Electoral Math -- The Best Way To Track The Race
Welcome to the kickoff of my quadrennial "Electoral Math" column series. I've been writing these since 2008, because I've always been astonished that no other statistics guru out there seems to present the presidential race in the way that makes the most sense -- by Electoral College vote, charted over time.
National polls are almost useless in predicting the outcome of the presidential race. "Nationwide, Hillary Clinton is up by four points" tells you precisely nothing about her chances of actually winning the presidency, because (as Al Gore could certainly tell you) the popular vote is completely meaningless in how we actually choose our presidents. Instead, it's all about the Electoral College.
This requires more data and more analysis than most pundits are willing to do. Thankfully, there's a wonderful site that devotes itself to tracking state-level presidential polling, Electoral-Vote.com. They were the only ones around who bothered, eight years ago. While other websites have caught up with them, they still provide the most data possible in a very easy-to-read format, so I'm going to continue to use their data for the 2016 election cycle.
But while it's fun to check in with their site to see how the states are shifting around, all they provide is a daily snapshot in time -- the map for any particular day showing which candidates are ahead in which states. The Electoral Math columns take this one step further, and chart this data over time, so you can see in one chart how the race is changing.
As always (for those familiar with this column series from previous elections), we've first got to take a look at the updated charts, then I'll provide my own picks (applying some gut feeling to the raw polling numbers) before providing all the data at the end. So let's get started with the first graphs of the 2016 season.
The first chart is the "big picture" overview. If you assume all the state-level polling is correct (even the close ones), how close to a winning percentage of Electoral Votes (EV) is either candidate? Hillary Clinton, in blue, starts from the bottom of the chart. Donald Trump, in red, starts at the top of the chart. States which are tied are the white area in between. If the blue is above the halfway line, Hillary will win. If the red is below the line, Trump will win. Here's the initial chart for 2016:
[Click on any of theses graphs to see larger-scale versions.]
Before I get to this chart, a few bits of context may be helpful. If you'd like to compare the previous two presidential elections, take a look at my final report from 2012, and my final column from 2008, to see fully-filled-in charts (from the day before Election Day). However, one technical note: this year, Electoral-Vote.com started providing data a lot later in the year than before. So while this year's charts start on July 25th, the charts for 2012 started at the beginning of May and the 2008 charts started in early June. So be sure you're looking at the comparable date when measuring this year's race against the past two.
The new 2016 percentage chart shows Hillary Clinton currently comfortably over the margin of victory, with 59 percent of the possible 538 Electoral Votes. Donald Trump currently only has 34 percent of the EV needed to win, with the remaining 6-plus percent tied (in Georgia and Ohio). The next two charts break down each candidate by how strongly they are polling at each state's level. First, Hillary Clinton:
Clinton's overall total started at 312 Electoral College votes (270 are needed to win). Her numbers fell back a bit, bottoming out late last week at 273 EV, but then they rose once again to end up at 319 EV today. This puts her comfortably between where Barack Obama was at this point of the race in 2012 (332 EV), and 30 points ahead of where Obama was in 2008 (289 EV).
Donald Trump, on the other hand, is doing worse overall (at only 185 EV) than either Mitt Romney was (206 EV) or John McCain was (236 EV) at the same point. Trump's highest point so far was 221 EV, and he's currently at the lowest point he's yet charted. But that's only taking into account the overall total for both Trump and Clinton, without breaking the two candidates' support down by how strong their margins are in each state's polls.
In each of the two charts above, three colors are used. The darkest is "Strong" support, defined as a 10-point (or better) lead in each state. The middle section is "Weak" support, defined as leading by five percent or better, but still in the single digits. And the lightest color is are states that are "Barely" for one candidate or the other, meaning a lead of less than five percent.
Over the past couple of weeks (since the data became available), Hillary Clinton has improved -- most notably in the past few days. Strong Clinton states added up to 190 EV until last Thursday, when first New Hampshire, then Michigan, and (today) Virginia moved into this column for her, leaving her with 223 EV just in Strong Clinton states alone (which is less than 50 EV from the winning 270 number). But while Michigan has always been blue, the race might be closer than expected there. Also, Virginia and New Hampshire have switched back and forth from Clinton to Trump already, so it's far too early to count them as locks for Clinton at this point.
In the Weak category, Clinton started at 45 EV, rose to 65 EV with Pennsylvania firming up, but then fell to 50 EV when North Carolina went from Weak Clinton to Barely Trump. The Barely Clinton category was more volatile (which is normal), ranging widely between 22 and 77 EV. Four states improved from Barely Clinton to either Weak or Strong Clinton: Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Virginia (although those last two went over to Trump before firming up for Hillary). Arizona moved to Barely Clinton from Barely Trump, and Florida went from being tied to Barely Clinton as well. Nevada swung between Barely Clinton and Weak Trump, and then it swung back again. Ohio wavered between Barely Clinton and Barely Trump before ending up in a tie.
Donald Trump, during this same period, saw his Strong category go down from 103 to 93, when Missouri moved down (but only to Weak Trump). Trump's Weak category started at 71 EV, climbed to 91 EV, and then fell back again to 65 EV. Georgia started out Weak Trump but is now tied (some polls even show Clinton ahead here, but the Electoral-Vote.com average has them tied). New Hampshire and Nevada were briefly Weak Trump before going back to Clinton. Trump's Barely category bounced around from 23 EV to 56 EV, and currently stands at 27 EV. Trump lost Arizona to Clinton from Barely Trump. Ohio, Georgia, and Virginia all spent some time in Barely Trump before becoming tied (Ohio and Georgia) or moving to Strong Clinton (Virginia). The only really good news for Trump was seeing North Carolina move from Weak Clinton to Barely Trump.
That's a lot of wonky data to follow, so I've found that the best way to gauge how candidates are doing (given these three categories) is to track closely the line of "Strong Plus Weak." Ignore the Barely (and tied) states, as they could go either way, but watching Strong Plus Weak shows which states the candidates can feel are safely theirs. Using this measure, Trump has been losing ground, from a high of 184 EV down to a low of 158 EV today. That is 112 EV short of winning the race.
Hillary Clinton, however, just passed a milestone. Her Strong Plus Weak line started at 235 EV, and has been pretty steadily improving since then. The last few days have seen it climb to 273 EV -- which is three more than is needed to win the presidency. To put this another way, if Hillary lost all her Barely states (Nevada, Arizona, Florida) and the states which are now tied (Ohio, Georgia), she would still win the race. That's a pretty comfortable place for any candidate to be in.
To put this in some context, Barack Obama didn't hit this milestone until the first week of October in 2008 (after which it never fell below the 270 EV mark again). In 2012, Obama only briefly reached this mark for four short periods during his campaign, and on Election Day he wasn't even close -- his Strong Plus Weak level was only at 217 EV. At this point in the previous elections, Obama's Strong Plus Weak number was at 267 EV in 2012 and at 236 EV in 2008.
My Picks
A big caveat is necessary when relying on poll numbers to draw conclusions, and that is that sometimes the polls are wrong. Who knows what this election will look like, with third-party candidates polling in double digits and the unconventional nature of Trump's campaign? Also, one poll is never definitive, but that's how the states are colored on the Electoral-Vote.com map. So I always add a section here at the end where I try to apply some common sense to where each state actually is, rather than just what one poll may claim.
My categories here are similar, but add in my gut feelings to the process. Essentially I use three major categories: Likely Clinton, Likely Trump, and Tossup. Within the Likely categories, I break the list down to Safe and Probable for each candidate. Within the last category, I break it down to Leans Clinton, Leans Trump, and Too Close To Call -- the ones I won't even venture a guess on.
Below my picks (down at the bottom) are full lists of all the states I have in each category, along with their Electoral College votes. Also, there's a list of states which either have not been polled yet at all this election cycle, or have polling data older than the end of the primary season. The older a poll is, the less likely it is to be accurate, to state the obvious.
Here's a handy map of my picks (created at 270ToWin.com). Dark colors are Likely states, lighter colors are Lean states, and the true tossups are neutral.
Likely States -- Clinton
Safe Clinton (13 states, 172 EV)
Since this is the first column of the season, I'm going to be a little conservative in my picks, meaning I'm not giving states as high a ranking as their current polling may indicate. If the polling's been all over the map, then I want to see a string of polls showing similar results before I'll believe them, to put this another way. In Safe Clinton I would put all of the states now polling at 10 percent or better (the Strong Clinton states from the map on Electoral-Vote.com), with a few exceptions. Three states I left out because the polling from them is either so old (Oregon hasn't polled since May, Minnesota since April) or non-existent (New Mexico hasn't been polled at all). And three other states were left out because the polling has just not firmed up enough to believe that they are truly Safe Clinton states at this point: Michigan, Virginia, and New Hampshire.
Probable Clinton (5 states, 38 EV)
My initial picks for this category: Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Oregon. I think all of them may eventually move up to Safe Clinton, but for now I still have slight doubts about each of them. A few strong polls could easily allow me to move them up, though.
Likely States -- Trump
Safe Trump (16 states, 93 EV)
I didn't make any changes to the states listed as Strong Trump on the Electoral-Vote.com site. I think all of them are pretty safe for Trump right now, and likely won't change any time soon.
Probable Trump (4 states, 65 EV)
Four states were rated Probable Trump: Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas. Indiana and Mississippi have been polling weaker than expected, but the polls are very old (March and April), so once someone gets around to polling them again, they'll likely firm up for Trump. In Missouri, Trump has already slid backwards in the polls a bit, although he's still got a comfortable lead. Texas has also been polling weakly enough to keep it out of the Safe Trump category, at least for now.
Tossup States
Lean Clinton (5 states, 56 EV)
Again, because this is the first column (without a whole lot of back data to refer to yet), there are a lot of states in all the Tossup categories. In Lean Clinton, we have five states. Michigan and New Hampshire are technically in the Strong Clinton ranks, but only because one poll in each (from the past few days) put Clinton up over 10 points. Before that, both states were a lot weaker (New Hampshire was even Weak Trump for a while). So I'm not convinced that they yet deserve to be higher than Lean Clinton. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin really should be at least Probable Clinton, but both are key battleground states this year so I'm hedging my bets and leaving them as only Lean Clinton for now. And Nevada is only Barely Clinton right now, but Democrats will likely have the edge by Election Day.
Lean Trump (1 state, 6 EV)
There's really only one state which I think could possibly be in play in November but which probably leans towards Trump right now, and that is Utah. Trump is not very popular with Mormons, so it might be a hard fight for him to take Utah, but at the same time it's hard to see it flipping all the way to Hillary, so Trump's got to be seen with the edge here.
Too Close To Call (7 states, 108 EV)
This is an abnormally high number of states that I refuse to predict, but again, it's only the first column of the election season, so things will doubtlessly get better later on. Three of these states are very familiar battleground states from the past few decades -- Florida, Iowa, and Ohio. At the moment, Clinton is up in Florida, Trump is up in Iowa, and Ohio is tied. Two of these states were added to the battleground mix by Barack Obama: North Carolina and Virginia. Currently, Trump has the lead in North Carolina and Clinton has a big lead in Virginia, but they've both already flipped back and forth between the candidates, so they still have to be seen as too close to call. The real news here -- and possibly the biggest news yet in the area of Electoral College math -- is that Hillary Clinton has already added two states to the list of battleground states: Arizona and Georgia. In Arizona, Clinton currently has a slim lead and Georgia is marked down as tied (although at least one poll put Clinton up by four points).
Final Tally
The question of which states are truly going to be battleground states this year is still an open one, but it certainly looks like the Democrats are having more success poaching Republican states than the other way around. Trump is going to have to defend Arizona, Utah, and Georgia, while (so far) his goal of poaching the Rust Belt (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin) seems to be falling flat. Ohio is still competitive, but it almost always is. And even the fact that Virginia and North Carolina are close is testament to Obama's proven ability to expand the map in the previous two elections. Trump is doing better in Iowa and Nevada than past Republicans, but he really hasn't opened up the overall map enough to give him more than a very narrow path to the 270 EV he needs to win.
By my picks this week, Hillary Clinton has 18 states with 210 EV solidly in her corner. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has more states (20) but they only add up to 158 EV. This puts Clinton ahead by 52 EV very early in the game. Clinton still has 60 EV to make up to get her across the finish line, but she's got 56 EV at least leaning her way at this point. Trump has 112 EV to go to win, but currently only has the 6 EV from Utah leaning his way. We still have seven states with a whopping 108 EV which could go either way, so nothing is written in stone at this point.
But Clinton does have an enormous edge. Of the seven states which are too close for me to call, if Clinton wins any single one of them it puts her across the 270 mark. Trump, on the other hand, would have to win every single one of them to win -- he'd have to completely run the table. This is a normal spot for a Republican to be in, at least from the last six presidential elections -- the Democrats have had multiple paths to victory, while the Republicans have to barely eke out a win with only a few Electoral College votes to spare. At this point, I'd predict that if Hillary Clinton wins either Ohio or Florida in November, she will be our next president.
-- Chris Weigant
[Electoral-Vote.com Data:]
(State electoral votes are in parenthesis following each state's name. Washington D.C. is counted as a state, for a total of 51.)
Hillary Clinton Likely Easy Wins -- 18 States -- 210 Electoral Votes:
Safe States -- 13 States -- 172 Electoral Votes
California (55), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), New York (29), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington D.C. (3), Washington (12)
Probable States -- 5 States -- 38 Electoral Votes
Colorado (9), Connecticut (7), Minnesota (10), New Mexico (5), Oregon (7)
Donald Trump Likely Easy Wins -- 20 States -- 158 Electoral Votes:
Safe States -- 16 States -- 93 Electoral Votes
Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arkansas (6), Idaho (4), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3)
Probable States -- 4 States -- 65 Electoral Votes
Indiana (11), Mississippi (6), Missouri (10), Texas (38)
Tossup States -- 13 States -- 170 Electoral Votes:
Tossup States Leaning Clinton -- 5 States -- 56 Electoral Votes
Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), Pennsylvania (20), Wisconsin (10)
Tossup States Leaning Trump -- 1 State -- 6 Electoral Votes
Utah (6)
Too Close To Call -- 7 States -- 108 Electoral Votes
Arizona (11), Florida (29), Georgia (16), Iowa (6), North Carolina (15), Ohio (18), Virginia (13)
Polling data gaps:
Polled, but no polling data since the primaries -- 5 States
(States which have not been polled since the beginning of June, with the dates of their last poll in parenthesis.)
Indiana (4/28), Maryland (4/17), Minnesota (4/27), Mississippi (3/30), Oregon (5/9)
No polling data at all, yet -- 18 States
(States which have not been polled so far this year.)
Alaska, Alabama, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington D.C., West Virginia, Wyoming
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Releasing doves in one, two three....
LET THE GAMES BEGIN
I've really been looking forward to this feature.
TheStig -
The lack of wonkiness has been rectified. Enjoy!
E-V.com (for some reason) waited until the conventions started before posting data this year. I guess it's understandable, the early polling is pretty laughable some times. But that's the real reason why the column series is starting later than normal this year...
-CW
Oh, and...
Woo hoo! I found a site which easily does maps you can download as an image file too, so the map feature is new this time around...
:-)
-CW
For those new to EM, this was an introductory column which explained the whole idea -- subsequent ones will be shorter, I promise!
-CW
Very interesting.
It looks like HilRod is winning. If I were her, I wouldn't repeat any conspiracy theories.
The Orange Marionette was reading his very boring "speech" off the teleprompter today. How will this establishment stunt get any attention? Terrible!
While I would've found it interesting to compare 2016 with 2012 and 2008 at the same points in time, both your links went to 2012. Also, in both previous presidential years, both conventions were held later so I'm wondering what difference that makes too.
Incidentally, a correction from yesterday's column which stated that Clinton had hired DWS. This is emphatically not the case and I'm surprised that this site would repeat it as though it was.
To be "hired" is to be "employed" which involves payment. The position Clinton "bestowed" on DWS was purely an honorary one.
HRC has at least 16 people currently holding exactly the same honorary position. None of these people work for or with her campaign in any capacity whatsoever. It is just a form of thank you or, in DWS's case, a means to pacify her so she didn't cause any kind of disruption at the convention. I'm told by a former Obama campaign aid that he had at least 24 such honorary positions in 2012. it isn't something that is widely known because it is a personal thing between the candidate and the honoree.
Is being a political aid kind of like being the chair of the Democratic National Committee?
Mopshell [8] -
Whoops! Thanks for pointing it out -- the 2008 link has been fixed now. I goofed by just clicking on my own subject link (in the list on the left of all CW.com pages) for "2008 Electoral Math" and selecting the top article... which is the final 2012 article (which mentions the 2008 EM series). In other words, just plain sloppiness on my part. Mea culpa!
Good point, too, about the timing of the conventions...
-CW
MS,
HRC has at least 16 people currently holding exactly the same honorary position. None of these people work for or with her campaign in any capacity whatsoever. It is just a form of thank you or, in DWS's case, a means to pacify her so she didn't cause any kind of disruption at the convention. I'm told by a former Obama campaign aid that he had at least 24 such honorary positions in 2012. it isn't something that is widely known because it is a personal thing between the candidate and the honoree.
Regardless of whether or not it's a paid position or an honorary one, the simple fact is, Hillary honored/hired DWS even though DWS did a truly despicable thing...
THAT's the point...
Michale
No Michale, that is not the point. As usual you've got it arse over tits as the Brits say. But I would not expect anything else from you. :-)
The Orange Marionette was reading his very boring "speech" off the teleprompter today. How will this establishment stunt get any attention? Terrible!
It's kind of hard to take your word that you aren't a Democrat when all you do is hammer on Republicans and leave your precious Hussein Odumbo un-scathed..
At least I cap on the GOP when it's deserved.. Like the time I compared Rice Preemmie to Pinocchio.. Ahhhh fun times.. :D
My Party agnosticity is well documented.. I have never seen you take any Democrat to task for anything..
The facts are clear..
Michale
Hey CW, just a thought, but you might want to color Montana a light pink like UTAH. Bill Clinton did carry the state in 1992 I do believe, and in 2008, John McCain carried it by less than 3 percent over President Obama. If Hillary does manage to create an epic wave this November, at least enough to affect states like Arizona, Georgia, and Utah, Montana might be in play also. Just saying.
No Michale, that is not the point. As usual you've got it arse over tits as the Brits say.
Well that maybe not be YOUR point.. But it's the point of the whole debacle..
:D
Michale
If Hillary does manage to create an epic wave this November, at least enough to affect states like Arizona, Georgia, and Utah, Montana might be in play also. Just saying.
"And if my grandmother had wheels, she'de be a wagon."
-Scotty
:D
And if Hillary collapses and croaks (which is looking like a distinct possibility) then NONE of it will be in play.. :D
I'm just sayin'... :D
Michale
And if Hillary collapses and croaks (which is looking like a distinct possibility) then NONE of it will be in play.. :D
On the other hand, playing my own Devil's Advocate here..
If Hillary croaks and a new Dem Candidate is put in play, it would likely INCREASE the Demcorat Party's chance of winning.. :D
Michale
Here's what TheStig is looking at this Election Season
1) Meta modeling using polling data and historically based fundamentals:
The Upshot (TU)
538
PredictWise (PW)
2) Curve fitted, aggregated polling data:
Real Clear Politics
Huffpollster
3) Prediction Markets
Betfair
PredictIt
Princeton Election Consortium (PEC)
4) Expert Opinion (Electoral equiv. of Wine Tasting)
CW.com (excellent graphics!!!!)
Sabato Report
Rothenberg and Gonzoles
Note: Due to the large "Thumb on the Scales" AKA Electoral College, TheStig puts great emphasis on quantitative estimates of a candidate winning each state's electoral Quatloos. These probabilities are filtered thru 2 home brew models (Stig written in MS Excel as a sanity check of the stated probabilities of any candidate winning the election).
Home brew model 1: A simple Quick and Dirty model.
Rank order the probabilities of Clinton (or Trump, it matters not) winning in each state, the estimated probability of winning the election is the probability of the state bringing the electoral count up to or over 270. This model assumes all states behave independently. Which is probably not exactly true.
Home brew model 2): A random simulation model which breaks variance into state and national components. The national component factors in a wave election effect that applies uniformly to all 50 states and DC.
The Quick and Dirty model takes little time to compute, but tends to be a bit biased towards the Democrats because it assumes all model variance is National. Model Two suggest this bias is about 5% in favor of Clinton this year-except relative to the PW state probabilities, where the Quick and Dirty bias is about 10%. These biases were less in 2012, and may well go down as better state polls become available (less critical/competitive states tend to have no polling yet).
Shout out to The Upshot. Pretty close to one stop shopping for TheStig. It appears to operate outside the outside the NYT paywall.
Bottom line: Everything in this mix indicates Clinton is a heavy favorite AT THIS POINT IN TIME. Quantitative measures suggest Clinton has roughly a 75% chance of winning the White House.
The qualitative models are calling too many toss-ups. A toss up is not the same as overlap between margins of error.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/5-reasons-why-trump-will-_b_11156794.html?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_1121382&
Occasionally, even HuffPoop gets it right.. :D
Especially when they completely agree with me.. :D heh
Michale
Everything in this mix indicates Clinton is a heavy favorite AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
SHOCKING!!!! :D
Michale
Mopshell,
DWS is a major fund-raiser, which Clinton couldn't afford to lose, so I am not sure how "honorary" that position really is.
I read this morning where different members of foreign governments have reported receiving solicitations for donations from Trump's campaign. I guess his Russian campaign team forgot that it was illegal for him to do that.
Orlando shooter's father attends Hillary Clinton rally in Kissimmee
Seddique Mateen seen sitting right behind Clinton
http://www.wptv.com/news/state/orlando-shooters-father-attends-hillary-clinton-rally-in-kissimmee
Hillary Clinton
The candidate for scumbag terrorists and their families.. :^/
Michale
read this morning where different members of foreign governments have reported receiving solicitations for donations from Trump's campaign. I guess his Russian campaign team forgot that it was illegal for him to do that.
Of course, you don't mention the tens of millions that Gulf states have funneled into Hillary's campaign..
Plus you fail to mention that Hillary has tons more connections to Russians and their money than Trump does...
"It's not illegal when a Democrat does it.."
:^/
Michale
[8] Mopshell, re; DWS -- yes.
So, here we have a guy...
He supports the Taliban....
He is quoted as saying that god will punish gays...
He is the father of the Orlando scumbag who gunned down over a hundred innocent people
And he is a Hillary supporter...
The ads just write themselves..
Michale
@michale,
you want to judge the candidates by who supports them? personally i don't think it's right to judge donald by the support he gets from Rocky Suhayda of the american nazi party and david duke of the kkk. but if that's where you want to go, by all means open up that can of worms - i don't think your guy stacks up very well.
or perhaps we should NOT judge the candidates based the worst people who support them.
JL
Things got a whole lot worse for Trump today: polls, markets, famous Republicans running for their political lives in search of moral high ground... and and today hasn't made it past lunch time yet. Still time for a beer though......which I am drinking right now!
How is the Trump psyche going to react to housed in the skull of an increasingly obvious Looozer? The whole carnival act was based on winning. Maybe a consult with ex-winner Charlie Sheen (regarding coping skills) is in order.
No, I am not complacent. Keep knocking him to the curb I say. Trump would do the same.
you want to judge the candidates by who supports them? personally i don't think it's right to judge donald by the support he gets from Rocky Suhayda of the american nazi party and david duke of the kkk.
Exactly...
Ya'all made great hay about those scumbags who support Trump..
NOW ya don't like it when *I* use the same criteria???
or perhaps we should NOT judge the candidates based the worst people who support them.
That's been my position all along..
I only changed when ya'all changed the rules..
If ya'all want to agree that the character of supporters DOES NOT indicate the character of the candidate, then I am more than willing to agree..
But ya'all can't have it both ways....
Michale
The fabric of the Trump campaign is unraveling like an overpriced, made in Mexico Trump suit.
The fabric of the Trump campaign is unraveling like an overpriced, made in Mexico Trump suit.Z
And the 56th... 57th??? TRUMP IS TOAST prediction.. :D
Michale
It's funny how ya'all come up with these lame TRUMP IS TOAST prediction right when Hillary is getting slammed down.. :D
Michale
No, I am not complacent.
Despite ALL the facts to the contrary.. :D
Michale
Hillary Clinton's DAVID DUKE moment..
Father of Orlando shooter spotted behind Clinton at rally..
Will Hillary Disavow Father's Endorsement? Campaign has NO COMMENT
http://nypost.com/2016/08/09/father-of-orlando-shooter-spotted-behind-clinton-at-rally/
Cue cries from the Weigantia Peanut Gallery...
"Well... That's different..."
:D
Michale
JohnM [14] -
MT doesn't have any polling yet, so I could put it in any category, really. The states move around as time goes by -- each future EM column will detail which states have moved which directions, and why. I even considered making Arkansas a tossup state earlier this year (because of the Clinton ties), but haven't seen much evidence of it yet.
Today, UT firmed up for Trump, but take a look at GA (on the E-V.com site). As I said in the article, it's fun to watch the states move around, but only by graphing the results over time do you get a picture of the whole race.
TheStig [27] -
Charlie Sheen and Donald Trump seem awfully similar, 'tis true. All that "winning!" stuff, especially...
Michale -
Which polls are you looking at? Even the LA Times (outlier towards GOP consistently) now has Hillary up...
As for the electoral math, well, Trump's looking worse than Romney, about where McCain was in the last month of the campaign -- not a fun place to be in.
But hey, it's only August, I'm sure Trump will turn things around by his calm demeanor and steady hand on the tiller, right?
-CW
Interesting tidbit (or titbit, for our British readers):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-campaign-to-devote-more-money-workers-to-arizona-georgia/2016/08/09/46150062-5e2e-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html
Clinton pushes into AZ and GA. Probably a good idea, at this point.
:-)
-CW
Which polls are you looking at? Even the LA Times (outlier towards GOP consistently) now has Hillary up...
I am looking at the health facts coming thru and the fact that the Orlando scumbag's father is a big Hillary fan..
Ya'all figured that the David Duke fiasco would sink Trump...
Shouldn't the same apply to Hillary and his Taliban/God-Will-Punish-Gays admirer??
:D
As for the electoral math, well, Trump's looking worse than Romney, about where McCain was in the last month of the campaign -- not a fun place to be in.
As you say, it's only August.. Plenty of time for Hillary to keel over from a heart attack or be caught in bed with Osama Bin Laden's ex-wife.. :D
Michale
Bloomfield police: Man beaten with crowbar for wearing Trump shirt
http://www.northjersey.com/news/crime-and-courts/man-with-trump-shirt-attacked-with-crowbar-in-bloomfield-police-say-1.1642025
And STILL no comment from ya'all over all the violence and attacks committed against Trump supporters??
Strange.. Ya'all were so vocally against violence when ya tried to paint Trump and his supporters as advocating violence..
Now that we're seeing ACTUAL violence against Trump protesters??
All of the sudden, ya'all lost yer voices...
Funny, iddn't it??
Nope.. Not funny.. Just sad.... :^/
Michale
Yep...
HILLARY CLINTON IGNORES REPORTER’S QUESTIONS ABOUT FATHER OF ORLANDO SHOOTER ATTENDING HER RALLY
http://ntknetwork.com/hillary-clinton-ignores-reporters-questions-about-father-of-orlando-shooter-attending-her-rally/
Hillary's David Duke moment..
Surely ya'all agree since ya'all were ALL OVER the David Duke/Donald Trump issue, right???
Anything less is nothing but blatant hypocrisy... :D
Michale
Michale [36] -
I love it when you tee up my response like that... heh.
OK, by your logic, DID the David Duke thing kill Trump? No? So why do you expect differently now?
Heh. Too easy...
-CW
OK, by your logic, DID the David Duke thing kill Trump? No? So why do you expect differently now?
Heh. Too easy...
Nope.. Not easy at all..
Because we're not talking about the EFFECT that Duke had on the Trump campaign..
At least *I* am not..
We're talking about the effect the Duke thing HAD ON YA'ALL....
And, since the circumstances are quite similar, logic dictates that ya'all should have the SAME reaction against Hillary over her Taliban/God-Will-Punish-Gays admirer that ya'all had against Trump over David Duke...
If ya'all DON'T have the same reaction, then it's clear that the '-D' after Hillary's name makes ALL the difference.. The ONLY difference..
Simple logic...
NOW do ya care to comment?? :D
Michale
In the alternative, ya'all could just concede that ya'll's hysterical hysteria over David Duke vis a vis Trump was nothing but hysterical partisan ideology at work..
I'll accept that as well.. :D
Michale
I'll accept that as well.. :D
See how easy I am!?? :D heh
Michale
ListenWhenYouHear [21]
You are accusing the HRC campaign of lying in their official statement?
"Honorary" is not some term I made up. It's in the fricking official statement if you bothered to read it. Sheesh! What other "facts" do you want to make up about this?
Paula [24]
Thank you.
I guess the cat's got ya'all's tongue with regards to Hillary jumping into bed with the father of the Orlando scumbag shooter and the guy who said that god will punish gays...
Point to Michale.. :D
Michale
Survivors react to father of Pulse shooter at Clinton Kissimmee rally
Survivor at rally 'let down' at Omar Mateen's father attending
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/pulse-survivors-react-to-omar-mateens-father-at-clinton-kissimmee-rally
And more Trump voters are born.... :D
Michale
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/wow-breaking-video-julian-assange-suggests-seth-rich-wikileaks-dnc-source-shot-dead-dc/
So much for ya'all's claims that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC....
Assange hints that it was a DNC staffer who gave the emails to WikiLeaks...
A DNC staffer who was murdered under very suspicious circumstances, right before he was go to the FBI....
Dead bodies follow Hillary Clinton where ever she goes.....
Michale
I think Trump is entirely absorbed by his rallies now. Down in the polls, down in the press, down in the markets, but he's addicted to the live action and he will say (quite literally) anything to whip up his true believers. What we have here is a craziness positive feedback loop. None this makes ANY political sense, but his so-called staff has no influence and wisely says nothing and collects their pay while there is pay to collect.
Where is the Republican Establishment, notably office holders, and donors. Where is their courage? The only honorable position is:
Denounce Trump as a fascist
Withdraw support
Announce they will work with Democrats to impeach Trump should he be elected by some miracle
Want to be a patriot?. Here's your chance Gumby, act now. Not many genuine patriotic moments come your way.
My apparently spineless GOP congressman and senator are getting an email to this effect.
Time to take out the trash!!!!!!
Want to be a patriot?.
Do exactly what the hysterical Demcorat Party slave tells you to do!!
There... Fixed it for you... :D
You're welcome... :D
Michale
Denounce Trump as a fascist
Withdraw support
Announce they will work with Democrats to impeach Trump should he be elected by some miracle
You DO realize that you have put yourself in the EXACT same seat as those Republicans who were so anti-Obama sit in, right??
Thereby once again proving that there really is no difference between ya'all and the Republicans you castigate... :D
Michale
Michale wrote:
"And more Trump voters are born.... :D"
Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, the latest polls now show Hillary Clinton ahead of and leading Trump in deep red South Carolina of all places, and she is within striking distance of Trump even in Kansas, a state Trump should be currently winning hands down.
Meanwhile, the latest polls now show Hillary Clinton ahead
Meanwhile, the latest cherry picked polls now show Hillary Clinton ahead.....
There... Fixed it for you..
Yer welcome. :D
Michale
Considering the volatility of BOTH candidates, polls are even more worthless in this election than normally...
Trump could actually say something that will actually cause his poll numbers to drop and him to lose supporters..
Hillary could actually be caught dead to rights doing something really REALLY nefarious....
What ya'all just can't seem to grasp (or, REFUSE to grasp is more likely) is that this is an election unlike any other. Conventional wisdom, for all it's "accuracy", ain't no better than throwing darts at a dart board...
Michale
Considering the volatility of BOTH candidates,
You see, that's the difference between ya'all and myself..
I look at things realistically, factually and without any partisan or ideological bias and I acknowledge that BOTH candidates have approval number issues...
Ya'all just knock Trump for his approval numbers and blatantly ignore the fact that Hillary's approval numbers are almost as bad as Trumps...
That's the difference that makes ALL the difference...
Michale
Hillary Clinton’s lead over Donald Trump is shrinking, with a new poll released Wednesday showing her margin down to 4 points.
Clinton notched 44 percent to Trump’s 40 percent in the Bloomberg Politics poll, which had Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson at 9 percent, while Green Party candidate Jill Stein tallied 4 percent.
The same poll last month had Clinton with a much larger lead, with the Democrat at 49 percent, Trump at 37 and Johnson at 9 percent.
http://nypost.com/2016/08/10/poll-shows-trump-gaining-on-clinton/
See what happens when *I* cherry pick polls??
My poll "proves" your poll is BS... :D
Cherry picked polls don't "prove" jack...
Michale