How Trump vs Hillary Map will Look Like? Would it be close or "Hillaryslide"

[ericpolitico]

Will we have close race or "Deep Blue Sea' aka "Hillaryslide"?

[Uhh_murican]

Trump/LePage can be competitive and have a good chance to win Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Ohio (and maybe Michigan), as well as Iowa. Decreased black turnout as well as strong support from rural whites makes Virginia competitive. Trump motivates his supporters. On the other hand, who is motivated to vote by Hillary? Nobody. The only people who may be motivated to vote for Hillary are Hispanics and Muslims - but they won't be motivated BY hillary, they'll be motivated AGAINST Trump.

So close race. Trump may even have the advantage.

[BlueSwan]

Solid Clinton win, Obama 2008 style, except without Indiana.

[pbrower2a]

Trump/LePage can be competitive and have a good chance to win Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Ohio (and maybe Michigan), as well as Iowa. Decreased black turnout as well as strong support from rural whites makes Virginia competitive. Trump motivates his supporters. On the other hand, who is motivated to vote by Hillary? Nobody. The only people who may be motivated to vote for Hillary are Hispanics and Muslims - but they won't be motivated BY Hillary, they'll be motivated AGAINST Trump.

So close race. Trump may even have the advantage.

I'm cautious enough to predict this as a close race looking much like 2012 except that Florida goes to Trump (which would be like 1948 or 1960, too). I don't see him poaching much of the recent Democratic coalition -- just getting an improvement from the usual effect of a non-incumbent running as a successor.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Trump/LePage can be competitive and have a good chance to win Maine, New Hampshire

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fyar4wJ3-Y

You're a loser, bro...

[Landslide Lyndon]

Trump/LePage can be competitive and have a good chance to win Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Ohio (and maybe Michigan), as well as Iowa. Decreased black turnout as well as strong support from rural whites makes Virginia competitive. Trump motivates his supporters. On the other hand, who is motivated to vote by Hillary? Nobody. The only people who may be motivated to vote for Hillary are Hispanics and Muslims - but they won't be motivated BY hillary, they'll be motivated AGAINST Trump.

So close race. Trump may even have the advantage.

Are you serious bro?

[Kingpoleon]

272 blue firewall guaranteed. Trump means Hillary floor at 306 because of Hispanic and AA turnout. Julian Castro guarantees TX, LS, & AZ as 90% Hispanics vote Hillary, 68% turnout. Women vote 93-6 for Hillary. Sweeps most votes but racists & sexists in IL who vote Rauner.

[Uhh_murican]

Trump/LePage can be competitive and have a good chance to win Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Ohio (and maybe Michigan), as well as Iowa. Decreased black turnout as well as strong support from rural whites makes Virginia competitive. Trump motivates his supporters. On the other hand, who is motivated to vote by Hillary? Nobody. The only people who may be motivated to vote for Hillary are Hispanics and Muslims - but they won't be motivated BY hillary, they'll be motivated AGAINST Trump.

So close race. Trump may even have the advantage.

Are you serious bro?

What, are you thinking that there will be huge numbers of people wildly enthusiastic about Hillary just because she is a woman? Not likely. It is not like with Obama. Obama wasn't just the first potential black President, he was hip and new and change. Hillary is none of that. Sure, some feminists will be happy to be voting for a woman, but this isn't seriously going to drive turnout or support for Hillary. The focus, and all the attention in the race, will be on Trump. It will all be about voting for or against Trump. The merits or demerits of whoever runs against Trump just pale in comparison.

[Uhh_murican]

^So this is all you got? Calling me a loser for suggesting that a TRUMP/LEPAGE ticket would perform poorly in New England? You're even more delusional than I've thought. ME is certainly more competitive than NH in this scenario, but both states should be rated Safe D with Trump as the GOP candidate. Face it, dude: New England is gone for the GOP and there is nothing you can do about it. Your liberal, err, moderate hero Susan Collins ain't winning the GOP nomination, hate to break it to you.

Sure, a Republican is not going to win MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, etc, but NH and ME are a whole different ballgame.

Republicans have had some success in the northeast recently. States like MA, CT, ME, NH, and even VT have all recently elected either GOP governors or Senators. The main reason the entire northeast usually votes Dem in Presidential elections is opposition to the Conservative (southern) social issues. That won't apply so much to Trump, who is not so anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc as other Republicans. So while he won't win the truly blue states, he does have a shot at the weaker ones like NH and ME, which are heavily white.

[Rockefeller GOP]

^So this is all you got? Calling me a loser for suggesting that a TRUMP/LEPAGE ticket would perform poorly in New England? You're even more delusional than I've thought. ME is certainly more competitive than NH in this scenario, but both states should be rated Safe D with Trump as the GOP candidate. Face it, dude: New England is gone for the GOP and there is nothing you can do about it. Your liberal, err, moderate hero Susan Collins ain't winning the GOP nomination, hate to break it to you.

1. I didn't suggest that ticket would win New England.  I suggested you were a pathetic loser for how much it matters to you that New Hampshire is seen as a Democratic base state.  Get a new shtick.

2. What does Susan Collins have to do with this?

3. What inspired your hate for New England?  We may not be the wholesome inbreeding capital of the world you're used to, but the people are usually very kind and considerate up here.

4. You are clearly the delusional one.  You treat NH like it's one of the most Democratic states in the nation, and it's comically apparent that you WANT this to be true even more than you believe it to be so.

So yes, at least when it comes to this topic, you're a troll and a loser.

[RR1997]

Hillary would win, and the popular vote would be similar to 2008 (I'm predicting a 53%-45% victory for Hillary)

Those who think that Trump would do better than Romney are delusional. There is no way a guy who wants to ban Muslim immigration is going to do better than Romney did

My popular vote prediction excludes third-party candidates. I could see all the third party candidates getting around 5% of the vote. Third party candidates got around 2% in 2012, and around 1% in 2008. Gary Johnson (or another center-right candidate) would get around 3%-5% of the vote, while all the other third-party candidates would get around 1%

Clinton: 358 EV's
Trump: 180 EV's

[pbrower2a]

^So this is all you got? Calling me a loser for suggesting that a TRUMP/LEPAGE ticket would perform poorly in New England? You're even more delusional than I've thought. ME is certainly more competitive than NH in this scenario, but both states should be rated Safe D with Trump as the GOP candidate. Face it, dude: New England is gone for the GOP and there is nothing you can do about it. Your liberal, err, moderate hero Susan Collins ain't winning the GOP nomination, hate to break it to you.

Paul LePage has yet to show that he can win a binary election for Governor of Maine. He won 37.6% of the vote in a three-way election, barely winning in the Republican wave year of 2010. He got 48.2% of the gubernatorial vote in 2014, another Republican wave year.

2016 is unlikely to be a Republican wave year.

Since 1992, only one state in New England has voted for any Republican nominee -- New Hampshire, barely, in 2000. New Hampshire might have been the decisive state in the 2000 election had the Gore campaign paid more attention to New Hampshire... but that is over. Only under freakish conditions does any New England state decide the 2016 election.  LePage might swing ME-02 due to his French-Canadian origin, but that is about it.

I can think of a Midwestern Governor who would be less controversial (obviously not Scott Walker) and less abrasive. That is good for another thread.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Trump/LePage can be competitive and have a good chance to win Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Ohio (and maybe Michigan), as well as Iowa. Decreased black turnout as well as strong support from rural whites makes Virginia competitive. Trump motivates his supporters. On the other hand, who is motivated to vote by Hillary? Nobody. The only people who may be motivated to vote for Hillary are Hispanics and Muslims - but they won't be motivated BY hillary, they'll be motivated AGAINST Trump.

So close race. Trump may even have the advantage.

Are you serious bro?

What, are you thinking that there will be huge numbers of people wildly enthusiastic about Hillary just because she is a woman? Not likely. It is not like with Obama. Obama wasn't just the first potential black President, he was hip and new and change. Hillary is none of that. Sure, some feminists will be happy to be voting for a woman, but this isn't seriously going to drive turnout or support for Hillary. The focus, and all the attention in the race, will be on Trump. It will all be about voting for or against Trump. The merits or demerits of whoever runs against Trump just pale in comparison.

Dude, women aren't looking for a hip candidate. If you think that women won't be enthusiastic about her candidacy (like they were in 2008) then you are inhaling some strong sh**t.
Also, voting against someone can be a pretty strong motivator too as we saw in 2010 and 2014.