2016 Polling Thread

[pbrower2a]

(08-11-2016, 11:17 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: The Establishment are clearly scared sh*tless of Trump. The yesterday trump has spilled the beans of what was behind the creation of ISIS.

ISIS formed in 1999. It shows signs of dying when Barack Obama is President. It grew dramatically when Sunni soldiers defected when they found that ISIS was receptive to Ba'athist butchers and fanatics. So what could relatively secular Ba'athists (arguably the most secular of any political cause in the Islamic world except for Communists) have in common with Ba'athists? Like other fanatics, being murderous True Believers. Think of all the renegade socialists like Doriot, Laval, Quisling, Goebbels, Mussolini, and Stephenson (KKK leader and mercifully for the world, failed) who became fascists and Nazis.

As Eric Hoffer puts it, the opposite of a raging fascist is not a raging Communist. The opposite of a raging fascist is a sober liberal.

Daesh is scared of Barack Obama and wants him dead as a traitor to Islam (because his father was a Muslim and he is not he is an apostate in their view), but more significantly the Peshmerga (the Kurds) and the Iraqi Army.

...The American Establishment distrusts demagogues who don't have their heads on straight, so to speak. With Hillary Clinton the Establishment at least has someone predictable to deal with, someone less likely to bungle the way into a catastrophic war that threatens elite assets and profits, create a trade war, foster domestic strife, or initiate an economic meltdown. The elites of course want maximal profit, but they will settle for quiet if the alternative is danger. The Establishment, if one means the privileged elites (big landowners, industrialists, financiers, business executives, senior military officers, and intellectual shills) prefer an orthodox conservatism that endorses the harshest possible exploitation of the masses. As a rule it does not want anyone who would bring about a Götterdämmerung that destroys the wealth and privilege of those elites.

Who says that a Götterdämmerung couldn't take on characteristics of a Socialist revolution? The Establishment well know what people will be the first to go before a firing squad in the event of a Socialist revolution. If implicated in a war for profits by victors the Establishment will at the least risk being dispossessed, divested of their wealth and privilege on behalf of the victors or even on behalf of the common man.

So what would happen if America went bad and instigated a Crisis war that went badly? Victors with any decency at all would seize the property and end the privileged careers of war criminals. So someone who made propaganda videos on behalf of the defeated state might be barred from even acting in a little theater for ten years or so. Owners of enterprises that went criminal would be divested of shares and wealth derived from corrupt profit. Occupiers might choose who gets their sympathy first, and as in liberated Germany, Italy, and Japan the people most trustworthy were industrial workers who got nothing from fascism but toil to exhaustion, near-starvation pay, and the dubious opportunity to become cannon fodder.

[Eric the Green]

Hillary's advertising in swing states may be paying off, according to polls which show she is ahead by wider margins there than in the national polls.

[pbrower2a]

(08-13-2016, 11:24 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Hillary's advertising in swing states may be paying off, according to polls which show she is ahead by wider margins there than in the national polls.

I see the pattern with Richard Nixon against George McGovern or LBJ against Barry Goldwater in 1964 -- depict the opponent as a dangerous radical.

Donald Trump is ironically to the Left of every President from at least Reagan on on foreign policy... I certainly wouldn't abandon NATO as Vladimir Putin acts up. On most he is far to the Right.

It is comparatively easy to defeat such a nominee if one defends recent success. Jimmy Carter tried that against Ronald Reagan, but Reagan was able to brush off allegations of his radicalism.

When one has double-digit leads in states generally recognized as swing states (Colorado, New Hampshire, and Virginia) one is in a favorable situation for winning. The Clinton campaign seems to be running out the clock where it sees comfortable leads and is trying to expand the map.

[Eric the Green]

There was some discussion somewhere of what might happen if Trump drops out. I can't remember, as often happens, which thread this was on. But in any case, it might be difficult now, according to this article, to replace him.

Trump pulling out of the race? Probably too late already.

By Witgren
Sunday Aug 07, 2016 · 6:38 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/7...te-already

A lot of talk over the past week has been about the possibility of the GOP’s pet creation, Trump, pulling out of the race (or being forced out). In some states, it might already be too late to change.

From Ballotpedia, I give you some dates required by some states by which the parties must certify their candidates for office. Here are the ones that have already passed:

STATE DEADLINE
CANDIDATE CERTIFICATION DEADLINES, AUG. 7 OR BEFORE
MICHIGAN JULY 22
DELAWARE JULY 26
NORTH CAROLINA* AUGUST 5
WEST VIRGINIA AUGUST 5
* Not a statutory deadline, but North Carolina requests that candidates be submitted by the first Friday in August.

Ponder that list for a moment.

And now for the deadlines that occur in the next two weeks (by Friday, August 19th). In order to meet these deadlines, the RNC would have to come up with a candidate in the next 12 days — a problematic occurrence at best.

STATE DEADLINE
CANDIDATE CERTIFICATION DEADLINES, AUG. 8-19
SOUTH DAKOTA AUGUST 9
OHIO AUGUST 10
MISSOURI AUGUST 16
IOWA AUGUST 19
LOUISIANA
AUGUST 19
Imagine a path to victory for a candidate that didn’t show up on the ballot in 8 or 9 states, especially a battleground state like Ohio.

Finally, these are the states that require candidates to be submitted by the end of August (Wednesday, August 31 — 24 days left, not counting today, of course):

STATE DEADLINE
CANDIDATE CERTIFICATION DEADLINES, AUG 20-31
MISSISSIPPI AUGUST 20
NORTH DAKOTA AUGUST 20
MONTANA AUGUST 24
VIRGINIA AUGUST 26
MINNESOTA AUGUST 29
NEVADA AUGUST 30
OREGON AUGUST 30
TEXAS AUGUST 30
UTAH AUGUST 31
Finally, just to add to the pressure, I’ll note that Alaska and Idaho have September 1 deadlines. Florida has a September 1 deadline, but the statute only applies to Presidential electors, not to the candidates themselves.

There are many states where the deadlines are unclear, so potential exists for a lot of confusion.

So, 17 states by the end of the month, 19 if you add in September 1st deadlines (I’m not counting North Carolina in my math there, since North Carolina’s isn’t a hard statutory deadline).

Make of this what you will.

[pbrower2a]

Donald Trump pulling out of the Presidential election? It would be messy. The Republican Party would need to convene some assembly to select an alternative. Rifted as the Republican Party is now that would be difficult.

If I were a Republican I might want Mitt Romney, considering how well he did against an above-average incumbent President. Really, he did unusually well. But there are those running in 2016 (Walker, Huckabee, Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Cruz, Kasich)...

The problem with the Republican Party is what happens as a Party goes totalitarian -- it begins to become a collection of rivals who eventually go after each other once in power. Think of the Night of the Long Knives in Hitlerland in 1934 (of conservatives and of Nazis who wanted the socialist part of National Socialism)... and of the bloodletting among Communists after they seized power in central and Balkan Europe. Think of Rajk in Hungary, Patrascanu in Romania, Clementis in Czechoslovakia... Settling scores and eliminating rivals is just the way of gangsters who deal in black-market transactions (heroin, prostitution, loan-sharking, illicit gambling) or political gangsters like Nazis and Stalinists.

Think of it -- if you are a pro-Beijing or Titoite Communist and a Korean, are you safer in Seoul or in Pyongyang? You may have no chance of getting power in South Korea, but you are not going to be murdered.

Except this time the rifts have emerged among Republicans before they could win an election, and they will lose this election because of the backbiting. We are beginning to see some prominent Republicans decide that a Republican victory could be far more harmful than a Democratic victory.

To say that the Republican Party has gone totalitarian or even authoritarian may be hyperbole... but it may also be true. America with President Hillary Clinton may be far safer than America with (God forbid!) President Donald Trump.

[Eric the Green]

Poll Shows Young Voters Rejecting Trump at Record Rate

By Brian Freeman | Sunday, 14 Aug 2016 07:36 PM

Republican Donald Trump is heading toward the worst showing ever among young voters, according to a new USA Today/Rock the Vote Poll released on Sunday.

USA Today reported that Democrat Hillary Clinton leads Trump 56 percent to 20 percent among those under 35 years old. If other candidates are added to the survey, Clinton would win 50 percent, Trump 18 percent, Libertarian Gary Johnson 11 percent and Green Party nominee Jill Stein 4 percent.

The only worry for Clinton, who was trounced herself in the Democratic (primaries) by young voters who favored Sen. Bernie Sanders 71 percent to 28 percent, is that enthusiasm to vote at all has dipped since March. At that time, when Sanders was still in the race, the percentage of young voters seen as most likely to vote was at 76 percent, and that number has now dropped to 72 percent.

The Washington Post reported that in a series of interviews it conducted with young voters across the nation, the mood among that sector has changed significantly from recent elections in the intense disgust they have for both major candidates, so much so that the paper said it "is pushing many beyond disillusionment and toward apathy."

The worst showing ever among young voters is considered to be for Republican Richard Nixon, who received 32 percent in the 1972 election, according to USA Today.

If Trump’s historically bad showing among young voters holds on election day, it could have long-range implications, because it would be the first time since such data became available in 1952 that the Democrats would have won double digit victories among young voters for three straight presidential elections.

And this comes at a time when the number of Millennials in the U.S. is estimated at 75.4 million and is now larger than the members of the Baby Boom generation, who are now between the ages of 51 and 69.

As recently as the 1984 and 1988 elections, Republicans held a double digit advantage among young voters, with the two parties about evenly split among this sector in the 2000 race.

Other findings from the poll include:

50 percent of voters under 35 support the Democratic Party, 20 percent the Republican, and 17 percent are Independents.
At least 50 percent of young voters said Trump seemed less presidential, less credible and less trustworthy after the Republican National Convention, while a more than a two-to-one margin said he seemed less human.
After the Democratic National conventions, 39 percent to 27 percent said Clinton seemed more rather than less presidential, and 35 percent to 23 percent said she appeared more human. On the question of Clinton being more or less trustworthy, young people were split at 31 percent .
57 percent of young Clinton supporters say they back her because she has the right experience to lead, while only 22 percent of Trump supporters say that of him.
54 percent of Trump supporters say one of the main reasons they back him is to keep Clinton out of the White House, while 51 percent of Clinton supporters say the same about preventing Trump from becoming president.

The online poll of 1,539 adults age 18-34 was taken by Ipsos Public Affairs August 5-10. It has a credibility interval, akin to the margin of error, of 4.6.

Related Stories:

GOP Continues to Lose Young Voters
Poll: Most Young Americans Say Parties Don't Represent Them

Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/young-vo...z4HQEHBOyX

[playwrite]

(08-15-2016, 12:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Poll Shows Young Voters Rejecting Trump at Record Rate

By Brian Freeman   |   Sunday, 14 Aug 2016 07:36 PM

Republican Donald Trump is heading toward the worst showing ever among young voters, according to a new USA Today/Rock the Vote Poll released on Sunday.

USA Today reported that Democrat Hillary Clinton leads Trump 56 percent to 20 percent among those under 35 years old. If other candidates are added to the survey, Clinton would win 50 percent, Trump 18 percent, Libertarian Gary Johnson 11 percent and Green Party nominee Jill Stein 4 percent.

The only worry for Clinton, who was trounced herself in the Democratic parties by young voters who favored Sen. Bernie Sanders 71 percent to 28 percent, is that enthusiasm to vote at all has dipped since March. At that time, when Sanders was still in the race, the percentage of young voters seen as most likely to vote was at 76 percent, and that number has now dropped to 72 percent.

The Washington Post reported that in a series of interviews it conducted with young voters across the nation, the mood among that sector has changed significantly from recent elections in the intense disgust they have for both major candidates, so much so that the paper said it "is pushing many beyond disillusionment and toward apathy."

The worst showing ever among young voters is considered to be for Republican Richard Nixon, who received 32 percent in the 1972 election, according to USA Today.

If Trump’s historically bad showing among young voters holds on election day, it could have long-range implications, because it would be the first time since such data became available in 1952 that the Democrats would have won double digit victories among young voters for three straight presidential elections.

And this comes at a time when the number of Millennials in the U.S. is estimated at 75.4 million and is now larger than the members of the Baby Boom generation, who are now between the ages of 51 and 69.

As recently as the 1984 and 1988 elections, Republicans held a double digit advantage among young voters, with the two parties about evenly split among this sector in the 2000 race.

Other findings from the poll include:

50 percent of voters under 35 support the Democratic Party, 20 percent the Republican, and 17 percent are Independents.
At least 50 percent of young voters said Trump seemed less presidential, less credible and less trustworthy after the Republican National Convention, while a more than a two-to-one margin said he seemed less human.
After the Democratic National conventions, 39 percent to 27 percent said Clinton seemed more rather than less presidential, and 35 percent to 23 percent said she appeared more human. On the question of Clinton being more or less trustworthy, young people were split at 31 percent .
57 percent of young Clinton supporters say they back her because she has the right experience to lead, while only 22 percent of Trump supporters say that of him.
54 percent of Trump supporters say one of the main reasons they back him is to keep Clinton out of the White House, while 51 percent of Clinton supporters say the same about preventing Trump from becoming president.

The online poll of 1,539 adults age 18-34 was taken by Ipsos Public Affairs August 5-10. It has a credibility interval, akin to the margin of error, of 4.6.

Related Stories:

GOP Continues to Lose Young Voters
Poll: Most Young Americans Say Parties Don't Represent Them

Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/young-vo...z4HQEHBOyX

It's just so weird that young people are not buying into the bigotry and anger of their elders.

[pbrower2a]

New York State, Siena (as if there were a mystery this year)

2-way:

57% Clinton
27% Trump
  3% Other (vol.)

4-way:

50% Clinton
25% Trump
  9% Johnson
  6% Stein
  1% Other (vol.)

https://www.siena.edu/news-events/articl...-30-points


Washington State, Elway:

Clinton 45
Trump 24
Johnson 7
Stein 4

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/...81516.html

...45-21 with a Likely Voter screen that in most elections favors Republican candidates for just about any office. I'm going with that.

...Clinton+Johnson+Stein vote adds up to 54, so this lead is practically insurmountable.  

Binary race, Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump ®  



Leader up with

60% or more -- saturation 80%
55-59% --     saturation 70%
50-54% --     saturation 60%
46-49%, margin 4% or greater saturation 40%
46-49%, margin 3% or less saturation 20%

(the usual color applies for the partisan leader, but yellow blue to green and red to orange below  

40-45%, margin 4% or greater, saturation 40%
43-45%, margin 3% or less, saturation 20%  

New Hampshire is an average.






Small states and districts in area or with shapes that allow confusion:

FL D4/4;4
ME D 10/10; 4
NH D15/8,4

Clinton (D)
Trump ®
Johnson (L)

The nature of this election cycle must change dramatically for Donald Trump to have any chance of victory.

[pbrower2a]

Here's all that you really need to know about the 2015 election at this stage.

The "Blue firewall", 1992-2012, in 2016 (mostly in ruby red as in the source):




Strong Clinton (60% saturation) 242
Weak Clinton  (40% saturation)     0
Barely Clinton  (20% saturation)    1
Effective tie   (white)                       0
Barely Trump (20% saturation)       0
Weak Trump  (40% saturation)       0  
Strong Trump (60% saturation)      0

The Second Congressional District of Maine might be a bit shaky.

Add the states that have gone once for any Republican nominee since 1992 (IA, NH, NM):



(my cautious guess on New Mexico, based on its demographics and paucity of polls)

Strong Clinton (60% saturation) 245
Weak Clinton  (40% saturation)     5
Barely Clinton  (20% saturation)    1
Effective tie   (white)                       6
Barely Trump (20% saturation)       0
Weak Trump  (40% saturation)       0  
Strong Trump (60% saturation)      0

I can't figure Donald Trump's appeal in Iowa.

Add Colorado and Virginia, which so far show decisive leads for Clinton:



(my cautious guess on New Mexico, based on its demographics)

Strong Clinton (60% saturation) 267
Weak Clinton  (40% saturation)     5
Barely Clinton  (20% saturation)    1
Effective tie   (white)                       6
Barely Trump (20% saturation)       0
Weak Trump  (40% saturation)       0  
Strong Trump (60% saturation)      0

My criterion for "strong" is 8%, twice the margin of error.
My criterion for "weak" is 4%, basically the margin of error.

270 wins. That's before I bring up North Carolina, Ohio, or Florida. Or for that matter, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, and Missouri.

[pbrower2a]

Virginia has much to say about America. It may not be a perfect microcosm of America (no ranch area) , but it isn't far from being such. Virginia straddles regions, having parts that resemble the Northeast, the Mountain South, and the Deep South. No Rust Belt, oil patch, or ranch country, though.



The DC suburbs are politically similar, I would guess, to suburbs of San Francisco, Boston, or New York City.  Northern exurbs might give us some indication of what to expect in the urban fringes of such Northern cities as Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and Philadelphia. Greater Richmond is urban, but still rather conservative by urban standards. "Tidewater", or southeastern Virginia, looks lost to the GOP. It used to be conservative. Maybe it has the wrong sort of conservatives for Donald Trump.

Southwestern Virginia, which bucks the trend of the rest of Virginia, suggests that Hillary Clinton has as much a problem with the Mountain South as Obama did. I'm guessing that the two worst states for Hillary Clinton will be Oklahoma and West Virginia.

[pbrower2a]

Now we can discuss states that seem to have some potential for swing. I just saw a poll with Clinton up by 9 in Florida, but I have seen several with her very close, too. I can call Florida "Weak Clinton", figuring that she is probably up 5%





Strong Clinton (60% saturation) 267
Weak Clinton  (40% saturation)     49
Barely Clinton  (20% saturation)    37
Effective tie   (white)                       17
Barely Trump (20% saturation)       19
Weak Trump  (40% saturation)      62
Strong Trump (60% saturation)      (not showing)

My criterion for "strong" is 8%, twice the margin of error.
My criterion for "weak" is 4%, basically the margin of error.

No, I am not looking to see what states will still go resolutely for Donald Trump. In view of Texas looking as if it might be competitive this year when it has not been competitive for Democrats since 1996, I am unsure of what those states would be. I have seen some weird polling results in Utah in the Presidential race even though the Republicans are simply crushing Democrats in statewide elections.  The only electoral vote in states in gray that an objective analyst can see going possibly to Hillary Clinton this year is that of the Second Congressional District of Nebraska. But this is not a reasonable year.  

If there is any apparent momentum in this election, then it is that Donald Trump is digging himself into a deeper hole when he should be trying to get out of it. That's what happens when one delivers insults like Don Rickles, only turning the insults en masse against such people as accountants, letter carriers, nurses, and schoolteachers.  But Don "Mister Warmth" Rickles makes his jokes about the high-and-mighty in Hollywood, people with inflated egos who need to have their egos deflated. (A hint, Mr. Rickles: try Charlie Sheen!) But such common people as accountants, letter carriers, nurses, and schoolteachers often have their bosses deflating their egos. Honest work for modest pay has a way of enforcing humility, and people who do such work don't need Donald Trump insulting their intelligence.

[pbrower2a]

Now consider states that are or have been swing states in recent years -- or might be this year. A credible poll has Trump up by only 6%. Anything under 8% suggests a legitimate swing state. With what I have since the Conventions:



Hillary Clinton in reddish shades; Donald Trump in bluish shades






Strong Clinton (60% saturation)   267
Weak Clinton  (40% saturation)     49
Barely Clinton  (20% saturation)    37
Effective tie   (white)                       17
Barely Trump (20% saturation)       19
Weak Trump  (40% saturation)      62
Strong Trump (60% saturation)      (not showing)

My criterion for "strong" is 8%, twice the margin of error.
My criterion for "weak" is 4%, basically the margin of error.

No, I am not looking to see what states will still go resolutely for Donald Trump. In view of Texas looking as if it might be competitive this year when it has not been competitive for Democrats since 1996, I am unsure of what those states would be. I have seen some weird polling results in Utah in the Presidential race even though the Republicans are simply crushing Democrats in statewide elections. 

If there is any apparent momentum, then it is that Donald Trump is digging himself into a deeper hole when he should be trying to get out of it. That's what happens when one delivers insults like Don Rickles, only turning the insults en masse against such people as accountants, letter carriers, nurses, and schoolteachers.  But Don "Mister Warmth" Rickles makes his jokes about the high-and-mighty in Hollywood, people with inflated egos who need to have their egos deflated. (A hint, Mr. Rickles: try Charlie Sheen! He can use the needling!) But such common people as accountants, letter carriers, nurses, and schoolteachers often have their bosses deflating their egos. Honest work for modest pay has a way of enforcing humility, and people who do such work don't need Donald Trump insulting their intelligence. and thus credibility.

[pbrower2a]

One of my contributions on another forum. Mississippi will not vote for Hillary Clinton, but that is the least of its problems.

Mississippi -- by a Republican pollster, so take heed of that. As the old saying goes, beggars can't be choosers.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/20...081616.pdf

Trump - 54%
Clinton - 39%

Trump - 52%
Clinton - 39%
Johnson - 3%
Stein - 0%

Probably close to the racial divide.

Mississippi recently had the highest rate of convictions of politicians for corruption in America, probably reflecting the political culture. The Mississippi Democratic Party is basically the Black People's Party and the Republican Party is basically the White People's Party, and people vote close to the ethnic divide. This allows big-city machine-boss politics even in hick towns and the flourishing of patronage.

So what do people usually do with a corrupt or incompetent politician when he is up for re-election? If he can't be defeated in a primary challenge. then the solution is to vote for the fellow from the other party. So if you are white and have a corrupt or incompetent white Republican mayor, you would reasonably vote for a black Democrat who promises reform, right? (Invert "black" and "white" for the obvious extension). Not in Mississippi, though, where people seem to vote "race".

Wrong. The crooks get entrenched, so the cronyism survives. Is it any surprise that the government vehicles, all purchased without haggling or bidding, come from a dealership owned by a relative of the politician?

...I am guessing that unlike Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, or Texas, Mississippi has little economic activity that attracts educated Northerners who might swing away from the GOP this year even if white. This is the state in which a college education is least valuable. Mississippi will be one of the most Republican-voting states this year.

[Eric the Green]

"What all of this tells us is that Clinton is probably going to win the presidency but that no Democrat should take it for granted"

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/elec...locked-up/

[pbrower2a]

(08-18-2016, 01:34 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Suffolk University poll now has Clinton starting to edge out Trump in Nevada.

...but it is still only a 2% lead with Hillary Clinton not having breached the 45% level, so my map shows Nevada as a tie.

I have a poll from Georgia announced by the local FoX affiliate, and I show it as a tie because it is a literal tie.


Binary race, Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump ®  



Leader up with

60% or more -- saturation 80%
55-59% --     saturation 70%
50-54% --     saturation 60%
46-49%, margin 4% or greater saturation 40%
46-49%, margin 3% or less saturation 20%

(the usual color applies for the partisan leader, but yellow blue to green and red to orange below  

40-45%, margin 4% or greater, saturation 40%
43-45%, margin 3% or less, saturation 20%  





Three-way race, Clinton vs. Trump vs. Johnson,





Small states and districts in area or with shapes that allow confusion:

FL D4/4;4
ME D 10/10; 4
NH D15/8,4

Clinton (D)
Trump ®
Johnson (L)

[pbrower2a]

My weekend projection (8-20-2016):



(my cautious guess on New Mexico, based on its demographics)

Strong Clinton (60% saturation)  267
Weak Clinton  (40% saturation)    49
Barely Clinton  (20% saturation)    39
Effective tie   (white)                     16
Barely Trump (20% saturation)     19
Weak Trump  (40% saturation)     44  
Strong Trump (70% saturation)     42

My criterion for "strong" is 8%, twice the margin of error.
My criterion for "weak" is 4%, basically the margin of error.

I have some pre-Convention polls (actually during) in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Oklahoma because those results are likely to stick. I am unlikely to see anything cause me to change this projection by Tuesday.One pollster will show us Utah, which has been incredibly erratic in polling.

The states in gray have no recent poll, and in view of the recent behavior of polls in Utah and the two unusually-close ones for the Presidency in Kansas and Texas (those are my 44 "weak Trump states" I have doubts about lots of states. If Kansas is up only 5 for Trump, then guess how silly it would be to assume that North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska are "safe for Trump".  But the states in gray don't really matter except for a Senate seat.  States in which Hillary Clinton is up by double the usual margin of error put her very close to 270... and I am very cautious in putting New Mexico in the "Safe Clinton" category. New Mexico just does not get polled often.

Up 8 or more -- Clinton is at 267.
Up 4 or more -- Clinton is at 316.
Up at all -- Clinton is at 355.

Beyond that? Georgia would deliver her a win on the scale of Bill Clinton in the 1990s and just slightly bigger than Obama in 2008.  

Trump losing Kansas or Texas indicates a thorough collapse of his campaign. Small margins of projected Trump victories in Kansas and Texas cause me to assume little about most of the states that I show in gray. This map is consistent with Hillary Clinton up with a margin of 10% or so.

[Anthony '58]

Was just on fivethirtyeight.com.

It paints a pretty bleak picture for Trump.

[pbrower2a]

Hillary Clinton may not have this election locked up, but Donald Trump is doing much that practically ensures a loss so far. The worst is assuming that being a "winner" is a tangible quality that can translate into victory.

Hillary Clinton is clearly beyond any possibility of random shifts causing her to lose, which means that she was in a stronger position than Obama in 2012 or even 2008.

[pbrower2a]

Trump looks to be winning in Utah.

[Anthony '58]

Quote:Hillary Clinton is clearly beyond any possibility of random shifts causing her to lose, which means that she was in a stronger position than Obama in 2012 or even 2008.

Actually, if the election were to be held this coming Tuesday, Hillary would be in a position between that of Obama in 2008, and Obama in 2012 - in that where Obama won both Indiana and North Carolina in 2008 and neither state in 2012, Hillary would win North Carolina, but not Indiana.

Every other state would go exactly the same way they went in both '08 and '12!