Skip to main content

Where things stand two weeks from the election

As of Tuesday, we were exactly two weeks away from election day, so I thought I'd delve into the odds and my own personal predictions.

As of this moment, numbers-guru Nate Silver has Democratic nominee at an 84.2% chance of winning the election and Republican nominee Donald Trump at a 15.8% chance of winning. On average, Silver has Clinton winning 333.4 electoral votes and 49.6% of the popular vote, while he has Trump winning 203.3 electoral votes and 43.3% of the popular vote. Some of Silver's most surprising predictions (to this point) have to be the following: 

1) Arizona (11 electoral votes): Clinton - 52.6%, Trump - 47.4%

2) Iowa (6 electoral votes): Clinton - 54.6%, Trump - 45.4%

3) Ohio (18 electoral votes): Clinton - 52.8%, Trump - 47.2%

4) North Carolina (15 electoral votes): Clinton - 67.4%, Trump - 32.6%

5) Florida (29 electoral votes): Clinton - 69.7%, Trump - 30.3%

With the increase in Latino voters, Arizona has been a state Democrats have sought to turn blue for quite some time but failed to do so. While I still have trouble seeing a Democratic nominee winning the state until it happens, the fact Clinton has a slight edge just two weeks out from election day is quite telling. Most of the Iowa polls I've seen have Trump up by between 1 and 5 points, so while I believe it will be a very tight race, I'm honestly surprised Clinton is the odds-on favorite to win the state. Ohio appears to be a toss-up state if there ever was one. Before the Access Hollywood tape was released, Donald Trump enjoyed about a 5-point lead in the Buckeye state. After that tape was released, however, one poll had Clinton up by 9. Since the dust settled there, most of the polls I've seen have the two candidates about as close to even as is possible. If anyone appears to hold a slight edge in the recent polls, however, it's Trump, so again, I'm slightly surprised Clinton is the favorite in this state. As for Florida, and especially North Carolina, I think Hillary Clinton is in relatively good shape, and that's slightly surprising to me. President Obama won the Sunshine State by less than a percentage point against Mitt Romney in the 2012 election, and after winning the state in 2008 as well, I would ordinarily have trouble seeing a party winning Florida three consecutive times. While polls show the race is tight, they do seem to show Clinton with a slight edge. Also, while President Obama won North Carolina in the 2008 election, Democratic support seemed to wane in the 2012 election, so the Clinton campaign team would have likely been thrilled to simply make the Tar Heel State competitive again, forcing the Trump campaign to spend more money than anticipated in the state. Two weeks out, though, I'd actually be slightly surprised to see Donald Trump winning the state.

As for my predictions, I'll play things a bit more conservatively than Nate Silver. Before I do, though, keep your eye on the following states come election day: Georgia, Missouri, Texas, Indiana, and Utah. Polls have been closer than expected in the first four states, and Utah appears to be a three-person, between the two major parties' candidates and Independent Evan McMullin. While McMullin winning wouldn't harm Clinton at all (Utah is about as solid red as you can get on the electoral map), it would further diminish Trump's chances of winning 270 electoral votes.

Current prediction: Clinton 323, Trump 215

Clinton
1) Washington: 12 (12 total) - definite
2) Oregon: 7 (19 total) - definite
3) California: 55 (74 total) - definite
4) Nevada: 6 (80 total) - questionable
5) Hawaii: 4 (84 total) - definite
6) Colorado: 9 (93 total) - probable
7) New Mexico: 5 (98 total) - probable
8) Minnesota: 10 (108 total) - probable
9) Wisconsin: 10 (118 total) - probable
10) Michigan: 16 (134 total) - probable
11) Illinois: 20 (154 total) - definite
12) Maine: 4 (158 total) - probable
13) Vermont: 3 (161 total) - definite
14) New Hampshire: 4 (165 total) - probable
15) Massachusetts: 11 (176 total) - definite
16) Connecticut: 7 (183 total) - definite
17) Rhode Island: 4 (187 total) - definite
18) New Jersey: 14 (201 total) - probable
19) Delaware: 3 (204 total) - definite
20) New York: 29 (233 total) - definite
21) Pennsylvania: 20 (253 total) - probable
22) Maryland: 10 (263 total) - definite
23) Virginia: 13 (276 total) - probable
24) North Carolina: 15 (291 total) - questionable
25) Washington, D.C.: 3 (294 total) - definite
26) Florida: 29 (323 total) - questionable

Definites: 13 for 168 electoral votes

Probables: 10 for 105 electoral votes

Questionables: 3 for 50 electoral votes

Definites/Probables: 23 for 273 electoral votes

Trump
1) Alaska: 3 (3 total) - probable
2) Idaho: 4 (7 total) - definite
3) Utah: 6 (13 total) - questionable
4) Arizona: 11 (24 total) - questionable
5) Montana: 3 (27 total) - probable
6) Wyoming: 3 (30 total) - definite
7) North Dakota: 3 (33 total) - probable
8) South Dakota: 3 (36 total) - definite
9) Nebraska: 5 (41 total) - probable
10) Kansas: 6 (47 total) - probable
11) Oklahoma: 7 (54 total) - definite
12) Texas: 38 (92 total) - questionable
13) Iowa: 6 (98 total) - questionable
14) Missouri: 10 (108 total) - questionable
15) Arkansas: 6 (114 total) - probable
16) Louisiana: 8 (122 total) - probable
17) Mississippi: 6 (128 total) - probable
18) Alabama: 9 (137 total) - definite
19) Georgia: 16 (153 total) - questionable
20) South Carolina: 9 (162 total) - probable
21) Tennessee: 11 (173 total) - probable
22) Kentucky: 8 (181 total) - probable
23) West Virginia: 5 (186) - definite
24) Indiana: 11 (197 total) - questionable
25) Ohio: 18 (215 total) - questionable

Definites: 6 for 31 electoral votes

Probables: 11 for 68 electoral votes

Questionables: 8 for 116 electoral votes

Definites/Probables: 17 for 99 electoral votes


Look at those numbers. In the end, I believe Hillary Clinton will win the electoral vote, 323 to 215. Breaking that down even further, however, we see that it's going to be incredibly difficult for Trump to even hypothetically reach 270 electoral votes. According to all the polls I've seen, Clinton has all but locked up 23 states (including D.C.) for a total of 273 electoral votes, 3 more than is required to win the election. So even if Trump happens to win: Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, Iowa, Ohio, Arizona, Utah, Georgia, etc., which is unlikely, he'll still be 5 electoral votes shy of winning the election with 265. Not only does the Republican nominee have to cringe when seeing those 23 states solidly leaning Clinton's direction, he has to also be concerned that he appears to only have 17 states in the bag for just 99 electoral votes. While I currently believe Trump will win the following states: Utah, Arizona, Texas, Iowa, Missouri, Georgia, Indiana, and Ohio, he also has to pour in more money than expected in those states, which detracts from money he could be pouring into "solid" Clinton states, making it even less likely he'll reach 270 electoral votes. A lot can change in two weeks in the world of politics, but even on his best day November 8th, at this time, Donald Trump would fall 5 electoral votes shy of winning the presidency. So, while I disagree with Nate Silver on the projected electoral vote count, I agree with him that, at this time, Hillary Clinton has approximately an 85% chance of winning the election. As a matter of fact, I might raise that number five points to 90%.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

http://www.270towin.com/
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more