But I'm concerned about weak early voting numbers for Democrats in North Carolina. I'm concerned about Republicans leading in early voting in Colorado. I'm concerned about the fact that so many people consider Michigan a toss-up state. I'm concerned about the fact that Clinton won't get the vote of one or possibly two Democratic Electoral College electors in Washington State, which would require Clinton to win 272 electoral votes, not 270.
Now look at the Real Clear Politics Electoral College map with all tossups resolved in favor of the state poll leaders:
Yup -- Clinton's at 272.
I have serious doubts about that map. I trust Jon Ralston, Nevada's most trusted political reporter, when he says that early voting results prove that Trump is dead in the state. I think Clinton's chances in Florida are pretty good. I think she could win Ohio.
But there's so much that's still unknown. And I'm wondering whether everyone's ideas about turnout are just a bit off. I voted this morning on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and the lines were the longest I've ever seen, even though this is one of the safest blue states. On the radio there are anecdotal reports of long lines in Manhattan and Brooklyn, and much shorter lines on Staten Island -- which is less well off than Manhattan the way it's always been, but is also less white than it used to be.
I'm wondering whether college-educated voters are going to turn out in larger numbers than less-educated voters of all races. I know that there are a lot of non-college whites who love Trump, but I bet there are a lot of voters in that group who think both candidates are awful. And I worry about non-white blue-collar voters in areas where there isn't an excellent turnout machine the way there is in Nevada.
But I have no idea.
My sense of this election is that no one is going to win 300 electoral votes -- and I think Nate Silver wasn't crazy to express concern about a Trump Electoral College victory despite a Clinton popular-vote win, because Clinton's voters are concentrated in big states with big cities, and Trump's are scattered throughout the country. She'll win California and New York by huge margins. He could win Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and maybe Michigan and Pennsylvania by 1 or 2 points.
It ain't over till it's over. Vote.
6 comments:
Scary day. Yes.
My Mom and I are going out to vote after breakfast.
I'm less worried than you, Steve.
I believe that that Hillary's victory will come from Latino's and women - and it'll be north of 300 EV's.
In a lot of states, Latino's - not a regular, dependable votin block (not yet, anyway) - are showing-up in record numbers to early-vote.
And I suspect a lot of women whose husbands/boyfriends are big t-RUMP will say to them, "of course, I'm voting for him, Dear!"
And then, on Wednesday say to their significant-other, 'Wow! Will you look at that! t-RUMP lost decisively with women. But not me, Honey! I voted for him (un-crossing her fingers)."
I live in Iowa. This state has only voted for a Republican president once since 1984 (the year I moved here from the South), but Iowans are poised to support Trump this time around. I blame the youth exodus that has been ongoing since the '80s-- the populace has become older and more conservative (see our Senators and 3 of 4 GOP congressmen). Frankly, Obama's popularity here in the past 2 elections really surprised me. I found Iowans to be pretty damn racist when I moved up here, and I live in a liberal enclave.
This year, for the first time since 1992, I voted for the Democratic presidential candidate instead of the Green Party candidate. I takes a lot to get me to support someone whose views align with mine less than the Green Party does.
I agree with Victor-- I think Sec. Clinton will win handily. I just wish my state was going to be a part of it, instead of throwing in with the worst political embarrassment of all time.
You should be worried. But not about "your" candidate losing.
You broke it, you bought it
Ten Bears
If Steve M. were NOT saying "I'm concerned", then I'm concerned.
Here's a "scary" note for you, Steve: no line-ups AT ALL where I am; not a one. And they've been counting for weeks - like THE FIX IS IN, or something.
Except it's not. Things are fine. This is normal. Clinton wins here bigly.
Here's a string of possible odditie, not just because some seem to contradict directly the thing they're supposed to tie in with, but because it speaks of the weak appeal of the future and the stronger pull of the past:
- HRC wins by a mere few EVs, yet
- thrumps the Trump by ~7% in the popular vote
- D take control of the Senate with 52 of their own,
- thereby diluting the power of the two indy senators
- while more voters & a greater percentage of them are registered as "independent than in over a century
- the House numbers effectively remain stagnant, the Rs losing 10 or less, yet
- the Hastert Rule gets smothered on issues of central focus to committees like Budget, & Ways & Means, & HEW
- the empty SCOTUS seat is filled during the lame duck
- in 2017 get a fake failed Debt Ceiling crisis, yet
- no USG shutdown (that'll be saved for spring 2018)
- the RNC hosts an autopsy that, after exhaustive consideration, concludes, possibly in different words as in 2012 (possibly not even that), that their party has no choice but to pass immigration reform & pursue policies that work for hispanics
- the new Congress' House majority founds a new special committee to investigate the new president
With R.E.S.P.E.C.T. for Steve M. (<--sincere), IMO every item on that list is a more real source of concern
College educated whites broke for Trump in FL and nc. Also higher elsewhere.
Rural whites came out to vote and drip drip like an oil stain, won pa and wi and mi. Game over. Well we are in uncharted waters now.
Post a Comment