538: What a Clinton landslide would look like
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:16:10 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 Election
  538: What a Clinton landslide would look like
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: 538: What a Clinton landslide would look like  (Read 2780 times)
Skye
yeah_93
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,579
Venezuela


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 12, 2016, 01:50:29 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/

I think it's an interesting article overall. I doubt the map looks as blue as the last map, but the possibilities certainly are there.
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,684
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2016, 01:54:25 PM »

I can see Clinton winning Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, South Carolina--if Trump gets too far.
Logged
5280
MagneticFree
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,404
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2016, 01:55:25 PM »

If Hillary wins in a landslide in 2016, how many states can the GOP flip back in 2020 or 2024 with a successful election?
Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2016, 01:59:10 PM »
« Edited: August 12, 2016, 02:00:42 PM by Arch »

What we've seen this last week is the start of a shift from Scenario 1 to Scenario 2. It is entirely possible we might end up with Scenario 2 if Trump keeps going down the abyss with his unconstitutional and un-American statements. Scenario 3 is extreme, but something like a bombshell reveal from his tax returns on top of all that he's already been doing could push it there.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2016, 02:04:53 PM »

It looks a lot like Map 1 right now. While it's possible that the race could tighten again, it's just as possible that Trump could continue to say idiotic things, and push even more people away from him, which would move things closer to Map 2, with maybe some of the states in Map 3 flipping. Map 3 in its entirety is probably a pipe dream, but it sure would be nice to see Trump rejected so soundly.
Logged
psychprofessor
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,293


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2016, 02:12:55 PM »

It looks a lot like Map 1 right now. While it's possible that the race could tighten again, it's just as possible that Trump could continue to say idiotic things, and push even more people away from him, which would move things closer to Map 2, with maybe some of the states in Map 3 flipping. Map 3 in its entirety is probably a pipe dream, but it sure would be nice to see Trump rejected so soundly.

I actually think the debates can shift the map from 1 to 2 - when voters are able to see them side by side, I don't really think there will be anything to gain for Trump.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2016, 02:16:46 PM »

Map 3 does look quite a bit extreme,  it would require an entire segment of Republican voters to shift to support Clinton.    If nothing else it would probably mark the end of the extreme polarization we see nowadays.     

I would say right now we're at or around Map 1.
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2016, 02:42:59 PM »

I have her at scenario 2.5, winning by 14.
Logged
Angel of Death
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,411
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2016, 03:23:04 PM »

Scenario 3 is extreme, but something like a bombshell reveal from his tax returns on top of all that he's already been doing could push it there.

An issue concerning a person's tax returns sounds really mundane for it to cause otherwise die-hard holdout states to finally flip.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2016, 03:24:47 PM »

Scenario 2 might just deliver Congress for us if voting patterns are even somewhat similar to 2012. We need somewhere between 7% - 8% win in the House PV to be competitive for a majority, and the higher we go the more likely it is that we break the GOP hold on the chamber. The days of mass split ticket voting are gone (for now) and there will be no 1996 scenario in this political climate.

That said, scenario 1 seems to be the most plausible outcome based on the current data. Scenario 2 seems like the best-case win, and even with a continuation of a Trump implosion, it seems more like to get a PV between S1 and S2.

I won't really even entertain scenario 3 right now. Not until Trump is discovered to be a serial killer with 300+ bodies on his hands, or running a human trafficking ring, or... whatever.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2016, 03:49:01 PM »

I stand by my map in a elevenish point win:

389: Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine - ~54.0%
149: Donald Trump/Mike Pence - ~42.8%
Others - 3.2%

I think Indiana, Missouri, Utah, and Alaska flip before Georgia. South Carolina flips just after Georgua.
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2016, 05:05:32 PM »

If it's Election Day and Trump still down by 5 points in polls, it might trigger his supporters to  staying home => Clinton +10 Evil
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2016, 05:23:08 PM »

If Hillary wins in a landslide in 2016, how many states can the GOP flip back in 2020 or 2024 with a successful election?
It's like how Democrats were doomed in 1976 after Nixon won 49 states, and 1992 after Papa Bush won 40 states.
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 #13 on: August 12, 2016, 11:20:13 PM »

Scenario 3 would have been possible had Sanders or Webb won the Democratic nomination.

A scenario where Webb wins the nomination is as silly as one where Pataki wins the nomination, because literally nobody wanted them.
Logged
freedomburns
FreedomBurns
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,237


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2016, 12:11:07 AM »

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

What A Clinton Landslide Would Look Like
By Nate Silver
AUG 12, 2016 AT 1:40 PM

<...>

But there’s another possibility staring us right in the face: A potential Hillary Clinton landslide. Our polls-only model projects Clinton to win the election by 7.7 percentage points, about the same margin by which Barack Obama beat John McCain in 2008. And it assigns a 35 percent chance to Clinton winning by double digits.

Our other model, polls-plus, is much more conservative about Clinton’s prospects. If this were an ordinary election, the smart money would be on the race tightening down the stretch run, and coming more into line with economic “fundamentals” that suggest the election ought to be close. Since this is how the polls-plus model “thinks,” it projects Clinton to win by around 4 points, about the margin by which Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012 — a solid victory but a long way from a landslide.

<...>

Perhaps the strongest evidence for a potential landslide against Trump is in the state-by-state polling, which has shown him underperforming in any number of traditionally Republican states. It’s not just Georgia and Arizona, where polls have shown a fairly close race all year. At various points, polls have shown Clinton drawing within a few percentage points of Trump — and occasionally even leading him — in states such as Utah, South Carolina, Texas, Alaska, Kansas and even Mississippi.

Just how bad could it get? Let’s start by giving Clinton the 332 electoral votes that Obama won in 2012. That’s obviously not a safe assumption: The race could shift back toward Trump, and even if it doesn’t, Clinton could lose states such as Iowa or Nevada, where her polling has been middling even after her convention bounce. But as I said, we’re going to focus on Clinton’s upside case today.

<...>

 


 


 


Ok, that is interesting.  Thanks, Nate.  Now back to finishing off this glass of wine.
Logged
freedomburns
FreedomBurns
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,237


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2016, 12:24:04 AM »

See? Mississippi is actually, possibly, conceivably in play.  Don't be a hater.  Drink more red wine and BELIEVE..
Logged
freedomburns
FreedomBurns
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,237


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2016, 12:28:58 AM »

Dang it.  i looked.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,099
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2016, 12:34:58 AM »

Scenario 3 would have been possible had Sanders or Webb won the Democratic nomination.
With Webb? Hell no. With Sanders? Highly improbable.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2016, 01:10:39 AM »

Scenario 2 might just deliver Congress for us if voting patterns are even somewhat similar to 2012. We need somewhere between 7% - 8% win in the House PV to be competitive for a majority, and the higher we go the more likely it is that we break the GOP hold on the chamber. The days of mass split ticket voting are gone (for now) and there will be no 1996 scenario in this political climate.

That said, scenario 1 seems to be the most plausible outcome based on the current data. Scenario 2 seems like the best-case win, and even with a continuation of a Trump implosion, it seems more like to get a PV between S1 and S2.

I won't really even entertain scenario 3 right now. Not until Trump is discovered to be a serial killer with 300+ bodies on his hands, or running a human trafficking ring, or... whatever.

As a Democrat, I'm downright salivating at the thought of something like Scenario 3 (and even Nate himself said ND and NE-AL could flip as well in that sort of landslide). That's the kind of result that would bring about catastrophic results down-ballot. Republicans would be destroyed in a way we haven't seen in at least a generation. It's hard to see right now what would get us that result, as much as I might like to see it. Most likely, it'd take a full-blown public split between Trump and the RNC (i.e. the RNC tries a 1996-style strategy and Trump retaliates with proverbial nuclear force), as in a true civil war in the party right in the middle of a general election.

If the election were held today, I think Scenario 1 is practically spot-on. I think Democrats definitely take the Senate, but I'm not sure an eight-point Hillary victory if enough for Democrats to win back the House. I think it'd be close, maybe a 1/3 chance. The reason I'm more bullish on Democratic chances in the House with a sizable Hillary victory than some is that I think it coincides with a Republican suburban collapse. A big enough win in the suburbs will break down the gerrymanders. For example, if Hillary is indeed up by 40 points or even 2-1 in the Philly suburbs, PA-08 is long gone, PA-07 isn't far behind, and even PA-06 could be in jeopardy. I know the latter two aren't on the radar, but I don't think those kind of margins at the top of the ticket are survivable.

I think the race could evolve into Scenario 2 and some national and state polls do suggest that. I don't think we're there yet, but if things continue as they do, that could be the trajectory. At most, we've probably hit somewhere between Scenario 1 and 2. As I mentioned before, I think that's the point at which the Republican House falling becomes more likely than not. A full-blown Scenario 2 probably gives Democrats both Houses of Congress with some seats to spare. If Hillary Clinton wants to not only win, but actually try to pass some big legislation, she needs to fight hard for Scenario 2.
Logged
HAnnA MArin County
semocrat08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,037
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2016, 01:17:20 AM »

In the beautiful 16-point HRC landslide, I'm curious as to why Nate believes South Dakota would go blue/Atlas red and North Dakota wouldn't? Aren't the states almost exactly mirror images of one another?
Logged
Flake
Flo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,688
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2016, 02:11:10 AM »

In the beautiful 16-point HRC landslide, I'm curious as to why Nate believes South Dakota would go blue/Atlas red and North Dakota wouldn't? Aren't the states almost exactly mirror images of one another?

South Dakota's sole purpose is to make maps ugly.
Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2016, 02:19:29 AM »

In the beautiful 16-point HRC landslide, I'm curious as to why Nate believes South Dakota would go blue/Atlas red and North Dakota wouldn't? Aren't the states almost exactly mirror images of one another?

South Dakota's sole purpose is to make maps ugly.

This. Also, I don't think they're quit mirror images of each other given how the Democratic primaries have turned out multiple times.
Logged
HAnnA MArin County
semocrat08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,037
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2016, 03:48:55 AM »

In the beautiful 16-point HRC landslide, I'm curious as to why Nate believes South Dakota would go blue/Atlas red and North Dakota wouldn't? Aren't the states almost exactly mirror images of one another?

South Dakota's sole purpose is to make maps ugly.

This. Also, I don't think they're quit mirror images of each other given how the Democratic primaries have turned out multiple times.

I was mostly referring to general election results, but in terms of the primaries, worth noting that South Dakota had a primary both times and North Dakota had a caucus. They're practically the same in terms of population and demographics. I know North Dakota is more religious than South Dakota, maybe that's why, or do the Natives turn out higher in South Dakota?
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,576
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2016, 03:52:49 AM »

Just imagine Donny's face if the last scenario happens.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 14, 2016, 04:01:13 AM »

In the beautiful 16-point HRC landslide, I'm curious as to why Nate believes South Dakota would go blue/Atlas red and North Dakota wouldn't? Aren't the states almost exactly mirror images of one another?

South Dakota's sole purpose is to make maps ugly.

This. Also, I don't think they're quit mirror images of each other given how the Democratic primaries have turned out multiple times.

I was mostly referring to general election results, but in terms of the primaries, worth noting that South Dakota had a primary both times and North Dakota had a caucus. They're practically the same in terms of population and demographics. I know North Dakota is more religious than South Dakota, maybe that's why, or do the Natives turn out higher in South Dakota?

I'm not going after you, I just wanted to quote the most recent poster on this subject. If you read the entire article and thus the end, Nate says:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
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 0.063 seconds with 14 queries.