Hillary Clinton defeats Donald Trump 338-200 in Electoral College projection

[riversedge]

Source: examiner.com



Hillary Clinton defeats Donald Trump 338-200 in Electoral College projection



January 19, 2016 9:12 AM MST


?itok=VDY0KDj5
Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by a large margin in the Electoral College projection.
Photo by Sean Rayford/Getty Images

The 2016 presidential primary voting will get started in two weeks with the Iowa Caucus, but the end goal for every candidate is the Electoral College. After winning their party's primary a candidate must win 270 Electoral College votes to move in to the White House. The favorite, thus far, is Hillary Clinton who leads not only within her party but also in Electoral College polling. This projection is for those political junkies among us who want a prediction of the 2016 Electoral College before one should reasonably be provided. This projection gives 338 Electoral College votes to Hillary Clinton in 2016, compared to 200 Electoral College Vote for Donald Trump in a hypothetical matchup. The projection includes all polling available recently released, which at this point is rare but existent. This projection includes the most recent polling data available, including a new national poll released over the last 48 hours from NBC/Wall Street Journal. A map of this projection can be seen here.

So how are these projections made?

First, we need to look at how Democrats and Republicans performed in the last three presidential elections. While past results do not always indicate future performance, the recent presidential elections give us a fairly good idea of how the demographics of each state favor or disfavor each party. More emphasis is put on the last presidential election in 2012 since that date is obviously more recent and, therefore, more likely to be accurate.

Secondly, we need to look to how each state is trending. Trends are determined by looking at the last three presidential elections and also the changing demographics of each state.

Finally, the projection also accounts for any polling done within that state and the national polls done thus far. A Real Clear Politics average of national polls show Democrat Hillary Clinton, should she decide to run, with a sizeable lead over any potential Republican rival. There are some polls that have been done in individual states already for the 2016 presidential election. However, the overall number is sparse and the data is less likely to be accurate given how far away we are from the election. Therefore, at this point the past election results are given more weight. However, in the future polls will take on more significance. In analyzing the current poll I look at the numbers for the best candidate from each party in each poll. ............................

Read more: http://www.examiner.com/article/hillary-clinton-defeats-donald-trump-338-200-electoral-college-projection

[elias49]

1. Someone should tell Clinton!

She said during one of the debates that she absolutely does NOT look at polls.

[Kingofalldems]

2. Hahaha--republican haters.

[Matthew28]

3. Great news!!!

I hope she buries trump and the far right so deep that they never recover!

[Odin2005]

4. A ham sandwich could beat any Republican.

But winning the Presidency is not only thing, we also need enough turnout to take back Congress and state legislatures. Shillary cannot do that, Bernie can.

[Odin2005]

6. Thank you for your concern.

[Plucketeer]

9. That "slaughter".

Hold that thought AND your breath. Don't exhale until the slaughter is complete.

[thebighobgoblin]

10. You guys are unbelievable LOL

You actually believe that simply because YOU are passionate about a liberal, the rest of the country will be once Hillary is out of the way. This is why democrats and liberals lose elections, assuming that the rest of the world is rational and that they 'get it' like they do. Most of the rest of the world isn't rational. While you all are reading objective news, watching documentaries, and being conscientious liberals, the rest of America is going duck hunting, shopping at Wal-Mart, and watching reality TV. This is the MAJORITY of America. Not you.

[Orrex]

15. Wow. You're the kind of asshole who gives Clinton supporters a bad name.

If you provided someone's only impression of her campaign, I can hardly fault them for rejecting her outright.

I'm sorry to see that you were PPR'ed. You'd have been a fun punching bag.

[JudyM]

11. Um, Nader was part of the reason Shrub got in. Withholding your vote makes you more like

Nader II to Bernie's Gore.

[Raster]

12. First of all, if Bernie is the nominee, you will vote for him or you won't post here.

Plain and simple. Those are the rules.

Second, please put the "Ralph caused it" bullshit aside. A number of Bush* nefarious electoral shenanigans caused Bush* the Dumber to be Selected to be pResident, including deliberate voter disenfranchisement of THOUSANDS OF LIKELY DEMOCRATIC VOTERS by brother Jeb and Cruella de Harris, through everything from illegal voter roll purges to outright polling place intimidation. Not to mention the "Brooks Brothers" coup d'etat and the illegal selection by the Felonious Five of the SCOTUS. The list of reasons how Bush* & Co. stole 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is long, and it doesn't contain the name of Ralph Nader.

And so sorry, but I think you may misjudge the American voter.

[thesquanderer]

7. Six months ago, it was 410-119

same site:

http://www.examiner.com/article/projection-shows-clinton-defeats-donald-trump-419-119-on-electoral-college-map

[thesquanderer]

8. Using their methodology, Sanders would do as well or better

So how are these projections made?

First, we need to look at how Democrats and Republicans performed in the last three presidential elections.

...so this much of the analysis is "any Dem vs any Repub" and is not specific to Clinton

Secondly, we need to look to how each state is trending. Trends are determined by looking at the last three presidential elections and also the changing demographics of each state.

...again, this would provide an estimate for "any Dem vs any Repub", not specific to Clinton

Finally, the projection also accounts for any polling done within that state and the national polls done thus far.

National polls thus far do show Clinton beating her Republican rivals, so that is factored in, and is specific to her. However, national polls thus far tend to show Sanders beating the same Republicans by even more. So a similar calculation for him would be the same or possibly better.

[angrychair]

13. ^^^this^^^ nt

[Kingofalldems]

14. I like both but I remember McGovern.

The media and the republican dirty tricksters made him into Stalin/Trotsky combined. And there was no Fox news then. The same thing but worse would happen to Bernie Sanders. Guaranteed.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

16. Really? Guaranteed to become the next McGovern but WORSE?

Last edited Wed Jan 20, 2016, 04:35 AM - Edit history (2)

Times change, Kingofalldems.

There are substantial differences between today and 1972.

1.) Certain media networks may pound on Sanders, but the internet is a great equalizer today that didn't exist in '72.

2.) The nominee from the republican side this go round is going to be a flawed candidate. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are easy to hate for various reasons. Ted Cruz is your typical Smarmy politician. Trump is a guy with money. Marco Rubio has been pounded as effeminate or something by his own base and due to being pro-immigrant. Jeb! couldn't get anybody excited, even after he added an exclamation point to his name. I mean, the whole thing is a shit show over there.

3.) Bernie Sanders isn't scared of the Socialist Democrat title. He's been wearing it proudly. It's hard to attack someone when they're fully embracing the title (and succeeding regardless). Yes, it'll win them some low-information votes, but Sanders has done a good job of defining himself.

4.) Not really relevant to differences between today and '72, but there's some evidence that Sanders is drawing some support from across the aisle. Is it because of his message, or because the candidates on the republican side are so unpalatable this cycle? Probably somewhere in between. All I know (or feel, rather) is that these republicans saying they're interested in voting for Bernie Sanders.... they're probably not going to vote for Hillary Clinton.

This might be one of those rare cases where we can have our cake and eat it too.

{edit for a late addition below}

5.) Check out the political landscape worldwide. The UK went left. Canada went left. This is not 1972.

[scottie55]

17. Except Bernie Is

More adept of taking on the slimeballs.

Believe me.

[leftynyc]

18. I also remember McGovern

It will be the same thing. I know DU thinks this country will vote for a Jewish president - but they wont. As a man, I love Bernie - he's on the right side of most issues and I'll vote for him but he can't win a general election. That's my opinion and nothing anyone here can say will sway it so don't even bother with the attacks. I'll yawn through them.

[riversedge]

19. Sanders to too anti-everything IMHO

[leftynyc]

20. There are a number of reasons

I don't think he can win - his age, his religion and I agree he's too curmudgeon like. He's right on the issues but against Trump (who will be the gop nominee), we're going to need a fighter. Bernie is simply too nice.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

22. I appreciate your thoughts, leftnyc, but disagree. Sanders matches up very well against Trump.

My theory on Trump. Trump is anti-establishment. That's why he's wiping the floor with the GOP right now. Clinton would do well against Trump, but based on everything I'm seeing, Sanders would especially shine against someone like Trump.

[leftynyc]

23. I don't think you realize

just how dirty donnie is going to get. He's a truly repulsive human being and being an admitted socialist - something that doesn't scare Democrats but for the muddle minded, they will see Stalin, Pol Pot, and those who even believe nazism is from the left (there are true imbeciles in this country). That he's only a few years older than donnie is not the point - he LOOKS much older and we both know how important optics are. It makes me nauseous to think what that cretin will do to Bernie. Hillary can handle it - she's been handling right wing assholes for decades (not that I believe donnie is right wing - he's managed to fool the con imbeciles nicely). I also think it would be incredibly hard to elect a Jewish President.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

24. It's not about 'not realizing' so much as it is disagreeing.

Sanders is the only candidate on either side with a positive favorability rating. Trump has continually been far in the negatives when it comes to favorability ratings. We could say these things don't matter, but there's a strong track record suggesting that they do. Please note, these favorability ratings include democrats, independents and republicans.

Sanders holds his favorability despite proudly wearing the democratic socialist label. Sure... some people are going to carp and moan. People will always find faults. It just appears this whole 'socialist' label isn't going to be the death of Sanders' campaign. He's got years of electoral history suggesting people like voting for him.

[leftynyc]

25. How many people in the US

do you think know about Bernie? A senator from a small state. If you don't think his self described socialist label wont be morphed into stalin, you're kidding yourself.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

21. People didn't think Barack Obama could get elected with that middle name and skin color.

I've never understood the hate toward Jewish folks, but I live far, far away from New York. People scapegoat though. Hitler did it. People are doing it toward Muslims and Mexicans now. I just don't get it.

I bet Bernie Sanders rises above it in the end.

[leftynyc]

26. African Americans make up around 13% of the vote

and it wasn't a hard stretch to guess the vast majority would vote for the first African American president. Jews are less than 1% and the minority vote wont be as strong for Bernie - I can guarantee that. Farrakhan still has a lot of pull in that community and he's been hating on Jews for decades. Sharpton and Jackson have also been known to say very indelicate things about Jews. That comparison is not valid.

[leftynyc]

32. Deleted as duplicate post

[Omaha Steve]

31. They won't vote for a black POTUS that is called a Muslim by Clinton either

http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-campaign-spread-obama-muslim-rumors-says-former-aide-reggie-love-2118681

Hillary Clinton Campaign Spread Obama Muslim Rumors, Says Former Aide Reggie Love

BY JULIA GLUM @SUPERJULIA ON 09/29/15 AT 9:16 AM

A former personal aide to United States President Barack Obama said Monday that false rumors he was a Muslim were "moved along" by Hillary Clinton staffers in 2008. Reggie Love, speaking Monday with Fox News radio host Brian Kilmeade, said he didn't know where the story questioning Obama's faith originated, but the campaign had solid indicators that "folks from that camp" were spreading it.

One of Kilmeade's questions to Love revolved around an excerpt from his book, “Power Forward: My Presidential Education,” which chronicles Obama's rise to president. Love wrote about a moment on the tarmac at the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in 2007 where Clinton approached Obama to apologize for a staffer who suggested Obama was a drug user and seller.

Obama "very respectfully told her the apology was kind, but largely meaningless, given the emails it was rumored her camp had been sending out labeling him as a Muslim. Before he could finish his sentence, she exploded on Obama. In a matter of seconds, she went from composed to furious," according to a Washington Post excerpt from the book. Love described it as the moment Obama -- who is a Christian -- knew he would win the Democratic nomination for president.

Love confirmed this account to Kilmeade Monday, saying that Obama's campaign had "pretty decent data points" that told them about Clinton's role in the rumors. “For then-Sen. Obama, the campaign trail had been very challenging for him, and one of the things I don’t think he expected was in the Democratic primary there would have been as much smearing, as you want to call it, and going after people's credibility and who they are as a person with information that is a little less than accurate," Love said.

FULL story at link.

[leftynyc]

33. My reasons for thinking the

dynamics are different for this election are above. I wish you were right - but I don't think you are.

[calguy]

29. Also in 1988 Dukakis had a HUGE lead over Old Man Bush

But when the dirty tricksters unleashed their as campaign Dikakis lost big time.
If Bernie is nominated you'll see his picture next to Lenin and Stalin and the voters will reject the "socialist" when he is defined as a communist. I've seen it too many times. Don't want to see it again.

[Kingofalldems]

30. Absolutely right.

And a complicit media.

[exboyfil]

27. Poll shows taking North Carolina and losing Colorado

Anything can happen in a general election. Lets say NC stays Rep. Dems lose Colorado.

Florida is always a crap shot and may be influenced by the bottom of the ticket.
Ohio also is in play

Assuming the following then you have 276-262 meaning that if Wisconsin goes Republican then the Democrats lose. Also a possibility would be Iowa and New Hampshire going Republican.

The Dems have the electoral edge, but these swing states can go either way. Trump even leads in Pennsylvania over Clinton in the reported article (they still project it as a Democrat state). I think if the Dems lose Pennsylvania then they would have already lost Ohio and the election.

[Gothmog]

28. Thanks for posting

[Matthew28]

34. As long as the repubtugs lose

Florida, ohio or Virgina = Clinton or Bernie will be president. The odds highly favor that.

[itcfish]

35. What really scares me

and gets me very upset is that Trump would receive even 1 Electoral Vote.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

37. Yeah, but if that happens, we end up with Clinton as President.

Clinton would be OK, certainly better than Trump.

But we can do better, we don't have to settle for the center.