North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan.
How do you arrive at 298?
Posted on 09/14/2016 3:51:18 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
No they didn't. And let's not forget George Washington's warning against political parties in his farewell address:
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
Looking forward to Trump finally pulling away for good!
Where is PPD Poll on RCP?
Yes they did but it was done obliquely, and you’re right Washington warned against “factions” which was what political parties were called then. The Founding Fathers understood human nature they understood that humans will group around various “causes” and form “factions”. So they designed a system that minimized “factions”. What’s the minimum number of “factions” you can have and not have a one “faction (or party!)” state? Two!
Why?
That’s because there really is only two issues - strong central government or weak central government. How much of each and what’s the balance that’s been the issue since the beginning “Articles of Confederation” vs “Constitution”, state sovereign power vs nation sovereign power all expressed and argued by two “factions” - “Federalist” vs “Anti-Federalist” as it was in the beginning throughout Washington’s two terms and continues to this day. Sometimes the two main parties actually switch positions over time. For example during the Civil War the Democrats were the party of weak central government the Republicans were for strong today it’s switched.
North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan.
How do you arrive at 298?
My look (to 297 Trump):
CLINTON
Lock 179
Leaning 49 (ME statewide, PA, NJ, VA)
total 228
TRUMP
Lock 198
Leaning 99 (FL, MI, NV, NM, NC, OH, WI)
total 297
Too-close-to-call 13 (NH, CO)
TOTAL EV 538
As for too close to call, didn't data just come out on Colorado for Trump?
OK, admittedly I put some of my own spice on some of these . . . my own assessment of who’s got momentum in the state.
But, how ‘bout these?
NM
Aug. 19-Sep. 8
Ipsos
38% Clinton
48% Trump
MI — based on trend, sharply up for Trump, and:
Aug. 26-Sep. 8
Ipsos
43% Clinton
41% Trump
NM
Aug. 19-Sep. 8
Ipsos
38% Clinton
48% Trump
NC
Sep. 5-7
Suffolk University
41% Clinton
44% Trump
PLUS, I have faith in black voters to come around and help deliver NC.
For insurance I want to see Wisconsin and, in my wildest dreams, Pennsylvania but I think if it comes down to a squeaker, we have much to fear from the Democrats ground game which they have shown themselves to be light years ahead of the Republicans and, clearly, Trump himself who has no remotely comparable ground game in places like Ohio So That, According to MIT Technology, Can turn any state within 3%.
But only because we’ve elected people that have promised us the MOON moon and delivered a flaming bag of dog shiite!
I’ve never missed a vote from dog Catcher on up in 38 years, and I am a total PITA to my state and local CongressCritters. You can ask them! “Oh, Cripes! Not HER, again!”
I sleep well at night. I’ve done all that I can within the confines of our system.
Maybe I need to join BLM or something? *SMIRK*
“It may not be these parties but eventually whatever replaces them will coalesce into 2 parties.”
You are right about that. I guess maybe a better wording on my part would have been, ‘the growing pains of a NEW emerging party’ to replace the GOPe. :)
“Trump is now winning in Electoral Votes, according to my personal analysis of the latest polls, state-by-state.”
Could you start a Ping List for your data? I mean, it might keep me (and others) from putting a bullet in our brains between now and Election Day, LOL!
Consider it your Civic Duty! :)
I think 538 has a very reasonable prediction based on the polling about two weeks ago- which is pretty much what they’re ‘selling’.
As someone above says: it’s the bad polls that make the aggregators inaccurate. “Likely voters” polls have used either the respondent’s word on how likely they are to vote- which is known to be very inaccurate, or they have used 2012 exit polling data- which there is no justification for doing.
BTW: The highly liberal and Trump-hating children at PEC have a map with their prognosis http://www.270towin.com/maps/princeton-election-consortium that can be changed by the user to reflect reality. It is very useful.
You may not want to miss the comments on this thread!
Don’t know about the rest, but Trump leads in latest NC. He’s down 5 in latest MI, but that lead was cut in half in less than a month.
Other polls now have Trump up comfortably in MO, IN, FL, OH, KS, KY, up narrowly in AZ, CO, NV, IA, one ME electoral district, and UT. A pair of very questionable polls have it close in GA and TX.
He’s down just 5 in ME, RI, and NJ.
CO will go Trump before NM and WI.
Diana, here’s your personal WI ping (since I inadvertently left it off before):
WI
Aug. 26-Sep. 8
Ipsos
38% Clinton
40% Trump
I’m not seeing it yet in PA, but the Trump campaign seems optimistic there and they’ve got better data.
Must have decided it was too biased./sarc
On the other hand these individual polls are too often isolated examples belied by other isolated examples as well as by the average.
We speak of battleground states almost as though the parties could remain where they are relative to each other in the electoral college if they split the battleground states evenly but of course the reality is that Republicans must virtually run the table or lose the election. One way to look at it is to see the board as one in which Republicans must win everywhere every time while the Democrats can compete opportunistically.
One of the original arguments for Trump was that he could break this mold by winning the lunch pail or Reagan Democrats in the rust belt. Thus, if we could take Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, we might have some insurance against a misstep in the other battleground states. But without North Carolina, now that Virginia is likely gone, the odds are daunting indeed. With North Carolina, Republicans can hope to replicate the Bush victory of 2000.
However, since 2000 much has changed and not to our advantage. The most obvious change and perhaps the most significant is the flood of leftist voting immigrants who have since 2000 probably put Virginia, for example, out of reach. So the daunting test of running the board of the battleground states becomes even more challenging.
A second change which is portentous as and where the results are close is the technological superiority achieved by Obama and now enjoyed by Hillary in the application of data mining to the ground game. I have long posted on this subject citing the article in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology publication outlining the revolutionary aspects of this new technology and claims of game changing power which clearly succeeded decisively for Obama in 2012 in places like Ohio. Indeed, the originators of this technology claim that they can win any election that is within three points.
Trump is or at least was utterly ignorant of this new technological development. It is said that he has inherited the hurry and catch up project conducted by the Republicans but I am extremely skeptical that they have mastered this technology. This becomes more than a footnote because of the landscape in which Republicans cannot afford more than one or two missteps anywhere. The fiasco of Romney's ground game and his digital efforts in Ohio and elsewhere when his ground game fizzled as his computers crashed on election eve, should cause every faithful conservative grave concern.
You may recall we had a discussion on the subject in the context of the primaries when you made the point that Trump can override the deficiencies in his ground game with his charisma. That proved to be true in the primary season, I question whether it will be true in the general election. If the new data mining approach can in fact actually turn close elections, and we are in a place where we have to run the table, we are in trouble unless Hillary's campaign fundamentally breaks down.
Thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.