Politico: Trump Cracks the Friewal

[Adam Griffin]

The "blue firewall" is the only wall that Mexico would actually pay for.

"FRIEWAL!"

Learn it!

*freiwal

[Erich Maria Remarque]

The "blue firewall" is the only wall that Mexico would actually pay for.

"FRIEWAL!"

Learn it!

*freiwal

[Kevin]

The "blue firewall" is the only wall that Mexico would actually pay for.

"FRIEWAL!"

Learn it!

*freiwal

I stand corrected then!

[muon2]

The Democratic advantage in the Electoral college is basically a popular vote advantage. It's not as if states like WI or CO will vote Democratic no matter what, which is what the term "blue wall" kind of suggests.

Well of course the BW states are not invulnerable, but I still think it's indisputable right now that Democrats have an overall advantage in presidential elections. More and more Republican states are moving into the Democratic column and few Democratic states are showing any notable, immediate signs of game-changing, long-term Republican shifts. Many of the states we are calling new/emerging battlegrounds were reliably Republican prior to 2008.

Neither aspect of presidential elections are favorable to Republicans right now.

The advantage for the Dems in this decade is that in a generic two-party election where the vote is split equally the Dems would be expected to win with 272 EV based on the Cook PVIs for the states (VA is rated tossup by PVI). The freiwal assumes that the Dems get at least as many votes as the Pubs. That is not a certainty.

To see the Dems vulnerability consider states with PVIs of 1 or 2. The Dems have 39 EV at D+1 (CO, IA, NH, PA shown as 30%) and 26 EV at D+2 (ME-2, MN, NV, WI shown as 40%) so a drop by the Dems to 48% of the two-party vote could bring them down to only 206 EV. The Pubs have only two states (OH at R+1, FL at R+2) in that swing category.

[ursulahx]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So he actually hasn't cracked the 270 firewall. Okay.

[Senator Cris]

By winning Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, Iowa and ME-02, he'd be at 266. So he'd need one of New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania or Virginia.

The fact is that I don't think Trump will win Florida and Nevada and so replace these two states will be really difficult.

[Virginiá]

The advantage for the Dems in this decade is that in a generic two-party election where the vote is split equally the Dems would be expected to win with 272 EV based on the Cook PVIs for the states (VA is rated tossup by PVI). The freiwal assumes that the Dems get at least as many votes as the Pubs. That is not a certainty.

Well just to note, I wasn't necessarily suggesting our advantage = OC's freiwall, but rather that we have more states leaning closer to us than Republicans, and it's easier for us to get to 270 even if we dip below 50%. If a state is D+1 before the election, that doesn't always mean it will vote D+1 in that election, no? Otherwise PVIs would never change. Some emerging Democratic states are shifting towards us at a noticeable rate even between presidential elections. I see enough states favorable to Democrats in one way or another that Republicans seem to have an increasingly difficult time winning anything but a small (<290-300) electoral college majority. Even Bush's 2.46% win only netted him 286 electoral votes, and while things have changed since then, it has hardly gotten better (or significantly better) for Republicans.

Touching on TNVol's popular vote advantage idea - If that's the case, then it still means an overall Democratic advantage. If Republicans can't cobble together a PV win, or a comfortable PV win, then they become more and more disadvantaged. I'm finding it hard to see how Republicans can win decently in the popular vote without cratering Democratic turnout. Republicans have not really been bringing in nearly as many new voters for a long time now, and our voters, being younger than theirs and more diverse, turn out en masse every 4 years as opposed to 2. So if a 'good day' for Republicans means a 1.5% - 2.5% PV win, and a good EC win for them is something like 2004, then they still risk the EC.

Given that, until Republicans can start winning back the youth vote, if Democrats keep turnout from going to abysmal levels then I still see an overall advantage. I'm not sure going entirely by PVI on this for the aforementioned reason(s) is the best way to measure this, or is it?

[Wisconsin+17]

11 minutes for TN Volunteer to respond to the claim that NH is in play. Pretty good response time.

[muon2]

The advantage for the Dems in this decade is that in a generic two-party election where the vote is split equally the Dems would be expected to win with 272 EV based on the Cook PVIs for the states (VA is rated tossup by PVI). The freiwal assumes that the Dems get at least as many votes as the Pubs. That is not a certainty.

Well just to note, I wasn't necessarily suggesting our advantage = OC's freiwall, but rather that we have more states leaning closer to us than Republicans, and it's easier for us to get to 270 even if we dip below 50%. If a state is D+1 before the election, that doesn't always mean it will vote D+1 in that election, no? Otherwise PVIs would never change. Some emerging Democratic states are shifting towards us at a noticeable rate even between presidential elections. I see enough states favorable to Democrats in one way or another that Republicans seem to have an increasingly difficult time winning anything but a small (<290-300) electoral college majority. Even Bush's 2.46% win only netted him 286 electoral votes, and while things have changed since then, it has hardly gotten better (or significantly better) for Republicans.

Touching on TNVol's popular vote advantage idea - If that's the case, then it still means an overall Democratic advantage. If Republicans can't cobble together a PV win, or a comfortable PV win, then they become more and more disadvantaged. I'm finding it hard to see how Republicans can win decently in the popular vote without cratering Democratic turnout. Republicans have not really been bringing in nearly as many new voters for a long time now, and our voters, being younger than theirs and more diverse, turn out en masse every 4 years as opposed to 2. So if a 'good day' for Republicans means a 1.5% - 2.5% PV win, and a good EC win for them is something like 2004, then they still risk the EC.

Given that, until Republicans can start winning back the youth vote, if Democrats keep turnout from going to abysmal levels then I still see an overall advantage. I'm not sure going entirely by PVI on this for the aforementioned reason(s) is the best way to measure this, or is it?

I would frame the PV problem the other way. How do the Dems maintain Obama-levels of turnout without his aspirational positive message?

Negative messages tend to keep people home, that's why they are used. Youth voting is particularly elastic and easily turned off. Look at the weak turnout in 1988 (50.3% of VAP) or 1996 (48.1% of VAP) compared to 2012 (53.6% of VAP). A 5% drop off in turnout nationally will disproportionately impact Dems. Without 2008-12 type turnout the PV majority for Dems is much less certain.

[Virginiá]

I would frame the PV problem the other way. How do the Dems maintain Obama-levels of turnout without his aspirational positive message?

Negative messages tend to keep people home, that's why they are used. Youth voting is particularly elastic and easily turned off. Look at the weak turnout in 1988 (50.3% of VAP) or 1996 (48.1% of VAP) compared to 2012 (53.6% of VAP). A 5% drop off in turnout nationally will disproportionately impact Dems. Without 2008-12 type turnout the PV majority for Dems is much less certain.

That's a good point. I feel like turnout won't be as low as some think this November, mainly because of Trump & the fact that numerous polls that have correlated with higher turnout up to 2012 is showing a lot of attention being paid, but you're right that things could go back to those low levels. Negative advertising drives down turnout, but have we had a test case where the other guy is a blatant lunatic? Something is off enough about him that people seem to be pretty worried and paying a lot of attention, at least according to polls of these types of questions.

I do think we had the candidate(s) to gin up excitement among our base in this race, but alas, that was not to be. If ensuring high turnout among the base is the #1 priority, Clinton really doesn't fit the bill.