U.S Presidential Election 2016 Not Otherwise Specified

[buttslinger]

I think the word on the street is...if they call either North Carolina or Florida for Clinton, the Clinton/trump election is over.
I'm still guaranteeing Hillary in the Oval Office, but I'm waiting to see if Director Comedy directed the senate to trump.

PS Hillary, please fire Comey in a sneaky deliberate way when you are IN, and oh yeah, fire every Republican you can day by day, hour by hour.
People in my neighborhood aren't putting up Trump signs.
Maybe he didn't make any, maybe people are afraid their home values will go down.
Presidential elections are like a card game with 52,000 cards.

[zerrrr]

Pennsylvania is not even close. The state is solid blue except when they need except for the times the Democrats in this state need money; then it becomes a battleground state. When was the last time PA went red? Almost 30 years.

[broncofan]

Pennsylvania is not even close. The state is solid blue except when they need except for the times the Democrats in this state need money; then it becomes a battleground state. When was the last time PA went red? Almost 30 years.

The polls indicate Clinton will win Pennsylvania, but you have to remember analysts are trying to present this data in probabilistic terms. This requires being able to think in shades of gray. I'm not suggesting you aren't able to or that "not even close" isn't a reasonable metric.

[zerrrr]

The polls indicate Clinton will win Pennsylvania, but you have to remember analysts are trying to present this data in probabilistic terms. This requires being able to think in shades of gray. I'm not suggesting you aren't able to or that "not even close" isn't a reasonable metric.

The last time PA went red was 1988. If PA goes red there is a serious problem within the Democratic Party.

The analysts are just stroking fears. If you look at the hard data I think almost 35 states have voted the same way for the past 4 or 5 elections. There are only a few states that are true toss-ups. Most states are solidly in one column or another which is why I say the electoral college is slanted heavily towards the Democrats.

Here is an article with electoral maps going back 50 years. Pay attention to the electoral college vote from 2000 forwards and tell me how many states flip-flop. The NE, Rust Belt, and west coast are solid blue with the center of the county and south red. The elections come down to only about 10-15 states with the Democrats winning most large states over 12 electoral votes.

2000 is a better starting point than 1992 which is what I had before.

[zerrrr]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/up...blue.html?_r=0

From 2000 forward only New Mexico, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida changed hands. That is 10 states out of 50. I may have missed a few but for the most part the election is pretty much focused on a few states. Most of the country is locked into place.

2000 is a very good starting point because it shows just how thin of a margin the Republicans have to win. In order for the Republicans to win the White House a lot has to go their way on the Electoral College map.

[buttslinger]

Sonny Jurgensen was told by Vince Lombardi that most football games are decided by two or three plays,
of course you never know WHICH three plays.
In this World the best you can get to the truth is an EDUCATED guess.

[Stavros]

Does anyone wonder if, given the controversial nature of this year's election, Faithless Electors in one or more States could affect the final result? A Faithless Elector is one of those electors chosen to cast their vote in the Electoral College who switches their vote -for example, voting for someone other than the candidate chosen by popular vote in the state. It might seem perverse, but it is after all a 'pledge' and I am not sure if electors are obliged by law to vote for the candidate the State has chosen, some fundamentalist Christian, for example, in a State won by Trump might switch the two with Pence as President... The wikipedia article on it is here-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithl...000_to_present

The timetable for the Electoral College looks like this:

• November 8, 2016—Election Day:
  The voters in each State choose electors to serve in the Electoral College. As soon as election results are final, the States prepare seven original "Certificates of Ascertainment" of the electors chosen, and send one original along with two certified copies to the Archivist of the United States at the Office of the Federal Register.
• December 19, 2016—Meeting of Electors:
  The electors in each State meet to select the President and Vice President of the United States. The Electors record their votes on six “Certificates of Vote,” which are paired with the six remaining original “Certificates of Ascertainment.” The electors sign, seal and certify the packages of electoral votes and immediately send them to the Federal and State officials listed in these instructions.
• December 28, 2016—Deadline for Receipt of Electoral Votes:
  The President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States, and other designated Federal and State officials must have the electoral votes in hand.
• January 6, 2017—Counting Electoral Votes in Congress:
  The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes (unless Congress passes a law to change the date).
• https://www.archives.gov/federal-reg...les.html#dates

[broncofan]

The way the electoral college works is something we almost take for granted despite the examples of faithless electors in your link. If the election is close, it could undoubtedly be a factor (this is afterall an election where many norms have vanished), and would contribute to a feeling that the democratic process was subverted. I just read in another link that federal law cannot require electors to honor their pledges (perhaps states have their own mechanisms to ensure)..

I'm not sure what the purpose of not having the vote in each state just add to a national tally is. Is it to give the appearance that the selection is more indirect than it is? This is something that has been mysterious to me my entire life...I remember asking people as a child what would happen if the electoral college did not vote the way the voters of each state did and they would assure "that won't happen", almost as an article of faith. For my part, I hope they don't break faith and it's one less thing to worry about.

But maybe we should worry.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/...te-for-clinton

[broncofan]

The man said no matter what he won't cast his vote for Hillary. So, election predictors now have to assume that in Washington, a state where Hillary is almost assured a win, she will get 11 not 12 electoral votes.

[Stavros]

The way the electoral college works is something we almost take for granted despite the examples of faithless electors in your link. If the election is close, it could undoubtedly be a factor (this is afterall an election where many norms have vanished), and would contribute to a feeling that the democratic process was subverted. I just read in another link that federal law cannot require electors to honor their pledges (perhaps states have their own mechanisms to ensure)..

I'm not sure what the purpose of not having the vote in each state just add to a national tally is. Is it to give the appearance that the selection is more indirect than it is? This is something that has been mysterious to me my entire life...I remember asking people as a child what would happen if the electoral college did not vote the way the voters of each state did and they would assure "that won't happen", almost as an article of faith. For my part, I hope they don't break faith and it's one less thing to worry about.

But maybe we should worry.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/...te-for-clinton

Thank you for your thoughts and the link.
One only hopes this freaky election does not produce the freak result.