Predict the 2016 Election Using 538's Awesome Tool

[Zache]

Here are my numbers:

1) White elite: 53% R, 73%
2) White people: 66% R, 63%
3) Blacks: 86% D, 53%
4) Hispanic: 65% D, 42%
5) Asian/Other: 55% D, 52%

Trump wins 301 EV. He wins VA, OH, PA, FL, NV and CO, but fails to win IA. I can't get him to win Iowa.

How stupid are the people of Iowa?

Why would black turnout be that low?

IIRC, the black voter turnout was typically that low until Obama ran in 2008. The only reason that the black voter turnout was in the mid-60's in 2012 and 2008 was because of Obama. There is no doubt in my mind that the black voter turnout will drop somewhat signifanctly in 2016 compared to 2012. I predict that the black voter turnout will be in the mid to high-50's

EDIT: Never mind. I should've done my research before posting. The black voter turnout was 60% in 2004. Ljube's black voter turnout prediction is garbage. Black voter turnout will probably be around 60% (compared to 66% in 2012)

Yeah that would be the lowest black turnout in decades.

[RR1997]

Here's my prediction:

College educated whites: 52% R, 68% turnout
Non college educated whites: 67% R, 65% turnout
Blacks: 91% D, 60% turnout
Hispanics: 83% D, 58% turnout
Asians: 78% D, 53% turnout

That's 52.4% D/45.9% R. Hillary gets 332 EV's compared to Trump's 206 EV's. The electoral map doesn't change at all when compared to 2012, although Trump wins AZ and NC by razor-thin margins.

[Nyvin]

No Democrat is going to get less than 88% of the Black vote,  and it probably will stay above 60% turnout,  and really putting hopes on Black turnout dropping much below 2012 levels is kinda desperate.    Why would all those voters just suddenly stop voting?

And depending on increased Asian support for Republicans doesn't really gain much...they're overwhelmingly found in safe/solid states to begin with, like Hawaii, California, New York, Washington, and Texas.     They just won't be influencing the election in any meaningful way in the end.   

[Asian Nazi]

Yeah, the black vote will probably fall closer to 90% D, and turnout might drop a tad in the Black Belt, but the overall increase in black turnout is the result of a long term trend rather than because Obama.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Even if black turnout was juiced up because of Obama running, voting tends to engage people in the process and leads to a tendency to vote in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if the increase in black turnout was pretty persistent.

[5280]

Trump vs Hillary

College Educated Whites - 68% R, 69% Turnout
Non College Educated Whites - 71% R, 73% Turnout
Blacks - 90% D, 66% Turnout
Hispanic - 78% D, 66% Turnout
Asians - 60% D, 40% Tunrout

Trump - 276
Hillary - 262

[Slander and/or Libel]

This doesn't make sense. You juiced up whites' turnout and preference for Republicans, changed nothing else, and it made Trump perform worse? Something isn't right there.

[5280]

This doesn't make sense. You juiced up whites' turnout and preference for Republicans, changed nothing else, and it made Trump perform worse? Something isn't right there.

I lowered the Black turnout kept the D same, increased Hispanic D and turnout.  Hillary could win Texas and still lose the election if non-college white turnout increased.  The strategy is for the Republicans to campaign hard in the Great Lakes, Rustbelt areas and parts of the Pacific Northwest.

[Crumpets]

I tried to do a close Clinton-Trump election and got this:

College-educated whites 58% R, 75% turnout
Non-college-educate whites 66% R, 62% turnout
Blacks 90% D, 63% turnout
Hispanics/Latinos 77% D, 56% turnout
Asian/Other 71% D, 52% turnout

Clinton 304 EV 49.7%
Trump 234 EV 48.5%

[RINO Tom]

Romney beat Obama 56%-42% among college-educated Whites ... why do people think Hillary would be able to get that significantly closer?  Obama was a better fit for that voting group than her, IMO.

[Ljube]

Here are my numbers:

1) White elite: 53% R, 73%
2) White people: 66% R, 63%
3) Blacks: 86% D, 53%
4) Hispanic: 65% D, 42%
5) Asian/Other: 55% D, 52%

Trump wins 301 EV. He wins VA, OH, PA, FL, NV and CO, but fails to win IA. I can't get him to win Iowa.

How stupid are the people of Iowa?

Why would black turnout be that low?

IIRC, the black voter turnout was typically that low until Obama ran in 2008. The only reason that the black voter turnout was in the mid-60's in 2012 and 2008 was because of Obama. There is no doubt in my mind that the black voter turnout will drop somewhat signifanctly in 2016 compared to 2012. I predict that the black voter turnout will be in the mid to high-50's

EDIT: Never mind. I should've done my research before posting. The black voter turnout was 60% in 2004. Ljube's black voter turnout prediction is garbage. Black voter turnout will probably be around 60% (compared to 66% in 2012)

OK, I stand corrected:

1) White elite: 53% R, 73%
2) White people: 66% R, 63%
3) Blacks: 89% D, 60%
4) Hispanic: 65% D, 43%
5) Asian/Other: 55% D, 52%

Result: Trump wins 287 EV, all states previously mentioned plus IA minus PA. This is strange. Proof that there is something wrong with the tool. Or maybe I made a mistake the first time.

[Nyvin]

Romney beat Obama 56%-42% among college-educated Whites ... why do people think Hillary would be able to get that significantly closer?  Obama was a better fit for that voting group than her, IMO.

So if Hillary is going to lose Blacks, and Hispanics, and Whites.....who exactly would her base be?    It sounds like on this forum, Republicans think everyone universally hates Hillary and loves Obama.

Is this really realistic?

[Ljube]

Romney beat Obama 56%-42% among college-educated Whites ... why do people think Hillary would be able to get that significantly closer?  Obama was a better fit for that voting group than her, IMO.

Because Trump is a bad fit for them.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The problem with this tool is it requires us to assume that shifts will occur uniformly in each state.  For instance, Iowa college-educated whites may shift quickly to the right, while California college-educated whites hold steady or even move slightly to the left.

It's really just like that RCP tool a couple months ago.

[Asian Nazi]

The problem with this tool is it requires us to assume that shifts will occur uniformly in each state.  For instance, Iowa college-educated whites may shift quickly to the right, while California college-educated whites hold steady or even move slightly to the left.

It's really just like that RCP tool a couple months ago.

Well no sh**t are you expecting precinct-level data and micro-trends to get factored in?  I don't think anyone is advertising or interpreting this as an actual predictor of how the election will turn out.

My bigger problem with the tool is that the controls are really annoying on a touchpad, and I imagine it's the same for people on mobile or any device that doesn't have a mouse.  I'd rather just have one where you plug in the numbers manually.

[Young Conservative]

Here are my numbers:

1) White elite: 53% R, 73%
2) White people: 66% R, 63%
3) Blacks: 86% D, 53%
4) Hispanic: 65% D, 42%
5) Asian/Other: 55% D, 52%

Trump wins 301 EV. He wins VA, OH, PA, FL, NV and CO, but fails to win IA. I can't get him to win Iowa.


How stupid are the people of Iowa?

Why would black turnout be that low?
Actually, thats closer to the average turnout than 2012, which is an anomaly

[Likely Voter]

Cool tool but the design is deceptive to imply that these numbers could swing in a large range. They should show how these groups have voted in recent elections to give people an idea.  The dials are set to the 2012 levels which are really extreme highs for GOP white vote and extreme lows for GOP non-white vote.

[Ljube]

Cool tool but the design is deceptive to imply that these numbers could swing in a large range. They should show how these groups have voted in recent elections to give people an idea.  The dials are set to the 2012 levels which are really extreme highs for GOP white vote and extreme lows for GOP non-white vote.

After this election you will know what extreme highs for GOP white vote truly are.

[Nyvin]

The problem with this tool is it requires us to assume that shifts will occur uniformly in each state.  For instance, Iowa college-educated whites may shift quickly to the right, while California college-educated whites hold steady or even move slightly to the left.

It's really just like that RCP tool a couple months ago.

Well no sh**t are you expecting precinct-level data and micro-trends to get factored in?  I don't think anyone is advertising or interpreting this as an actual predictor of how the election will turn out.

My bigger problem with the tool is that the controls are really annoying on a touchpad, and I imagine it's the same for people on mobile or any device that doesn't have a mouse.  I'd rather just have one where you plug in the numbers manually.

I found the controls very annoying too.   It's really just two numbers you're putting in for each group....why not just have an optional box to type them into??

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

Rand Paul/Tim Scott vs Hilary Clinton/Julian Castro:

Rand Paul/Tim Scott: 308 Electoral Votes 52.8%
Hillary Clinton/Julian Castro: 230 Electoral Votes 45.5%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Donald Trump/Ted Cruz vs Hillary Clinton/Julian Castro:

Donald Trump/Ted Cruz: 302 Electoral Votes 49.6%
Hillary Clinton/Julian Castro: 236 Electoral Votes 48.7%

Marco Rubio/John Kasich vs Hillary Clinton/Julian Castro:

Marco Rubio/John Kasich: 342 Electoral Votes 52.7%
Hillary Clinton/Julian Castro: 196 Electoral Votes 45.6%