US Presidential election 2016

Given that I'm pinned down with a problem I can't solve, I've decided to have a go with the Nate Silver 538 tool.

Trump narrowly squeaked it

For those who require the rationale as to how I came to this conclusion, I've outlined the assumptions used below. I accept that they're flawed incidentally (almost by definition they have to be), and the tool is far from perfect, but its the best the lay person has.

So dealing with the easier ones first. I left the black vote more or less unchanged. I'm assuming that its going to be difficult for Clinton to improve on Obama. The best she can do is match him. I did move the turnout up by 2% points on the assumption of a polarising campaign, but there isn't much Democrat upside left in this group

Then I turned to the white educated vote. A recent poll by CNN (today), suggests that 35% of Republican leaning voters won't support Trump, and that 20% of Democrat leaning voters won't support Hillary. I suspected that the ratio would be more like 3 to 1. In the first case I simply don't believe these expressed intentions. I also think we've seen the first signs in the last debate of Trump starting to tack over to the centre playing for the general election already (just as Cruz and Rubio made a dive for the extreme right) . By the time November comes round he won't look half as crazy as he does today (might look every bit as stupid mind you). I also feel we need to remember that the President might have to appoint at least one judge to the SCOTUS (there is a vacancy at the moment) and that conservatives value their majority here. I'm happy to accept that we'll see abstainers amongst the white educated group, but I'm not sure we'll see switchers to anything like the degree that this CNN poll suggests. I've dropped turnout from 77% to 73% therefore, and reduced the Republican majority by 3% effectively giving the Democrats the net gain. I suspect that the so called 'Bernie bros' (I don't get it either) will fall in behind Hillary more readily than the dissenting Republicans

By this stage the Democrats have a commanding advantage, but have only picked up North Carolina

Now I come to the less educated white vote. Trying to get a handle on this is tough. The primaries are pointing to an increase in Republican participation of about 11%, whereas the Democrats are the same as normal. It's widely accepted that this is the Trump affect. I'm happy to believe that too (unless you're asking me to accept that Marco Rubio has captured the zeitgeist of the nation!). I'm equally happy to believe that a majority of these are the middle aged, lower income, less well educated white voters who've taken themselves out of previous cycles. If you can be bothered to vote in a primary, there are grounds to think you will in a general election. Since this phenomenon is restricted to the Republicans though, I've increased turnout by 6% to 63%, and awarded 5% of this to Trump (67% now). I'm also working on a hunch that blue collar democrats will swing and have increased the Republican share by another 3% to 70%.

This is where heads do spin for the first time

Colorado, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Florida, and Iowa all changes hands and go red (i doubt Colorado myself, and still expect Virginia to be vulnerable, which has surprisingly stayed Democrat). The Republicans now have a majority of 282 to 256

This brings us to the latinos and hispanics, but they're difficult to get a handle on too. In Nevada 8% of the Republican caucus was hispanic (Mexican) but they supported Trump ahead of Rubio and Cruz (Cubans). There is little love lost between the two communities due to the Mexican perception that Cubans get preferential treatment. 19% of the Democrat caucus was hispanic, which seems to suggest the hsipanic vote is already expressing a preference. This disguises the turnout however. The number of Republican participants was 7 times that of Democrats. Even with a smaller percentage (8 versus 19) Trump Republicans still mopped up more hispanic participants than the Democrats (6017 against 2278). You might argue that these were stop Trump hispanics participating in the Republican caucus, but he won their vote so they didn't do a very good job. Should we be surprised? Legal immigrants tend to be some of the most disapproving of illegal immigrants. Also, having got their first foot on the ladder, they're perhaps acutely aware that they're more vulnerable in the jobs market to illegal immigrants replacing them. I'm going to go with the consensus though and increase the hispnaic turnout to 52% from 48%, but award three quarters of this increase (3% points) to the Democrats

The new result sees Colrado go back blue, but Trump is otherwise hanging on to a victory in the college of 273 to 265, albeit he's lost the popular vote by 48.8% to 49.5%

The final catgeory is Asian and others. In the UK this would mean Indian, but in the US I expect a Chinese influence might be more prominent. Trump has made China his second biggest bogeyman after Mexico. He's blamed them for being behind a bizarre conspiracy regarding global warming, and threatened them with a 45% trade tariff, as well as issues of militarising the Spratly Islands. No one seems to have written anything about this demographic. I increased their turnout to 54%, (up 5%) and decided to award 74% to the Democrats (the same as the latinos). Despite this 7% increase in support, nothing altered. It suggests they live in deep blue states such as New York or California. By contrast, if I give the Democrats 1% more in support from Latinos, they win Florida and take the White House (that's how close it becomes)

Ultimately I decided on this appraisal of the Asian and other vote. I set turnout 1% higher than the hispanics (as it is now) and the democrat vote 4% lower (as it is now) and then bolted that onto the hispanic projection as the baseline. Despite having made no erosion into the Obama black vote which I've decided to retain in favour of Hillary, I did decide to penalise Trump by 2% in the Asian vote. So turnout is 55% (up 6%) and the democrat majority is 71% (up 4%)

The result

Donald Trump 48.3% and 273 college votes v's Hillary Clinton 50% and 265 college votes

"I Donald J Trump do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute ......... (Megyn Kelly)"

This could be a hell of a lot closer than people think

The Trump path is predicated on achieving about 70% turnout amongst lower educated whites (college educated already generate 77%). If he can get this, (the baseline is 57%) and his primary performance to date suggests he's in striking distance with the added allure of a general election, then he could be sitting pretty if he can match it with a corresponding rise in the vote. Anything above 70% on either parameter and you suddenly start getting landslides as the whole thing tilts as shed loads of states start to change colour for about 2 percentage points.
 
Last edited:
Fascinating stuff, Warbler; makes for interesting reading.

I would err on the side of caution with regards to delegate maths in a general election so far out - as enjoyable as it is to read. There is an awful lot of water to flow under the bridge before then that could completely re-configure the state of the race at a national level. One of the biggest questions in my mind is how will Trump's campaign actually hold up in a general election (assuming he gets there)? He has been cruising along so far, but has not really had a significant (much less sustained) challenge. In terms of Trump's team, I would have fairly serious questions (particularly given Hillary's machine).

I would also be very cautious in extrapolating demographic data from the states that have already voted this cycle (particularly Nevada) and extending it to other states (or the general election as a whole). I do think that you are right that lower-income, less-educated will play a major factor in the outcome though. Worth remembering that although Sanders seems to be doing well amongst this group (limited evidence health warning etc) thus far, it was Hillary who relied upon the same demographic last cycle. Of course, that could be irrelevant as Donald Trump loves the poorly educated... :lol:

On the broader point, I was discussing the race with someone at work today. His thought was that the GOP establishment, if it gets to the point where Trump seems too far down the line to be stopped (possibly starting now he was saying), might stand down and 'write off' this election. I had not considered it before, but his rationale was that it would be worth it if the Trump brand of nationalist, demagogic politics were stamped out in a Clinton landslide. He has not considered the fact that Trump might win it; were he to do that (and I personally would give him a fairly low chance of doing so right now), I think it would surely be a sea change in American politics not seen since 68/72 (and probably more fundamental than that).
 
Last edited:
There's 101 holes in my rationale (almost inevitably there has to be).

Romney won the white vote 60 - 40, yet Obama won the low income vote by about the same margin

The key to Trump is whether he can plug back into the so called Reagan Democrats. If you can re-engage this group, the Republicans can start thinking about the sorts of results they haven't been able to do so for two generations.

Typically this group has been taken for granted by the Democrats, and abandoned as unreachable by the Republicans, who have instead gone chasing after Hispnaics instead (a group Trump has alienated!). Trump is the only candidate they have who can reach them

The Reagan Democrats liked an aggresive foreign policy (Trump scores there) they were then turned off by the Republicans lurch towards aggresive christianity (Trump scores there too). In addition his commitment to protectionism over the Democrats free trade will also score well with them. In some regards they're a more natural constituency to chase than the hispanics, and they're takeable too.

I've done a bit of digging into this small group of 'Asian and others' since I mucked around with that model, and have discovered that as recently 25 years ago they voted Republican in the sort of ratio that they vote Democrat today. Apparently it was the biggest, and quickest seismic shift in modern electoral history in terms of a whole group changed sides. Again it was the GOP's pursuit of aggresive christianity that seems to have figured heavily in pushing them into the arms of the Democrats

In terms of sabotaging their own campaign, McConnell has been openly talking about running attack ads against Trump in order to protect the senate majority. Some donors are even investigating the possibility of running rebel candidates apparently (won't happen imo). If they get a hint however that the white house is within reach, and if they suddenly realise that Trump is bringing a whole new pool of voters into the tent (the old Reagan democrats) I suspect they'll start to soften up a bit
 
Last edited:
trackside528 said:
I would also be very cautious in extrapolating demographic data from the states that have already voted this cycle (particularly Nevada)
Click to expand...

I found the Hispanic bloc the hardest one to get a handle on in truth, and I'm not sure the model wouldn't benefit from separating Mexicans and Cubans given how unique yet influential the latter group is.

If I'd taken the Nevada caucus literally though, I could have concluded that with the three times the number of hispanics caucusing for the Republicans, this was an expressed preference and extrapolated a 75/25 advantage. I didn't. Instead I relied on my own instinct and I inflated their turnout 4% to 52% and awarded the Democrats a net voter increase of 3% resulting. Now it could be that 2016 is the breakthrough election and the hispanics engage en-masse for the first time? Until that happens though I decided to err on the side of caution

I suspect that Trump has done some crude calculation that Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico are already Democrat states and not going to vote for him. He's possibly thinking that if he can scapegoat Mexicans here he might get some traction amongst the blue collar white voters of Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. If he can, then he'd consider it a good swap. The danger is if alienates hispanics in Florida in the process. Do they identify hispanic or Cuban, because for now he's very much keeping the word Mexico to the fore

Just as an aside I'm equally conscious that I passed a better black vote over to the Democrats then that which Obama achieved. I could be being generous. I thought I'd look at some historical data. In 92 and 96, they voted 83% in favour of Clinton, albeit Ross Perot muddied the water. If you take all the non Republican black vote though it averaged at 88%, the same as that which opposed Bush in the next two cycles. There could be grounds for assuming therefore that support for Hillary returns to these sorts of levels (about 3% down on Obama).

Its only when turnout is introduced that the Obama effect comes into play. It's averaged at 68% for his two elections, but averaged 57% for those who opposed Bush. If it returns to these levels (88% on a 57% turnout) the Democrats lose Florida and Ohio. If Hillary replicates the level of turnout that Bill got from the black community, they lose Virginia too

Now in fairness the Clinton stock has risen amongst the black community considerably since Bill stood in 1992, but my accepting a 91% vote on a 70% turnout is being on the optimsitic side for Hillary probably

The result that surprised me (as its bound to be odds against) was Wisconsin going red, and also Virginia staying blue (which will probably be a shades odds on)
 
Last edited:
The GOP is having a nervous breakdown. Today's daft idea appears to be running Mitt Romney as a rebel candidate to stop Trump winning the White House. Amazing isn't it. They're actively trying to find a rebel candidate to run against themselves! To a large extent though chickens are coming home to roost.

The GOP has developed along the model of movement conservatism, characterised by the pursuit of ideological interests that are promoted to the mutual benefits of controlling stakeholders, who then play the membership. Eventually they start to believe that the whole unedifying party is their personal conglomorate. You only need to look at how dismissive the machinaries management is of the people's will as the spectre of a brokered convention looms larger. It's becoming more and more apparent as all of sudden 1001 personal interests are placed in jeopardy

Basically the GOP has corroded from the core. It evolves a tight inner circle of control and does little more than reproduce in its own image. Trump isn't part of this. As he said at the start, he's not beholden to them for patronage or funding. One of the more memorable exchanges in the early debates was when he went along the line of politicians on the stage detailing how he'd had to pay campaign donations to all of them in order to pursue his business interests. Mike Huckerbee interjected saying he'd never taken Trump money. Trump confirmed this, apologised, and then suggested Huckerbee wasn't worth buying anyway! Jeb Bush was left flannelling about, and assuring the audience that he didn't allow Trump to build a casino in Florida, so the relationship didn't matter as he hadn't been bought. Trump simply retorted that he was never interested in doing so, and if he were, Jeb would have sanctioned it, because that's how the broken system works. Somehow the public knew he was likely telling the truth

The GOP has now spent two defeated cycles trying to reach out to hispanics. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz aren't accidents (Raphael Cruz also changed his name incidentally to make him sound more American like Trump). They're reaching out to this group as future endorsers and inviting them into the movement. Now Trump has called them "rapists and criminals" and wants to build a wall. This is another reason why the GOP hate him and the way he's ripping up their controlling hegenomy.

Another player in all this is the media. They hate Trump. Sure he's temporarily good for their ratings, but he can't be influenced to follow their lines anything like as easily as a beholden politician who is dependent on their endorsements and patronage can. Fox News in particular are very vitriolic on Trump

The fact that Trump can stand outside of this is what scares the GOP. They're losing control of the party. The levers of patronage and support that keeps their front office politicians on message and in bondage to them, are being challenged by someone who they can't control.

Trump is also taking aim at specific industries who prop this up too. He's made a big play on the insidious relationship between health insurance companies and the GOP, and pointed out that compliant politicians have made healthcare unaffordable for about 20% of Americans because they're beholden to a relationship where shady corporate interests overlaps the governing executive. The defence industry is another classic case. America spends ten times more than the nearest country in the world. It doesn't need anything like the level of defence spending it indulges

In the last 20 years the GOP has invited new elements into this movement. Rather than being endorsers/ voters (as intended) these lobby groups have become formulators to the detriment of their appeal. The Tea Party is the classic example. They've embraced aggressive christianity on an unprecdented level and become hostage to all sorts of social conservative issues that have been allowed a level of influence far beyond the significance they should have commanded. They've promoted anti science, and encouraged anti intellectualism to the point where its considered attractive. They even put Sarah Palin on a presidential ticket!

But in order to stay operational, movement conservatism needs people to endorse it. Traditional blue collar republicans and the Reagan Democrats, abandoned the party. Instead the GOP have fallen back on the south, where they've encountered a group of people who Paul Krugman noted have been voting against their own economic interests for a couple decades now, but whom found a greater calling in social conservatism and religion.

This is where Trump has gained hugely (accidentially I suspect). He's invented a new religion. It's not him. Its a religion called 'America'. He possibly realises that the calling to "Make America Great Again" can reach out beyond movement conservatism, and the chains of any other 'ism' or bonded group. It can appeal to an even stronger base emotion in people.

This new religion of America embodies many of the characteristics of a conventional religion, hence its appeal. It is capable of being communicated as a calling to a way of life, an comes with a ready defined a value belief system. It's something that people are capable of transferring a degree of following to, and at worst a sense of worship. At a stroke he's dispelling the need to pander to the likes of Beck, Bachmann, Limbaugh, and Erickson.

What Trump seems to be creating is a giant American totem which obedient tribute states dance around in worship. It will be a relationship characterised by naked greed sold domestically as American self interest. It will be backed up by their military, which he clearly sees as something of a foreign currency earner and bargining chip. Even if it doesn't start off as fascist, its well down that road. It isn't a particularly long journey required to the coronation.
 
Last edited:
What do we reckon to tonight then? Just looking at it at a glace, if Rubio stays within 200 delegates or less after tonight (unlikely I know) it's game on? 200-275 Rubio needs to take Ohio and Florida (and but not or) to get back in it? Any more than that it would appear inevitable and Trump is headlong towards being the Republican nominee....
 
I'm not really getting the Minnesota thing. So far as i can see it's based on one poll of about 280 people that was conducted between Jan 18-20

Rubio visited Minneapolis on the 19th for the first time. I'm almost inclined to speculate the poll was taken at his fundraiser!

Since then I've heard a lot of people calling Minnesota for him. I can accept it shares some characteristics with Iowa, but surely if his team had really detected that he had traction there he'd have been all over it. I think it's more than likely an erroneous poll, and increasingly desperate Rubio supporters clinging to the raft of the medusa

I suspect Rubio will nudge 20% in Texas as late deciders have broken for him throughout the campaign, but if he doesn't, and he's rarely polled 20+, he leaves the lone star empty handed

He did have a position in Virgina a couple of weeks ago, but Trump seems to have consolidated that now

I suspect that Trump will do enough in Oklahoma

Alaska is such a small turnout that its really hard to call, but perhaps mad Palin can direct enough support for Trump there you'd think

The one that has me struggling a bit is Arkansas. They went heavily for Santourm in 2012. I'm probably going to go with the idea that Cruz hasn't done as well in the post debate climate as the punditry would like us to believe. The polls I've seen since the debate simply don't reflect the medias appraisal. Trump started breaking 40% with much greater regularity. He hit 49% in a national CNN. He opened up in Virginia and he's managed to get over 50 in Massacheusetts for the first time

The consensus is that Cruz takes Arkansas I believe (personally I think Rubio might be a more credible challenge) but I'll go against it and back the Donald to get everything other than Texas. I just think the media have been calling this wrong, and so I'll say that the CNN poll might be nearer to the mood of the nation at the moment

Mind you, the media have been unleashing everything on Trump in the last 48 hours. He might be horrible in just about every corpuscle, but you have to admire the **** he's taking. I did laugh though at a rally in Ohio today when he seemed to be preparing the ground to duck Megyn Kelly again by pointing out how boring and repetitive the debates were becoming, "how many times can you give the same answer?" and then said to the crowd should he take part, and they all said "yes" :lol:. Get them on message first Donald
 
Last edited:
Trump has a big lead in Florida and is giving a press conference there at midnight.
 
Nate Silver is spending his time tonight tweeting about Google search data. There was plenty of coverage of social media in the recent Irish election. I can't think of any more skewed days than that of social media mentions.
 
The Florida Primary is on March 16th, but a quarter of the State's counties began voting yesterday.
What kind of crazy batshit system is that?
I don't understand it.
 
Early exists don't look that good for Trump

Have the late deciders gone completely against him? Suggestions he's under pressure from Rubio in Virginia and Kasich in Vermont

The anti Trump media has been absolutely intense for the last 48 hours with a carousel of commentators taking it in turns to diss him. Might it finally be working? Having said that, I've got a feeling we've seen a few early exit polls before that proved wildly off the mark
 
Warbler said:
Early exists don't look that good for Trump

Have the late deciders gone completely against him? Suggestions he's under pressure from Rubio in Virginia and Kasich in Vermont

The anti Trump media has been absolutely intense for the last 48 hours with a carousel of commentators taking it in turns to diss him. Might it finally be working? Having said that, I've got a feeling we've seen a few early exit polls before that proved wildly off the mark
Click to expand...

He's under no pressure in Virginia.
 
Has anyone got a reliable feed?

I've seen about five different projections now for Virginia with 3 going Trump, 1 Rubio, and 1 TCTC

I'm happy to go with Nate Silver projecting off Chesterfield County which says Trump wins by 4%
 
Last edited:
Watching CNN is probbaly as good as anything, albeit they're having a bit of a Trump love in at the moment

So far as I can see though Trump is slotted to lose Oklahoma to Cruz

I've got to think he's vulnerable in Arkansas now if that's the case, albeit his vote has held up in southern evangelical counties in Georgia and Alabama

Perhaps that Minnesota poll that I was hugely skeptical about is correct. Assuming he loses Texas as well. He might only carry 7 states tonight, which is disappointing for him.

I'd be getting twitchy now if I were the Trump campaign. Perhaps tonight is the night where he blew out after all. It strikes me that for the first time the country might have woken up to this threat and started doing something about it
 
He's 4/11 to win Oklahoma in running. The markets were a bit spooked earlier with Trump drifting from 1.24 to 1.34 to win the nomination but that has now stabilised.
 
Back
Top