A happy piece. Trump's prospects of 270 are dim.

[Deleted]

The Washington Post is hear to tell us bedtime stories so we can sleep at night.

Sure, Trump has the momentum. But his prospects for 270 electoral votes are dim.

By Chris Cillizza

September 18 at 12:54 PM 

It is beyond dispute that Donald Trump has the momentum in the presidential race. It is also beyond dispute that he still has an in­cred­ibly narrow path to get to 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

Let’s start with the two most important numbers in this election: 18 and 13.

Eighteen is the number of states every Democratic presidential nominee has carried in each of the past six presidential elections, dating to 1992. Add in the District of Columbia, which also fits the bill, and you get 242 electoral votes.

Thirteen is the number of states every Republican presidential nominee has won in those same presidential elections. Add them up, and you get 102 electoral votes.

You do not have to be a Fields Medal winner to quickly grasp Republicans’ problem: Their party starts in a significant electoral-college hole, fueled by several states with large populations — California, New York and Illinois, to name three — that are among the most reliably Democratic in the country.

That problem existed before Trump was even a glint in the eye of Republican voters. And it is likely to exist well beyond whatever happens to Trump on Nov. 8. But what it means in practical terms is that even as the race has tightened at both the national and swing-state level, Clinton retains far more paths to 270 electoral votes.

Consider this: If Clinton wins the 18 states plus the District that every Democrat has won since 1992 and also wins Florida (and its 29 electoral votes), she is president. If Clinton wins those 18, the nation’s capital and Ohio (18 electoral votes) and Virginia (13 electoral votes), it’s over.

There are lots of other ways for Clinton to get to 270 or beyond. But what’s more instructive is to look at the paucity of routes Trump has to reach that same number.

Start with an assumption that Trump wins every state that Mitt Romney did in 2012. (That’s a bit of a stretch, given that polling in North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia and Missouri — all states that went for Romney — suggests tight contests.)

If we assume that, Trump starts with 206 electoral votes. He needs at least 64 more.

To understand just how narrow his path is, give him Ohio, Florida, Nevada and Iowa. Under that map, he still loses to Clinton — 273 electoral votes to 265.

Trump, realistically, has only three paths. (And, by “realistically,” I mean within the realm of conceivable. Yes, of course, Trump could run the table of swing states and win easily. But there’s little indication that will happen.)

1. Win Pennsylvania. If Trump could turn the Keystone State, which is one of the 18 “Blue Wall” states that have voted Democratic in each of the past six elections, then the map opens up for him. Subtract 20 electoral votes from Clinton’s presumed 242, and it forces her to add 49 electoral votes rather than just 29.

2. Win Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Iowa, and Colorado or Virginia. Colorado and Virginia have been swing states for at least the past two elections and, in Colorado’s case, far longer. But Trump’s struggles with nonwhite voters have badly complicated his chances in both states. Clinton’s campaign and its aligned super PAC ceased advertising in both states a month ago — a sign of their confidence about her prospects. Trump continues to spend on Virginia, suggesting that he sees a chance in the Old Dominion.

3. Win Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire. That scenario gives Trump 269 electoral votes and Clinton 269 electoral votes. If that happens — and it’s not impossible, by any means — then the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where each state would cast a single vote for president. Such an outcome would invalidate Democrats’ electoral-college edge; Idaho would have the same amount of sway to choose the president as California.

None of those three scenarios is outlandish. But they all require Trump to not only consolidate the gains he has made over the past few weeks but also to expand them. His recent surge has brought him back into contention. But it has not vaulted him ahead.

The task before him is the equivalent of threading a very narrow needle with 300 million people (or so) watching. That’s possible but far from likely. Still.

[OscarQ]

The Electoral College may save our butts this year. Frankly it owes us after 2000.

[elleblue]

Sept 19, 2016 10:28:56 GMT -5 OscarQ said:

The Electoral College may save our butts this year. Frankly it owes us after 2000.

Truth. 

[luckyval]

After the 2000 election, I never thought I'd say to myself (and anyone that will listen): thank you, Electoral College!

[litebright]

I am nervous about Colorado. It has gotten way tighter here than I am comfortable with. I don't think that establishment CO Rs are enthused about Trump so he might not have much in the way of local infrastructure, but there are a lot of Bernie-or-bust types here. I was out canvassing this weekend to contact people who have voted D in the past and two of the people I managed to talk to (most people aren't home/don't answer the door) were former Berners. One will support HRC but also joined Bernie's Our Revolution, and the other is probably going to vote third party because she was all about how the two-party system is broken and she doesn't like either of the main candidates. (ARGH.)

I worry that particularly if there isn't a very robust minority turnout, that there will be enough third-party votes to swing Colorado for Trump. He's definitely putting in effort here, too -- there was a scare-mongering NRA ad over the weekend showing a white woman hearing an intruder, going for her gun in a gunsafe, and ... it's gone! Because of Hillary! And 911 has a 10-minute response time! Don't let Hillary take your guns away! Plus Trump was in CO Springs over the weekend (and literally told the crowd "don't worry how I get there" on actually producing results). And I know HRC diverted a bunch of ad spending away from CO because she thought it was safe -- I don't think it's all that safe any more.

[debatethis]

I'm still not resting easy, especially in light of the terrorist attacks on the east coast and MN over the past few days. That crap feeds right into Trump's "ban the Muslims" stuff and right-leaning undecided voters might eat it up.

[satsuma]

Trump has a greater chance of winning the electoral college while losing the popular vote than vice versa so I'm not getting the electoral college love. Both scenarios are unlikely, though.

[eliseb0323]

I think if Trump takes Florida and Ohio, Clinton is in serious trouble, and he is ahead in both states in some polls. I am worried about CO, and can easily see him taking Nevada and Iowa. I really don't see VA in play here -- Clinton is comfortably ahead.

I can't believe it's come down to this. I can't believe so many people are so damn stupid.

No matter how well Clinton does in the debates, Trump will claim he won. Why is it that no one can point a camera at him and throw up video and audio clips and Twitter posts that prove he is lying? How can he blatantly claim he didn't say things that he was recorded saying? And why can't someone hack his damn tax returns?

[Deleted]

I don't remember who I was listening to, but they said that it's likely Trump will "win" the first debate because the bar is SO LOW for him that if he shows up and doesn't totally lose his mind people will consider it a success. It's just such a sad commentary of where we are.

[mrshandy]

I don't see VA going Trump at all.

I see this scenario as the most likely.

If Clinton wins those 18, the nation’s capital and Ohio (18 electoral votes) and Virginia (13 electoral votes), it’s over.


I don't think she will get FL, but I really hope she gets Ohio. 

[luckyval]

I'm so ashamed to see him pulling ahead in NC. I think everyone here has been so caught up in state politics.

[dexteroni]

I opened this to make myself feel better, but it actually makes me more worried. All of these scenarios rest on him changing only one state. And some of the states listed were blue and are now red, so it's not impossible that more could follow suit. Ugh. I cannot believe we're here right now.

[eliseb0323]

Sept 19, 2016 11:31:26 GMT -5 mrshandy said:

I don't see VA going Trump at all.

I see this scenario as the most likely.

If Clinton wins those 18, the nation’s capital and Ohio (18 electoral votes) and Virginia (13 electoral votes), it’s over.


I don't think she will get FL, but I really hope she gets Ohio. 

This is why I think Trump has a good chance of winning -- I can see him taking Ohio.  He's ahead in several polls there.

[One Girl In All The World]

Sept 19, 2016 11:37:15 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

Sept 19, 2016 11:21:41 GMT -5 @bugginnine said:

I don't remember who I was listening to, but they said that it's likely Trump will "win" the first debate because the bar is SO LOW for him that if he shows up and doesn't totally lose his mind people will consider it a success. It's just such a sad commentary of where we are.

trump has zero impulse and facial control. i mean, if he avoids flinging his literal shit at HRC, it would be a win for him.

but the gifs and soundbites alone will tank him. at least thats what i am hoping for

I think it won't take much to goad him into a meltdown. And I don't think HRC will have to get down in the mud to do it even. Unless KellyAnn drugs Trump before hand. 

[piffka]

I cannot understand the apathy of the electorate. I'd rather someone had the opposing position than they not bother to think or act at all. Marshmallow people... ugh. That is why it is so hard for me to get involved in a GOTV drive. I just want to smack somebody who doesn't bother to vote, which is not what you're supposed to do (they tell me). You're supposed to kindly cajole them, offer a ride, blah, blah, blah.

[ESF]

My understanding is that Trump's support has generally remained pretty steady. When he pulls into the lead, it's less so because tons of people are changing their minds and deciding to vote for him. It's because Clinton is going down. When she goes down, her support splits between Johnson and Stein, with only a minuscule number defecting to Trump, or people that are just opting out.

The debates and everything else over the next 50 days won't cause Trump's numbers to go up. What they will change is how many third party voters and people abstaining become scared shitless enough to vote for Clinton.

[ESF]

Sept 19, 2016 11:56:26 GMT -5 piffka said:

I cannot understand the apathy of the electorate. I'd rather someone had the opposing position than they not bother to think or act at all. Marshmallow people... ugh. That is why it is so hard for me to get involved in a GOTV drive. I just want to smack somebody who doesn't bother to vote, which is not what you're supposed to do (they tell me). You're supposed to kindly cajole them, offer a ride, blah, blah, blah.

There's a lot of science behind voting habits, and your opinion of GOTV is  wrong.

Think about it this way. For people who do not ever exercise, there aren't really a whole lot of incentives to get them to do it. At the other end of the spectrum, there are people who do it every day and love it. In the middle are a whole bunch of people who know they should do it, and often do it of their own volition, but haven't naturally formed the habit on their own.  These people maybe have gym memberships and go through spurts of going, but aren't consistent. These are the kinds of people who will exercise more if they were given incentives - a friend meeting them there, a really great instructor at a class, a competition with a good prize, etc.  For me, I know if I say to someone, "i'm going to the gym tomorrow," I'm more likely to do it than not because I don't want to have to say, "no, I didn't, my bed was too cozy."

Voting is much the same. The GOTV efforts do not target non-voters or people who are well-established in their habits. They find people who have voted in the past or have done something to suggest they could be willing to do it more in the future, and just need a nudge to do it. They need a reminder or assistance.  The reason phone banking works is that social science has shown that potential voters often respond to a human from the campaign reaching out and trying to connect with them on a more personal level, and that those who get a couple reminders from actual are more likely to follow through on their commitment.

Yes, people *should* understand that voting is an obligation and actually do it without being reminded. But that's not how we are wired.


And that's to say nothing of the fact that some people actually do need rides to the polls, such as the elderly, disabled, and poor.

[StrawberryBlondie]

So, im about 99% sure the Clinton camp has been calling me relentlessly lately. I never answer.

To those of you who have phone banked - should o bother to pick up the phone every once in a while?

[One Girl In All The World]

Sept 19, 2016 12:32:42 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

So, im about 99% sure the Clinton camp has been calling me relentlessly lately. I never answer.

To those of you who have phone banked - should o bother to pick up the phone every once in a while?

Every time I feel guilty and decide to pick up one of these calls, it's not a reminder to vote, it's the "victory fund" or some other dem group (or someone claiming to be from a dem group) begging for a "top dollar donation of $200!!!!!". 

I have stopped being nice about the fact that I under no circumstances donate over the phone and would like those calls to stop. FTR, I have donated number times to HRC this campaign, so I don't feel guilty about this.

[wambam]

I just got back from driving across town on a work errand and I saw 10+ trump signs and it was so depressing.

[Deleted]

Sept 19, 2016 12:42:56 GMT -5 One Girl In All The World said:

Sept 19, 2016 12:32:42 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

So, im about 99% sure the Clinton camp has been calling me relentlessly lately. I never answer.

To those of you who have phone banked - should o bother to pick up the phone every once in a while?

Every time I feel guilty and decide to pick up one of these calls, it's not a reminder to vote, it's the "victory fund" or some other dem group (or someone claiming to be from a dem group) begging for a "top dollar donation of $200!!!!!". 

I have stopped being nice about the fact that I under no circumstances donate over the phone and would like those calls to stop. FTR, I have donated number times to HRC this campaign, so I don't feel guilty about this.

Yeah, I know that I am getting calls from the HRC campaign that I am not answering because I've gotten too many aggressive calls from the DCCC and the DSCC. They ask for large donations, and they are instructed to ask three times before accepting that your no is a no. And the introductory bit is long. I got tired of saying no repeatedly. The last time I got one of these calls, I said, "No. And I know you have to ask three times, so I'm hanging up now but I hope you have a nice evening." And since then, I've only answered a call from a number I didn't recognize once, and that was 20 minutes after I called the police on Thursday and I thought they might be calling me back (they were).

I already have my Election Day outfit chosen.

I plan to be there at 7am when the polls open.

I am DONE answering the phone.

[Deleted]

Sept 19, 2016 12:46:21 GMT -5 wambam said:

I just got back from driving across town on a work errand and I saw 10+ trump signs and it was so depressing.

Given that HRC offices don't carry signs and the website's shipping is slow AF, I am definitely not taking visible signage as an indication of anything.

You can drive through a heavily black neighborhood near mine and see tons of signs for our state senator and U.S. rep but very few signs for HRC. I think it's a combo of a) the signs not being easy to obtain, and b) more enthusiasm for our local officials. However, people who are motivated enough to put out signs for our state senator and U.S. rep, both of whom have campaigned for HRC, are pretty darn likely to vote for her.

[secretlyevil]

Sept 19, 2016 12:32:42 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

So, im about 99% sure the Clinton camp has been calling me relentlessly lately. I never answer.

To those of you who have phone banked - should o bother to pick up the phone every once in a while?

Don't pick up. The last one I picked up was from the DNC's sentarial (sp?) committee, asking me to donate $250. Holy hell, come on now. I may donate that total this year but certainly not all at once.

[eliseb0323]

Sept 19, 2016 12:32:42 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

So, im about 99% sure the Clinton camp has been calling me relentlessly lately. I never answer.

To those of you who have phone banked - should o bother to pick up the phone every once in a while?

I am having a huge problem with the Clinton campaign calling and emailing me numerous times every day.  They also somehow got my 11-year-old son's cell phone number (it's registered in my name) and are relentlessly calling him too. The woman who runs the local campaign office is a pompous ass and keeps asking why I have stopped volunteering and contributing and says it's because of people like me that Clinton is slipping in the polls, and it will be my fault if Trump wins the state. I have asked her to stop contacting me and she refuses. 

I just want this whole stupid election to be over.

[Deleted]

Sept 19, 2016 12:11:17 GMT -5 ESF said:

My understanding is that Trump's support has generally remained pretty steady. When he pulls into the lead, it's less so because tons of people are changing their minds and deciding to vote for him. It's because Clinton is going down. When she goes down, her support splits between Johnson and Stein, with only a minuscule number defecting to Trump, or people that are just opting out.

The debates and everything else over the next 50 days won't cause Trump's numbers to go up. What they will change is how many third party voters and people abstaining become scared shitless enough to vote for Clinton.

I am reading all of your posts in a calming NPR-style voice.

[winecat]

Sept 19, 2016 12:23:53 GMT -5 ESF said:

Sept 19, 2016 11:56:26 GMT -5 piffka said:

I cannot understand the apathy of the electorate. I'd rather someone had the opposing position than they not bother to think or act at all. Marshmallow people... ugh. That is why it is so hard for me to get involved in a GOTV drive. I just want to smack somebody who doesn't bother to vote, which is not what you're supposed to do (they tell me). You're supposed to kindly cajole them, offer a ride, blah, blah, blah.

There's a lot of science behind voting habits, and your opinion of GOTV is  wrong.

Think about it this way. For people who do not ever exercise, there aren't really a whole lot of incentives to get them to do it. At the other end of the spectrum, there are people who do it every day and love it. In the middle are a whole bunch of people who know they should do it, and often do it of their own volition, but haven't naturally formed the habit on their own.  These people maybe have gym memberships and go through spurts of going, but aren't consistent. These are the kinds of people who will exercise more if they were given incentives - a friend meeting them there, a really great instructor at a class, a competition with a good prize, etc.  For me, I know if I say to someone, "i'm going to the gym tomorrow," I'm more likely to do it than not because I don't want to have to say, "no, I didn't, my bed was too cozy."

Voting is much the same. The GOTV efforts do not target non-voters or people who are well-established in their habits. They find people who have voted in the past or have done something to suggest they could be willing to do it more in the future, and just need a nudge to do it. They need a reminder or assistance.  The reason phone banking works is that social science has shown that potential voters often respond to a human from the campaign reaching out and trying to connect with them on a more personal level, and that those who get a couple reminders from actual are more likely to follow through on their commitment.

Yes, people *should* understand that voting is an obligation and actually do it without being reminded. But that's not how we are wired.


And that's to say nothing of the fact that some people actually do need rides to the polls, such as the elderly, disabled, and poor.

I told the last HRC person who asked me to volunteer that my schedule through October isn't predictable but I will drive as many people as I can to get their votes in on election day.  Or before with mail in ballots if people don't want to mail them.  I live in a traditionally heavily Hispanic area and all the HRC signs I've seen are in homes where I know Hispanic older women live. I know many of them don't drive.  The HRC staffer said "That's a good idea."  Yeah, you think?    

[mrspez07]

I am not comfortable about CO. I've seen Johnson love on my FB feed from people who have been very quiet historically about politics. I don't know which way they leaned before this, I'm hoping R

[isabel]

Sept 19, 2016 13:11:26 GMT -5 mrspez07 said:

I am not comfortable about CO. I've seen Johnson love on my FB feed from people who have been very quiet historically about politics. I don't know which way they leaned before this, I'm hoping R

My best friend and his wife are both voting Johnson. There will be more conversations between now and Election Day... I love these people, but man. The stupidity.

(We're also in CO.)

[piffka]

Sept 19, 2016 12:23:53 GMT -5 ESF said:

Sept 19, 2016 11:56:26 GMT -5 piffka said:

There's a lot of science behind voting habits, and your opinion of GOTV is  wrong.
<snip>Voting is much the same. The GOTV efforts do not target non-voters or people who are well-established in their habits. They find people who have voted in the past or have done something to suggest they could be willing to do it more in the future, and just need a nudge to do it. They need a reminder or assistance.  The reason phone banking works is that social science has shown that potential voters often respond to a human from the campaign reaching out and trying to connect with them on a more personal level, and that those who get a couple reminders from actual are more likely to follow through on their commitment.

Yes, people *should* understand that voting is an obligation and actually do it without being reminded. But that's not how we are wired.

And that's to say nothing of the fact that some people actually do need rides to the polls, such as the elderly, disabled, and poor.

Percent of Americans who voted in the 2012 Presidential election - 57.5 %

Yes, I'm sure I am wrong. I understand that GOTV works (sort of) and it is human nature to drag your feet. Still, the idea that people must be cajoled or nudged into voting grates on me. I've done GOTV and I've heard the excuses... my vote doesn't count; the election has already been decided; politicians are liars and/or cheats; I meant to, but got busy; I lost my ballot; oh, is there an election? 

It is a right and a duty to vote. People have been jailed, tortured, and worse to gain the right to vote, so yeah, I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who don't. Australia fines non-voters. I don't think that would work here but I'd be okay with people getting a $20 tax write-off if they vote. Maybe that would work? 

My state now uses all mail-in ballots so there are no rides needed to the polls. Our state statistics for 2012 were 81% of registered voters voted, approximately 60% of the voting age population. People will go out for a hamburger, but will they vote? Almost half of them won't and that's with massive GOTV. It makes me a little crazy.

SaveSave