One Version Electoral College Map
In this map Trump is one state away from a win.
From Market Watch:
Conservative blogger John Hinderaker notes that on the basis of that map the shift of Nevada, New Hampshire (4 votes), and that Maine congressional district (not broken out in FiveThirtyEight), would give Trump the victory with exactly 270 votes.
However, he thinks that Trump will have an easier time of it than that, also winning Michigan (16 votes) and perhaps even Pennsylvania, for a comfortable margin of victory.
Washington Post analyst Chris Cillizza, on the other hand, who has been relentlessly anti-Trump, says “Hillary Clinton remains in the driver’s seat.”
Cillizza considers only four states — Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Nevada — as real battleground states. Awarding the candidates all the states now leaning toward them, he has Clinton winning 273 to 197. In other words, even if Trump won all four of the battlegrounds, Clinton becomes president, in his view.
Polls still have plenty of time to fluctuate. The first presidential debate next week could prove pivotal.
Politico analyst Stephen Shepard heralded this breakthrough last week in an article headlined “Trump cracks the Electoral College lock.” In six weeks, he noted, Clinton’s lead in Electoral College votes has gone from apparently “insurmountable” to a virtual dead heat.
Come election night on Nov. 8, in short, we may once again be watching an Electoral College standoff as we wait for definitive results from Florida.
Read More . . . . 
2 comments:
September 20, 2016
Four UpDated Electoral College Projections For 2016
http://jobsanger.blogspot.com/2016/09/four-updated-electoral-college.html
With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of three-quarters of all Americans is now finished for the presidential election.
Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .
In the 2012 general election campaign
38 states (including 24 of the 27 smallest states) had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.
More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states..
Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).
Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.
Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
“Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”
Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”
Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.
Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
“Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.
Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, steel tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.
The interests of battleground states shape innumerable government policies, including, for example, steel quotas imposed by the free-trade president, George W. Bush, from the free-trade party.
Parochial local considerations of battleground states preoccupy presidential candidates as well as sitting Presidents (contemplating their own reelection or the ascension of their preferred successor).
Even travel by sitting Presidents and Cabinet members in non-election years is skewed to battleground states
Post a Comment