Jump to content
270soft Forum

My final 50 state-by-state prediction Trump/Clinton/Johnson/Stein/Mcmullin


Recommended Posts

This is it! My final election prediction! For Major Party canidates I will be posting that state and the winner and there margin of victory Exp:Trump +5

For Minor Parties:Gary Johnson(Libertarian),Jill Stein (Green),and Ed Mcmullin (Independent) I will just post what I predict them to do nationally.

Thank you! :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Can't wait to see what your predictions are. According to FiveThirtyEight, he has more than doubled what he had two weeks ago, and is leading in Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, and isn't far behind in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Colorado.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Prediction:(also previous election result)

Alabama

-Trump +25 (Romney +22)

Alaska

-Trump +9 (Romney +14)

Arizona

-Trump +5 (Romney +10)

Arkansas

-Trump +22 (Romney +24)

California

-Clinton +13 (Obama +21)

Colorado

-Clinton +0 (Obama +5)

Connecticut

-Clinton +6 (Obama +18)

Delaware

-Clinton +11 (Obama +18)

Florida

-Trump +3 (Obama +1)

Georgia

-Trump +6 (Romney +8)

Hawaii

-Clinton +45 (Obama +43)

Idaho

-Trump +26 (Romney +32)

Illinois

-Clinton +13 (Obama +17)

Indiana

-Trump +15 (Romney +11)

Iowa

-Trump +5 (Obama +6)

Kansas

-Trump +25 (Romney +23)

Kentucky

-Trump +27 (Romney +23)

Louisiana

-Trump +20 (Romney +17)

Maine

-Clinton +2 (Obama +16)

Maryland

-Clinton +19 (Obama +25)

Massachusetts

-Clinton +11 (Obama +23)

Michigan

-Trump +0 (Obama +10)

Minnesota

-Clinton +1 (Obama +7)

Mississippi

-Trump +14 (Romney +12)

Missouri

-Trump +8 (Romney +9)

Montana

-Trump +10 (Romney +14)

Nebraska

-Trump +19 (Romney +23)

Nevada

-Trump +2 (Obama +7)

New Hampshire

-Trump +1 (Obama +6)

New Jersey

-Clinton +6 (Obama +18)

New Mexico

-Clinton +7 (Obama +9)

New York

-Clinton +8 (Obama +26)

North Carolina

-Trump +0 (Romney +2)

North Dakota

-Trump +16 (Romney +20)

Ohio

-Trump +4 (Obama +2)

Oklahoma

-Trump +25 (Romney +23)

Oregon

-Clinton +7 (Obama +12)

Pennsylvania

-Trump +2 (Obama +6)

Rhode Island

-Clinton +10 (Obama +17)

South Carolina

-Trump +7 (Romney +10)

South Dakota

-Trump +13 (Romney +17)

Tennessee

-Trump +18 (Romney +20)

Texas

-Trump +17 (Romney +14)

Utah

-Trump +4 (Romney +48)

Vermont

-Clinton +31 (Obama +36)

Virginia

-Clinton +2 (Obama +3)

Washington

-Clinton +7 (Obama +14)

West Virginia

-Trump +33 (Romney +27)

Wisconsin

-Trump +2 (Obama +6)

Wyoming

-Trump +34 (Romney +41)

 

Third Parties

Gary Johnson-3.5% nat

Jill Stein-1% nat

Ed Mcmullin-1% nat (2nd in Utah)

 

Final EV/

Donald J. Trump-315 EV

Hillary R. Clinton-223 EV

Gary Johnson-0 EV

Jill Stein-0 EV

Ed Mcmullin-0 EV

 

Map-http://www.270towin.com/maps/y2k8d

 

Turnout-Up 8% atleast from last election

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to break ME and NE into districts. Also, can't see any scenario of Trump getting Michigan. As unlikely as PA is to go to Trump, it's at least a possibility. I don't think Trump has won a single Michigan poll. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, vcczar said:

You need to break ME and NE into districts. Also, can't see any scenario of Trump getting Michigan. As unlikely as PA is to go to Trump, it's at least a possibility. I don't think Trump has won a single Michigan poll. 

Neither did Bernie Sanders in the primary but we know how that went. As much as I hate to admit it, correspondents and the polls are under estimating Trump. I think it's going to become one hell of a nail biter on Election Day.

Edited by SeanFKennedy
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SeanFKennedy said:

Neither did Bernie Sanders in the primary but we know how that went. As much as I hate to admit it how do you think many dependents in the polls are under estimating Trump. I think it's going to become one hell of a nail biter on Election Day.

Bernie was cheated out of it he would have been the 45th president and i support trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/Zg4DJ

My current prediction

This one seems much more realistic than that predicted in this thread. Most of the percentages aren't realistic, but JVikings is definitely in the realm of possibility. In fact, I think if Trump wins, it will look like JViking's map. I still think, Clinton is more likely to win than lose, but for the first time, I admit that a Trump win would not shock me. This is so anxiety provoking. When Romney was leading in the polls in 2012, I didn't fear for our future. With Trump, I do. At least with Clinton, it's at worst, a 3rd term of Obama (and even if you hate Obama, the country is still strongly intact). If she gets impeached, incarcerated and removed, you get the centrist Tim Kaine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, vcczar said:

This one seems much more realistic than that predicted in this thread. Most of the percentages aren't realistic, but JVikings is definitely in the realm of possibility. In fact, I think if Trump wins, it will look like JViking's map. I still think, Clinton is more likely to win than lose, but for the first time, I admit that a Trump win would not shock me. This is so anxiety provoking. When Romney was leading in the polls in 2012, I didn't fear for our future. With Trump, I do. At least with Clinton, it's at worst, a 3rd term of Obama (and even if you hate Obama, the country is still strongly intact). If she gets impeached, incarcerated and removed, you get the centrist Tim Kaine. 

I realized with this prediction If that Maine district goes to Clinton,its a tie what do you think we will see then? (And as you know im sticking to my guns with the predictions ive made throughout the election)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TheMiddlePolitical said:

I realized with this prediction If that Maine district goes to Clinton,its a tie what do you think we will see then? (And as you know im sticking to my guns with the predictions ive made throughout the election)

I see a possible corrupt bargain which would destroy the careers of many Congressmen and lead to even more outsider sympathy and anti-establishment support.  Or, the House will toe the line and support Trump in order to save their careers and maybe satisfy the people who want an outsider.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2016 at 10:53 AM, vcczar said:

You need to break ME and NE into districts. Also, can't see any scenario of Trump getting Michigan. As unlikely as PA is to go to Trump, it's at least a possibility. I don't think Trump has won a single Michigan poll. 

shy trump effect dude and oversampling of polls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Presidentinsertname said:

shy trump effect dude and oversampling of polls.

Most people think the shy Trump effect is no longer really a factor, or is at least cancelled out by Clinton's superior advertising blitzses, ground game and campaign organization. I've been giving Trump the benefit of the doubt in most states for a couple of week, but I'm starting to think Clinton will overperform in FL, NC, NV, PA. I think she'll underperform in OH, IA, MI, WI, but still win MI and WI. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Most people think the shy Trump effect is no longer really a factor, or is at least cancelled out by Clinton's superior advertising blitzses, ground game and campaign organization. I've been giving Trump the benefit of the doubt in most states for a couple of week, but I'm starting to think Clinton will overperform in FL, NC, NV, PA. I think she'll underperform in OH, IA, MI, WI, but still win MI and WI.

The concept of calling Trump supporters "shy," from what I've seen of footage of his rallies and endless comments by his supporters all over the Internet (certainly not just here) strikes me as a VERY inapt term for them, I have to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There a lot of shy Trump voters. People who are going to vote for him, but will never tell their colleagues or friends. 

The Cathedral decided that Clinton is the only candidate you can support without being a racist, sexist, bigot. People's careers are literally destroyed for supporting Trump. 

I don't think this has much impact on the polls, because Trump supporters in places where they will be shy don't matter much. 

Its still silly not to acknowledge these things though. 45%+ of the voters will be voting for Trump and yet I bet you would still have disdain for them. Imagine being a Trump supporter surrounded by hundreds of Hillary supporters. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, VanMav said:

There a lot of shy Trump voters. People who are going to vote for him, but will never tell their colleagues or friends.

The Cathedral decided that Clinton is the only candidate you can support without being a racist, sexist, bigot. People's careers are literally destroyed for supporting Trump.

I don't think this has much impact on the polls, because Trump supporters in places where they will be shy don't matter much.

Its still silly not to acknowledge these things though. 45%+ of the voters will be voting for Trump and yet I bet you would still have disdain for them. Imagine being a Trump supporter surrounded by hundreds of Hillary supporters.

"The Cathedral?" That sounds like a conspiracy theory term in the way you're using it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a reference to the fact that in the middle and late Middle Ages "the cathedral" or the Catholic Church decided what was good and pure and virtuous. 

 

Nowadays it's a combination of the academia (which is somewhere in the vicinity of 5% Republican), news networks, etc. which decide what you are and aren't allowed to think. They have the same role as the Catholic Church from the Middle Ages. 

 

Its not a conspiracy. It's just the way society works. And then those opinions filter through, and if you don't believe exactly what you're told to, you're a racist, homophobic, sexist bigot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, VanMav said:

It's a reference to the fact that in the middle and late Middle Ages "the cathedral" or the Catholic Church decided what was good and pure and virtuous.

 

Nowadays it's a combination of the academia (which is somewhere in the vicinity of 5% Republican), news networks, etc. which decide what you are and aren't allowed to think. They have the same role as the Catholic Church from the Middle Ages.

 

Its not a conspiracy. It's just the way society works. And then those opinions filter through, and if you don't believe exactly what you're told to, you're a racist, homophobic, sexist bigot.

Although I can't speak for the media, I believe there are certain reasons (blatant denial of observed and proven science, and rational and critical thinking, as well as a MORE BLATANT tendency to distort obvious facts, revise history, and outright lie - there are liberal groups that do this too, but they make it sound more believable to those with educated backgrounds as a rule) which just MAY account for Republicans being so underrepresented in high academic circles.

Funny thing about your metaphor is that the Roman Catholic Church has ALWAYS historically hated the academia and free press and GREATLY favoured Christian conservatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't find any of your post to be particularly convincing. Democrats are, on balance, either just as bad or worse than Republicans in terms of most of those things. The reasons there are no self-reported Republicans in academia are because they'd have been forced out by the regressive, intolerant left within the faculty. For a country that is split roughly 50-50 Rep/Dem, do you not think there's any problem with young people being taught 95-5 by Democrats? I suspect you would if it was 95-5 by Republicans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VanMav said:

There a lot of shy Trump voters. People who are going to vote for him, but will never tell their colleagues or friends. 

The Cathedral decided that Clinton is the only candidate you can support without being a racist, sexist, bigot. People's careers are literally destroyed for supporting Trump. 

I don't think this has much impact on the polls, because Trump supporters in places where they will be shy don't matter much. 

Its still silly not to acknowledge these things though. 45%+ of the voters will be voting for Trump and yet I bet you would still have disdain for them. Imagine being a Trump supporter surrounded by hundreds of Hillary supporters. 

How about shy Clinton supporters.  Is supporting her something to brag about? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think supporting either of them is something to brag about, but if you publicly support Clinton you have basically all of Hollywood, the mainstream media, etc. backing you up. Shy Clinton supporters only exist in the reddest parts of the reddest counties. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, VanMav said:

I don't find any of your post to be particularly convincing. Democrats are, on balance, either just as bad or worse than Republicans in terms of most of those things. The reasons there are no self-reported Republicans in academia are because they'd have been forced out by the regressive, intolerant left within the faculty. For a country that is split roughly 50-50 Rep/Dem, do you not think there's any problem with young people being taught 95-5 by Democrats? I suspect you would if it was 95-5 by Republicans.

"Regressive and intolerant," especially as words applied to academic and social progress, are vastly more applicable to those of conservative rather than liberal leanings. There are still Republicans in Congress or State Governor's Mansions who not only believe weather patterns haven't changed at all in the past two decades, but believe the world was created around 5000 or so years ago, that dinosaurs co-existed with early humans, that evolution is a "vicious lie," and that economic, political, and social set-ups that objectively failed miserably and were unsustainable and utterly unviable decades or even a century or two ago will magically start working today, even though all economic, political, and social pillars of society have moved even FURTHER away from them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, VanMav said:

I don't think supporting either of them is something to brag about, but if you publicly support Clinton you have basically all of Hollywood, the mainstream media, etc. backing you up. Shy Clinton supporters only exist in the reddest parts of the reddest counties. 

Or battleground states like Iowa, North Carolina, and Ohio. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, VanMav said:

I don't find any of your post to be particularly convincing. Democrats are, on balance, either just as bad or worse than Republicans in terms of most of those things. The reasons there are no self-reported Republicans in academia are because they'd have been forced out by the regressive, intolerant left within the faculty. For a country that is split roughly 50-50 Rep/Dem, do you not think there's any problem with young people being taught 95-5 by Democrats? I suspect you would if it was 95-5 by Republicans.

I don't think it's 95-5. I work in academia. It's definitely imbalanced, but it's more like 70 to 80% Left, depending on where the college is located. Some conservative colleges will have more Right-wing educators. The difference I think is not so much as blackballing conservative intellectuals, it's that a leftwing intellectual is probably more likely to want to get into academia. I think a right-wing educator is more likely to go for something more tangibly profitable. 

I'd like to see some rules established though to balance this out, so long as professors, regardless of ideology stick to to the Cartesian concept of critical thinking (doubting everything, and figure it out for yourself), scientific thought, logic, reason, etc. I think every political science and history department should be somewhat balanced.

The university can be a secular priesthood at times. Some argue it's necessary to combat rampant anti-intellectualism, but to me, intellectualism doesn't adhere solely to one political thought, but it must stick to reason, fact, critical thinking, strategic thought, etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...