PPP - Tight race in Ohio
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:34:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  PPP - Tight race in Ohio
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: PPP - Tight race in Ohio  (Read 4151 times)
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,999
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 03, 2016, 02:26:08 PM »
« edited: May 03, 2016, 02:27:43 PM by Ljube »

Not surprising at all. Ohio should be one of Trump's better battleground states. The Kasich numbers look...off though.

OH, PA and MI - Trump country.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 03, 2016, 02:41:22 PM »

Not surprising at all. Ohio should be one of Trump's better battleground states. The Kasich numbers look...off though.

OH, PA and MI - Trump country.

Still dreaming about Michigan? I certainly hope Trump pours in lots of resources there. Smiley
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 03, 2016, 10:33:14 PM »
« Edited: May 04, 2016, 08:45:28 AM by pbrower2a »

Not surprising at all. Ohio should be one of Trump's better battleground states. The Kasich numbers look...off though.

OH, PA and MI - Trump country.

First, let us define what we mean by a "battleground state".



deep blue -- all elections for the Republican
medium blue --  all but one election for the Republican (but once for Obama)
pale blue -- all but once for the Republicans (but once for Clinton)

deep green -- Clinton twice, but Obama losing by more than 10% twice
medium green -- Clinton twice, Obama barely losing once
yellow -- Clinton once, Obama twice
tan -- Clinton never, Obama twice
medium red -- all but one election for the Democrat

deep red -- all elections for the Democrat

white -- always went for the winner  (Clinton twice, George W. Bush twice, Obama)

A good guess on what constitutes a "battleground state" is any state not in deep red or deep blue due to their political histories beginning in 1992 or those in deep green because  those states have swung far away from the Democratic Party in their loyalties. Barring either a landslide (in which the concept of a 'battleground state' becomes moot) or something freakish happens, no state in gray is going to vote differently than it did in other elections.  So let's gray those states out.

Remaining:




medium blue --  all but one election for the Republican (but once for Obama)
pale blue -- all but once for the Republicans (but once for Clinton)

medium green -- Clinton twice, Obama barely losing once
yellow -- Clinton once, Obama twice
tan -- Clinton never, Obama twice
medium red -- all but one election for the Democrat


We can take out some states that seem out of contention this year (Montana, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) that seem very solid now. States that would go to the Democrats only in landslides (Georgia, Indiana) are irrelevant this time. A Democrat who picks up Indiana has surely also picked up Ohio (and a win); a Democrat who wins Georgia has also won Florida and North Carolina and is on the way to a landslide. Missouri and North Carolina aren't so clear yet. Arizona? It could be the difference between a Clinton win or loss if it and another state (most likely Colorado) decide. Georgia and Indiana are best deemed 'on the fringe of contention'. They go for Hillary Clinton only in utter collapses of the Trump campaign for President that turn what should have been a good opportunity for Republicans to take over the Presidency into a disaster.




This is what I expected in 2012. The variegated colors aren't all that relevant.  What is more relevant is what is in gray. "Battlefield" is more relevant if there is some sort of struggle.  I have to go into contortions to suggest that such states as Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon,  Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin really are in contention. We have not seen a Democratic landslide with 400 or more electoral votes since 1964, and that involved a Republican who scared the living daylights out of many voters.  The closest involved states (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia) that show no sign of being in contention this time. Those five states have many electoral votes as Texas, which was closer in 2008 than any of those states. 

We may be seeing a Democratic landslide for the Presidency in the making this time. Democrats have an undeniable edge in states with 257 electoral votes. There are just too many ways for the Donald Trump to lose for anyone to think that this election is anything other than a long shot for them. He has practically no chance of winning based upon random chance of getting enough things going right in the reality that now exists. Sure, a 2008-style meltdown of the economy, a scandal of corruption, or some diplomatic or military debacle can create a more favorable setting for a Trump victory.

On the other side, if states like Georgia, Indiana, Montana, or Utah go into play... then the results of the Presidential election of 2016 might be an utter bore on  November 8 except to statistical wonks. 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 13 queries.