The math vs. the mood--The burning paradox of the 2016 election

[twenty42]

This contradiction, in my view, is the one mystery that makes the 2016 election so interesting, so perplexing, and so frustrating all at once.

It is, for the most part, hard to imagine November 8 culminating in an electoral college majority for Donald Trump. Reasons for the uphill climb are well-documented...the 242 EV's owned by D's since 1992, overwhelming demographic hurdles, and the R's 2-4 record in the last six elections chief among them. D's simply have an easier path to the required 270 EV's, and that has been the case since Bill Clinton inexorably strong-armed electoral behemoths such as CA, IL, and PA into the D column.

But how easy...or hard...is it to imagine a Hillary Clinton victory emerging from the same election? In an election indelibly backdropped by anti-establishment fervor and anger toward the status quo, how plausible is it that she, the quintessential mainstream candidate, escapes with a victory? The current mood of the country really doesn't portend a Clinton victory, not to mention the historical tendency for American voters to be infatuated with change. While it's true that every election is different and that the past isn't always a great indicator of the future in American politics, the jarring fact is that parties running for a 3rd+ consecutive term are a dismal 1-7 in the EC since 1952, even after popular administrations such as those of Eisenhower and Clinton.

The natural question, obviously, is what happens when the irresistible force (thirst for change and anti-establishment passion) meets the supposedly immovable object (the "blue wall")?

What we have seen so far in 2016 is a total shake-up at the ballot boxes. Two candidates who were supposed to be eliminated by Super Tuesday are still in the race as the calendar turns to June, one being their party's presumptive nominee and the other winning 21 states when they were supposed to win none. On the other side of the coin, a candidate who spent most of the pre-primary season as their party's most likely nominee got clobbered hard and fast, and was out of the race before 47 states even voted. Needless to say, pundits who predicted an evaporation of the bizarre once votes started to be cast have been proven categorically wrong by reality thus far.

Looking at past elections for answers, there is a trend that stands out. That is, elections that choose new presidents are usually based on mood, and elections that re-elect the party in power are usually more math-based. Examples of the former include the contests of 1968, 1976, 1980, 1992, and 2008, all taking place in periods of economic downturn, unpopular incumbents, and general dissatisfaction of current conditions. Latter examples include 1972, 1988, 2004, and 2012. Interestingly enough, the winning party in all four of these elections was arguably less popular than it was four years prior, but electoral college dominance and the advantages of incumbency protected it in each case. The result of the 2016 election should follow this algorithm in either case.

Can Hillary Clinton, the face of the establishment, ironically win one of the most dissident elections in American history? Can Donald Trump, the most demographically challenged candidate of our generation, ironically shatter the "blue wall" so sturdily built by the bricks of those very demographics?

Conventional wisdom will certainly be bucked in November. The question is, by whom?

[Angrie]

Looking at past elections for answers, there is a trend that stands out. That is, elections that choose new presidents are usually based on mood, and elections that re-elect the party in power are usually more math-based.

"Mood" must ultimately be backed by "math." In 2008 and 2012, the "mood" of the country was for Obama, and this translated into "math" for him. Two points:

First, it is true that many people are dissatisfied with the status quo. But that does not necessarily translate into voting for Trump, of all people.

Second, in the event that Trump does relatively well in the popular vote, he'll win a decent number of electoral votes. Those electoral votes will go up as his popular vote goes up, with him probably needing a popular vote win to claim an electoral college majority.

[twenty42]

"Mood" must ultimately be backed by "math." In 2008 and 2012, the "mood" of the country was for Obama, and this translated into "math" for him.

I was speaking more on the backdrops of both elections. 2008 was an Obama win fueled by a heavy anti-incumbent mood and a terrible economy, which flipped nine red states and NE-02. 2012 was an Obama win fueled by demographic advantages and a superior campaign than that of Romney, but it's worth noting that Obama's margin of victory fell by 3.42% as he lost two states he won in 2008, and voter turnout itself fell by 3.3%.

In short, where 2008 was more of an emotional wave, 2012 was a clear incumbency advantage.

[Wisconsin+17]

Dems have a wide built in advantage, but Trump's problem is that he's losing AZ and GA.