WI-St. Norbert College/WPR/WPT- Clinton Dominates Trump, Close Race Against Cruz

[pbrower2a]

If Cruz wins the election, will WI be the tipping point state? He seems to be eerily strong there...

They also polled Sanders vs. Cruz/Trump matchups:

Sanders 50, Cruz 40
Sanders 52, Trump 33

If (1) Cruz is nominated,
(2) the split of the electoral votes is about 275-263
(3) Cruz wins Wisconsin.

Republicans have a high floor but a low ceiling in Wisconsin. To win the state  the Republicans need everything right --  low turnout, as in a midterm year, and against an unpopular President.  

Republicans are going to try everything to hold onto a Senate seat, so count on any Republican nominee campaigning in Wisconsin until such is hopeless.

For now I predict that Virginia will be the tipping-point state. Wisconsin is likely to behave as it did in 2008 and 2012, that is fading out of contention around September. 

[pbrower2a]

For the last time, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are not Safe D, and there is no blue wall!!!

Fine, we can call it the "blue barrier", because the "blue barrier" represents states that are either safe D, likely D or leans D. Republicans have basically zero chance in the first 2, and for the leans D states, they have to field a specific kind of candidate that fits those states and has to have both turnout (as in low Democratic turnout, and don't mention the primaries please, their turnout means nothing for the GE) and public opinion in their favor, otherwise the advantage goes to Democrats. Currently Republicans look likely to have none of those things.

Cruz is a terrible fit for anywhere that isn't rural or the south. He's the kind of candidate who, in a much better cycle, would never have even gotten close to the nomination.

The only argument that Democrats have is that we can't win the popular vote (which I don't buy).  Because, if the popular vote is close, the EC can easily go either way.  Many on this forum don't understand PVI!!

For someone who constantly brings up PVI, you should realize that Wisconsin's PVI is D+2, meaning that a Republican would probably have to win the PV by about 4% to have a good chance of winning Wisconsin.

I know that, but if people think R+2 Florida is a swing state, they have to say the same about D+2 Wisconsin.

We haven't had a Presidential election in which the Republicans got 310-400 electoral votes (and with Nixon, just barely) since 1908, when William Howard Taft got about the same proportion of electoral votes as Obama got in 2008.

2012 was about as close to the median in electoral victories as any election since the start of the 20th century. It was the only such election. The others are nailbiters (2004, 2000, 1976, 1960, 1948, 1916), three-way splits that prove disastrous to the Party in power (1968, 1912),  and various shades of landslides (from Taft 1908 and Obama 2008 to the nearly-complete electoral wipe-outs of 1936, 1972, and 1984.

It's 2012 that, although close to the median in the proportion of electoral votes for winners, is the freak election. Presidential elections are generally close -- or they aren't. Even in 2012 the election was close to being close in electoral votes, with Florida the closest Obama win, and that electorally-large state being the difference between 303 and 332 electoral votes. Had Romney won Florida, then Obama would have had a win that looked more like that of Kennedy in 1960 than like Obama in 2008.

So ---

nailbiter: R win, Wisconsin is very close. Even or D win, Wisconsin goes D.
near-landslide (R reversal of 1992/1996/2008) -- Wisconsin definitely goes R.
400-430 electoral votes (1952/1956/1988) -- Wisconsin is one of the least of D problems.

430 or more -- Republicans are not going to win California, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, Rhode Island, the District of Columbia, or Hawaii in the near future in any Presidential election barring such a catastrophe as a military defeat or a second Great Depression. Those states combine for 120 or so electoral votes.

 

[pbrower2a]

This looks like the bare minimum for a Democratic nominee for President - 122 electoral votes -- unless the Presidential nominee is caught doing something unthinkable or unprintable.  It is safe to say that in view of the strength of the Democrats in these states that the only way for a Republican to win these states is if the Parties flip in ideology. Such flips have happened -- just think of an overlay between the elections of Obama and Eisenhower. Even at a 58-41 split of the popular vote (which is how Reagan did in 1984) this is the result with states aligned as they are.  Even at that I am stretching.

Republican 416 - Democrat 122.

Republican 375 - Democrat 183  (IL, MN, NM go R)
Republican 365 - Democrat 173 (MN goes D, IL, NM go R)
Republican 338 - Democrat 200 (IL, MN, NM go D)

These are the inverses of the Clinton (at 375) and Obama elections. One of these might be accomplished with an electorate like those of 2010 or 2014, and more likely the 365-390 EV scenario because the loser behind 338-200 in September is going to either put the election in reach or collapse trying to do so.

30 electoral votes (CT, ME-02, MI, NV) cuts the Republican total of electoral votes down to 308, which is roughly an inverse of the Kennedy election of 1960.  At this point the election is generally perceived as close. This is roughly Kerry 2004  losing Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but winning Nevada and New Mexico.

This is as close to a near 50-50 split of the electoral vote with the Republican winning. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Iowa go D before the current tipping-point state goes D... and that now looks like Virginia.