ChrisWeigant.com

2016 Electoral Math -- Hillary Moves Up

[ Posted Monday, August 22nd, 2016 – 17:42 PDT ]

Welcome back to the Electoral Math series, where we try to predict the outcome of the presidential race using the smartest metric: Electoral Votes (EV) charted over time. The first of this year's column series ran two weeks ago, and we've seen a lot of polling data since. A whopping 14 states moved around within the categories, but this much volatility is normal this early in the process.

Almost all of this movement was good news for Hillary Clinton, as states firmed up for her or even switched from Donald Trump's column over to hers. Clinton only saw bad news in one state, and Trump only saw good news in two states.

As always, we begin with an overview of how the election would turn out if it were held today (and if all the current polling is correct). As you can see, Clinton has considerably widened the lead she held two weeks ago. To read the chart, blue is Clinton and starts from the bottom; red is Trump and starts from the top. White are states which are tied, in the middle. Whichever color crosses the 50 percent line (from either direction) wins.

Electoral Math By Percent

[Click on any of theses images to see larger-scale versions.]

As you can see, it's not even close. Hillary Clinton wins with a landslide of votes in the Electoral College. Clinton's percent of the total is 66.5, roughly twice Trump's 33.5 percent. Currently, no states are tied.

In fact, Hillary Clinton is now doing better than Barack Obama did for the entire 2012 election. Obama did hit the highs Clinton is now enjoying back in 2008, but not until a few weeks before the election (after the economy tanked and John McCain stumbled on what to do about it).

Two states wobbled a bit, but ended up roughly where they started. Texas was briefly stronger for Trump, then slipped back. Georgia cycled from being tied to Clinton then back to Trump, but not by a lot. Three states (Oklahoma, South Carolina, Missouri) weakened for Trump, with South Carolina weakening the most. Two states (Indiana and Utah) did firm up considerably for Trump. New Mexico weakened for Clinton, but this was due to the first poll becoming available (meaning the previous rating wasn't really all that valid). But Clinton saw six states get markedly better for her: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, and Ohio.

Let's take a look at how all this played out in the detailed charts for each candidate, starting with Trump. All raw data (and the category names) come from Electoral-Vote.com

Trump Electoral Math

[Definition of terms: "Strong" means 10 percent or better in the polls,
"Weak" means five percent or better, and "Barely" is under five percent.
]

To put it bluntly, that's a pretty weak chart. Two weeks ago, Donald Trump had 93 EV in the strong category. Now he has 95. In the intervening period, Utah went from Weak Trump to Strong Trump, but Kansas slipped from Strong Trump to Weak right afterwards. South Carolina had been in the Strong column for Trump, based on their 2012 vote, but polling finally appeared for 2016 and it slipped all the way to Barely Trump as a result. Strong Trump did see a big surge when Texas moved up from Weak Trump, but then another poll a few days later meant it slipped right back again. During these four days, Trump hit his all-time high of 122 EV in the Strong category. Just after Texas fell back, Indiana was added to Strong Trump, leaving him where he is now, at 95 EV.

While Trump did swap a few states back and forth between Weak and Strong, the best indicator of any candidate's overall strength is tracking the "Strong Plus Weak" line, because it shows how many states they can feel fairly confident about. Trump lost two states from either Strong or Weak down to Barely Trump in the past two weeks, as South Carolina moved down and then Missouri followed suit. Both had initially been in the Strong Trump column, it's worth mentioning. Overall, Trump's Strong Plus Weak metric fell from 158 EV down to a new low for him at 139 EV.

When you add in the Barely Trump states, Trump's overall total has stayed fairly stable. He began two weeks ago with 185 EV and now holds 180 EV. He lost two states to Clinton (North Carolina and Iowa), but he gained Georgia, resulting in a loss of only 5 EV overall.

Now let's take a look at Clinton's chart.

Clinton Electoral Math

This is, obviously, a much happier chart than Trump's. Two weeks ago, Clinton had just begun a big march upwards. She has continued this climb and now sits in a pretty enviable position. If the election were held today, it wouldn't even be close.

Most of the improvement to the Strong Clinton category happened just before I wrote my initial column two weeks ago. Clinton had hit 223 EV just in Strong alone at that point. Since then, she added Maine's 4 EV, and then New Mexico and Colorado swapped places (Colorado went from Weak Clinton to Strong Clinton while New Mexico did the opposite), which resulted in a net pickup of another 4 EV in the Strong category. Clinton ended the period with 231 EV in Strong -- only 39 EV short of victory in this category alone.

Clinton's Strong Plus Weak line bounced around a bit more, but climbed noticeably at the very end. Two weeks ago, Georgia moved from being tied all the way up to Weak Clinton, but then fell back to Barely Clinton and eventually switched over to Barely Trump. But the big news for Clinton in the Weak category was the addition of first Florida and then (just today) Ohio. Clinton's Strong Plus Weak started at 273 EV, moved up to 302 EV when Florida firmed up and just today hit a whopping 320 EV with the addition of Ohio.

Some context for that number is necessary. Barack Obama's highest total within Strong Plus Weak in 2012 was only 288 EV. He did better back in 2008, but only in the final few weeks of the campaign, when he hit 317 EV. To put this another way, even at his highest point during the excitement of the 2008 campaign, Obama never managed to hit the Strong Plus Weak number that Hillary Clinton just charted. Her current Strong Plus Weak 320 EV is fifty more votes than she needs to win the race, folks.

Clinton's overall total (with the Barely states added in) is even more impressive. Two weeks ago, Clinton had 319 EV overall. She now has 358 -- a full 88 EV more than she needs to win. Of course, things change over time and she may not be able to sustain this enormous advantage, but the fact that she's at such a strong point this far out is indeed notable.

 

My Picks

Of course, one poll number isn't always definitive. This is where some interpretation of the data comes in handy. That's a fancy way of saying that gut feelings also have their place when taking an overview of the race.

In my first column, I played things fairly conservatively, mostly due to the lack of data. This time around I'm getting a little more confident, but some states still remain a little questionable for me. As always, if you scroll down to the bottom of this column you can see the full lists of all the states in each of my categories, together with their Electoral Votes.

Here is my new map, broken down into my own categories of: Safe, Probable, Lean, and Too Close To Call. The darker the color on the map, the better for each candidate (and a big hat tip to 270toWin for both providing our map and also for pointing out last time around that I could create such seven-color maps on their site -- thanks, guys!).

My Picks Map

 

Likely States -- Clinton

Safe Clinton (14 states, 179 EV)
Likely States are made up of Safe and Probable. The Safe column grew from last time by one state, as I moved Oregon up from Probable Clinton (not entirely sure why I put it so low to begin with, I have to admit). The rest of this deep-blue list remains the same this week.

Probable Clinton (9 states, 94 EV)
The Probable Clinton category had a flurry of movement, however. Oregon moved out of here (up to Safe), as I just noted. Four states (Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, and New Mexico) remained the same as last time around. But five states moved up to this category -- four from Leans Clinton (Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) and Virginia moved all the way up from Too Close To Call, with several strong polls showing Clinton has opened up a double-digit lead there (Clinton is so confident in Virginia that she's pulled her advertising money out of the state, in fact).

 

Likely States -- Trump

Safe Trump (15 states, 89 EV)
Safe Trump saw three changes from last time. Indiana moved up to Safe from Probable Trump, but two states also moved down from this category for Trump. Kansas moved down to Probable Trump after a weak poll there, but the big news was the loss of South Carolina -- all the way down to Leans Trump.

Probable Trump (4 states, 56 EV)
There was good news and bad for Trump in the Probable category. Two states moved out, and two states moved in to replace them. Indiana was the best news for Trump, moving up to Safe. Utah moved up into Probable from Leans Trump, with a strong poll result there. That's the good news. The bad news for Trump was seeing Kansas slip down to Probable, and the loss of Missouri down to Leans Trump. Mississippi and Texas saw no changes and remain only Probable Trump at this point.

 

Tossup States

Leans Clinton (3 states, 53 EV)
Clinton saw a lot of movement both into and out of this category, and all of it was good news for her. While Nevada stayed in this category from last time, the other four states previously here all moved up to Probable Clinton. But the really big news was that both Florida and Ohio can now be considered Leans Clinton. Some might disagree (and call me too optimistic), so we'll just have to see what the next round of polling shows, but for now both states are showing a clear trajectory -- they've both moved from being tied to being Barely Clinton and then finally Weak Clinton. This means she's currently got margins of better than five points in each state, meaning they can't be considered true tossups any more. Of course, both of these states are historically very volatile, so things could change very quickly, but for now their big EV hauls have to be chalked up in Clinton's column.

Leans Trump (2 states, 19 EV)
This category has completely changed for Trump, as the one state that was here previously (Utah) firmed up for Trump, while two others (Missouri and South Carolina) weakened so much they can now only be seen as Leans Trump.

Too Close To Call (4 states, 48 EV)
The real tossup category is fairly small this week, considering how far out we are from the election. Three states moved out of Too Close To Call this time around, all of them in Clinton's favor. Florida and Ohio are now in Leans Clinton, and Virginia moved all the way up to Probable Clinton. This leaves only Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, and North Carolina. What's really eye-opening about that list is how dramatically it has shifted since the past few election cycles. Iowa is almost always a close state at some point in the race, but the other three used to be solid Republican states. Time will tell if this is due to the candidate the Republicans chose this time around or whether it represents a deeper demographic shift in the electorate. My off-the-cuff guess is that Arizona is probably weak because of Donald Trump, but that Georgia and North Carolina will continue to be seen as swing states in the next few presidential elections as well.

 

Final Tally

The past two weeks have been pretty consistently bad for Donald Trump and pretty consistently good for Hillary Clinton. This has been reflected in the state-level polling. Trump is seeing states weaken that he can't afford to lose (Missouri, South Carolina), and he's seen states that are also must-win for him move into Hillary Clinton's column (Florida and Ohio are merely the most prominent -- there are many others as well). Any possible pathway for Trump to win the necessary 270 EV is now almost impossible to see, given the current polling.

Donald Trump has 19 states firmly in his corner right now. That may sound impressive, at least until you consider that only three of them have 10 or more EV (and Tennessee and Indiana only have 11 EV each). The only big prize that Trump can count on is Texas, with its whopping 38 EV. Other than that, Trump is winning a lot of very rural states without a lot of population, which only gives him a total of 145 EV that he can currently count on. This leaves him an enormous 125 EV to make up if he has any prayer of winning. Trump only has two states even leaning his direction right now, and Missouri and South Carolina only have 19 EV between them. Even if you add in all the Leans Trump and Too Close To Call states, Trump only comes up with a grand total of 212 EV. That is 58 EV short of the goal.

Hillary Clinton has built on her enormous advantage this week. Last time around she had 18 states with a combined 210 EV in her pocket. This time around, Clinton has 23 states she can count on, and they add up to 273 EV. This is three more than she needs to win. Right now, Clinton could lose every current tossup state (even the ones leaning her direction), and she'd still win the election. To put this another way, Clinton doesn't even need the following states to claim victory: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio. Trump could run the table in all these battlegrounds, and she'd still win. If you add in the three states leaning her direction, Clinton now has 326 EV. Trump's number, by comparison, is 164 EV. She's currently beating him by 162 EV -- meaning her total is almost exactly double Trump's total.

If this keeps up, there's not going to be a whole lot of "boy, this election is close, folks" news stories written over the next few months. To do so would be almost laughable when the margin is that huge. Rather than wondering who is going to win this election, the only question the pundits will have left to predict is how big Clinton's Electoral College landslide will be on Election Day. That is still months away, but Hillary Clinton is now in a safer spot than Barack Obama enjoyed at any time during either of his two elections.

 

[Electoral Vote 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 -- 23 States -- 273 Electoral Votes:

Safe States -- 14 States -- 179 Electoral Votes
California (55), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), New York (29), Oregon (7), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (12), Washington D.C. (3)

Probable States -- 9 States -- 94 Electoral Votes
Colorado (9), Connecticut (7), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), Pennsylvania (20), Virginia (13), Wisconsin (10)

 

Donald Trump Likely Easy Wins -- 19 States -- 145 Electoral Votes:

Safe States -- 15 States -- 89 Electoral Votes
Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arkansas (6), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3)

Probable States -- 4 States -- 56 Electoral Votes
Kansas (6), Mississippi (6), Texas (38), Utah (6)

 

Tossup States -- 9 States -- 120 Electoral Votes:

Tossup States Leaning Clinton -- 3 States -- 53 Electoral Votes
Florida (29), Nevada (6), Ohio (18),

Tossup States Leaning Trump -- 2 States -- 19 Electoral Votes
Missouri (10), South Carolina (9)

Too Close To Call -- 4 States -- 48 Electoral Votes
Arizona (11), Georgia (16), Iowa (6), North Carolina (15)

 

Polling data gaps:

Polled, but no polling data since the primaries -- 6 States
(States which have not been polled since the beginning of June, with the dates of their last poll in parenthesis.)

Louisiana (5/6), Maryland (4/17), Massachusetts (5/5), Minnesota (4/27), Mississippi (3/30), New Mexico (5/15)

No polling data at all, yet -- 12 States
(States which have not been polled so far this year.)

Alaska, Alabama, Hawaii, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Washington D.C., West Virginia, Wyoming

 

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

63 Comments on “2016 Electoral Math -- Hillary Moves Up”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Yay, yay, yay!

    Can't wait for the debates!

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    CW,

    I'm really weary of red and blue states. We need a revolution. Why can't we have colors that better represent the contestants? Orange for Trump, pink for HilRod, green for Stein, tie die for Johnson. What have you got to lose?

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    @CW: Your analysis, in my opinion, is in by far the most accurate bracket (along with, e.g. 538).

    This means that the press, who have to sell column pixels, will need to search out every possible Clinton way of imploding that they can.

    Don't get me wrong, they will also gleefully report the latest Trump cray-cray moments, but the will actively seek out any chance the the race can get closer via a Hillary slip up.

    So I expect the more conspiratorial nonsense that will get the village idiots excited (watch for 30 excited revelation posts from our local one) and a massive hangover that we hope the RWNJs don't learn from again (thanks 2012).

  5. [5] 
    Paula wrote:

    As I noted yesterday, the ground game is underway in Ohio and, at least in my little neck of the woods, the Clinton operation is buzzing and the Trump operation has yet to register a heartbeat.

    Here's an interesting discussion about the Clinton versus Trump approaches: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/20/why-donald-trumps-1980s-style-campaign-is-struggling-in-2016/

    Basic premise: Trump's campaign is based on the celebrity idea of getting as much exposure as possible through media to get people to like you. Clinton's campaign is based on the understanding that "liking" needs to be converted to "voting". It talks about innovations Clinton's team have adopted in terms of segmenting the country not by location (North, NorthEast, Midwest, South, etc.) but by the nature of the terrains.

    The Clinton campaign is doing things differently — dispensing altogether with the geographical logic for breaking down the country. They've split it into three, with each "pod" responsible for states where there will be a common strategic approach. So one pod includes big diverse states where mobilization will be essential to her victory, and one small states where persuasion will play a bigger role. Then, perhaps most interestingly, they've broken off states where a significant portion of the electorate will vote early or by mail.

    Gonna be interesting.

  6. [6] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The Chamber of Commerce wants the puppet Trump to let the illegal Mexican rapists stay and it's starting to sound like Donald's gonna play ball. KellyAnne is worried about Arizona and doesn't like how racist a Trumpthug deportation force sounds, so that's out. TBD!

  7. [7] 
    apophis wrote:
  8. [8] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    Testing... (taps mike)... is this thing on? Do I need to insert br tags between paragraphs, or enclose them in p tags? The preview seems to indicate that I do, but that seems odd. I guess I'll see... sorry if this appears as a run-on paragraph.

    [5] Paula -

    Then, perhaps most interestingly, they've broken off states where a significant portion of the electorate will vote early or by mail.

    At this point with polls as they are, dems seem to be mostly fearing "the black swan". If the election were held today, Clinton would almost certainly win. So it makes strategic sense to advocate holding the election today, as it were, by pushing for early voting.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all have your fantasy..

    Obama’s flood of hypocrisy opens the door for Trump
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-flood-of-hypocrisy-opens-the-door-for-trump/2016/08/22/29423f1c-6866-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html?utm_term=.328a4db99226

    And then there is the reality....

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    A voters guide to all things Hillary..

    http://www.infowars.com/top-doctor-concerns-over-hillarys-health-not-a-conspiracy-theory/

    See, I can do that too.. :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neal,

    So I expect the more conspiratorial nonsense that will get the village idiots excited (watch for 30 excited revelation posts from our local one)

    Awwwwww, how sweet..

    And here I thought you were ignoring me.. :D

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another voters' guide to everything Hillary..

    New Abedin Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton State Department Gave Special Access to Top Clinton Foundation Donors
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/new-abedin-emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-state-department-gave-special-access-top-clinton-foundation-donors/

    "I can do this all day..."
    -Captain America, CIVIL WAR

    And just might.. :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    A voter's guide to ending the race to the bottom that results from LEV voting and removing Big Money from our political process:
    http://www.vouchervendetta.org

  14. [14] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I do have to love how those CW graphs pack in information in an easy to grasp fashion. Nice concept CW!

    Let me note that we can (should) all stop obsessing about the National Polling Data. Not that it doesn't favor Clinton, but the National Polls are basically redundant in late August - there is enough state polling (in the right states) to make the forecast, the National Polls add virtually nothing from an information standpoint. The election is settled by electoral votes. Let me add a Napoleon Dynamite "Gosh!"...for emphasis.

    I disagree with putting AZ,GA,IA and NC in the "tossup" bucket. AZ and GA lean distinctly Republican, IA and NC lean distinctly Democratic. If you are a betting man or woman (or LGBT etc.) you do NOT want to put even money on any of these. Take a look at the NYT Upshot state tables. Equally important, the odds that ANY of them prove decisive is small. Too few EV, too far down the probability ranks. Gosh! It IS kind of amazing that states like TX and LA are no longer viewed as solid locks for the Republicans, but that's demographics for you. Overall the EV race is more fluid in the bastion states than it was in the last race.

    None of the above implies the Presidential Election is a done deal. Even with the current state rankings, Trump has a real chance of actually trying to govern, or delegate governing. I'd personally rate it 10 to 20%. As of Now. These will change as the race moves forward. Gosh!!!!!

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me note that we can (should) all stop obsessing about the National Polling Data.

    Of course.. Let's ignore any FACTS that don't support the TRUMP IS TOAST hysteria...

    Gotcha.. :^/

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar asked in a previous commentary how it could be possible that the election could be so close when it's obvious that Trump is a loser..

    Stumped by Trump’s success? Take a drive outside US cities
    http://nypost.com/2016/08/22/stumped-by-trumps-success-take-a-drive-outside-us-cities/

    Maybe if he pulled his nose out of Hillary's ass and took a look around at REAL Americans and actually gain some experience beyond the ideologically acceptable, he might be able to answer his own question..

    Doubt it, though...

    For those of feeble mind, ideological slave chains are too hard to break...

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    The above article nails it on 2 points..

    First off, it's clear that Trump supporters care about their children and grandchildren.. Hillary supporters care about their politics..

    Second, referring to the Louisiana Floods, a Trump supporter had this to say:

    “It appears as if President Obama only makes statements during tragedies if there is political gain attached.”

    ZIIIIINNNGGGGGGG

    So dead on ballz accurate, it's scary!!!

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Some facts.

    The last Friday Talking Points article, contained 3289 words.

    As of approximately 3pm Pacific Friday, the comments section contained a total of 14130 words. 8880 of these words came from a single individual - that's just under 62% of the total contributed by everybody else who is not actually writing the article.

    I submit it is past time for the individual submitting 63% to spread his wings and get his own blog. Stop squatting on somebody else's. Know the joy of having to come up with an original topic several times a week. Of doing actual research and meeting deadlines. Of having to read a thicket of comments, manage the spammers and clean out the filter. Read all the comments and respond as needed. Say up late. Find a way to pay for it all.

    I like to think of CW.com as a sleek little hot rod burning up the less traveled winding roads of American Political Journalism. Unfortunately, this little roadster has somehow gotten entangled with an 800 foot gas bag that's slowing it down.

    What is the harm? Spam by any other name is spam. Spam makes the comment experience annoying.
    It's CW.com, not MichaelwithCW.com. Show a little respect. Move out of the basement. By all means stop by for a visit now and then.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    I post a lot..

    Get over it...

    I would have to wonder of the stability of someone who goes thru so much trouble to word-analyze the entirety of the comments here.

    Maybe it's not ME that should move out of the basement, eh TS :D

    Show a little respect.

    That's rich, coming from the likes of you.. :^/

    I *DID* show CW respect when I took a week off so ya'all could enjoy the Democrat Party convention..

    What did I get for that??

    More insults, more personal attacks and more name-calling..

    So take your request and shove it up your ass.... I did my part and proved that ya'all simply have a problem with me because I don't toe yer Demcorat Party line..

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have told ya'all and told ya'all and told ya'all... If you want to limit my postings, then meet me on the field of battle, so to speak..

    Address my points and best me in the arena with facts of yer own..

    But ya'all CAN'T do that because yer "facts" don't hold water..

    So you just prefer to ambush me and gang up on me in the locker room and try to harass and bully and intimidate me into silence..

    Ain't gonna happen...

    It's THAT simple...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    I *DID* show CW respect when I took a week off so ya'all could enjoy the Democrat Party convention..

    What did I get for that??

    More insults, more personal attacks and more name-calling..

    Credit where credit is due..

    Liz was gracious to acknowledge my efforts to "play nice" and Joshua also came out with a very pleasant "Thank You" for my efforts..

    That's it...

    As I said, credit where credit is due.... Words I live by....

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Paula wrote:

    [17] TheStig: Seconded.

    Michale: why don't you start your own blog?

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale: why don't you start your own blog?

    Why is that any of your business??

    I don't question why you post here..

    Wouldn't it be nice if you show me the same courtesy?? :^/

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me lay it out for ya'all since ya'all seem to have some severe comprehension issues..

    I..... COMMENT..... A.... LOT.....

    Get over it..

    Complaining that I comment a lot simply invites MORE comments due to me responding to the complaints... Remember, Paula. YOU claimed I never address points ya'all make.. Listen claimed that I never address the criticisms.

    So, this is me addressing your points and addressing Listen's criticisms.. So much for ya'all's BS accusations, eh??

    If you don't like me commenting a lot, then quit spamming the community that I comment a lot...

    It ain't rocket science, people.. :^/

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Besides, Stig said he was going to ignore me..

    Why in the hell should I trust the advice of someone who exercises so little self-control???

    Howz that software crutch you been working on going?? :D

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    John M wrote:

    I found it interesting that there has been some speculation that the reason that some states are as close to going for the Democrats as they are, i.e. Georgia and North Carolina, is that we might be seeing a new Democratic coalition in the making. Specifically, African Americans joining up with suburban voters (especially women and the college educated, both groups Trump seems to be alienating) in and around the larger cities like Atlanta and Charlotte. It could also be why the Democrats are holding their own in the rest belt states and flipping others like Virginia and Colorado, along with the Latino vote. If true, this poses a very big long term problem for the Republicans.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    If true, this poses a very big long term problem for the Republicans.

    Yes, the Republicans have that very same "long term problem" in the aftermath of the 2012 election..

    Then, of course, came the Democrat Nuclear Shellacking of 2014...

    The Republicans could sure use more "long term problems" like that, eh?? :D

    The ONLY way that Americans can vote Democrat in this election is if they ignore 8 years of incompetent and pay-for play Democrat governing....

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Paula wrote:

    [25} John M: Yep.

  29. [29] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TheStig [13] -

    While I do listen to my gut (Chris's gut: "GA voting Dem?!? BWAH-hah-hah!!!"), I also have to take the polls into account. And polling in AZ and GA has been weaker than ever before. Well, maybe not ever -- I do seem to recall that one of the two states I called wrong in 2008 was saying GA would go for Obama... heh...

    JohnM [25] -

    Part of it is demographics, more liberal types moving to big-job cities in VA, NC, and GA. Part of it is the fact that the GOP looks like it's going to lose one of its normally reliable demographics this time around: suburban married women. But I think that's largely due to the Trump factor, personally. Maybe you're right -- maybe such women will gravitate more towards Dems in future years. It might depend on who gets nominated for the next few election cycles, though.

    TheStig [17] -

    3,289? Wow, must've been a light week for me. Heh. Don't worry, I'll strive to break 4K this week...

    :-)

    -CW

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    As of approximately 3pm Pacific Friday, the comments section contained a total of 14130 words. 8880 of these words came from a single individual - that's just under 62% of the total contributed by everybody else who is not actually writing the article.

    In other words, the rest of ya'all are slackers!!! :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Then, of course, came the Democrat Nuclear Shellacking of 2014...

    The Republicans could sure use more "long term problems" like that, eh?? :D"

    You conveniently ignore all of the following:

    1.) It was a mid term election. When voter turnout is normally much lower, with fewer Democrats turning out and more Republicans.

    2.) If not for gerrymandering in the Republicans favor, the Republicans would have had a smaller seat margin than they did.

    3.) The party holding the White House almost always loses seats in Congress during the mid term election.

    4.) The Senate at least is very likely to flip back to being under Democratic control during this Presidential election year.

    5.) The Republicans I am sure would be absolutely THRILLED to trade places with Democrats regarding their respective long term demographic trends. At the state level, see places like California. :-D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    You can nitpick all you want.. Spin the factors that help your case and ignore the factors that hurt your case..

    But the SIMPLE fact remains..

    Republicans are still doing great, even if it's the mid-terms..

    So, that doesn't really sound like a long term problem...

    And, if Hillary takes the White House and you claim that the "Party holding the White House always loses seats" then, again, I must ask... HOW is this a "problem" for Republicans???

    Look, I am just going with logic here..

    You say that the Republicans have a "long term problem" but what you REALLY mean is that Republicans have a "long term problem" except for mid-terms...

    And if there is an exception like that every 4 years, this begs the question....

    How could it POSSIBLY be a "long term" problem???

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale: why don't you start your own blog?

    I have a better suggestion.

    Why don't YA'ALL start your own I HATE THAT MICHALE POSTS TOO MUCH WITH FACTS THAT WE CAN'T ADDRESS blog...

    Then ya'all could whine and complain and spam to your hearts content and not pollute this site with yer whinings..

    Yea, that's a much better idea....

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I submit it is past time for the individual submitting 63% to spread his wings and get his own blog.

    No one would read it. And even if he did get readership, the type of person that would follow him would most likely out Michale Michale. Which of course would be completely hilarious to see...

  35. [35] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Why don't YA'ALL start your own I HATE THAT MICHALE POSTS TOO MUCH WITH HYSTERIA THAT WE CAN'T ADDRESS blog...

    There, fixed it for you. "Facts" as a word just doesn't work with bold all caps...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    HALF OF HILLARY MEETS AT STATE GAVE CASH TO FOUNDATION

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

    At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_CLINTON_FOUNDATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-08-23-14-35-04

    And the hits STILL keep on comin'... :D

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Facts" as a word just doesn't work with bold all caps...

    Says the guy who never has a fact to comment with.. :D

    But, by all means. Make the entire comment thread about me..

    Who needs to talk about issues, right?? :^/

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,
    I have a better suggestion.

    Why don't YA'ALL start your own I HATE THAT MICHALE POSTS TOO MUCH WITH FACTS THAT WE CAN'T ADDRESS blog...

    So you would encourage people to stop visiting CW's blog, is that it? Real supportive!

    "MICHALE POSTS TOO MANY FACTS THAT ARE NOT FACTUAL IN ORDER TO DISTRACT FROM THE ORIGINAL DEBATE" is what CW might want to change this blog site's name to. When someone points to something Trump says that we disagree with, you rush to find something that a democrat once did that is similar and demand that we discuss that and NOT address what Trump said. The saddest part is that you only reaffirm that Trump was wrong to say whatever he said by demanding that we admit that someone else was wrong for saying/doing the same thing!

    You are the one who refuses to debate the facts. Two examples that come to mind: First, you claimed that the DOJ had accused Officer Wilson of committing a racially motivated murder of Michael Brown. You were trying to make the point that the DOJ's findings were often based on data that could be interpreted multiple ways, but you chose to use a false example that sullied the Officer's credibility. You hemmed and hawed about what you really meant to say, but the fact was that what you said was wrong...and you refused to acknowledge that.

    The next one is from back when I first shared with the group that I am gay. I had asked you very directly if you could remember when it was in your life that you chose to be heterosexual instead of homosexual. You said yes, but didn't actually give me the details until after the conversation had run its course. Finally, you shared that you remember vividly when you chose to be heterosexual -- it was when you were watching Lost in Space as a kid and suddenly realized that Judy Robinson (Or maybe it was Penny, they all look the same to me) gave your rocket a "lift off". While being a funny story, it failed to answer the question that I asked! Choosing your sexual orientation would mean that you were equally attracted to Dr. Smith (just kidding, Don West was the stud on the show) and after weighing the pros/cons of each, you decided to go with being heterosexual. It would mean that you could just as easily CHOOSE at anytime to become homosexual, if you wanted to -- but that's not how it works. You didn't choose to be heterosexual that night, you just realized that you were attracted to girls! I don't like mustard. Can't stand it. Seriously, it triggers the gag reflex with me! There is no way that I can CHOOSE to like it, because my tastebuds wouldn't listen if I said I was going to find mustard delicious from now on. The issue we were debating was whether or not we CHOOSE our sexual orientation. You said we do, then provide "proof" that only supported MY argument, but still claimed you had proven me wrong!

    Now, I know that I am "attacking you" by pointing all this out, and we all gang up on you. But if everyone else says it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck...its a safe bet that it is a duck!

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    So you would encourage people to stop visiting CW's blog, is that it?

    No, I would encourage people to stop posting endless whinings and complaints about one person's commenting style..

    Real supportive!

    I'll forgive you this utter BS because you are completely ignorant..

    But it is WELL DOCUMENTED that NO ONE here supports CW.COM more than I do..

    By FAR....

    So, when you have a lot less ignorance under your belt and are a little less hysterical, then we can continue to make this commentary thread ALL about me..

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    But it is WELL DOCUMENTED that NO ONE here supports CW.COM more than I do..

    By FAR....

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/05/02/ftp302/

    Nothing much on my end has changed since then..

    But a LOTs changed from the Demcorat side of the fence...

    That likely explains all the hate... :^/

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "The Fox News Scandal just got a whole lot worse."

    "Oh really?"

    "No, O'Reilly."

    Sorry, sorry, couldn't resist. **This joke was constructed entirely from recycled materials**

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Abedin sent the email in question to Clinton on January 11, 2013, ahead of a meeting with the French Foreign Minister.

    The email did not contain a message in the body, yet the subject line reads “Reminder fabius at 3:30. Take a nap [sic].”
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/23/emails-show-huma-used-to-put-hillary-down-for-nap-time/#ixzz4IC8FvrzW

    Oh great... If ya'all get your way, we're going to have a POTUS who needs a nap time..

    "Sorry, General.. I know that we're being nuked by China.. But President Hillary needs her nap time undisturbed"
    -Chief Of Staff Abedin

    Yea.. NOTHING to worry about with Hillary's health..

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    JohnM [30] -

    I'd only add:

    (2a) -- Dems actually got 1.5 million more total votes for their House candidates coutnrywide, proving gerrymandering was indeed the reason for the big GOP majority.

    Michale [31] -

    Here's the long term problem: ask a GOP officeholder "are you content to do well just in midterms, while totally giving up any chance for taking the White House for a generation's time?" That's a big problem, they'll tell you.

    TheStig [40] -

    OK, that was funny!

    "Name an Irishwoman who likes to sit around outside your house...."

    "Patty O'Furnature!"

    Heh. Got a million of 'em. I'll be here all week... don't forget to tip your waitress....

    :-)

    -CW

  44. [44] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    "there are two kinds of people in the world--the people that build the future, and the people who write posts on the internet about why they'll fail".

    Random unattributed quote from an article I was just reading...

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    “My approach for the fall semester will be boldly honest: It is a disservice to students to attempt to provide balance when I know that balance is an offense to the truth.”
    -Gettysburg College Prof. Kathleen Iannello

    This is EXACT why I don't deal in "truth" but rather in FACTS...

    "TRUTH" is subjective and is dependent on the whims of the individual... This moron's "truth" is that Hillary is the second coming and Trump is Lucifer incarnate..

    TRUTH has no place anywhere in academia save a philosophy class...

    FACTS rule.. TRUTH drooools...

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    TS [40]: Ouch! :)

    This could be the start of a glide path into oblivion for Fox News.

    Some challenges they are facing:

    1. Lawsuits that expose a Mad Men-like culture of old male bigots
    2. A leadership crisis to replace Ailes and his cronies
    3. The loss of the extremists to the alt-right news vehicles such as Breitbart
    4. A diminishing audience that isn't being replaced by new younger viewers
    5. The loss of some of their top rated entertainers
    6. The sudden loss of viewing figures after any election is over (Presidential elections are good for viewing figures)
    7. The move away from TV as a medium - my grown kids don't have TVs in their houses, or if they do they are only for sports

    Interesting times.

  47. [47] 
    Paula wrote:

    [37] Listen: Michale will never acknowledge the accuracy of your points. As I have said before, it's not clear to me if he can't (i.e. he is incapable of the reasoning required or he won't (for whatever reason), but either way, he will deny the validity of your statements and simply reflect back to you whatever you say.

  48. [48] 
    Paula wrote:

    There should be a ) after required - sigh.

  49. [49] 
    Paula wrote:

    [45] neilm: it would be a beauteous thing indeed for FOX to descend into oblivion, especially as the result of the hubris of Ailes and all the harassers who work there.

  50. [50] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    chaszzzbrown [8] -

    First off, welcome to the site. Your first comment was held for moderation, but from now on you should be able to post comments instantly.

    Just don't post more than one link per comment -- multilink comments get automatically held for moderation, which can (as you can tell) take a while, sometimes. But if you keep it to one link per comment, you should be good.

    The preview button is sadly pretty broken and un-useful, sorry about that. But you can use regular html tags (some of them, at least) in your comments, if you want to use bold or italic text, for instance. You can even embed links with the "a href" tag, although it's not necessary (paste a link's URL in and it will appear as a link).

    I hear your point about early voting, and as for black swans, please see today's column.

    :-)

    Again, welcome to the site and my apologies for the delay in seeing your first comment.

    -CW

  51. [51] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    BashiBazouk [44] -

    "There are two kinds of people in the world -- those who divide everyone into two groups, and those who don't."

    Forget where I heard that one, but always thought it was pretty funny...

    :-)

    -CW

  52. [52] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale- Please don't take this post the wrong way.

    Ya'all can say want you want about Michale and his posts, but doesn't it embarrass you that Michale seemed to be the only one that understands how democracy works based on your responses to my posts from Friday Talking Points?
    I certainly don't agree with Michale on many points but he cleaned your clocks on the issues in my posts.

  53. [53] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Don,

    You and Michale really are opposite sides of the same coin. I think most of the posters here do actually understand how democracy works, and many of them would likely think both you and Michale grossly over simplify to the point of not getting it yourselves. For example you site that Trump raised $80 million in donations during July and therefore that money can only be large corporate donations. Within minutes on google I can find an equivalent article confirming Trump's $80 million as well as a site [opensecrets.org] that lists all his donors to both directly to his campaign as well as PAC's supporting him through July 21st, the last reporting cycle. There is one donation of $150,000 and two donations of $100,000 to Pac's and they drop fast from there. Directly to his campaign, the donations start at $15,000 and drop quickly from there. Considering who is donating, a lot of federal government departments, even those high numbers are likely individual smaller donations from employees. Compared to Hillary, he really is taking relatively small donations. Though both campaigns have had quite a bit of success with under $200 donations as well. If you can't back up your assertions, why should we take you seriously? Or anyone for that matter? It's all nice and cute to generalize about money and policy, but put some facts on the table and let us see you know what you are talking about. What legislation was bought to pass or not pass? Who were the specific legislators that were bought for that decision? Which Supreme Court decisions were because of money and not specific interpretations of the constitution? Anyone can talk smack, lets see you back it up...

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Here's the long term problem: ask a GOP officeholder "are you content to do well just in midterms, while totally giving up any chance for taking the White House for a generation's time?" That's a big problem, they'll tell you.

    But that's not the "long term problem" that JM was referring to..

    Further, if the GOP only exists to obstruct the Demcorat Party (as ya'all have claimed time and time and time again) then shellacking the Democrats in the midterms allows them to maintain their OBSTRUCT THE DEMCORATS agenda just fine. :D

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen: Michale will never acknowledge the accuracy of your points.

    Once again, you accuse me of something that YOU do constantly.. You refuse to acknowledge the accuracy of MY points..

    Like THAT point there, for example...

    Listen didn't MAKE any points. He rambled a huge diatribe that makes absolutely no sense..

    For example, he claims to have asked me when I decided to be heterosexual. I described the moment, in likely TOO vivid a detail :D, and that was THAT..

    NOW he claims that I didn't answer the question..

    You didn't choose to be heterosexual that night, you just realized that you were attracted to girls!

    What a completely incomprehensible statement...

    he will deny the validity of your statements and simply reflect back to you whatever you say.

    You mean, like you just did with your entire comment??

    Like I said, Paula. You have an uncanny knack of accusing me of something that you do constantly...

    But, I guess I must thank you for continuing to make the comment section about me..

    When will you people learn.. :^/

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    "There are two kinds of people in the world -- those who divide everyone into two groups, and those who don't."

    Forget where I heard that one, but always thought it was pretty funny...

    There are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't

    :D

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    Michale- Please don't take this post the wrong way.

    Ya'all can say want you want about Michale and his posts, but doesn't it embarrass you that Michale seemed to be the only one that understands how democracy works based on your responses to my posts from Friday Talking Points?
    I certainly don't agree with Michale on many points but he cleaned your clocks on the issues in my posts.

    Thank you, Don...

    It's nice to have the FACTS acknowledged.. It's so refreshing because only ONE other person here in Weigantia has the integrity to call a spade a spade...

    But I shouldn't be too hard on people like Paula, Bashi, Blathasar, Neal, etc etc etc.. They are slaves to their ideology... They are simply INCAPABLE of looking at things objectively and acknowledging reality..

    I pity them in the same manner I pity a religious fanatic.. They have no free will of their own.. They are slaves to their dogma...

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    And, as you see by Bashi's response, when their dogma is questioned, they automatically turn around and attack the those who question their dogma..

    They go on and on about no facts, yet they have absolutely NO FACTS of their own..

    That's why I always win the debates here. The second I ask for FACTS to support their claims, they clam up and disappear..

    A win by default is still a win... :D

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Give you a perfect example..

    In the last commentary and in this commentary, I have posted DOZENS of *facts* regarding Hillary's Pay-For-Play State Department...

    Do they address these FACTS?? No, they don't.. They CAN'T address the facts so they just clam up and run away..

    Point to Michale....

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    You are the one who refuses to debate the facts. Two examples that come to mind: First, you claimed that the DOJ had accused Officer Wilson of committing a racially motivated murder of Michael Brown.

    Actually, I did debate that issue with Joshua after you bailed because you couldn't handle how wrong you were...

    So, THAT complaint of yours is also bogus... :D

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I always do...

    Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State

    WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

    At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

    Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton's help with a visa problem; and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm's corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state-183315225--election.html

    JUST THE FACTS...

    And the response from the WPG???

    {{ccchhhiiirrrrppppp}} {{cchhiirrrrpppp}}

    I think it's clear A> who has the facts on their side and 2> Who does and doesn't address points. Yes, I am looking at you, Paula... :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    chaszzzbrown,

    As I am wont to do..

    "Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    JUST THE FACTS...

    And the response from the WPG???

    {{ccchhhiiirrrrppppp}} {{cchhiirrrrpppp}}

    I know, I know... I shouldn't be too hard on ya'all..

    Ya'all are simply part of the Borg collective and are waiting for instructions (AKA Talking Points) from the Borg Queen, Hillary...

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.