Last call: Does Trump win the popular vote?

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Item # 1 on the progressive agenda needs to be abolishing the electoral college!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Item # 1 on the progressive agenda needs to be abolishing the electoral college!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

It would need a lot of Republican votes unless Democrats manage to control very many states. They have Oregon and Connecticut right now, and I think that's it for states that haven't already passed it. Maybe after the midterms.

[Lincoln Republican]

No he will not.

But that is only due to the looney pot smoking zealots on the whacky Left Coast.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

So it seems to end  C ~+1.8, hehe. What was the record?

[NHI]

But for California, Trump would be leading in the popular vote.

[AtorBoltox]

But for California, Trump would be leading in the popular vote.

And? California is part of the country, and the votes of its people actually count, as much as you may not like it.

[EpicHistory]

So it seems to end  C ~+1.8, hehe. What was the record?

If I understand the formula for calculating PVI, this means North Carolina is now trending fairly strongly Republican, while Florida, Colorado, Texas, and Nevada are doing likewise at a lesser margin. If you adjust Virginia for the perfect storm of factors that hit Trump there this year, it stayed even or even slightly trended Republican.

We're definitely in a realignment folks, and the whole notion of those states trending D just got blown wide open.

[danny]

If I understand the formula for calculating PVI, this means North Carolina is now trending fairly strongly Republican, while Florida, Colorado, Texas, and Nevada are doing likewise at a lesser margin. If you adjust Virginia for the perfect storm of factors that hit Trump there this year, it stayed even or even slightly trended Republican.

We're definitely in a realignment folks, and the whole notion of those states trending D just got blown wide open.

All of the states you mentioned except for Nevada trended D (might change a bit with the final count), Texas had the second biggest D trend of all states.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Of course not.

Nate Silver sort of called it again.  Earlier this year, he stated that if things got close, Hillary couldn't count on the Electoral College to save her.

I would also state that the fact that Trump lost the popular vote doesn't make the result illegitimate in any way.  The EC is the way we now elect Presidents.  Candidates owe it to their supporters to focus on that reality, and allocate their resources accordingly.  It behooves a candidate to try to eke out a battleground state at all costs and ignore a state like California or Texas that have lots of people, but are not likely to be competitive in a winner-take-all contest for electors.  The comparison will be made with Bush and Gore in 2000, but in that case, the issue was the manner of the way a critical recount was handled, and the politicized way in which the SCOTUS decided the matter.  (In a perfect world, there would have been a hand recount of every ballot in FL, but that didn't happen, of course.)  That's not the case here; Trump has clearly won the states he's won, and there's no messy recount issue.

I would support ending the Electoral College because it would bring about different types of campaigns.  Candidates would not be able to cherry pick states; they would have to compete in a national constituency.  It would motivate a Donald Trump to expend valuable resources in upstate NY and pockets of CA (Bakersfield, Orange County) where a Democrat might put out more effort winning the Native American votes in the Plains states and the Mountain West, and in the predominantly black counties in Southern states, most of which are located in hopelessly Republican states and have state and local districts that are heavily gerrymandered to where the Democratic primary decides the contest.  The whole nature of campaigns would be different, and maybe, just maybe, pandering would be reduced somewhat.

[EpicHistory]

All of the states you mentioned except for Nevada trended D (might change a bit with the final count), Texas had the second biggest D trend of all states.

I'm talking about trend, not margin which are two distinct things. Even I was talking about margin, you'd still be wrong with regards to them all trending D because they only one that did that was Texas. North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, and Florida all trended Republican margin wise as well.

Yes, he doesn't know what he is talking about.  First of all, Clinton is likely to win the final PV by 1, not by 2.

Actually I do, I'm talking about trend, not margin. You can apologize for attempting to lambaste me when you didn't know what I was talking about. Second of all, according to the NYT, her margin is currently at 1.7%, and as you should know the general rule of thumb is to round up past 5.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Margin wise? Absolutely. Trend wise, however? It's actually the opposite if I'm doing the Cook PVI calculations correct. Let us look, shall we?

Texas -
Going into this cycle, Texas had a PVI of R+10. With Clinton at a 2% margin, this means Texas was 11% to the right of the nation which gives it a PVI of R+11. Now, under Cook's forumla, you add the 2012 PVI with the 2016 PVI, then divide by twp (Again, if I understand it correctly). This gives you 21/2, which is 10.5 and thus you round up to get R+11. So, a slight shift to the right in the Lone Star state.

Florida -
Florida's PVI going into this was R+2, and for this cycle was R+3. Add the two together, divide by two and you get Florida likewise nudging up to R+3.

Nevada -
Going into this election, Nevada held a PVI of D+2 while their PVI for this cycle was EVEN. Add the two together, and Nevada's PVI falls to D+1.

Colorado -
Going in, Colorado was D+1 and ended up being D+1. We don't even have to do the math on this one to realize their PVI remained the same.

North Carolina -
Going in, they were R+3 with the final result being R+6. Add them up, and then divided them and you get a new PVI of R+5.

[Pericles]

Clinton is set to win it by up to 2%. Her coalition was the biggest but in the wrong places. However, with Arizona, Georgia and Texas in single digits there is hope for the future. Trump is still the President and that should be recognised,  he won a lawful victory, but it doesn't mean he gets the respect or support of Democrats and the majority of Americans.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

All of the states you mentioned except for Nevada trended D (might change a bit with the final count), Texas had the second biggest D trend of all states.

I'm talking about trend, not margin which are two distinct things. Even I was talking about margin, you'd still be wrong with regards to them all trending D because they only one that did that was Texas. North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, and Florida all trended Republican margin wise as well.

Yes, he doesn't know what he is talking about.  First of all, Clinton is likely to win the final PV by 1, not by 2.

Actually I do, I'm talking about trend, not margin. You can apologize for attempting to lambaste me when you didn't know what I was talking about. Second of all, according to the NYT, her margin is currently at 1.7%, and as you should know the general rule of thumb is to round up past 5.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Margin wise? Absolutely. Trend wise, however? It's actually the opposite if I'm doing the Cook PVI calculations correct. Let us look, shall we?

Texas -
Going into this cycle, Texas had a PVI of R+10. With Clinton at a 2% margin, this means Texas was 11% to the right of the nation which gives it a PVI of R+11. Now, under Cook's forumla, you add the 2012 PVI with the 2016 PVI, then divide by twp (Again, if I understand it correctly). This gives you 21/2, which is 10.5 and thus you round up to get R+11. So, a slight shift to the right in the Lone Star state.

Florida -
Florida's PVI going into this was R+2, and for this cycle was R+3. Add the two together, divide by two and you get Florida likewise nudging up to R+3.

Nevada -
Going into this election, Nevada held a PVI of D+2 while their PVI for this cycle was EVEN. Add the two together, and Nevada's PVI falls to D+1.

Colorado -
Going in, Colorado was D+1 and ended up being D+1. We don't even have to do the math on this one to realize their PVI remained the same.

North Carolina -
Going in, they were R+3 with the final result being R+6. Add them up, and then divided them and you get a new PVI of R+5.

You're missing the important step: the margin needs to be halved to get PVI. It is a representation of how many points above 50 the candidate would get, with the same margin in a 2 way race. So you are utterly wrong.

[SingingAnalyst]

Clinton is up by 670k according to Fox news.

[NOVA Green]

Clinton is up by 670k according to Fox news.

Fox news is behind.... Clinton is +700k and we should get another big dump from Cali today.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

The Electoral College should be abolished.  The argument for keeping it is that without it the candidates would just focus on states like California, New York and Texas.  Well guess what, now we just have candidates focusing on states like New Hampshire, Ohio, and Florida every single cycle.  Why are their votes more important than states where a large portion of the population lives?  Because they are more politically diverse?  Not so much, California and Texas are just as diverse.

This is why the CA/TX/NY argument falls flat. Even with 80% in all of the most 11 populous states, which is an absurd notion, you still get only 45%. The best thing about NPV is that a diverse coalition really will matter, because there is no overriding and cohesive social group in the US at large, as opposed to the WWC which decides all elections nowadays.

[Nyvin]

Texas -
Going into this cycle, Texas had a PVI of R+10. With Clinton at a 2% margin, this means Texas was 11% to the right of the nation which gives it a PVI of R+11. Now, under Cook's forumla, you add the 2012 PVI with the 2016 PVI, then divide by twp (Again, if I understand it correctly). This gives you 21/2, which is 10.5 and thus you round up to get R+11. So, a slight shift to the right in the Lone Star state.

Florida -
Florida's PVI going into this was R+2, and for this cycle was R+3. Add the two together, divide by two and you get Florida likewise nudging up to R+3.

Nevada -
Going into this election, Nevada held a PVI of D+2 while their PVI for this cycle was EVEN. Add the two together, and Nevada's PVI falls to D+1.

Colorado -
Going in, Colorado was D+1 and ended up being D+1. We don't even have to do the math on this one to realize their PVI remained the same.

North Carolina -
Going in, they were R+3 with the final result being R+6. Add them up, and then divided them and you get a new PVI of R+5.

This is all completely wrong.    You don't understand PVI at all.

[wolfsblood07]

The popular vote is irrelevant.  It's 51 separate elections, and everyone knows that going in, and allocates resources accordingly.  It's set up this way for a reason, so that each state has its own say in electing the president.  I would say the same if Hillary had won the election but lost the popular vote.

By the way, it's impossible to know how the vote would have turned out if it were a national popular vote election.  Republicans would have thrown a lot of resources at making sure illegal aliens weren't voting in California, and a lot of people who stayed home may have voted.  Trump probably would have won anyway.  

[beaver2.0]

At this point I firmly say no.

[NOVA Green]

There is absolutely a 0.001% chance that Trump will win the popular vote, although in theory it is mathematically possible....

Been running the Cali County numbers versus the statewide updated website, and although there has been a minor dip in the percentages based upon VbM ballots counted from (Amador, Contra Costa, Imperial, Kern, Marin, Orange, San Benito, San Bernadino, San Diego, San Francisco, SLO, San Mateo, Santa Clara, etc.... this is just noise.

As I have stated before, there are sill a ton of votes yet to be counted in Cali, although I think the number remaining is down towards 3.5 Million at this point, considering the discrepancy between county reporting and statewide numbers, however LA County has still not reported at all, and over 25% of the estimated ballots are provisionals, that skew heavily Democratic are still yet to be counted, so yes Clinton will likely win the PV by 1.5 Million Votes and a 1.2-1.5% PV margin, regardless of outstanding votes in other states....

At this point I am starting to think that Clinton could possibly crack 75% in LA County and Trump might slink as low as 20% in the most populous county in America.....

There are still an estimated 598k VbMs and 421k Provisionals in this one county alone that already created an historic Dem-Rep record of (72-23).... Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan would be churning in their graves to see the debacle that is the modern Republican Party.

Next stop Texas...... Trump can deport all the foreign national criminals he wants, but it won't help him at all in Texas, since the vast majority of Tejas Latinos (American Citizens to any of you alt.right racist a**holes floating around), have decided to shift dramatically to the Democratic Party.

Who would have predicted that Harris County would be +12 Clinton, or Fort Bend County would flip to +5 Clinton?

Anyways, I'll speak my mind freely, and some of y'all folks that never lived down there think just because you look at stats and county maps have some sort of special insights don't have a clue what your talking about....

This is not your grandmas and grandpas Texas, and although we all love the history and the National Liberation movement that led to succession from Mexico at a time of  the equivalency of military rule and Fascism in Mexico, the reality is that most Texans actually live in major metro areas, and we live, work, and are married to and have family with a ton of mixed ethnic backgrounds and religious identity.

Texas will continue to move Democrat regardless of some of the pipe-dreams of the Young Republicans that dominate the forum, toking a ton of herb while picturing themselves as the next Karl Rove braniac from UT, who from the early '70s on was analyzing the data from an old mainframe and printing the numbers out and taking them home to study more.

All being said, I don't disrespect Karl Rove at all for his strategic and math genius, and quite frankly think that is Republicans in the House and Senate could potentially at least created a short-term Republican majority.....

Instead, we have a one-term President Trump where Texas, Arizona, and Georgia are on the line, while Trump hangs out in PA/MN/WI/MI/IA/OH and tries to convince WWC voters that he is a man of people when the s**t inevitably collapses after the longest period of economic expansion in modern American history.

[Klartext89]

@NOVA Green:

I won't attack you for having dreams, but it's certainly not good if you translate them into reality.

1. "At this point I am starting to think that Clinton could possibly crack 75% in LA County and Trump might slink as low as 20% in the most populous county in America"

Congrats to President elect Hillary Clinton. Come on dude, that's simply unimportant and given todays demos of CA and especially LA, it is surprising like an USA Golden medal in Olympic Basketball.

2. " Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan would be churning in their graves to see the debacle that is the modern Republican Party."

Rofl, sure ;-) With CA demographics they would get beaten as well - badly and with certainty of Apple still existing in 2018. You should focus on FDR. He'll surely won't laugh and celebrate about the white-working class results.

3. Texas/Arizona/Latinos. Well... It gets boring, cause we heard it all over 2016 and we all saw it was bullsh**t. Latinos are no voting block like Blacks, there are many different kinds of Latinos. Different heritage countries, different level of assimilation, and much more diversity with income, political views, biggest issues. Trump won 34% of Texas Latinos, the more the times flees, the more they grew up and concentrate on economy, national security, crime, fiscal issues and religious issues instead of only voting because of immigration policy.

4. Georgia: Mississippi as the model. Less Whites? More GOP %.

All in all, it bothers well for the GOP. Less white working people with Union Background and "I always voted Democratic"-nonsense, less Blacks who let themself fool by the Democratic Party because "every Republican is a racist and wants to implement slavery", more catholic Latinos, more modern Blacks with an open mind towards conservative policies, more white votes who don't want to know anything from the Democratic Party anymore.

I'm very relaxed when reading nightmare Scenarios, but dream on ;-)