Is the 272 freiwal for reals?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Yes? No?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

It's too early to know.  Notably, however, this is a DIFFERENT map from OC's 272 freiwal:

OC's:

The new one:

[Antonio the Sixth]

We'll see.

[ursulahx]

It's for real, but it's still open to question whether it can be breached (if it is, chances are it'll be in more than one place).

And everyone was saying it would come down to Pennsylvania. It might come down to Colorado, after all. (Or even Nevada, like in West Wing!)

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Right now it looks as if it's unbreakable, partly because of Clinton's big lead in the national polls. Trump has to win CO, WI or MI in order to win the election. Very difficult.

If the race pulls even, though?

CO seems the most likely to fall, simply because of the wide variability in polling over time, and how sensitive it is to changes in the national race.  When Trump gains 4% on Clinton, he gains 8% in CO, or so it seems when I glance at the data.

[Erc]

Agreed that Colorado, as the most flighty state, seems the most likely to fall.

How about Wisconsin as a sleeper?  What's WOW talk radio up to these days?

[BlueSwan]

It's not real. If Trump wins the popular vote he most likely wins one of the freiwal states (probably PA, CO or NH). What we have is the illusion of a 272 freiwal due to Clintons consistent national leads.

[Xing]

Probably not. If Trump gains significantly, I would imagine at least one or two of the "freiwal" states will flip, and I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of the "beyond the wall" states/districts end up being bigger wins for Hillary than one of the "freiwal" states if Hillary gains.

Keep in mind that Obama's freiwal in 2012 was IA, WI, and OH. I shall not mention a certain Ultra Safe Only Uneducated Whites Matter Trump State, but I will say that CO and VA, despite looking far less certain going into election day (many were confident that Romney would win them,) ended up being bigger wins for Obama than OH.

[Rand]

It's legit.  Even Donald Trump has referenced the Democrats' electoral advantage this year.  The question is whether Trump can even sweep the remaining 266 electoral votes.  If he's winning Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada, Iowa, and Maine 2 he should be doing much better in other states, but it's a stretch to believe he will carry all those states plus poach a couple solid Dem states if he isn't even leading in the national average.  We can debate demographics for days, but it will all come down to turnout.  Despite Trump's surge in the polls, Hillary has maintained her aggregate lead and the Democratic ground game is a monster.  Unlike Republicans, Democrats learned their lesson after 2000 and 2004, hence an African American male with the middle name Hussein defeated a war hero and clean-as-a-whistle Mormon and one of the most vilified women in the United States is on track to become President.

[Virginiá]

It's not real. If Trump wins the popular vote he most likely wins one of the freiwal states (probably PA, CO or NH). What we have is the illusion of a 272 freiwal due to Clintons consistent national leads.

I always interpreted OC's freiwall as his way of saying "advantage." I didn't really expect him to actually believe Democrats had an impenetrable firewall. In a Republican win as big as 2008, states would fall like dominoes.

However, given the GOP's extraordinary weakness with minority voters, it would be really difficult for them to ever win the PV by close to that much. Giving Romney 66% of the white vote in RCP's old demographic calculator only nets him 3.6% win margin. If Republicans can ever get 66% of the white vote consistently, it will likely take many more years to develop that lead and by then, minority growth will have made it even weaker.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Agreed that Colorado, as the most flighty state, seems the most likely to fall.

How about Wisconsin as a sleeper?  What's WOW talk radio up to these days?

Charlie Sykes will go door to door, McMansion to McMansion, to ensure Trump is defeated.

[ProudModerate2]

It's for real, but unfortunately it is breakable (obviously).
If Hillary can maintain at least a (RCP) national average of +2.0 then I think it holds.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

It's for real, but unfortunately it is breakable (obviously).
If Hillary can maintain at least a (RCP) national average of +2.0 +0.1 then I think it holds.

As I mentioned in another thread, the real freiwal is 44%.  As in, Trump won't get more than, and Clinton won't get less than.



I think the 44% freiwal is both the cause of, and the effect of, the 272 freiwal.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

If Clinton wins the popular vote, then yes she gets 272+ EVs. If she doesn't, the wall breaks. "Firewall" is a dumb way to think about it.

[MasterJedi]

It's totes for real.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

If Clinton wins the popular vote, then yes she gets 272+ EVs. If she doesn't, the wall breaks. "Firewall" is a dumb way to think about it.

If Trump wins the popular vote by running up the score in states he's already taken (Ohio, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, etc) then he may well still fail to win the EV.

It's unlikely Trump gets too far ahead in Ohio without also taking either Michigan or Pennsylvania, however.

The question is, what's the PV threshold to flip anything in the 272?  Can Trump do it in a PV tie?  I think not.  I think he's going to need at least a 0.5% advantage.  CO, PA, MI, VA, WI, and NH are not just going to be above the national average, but significantly so.

That's what people mean by firewall.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Yes. These are the 272 that Clinton is virtually certain to win in a Tie, and maybe a little past that. Even if she loses one, if she's still up in the PV it's not hard to see her winning another State ("expanding the Freiwal"), particularly North Carolina, Florida, and Nevada. So, yes, the 272 Freiwal is a real Thing.

[Fubart Solman]

If Clinton wins the popular vote, then yes she gets 272+ EVs. If she doesn't, the wall breaks. "Firewall" is a dumb way to think about it.

[Likely Voter]

It could be argued that Obama didn't have a 'firewall' in 2012, or at least not the one we thought, mainly because it turned out OH was leaning more R than the national avg. If Romney pulled to a small PV win, he would have won FL, OH, VA and almost certainly also CO. And he probably would have lost NV and NH (which people didn't think were in Obama's 'firewall'). 

So are there a set of 270EV+ states Clinton would hold in a Trump +0.1 or even Trump +0.5 PV situation?  It would not surprise me if any of NH, WI, PA, CO or VA went for Trump in that situation. But I also wouldn't be surprised if FL, NC, or NV went to Clinton at the same time.  Polls are close to accurate in general, but when it comes to a race that is close to a PV tie, there are a lot of states that aren't safely behind a wall.

[AGA]

RCP's no-tossups map is now the 272 firewall.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

If Clinton wins the popular vote, then yes she gets 272+ EVs. If she doesn't, the wall breaks. "Firewall" is a dumb way to think about it.

Because the tipping point always correlates exactly with the PV? I could see Clinton losing by .5 and still taking the 272.