PPP - Tight race in Ohio

[pbrower2a]

I TOLD YOU SO.


Winning Indiana by 7 means that Trump or Cruz will be losing the US as a whole by 5-6%. Indiana really does swing in elections; Republicans can win it in normal years by anything from about 3% to about 20%. (Going for Obama in 2008 was something of a fluke; the RV industry, whose workers are comparatively conservative, turned against Republicans when their market was hit by a combination of a credit crunch, sky-high gas prices, and as general downturn in the economy... and Obama campaigned in Indiana as if he needed the state). Obama lost the state in 2012 by about 10% because the economic triple-whammy was no longer in effect (he would have lost the state by about 20% had even one of the components of the triple-whammy were in effect in 2012) and because he could not campaign in Indiana.

On the other side, if the Democratic nominee is winning Rhode Island (which is about as D as Indiana is R) by 7%, then the Democratic nominee is losing by about 5# nationwide.

Indiana does swing, but it almost always remains just out of reach of a Democratic nominee.

Or even more simply, Indiana is about 8% more Republican than Ohio, and if the Republican isn't winning Indiana by a double-digit margin, then he is also losing Ohio. 

Conducted April 26-27, MoE +/- 3.2%

Clinton 45%
Trump 42%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_OH_50216.pdf

[pbrower2a]

Not surprising at all. Ohio should be one of Trump's better battleground states. The Kasich numbers look...off though.

OH, PA and MI - Trump country.

First, let us define what we mean by a "battleground state".

deep blue -- all elections for the Republican
medium blue --  all but one election for the Republican (but once for Obama)
pale blue -- all but once for the Republicans (but once for Clinton)
deep green -- Clinton twice, but Obama losing by more than 10% twice
medium green -- Clinton twice, Obama barely losing once
yellow -- Clinton once, Obama twice
tan -- Clinton never, Obama twice
medium red -- all but one election for the Democrat
deep red -- all elections for the Democrat

white -- always went for the winner  (Clinton twice, George W. Bush twice, Obama)

A good guess on what constitutes a "battleground state" is any state not in deep red or deep blue due to their political histories beginning in 1992 or those in deep green because  those states have swung far away from the Democratic Party in their loyalties. Barring either a landslide (in which the concept of a 'battleground state' becomes moot) or something freakish happens, no state in gray is going to vote differently than it did in other elections.  So let's gray those states out.

Remaining:

medium blue --  all but one election for the Republican (but once for Obama)
pale blue -- all but once for the Republicans (but once for Clinton)
medium green -- Clinton twice, Obama barely losing once
yellow -- Clinton once, Obama twice
tan -- Clinton never, Obama twice
medium red -- all but one election for the Democrat

We can take out some states that seem out of contention this year (Montana, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) that seem very solid now. States that would go to the Democrats only in landslides (Georgia, Indiana) are irrelevant this time. A Democrat who picks up Indiana has surely also picked up Ohio (and a win); a Democrat who wins Georgia has also won Florida and North Carolina and is on the way to a landslide. Missouri and North Carolina aren't so clear yet. Arizona? It could be the difference between a Clinton win or loss if it and another state (most likely Colorado) decide. Georgia and Indiana are best deemed 'on the fringe of contention'. They go for Hillary Clinton only in utter collapses of the Trump campaign for President that turn what should have been a good opportunity for Republicans to take over the Presidency into a disaster.

This is what I expected in 2012. The variegated colors aren't all that relevant.  What is more relevant is what is in gray. "Battlefield" is more relevant if there is some sort of struggle.  I have to go into contortions to suggest that such states as Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon,  Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin really are in contention. We have not seen a Democratic landslide with 400 or more electoral votes since 1964, and that involved a Republican who scared the living daylights out of many voters.  The closest involved states (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia) that show no sign of being in contention this time. Those five states have many electoral votes as Texas, which was closer in 2008 than any of those states. 

We may be seeing a Democratic landslide for the Presidency in the making this time. Democrats have an undeniable edge in states with 257 electoral votes. There are just too many ways for the Donald Trump to lose for anyone to think that this election is anything other than a long shot for them. He has practically no chance of winning based upon random chance of getting enough things going right in the reality that now exists. Sure, a 2008-style meltdown of the economy, a scandal of corruption, or some diplomatic or military debacle can create a more favorable setting for a Trump victory.

On the other side, if states like Georgia, Indiana, Montana, or Utah go into play... then the results of the Presidential election of 2016 might be an utter bore on  November 8 except to statistical wonks.