PPP-National: Clinton +5
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:40:53 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  PPP-National: Clinton +5
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: PPP-National: Clinton +5  (Read 3407 times)
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: July 31, 2016, 06:15:45 AM »

Now, this poll looks fine.

Looks like Clinton got a bounce that was 1-2% higher than Trump's (she was up by 3-4% before the RNC).

I'm in general agreement with you, but don't convention bumps take several days to totally manifest themselves in the polls?
Kind of. So right now Clinton's lead is probably little bit overestimated.



Note that says COULD. They're hypothesising an equal 3.5% bounce. But that's not what that graph is doing. It's saying bounces tend to wash out, if they're bounces.
That's why I wrote she is PROBABLY overestimated a bit, because bounces more often dies out than not. On the other hand, Trumps  most recent statements (Russia and Khan) might solidify Hillary's bounce. After 1-2 weeks we'll know.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: July 31, 2016, 06:20:58 PM »

Now, this poll looks fine.

Looks like Clinton got a bounce that was 1-2% higher than Trump's (she was up by 3-4% before the RNC).

I'm in general agreement with you, but don't convention bumps take several days to totally manifest themselves in the polls?
Kind of. So right now Clinton's lead is probably little bit overestimated.



That is one of the more neutral projections (Nate Silver is meticulous about that), one that says that the effects of Convention bounces are directly equal. Such has a basis in historical trends in other elections. I can say that the most conservative (statistically if not politically) assessment of the effects of the Party Conventions is that they were equal. Thus a return to where things were before the Conventions puts Hillary Clinton back in the lead. Thus the net effect of the Conventions is zero in effect on the vote -- but they devour time.

Time is precious in a Presidential race. At this stage the calendar is the arch-enemy of the lagger in the polls. This is with a zero net effect of opposing campaigning and advertising.

Donald Trump was behind Hillary Clinton going into the Republican National Convention. Should he be behind by a similar margin in late August as he was in late-middle July, then he has lost about 35 days of opportunity to catch up with about 70 days to go.

I have yet to see what a 5% advantage looks like with post-Convention polls in the states. Of course it is possible to get 50% of the vote and lose the election (see 2000) -- but not likely. With a 5% advantage, Hillary Clinton has all of the states that have never gone for a Republican nominee for President since  1988 locked down tight. That is 243 electoral votes right there. She definitely wins New Mexico, which is now strong D. That's another 5, putting her at 248.

Even without Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire, she wins outright if she wins Florida. I find it hard to see how she loses Iowa while winning Wisconsin decisively (the states are very similar in demographics and electoral history, so with Iowa or Nevada  plus a Blue Firewall that contains New Mexico (254 electoral votes) she wins with Ohio as well. Take both of Iowa and Nevada or one if those two or New Hampshire and Virginia also wins the Presidential election for Hillary Clinton.

... As if you have not noticed, I have restarted the binary  matchups for Clinton vs. Trump with two exceptions, those acknowledging that Hillary Clinton has absolutely no chance to win either Alabama or Oklahoma. I can think of no way to restart the three-way races between Clinton, Johnson, and Trump. Clinton up 5 in a binary matchup with 50% suggests 2012-style results. But even with that I have a caveat: it's hard to imagine two different Presidential nominees getting nearly-identical results on an electoral map unless one has 49-state blowouts or something like that. (Minnesota was the second-worst state and Massachusetts was the only state that Nixon lost in 1972; invert that for Reagan in 1984 and recognize that both lost the District of Columbia in those near-sweeps in 1984... Duh-uh!)

Partisan hack as I am, I am wise to let the polls do most of the talking. but I have my own gut feelings. The Conventions are where Parties ideally offer themselves at their most optimistic and where they try to solve their problems (which should be self-evident). Donald Trump expressed well what he believed in. Whether Americans like that is yet to be shown. Democrats went into their Convention with many unsolved problems. If they have solved those problems, then the polling for Hillary Clinton can get even better. They have plenty of material for negative ads against the Trump campaign, some supplied by Donald Trump and his surrogates. Even so, I iterate: I am wise to let the polls do most of the talking.               
Logged
Human
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 446
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: July 31, 2016, 06:51:23 PM »

I was expecting Hillary to be ahead of Trump by 6-9 points after that wonderful convention. This is a little disappointing TBH.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: July 31, 2016, 06:59:15 PM »

I was expecting Hillary to be ahead of Trump by 6-9 points after that wonderful convention. This is a little disappointing TBH.

We'll just have to see if there's more positive movement. PPP has been more muted for Clinton for the last few months.
Logged
Lachi
lok1999
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,347
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -1.06, S: -3.02

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: July 31, 2016, 07:01:49 PM »

Trump in 4th place with blacks:

Clinton 89%
Johnson 4%
Stein 4%
Trump 2%

That doesn't add up to 100%, why do polls never add up to 100%?
Logged
The Other Castro
Castro2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: July 31, 2016, 07:06:20 PM »

Trump in 4th place with blacks:

Clinton 89%
Johnson 4%
Stein 4%
Trump 2%

That doesn't add up to 100%, why do polls never add up to 100%?

Something something 3/5s joke yadda yadda
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: July 31, 2016, 07:19:00 PM »


Yes, I completely agree with you. Just to clarify; my point was that it is little bit too early to compare whose dick convention bounce will be bigger.

And I also have my own gut feelings, based on how often 'Trumpish' parties/events have been underestimated in Europe. I'm pretty well informed about the performance of polls in following countries ('Trumpish' party/event):
Sweden (Sweden Democrats)
Danmark (Danish People's Party)
Austria (Freedom Party of Austria)
France (National Front)
UK (BREXIT)

They all were underestimated with 2-4 ppts in their last elections. And they all much less controversial than Trump. Shy Trump? Pretty damn sure!
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: July 31, 2016, 07:24:21 PM »


Yes, I completely agree with you. Just to clarify; my point was that it is little bit too early to compare whose dick convention bounce will be bigger.

And I also have my own gut feelings, based on how often 'Trumpish' parties/events have been underestimated in Europe. I'm pretty well informed about the performance of polls in following countries ('Trumpish' party/event):
Sweden (Sweden Democrats)
Danmark (Danish People's Party)
Austria (Freedom Party of Austria)
France (National Front)
UK (BREXIT)

They all were underestimated with 2-4 ppts in their last elections. And they all much less controversial than Trump. Shy Trump? Pretty damn sure!

Outside of the Brexit thing, which wasn't party-based, those are multi-party states, the US is basically a binary option.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,100
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: July 31, 2016, 07:26:14 PM »


Yes, I completely agree with you. Just to clarify; my point was that it is little bit too early to compare whose dick convention bounce will be bigger.

And I also have my own gut feelings, based on how often 'Trumpish' parties/events have been underestimated in Europe. I'm pretty well informed about the performance of polls in following countries ('Trumpish' party/event):
Sweden (Sweden Democrats)
Danmark (Danish People's Party)
Austria (Freedom Party of Austria)
France (National Front)
UK (BREXIT)

They all were underestimated with 2-4 ppts in their last elections. And they all much less controversial than Trump. Shy Trump? Pretty damn sure!
If this existed, wouldn't we have demonstrable results from the primaries?

Also, idk why Brexit surprised so many people when the option led in agreggate polling in the week before the vote. Only on the final day did Brexit look less likely.
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: July 31, 2016, 07:34:19 PM »


Yes, I completely agree with you. Just to clarify; my point was that it is little bit too early to compare whose dick convention bounce will be bigger.

And I also have my own gut feelings, based on how often 'Trumpish' parties/events have been underestimated in Europe. I'm pretty well informed about the performance of polls in following countries ('Trumpish' party/event):
Sweden (Sweden Democrats)
Danmark (Danish People's Party)
Austria (Freedom Party of Austria)
France (National Front)
UK (BREXIT)

They all were underestimated with 2-4 ppts in their last elections. And they all much less controversial than Trump. Shy Trump? Pretty damn sure!

Outside of the Brexit thing, which wasn't party-based, those are multi-party states, the US is basically a binary option.
Yes, it is probably that way.

I should've said, that if there is [massive] shy Trump, I wouldn't be shocked.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,100
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: July 31, 2016, 07:40:50 PM »


Yes, I completely agree with you. Just to clarify; my point was that it is little bit too early to compare whose dick convention bounce will be bigger.

And I also have my own gut feelings, based on how often 'Trumpish' parties/events have been underestimated in Europe. I'm pretty well informed about the performance of polls in following countries ('Trumpish' party/event):
Sweden (Sweden Democrats)
Danmark (Danish People's Party)
Austria (Freedom Party of Austria)
France (National Front)
UK (BREXIT)

They all were underestimated with 2-4 ppts in their last elections. And they all much less controversial than Trump. Shy Trump? Pretty damn sure!

Outside of the Brexit thing, which wasn't party-based, those are multi-party states, the US is basically a binary option.
Yes, it is probably that way.

I should've said, that if there is [massive] shy Trump, I wouldn't be shocked.
Again, there was no evidence of that in the primaries.
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: July 31, 2016, 07:43:48 PM »


Yes, I completely agree with you. Just to clarify; my point was that it is little bit too early to compare whose dick convention bounce will be bigger.

And I also have my own gut feelings, based on how often 'Trumpish' parties/events have been underestimated in Europe. I'm pretty well informed about the performance of polls in following countries ('Trumpish' party/event):
Sweden (Sweden Democrats)
Danmark (Danish People's Party)
Austria (Freedom Party of Austria)
France (National Front)
UK (BREXIT)

They all were underestimated with 2-4 ppts in their last elections. And they all much less controversial than Trump. Shy Trump? Pretty damn sure!
If this existed, wouldn't we have demonstrable results from the primaries?
My theory:
In the early primaries, it were more or less just Fifth-Avenue-people, who voted for Trump, i.e. who really liked him and his comments. As field narrowed, more and more ordinary voters joined Trump train. That could be one of the reasons, why he was heavily underestimated in late primaries.
Also, idk why Brexit surprised so many people when the option led in agreggate polling in the week before the vote. Only on the final day did Brexit look less likely.
Probably because of the betting market. You could get 4-6 on BREXIT.
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: July 31, 2016, 07:47:09 PM »


Yes, I completely agree with you. Just to clarify; my point was that it is little bit too early to compare whose dick convention bounce will be bigger.

And I also have my own gut feelings, based on how often 'Trumpish' parties/events have been underestimated in Europe. I'm pretty well informed about the performance of polls in following countries ('Trumpish' party/event):
Sweden (Sweden Democrats)
Danmark (Danish People's Party)
Austria (Freedom Party of Austria)
France (National Front)
UK (BREXIT)

They all were underestimated with 2-4 ppts in their last elections. And they all much less controversial than Trump. Shy Trump? Pretty damn sure!

Outside of the Brexit thing, which wasn't party-based, those are multi-party states, the US is basically a binary option.
Yes, it is probably that way.

I should've said, that if there is [massive] shy Trump, I wouldn't be shocked.
Again, there was no evidence of that in the primaries.
There was some. Kind of.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-supporters-probably-arent-lying-to-pollsters/
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Though:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
But since we're talking about gut feelings...
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,100
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: July 31, 2016, 07:49:18 PM »


Yes, I completely agree with you. Just to clarify; my point was that it is little bit too early to compare whose dick convention bounce will be bigger.

And I also have my own gut feelings, based on how often 'Trumpish' parties/events have been underestimated in Europe. I'm pretty well informed about the performance of polls in following countries ('Trumpish' party/event):
Sweden (Sweden Democrats)
Danmark (Danish People's Party)
Austria (Freedom Party of Austria)
France (National Front)
UK (BREXIT)

They all were underestimated with 2-4 ppts in their last elections. And they all much less controversial than Trump. Shy Trump? Pretty damn sure!
If this existed, wouldn't we have demonstrable results from the primaries?
My theory:
In the early primaries, it were more or less just Fifth-Avenue-people, who voted for Trump, i.e. who really liked him and his comments. As field narrowed, more and more ordinary voters joined Trump train. That could be one of the reasons, why he was heavily underestimated in late primaries.
Also, idk why Brexit surprised so many people when the option led in agreggate polling in the week before the vote. Only on the final day did Brexit look less likely.
Probably because of the betting market. You could get 4-6 on BREXIT.
Which primary was he underestimated in? Indiana? Even so, a single primary is hardly indicative of a trend.

Yeah, but I trust polls in the US over the betting markets. We have not seen polls incorrect to the degree they have been in the UK.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: July 31, 2016, 07:58:21 PM »

Yes, Trump literally only was under-polled in New York and primaries after New York. Just about every other state Trump over-polled, sometimes significantly.
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: July 31, 2016, 07:59:00 PM »
« Edited: July 31, 2016, 08:00:43 PM by LittleBigPlanet »


Yes, I completely agree with you. Just to clarify; my point was that it is little bit too early to compare whose dick convention bounce will be bigger.

And I also have my own gut feelings, based on how often 'Trumpish' parties/events have been underestimated in Europe. I'm pretty well informed about the performance of polls in following countries ('Trumpish' party/event):
Sweden (Sweden Democrats)
Danmark (Danish People's Party)
Austria (Freedom Party of Austria)
France (National Front)
UK (BREXIT)

They all were underestimated with 2-4 ppts in their last elections. And they all much less controversial than Trump. Shy Trump? Pretty damn sure!
If this existed, wouldn't we have demonstrable results from the primaries?
My theory:
In the early primaries, it were more or less just Fifth-Avenue-people, who voted for Trump, i.e. who really liked him and his comments. As field narrowed, more and more ordinary voters joined Trump train. That could be one of the reasons, why he was heavily underestimated in late primaries.
Also, idk why Brexit surprised so many people when the option led in agreggate polling in the week before the vote. Only on the final day did Brexit look less likely.
Probably because of the betting market. You could get 4-6 on BREXIT.
Which primary was he underestimated in? Indiana? Even so, a single primary is hardly indicative of a trend.

Yeah, but I trust polls in the US over the betting markets. We have not seen polls incorrect to the degree they have been in the UK.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/april-26-primaries-presidential-election-2016/#livepress-update-14131541
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
And if there is shy Trump, there is not among Trump hacks, of course. Probably, among independents/R-leaners.
Yes, Trump literally only was under-polled in New York and primaries after New York. Just about every other state Trump over-polled, sometimes significantly.
Average Before New York   +0.2
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: July 31, 2016, 08:06:27 PM »

Trump in 4th place with blacks:

Clinton 89%
Johnson 4%
Stein 4%
Trump 2%

That doesn't add up to 100%, why do polls never add up to 100%?

The remaining folks are undecided.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: July 31, 2016, 08:32:53 PM »

Of course it is possible to get 50% of the vote and lose the election (see 2000) -- but not likely.
Dear liberal hack,

Al Gore got 48.4% of the vote.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: July 31, 2016, 10:35:01 PM »


Yes, I completely agree with you. Just to clarify; my point was that it is little bit too early to compare whose dick convention bounce will be bigger.

And I also have my own gut feelings, based on how often 'Trumpish' parties/events have been underestimated in Europe. I'm pretty well informed about the performance of polls in following countries ('Trumpish' party/event):
Sweden (Sweden Democrats)
Danmark (Danish People's Party)
Austria (Freedom Party of Austria)
France (National Front)
UK (BREXIT)

They all were underestimated with 2-4 ppts in their last elections. And they all much less controversial than Trump. Shy Trump? Pretty damn sure!
If this existed, wouldn't we have demonstrable results from the primaries?
My theory:
In the early primaries, it were more or less just Fifth-Avenue-people, who voted for Trump, i.e. who really liked him and his comments. As field narrowed, more and more ordinary voters joined Trump train. That could be one of the reasons, why he was heavily underestimated in late primaries.
Also, idk why Brexit surprised so many people when the option led in agreggate polling in the week before the vote. Only on the final day did Brexit look less likely.
Probably because of the betting market. You could get 4-6 on BREXIT.
Which primary was he underestimated in? Indiana? Even so, a single primary is hardly indicative of a trend.

Yeah, but I trust polls in the US over the betting markets. We have not seen polls incorrect to the degree they have been in the UK.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/april-26-primaries-presidential-election-2016/#livepress-update-14131541
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
And if there is shy Trump, there is not among Trump hacks, of course. Probably, among independents/R-leaners.
Yes, Trump literally only was under-polled in New York and primaries after New York. Just about every other state Trump over-polled, sometimes significantly.
Average Before New York   +0.2

I stand by my opinion, considering that number is incredibly marginal pre-New York.

Keep in mind that other candidates also had numbers to over-perform from - If you look at the averages from the Cruz campaign, for example, he would over-perform by large margins in just about every state until New York.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,100
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: July 31, 2016, 10:44:30 PM »


Yes, I completely agree with you. Just to clarify; my point was that it is little bit too early to compare whose dick convention bounce will be bigger.

And I also have my own gut feelings, based on how often 'Trumpish' parties/events have been underestimated in Europe. I'm pretty well informed about the performance of polls in following countries ('Trumpish' party/event):
Sweden (Sweden Democrats)
Danmark (Danish People's Party)
Austria (Freedom Party of Austria)
France (National Front)
UK (BREXIT)

They all were underestimated with 2-4 ppts in their last elections. And they all much less controversial than Trump. Shy Trump? Pretty damn sure!
If this existed, wouldn't we have demonstrable results from the primaries?
My theory:
In the early primaries, it were more or less just Fifth-Avenue-people, who voted for Trump, i.e. who really liked him and his comments. As field narrowed, more and more ordinary voters joined Trump train. That could be one of the reasons, why he was heavily underestimated in late primaries.
Also, idk why Brexit surprised so many people when the option led in agreggate polling in the week before the vote. Only on the final day did Brexit look less likely.
Probably because of the betting market. You could get 4-6 on BREXIT.
Which primary was he underestimated in? Indiana? Even so, a single primary is hardly indicative of a trend.

Yeah, but I trust polls in the US over the betting markets. We have not seen polls incorrect to the degree they have been in the UK.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/april-26-primaries-presidential-election-2016/#livepress-update-14131541
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
And if there is shy Trump, there is not among Trump hacks, of course. Probably, among independents/R-leaners.
Yes, Trump literally only was under-polled in New York and primaries after New York. Just about every other state Trump over-polled, sometimes significantly.
Average Before New York   +0.2
This is most likely a home state/region bias coupled with a strong anti-Cruz bias.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: August 01, 2016, 12:26:54 AM »

Regarding the question of whether there's a missing Trump vote...since polls typically include some fraction of respondents who are undecided, don't most candidates overperform their polls?  E.g., if the polls said:

Trump 45%
Cruz 30%
Kasich 18%
Undecided 7%

and actual results were:

Trump 48%
Cruz 32%
Kasich 20%

then all three candidates beat their poll numbers, because they all got some of the undecideds (or the undecideds didn't show up).  But you wouldn’t say that the polls were undercounting anyone’s support.  Those undecideds had to go somewhere.

So my question is even post-Indiana, how much did Trump actually overperform his polling, relative to what you would expect given that he was inevitably going to get his share of the undecided vote.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: August 01, 2016, 03:58:20 AM »

Polls have consistently showed Obama doing 3-5 points better than Hillary in a hypothetical matchup with Trump. Yet the Atlas "experts" tell me literally ANY other Democrat would be crushing Trump by 20+ points! Roll Eyes
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: August 01, 2016, 05:53:39 AM »

Can we acknowledge that Harambe got 5% here?
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: August 01, 2016, 06:56:32 AM »

Of course it is possible to get 50% of the vote and lose the election (see 2000) -- but not likely.
Dear liberal hack,

Al Gore got 48.4% of the vote.
plus al gore won the election
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: August 01, 2016, 08:24:50 AM »

Of course it is possible to get 50% of the vote and lose the election (see 2000) -- but not likely.
Dear liberal hack,

Al Gore got 48.4% of the vote.

And George W. Bush got less, but still won the Presidency. That is the point.

Al Gore got slightly more than 50% of the votes cast for the candidates of the two main parties.

So how is it possible to win 50%+ of the popular vote and lose in the general election? It's simple: one wins by tiny margins in most of the states that one wins, and loses by huge margins in states that one does lose. Winning Texas by 30% means just the same as winning Texas by 2%; one still gets Texas' 38 electoral votes. Winning California by 2% means the same as winning California by 30%; one gets its 55 electoral votes. Winning Georgia by 20% has the same effect as winning the state by 2%; one wins the 16 electoral votes of Georgia.

Work the model out in which those are the only three states. No matter how badly a nominee does in Georgia and Texas, even a bare win in California wins the Presidency by a margin of 55-54.  That is of course a horrible system, one that likely breaks as Georgia and Texas secede.     
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.078 seconds with 12 queries.