Trump focusing on 17 states (including IN, ME, MN, MO)

[Redban]

Trump now saying he will put Connecticut, Michigan, Oregon and Washington in play

Lol, this guy as no clue whatsoever!

Michigan is reasonable though.

[Mallow]

Trump now saying he will put Connecticut, Michigan, Oregon and Washington in play

Lol, this guy as no clue whatsoever!

Michigan is reasonable though.

It really, really isn't.

[Likely Voter]

Trump is just spinning to the House GOP members. Right now he is just trying to prove to them that his campaign isn't a trainwreck that they should run away from, so he talks about changing the map.  Is he hiring staff in OR, WA and CT? Is he going to do campaign stops there (not related to fundraising trips)? Is he going to spend money on TV spots?  Almost certainly not. 

Trump's focus for now is to try to ensure there isn't a coup at the convention and to try to get some of these guys to even show up.

[Protect Trans Hoosiers]

My list of 16 (the rumored number) didn't have Indiana and Missouri, but it did have Oregon.  Otherwise I guessed this correctly.

WTF, Trump?  You're just going to leave Oregon on the table?

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Drumpf is targeting less states than even Mike Dukakis's 18 state strategy in 1988! Just SAD! Even Mike Dukakis had a larger electoral strategy than Drumpf.

[Redban]

Trump now saying he will put Connecticut, Michigan, Oregon and Washington in play

Lol, this guy as no clue whatsoever!

Michigan is reasonable though.

It really, really isn't.

It's a state that might be receptive to his position on trade; Hillary didn't do so well here in the primary; Bush came close in 2004; McCain was close in 2008 before the financial collapse; and Romney carried the burden of opposing the Detroit bailout.

Michigan isn't so far-fetched.

[KingSweden]

Minnesota is the one that confuses me out of all of these. MI and PA are perennial targets, but... Really? MN?

[Redban]

Minnesota is the one that confuses me out of all of these. MI and PA are perennial targets, but... Really? MN?

Minnesota was actually hotly contested in 2004.

[cinyc]

When he says Maine, is he going to focus on winning the whole state or just the 2nd District?

Probably ME-2, but he will probably have rallies in ME-1 too.

Advertising-wise, if Trump is making a true NH play, he'd probably advertise some in the Portland, ME TV market, anyway, as it bleeds into parts of northern NH.  Also advertising in the very cheap Bangor and Presque Isle TV markets that reach the bulk of ME-2 wouldn't cost much.

If Trump is making a play for ME-2, he's most likely to hold rallies in Bangor, which is where the TV stations are that cover most of the CD.

[For Trump, everything. For immigrants, the law]

Trump now saying he will put Connecticut, Michigan, Oregon and Washington in play

Lol, this guy as no clue whatsoever!

Cluelessness knows no bounds. If he thinks he can compete in Washington, he's worse than Dick Morris.

[Protect Trans Hoosiers]

Trump now saying he will put Connecticut, Michigan, Oregon and Washington in play

Lol, this guy as no clue whatsoever!

Michigan is reasonable though.

It really, really isn't.

It's a state that might be receptive to his position on trade; Hillary didn't do so well here in the primary; Bush came close in 2004; McCain was close in 2008 before the financial collapse; and Romney carried the burden of opposing the Detroit bailout.

Michigan isn't so far-fetched.

Agreed.  For all those reasons.  And it has trended white compared with the nation at large.  Lower Michigan is turning into Indiana, and Upper Michigan is going through the same rightward tilt that rural Wisconsin is going through.

Michigan provides a backdoor electoral path to bypass Florida.  It's not insane to go after it.

Trump 275
(Clinton wins PV)

[Young Conservative]

Another example of the cluelessness of this campaign.

It could still be competitive depending on the nominee.

[Badger]

Maine !!??

And Michigan?!?

[DS0816]

According to FiveThirtyEight, here are the states sorted by how likely it is the current favorite will win (per the polls-plus forecast):
NC: 53.0%
OH: 56.3%
CO: 59.6%
FL: 61.8%
NH: 63.7%
AZ: 66.3%
NV: 66.4%
IA: 68.2%
MO: 70.5%
VA: 70.6%
PA: 73.2%
GA: 75.9%
MN: 79.8%
ME: 80.5%
SC: 80.9%
OR: 82.7%
SD: 83.0%
WI: 83.6%
MT: 83.9%
ND: 84.1%
IN: 84.9%
NM: 84.9%
MS: 86.9%
AK: 86.9%
CT: 88.1%
KS: 88.2%
TX: 89.4%
MI: 89.7%
NJ: 89.8%
WA: 91.2%
DE: 93.1%
UT: 94.6%
TN: 94.6%
NE: 95.0%
RI: 95.8%
KY: 95.9%
IL: 96.7%
AR: 96.8%
LA: 97.6%
VT: 97.7%
WY: 97.8%
AL: 98.0%
CA: 98.8%
WV: 99.0%
ID: 99.0%
NY: 99.1%
MA: 99.1%
OK: 99.8%
HI: 99.8%
MD:>99.9%
DC:>99.9%

Most of them look pretty sane. The only egregious ones are MI, IN, and WI. FiveThirtyEight thinks Clinton has a better shot in TX than Trump does in MI. I agree.

That is b.s.

I think FiveThirtyEight fails to get historical voting patterns in perspective. The percentage margins in the U.S. Popular Vote, from one presidential election cycle to the next, do not stand still. If the 2012-to-2016 shift ends up, say, D+6 in order to get Hillary Clinton up to D+10, that map is going to emerge with some Democratic pickups. And it will not be limited to a flipping only of North Carolina.

[Badger]

According to FiveThirtyEight, here are the states sorted by how likely it is the current favorite will win (per the polls-plus forecast):
NC: 53.0%
OH: 56.3%
CO: 59.6%
FL: 61.8%
NH: 63.7%
AZ: 66.3%
NV: 66.4%
IA: 68.2%
MO: 70.5%
VA: 70.6%
PA: 73.2%
GA: 75.9%
MN: 79.8%
ME: 80.5%
SC: 80.9%
OR: 82.7%
SD: 83.0%
WI: 83.6%
MT: 83.9%
ND: 84.1%
IN: 84.9%
NM: 84.9%
MS: 86.9%
AK: 86.9%
CT: 88.1%
KS: 88.2%
TX: 89.4%
MI: 89.7%
NJ: 89.8%
WA: 91.2%
DE: 93.1%
UT: 94.6%
TN: 94.6%
NE: 95.0%
RI: 95.8%
KY: 95.9%
IL: 96.7%
AR: 96.8%
LA: 97.6%
VT: 97.7%
WY: 97.8%
AL: 98.0%
CA: 98.8%
WV: 99.0%
ID: 99.0%
NY: 99.1%
MA: 99.1%
OK: 99.8%
HI: 99.8%
MD:>99.9%
DC:>99.9%

Most of them look pretty sane. The only egregious ones are MI, IN, and WI. FiveThirtyEight thinks Clinton has a better shot in TX than Trump does in MI. I agree.

That is b.s.

I think FiveThirtyEight fails to get historical voting patterns in perspective. The percentage margins in the U.S. Popular Vote, from one presidential election cycle to the next, do not stand still. If the 2012-to-2016 shift ends up, say, D+6 in order to get Hillary Clinton up to D+10, that map is going to emerge with some Democratic pickups. And it will not be limited to a flipping only of North Carolina.

And here I thought I was the only one thinking this.

[Kingpoleon]

According to FiveThirtyEight, here are the states sorted by how likely it is the current favorite will win (per the polls-plus forecast):
NC: 53.0%
OH: 56.3%
CO: 59.6%
FL: 61.8%
NH: 63.7%
AZ: 66.3%
NV: 66.4%
IA: 68.2%
MO: 70.5%
VA: 70.6%
PA: 73.2%
GA: 75.9%
MN: 79.8%
ME: 80.5%
SC: 80.9%
OR: 82.7%
SD: 83.0%
WI: 83.6%
MT: 83.9%
ND: 84.1%
IN: 84.9%
NM: 84.9%
MS: 86.9%
AK: 86.9%
CT: 88.1%
KS: 88.2%
TX: 89.4%
MI: 89.7%
NJ: 89.8%
WA: 91.2%
DE: 93.1%
UT: 94.6%
TN: 94.6%
NE: 95.0%
RI: 95.8%
KY: 95.9%
IL: 96.7%
AR: 96.8%
LA: 97.6%
VT: 97.7%
WY: 97.8%
AL: 98.0%
CA: 98.8%
WV: 99.0%
ID: 99.0%
NY: 99.1%
MA: 99.1%
OK: 99.8%
HI: 99.8%
MD:>99.9%
DC:>99.9%

Most of them look pretty sane. The only egregious ones are MI, IN, and WI. FiveThirtyEight thinks Clinton has a better shot in TX than Trump does in MI. I agree.

Minnesota will probably vote to the right of Wisconsin and Michigan by 2024, and I wouldn't be remotely surprised if it voted to their right in 2016.

[Protect Trans Hoosiers]

That is b.s.

I think FiveThirtyEight fails to get historical voting patterns in perspective. The percentage margins in the U.S. Popular Vote, from one presidential election cycle to the next, do not stand still. If the 2012-to-2016 shift ends up, say, D+6 in order to get Hillary Clinton up to D+10, that map is going to emerge with some Democratic pickups. And it will not be limited to a flipping only of North Carolina.

If Clinton wins the national popular vote by more that 1%, where Trump spends his money is irrelevant.  Ditto if Trump wins by more than 1%.  The pickups will come from somewhere.

The battleground strategy concerns where specific gains will come from, should Trump pull even or close to even with Clinton in the PV.  My bet is on the Rust Belt, and places that are very white or non-Hispanic.  Michigan fits this perfectly.  Right now he's losing badly in MI, but what happens if he surges?  An OH/MI/PA strategy makes sense because if Trump somehow can get an edge in MI, it's conceivable he could lose the PV by as much as 0.5%, drop FL, VA, and NV, and still win the EV.

Trying to defend states like IN, GA, and MO seems daft.  There's no way Trump can lose those in a close election.  In Arizona he has to play defense.  If Hillary makes a push there and does really well with Hispanics, she could pick it up in a PV tie.

[Krago]

Am I the only person who read IN, ME, MN, MO as 'Eeny, meeny, miny, moe'?

[Mallow]

Trump now saying he will put Connecticut, Michigan, Oregon and Washington in play

Lol, this guy as no clue whatsoever!

Michigan is reasonable though.

It really, really isn't.

It's a state that might be receptive to his position on trade; Hillary didn't do so well here in the primary; Bush came close in 2004; McCain was close in 2008 before the financial collapse; and Romney carried the burden of opposing the Detroit bailout.

Michigan isn't so far-fetched.

It really is far-fetched in a close election. The minority vote there is second only to Illinois in the region, and a far higher percentage than the next closest (Ohio). But if Trump wants to win, perhaps as people have been mentioning, he should put a huge focus on these midwestern/Great Lakes states in the hope that they all swing hugely towards the right. If he wins MI, he'll be winning OH by almost double digits and WI by a safe margin as well, not to mention maybe even making a play in IL. Why he'd even care to spend time in IN then is beyond me, as if he's winning MI, he's winning IN probably by 20 points.

[Protect Trans Hoosiers]

It really is far-fetched in a close election. The minority vote there is second only to Illinois in the region, and a far higher percentage than the next closest (Ohio).

The Black population is very large, but the Hispanic population is small (4.6%).  Trump is counting on, in a close election, no swing in the Black vote, a large swing towards Clinton in the Hispanic vote, offset by a larger swing towards Trump in the white vote.  The net effect in Michigan would be a swing to Trump.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Percent_of_Hispanic_and_Latino_population_by_state_in_2012.svg

[HillOfANight]

Am I the only person who read IN, ME, MN, MO as 'Eeny, meeny, miny, moe'?

Nice catch!

[Protect Trans Hoosiers]

Am I the only person who read IN, ME, MN, MO as 'Eeny, meeny, miny, moe'?

Nice catch!

Krago wins the Forum for today.

[Mallow]

It really is far-fetched in a close election. The minority vote there is second only to Illinois in the region, and a far higher percentage than the next closest (Ohio).

The Black population is very large, but the Hispanic population is small (4.6%).  Trump is counting on, in a close election, no swing in the Black vote, a large swing towards Clinton in the Hispanic vote, offset by a larger swing towards Trump in the white vote.  The net effect in Michigan would be a swing to Trump.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Percent_of_Hispanic_and_Latino_population_by_state_in_2012.svg

By that logic, Illinois should be in play for Trump.

[Protect Trans Hoosiers]

It really is far-fetched in a close election. The minority vote there is second only to Illinois in the region, and a far higher percentage than the next closest (Ohio).

The Black population is very large, but the Hispanic population is small (4.6%).  Trump is counting on, in a close election, no swing in the Black vote, a large swing towards Clinton in the Hispanic vote, offset by a larger swing towards Trump in the white vote.  The net effect in Michigan would be a swing to Trump.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Percent_of_Hispanic_and_Latino_population_by_state_in_2012.svg

By that logic, Illinois should be in play for Trump.

1. Illinois has a MUCH larger Hispanic population than Michigan.
2. Even if it didn't, by that logic Illinois should swing to Trump as much as Michigan, not put it in play.

Obama won Illinois by 13 points over national, and Michigan by 5.6 points over national.  A +6 swing for both states would have Trump taking Michigan in an even election, but still losing Illinois by 7 points.

But that aside, 2010 numbers:
Illinois is 71.5% White (MI is 79%)
Illinois is 15.8% Hispanic (MI is 4.4%).

And that's just demographics.  Economic issues are different in Michigan, which has been devastated by globalism in ways that Illinois hasn't.

[Mallow]

It really is far-fetched in a close election. The minority vote there is second only to Illinois in the region, and a far higher percentage than the next closest (Ohio).

The Black population is very large, but the Hispanic population is small (4.6%).  Trump is counting on, in a close election, no swing in the Black vote, a large swing towards Clinton in the Hispanic vote, offset by a larger swing towards Trump in the white vote.  The net effect in Michigan would be a swing to Trump.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Percent_of_Hispanic_and_Latino_population_by_state_in_2012.svg

By that logic, Illinois should be in play for Trump.

1. Illinois has a MUCH larger Hispanic population than Michigan.
2. Even if it didn't, by that logic Illinois should swing to Trump as much as Michigan, not put it in play.

Obama won Illinois by 13 points over national, and Michigan by 5.6 points over national.  A +6 swing for both states would have Trump taking Michigan in an even election, but still losing Illinois by 7 points.

But that aside, 2010 numbers:
Illinois is 71.5% White (MI is 79%)
Illinois is 15.8% Hispanic (MI is 4.4%).

And that's just demographics.  Economic issues are different in Michigan, which has been devastated by globalism in ways that Illinois hasn't.

Fair enough. I'm still skeptical that Michigan will be remotely in play (even in a close election), but you've made a good case for it being a possibility.