US presidential election: Closest race

[Richard Allen]

Oct 29, 2016 20:22:08 GMT Adrian said:

Some parties are scared of their senators standing down because incumbency is such a big factor. That excuse doesn't apply to Feinstein or Shelby, of course.

In fairness to Feinstein she still appears to be in excellent health and speaks far more coherently and displays far greater grasp of details than several senators who are far younger.

[slicesofjim]

The US has a far healthier attitude towards older politicians than the UK. Part of it is structural of course, with the considerable benefits of incumbency (and the benefits of seniority for their constituents), but nevertheless they still need to win. In this country, the very existence of a record in public life that can be used against a politician leads people to favour the blank slate younger politician onto which your desires can be projected.

[Arthur Figgis]

Alaska.

[Deleted]

West Virginia. If they vote for anyone in large numbers other than Donald Trump, he will loose.

[The Bishop]

But they won't - WV would vote for Trump if he carried only 10 states (perhaps even fewer)

[Deleted]

Oct 30, 2016 11:02:30 GMT The Bishop said:

But they won't - WV would vote for Trump if he carried only 10 states (perhaps even fewer)

Surely the enlightened family friendly backwoodsmen of the Appalachians (and so wonderfully & famously portrayed in John Boorman's 1972 film) would vote in droves for Hillary?

[mondialito]

Oct 30, 2016 11:39:08 GMT @williamhone1780 said:

Oct 30, 2016 11:02:30 GMT The Bishop said:

But they won't - WV would vote for Trump if he carried only 10 states (perhaps even fewer)

Surely the enlightened family friendly backwoodsmen of the Appalachians (and so wonderfully & famously portrayed in John Boorman's 1972 film) would vote in droves for Hillary?

No because Coal.

[Deleted]

Oct 30, 2016 11:42:38 GMT mondialito said:

Oct 30, 2016 11:39:08 GMT @williamhone1780 said:

Surely the enlightened family friendly backwoodsmen of the Appalachians (and so wonderfully & famously portrayed in John Boorman's 1972 film) would vote in droves for Hillary?

No because Coal.

I was being ironic...

[mondialito]

Oct 30, 2016 11:46:39 GMT @williamhone1780 said:

Oct 30, 2016 11:42:38 GMT mondialito said:

No because Coal.

I was being ironic...

Sorry, sometimes it's hard to tell in writing on this site.

[Deleted]

Oct 30, 2016 11:42:38 GMT mondialito said:

Oct 30, 2016 11:39:08 GMT @williamhone1780 said:

Surely the enlightened family friendly backwoodsmen of the Appalachians (and so wonderfully & famously portrayed in John Boorman's 1972 film) would vote in droves for Hillary?

No because Coal.

The mines are mostly closed, so coal is mostly relevant as a "nostalgia" issue for former miners and their families (and it plays a role as such). A dream of getting the "good old days" back and a bitternes towards Obama for closing them down with regulation. Cultural issues are increasingly more important in tying WV to the GOP. The media loves talking about coal when it comes to WV, but the question is how many people actually believe coal mining jobs can return with a Trump presidency. 

The state is estimated to produce 73 mio. short tons this year, down from 158 mio. in 2008. New machinery mean they have mined out most of the economically recoverable coal in the state over the last two decades and the sharp drop in production will continue no matter what. 

[Adrian]

It looks like we're going to get half a dozen or more very close races this year. This is partly a result of the campaigning - the balance of money and effort going in to certain states from either side tends to tighten the results there - as long as the national race is also close, and the October Surprise has tightened the national race immensely.

In 2008 there were 5 states under 3% majority, in 2012 there were only three. This time there could easily be more: FL, OH, NC, AZ, NV, UT, IA, PA, MI, CO, NH.

[manchesterman]

Ive been trying to come up with the most realistic scenario which produces a tie on EV. This is the best I could do..anyone see any other (reasonable) scenarios which would produce a tie?


edit: insert image dosent seem to work anymore??

imgur.com/a/u92di

[Robert Waller]

Here's another one:
Take the current RCP no toss ups map

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

and give Nevada to Clinton and Wisconsin to Trump.

For what it's worth, I have voted for Florida to be the closest state.
It has form, as they say.

[Devil Wincarnate]

Oct 26, 2016 20:19:51 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Oct 26, 2016 19:10:24 GMT jamesdoyle said:

I'll bite. What's your reasoning?

It's a wacky idea, I admit.  But my thinking is thus.  There is a pool of primarily white men in that part of Ohio who might not necessarily like Trump but who don't like Clinton.  If Cleveland win, the good humour and positivity round there might cause them to stay at home.  If Chicago win, their disappointment might translate into anger and therefore a willingness to vote for Trump.

Of course, for Chicago it's irrelevant as it's safely Blue and they aren't even the only baseball team in town.

Well, I got this sort-of right.

[Adrian]

Nov 1, 2016 13:59:58 GMT Adrian said:

It looks like we're going to get half a dozen or more very close races this year. This is partly a result of the campaigning - the balance of money and effort going in to certain states from either side tends to tighten the results there - as long as the national race is also close, and the October Surprise has tightened the national race immensely.

In 2008 there were 5 states under 3% majority, in 2012 there were only three. This time there could easily be more: FL, OH, NC, AZ, NV, UT, IA, PA, MI, CO, NH.

There are 8 states under 3% majority: FL, ME, MN, WI, NV, PA, MI, NH, with NH vying with MI for closest of all - no-one voted for either of them but at least I had them as an option on the poll

www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president

[Andrew_S]

It's still difficult to believe that 1.4 billion dollars wasn't enough money to buy Hillary Clinton the advice that she ought to spend at least some time campaigning in Wisconsin and more time in Michigan.

www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

[neilm]

Dec 4, 2017 23:37:36 GMT Andrew_S said:

It's still difficult to believe that 1.4 billion dollars wasn't enough money to buy Hillary Clinton the advice that she ought to spend at least some time campaigning in Wisconsin and more time in Michigan.

www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

They didn't believe what was happening on the ground. I commented at the time on here that her data gathering wasn't actually that great and got so pissed off with the response from the usual suspects that I buggered off for a while. No allowance for qualitative stuff.

Feingold knew he was in trouble weeks out (I cited this in a response to, I think, @odo about the value of boots on the ground data sorry if I've got the wrong person) but Clinton and her people at the DNC- which was subservient to the HRC campaign just ignored it. They didn't have a bloody clue.

I admit that I also said how impressed I was with Cambridge Analytica but now they look a bit odd.

[greenchristian]

Dec 4, 2017 23:37:36 GMT Andrew_S said:

It's still difficult to believe that 1.4 billion dollars wasn't enough money to buy Hillary Clinton the advice that she ought to spend at least some time campaigning in Wisconsin and more time in Michigan.

www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

She definitely needed to direct some campaign resources there. however, that doesn't necessarily mean that visiting the state was the kind of campaigning that was needed. I understand that her campaign had some evidence suggesting that personal appearances in those states were not a positive for the campaign.