Atlas Predicts: Which party will win the 2016 presidential election?

[Lincoln Republican]

Republican Cruz

[Skye]

For now, Hillary easily.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Glenn Beck and Sununu SR seem to think Trump candidacy will wash out the GOP. Lose the majority in the Senate and most of the House. That means Trump keeps it close or not at all. As long as Clinton can keep the email scandal at bay she wins. But It will play a role in the election.

[Virginiá]

Too early to predict, but we're seriously underestimating the GOP and fatigue factor.

I would argue that lots are seriously underestimating the very real likelihood that if anyone but Trump gets the nomination, they are going to turn off many Trump supporters. Even more if Trump actively wages a campaign to get those voters to stay home or vote for someone else. And if Trump is the nominee, not only will he will go down in flames, but he'll be like a black hole for Republican downballot races - sucking in/destroying everyone around him.

My view is that even before Trump, the GOP had started out at a disadvantage coming into the cycle. Here's what I see:

1. Rapid demographic changes has made the math of getting to 270 for Republicans increasingly difficult. Most credible win scenarios for Republicans involve very close wins.
2. Because of Trump, Republicans have no chance of getting the necessary 30% of the non-white vote they need, and would be very lucky if they got Romney's 17% - 18%. If this is the case, they would need 64% - 65% of the white vote, which is most likely impossible given the current situation. Cruz isn't going to get that and neither will any candidate they hand the nomination to. Even in a neutral year, that's an unrealistic goal and acknowledged as such on both sides of the aisle.
3. Democrats have a structural electoral college advantage right now, giving them many paths to 270. Because of #1, along with a growing liberal Millennial majority, almost all the swing states have been trending Democratic for years now.
4. As stated before, there is virtually no chance they come out of Cleveland unified, an issue which completely erases any semblance of a "fatigue"-based advantage
5. Trump has done Democrats a favor by energizing the Hispanic/minority electorate. There is now a massive effort by many entities to create a Hispanic voter surge, and even if Trump is not the nominee, there will still be a much larger Hispanic turnout this year. You could argue that due to the concentration of Hispanic voters in Nevada, Colorado and Florida, this issue alone wipes out any 'fatigue' benefits the GOP may have had previously.

There are simply too many issues for the Republican party to overcome this cycle, imo. Though, I'm sure they will recover by 2020 (whether or not they win is anyone's guess), but I haven't seen anything that suggests the Republican party can win this November. Almost everything points in the other direction.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Hillary has an edge, but any number of things could happen (recession, foreign crisis, indictment, kasich getting the nomination at convention (and not totally failing afterward), etc. etc.).

Also, the polling right now that says "33% of TRUMP supporters won't vote Cruz in the general!!!! (or vice versa)" is really unreliable because there will be incredible pressure to unify around the nominee once there is a nominee and the alternative is Hillary. Perhaps the L nominee gets up to 3% or so, but other than that the #NEVERTRUMP/#NEVERCRUZ movement (a lot of the new esablishment supporters Cruz has are just supporting him so TRUMP doesn't get to 1237 on the first ballot and they can try to nominate Ryan/Kasich/Romney instead) will largely fizzle out due to fear of Hillary and such people will just hold their nose for the R nominee. Just as in 2012, the race will be mostly decided on turnout and on the 7%ish of the electorate that consists of actual swing voters. You will NOT see Hillary getting 20% of the Republican vote.

Finally, both TRUMP and Cruz have laid out how they plan to win the general.

TRUMP's path is to draw out white working class voters who either didn't vote or voted for Obama by touting his anti-trade/ultra-anti-immigrant message (before anyone tries to say Romney ran as anti-trade (yes, someone actually said that to me on IRC once), he didn't. He ran as anti-china trade only, he was completely for trade everywhere else. TRUMP is full on anti-trade. And while Romney was an anti-immigrant candidate, he didn't exactly go around saying that he'd make Mexico pay for the U.S. border wall), and follow a OH-PA-MI-WI path to victory. If he can win Florida through touting his palm beach residency (tough due to hispanic population there), he can take MI and WI off that list.

Cruz's path is based on a theory that certain republicans either stayed home or voted for Obama because they didn't see Romney as conservative enough to deserve their vote. While I personally don't see any stock in this theory, I will note that it is interesting that Obama did better among Liberals than Romney did among Conservatives per exit polls. Cruz claims that he can bring these voters out and reveal the majority for him - even to the point where he wins in Wisconsin, a place Bush 43 never won.

While I am personally MUCH more nervous about the TRUMP theory coming true than the Cruz theory, I would not bet my life on both being wrong at this point. Let's wait a few months and see what electorate seems to be developing.

[Virginiá]

Also, the polling right now that says "33% of TRUMP supporters won't vote Cruz in the general!!!! (or vice versa)" is really unreliable because there will be incredible pressure to unify around the nominee once there is a nominee and the alternative is Hillary. Perhaps the L nominee gets up to 3% or so, but other than that the #NEVERTRUMP/#NEVERCRUZ movement (a lot of the new esablishment supporters Cruz has are just supporting him so TRUMP doesn't get to 1237 on the first ballot and they can try to nominate Ryan/Kasich/Romney instead) will largely fizzle out due to fear of Hillary and such people will just hold their nose for the R nominee. Just as in 2012, the race will be mostly decided on turnout and on the 7%ish of the electorate that consists of actual swing voters. You will NOT see Hillary getting 20% of the Republican vote.

Sure, hopefully no one is saying 33%~ of Trump supporters are voting 3rd party or staying home, because that's highly improbable. However, it doesn't take much to screw GOP chances this November. If Republicans lose about 1% of the vote that they were going to get had the party been unified, then they are already starting with serious problems. If they were ever going to win this election, it wasn't/isn't going to be by gaping margins or even comfortable margins. For reasons I stated previously, it's unlikely to be higher than Bush2's 2004 margins barring a large collapse of support for the Democrat.

TRUMP's path is to draw out white working class voters who either didn't vote or voted for Obama by touting his anti-trade/ultra-anti-immigrant message (before anyone tries to say Romney ran as anti-trade (yes, someone actually said that to me on IRC once), he didn't.

The problem with this theory is that Trump isn't really bringing new white voters to the polls. Registration statistics do not show such movement. What he appears to be doing is mostly bringing existing Republican voters out who typically don't vote in primaries, but more or less vote in general elections.

Even if he did manage to bring out some new voters, his strategy to do so has created an opposite reaction on the Democratic side. Thanks to him, Democrats will likely see record Hispanic turnout and sustained African American turnout. Obama won in 2012 largely on the backs of minorities, so imagine how Trump will do.

But I think arguing Trump scenarios is pointless. He polls terribly and has alienated broad swathes of the electorate, so yeah, he will not win.

Cruz's path is based on a theory that certain republicans either stayed home or voted for Obama because they didn't see Romney as conservative enough to deserve their vote. While I personally don't see any stock in this theory, I will note that it is interesting that Obama did better among Liberals than Romney did among Conservatives per exit polls. Cruz claims that he can bring these voters out and reveal the majority for him - even to the point where he wins in Wisconsin, a place Bush 43 never won.

This idea is equally absurd, imo. First off, since 2012, Republicans have continued hemorrhaging voters due to the dying off of the reliably Republican silent generation, which is being replaced by more liberal/Democratic white Millennials. Every 4 years continues this trend until young voters start becoming more Republican/conservative. That day seems to be a long ways off based on current data.

Second, Cruz is far from a broadly acceptable candidate. Not all Republicans are nearly as conservative as him, and he has a personal track record of being radical and untrustworthy. Too many people put candidates on an equal playing field right off the bat, which is inaccurate to say the least. If anything, he's more like a regional candidate. So to think he starts off with Romney numbers and can only go up is pretty naive.

Third, for all those people craving a 'real conservative' that he brings out, he turns off more and more moderate Republicans. For the same reason those people before possibly stayed home because of the candidate not being a 'real conservative', some moderates will stay home or vote differently because the candidate is too conservative.

Candidates don't get to have their cake and eat it too.

(fyi: not saying you argued/believe in those points, but rather just debating each idea on its own merits)

[Meclazine for Israel]

And if Trump is the nominee, not only will he will go down in flames, but he'll be like a black hole for Republican downballot races - sucking in/destroying everyone around him.

My dreams evaporated as i read this.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Too early to predict, but we're seriously underestimating the GOP and fatigue factor.

I would argue that lots are seriously underestimating the very real likelihood that if anyone but Trump gets the nomination, they are going to turn off many Trump supporters. Even more if Trump actively wages a campaign to get those voters to stay home or vote for someone else. And if Trump is the nominee, not only will he will go down in flames, but he'll be like a black hole for Republican downballot races - sucking in/destroying everyone around him.

My view is that even before Trump, the GOP had started out at a disadvantage coming into the cycle. Here's what I see:

1. Rapid demographic changes has made the math of getting to 270 for Republicans increasingly difficult. Most credible win scenarios for Republicans involve very close wins.
2. Because of Trump, Republicans have no chance of getting the necessary 30% of the non-white vote they need, and would be very lucky if they got Romney's 17% - 18%. If this is the case, they would need 64% - 65% of the white vote, which is most likely impossible given the current situation. Cruz isn't going to get that and neither will any candidate they hand the nomination to. Even in a neutral year, that's an unrealistic goal and acknowledged as such on both sides of the aisle.
3. Democrats have a structural electoral college advantage right now, giving them many paths to 270. Because of #1, along with a growing liberal Millennial majority, almost all the swing states have been trending Democratic for years now.
4. As stated before, there is virtually no chance they come out of Cleveland unified, an issue which completely erases any semblance of a "fatigue"-based advantage
5. Trump has done Democrats a favor by energizing the Hispanic/minority electorate. There is now a massive effort by many entities to create a Hispanic voter surge, and even if Trump is not the nominee, there will still be a much larger Hispanic turnout this year. You could argue that due to the concentration of Hispanic voters in Nevada, Colorado and Florida, this issue alone wipes out any 'fatigue' benefits the GOP may have had previously.

There are simply too many issues for the Republican party to overcome this cycle, imo. Though, I'm sure they will recover by 2020 (whether or not they win is anyone's guess), but I haven't seen anything that suggests the Republican party can win this November. Almost everything points in the other direction.

Yes yes yes. Romney lost by ~4% in 2012, and he more or less maxed out the white vote. They'd have to get to Reagan levels of support from white people to make up that gap.

If you project demographic change forward and keep all of the voting shares the same, that 4% loss in 2012 is a 5% loss in 2016. Assuming that the Republican Party does at least as bad or worse with all non-white groups in 2016 as in 2012 (note: this is a good assumption), they've got to get at least 62% of white people, and that's if the Latino vote doesn't swing at all toward the Democrats.

I think the fact of Trump, whether or not he wins the nomination, has hurt the GOP brand in ways that people are discounting at their own peril. If Kasich were to win the nomination, for instance (note: he won't), it wouldn't be the same as if he had won the nomination in a world without a Trump. Everything wouldn't reset to zero. People wary of Trump would still be wary of the party that came within a hair's breadth of nominating him.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Republicans.  A brokered convention is a good thing for a win in November because it will keep people interested in our primary.  Also, we are getting many more votes in the primaries than the liberals.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

It could be this extreme:

Clinton 384 Cruz 154

OR

Clinton 472 Trump 66

Yes, those are best-case scenarios for the Democrats, but that's how bad it could get for the GOP.

[Sir Mohamed]

Democrats will win (chance: >90%).

Both the Trumpster and Cruz would lose badly. And even a stronger candidate (Kasich, Ryan, Romney) would have the problem that the EC currently favors Dems.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Trump winning Utah? Never happen.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Republicans.  A brokered convention is a good thing for a win in November because it will keep people interested in our primary.  Also, we are getting many more votes in the primaries than the liberals.

What in the world are you on, man?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Democrats will win (chance: >90%).

Both the Trumpster and Cruz would lose badly. And even a stronger candidate (Kasich, Ryan, Romney) would have the problem that the EC currently favors Dems.

I strongly disagree with that.  Republican strongholds outweigh Democratic ones in the Electoral vote due to Democratic votes being concentrated in large population areas that are under-represented.  Simply put, there are more small states, with two EVs just for existing, in the Republican column than in the Democratic column.

Also, due to population shifts, the Republican states have more EVs than they did in previous cycles.  Bush got 271 in 2000.  In today's EV allocation he would have received 285.  That makes up for losing Virginia.  Or Iowa and Colorado combined.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Trump winning Utah? Never happen.

I just can't see Utah going for any Democrat in any scenario.  Despite how repugnant the Republican might be.  Utah.  Hillary Clinton.  It just... no.

Arizona is iffy.  I put it in Trump's column due to their rampant xenophobia and desire for a wall.  Bill Clinton did win the state in 1996, though.

[beaver2.0]

Democratic blowout.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Democrats will win (chance: >90%).

Both the Trumpster and Cruz would lose badly. And even a stronger candidate (Kasich, Ryan, Romney) would have the problem that the EC currently favors Dems.

I strongly disagree with that.  Republican strongholds outweigh Democratic ones in the Electoral vote due to Democratic votes being concentrated in large population areas that are under-represented.  Simply put, there are more small states, with two EVs just for existing, in the Republican column than in the Democratic column.

Also, due to population shifts, the Republican states have more EVs than they did in previous cycles.  Bush got 271 in 2000.  In today's EV allocation he would have received 285.  That makes up for losing Virginia.  Or Iowa and Colorado combined.

But that concern ignores that they did lose Virginia.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Democrats will win (chance: >90%).

Both the Trumpster and Cruz would lose badly. And even a stronger candidate (Kasich, Ryan, Romney) would have the problem that the EC currently favors Dems.

I strongly disagree with that.  Republican strongholds outweigh Democratic ones in the Electoral vote due to Democratic votes being concentrated in large population areas that are under-represented.  Simply put, there are more small states, with two EVs just for existing, in the Republican column than in the Democratic column.

Also, due to population shifts, the Republican states have more EVs than they did in previous cycles.  Bush got 271 in 2000.  In today's EV allocation he would have received 285.  That makes up for losing Virginia.  Or Iowa and Colorado combined.

But that concern ignores that they did lose Virginia.

True, but it underscores the fact that they no longer need Virginia to win the EV, adding yet another state with a large coastal population to the D column.  This map could very easily happen with a 3% Democratic PV victory:

274-264

Democrats get blowout victories in coastal cities, Republicans win FL, OH, CO, and IA by razor-thin margins.

This would have been a Democratic victory in previous decades.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Democrats will win (chance: >90%).

Both the Trumpster and Cruz would lose badly. And even a stronger candidate (Kasich, Ryan, Romney) would have the problem that the EC currently favors Dems.

I strongly disagree with that.  Republican strongholds outweigh Democratic ones in the Electoral vote due to Democratic votes being concentrated in large population areas that are under-represented.  Simply put, there are more small states, with two EVs just for existing, in the Republican column than in the Democratic column.

Also, due to population shifts, the Republican states have more EVs than they did in previous cycles.  Bush got 271 in 2000.  In today's EV allocation he would have received 285.  That makes up for losing Virginia.  Or Iowa and Colorado combined.

But that concern ignores that they did lose Virginia.

True, but it underscores the fact that they no longer need Virginia to win the EV, adding yet another state with a large coastal population to the D column.  This map could very easily happen with a 3% Democratic PV victory:

274-264

Democrats get blowout victories in coastal cities, Republicans win FL, OH, CO, and IA by razor-thin margins.

This would have been a Democratic victory in previous decades.

I understand that that map is consistent with the scenario you describe, but I think you handwave almost everything important away when you say it could "very easily" happen.

[Virginiá]

Democrats get blowout victories in coastal cities, Republicans win FL, OH, CO, and IA by razor-thin margins.

This would have been a Democratic victory in previous decades.

The problem I see with your argument is none of those states are Republican strongholds at the presidential level. Florida has perpetually been the ultimate toss-up with a now pro-Democratic trend due to an exploding Hispanic population. Same for Nevada and Colorado, though in Colorado Democrats also have an influx of liberal-leaning voters and the growth of Millennial voting power to thank for that opening.

If a Democrat's plausible margins among white voters in Florida bounce back even a little from 2012 levels, which is probable, than the ballooning Hispanic population will make this state more and more Democratic-leaning at the presidential level. It's not like Democrat's Hispanic vote margins went back down after 2012 - They stayed more or the less the same for 2014. That's very bad news for Republicans.


By 2020 these trends will be even more blatant, and will continue until Republicans stop alienating minorities and Millennials.

[MT Treasurer]

Democrats will win (chance: >90%).

Both the Trumpster and Cruz would lose badly. And even a stronger candidate (Kasich, Ryan, Romney) would have the problem that the EC currently favors Dems.

It doesn't.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Democrats will win (chance: >90%).

Both the Trumpster and Cruz would lose badly. And even a stronger candidate (Kasich, Ryan, Romney) would have the problem that the EC currently favors Dems.

It doesn't.

Lolwut

[Mallow]

Also, the polling right now that says "33% of TRUMP supporters won't vote Cruz in the general!!!! (or vice versa)" is really unreliable because there will be incredible pressure to unify around the nominee once there is a nominee and the alternative is Hillary. Perhaps the L nominee gets up to 3% or so, but other than that the #NEVERTRUMP/#NEVERCRUZ movement (a lot of the new esablishment supporters Cruz has are just supporting him so TRUMP doesn't get to 1237 on the first ballot and they can try to nominate Ryan/Kasich/Romney instead) will largely fizzle out due to fear of Hillary and such people will just hold their nose for the R nominee. Just as in 2012, the race will be mostly decided on turnout and on the 7%ish of the electorate that consists of actual swing voters. You will NOT see Hillary getting 20% of the Republican vote.

That's all fine, but it seems like you're conflating "33% of Trump supporters won't vote Cruz in the GE" with "33% of Trump supporters WILL vote Clinton in the GE". You said it yourself--it's about turnout. And the #NeverTrump movement may be overstated, but can you really suggest it won't substantially affect turnout? I imagine it would have to.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Democrats get blowout victories in coastal cities, Republicans win FL, OH, CO, and IA by razor-thin margins.

This would have been a Democratic victory in previous decades.

The problem I see with your argument is none of those states are Republican strongholds at the presidential level. Florida has perpetually been the ultimate toss-up with a now pro-Democratic trend due to an exploding Hispanic population. Same for Nevada and Colorado, though in Colorado Democrats also have an influx of liberal-leaning voters and the growth of Millennial voting power to thank for that opening.

If a Democrat's plausible margins among white voters in Florida bounce back even a little from 2012 levels, which is probable, than the ballooning Hispanic population will make this state more and more Democratic-leaning at the presidential level. It's not like Democrat's Hispanic vote margins went back down after 2012 - They stayed more or the less the same for 2014. That's very bad news for Republicans.


By 2020 these trends will be even more blatant, and will continue until Republicans stop alienating minorities and Millennials.

So if the Democrats win the PV by a close margin (1-3%) what is your EV map?  What I posted, I believe, is the most likely.  I think that despite demographic shifts, FL, OH, CO, and IA are still coin flips.  FL has also seen New South suburban explosion in Jacksonville, Orlando, and St. Pete, and that - in a close election - still favors the Republicans.

The GOP's alienation of minorities and Millennials hurts them in the popular vote, but I still believe the electoral vote is stacked in their favor due to the concentration of Democratic votes in population centers.

[MT Treasurer]

Democrats will win (chance: >90%).

Both the Trumpster and Cruz would lose badly. And even a stronger candidate (Kasich, Ryan, Romney) would have the problem that the EC currently favors Dems.

It doesn't.

Lolwut

The electoral college doesn't favor either party.