CNN releases first battleground map for Clinton vs. Trump

[Virginiá]

This is probably accurate in terms of where the two sides are prepping to battle it out.  In a sense battleground is a function of where real money is spent.  If the GOP make a play for WI, MI or PA then they are "battleground" same with Dems for GA or AZ.   However, the above map is certainly not a current map of "tossup" states,especially in light of CNNs latest poll.

Yes, but still, they imply that the states are swing states. New Hampshire will not be a swing state this cycle, if ever again (I don't think it will be). Nevada is very likely off the map due to Hispanics, and Wisconsin is not going to go red this cycle, either. Perhaps another one, but not with Trump. In fact, I would even argue that Virginia is a non-starter with Trump. The fact is, swing states aren't always swing states with every candidate. Some candidates are simply unpalatable for certain states.

As Vega said, this is like a generic map, and as Holmes said, they want a horse race, so they are trying to make it look more competitive than it really is.

[Likely Voter]

Well the terms 'swing state' 'battleground state' 'tipping point' and 'tossup state' get conflated all the time, but I think they are each distinctively different. How I define them...

Swing states: states that have 'swung' in recent elections (that would by IN, NC, FL, OH, VA, CO, IA, NH, NV, NM)

Battleground states: where both sides of a campaign are actively spending resources to win. (in 2012 it was the same states as above excluding NM and IN but adding WI and PA)

Tipping-point states: the state or handful of states that would likely be right on the edge in a 50/50 election. (in 2012 VA and CO)

Tossup states: the handful of states that are relatively close to 50/50 at any given time. Right now I would imagine NC may be the only real 'tossup' with all the other battlegrounds lean D

[/]

LOL

[IceSpear]

CNN will probably call the race "close" even if Hillary is up by 20 just for ratings

They will force it to be close by any means necessary. Get ready for hundreds more email stories.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I would colour Nevada, Wisconsin and New Hampshire the same as PA and MI.
That's our starting map.

How about a certain economically prosperous, Latino-dense, pot-smoking western square state, where the GOP voters are of the Religious Right variety, totally unfavorable for Trump?  Probably should not be colored green.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I do wonder how much of New Hampshire's 'libertarian' reputation owes itself to its ridiculous system of state government rather than anything really due to the state's inhabitants.

Anyway, as already reported by all, this is far too optimistic for Trump.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

*flips out about South Carolina*

Is every poster going to have a pet trending state (you with SC, a certain poster with NH (who is largely right, even if it is funny).  I declare that Iowa will vote for Trump and over the next few cycles will become a safe Republican state.

To be fair, before 2008 Atlas developed a major Virginia fetish that proved to be spot on.

[ElectionsGuy]

What garbage. Wisconsin is a toss-up while Minnesota is Strongly D?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

This is literally the same map they started with in 2012, except for WI was Lean D not Toss-Up, Georgia was Safe R not Lean R, and MO/IN were Lean R not Safe R.

[Baki]

I would colour Nevada, Wisconsin and New Hampshire the same as PA and MI.
That's our starting map.

How about a certain economically prosperous, Latino-dense, pot-smoking western square state, where the GOP voters are of the Religious Right variety, totally unfavorable for Trump?  Probably should not be colored green.

But Florida is neither square nor western?
Just kidding.
Yes, Colorado as well.

[Kingpoleon]

*flips out about South Carolina*

Is every poster going to have a pet trending state (you with SC, a certain poster with NH (who is largely right, even if it is funny).  I declare that Iowa will vote for Trump and over the next few cycles will become a safe Republican state.

I'm debating on whether Alaska or Mississippi should be my obsession.

Alaska's pho-moderates who are Murkowski/Walker voters. "Cool" AK youngsters maybe?

Anyway, LOL at VT. The media is still insisting it could ever vote Democratic. Calm VT men vote for Bernie Sanders to solidify their "independent" status and sometimes support Democratic/Progressive joint nominees to seem more "nonpartisan". Scott will win in a landslide, especially if the Democrats nominate an energetic woman.

[indietraveler]

LOL, i wonder how much they'll shift the map once polling starts showing otherwise.
 NV, NH and WI will not be close compared to other states. Until polling proves otherwise you might as well put PA and MI as safe D, don't we go through this each cycle?

Clinton is a solid 257, I think, until polls start to show otherwise. Looking at the map, I realize now she's in better shape than I thought. Democrats better not become over confident.

[NeverAgain]

LOL Nevada and Wisconsin! CNN you silly gooses, legitimately though you know nothing of this race if you believe this a viable map.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I see 272 as leaning Dem right now. Everything  else is secondary

Can you just have this as your sig or something, because about 95% of your posts recently include this concept?

[Figueira]

Obviously if it was Hildebert Clinton vs. Donatienne Trump then CNN's New Hampshire rating would be correct.

Am I doing this right?

[MisterElection2001]

My guess is that the election will all come down to Ohio (if Donald Trump does well).

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

*flips out about South Carolina*

Is every poster going to have a pet trending state (you with SC, a certain poster with NH (who is largely right, even if it is funny).  I declare that Iowa will vote for Trump and over the next few cycles will become a safe Republican state.

My "pet trending state" is probably going to be Nevada if the media keeps playing this game.

[DS0816]

This is just a generic battleground map. 

Generically appropriate.

It's not only the "news source" offering up a "generic battleground map."

[RINO Tom]

I see 272 as leaning Dem right now. Everything  else is secondary

I'd like to hear more about this, you might be on to something.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

*flips out about South Carolina*

Is every poster going to have a pet trending state (you with SC, a certain poster with NH (who is largely right, even if it is funny).  I declare that Iowa will vote for Trump and over the next few cycles will become a safe Republican state.

I'm debating on whether Alaska or Mississippi should be my obsession.

Alaska's pho-moderates who are Murkowski/Walker voters. "Cool" AK youngsters maybe?

What the heck.  I'm officially obsessed with Texas's inevitable flip to strong D.  I will not STFU about this until 2040 when it actually happens.

[Maxwell]

Why release a battleground map if we have no polling for the battleground states?

[Doimper]

*flips out about South Carolina*

Why? South Carolina is solidly red, probably the only state left on the Eastern Seaboard with that distinction.

[Gass3268]

Here's NBC's map:

[Doimper]

Here's NBC's map:

[img]http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_18/1526791/battlegroundmap_e47d6fdeed646ab940e50fbbdb9a6815.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.png[img]

That's a little more reasonable. At least they don't have Nevada as a tossup.

But wait, NJ is only lean Dem? What the hell?

[muon2]

Of their tossups, my prediction has the following list voting MORE democratic than PA, which I have at D+5.42:
NV (D+19.81)
[CT (D+19.36)]
[OR (D+19.35)]
[NJ (D+17.91)]
[ME (D+17.27)]
CO (D+14.97)
[MI (D+11.73)]
WI (D+10.06)
NH (D+7.75)
VA (D+7.67)
[MN (D+7.56)]
IA (D+7.29)

That only leaves these closer on the D side than PA:
FL (D+4.08)
OH (D+3.03)
NC (D+1.17)

Additionally, I have AZ (R+1.19) being closer than PA, and more fitting of the tossup category. And I have TX (R+6.05) and MT (R+7.29) being closer than GA (R+7.30), and IN (R+7.51) being close as well.


But of course, I could be wrong, and CNN could be right.

What do these numbers mean? They certainly aren't the usual PVI numbers or anything like that.

When one uses D+ or R+ it means the difference between that party's share of the two-party vote compared to the party's share of the national two-party vote. Officially the results are supposed to to be averaged over two presidential cycles. D+ and R+ are not just the difference between the D and R votes.

For example in 2012 Obama got 51.01% to 47.15% for Romney. That totals 98.16% so Obama got 51.97% (51.01%/0.9816) of the two party vote. In IL Obama won 57.50% to 40.66%, which gave Obama 58.58% of the two party vote in IL. The difference between his share in IL and the national share is 6.61%, so one could say that IL was D+6.61 in 2012, which would round off to D+7.