With 10 months to go, show your 2016 PV/EC projections

[Adam Griffin]

Yes, I know, there are probably many of these. However, I am bookmarking this and making a note to bump this thread on November 9, 2016.

Vote	DEM	GOP
PV	50.6%	47.5%
EC	303	235

The Democrat only gets 38% of the white vote and 90% of the black vote. These losses are mostly off-set by five-point increases in Democratic support among Latinos and Asians. There are small improvements in the white share of the vote for Democrats in the South compared to 2012 and slight losses among whites in the Midwest and West; white support in the Northeast remains unchanged.

As a whole, the Northeast slightly over-performs 2012; the South and the West look identical to 2012 and the Midwest slightly under-performs 2012. In net terms, there are very few states that have any meaningful swings in one direction or another. All in all, the swing in the national PV is roughly three-quarters of a percentage point.

The only change of consequence compared to 2012 is FL. A combination of the small loss in white support and a nominal regression toward the mean among Cuban voters gives the Republican a victory in FL compared to Obama's 2012 victory in size (i.e.: doesn't clear 50%).

I've taken the 65 responses thus far and used that to calculate an aggregate EV map for the country. Essentially, the median of each option was taken and then weighted based on the percentage of people who selected it (for each side; GOP wins and Dem wins).

For the 340 plus options, I simply went with what is the absolute maximum ceiling for a Dem in any scenario (395) and used it for each, which left the median as 367 for that option (a bit high for a GOP max, but considering that a 340 EV win for the R in the first place is pretty damn unrealistic in the first place, oh well).

I used this to come up with aggregate forecasts for each party's mean win: people forecasting a Dem win (77% of respondents) had responses averaging out to be 296 EV; people forecasting a GOP win (23% of respondents) had responses averaging out to be 318 EV.

I then weighted these two sets of numbers against one another based on the percentage of respondents that selected each broader outcome. This is the closest result to that based on the likely tipping point for each state from 2012 and their current position in polling.

I also used this same method to calculate the PV (with the ">6" wins having their ceilings pegged at 10-point victories, making the median an 8-point win), adjusting slightly based on the percentage of responses forecasting a DEM PV win (76%, as opposed to 77% for an EV win).

DECEMBER 2015 AGGREGATE RESULT FROM 65 RESPONSES:

VOTE	DEM	GOP
EV	276	262
PV	50.79	49.21

Actual aggregate projection was 278/260.
Two-way model; no third party votes.

As far as I'm concerned, this will be the basis for the overall projection 10 months out; I won't be updating the aggregate projection for this thread again.

[MT Treasurer]

I know it's a very bold prediction, but here we go:

Clinton: 248 EV
Republican candidate: 290 EV

Democrats win the popular vote by 0.2%

[This account no longer in use.]

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

Trump vs Clinton

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

CLINTON 51/49 272-266

[Crumpets]

Seeing as either a Clinton-Trump or Clinton-Cruz election is looking more and more likely...

Clinton/Becerra 348 EV 52%
Trump/LePage 190 EV 45%

[Fritz]

Clinton: 317 EV, 53%
Trump: 221 EV, 45%

[Frodo]

I no longer have the ability to post predictions, but this

Seeing as either a Clinton-Trump or Clinton-Cruz election is looking more and more likely...

Clinton/Solis 348 EV 52%
Trump/LePage 190 EV 45%

is what I would have posted, with perhaps a few alterations.  As I said before, if Hillary is facing Trump or Cruz, she will have no need for a male running mate.  

[pbrower2a]

Trump vs Clinton
 179          369

[Frodo]

I no longer have the ability to post predictions, but this

Seeing as either a Clinton-Trump or Clinton-Cruz election is looking more and more likely...

Clinton/Solis 348 EV 52%
Trump/LePage 190 EV 45%

is what I would have posted, with perhaps a few alterations.  As I said before, if Hillary is facing Trump or Cruz, she will have no need for a male running mate.

I think it's the other way around. Against Trump or Cruz, there'd be a big gender gap but no need for a Latino running mate.

Why pick a white male or white female if the race isn't even going to be close?  This is going to be an historic election, and with Trump or Cruz as her likely opponents (thus obviating the need to curry favor with a fading demographic), she should seize the opportunity, double down, and present the country with a ticket of two unquestionably qualified and experienced women (with one belonging to a racial minority), rather than just one.    

[TarHeelDem]

Seeing as either a Clinton-Trump or Clinton-Cruz election is looking more and more likely...

Clinton/Becerra 348 EV 52%
Trump/LePage 190 EV 45%

Exactly this, with perhaps different running mates.

[bagelman]

Interesting how the idea that the GOP will end up like Gore '00 is popular.

[Asian Nazi]

Chris Christie/Tim Scott 270 EV 49.3% PV
Hillary Clinton/Julian Castro 268 EV 49.0% PV

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Marco Rubio/Nikki Haley 52.1%, 337 EV
Hillary Clinton/Mark Warner 47.5%, 201 EV

[EliteLX]

If Donald Trump is the nominee:
Hillary Clinton (332) vs Donald Trump (206)
Notes: Zero shot in CO, performs well with non-college educated whites in rust belt - not enough to change any EVs, loses Florida by somewhat small margin due to horrendous Hispanic performance.

If Marco Rubio is the nominee:
Hillary Clinton (270) vs Marco Rubio (268)
Notes: Very close wins in CO and IA. Minimum 1% win in FL. Blood battle in VA, very tight, Marco can't quite hang on by time the night ends.

[Talleyrand]

Rubio/Haley- 52.5% (348)
Clinton/Castro- 45.6% (190)

[Averroës Nix]

Christie / Cruz (52% - 347 EVs)
Clinton / Warner (46% - 191 EVs)

(I didn't think anyone would be more pessimistic than this, so I'm somewhat disturbed that Talleyrand's prediction is even more disastrous for the Democrats, albeit by a single EV.)

[Bull Moose Base]

Hard to predict what GOP race looks like in 2 months let alone the world in 10. But I assume that's the idea of this game.

I think the VP nominees pretty much don't matter. Assuming the Democratic nominee is Hillary and the VP nominee isn't Warren, Warren and Sanders will be a bigger factor in how Hillary does than her VP nominee. They'd both obviously try to rally people to show up and vote for Hillary and I bet succeed.

Not sure who the GOP nominee will be but I'll assume either Cruz or Trump or else Rubio imitating them to the point where it may as well have been Cruz or Trump. GOP VP is probably completely irrelevant but who Trump or Cruz would pick is unknown enough that it's hard to say for sure.

Given the solidification of presidential politics, the reasonable likelihood that the economy stays on track and general trust of Hillary on foreign affairs, coupled with her strong debate skills, I'll stick with what I've said before: 2012>2016 is the least changed electoral map in American history.

I'll check back then.

[Adam Griffin]

(I didn't think anyone would be more pessimistic than this, so I'm somewhat disturbed that Talleyrand's prediction is even more disastrous for the Democrats, albeit by a single EV.)

You're surprised that Doomrand is the most pessimistic predictor in a scenario? This is par for the course!

[buddy36]

I see a 372 EV Rubio to 166 Hilary. Pickups NM VA PA OH IA MI MN WI MA 2nd CO NV OR WA
I see all but 3 on polls the states of OR 2nd MA and WA will be swung in the election by the campaign

[5280]

Hillary 270
GOP 268

[Flake]

Bernie Sanders/Barbara Lee: 333 (52%)
Donald Trump/Ted Cruz: 205 (46%)
Others: 0 (2%)

[5280]

Bernie Sanders is not getting the Democratic nomination, sorry to burst your bubble.

[Devils30]

If Hillary wins that 270-268 map, the GOP will wake up Wednesday morning absolutely devastated. This likely means that the popular vote is a near tie nationally, with one side up 0-0.5%.

Election night would go like this

1) Fairly early GOP wins in Ohio, Florida (by 9, 10 PM)
2) win in Colorado around midnight for GOP
3) Democratic wins around 10 PM-12 AM in MI, MN, NH, WI, PA
4) Dem win after midnight in Nevada
5) GOP leads all night in Virginia, R voters get all excited after winning OH, FL and begin to celebrate. Only after the final votes from Fairfax report late does Hillary eek out a narrow lead of less than 1% in Virginia.

This would feel like blowing a 3 run lead in the 9th inning of World Series Game 7 to GOP .

[Young Conservative]

This is what I want it to be