Talk Elections

Which ones?

This list is notable by the absence of New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.  :P

Because those are obviously going to flip so he does not needed to mention those states

Sorry guys, Minnesota ain't flippin' this year.  From that list, Michigan is most likely.

The Silent Majority stands with King!

Michigan, it could happen with Kasich, Rubio, or even Trump.

yes but I'm trying to get states which arent considered battleground

I'm going to go out and say Michigan over Minnesota. A bit more predominant white blue collar working class demographic. Neither have a dream of flipping in 11 months, but in the '16 environment and conditions, MI flips before MN. Easily.

On another topic, Merry Christmas to all my Atlas friends. God bless.

To the real world it is.

Wow some of you people are dumber than dirt.

It's obviously going to be D.C.

Minnesota or Maine, but none of them will likely be Republican.

Minnesota, the closest of these states in 2008,  could be the closest of these if the 2008 pattern holds. It will be 52-47 in a bare Republican win and 57-42 in a Clinton landslide.

Wisconsin; maybe if Walker is VP.

Who voted DC??

Michigan or Minnesota

You can consistently lose a battleground state by a close margin and it can still be a battleground.  Face it, NH is usually pretty close, Republicans have won several races there over the last 20 years and it'll be contested because of this.  Merry Christmas.

GOP arent winning any of these just like Dems arent gonna win others. Oregon was a battleground, but it looks like Trump can win NH. That will be the only stste he can come close to winning.

Utterly dumbfounded that MI has any votes, let alone is leading MN. Do the math people. >:(

Here's a sample of their math:


2016 UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
U.S. Popular Vote: Trump 62% | Clinton 37%
Whites (80): Trump 66% | Clinton 33%
All Remaining Non-Whites (20): Trump 47% | Clinton 51%

Minnesota by default as the closest of those states in 2008. It just doesn't swing much in overall vote. It does swing severely against Republicans with respect to the national average in Republican blowouts -- as the second-worst state for Nixon in 1972 and the worst for Reagan in 1984. (It did go R+ in one of the Eisenhower elections, which says much about Ike). It was near the middle of the pack for Obama in 2008, though.

Voting habits are very rigid in Minnesota. The state just does not swing.

...Barack Obama is the most polarizing of Presidential nominees ever, winning some states as if a Democratic version of Reagan in 1984 and losing as if the second coming of George McGovern in some others. It is hard to see anyone with such a divide in voting for him and against him ever happening again. 

Anyone who expects any Presidential nominee to win more than 60% of the vote is nuts at this stage. One can make a mathematical model that can predict anything... but even if one uses mathematical models to predict something absurd, the problem is not with the mathematics.

Boundary conditions are relevant. I played games with one of the models and I did not see Democrats winning in any Southern states other than VA, FL, and NC before Democrats picked up Indiana... A Democrat who gets 33% of the white vote in Mississippi is going to win Mississippi.

2008 and 2012 were freaks because Barack Obama was what he is. On the other hand, he won, and he showed that Democrats can largely write off rural areas with impunity. He knew how to get mass audiences available in urban and suburban areas (the distinction between cities and suburbs is weakening).

You know we've had an election since 2008, right?  I've never seen you cite a 2012 statistic, only 2008.

Trump polls around 16% of Latinos....Romney won 27% and still lost.     The hispanic population has just gotten bigger since then.    Why the heck should we assume Trump will do this well?

Pborower, that isn't entirely untrue, but we're comparing MN to Michigan! MICHIGAN!!!

Minnesota.