FiveThirtyEight best case scenarios for both candidates

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I decided to see, as of today, what would happen if each candidate won every state they had at least a 25% chance of winning, according to the fivethirtyeight.com prediction (edit: using "polls only"):

Trump:

Trump 273
Clinton 265


Clinton:

Clinton 468
Trump 70

So, basically, these two events have equal probability?  

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Note: Nate doesn't have numbers for NE and ME CDs.

Never mind.  (Thanks, Libertarian Socialist.)

[Wells]

You're forgetting ME-2 for Trump and NE-1 and -2 for Hillary.

Note: Nate doesn't have numbers for NE and ME CDs.

Actually, he does: NE 1 2 3 ME 1 2

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

You're forgetting ME-2 for Trump and NE-1 and -2 for Hillary.

Note: Nate doesn't have numbers for NE and ME CDs.

Actually, he does: NE 1 2 3 ME 1 2

Groovy.  Thanks!

[Boston Bread]

Clinton:

Clinton 468
Trump 70

So, basically, these two events have equal probability?  

No Utah? Junk model!

[Dereich]

In before TN Volunteer flips his lid about New Hampshire.

[Torie]

I decided to see, as of today, what would happen if each candidate won every state they had at least a 25% chance of winning, according to the fivethirtyeight.com prediction (edit: using "polls only"):

Trump:

Trump 273
Clinton 265


Clinton:

Clinton 468
Trump 70

So, basically, these two events have equal probability?  

What's the rationale for ME-02 going for Trump, in his best case scenario, while PA does not? ME-02 has a Dem PVI of 3%, while PA has a Dem PVI of 1%, for starters.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Here are the "polls plus" best case (25% chance) best case scenarios:

Trump:

292-246

Clinton:

385-153

[This account no longer in use.]

> Kansas

[Wells]

> Kansas

That's Zogby's fault.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

What's the rationale for ME-02 going for Trump, in his best case scenario, while PA does not? ME-02 has a Dem PVI of 3%, while PA has a Dem PVI of 1%, for starters.

If you look at the polls database for PA, there are several wonky polls from highly rated pollsters:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/pennsylvania/#plus

There's a heavily-weighted D+13 poll from April, D+13 poll from June, and D+11 poll from March.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

> Kansas

That's Zogby's fault.

On Planet Zogby, us do opposite of Earthly things.  Is big crime to adjust for demographics or party preference on Planet Zogby!

[Hatman 🍁]

She wins Utah and Arkansas before Mississippi I think.

[MT Treasurer]

MUH SOLID D FOOLS GOLD PA!

MUH ELASTIC SWINGY NH!

Lol Nate.

[Holmes]

She wins Utah and Arkansas before Mississippi I think.

Much more African-Americans in Mississippi though. She has to move less whites there compared to Arkansas.

[Vosem]

I decided to see, as of today, what would happen if each candidate won every state they had at least a 25% chance of winning, according to the fivethirtyeight.com prediction (edit: using "polls only"):

Trump:

Trump 273
Clinton 265


Clinton:

Clinton 468
Trump 70

So, basically, these two events have equal probability?  

What's the rationale for ME-02 going for Trump, in his best case scenario, while PA does not? ME-02 has a Dem PVI of 3%, while PA has a Dem PVI of 1%, for starters.

Probably there's been more polling of PA then ME-2, so the model is more confident of Clinton's chances in PA.

UT and KS need flipped in Trump's worst-case scenario. Indeed, I suspect the other Rocky Mountain states (ID and WY) probably flip before Kansas; there's more persuadables there.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

She wins Utah and Arkansas before Mississippi I think.

Clinton has never polled better than 11 points behind Trump.  She may do considerably better than Obama, but Obama lost the state by 24 points.  For Utah, there is polling data suggesting a much higher probability of it flipping, but not as much as Mississippi.  Polls-only does give Clinton a better shot at Utah than Trump at Pennsylvania.

After Mississipi, Nate currently has states flipping for Clinton in this order:

Polls-only:
Mississippi: 32.5% Chance
South Dakota: 30.2%
Indiana: 29.8%
North Dakota: 28.8%
Alaska: 28.8%
Texas: 28.6%
Montana: 28.5%
Utah: 24.9%
Tennessee: 18.1%
Nebraska: 15.1%
Kentucky: 14.8%
Arkansas: 12.2%

Polls-plus:
Mississippi: 15.3%
Kansas: 13.5%
Texas: 12.7%
Utah: 6.8%
Tennessee:  6.2%
Nebraska: 5.8%
Kentucky: 4.8%
Arkansas: 3.5%

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Clinton:

Clinton 468
Trump 70

So, basically, these two events have equal probability?  

No Utah? Junk model!

I know you jest, but Utah was 24.9%.  It very nearly made the cut.

[Mallow]

Here are the "polls plus" best case (25% chance) best case scenarios:

Trump:

292-246

Clinton:

385-153

This looks very reasonable to me, though I'd swap PA and CO on Trump's map, myself.

[Figueira]

She wins Utah and Arkansas before Mississippi I think.

Utah, maybe.

Arkansas, no. The days of Arkansas voting to the left of Mississippi are long gone.

[Soonerdem]

How in the world did Obama win Indiana? These models make it look like a safe R state

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

How in the world did Obama win Indiana? These models make it look like a safe R state

A combination of working class voter revolt against Bush globalism, and a very organized youth vote.  The wait to vote at Purdue University polling places was at times hours long, with lines wrapping around buildings.