Which Semi-Realistic Map would be most likely?

[JA]

   The question posed in the title of this thread is rather self-explanatory. In addition, if you were tasked with explaining how these semi-realistic (although highly unlikely) maps of the Presidential election happened, what would be your explanation? You can choose to explain as many maps as you wish. I think it’d be interesting watching election night coverage with any of these four maps as they try to explain how it occurred (leaving aside my absolute horror if maps 1 or 4 occurred).

Map 1: Trump 270, Clinton 268

Map 2: Clinton 271, Trump 267

Map 3: Clinton 270, Trump 268

Map 4: Trump 271, Clinton 267

[Mallow]

1, followed closely by 3. Having GA go Clinton and PA go Trump just seems like too unlikely a combination. I wouldn't even classify map 2 as "semi-realistic"... way too many weird combos there.

I think 1 would be more likely if you also had NV going Clinton (then it could be explained relatively easily as "uneducated and blue collar whites swing extremely hard to Trump, Latinos swing hard to Clinton".

3 is plausible, but I have a harder time imagining NC voting for Trump while Clinton somehow wins AZ.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Map 1, even though the idea of Trump winning Wisconsin is LOL.
Flip Georgia on Map 4, and that one would blow all the others away.
Flip Wisconsin on Map 1, and it would blow all the others away.
Map 3 would never happen, because Clinton is not winning AZ in a close contest.
Map 2 would never happen because LOL.

All of them represent Trump's Northeast Strategy.  Win big in Rust Belt and frontier New England to make up for deficiencies elsewhere.  Win big with white, non-college men.  Even with a yuge education gap, Clinton is not winning GA or AZ that easily.

[Xing]

Map 3, since it's at least somewhat plausible that Latino turnout will skyrocket, while Trump does very well with WCWs.

[JA]

1, followed closely by 3. Having GA go Clinton and PA go Trump just seems like too unlikely a combination. I wouldn't even classify map 2 as "semi-realistic"... way too many weird combos there.

I think 1 would be more likely if you also had NV going Clinton (then it could be explained relatively easily as "uneducated and blue collar whites swing extremely hard to Trump, Latinos swing hard to Clinton".

3 is plausible, but I have a harder time imagining NC voting for Trump while Clinton somehow wins AZ.

That's essentially what I was thinking. Map 1 seems somewhat realistic, especially if the education gap widens post-debates and Trump's comments about "Miss Housekeeping" further galvanized the Hispanic community against him in a tight race. Nevada is a questionable state in that scenario as it has both a large Hispanic and large uneducated White population. Map 3 would likely be the result of high Hispanic turnout against Trump without the corresponding widening education gap of Map 1.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Map 3, since it's at least somewhat plausible that Latino turnout will skyrocket, while Trump does very well with WCWs.

He won't do well enough to win Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania.  Maine I could entertain.

[elcorazon]

Map 3, since it's at least somewhat plausible that Latino turnout will skyrocket, while Trump does very well with WCWs.

that was pretty much my thinking. At least there is a reason for such a result that might be plausible.

[President Johnson]

Map 1. Hillary isn't winning Georgia and Arizona while she does so poorly in Michigan and Wisconsin.

[Maxwell]

I guess Map 1, but again, I can't stand the "MICHIGAN IS COMPETITIVE" meme, almost as much as TNVolunteer couldn't stand the "NEW HAMPSHIRE IS AN ELASTIC SWING STATE" meme.

[Wisconsin+17]

None of the above. They all suck.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I guess Map 1, but again, I can't stand the "MICHIGAN IS COMPETITIVE" meme, almost as much as TNVolunteer couldn't stand the "NEW HAMPSHIRE IS AN ELASTIC SWING STATE" meme.

Polls would disagree with you.  It is at least competitive (within 5%).  And fundamental analysis of Michigan's demographics (low Latino population and a Black population that may not turn out) and economic issues would also disagree with you.  If Black turnout is significantly down, Michigan turns into Ohio, and Trump's protectionist message does really well there.

[AGA]

In map 1, Trump would have to do very well amongst working-class whites while African-American turnout would have to increase. It is the most likely, but still not likely at all.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

In map 1, Trump would have to do very well amongst working-class whites while African-American turnout would have to increase. It is the most likely, but still not likely at all.

If African-American turnout increases, Trump cannot win Michigan.  Unless it increases in the South without increasing in the Rust Belt.