my electoral map of April

[pbrower2a]

The faults with the poll compounding above are:

1. There is no display of methodology
2. There is no time limit on any poll (mine date only to after the 2014 election)
3. There is no identification of sources
4. The compounding relies heavily upon the results of elections over the last twenty years

Mine may not tell you yet how anyone does in Texas, but nobody yet has a poll of Texas. Where I have no reliable data I show nothing.

Yes, I took this set of poll composites from my own thread, but you can see the thread and you can see my comments as well as those of others. There will be shaky polls out there... but polling activity has a way of discrediting those. There will be pollsters coming into the business (and I will check their polls against others). Thus if a poll comes out from the William Howard Taft Institute (I made that up) at Ohio State University and it concurs with PPP and Quinnipiac it is probably good. If it comes from the University of Michigan at Grand Rapids... maybe I will catch that one (there is no University of Michigan at Grand Rapids, so that would be a give-away). I reject internal polls on principle.

OK, so you are likely to assume that if "Massachusetts will never vote for the Republican nominee for President except in a blowout" or "Mississippi will never vote for the Democratic nominee for President except in a blowout", such may be good for predictions. Polling is the test. I was surprised to see West Virginia go for Dubya in 2000 in a close election -- likewise Virginia in 2008. Polling can show a change. 

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie

 

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee

Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul

Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

[pbrower2a]

It's always easy to make obvious predictions: in 2016, Idaho is going to go for the republican and Rhode Island is going to go for the Democrat unless there is a 49-state blowout or something of the sort. Political culture matters within a state.

Quality of the politicians? As campaigners or fund raisers? Sure. Overall quality on other matters? Not now. Political culture in the various states matters greatly. Republicans are tailor-made to fit certain cultures and offend others, and Democrats are the same. I wish that politicians were unable to win just by affiliating with stock-car racing and country music, but that is how George W. Bush won.

Of course -- what people turn out to vote matters greatly. Such is the difference between 2006, when moderates thought that the GOP was a disaster, and 2010 when things weren't improving fast enough.       

[pbrower2a]

One can't predict campaign collapses. One can't predict money bombs unless one is an insider. 

[pbrower2a]

1992-2012

Deep red -- Democrats win every Presidential race.
Medium red -- Democrats win all but one Presidential race.
White -- always went with the winner
Pale blue -- went for the winner in all election, but in that exception went for the Republican
Medium blue -- Republicans win all but one Presidential race.
Yellow -- twice Democratic, but seeming to now drift Democratic
Green -- twice Democratic but seeming to drift Republican (Missouri in a light shade because Obama was close in 2008, others deep green)
Deep blue --Republicans win every Presidential race.

... This is where we reasonably start. Any information from before 1992 is irrelevant to current reality.  Anyone who predicts that a state in deep (or even medium) red or deep (or even medium)  blue is going to vote differently from how it has voted in the last six elections has some explaining to do. How California or Texas voted in 1976 or earlier no longer matters.  States in pale shades or white can be understood as swing states in anything near a 50-50 election.

No state is in pink, so 'reasonable swing states' according to state voting patterns of the last twenty years suggest that   

CO FL MO NV OH VA  

are the real swing states.

If you see something out of recent norms happening in Arizona or Iowa, then you can add those. I would be tempted to replace MO with NC based on 2012. You might make an argument that some Democrat is a better match for states in green or that Virginia has gone Democratic twice only because of Obama and will not do so again. You can argue such and still be wrong, but you might have a reason.

But if you say something like "Kansas must be getting sick of Republican pols", "the fast-growing Hispanic population dooms the Republicans in Arizona", "economic distress in the Rust Belt will cause blue-collar workers to abandon the Union Bosses for free-market solutions", or "Scott Walker is sure to win Wisconsin as a favorite son"  you have some explaining to do and a need for evidence to support your position. Polls will be adequate. 

    

[pbrower2a]

Historical precedent shows how hard it is for a Democrat president to be elected in an open election after 8 years of a prior Democrat president. Hillary has to overcome this. On top of that, Obama fatigue will be intense by 2016. Hillary has to overcome this. Additionally, Hillary brings her own truck full of baggage to the race, and she has to overcome that. She also will be 69, but looks more like 79, and has the appearance of someone you might be more apt to find slumped over in a wheelchair in the hallway of a nursing home than someone running for president. She has to overcome this too.

1. Republicans have frustrated this President at every turn, and it may be that President Obama's agenda is still popular. People may want it to be completed in 2016, and that would hurt Republicans.

2. The current Republican Party is not the benign conservative alternative to liberalism. Its All for the Few economics is clear to anyone, and it now has an ugly streak of militarism. It has people calling for aggressive war as a solution for counteracting the 'weak' foreign policy of Barack Obama. This is not Eisenhower-era Republicanism of main street rural America; this is a right-wing party with a firm ideology that excoriates the intellect and praises brute force.

3. Hillary Clinton will be no older than Ronald Reagan. If the stuff about her health is true (and it comes from suspect sources) then she had better have a good understudy as VP. I see her as a one-term President  for reasons of age alone.

4. Historical precedent? FDR got re-elected in a landslide in 1940 and won by slightly more in the popular vote as did Obama in 2008. Truman was re-elected in 1948 despite secession of segregationists who endorsed the New Deal but not improved lives for blacks.

5. A Republican wins the Presidency in 2016 in the event of one of the following:

a. an economic meltdown that makes people desperate for any change
b. a catastrophic war solely linked to Democrats
c. a diplomatic catastrophe
d. a right-wing religious revival that changes the political culture of some currently-reliable Democratic states
e. exposure of a personal scandals of the Clinton family

All are theoretically possible, but time is running out on those.           

[pbrower2a]

5. A Republican wins the Presidency in 2016 in the event of one of the following:

a. an economic meltdown that makes people desperate for any change
b. a catastrophic war solely linked to Democrats
c. a diplomatic catastrophe
d. a right-wing religious revival that changes the political culture of some currently-reliable Democratic states
e. exposure of a personal scandals of the Clinton family

All are theoretically possible, but time is running out on those.           

There are 577 days until the general election...

Every day seems one day closer to what now looks inevitable.

Even Karl Rove, one of the harshest critics of President Obama, recognizes President Obama as "cautious". Caution is one way to avoid trouble.