Even Hillary gets 4.4% more Popular Votes TRUMP still can win(Demographics)

[StatesPoll]

Popular Votes Results(2012): Romney got 47.2% (Obama got 51.1%)
if Romney fliped FL+PA+ (MI or OH) He could win the Election by 47.5%ish.
(with this ‘If’, Despite of He gets about 3.5% less popular votes than Obama, He could win)

Election 2016. Considering Demographics, Roughly, if TRUMP gets 4.4% less popular votes(nationwide) than Hillary. He still can win.
Because GOP takes the advantages of electorate. +4.48% to Democratic Party.

Anyway,
Why in 2012 Deadline was -3.5% but in 2016 Deadline would be -4.4%?

The reason is simple, Because of the Blue States Population grew more than Red States.
But! Electorates number didn’t change at all during 2012->2016.

Look, Just with 2 Blue states. CA,NY.  CA: 38 Mil(2012) -> 39 Mil(2016) NY: 19.4 Mil(2012) -> 20 Mil(2016). Already 1.4 Million increased.(but electorates number is still same.)

With My Analysis. Roughly, TRUMP can beat hillary, Even with the scenario, Which is TRUMP gets 4.4% less popular votes(nationwide) than Hillary.
(of course, TRUMP wins the Popular votes but lost by electorate numbers <- This scenario is possible. Like If John Kerry won the Ohio in 2004. he could win, despite of Bush got 2.3% more popular votes.)  But I mean, the average situations.)

So, Even if TRUMP is losing to Hillary on National Poll something like -3%~-4.0%ish. It doesn’t matter that much for TRUMP. Because He is still likely win by electorates.(it’s so funny, when TRUMP beat Hillary on several national Polls. All the Mainstream Media said ‘Hillary still can win by electorate!’)

Abut the Details below,


USA Population(2016) Total : 322 Mil


I. Spreads of GOP: +3.55% + Spreads of DEM -0.93% =  +4.48% favor for GOP.


1. Blue States for DEM Total Spreads: -0.93%


1) Blue States Which are Minus Spreads for DEM (Total -3.27% Spreads)


(1) Population of CA(2016) Total: 39 Mil.  39/322 = 12.1%. Electoral Votes. 55 / 538 = 10.22%
Spreads for DEM: -1.9%
(2) Population of NY (2016) Total: 20 Mil.  20/322 = 6.2%. Electoral Votes. 29 / 538 = 5.4%
Spreads for DEM: -0.8%
(3) Population of IL(2016) Total : 13 Mil.  13/322 = 4.0%.Electoral Votes. 20/538 = 3.7%
Spreads for DEM: -0.3%
(4) Population of MA(2016) Total 6.8 Mil. 6.8/322=  2.11%. Electoral Votes 11/538 = 2.04%
Spreads for DEM: -0.07%
(5) Population of NJ(2016) Total 0.9 Mil. 9/322 = 2.8%. Electoral Votes 14/538 = 2.6%
Spreads for DEM: -0.2%


2) Blue States Which are Even spreads for DEM 

(1) Population of WA(2016) Total : 7 Mil.  7/322 = 2.2%. Electoral Votes 12/538 = 2.2%
Spreads for DEM: Even
(2) Population of MD(2016) Total 6 Mil. 6 / 322 = 1.86% Electoral Votes 10/538 = 1.86%
Spreads for DEM: Even


3) Blue States, Which are plus Spreads for DEM (Total +2.34% Spreads)

(1) Population of NM(2016) Total : 2 Mil. 2/322 = 0.62%. Electoral Votes 5/538 = 0.93%
Spreads for DEM: +0.31%
(2) Population of ME(2016) Total 1.33 Mil. 1.33 /322 = 0.41% Electoral Votes 3/ 538 (except ME-2)  = 0.55%
Spreads for DEM: +0.14%
(3) Population of HW(2015) Total 1.42 Mil. 1.42 /322 = 0.44% Electoral Votes 4/ 538 (except ME-2)  = 0.74%
Spreads for DEM: +0.3%

(4) Population of RI(2016) Total 1.0 Mil. 1/322 = 0.31%. Electoral Votes 4/538 = 0.74%
Spreads for DEM: +0.43%
(5) Population of DE(2016) Total 0.9 Mil. 0.9/322 = 0.28%. Electoral Votes 3/538 = 0.55%
Spreads for DEM: +0.27%
(6) Population of CT(2016) Total 3.6 Mil. 3.6/322 = 1.12%. Electoral Votes 7/538 = 1.3%
Spreads for DEM: +0.18%


(7) Population of VT(2016) Total 0.626 Mil. 3.6/322 = 0.19%. Electoral Votes 3/538 = 0.55%
Spreads for DEM: +0.36%
( Population of DC(2016) Total: 672k.  0.672 / 322 = 0.2%. But Electoral votes. 3/538 = 0.55%
Spreads for DEM: +0.35%


2. Red States for GOP. Total Spreads: +3.55%

1) Red States Which are Minus Spreads for GOP (Total -1.6% Spreads)

(1) Population of TX(2016) Total 27 Mil. 27/322 = 8.4%. Electoral Votes 38/538 = 7%
Spreads for GOP: -1.4%
(2) Population of GA(2016) Total 10 Mil. 10/322 = 3.1%. Electoral Votes 16/538 = 2.97%
Spreads for GOP: -0.13%
(3) Population of AZ(2016) Total 6.8 Mil. 6.8/322=  2.11%. Electoral Votes 11/538 = 2.04%
Spreads for GOP: -0.07%


2) Red States, Which are plus Spreads for GOP (Total +5.15% Spreads)

(1) Population of SC(2016) Total 4.9 Mil. 4.9/322 = 1.52%. Electoral Votes 9/538 = 1.67%
Spreads for GOP: +0.15%
(2) Population of AL(2016) Total 4.9 Mil. 4.9/322 = 1.52%. Electoral Votes 9/538 = 1.67%
Spreads for GOP: +1.15%
(3) Population of AK(2016) Total 0.73 Mil. 0.73/322 = 0.22%. Electoral Votes 3/538 = 0.55%
Spreads for GOP: +0.33%
(4) Population of MS(2016) Total 3Mil. 3/322 = 0.93%. Electoral Votes 6/538 = 1.11%
Spreads for GOP: +0.18%
(5) Population of AR(2016) Total 3Mil. 3/322 = 0.93%. Electoral Votes 6/538 = 1.11%
Spreads for GOP: +0.18%


(6) Population of LU(2016) Total 4.7Mil 4.7/322= 1.46%. Electoral Votes 8/538 = 1.48%
Spreads for GOP: +0.02%
(7) Population of KY(2016) Total 4.4Mil 4.4/322= 1.36%. Electoral Votes 8/538 = 1.48%
Spreads for GOP: +0.12%
( Population of OK(2016) Total 3.9 Mil 3.9/322= 1.21%. Electoral Votes 7/538 = 1.30%
Spreads for GOP: +0.09%
(9) Population of KS(2016) Total 2.9 Mil 2.9/322= 0.9%. Electoral Votes 6/538 = 1.11%
Spreads for GOP: +0.21%
(10) Population of TN(2016) Total 6.6 Mil 6.6/322= 2%. Electoral Votes 11/538 = 2.04%
Spreads for GOP: +0.04%


(11) Population of IN(2016) Total 6.6 Mil 6.6/322= 2%. Electoral Votes 11/538 = 2.04%
Spreads for GOP: +0.04%
(12) Population of WV(2016) Total 1.85 Mil 1.85/322= 0.57%. Electoral Votes 5/538 = 0.93%
Spreads for GOP: +0.36%
(13) Population of NE(2016) Total 1.9 Mil 1.9/322= 0.59%. Electoral Votes 5/538 = 0.93%
Spreads for GOP: +0.34%
(14) Population of UT(2016) Total 3Mil. 3/322 = 0.93%. Electoral Votes 6/538 = 1.11%
Spreads for GOP: +0.18%
(15) Population of ID(2016) Total 1.65 Mil. 1.65/322=  0.51%. Electoral Votes 4/538 = 0.74%
Spreads for GOP: +0.23%


(16) Population of SD(2016) Total 0.86 Mil. 0.86/322=  0.27%. Electoral Votes 3/538 = 0.55%
Spreads for GOP: +0.28%
(17) Population of ND(2016) Total 0.76 Mil. 0.76/322=  0.23%. Electoral Votes 3/538 = 0.55%
Spreads for GOP: +0.32%
(18) Population of MT(2016) Total 1.0 Mil. 1/322 = 0.31%. Electoral Votes 3/538 = 0.55%
Spreads for GOP: +0.24%
(19) Population of MT(2016) Total 0.76 Mil. 0.76/322=  0.23%. Electoral Votes 3/538 = 0.55%
Spreads for GOP: +0.32%
(20) Population of WY(2016) Total 0.59 Mil. 0.59/322=  0.18%. Electoral Votes 3/538 = 0.55%
Spreads for GOP: +0.37%


P.S.

Media used to say ‘Hispanic Popular is growing’ But Most of the Hispanic growth in Blue States. Not a swing states. so it can’t help that much.The fact: 21 million hispanics live in 3 Blue states NY,CA.IL. which is almost 40% of entire Hispanic Population in America.  Plus, DEM-GOP hispanic spreads is getting even smaller. Election 2012. Obama 71% - Romney 27% = +54% spreads for DEM.

NBC/SurveyMonkey National Poll 5/16-5/22 Total 14.5k RV. (1735 Hispanic RV) Hillary 64% - TRUMP 29% = +35% spreads for DEM. Which is 19% less than 2012.

[Panda Express]

Popular Votes Results(2012): Romney got 47.2% (Obama got 51.1%)
if Romney fliped FL+PA+ (MI or OH) He could win the Election by 47.5%ish.
(with this ‘If’, Despite of He gets about 3.5% less popular votes than Obama, He could win)

Election 2016. Considering Demographics, Roughly, if TRUMP gets 4.4% less popular votes(nationwide) than Hillary. He still can win.
Because GOP takes the advantages of electorate. +4.48% to Democratic Party.

Anyway,
Why in 2012 Deadline was -3.5% but in 2016 Deadline would be -4.4%?

The reason is simple, Because of the Blue States Population grew more than Red States.
But! Electorates number didn’t change at all during 2012->2016.

Look, Just with 2 Blue states. CA,NY.  CA: 38 Mil(2012) -> 39 Mil(2016) NY: 19.4 Mil(2012) -> 20 Mil(2016). Already 1.4 Million increased.(but electorates number is still same.)

With My Analysis. Roughly, TRUMP can beat hillary, Even with the scenario, Which is TRUMP gets 4.4% less popular votes(nationwide) than Hillary.
(of course, TRUMP wins the Popular votes but lost by electorate numbers <- This scenario is possible. Like If John Kerry won the Ohio in 2004. he could win, despite of Bush got 2.3% more popular votes.)  But I mean, the average situations.)

So, Even if TRUMP is losing to Hillary on National Poll something like -3%~-4.0%ish. It doesn’t matter that much for TRUMP. Because He is still likely win by electorates.(it’s so funny, when TRUMP beat Hillary on several national Polls. All the Mainstream Media said ‘Hillary still can win by electorate!’)

Abut the Details below,


USA Population(2016) Total : 322 Mil


I. Spreads of GOP: +3.55% + Spreads of DEM -0.93% =  +4.48% favor for GOP.


1. Blue States for DEM Total Spreads: -0.93%


1) Blue States Which are Minus Spreads for DEM (Total -3.27% Spreads)


(1) Population of CA(2016) Total: 39 Mil.  39/322 = 12.1%. Electoral Votes. 55 / 538 = 10.22%
Spreads for DEM: -1.9%
(2) Population of NY (2016) Total: 20 Mil.  20/322 = 6.2%. Electoral Votes. 29 / 538 = 5.4%
Spreads for DEM: -0.8%
(3) Population of IL(2016) Total : 13 Mil.  13/322 = 4.0%.Electoral Votes. 20/538 = 3.7%
Spreads for DEM: -0.3%
(4) Population of MA(2016) Total 6.8 Mil. 6.8/322=  2.11%. Electoral Votes 11/538 = 2.04%
Spreads for DEM: -0.07%
(5) Population of NJ(2016) Total 0.9 Mil. 9/322 = 2.8%. Electoral Votes 14/538 = 2.6%
Spreads for DEM: -0.2%


2) Blue States Which are Even spreads for DEM 

(1) Population of WA(2016) Total : 7 Mil.  7/322 = 2.2%. Electoral Votes 12/538 = 2.2%
Spreads for DEM: Even
(2) Population of MD(2016) Total 6 Mil. 6 / 322 = 1.86% Electoral Votes 10/538 = 1.86%
Spreads for DEM: Even


3) Blue States, Which are plus Spreads for DEM (Total +2.34% Spreads)

(1) Population of NM(2016) Total : 2 Mil. 2/322 = 0.62%. Electoral Votes 5/538 = 0.93%
Spreads for DEM: +0.31%
(2) Population of ME(2016) Total 1.33 Mil. 1.33 /322 = 0.41% Electoral Votes 3/ 538 (except ME-2)  = 0.55%
Spreads for DEM: +0.14%
(3) Population of HW(2015) Total 1.42 Mil. 1.42 /322 = 0.44% Electoral Votes 4/ 538 (except ME-2)  = 0.74%
Spreads for DEM: +0.3%

(4) Population of RI(2016) Total 1.0 Mil. 1/322 = 0.31%. Electoral Votes 4/538 = 0.74%
Spreads for DEM: +0.43%
(5) Population of DE(2016) Total 0.9 Mil. 0.9/322 = 0.28%. Electoral Votes 3/538 = 0.55%
Spreads for DEM: +0.27%
(6) Population of CT(2016) Total 3.6 Mil. 3.6/322 = 1.12%. Electoral Votes 7/538 = 1.3%
Spreads for DEM: +0.18%


(7) Population of VT(2016) Total 0.626 Mil. 3.6/322 = 0.19%. Electoral Votes 3/538 = 0.55%
Spreads for DEM: +0.36%
( Population of DC(2016) Total: 672k.  0.672 / 322 = 0.2%. But Electoral votes. 3/538 = 0.55%
Spreads for DEM: +0.35%


2. Red States for GOP. Total Spreads: +3.55%

1) Red States Which are Minus Spreads for GOP (Total -1.6% Spreads)

(1) Population of TX(2016) Total 27 Mil. 27/322 = 8.4%. Electoral Votes 38/538 = 7%
Spreads for GOP: -1.4%
(2) Population of GA(2016) Total 10 Mil. 10/322 = 3.1%. Electoral Votes 16/538 = 2.97%
Spreads for GOP: -0.13%
(3) Population of AZ(2016) Total 6.8 Mil. 6.8/322=  2.11%. Electoral Votes 11/538 = 2.04%
Spreads for GOP: -0.07%


2) Red States, Which are plus Spreads for GOP (Total +5.15% Spreads)

(1) Population of SC(2016) Total 4.9 Mil. 4.9/322 = 1.52%. Electoral Votes 9/538 = 1.67%
Spreads for GOP: +0.15%
(2) Population of AL(2016) Total 4.9 Mil. 4.9/322 = 1.52%. Electoral Votes 9/538 = 1.67%
Spreads for GOP: +1.15%
(3) Population of AK(2016) Total 0.73 Mil. 0.73/322 = 0.22%. Electoral Votes 3/538 = 0.55%
Spreads for GOP: +0.33%
(4) Population of MS(2016) Total 3Mil. 3/322 = 0.93%. Electoral Votes 6/538 = 1.11%
Spreads for GOP: +0.18%
(5) Population of AR(2016) Total 3Mil. 3/322 = 0.93%. Electoral Votes 6/538 = 1.11%
Spreads for GOP: +0.18%


(6) Population of LU(2016) Total 4.7Mil 4.7/322= 1.46%. Electoral Votes 8/538 = 1.48%
Spreads for GOP: +0.02%
(7) Population of KY(2016) Total 4.4Mil 4.4/322= 1.36%. Electoral Votes 8/538 = 1.48%
Spreads for GOP: +0.12%
( Population of OK(2016) Total 3.9 Mil 3.9/322= 1.21%. Electoral Votes 7/538 = 1.30%
Spreads for GOP: +0.09%
(9) Population of KS(2016) Total 2.9 Mil 2.9/322= 0.9%. Electoral Votes 6/538 = 1.11%
Spreads for GOP: +0.21%
(10) Population of TN(2016) Total 6.6 Mil 6.6/322= 2%. Electoral Votes 11/538 = 2.04%
Spreads for GOP: +0.04%


(11) Population of IN(2016) Total 6.6 Mil 6.6/322= 2%. Electoral Votes 11/538 = 2.04%
Spreads for GOP: +0.04%
(12) Population of WV(2016) Total 1.85 Mil 1.85/322= 0.57%. Electoral Votes 5/538 = 0.93%
Spreads for GOP: +0.36%
(13) Population of NE(2016) Total 1.9 Mil 1.9/322= 0.59%. Electoral Votes 5/538 = 0.93%
Spreads for GOP: +0.34%
(14) Population of UT(2016) Total 3Mil. 3/322 = 0.93%. Electoral Votes 6/538 = 1.11%
Spreads for GOP: +0.18%
(15) Population of ID(2016) Total 1.65 Mil. 1.65/322=  0.51%. Electoral Votes 4/538 = 0.74%
Spreads for GOP: +0.23%


(16) Population of SD(2016) Total 0.86 Mil. 0.86/322=  0.27%. Electoral Votes 3/538 = 0.55%
Spreads for GOP: +0.28%
(17) Population of ND(2016) Total 0.76 Mil. 0.76/322=  0.23%. Electoral Votes 3/538 = 0.55%
Spreads for GOP: +0.32%
(18) Population of MT(2016) Total 1.0 Mil. 1/322 = 0.31%. Electoral Votes 3/538 = 0.55%
Spreads for GOP: +0.24%
(19) Population of MT(2016) Total 0.76 Mil. 0.76/322=  0.23%. Electoral Votes 3/538 = 0.55%
Spreads for GOP: +0.32%
(20) Population of WY(2016) Total 0.59 Mil. 0.59/322=  0.18%. Electoral Votes 3/538 = 0.55%
Spreads for GOP: +0.37%


P.S.

Media used to say ‘Hispanic Popular is growing’ But Most of the Hispanic growth in Blue States. Not a swing states. so it can’t help that much.The fact: 21 million hispanics live in 3 Blue states NY,CA.IL. which is almost 40% of entire Hispanic Population in America.  Plus, DEM-GOP hispanic spreads is getting even smaller. Election 2012. Obama 71% - Romney 27% = +54% spreads for DEM.

NBC/SurveyMonkey National Poll 5/16-5/22 Total 14.5k RV. (1735 Hispanic RV) Hillary 64% - TRUMP 29% = +35% spreads for DEM. Which is 19% less than 2012.

shut up nerd

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

No no no no.

Please find another hobby.

[Xing]

Wonderful analysis! I'm curious, do you think Trump could win Washington? You mentioned him winning Oregon, and since those two states are basically the same (mostly white, pot-smoking hipsters), there must be a way he can win in Washington as well. I mean, whites are trending Republican anyway, and Trump can reach out to even more white voters. Plus, he did extremely well in the primary, so there must be a way! Right?

[Ljube]

I certainly agree that it is far more likely that Trumps loses the popular vote, but wins the Electoral College, than the other way around.

[Wisconsin+17]

Not with 15 percent Hispanics.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Nice job leaving out Colorado, Nevada, and Florida in your whole "Hispanics don't matter in swing states" shtick; it's quite telling. It's also cute how you use a single poll 5 months from election to claim that the gap has narrowed by comparing it to actual hard voting data from a past election, and that's not even getting into how your lone poll snapshots a period in the campaign where Donald Trump has consolidated his side of the field while Hillary Clinton hasn't, so Clinton still has ground left to gain. Meanwhile, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump has more to lose, especially among Cuban Americans in that ever so important swing state called Florida you don't seem to be aware exists.

But the real problem is that he's alienating more than just Hispanics; he's alienating Blacks, Asians, Millenials, women, and educated whites as well. That last one is important since educated whites make up a HUGE portion of the general electorate as well as in virtually every swing state, so Trump's losses in that area are particularly devastating. Doubling down on blue collar whites doesn't help when there's less of them every election and they never turn out in the same numbers as educated whites anyway.

Besides all of that, sure, he COULD win the EV while losing the popular vote, you've proven it's within the realm of hypothetical possibility. It's also hypothetically within the realm of possibility to win the EV by only winning the eleven most populated states if you ignore the fact they don't all vote the same. Similarly, you seem to be ignoring that the PV-EV difference by state partisan affiliation don't mean squat in terms of Safe EV totals, which Democratics unquestionably hold. This in turn, is evidence of you ignoring the importance of swing states (you don't seem to be very good with them) pushing the winner over the finish line. Democrats don't need to focus on very many, Republicans need to make a play in the majority of them. Considering how terrible a fit Trump is for most of those states' demographics whose rapid population shifts have been increasingly favoring Democrats, scraping by the skin of his teeth is the most generous win I'd be willing to give him.

But you're clearly more content putting on your wizardry hat and playing mathematical alchemy, so my attempt to convince you of your errors is likely as futile an endeavor as your attempt to turn that lead into gold.

[StatesPoll]

Nice job leaving out Colorado, Nevada, and Florida in your whole "Hispanics don't matter in swing states" shtick; it's quite telling. It's also cute how you use a single poll 5 months from election to claim that the gap has narrowed by comparing it to actual hard voting data from a past election, and that's not even getting into how your lone poll snapshots a period in the campaign where Donald Trump has consolidated his side of the field while Hillary Clinton hasn't, so Clinton still has ground left to gain. Meanwhile, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump has more to lose, especially among Cuban Americans in that ever so important swing state called Florida you don't seem to be aware exists.

But the real problem is that he's alienating more than just Hispanics; he's alienating Blacks, Asians, Millenials, women, and educated whites as well. That last one is important since educated whites make up a HUGE portion of the general electorate as well as in virtually every swing state, so Trump's losses in that area are particularly devastating. Doubling down on blue collar whites doesn't help when there's less of them every election and they never turn out in the same numbers as educated whites anyway.

Besides all of that, sure, he COULD win the EV while losing the popular vote, you've proven it's within the realm of hypothetical possibility. It's also hypothetically within the realm of possibility to win the EV by only winning the eleven most populated states if you ignore the fact they don't all vote the same. Similarly, you seem to be ignoring that the PV-EV difference by state partisan affiliation don't mean squat in terms of Safe EV totals, which Democratics unquestionably hold. This in turn, is evidence of you ignoring the importance of swing states (you don't seem to be very good with them) pushing the winner over the finish line. Democrats don't need to focus on very many, Republicans need to make a play in the majority of them. Considering how terrible a fit Trump is for most of those states' demographics whose rapid population shifts have been increasingly favoring Democrats, scraping by the skin of his teeth is the most generous win I'd be willing to give him.

But you're clearly more content putting on your wizardry hat and playing mathematical alchemy, so my attempt to convince you of your errors is likely as futile an endeavor as your attempt to turn that lead into gold.

1. Colorado
I really don't get it why Media and Democrats insist. Democratic Party has a favor in Colorado because of Hisapanics.

CNN Exit Poll 2012. Hispanic Voters share in CO. it's only 14%.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/CO/president/

I don't think there was a big change during just 4 years.(Hispanic Population growth in CO it wasnt that big + 4 years ago many CO republican didn't vote)

Last year Q-poll(November,2015) of Colorado
Hispanic: Hillary 54% | TRUMP 27% | Someone else 3% | Wouldn't vote 8% | DK/NA 9%

Hillary only has 27% edge of Hispanic.
14%(Hispanic Share) x 27%(spreads of Hillary) = 3.78% is that so great edge?

especially in Colorado, Black Voters Share : only 3%.

2. Florida
Hispanic voters share 17%(CNN exit Poll 2012)
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/FL/president/

Florida: TRUMP vs Hillary(Yougov/CBS 5/16-5/19, 995 LV)
Hispanics: TRUMP 36% | Hillary 50%
https://de.scribd.com/doc/313450291/CBS-News-2016-Battleground-Tracker-Florida-May-22

just 14% gaps.  17% x 14% = Hillary gets 2.4% edge. is that so great edge for Hillary??
Plus, Now Marco Rubio is saying he gonna help TRUMP. 

[Xing]

I really don't get it why Media and Democrats insist. Democratic Party has a favor in Colorado because of Hisapanics.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why proper punctuation is important. (not to mention proper spelling)

[Wells]

I really don't get it why Media and Democrats insist. Democratic Party has a favor in Colorado because of Hisapanics.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why proper punctuation is important. (not to mention proper spelling)

Freudian slip.

[LLR]

Why did you drop out of school in second grade to do this? Your grammar is awful, your posts make no sense, you aren't a part of any discussions you just post your crap and leave and you're wasting your life.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

If Trump wins while losing by over 4 points, there'll be some 1876-level shenanigans going on.

[Adam Griffin]

Nice job leaving out Colorado, Nevada, and Florida in your whole "Hispanics don't matter in swing states" shtick; it's quite telling.

I honestly couldn't bother to read what he wrote because it is just way too long (and I'm a total numbers guy), but the reality is...Latinos really don't matter as much as we hear. Ten years from now, it'll be a different story.

I've said it a few times on here lately already, but Romney could have won anywhere from 11% to 43% of the Latino vote nationally in 2012 and it wouldn't have flipped a single state (other than Florida, which was less than a one-point win and has a large Hispanic population, of which half are Cubans and don't express the same voting tendencies as most Latinos). On the upper end of that, Romney would have lost the popular vote by just a little less than two points and the EC would have been 303-235.

Colorado would have flipped at around 44%; Virginia and New Mexico at 45%. Even Bush didn't top those numbers in 2004. The reality is that the Latino vote as of right now is almost exclusively clustered in safe D/R states and therefore doesn't matter from the perspective of the Electoral College. Most states that are competitive have such small Latino populations that it'd have to be the thinnest of margins to make a difference...and even in the case of CO, NV & NM, if they vote anywhere near how they voted in 2008/2012, then the Latino vote doesn't make a difference in terms of the range of realistic turnout/support scenarios.

Obviously it is very short-sighted for the GOP to alienate Latinos, but alas. Unless it's 2000-close, it's not going make a difference in the overall outcome in presidential elections for another couple of elections (and even then, we're already winning in the states where that will largely be the case).

[heatcharger]

https://twitter.com/statespoll/status/736756806685327361

Very cute how Ohio is in the R category before Oregon, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Nevada go to the Dems.

Why do 37,000 idiots on Twitter follow you?

[Badger]

Go. Away. And. Take. Your. Awful. "Analysis". With. You.

[IceSpear]

Guys, the best way to get rid of him is to ignore him.

I know I am contributing by making this post, but this thread has already been tainted by giving him the attention he craves. From now on, let's agree to just ignore them.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Nice job leaving out Colorado, Nevada, and Florida in your whole "Hispanics don't matter in swing states" shtick; it's quite telling.

I honestly couldn't bother to read what he wrote because it is just way too long (and I'm a total numbers guy), but the reality is...Latinos really don't matter as much as we hear. Ten years from now, it'll be a different story.

I've said it a few times on here lately already, but Romney could have won anywhere from 11% to 43% of the Latino vote nationally in 2012 and it wouldn't have flipped a single state (other than Florida, which was less than a one-point win and has a large Hispanic population, of which half are Cubans and don't express the same voting tendencies as most Latinos). On the upper end of that, Romney would have lost the popular vote by just a little less than two points and the EC would have been 303-235.

Colorado would have flipped at around 44%; Virginia and New Mexico at 45%. Even Bush didn't top those numbers in 2004. The reality is that the Latino vote as of right now is almost exclusively clustered in safe D/R states and therefore doesn't matter from the perspective of the Electoral College. Most states that are competitive have such small Latino populations that it'd have to be the thinnest of margins to make a difference...and even in the case of CO, NV & NM, if they vote anywhere near how they voted in 2008/2012, then the Latino vote doesn't make a difference in terms of the range of realistic turnout/support scenarios.

Obviously it is very short-sighted for the GOP to alienate Latinos, but alas. Unless it's 2000-close, it's not going make a difference in the overall outcome in presidential elections for another couple of elections (and even then, we're already winning in the states where that will largely be the case).

Fair point, the true electoral power of Hispanics will unfold in the coming decades, but I doubt this will end up being 2000 type close this year. Winning over Hispanics may not in itself deliver the three states I mentioned as the demographics of those states currently stand, but they constitute large enough portions that alienating them wholesale requires you to compensate for the losses somewhere else, and considering how terrible Trump is at expanding his coalition, those are hits he really can't afford to be taking.

[Sorenroy]

https://twitter.com/statespoll/status/736756806685327361

Very cute how Ohio is in the R category before Oregon, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Nevada go to the Dems.

Why do 37,000 idiots on Twitter follow you?

If you post 28 new Tweets in 10 minutes, people are bound to find you and some of them might agree with you.