish to damage a political party should get the opportunity to do so, using a vote in an open primary to sabotage the party through its choice of candidates.
But even the non-affiliated voters mean no mischief, why should they have a say when they do not have enough commitment to that party to join?
It is said by some that a party is better off nominating people who appeal to those in the middle. That may well be so. That’s a reason that the members of the party can weigh. That’s the “winnability†issue that has often been one of the factors that people in a party take into consideration.
But how much weight to give to appealing to outsiders is for the members to decide. It is one thing for the party to consider the political advantages of appealing to unaffiliated voters, but something altogether different to let those voters come in and have a say about the party’s choice.
Constitutionally speaking, the issue might fall under the right of “association.†Part of that right, surely, is the right for people who choose to associate to make their own decision on what path to take as an organized group. If someone wants to join the association, fine– join in and you get a say.
But to barge in and wield the power of the vote in someone else’s association– does that not erode the rights of those who have exercised their freedom of association and formed a party?
In the years that I’ve been a voter, I have been a registered Democrat in Minnesota, California, Arizona, Maryland, and New Mexico. Now I live in Virginia, where voters register without party affiliation. In a state like Virginia, all primaries are inevitably “openâ€: anyone — a Democrat or Republican or anyone else — can vote in whatever primary they choose on the day of the election.
To my way of thinking, the arguments for closed primaries are also arguments for a state like Virginia to change its registration rules so that people can affiliate with a Party, and so that only those so affiliated can have a voice in choosing the party’s nominees.
I agree with that too Pragmatic. If one truly cares about politics, you join the association, make a commitment to be a member.
Saw this post on Winning Progressive’s Facebook page about trickle down economics. Even though it is about California, it very easily applies to our national government as well.
https://www.facebook.com/WinningProgressive/posts/1301615286515641
“The high taxes and ubiquitous regulation critics cite when assailing Golden State government are proving no impediment to business and investment.”
If you want the economy to grow for everyone, do the complete opposite of trickle-down.
Article that the Facebook post is referring to: http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-06/california-makes-america-s-economy-great
I agree with that too Pragmatic.
There are other people beside voguing progressives in the Democratic party – moderates, squishes, and ordinary liberals. It’s why Bernie has lost the primary despite being a compelling and messianic speaker.
Nate Silver says more Democrats are voting for Hillary.
He says Sanders would trail even if all states had open primaries. If the Democratic race were contested under Republican rules, with no superdelegates but winner-take-all delegate allocations in states such as Florida and Ohio, Clinton would have clinched the nomination long ago. Clinton has won in those states where the turnout demographics most closely resemble those of the Democratic Party as a whole.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-clinches-democratic-nomination-according-to-ap/
I believe many people legitimately react negatively to Sander’s rhetoric of revolution and constant talk of the billionaire class and Wall Street. I think many people don’t believe he could accomplish much of his agenda if he won and question the viability of his proposals. Many people think a lot of it is pie in the sky. I believe some people resent his characterization of almost all Democratic elected officials as the “establishment” hence sell-outs. The ideological, purist, overly simplistic rhetoric just turns some people off or doesn’t inspire confidence. Of course, people of all races are cautious about radical change and drawn to what’s familiar.
In addition to that, I would say that not everyone considers Bernie’s top issues as their top issues.