Which is more likely, Trump wins, or Clinton gets 400+ EVs?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

To get to 400, Hillary would need something like this:

[Dr. Arch]

I think it's at the point right now that both of these options are at about the same place at the opposite ends of a bell curve, but I'd say 400 EVs.

[heatcharger]

To get to 400, Hillary would need something like this:

I think it's more likely that Trump gets Romney+OH+FL+PA than a Democrat winning South Carolina. It's close though.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I think it's at the point right now that both of these options are at about the same place at the opposite ends of a bell curve, but I'd say 400 EVs.

In the 538 now-cast, Clinton is much more likely to get to 400.  In the polls-only, too.  Polls-plus rates a Trump victory as more likely.

[Redban]

Trump's winnning is more likely. For 400, Clinton needs states like Indiana, Utah, South Carolina, and Georgia etc., which are not possible in 2016. On the other hand, Trump merely needs 3 states (albeit 3 difficult states) to win -- Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

[Xing]

If it were October, I'd say Clinton getting 400+ is more likely. Right now, though, it's still more likely that Trump wins.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Trump's winnning is more likely. For 400, Clinton needs states like Indiana, Utah, South Carolina, and Georgia etc., which are not possible in 2016. On the other hand, Trump merely needs 3 states (albeit 3 difficult states) to win -- Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

She would need GA, AZ, MO, SC, NE-2, and UT (or any two of AK, MT, ND, SD).  IN is gravy.

Georgia, Arizona, and NE-2 are certainly winnable.  Missouri is a stretch.  The rest aren't very likely.

Florida and Pennsylvania look to be slipping out of Trump's grasp, however.

[Mehmentum]

It would have to be this map, I think.  I think Trump winning is more likely at this point.

[TomC]

If you'd said 380+ EV, I'd say that (beats B Clinton and Obama's record. 400 is tough though.

[elcorazon]

She could do it if she could take Texas! (21.7% in polls only on 538 - more likely than Utah according to 538)

[President Johnson]

Hillary winning 400+ electoral votes. If Johnson finishes strong (in double digits), he just take away enough votes to hand her several states by plurality.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Trump winning. I have Hillary maxing out in the 390s

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Trump could potentially turn things around, but no way Hillary gets 400.

[Fargobison]

Both unlikely but if Trump turned into a sure loser then all those Hillary haters might just vote their conscience.

[BlueSwan]

Accidentally voted Clinton, but I think Trump winning the election is MUCH more likely than Clinton winning 400 EV's. Trump winning is probably still at 20-25%, while Clinton winning 400 EV's is at no more than 5% at best!

[RaphaelDLG]

OBVIOUSLY Trump winning, even if Clinton continues to be a strong favorite.

People don't understand how densely staunch Republican votes are packed into the last 150 or so Republican EVs - it's basically impossible for a Democrat to win these states, even in a wave election/massive landslide with huge swings.

Hillary has a great chance at NC, a long shot at AZ, and if something truly catastrophic happens, she could maybe pick up something among GA, MO, IN.  She has NO shot at anything else, due to the realities mentioned above. 

It'd be extremely unlikely she'd pick up all of those last three at once, and she would have to to break 400+, AS WELL AS picking up something else.

[Erc]

She could do it if she could take Texas! (21.7% in polls only on 538 - more likely than Utah according to 538)

Yep, this seems to be one of the more plausible ways to do it. Unexpectedly high Tejano turnout against Trump, for example.

[elcorazon]

She could do it if she could take Texas! (21.7% in polls only on 538 - more likely than Utah according to 538)

Yep, this seems to be one of the more plausible ways to do it. Unexpectedly high Tejano turnout against Trump, for example.

She could get 90% Latino vote in Texas with high turnout and conservatives not bothering to vote for Trump. (Johnson or nobody)

[ElectionsGuy]

Trump winning obviously. He could do it with just picking up FL, OH, and PA, which most people agree are all either toss-ups or lean Dem. Clinton getting over 400 would require her winning Indiana, Montana, possibly Utah, etc.

[Erc]

Trump winning obviously. He could do it with just picking up FL, OH, and PA, which most people agree are all either toss-ups or lean Dem. Clinton getting over 400 would require her winning Indiana, Montana, possibly Utah, etc.

Yeah, but picking up those states requires him to actually win those states.

If Clinton starts winning by 10+ points, the dominos start falling regardless of how many states are required, ground game, etc.  A Clinton PV blowout, or a strong Clinton showing in Texas, both get you Clinton with 400+ EVs.

And those possibilities are more likely than a Trump win.  I've been maintaining this for months; this is not an overreaction to recent polling.

[Senator Spark]

Trump winning the election

[Pandaguineapig]

Trump winning, the overreaction to Clinton's convention bounce is quite hilarious and is why I love the 2016 board

[IceSpear]

Trump winning, obviously. Under no circumstances whatsoever will Hillary crack 400 EVs.

[LLR]

Probably Trump winning, but in the event of a 9-10 point victory, this is a plausible map:

Flip MS for AK and MT or UT or IN if you'd like.