May 10, 2016

"Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are effectively tied in the swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania..."

"... according to the results of a Quinnipiac University survey released Tuesday."

AND: "Although much has been made of disunity in the GOP, it is actually just as unified behind Trump as the Democrats are behind Clinton," PPP discovers.

82 comments:

Birkel said...

pm317 hardest hit.

EDH said...

And I'd have to guess Trump is the one who has more room to improve upon his numbers.

Mike Sylwester said...

When a Republican refuses to vote for Trump but lives in a state that is safe for Democrats or Republicans, then his refusal doesn't matter.

I am a Republican who lives in New Jersey, which always votes for the Democrat in the Presidential election. It doesn't matter if I say I never will vote for Trump. New Jersey will vote for Clinton anyway.

The same would be true if I lived in Kansas. Trump will win there, simply because he will be the Republican candidate.

Only the swing states will made a difference, and Trump might win many of them.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Keep up the good work, Simon!

Curious George said...

Can't be true. Amanda assured me this was impossible.

Fritz said...

Prepare for hysterics.

TCom said...

Don't worry, the True True Conservatives will find another reason they love Hillary.

In other news, it's coming out now that Putin is contemplating releasing his big stash of Hilldawg's emails that he stole off her homebrew server.

Voting for Clinton is voting for our country to be thrown open to the locusts, full stop. This woman was selling our secrets when she wasn't giving them away off her easily hackable server.

I'm sure the True True Conservatives will find a reason why she is less dangerous than the fact that Trump says some mean things and doesn't lay down to the traitorous left. Because principles.

Trump supporter: Hell with the party, the country is at stake!

True True Conservative: Hell with the country, my party is at stake!

David Begley said...

Revenge of coal country. Lots of coal jobs in Ohio and PA. Coal not just in WVA and KY.

BDNYC said...

@Mike Sylwester

That may be true for the race between Hillary and Donald, but your vote might still matter depending on your congressional district. Remember, the entire House is up for grabs every two years. Do you live in a safe district? If not, you should consider voting of control of the House matters to you.

Also, 1/3 of senators are up for election.

Humperdink said...

"Only the swing states will made a difference, and Trump might win many of them."

This is exactly how I see it. I live in Pa. and Clintstone could be in real trouble here. I think her issues with the working class WV coal miners will transfer across the state line.

Birkel said...

I want to see the polling in New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado. No, I am not kidding.

The forces of reconquista may not be as popular as Democrats imagine.

David said...

This is definitely not an outlier. All the vulnerable Republicans up for election should be happy to partner with their party leader, Donald Trump for the election. Maybe they'll stop referring to this mysterious "nominee" whose name and identity none of them seem willing to mention.

Bob Boyd said...

Voters looking for a reset button of their own.

Kansas City said...

I still think Clinton will get knocked out by the email server conduct (probably indicted or a sweet plea bargain) and, if Obama and the DNC cannot force in Biden, then it is Bernie.

I guess Trump would beat Bernie, but no way to know.

In Missouri (potential swing state if there is a decent democratic candidate, I'm working toward holding my nose and voting for Trump.

Could be Trump against Lifetime Joe and Goofy Elizabeth. I will give Trump credit for making political nicknames fun. I now think if Hillary survives the FBI investigation, then "Crooked Hillary" will stick and quite possibly be the cause of her defeat. That part of Trump is genius.

sunsong said...

Bernie easily beats Trump

Gusty Winds said...

On economy and terrorism Trump leads in all three states. Also favorable and unfavorable ratings are basically tied.

Brando said...

"Only the swing states will made a difference, and Trump might win many of them. "

That's true, but the swing states almost always track the national popular vote. If more polls show a close race, it should be a sign of party tightening--Dems and GOPers holding their nose and sticking with their party's nominee, because the alternative is worse.

holdfast said...

Actually, it may be that every vote does matter - because we could be looking at a 2000 result again, with Trump winning the Electoral College but Hilldawg winning the popular vote.

Birkel said...

sunsong:

Can you please post video of the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Bernie?

Gusty Winds said...

My brother thinks that when Trump announces his dream team, he should do it like the Chicago Bulls introduce their starting line-up. Spotlights. Alan Parson's Project Sirius intro.

"He handled the 9/11 attacks like a champion and brought criminals to their knees, the former Mayor of NYC...."

"Weighing in at 450 lbs, he didn't take any shit from the Teacher's Union, the Governor of New Jersey..."

"The last Speaker of the House to actually balance a budget..."

Fabi said...

Sum ting wong. Simon said there was no conceivable scenario in which Trump could win -- none! Imagine what the poll might look like without all the never-Trump whining.

Bruce Hayden said...

@Birkel - I don't think the issue in Colorado here has much to do with the Reconquista. Maybe the other two states. I think it Is much more Trump's NYC brashnessa that plays so badly there. A lot of Republicans there just seem to despise the guy and how he portrays himself. And the Democrats I have talked to, while preferring Sanders, just figure that all politicians are crooked, so it is fine that Hillary is so corrupt, and it is a woman's turn any way. (Which, to me comes across as a complete lack of seriousness).

Writ Small said...

A few points of caution. One, the poll is an outlier. The 538 podcast a few days ago had the aggregate of polls with Clinton far ahead. Two, this poll is "registered" voters and not "likely" - always a caution sign. For example, a likely voter poll by AIF overlapping the time-period of this Quinnipiac poll had Clinton 13 points up in Florida. Three, the levels of undecided are huge. On the other hand, that says there is plenty of room for Trump to close the gap, but the celebration is at the least premature.

traditionalguy said...

Who are those guys, said Sundance to the Kid?

It's an Army of Mysoginysts following Rooster Cogburn.

Bob Ellison said...

Hillary must be running to pardon herself.

This is not discussed much openly. But it's probably on her mind every evening.

Brando said...

"A few points of caution. One, the poll is an outlier. The 538 podcast a few days ago had the aggregate of polls with Clinton far ahead. Two, this poll is "registered" voters and not "likely" - always a caution sign. For example, a likely voter poll by AIF overlapping the time-period of this Quinnipiac poll had Clinton 13 points up in Florida. Three, the levels of undecided are huge. On the other hand, that says there is plenty of room for Trump to close the gap, but the celebration is at the least premature."

Yeah, there's going to be a lot of polls out over the next several months and a lot of swings. Best to look at them together, and consider their methodologies before declaring a trend.

What I think will tell is intensity of feeling among the "anti" voters for each. Clinton and Trump are unusually unpopular for nominees this far out, and while Trump is considered more unpopular than Clinton, what's less clear is how "set" voters are about Trump vs. Clinton--maybe some who disfavor Trump are more lukewarm than the ones who disfavor Clinton, so they could switch over the next few months.

mccullough said...

Maybe Bernie can use this poll to flip some votes his way in the remaining primaries. Show that picture of Hillary and Trump at his third wedding in an ad. But Bernie doesn't want to win.

Bob Ellison said...

Writ Small, the lesson of this electoral season is that polls are junk.

Folks like Nate Silver should have admitted that years ago.

Birkel said...

Bruce Hayden:
Coloradans may not care about it. But the reconquista cares about Colorado.

cubanbob said...

I live in a swing state. I'll have to hold my nose and vote for Trumpy McDonaldface for the good of the country. Unlike the rest of you here that live in either Blue or Red states and can afford to be "principled" those of us who live in swing states have a duty to protect and defend the nation by voting for what is an undisputed fact, that Trumpy is without a doubt the lesser of the two evils.

M Jordan said...

Three of the last four H2H (head to head ... there, I spelled it out for you) polls show Trump closing the gap with Hillary. He was down 3 in a Battleground poll two weeks ago, he was even in another, and up 2 in Rasmussen. Only the CNN poll last Wednesday -- the day Trump became the presumptive nominee -- showed him back in earlier territory at -13. That's the one the NeverTrumpers jumped on and clung to like a piece of driftwood in an open sea.

Well, today's polls continue the trend towards Trump. He's basically even in two swing states, Pa. and Fla., and up in Ohio. Yesterday we found out he is up two to one over Hillary in the military. And later today, PPP will show it to be a 4 point race with Hillary still clinging to a lead.

All this is much faster than expected by the most ardent of Trump supporters. The old narrative of him being unable to beat Hillary is busted flat in Baton Rouge. This will definitely affect Paul Ryan as he meets with Donald. The NeverTrump movement may have ended today.

Hagar said...

About those monolingual Indian language speakers showing up at our southern border: Can they still be considered "Hispanic?"

Trump's wall on the border: Is he aware that from El Paso down, the border runs along the middle of the Rio Grande, and the middle tends to shift somewhat - and sometimes more than somewhat - with each passing rainstorm?

jr565 said...

Never Trumpers. I hear you. However, now it's time to rally around the shitty candidate. Think of him like Danyearys's Dragons. Use him to win the war and the seat of power. Then, lock him away in the dungeon.

Birkel said...

M Jordan:

The #NeverTrump crowd is unlikely swayed. But does it matter if Lindsey Graham votes third party in SC? Or the MSM types who live in Manhattan?

Forget about antagonizing them. What benefit accrues in that effort?

traditionalguy said...

Welcome to the war, jr565.

Birkel said...

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trump-wants-rid-regulations-help-u-businesses-cnbc-115204356.html

That link is the best thing I have seen yet in favor of Trump.

Birkel said...

M Jordan:

Be a better advocate that traditionalguy. It's a low bar.

Brando said...

"Writ Small, the lesson of this electoral season is that polls are junk."

Polls aren't junk--but they have to be read carefully for what they are. The wrong polling methods can get an inaccurate result, and some polls will be outliers, but on the whole good polls are useful.

eric said...

This will be an interesting race for sure.

Let's imagine for a moment that the polls are totally wrong. That they show Clinton winning and winning big the closer we get, and then Trump ends up winning.

What's the downside? I mean, no one called Trump winning this primary. They kept telling us about his ceiling. They kept telling us that if people dropped out all the voters would consolidate around the not Trump candidate.

That didn't happen. They were wrong. Yet, we keep talking about the polls as if they are accurate.

So what's the downside if they get this wrong? None.

Think about that. If there is no downside to being wrong, why be right?

Mike Sylwester said...

BDNYC at 9:10 AM

... you should consider voting of control of the House matters to you.

If Trump becomes the Republican nominee, then I will vote for him and for all the other Republicans on the ballot.

However, Hillary certainly will win in New Jersey. Therefore, it won't matter that many New Jersey Republicans will refuse to vote for Trump.

tim maguire said...

Writ Small said...A few points of caution. One, the poll is an outlier. The 538 podcast a few days ago had the aggregate of polls with Clinton far ahead.

Actually, this poll is spot on the average of the last four polls. The outliers are Trump up by 2 and Hillary up by 13. This one is probably about right.

Frank LdR said...

Not a single Quinnipiac poll from 2012 has Obama not leading Romney in Ohio.Trump up by 4 pts. to Bighouse Hill is promising. If you examine the internals of this poll i.e., economics, leadership, and trust,Trump leads by strong numbers over Clinton.An auspicious beginning for Trump despite the media's nonstop negative blitz.

toto said...

holdfast -
In 2000, every vote in the country did NOT matter.
537 popular votes won Florida, one of the few remaining swing states, and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide.

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws
In the 2012 general election campaign
38 states had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.

More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states..

Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a difference of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988- 2012). A difference of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

1.3 million votes decided the winner in the ten states with the closest margins of victory.

One analyst is predicting two million voters in seven counties are going to determine who wins the presidency in 2016.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

“Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, steel tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.

toto said...

The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to making every vote in the country matter, by guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Achilles said...

I m sticking by my predictions from months ago.

1. Trump will win big with what resembles the Reagan coalition. He will add solid numbers of blacks, hispanics, and more than solid numbers of asians.

2. I was wrong about him needing Cruz or Carly on the ticket. He doesn't need either of them. It is still my wish that Cruz is part of the team and keeps the party center right and I blame this hope for skewing my perception.

3. Hillary would be the nominee and Obama would rather lose with her because he doesn't want her to spill the beans on all of his malfeasance and pardon her on the way out. Not so sure now. The last person to accept they are going to lose is the candidate. What happens if even Hillary accepts he will lose? It is so obvious so soon. Will she accept a pardon for getting out of the race peacefully? That pardon is her #1 goal at this point. She will be in jail for life otherwise.

Then what happens to Bernie? He is a more formidable candidate than Hillary in this year. But his party looks at him like the republican party looks at Trump. Wall Street would have no candidate in the race. But if they put biden in at this point the democrat party disintegrates.

All options at this point are good.

Dude1394 said...

Remember, rear guard actions are important as well. Any days, dollars spent defending NJ for example is a good thing. This is not a skirmish, this is an all-out war. As they say, take someone down with you.

FullMoon said...

r565 said...

Never Trumpers. I hear you. However, now it's time to rally around the shitty candidate. Think of him like Danyearys's Dragons. Use him to win the war and the seat of power. Then, lock him away in the dungeon.


SPOILER; Dragons have been un-chained, hell's a'comin'! Bad guys gonna be toasted, literally.

cubanbob said...

Trumpy has a civil fraud trial coming up and Hillary has her ongoing FBI criminal investigation. Hillary also has a sealed indictment from 1994 waiting to be released under FOIA. A lot of caca on both sides yet to be released. I give Trump a probable win by a nose.

eric said...

Not a single Quinnipiac poll from 2012 has Obama not leading Romney in Ohio

This sentence gives me a headache.

eric said...

This time last year Obama was up 1 percent in Ohio according to this polling firm.

eric said...

They had Romney at +6 in Florida and Obama at +8 in Pennsylvania.

cubanbob said...

"3. Hillary would be the nominee and Obama would rather lose with her because he doesn't want her to spill the beans on all of his malfeasance and pardon her on the way out. Not so sure now. The last person to accept they are going to lose is the candidate. What happens if even Hillary accepts he will lose? It is so obvious so soon. Will she accept a pardon for getting out of the race peacefully? That pardon is her #1 goal at this point. She will be in jail for life otherwise."

Hillary isn't the only one who needs a pardon. A number of people-Obama's people, will be needing a President Hillary Clinton for pardons. Can President Trump McDonaldface rescind the pardons granted by Obama as he rushes out the door on January 20th?

TCom said...

I don't like the National Popular Vote idea because it increases the power of the Democrat Inner City Vote Printing Operation. They can just squat in and start churning them out.

Remember all those districts that had 0 votes for Romney?

Achilles said...

cubanbob said...

"Hillary isn't the only one who needs a pardon. A number of people-Obama's people, will be needing a President Hillary Clinton for pardons. Can President Trump McDonaldface rescind the pardons granted by Obama as he rushes out the door on January 20th? "

Ask attorney general Christie.

I hope some GOPe types get swept up and out too.

France has a guillotine. We have gibbets.

holdfast said...

My point was that if Trump wins with the Electoral College but not the popular vote, the complete freak-out on the left will dwarf what we saw in 2000, and it may very well lead to the end of the Electoral College (which would be a bad thing, IMHO).

Jason said...

Funny. I didn't see this poll trending on Facebook for some reason.

Jason said...

I'm a conservative in Florida, a hotly-contested swing state. CONVINCE ME!

cubanbob said...

holdfast said...
My point was that if Trump wins with the Electoral College but not the popular vote, the complete freak-out on the left will dwarf what we saw in 2000, and it may very well lead to the end of the Electoral College (which would be a bad thing, IMHO).

5/10/16, 11:21 AM"

The left can freakout but no one who matters will care. There is a reason every state has two and only two senators and that is the reason there will always be an electoral college.

theribbonguy said...

"I'm a conservative in Florida, a hotly-contested swing state. CONVINCE ME!"

Your choice is between a guy who might break his promise and appoint liberals to the supreme court and a kleptocrat that absolutely will.

Simple as that.

eddie willers said...

Trumpy has a civil fraud trial coming up

Another reason for "loser pays" to come to America.

toto said...

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Jason said...I'm a conservative in Florida, a hotly-contested swing state. CONVINCE ME!

President Hillary Clinton. No oversight, no accountability, no Media scrutiny. 2-4 Supreme Court nominations.

toto said...

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not control the outcome.

The biggest cities are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

toto said...

National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

toto said...

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Most Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9). The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

shiloh said...

Gallup Daily: McCain 48%, Obama 44% ~ Sept. 11, 2008

Keep hope alive!

HoodlumDoodlum said...

toto said...The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

Terrific idea--I'm glad we keep importing tons of illegal immigrants who the Left just can't wait to make full citizens (there're, what, 11-20 million of 'em now, right?); I sure want to make sure the Dem-voting formerly-illegal alien vote counts for as much as possible (and doesn't have its power in any way diluted).

I Callahan said...

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

Yeah, who needs Wyoming and Rhode Island anyway...

James said...

Concerning the National Popular Vote: What is to prevent a state like California from dropping it's voting age to 14 or 16 and then running up the vote totals for its side?

tim in vermont said...

Or letting non citizens vote? Nothing.

tim in vermont said...

Shill-o is back shilling for Mrs "we came we saw he died "

toto said...

Existing federal law prohibits aliens from voting for President. 18 United States Code section 611 states:
“It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives …”

toto said...

The Supreme Court's decision in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), held that Congress may establish a voting age for federal elections.

jr565 said...

""I'm a conservative in Florida, a hotly-contested swing state. CONVINCE ME!"

Because Hillary would be worse. And because even if he sucks as a candidate he can be kept in check by republicans who he will need to pass anything on his agenda. If they dont want it passed, it wont get passed. If he fights them on the Republicans actual agenda, by vetoing a bill sent to him by Republicans they can go scorched earth on his ass and block EVERYTHING he asks for. If he instead decides to align with the democrats, because repubs aren't cooperating, he will then have to face it at the voting booth. Him AND his sycophants.

he's either going to go along with repubs which is good for them, or he will go against repubs, which is still good for them in that they didn't think he was really with them anyway. And here's proof.

toto said...

Rhode Island has enacted the National Popular Vote bill.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group.
Support in states with 3 to 5 electoral votes: AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

toto said...

An election for President based on the nationwide popular vote would eliminate the Democrat’s advantage in Electoral College members arising from the uneven distribution of non-citizens.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Yeah, but don't tell that to her idiot supporters. Shhhhhh......! Sexist.

traditionalguy said...

Chosing a VP is the next big deal for President Trump.

Based on resumes, I strongly recommend Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio. He has what it takes.

cubanbob said...

toto said...
An election for President based on the nationwide popular vote would eliminate the Democrat’s advantage in Electoral College members arising from the uneven distribution of non-citizens.
5/10/16, 3:38 PM"

A better idea is the the electoral college vote be proportional to the popular vote of each of the states. Thrown in that representation for the House and for the electoral college (along with all federal elections) and voting be limited to US Citizens in full possession of their civil rights and things would be cleaner and the public would be more tolerant of the outcomes.

Alix Barrett said...

Toto -- But what if it were a really close election? Say the candidates were 200,000 votes apart? Wouldn't a nationwide recount be a nightmare of fraud as the Democrats would try to 'find' new votes. Every state recounting instead of just the one, Florida, in 2000?

toto said...

Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.
It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;
It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant), and
It would not make every vote equal.
It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

toto said...

Candidates being 200,000 votes apart would not warrant a nationwide recount.

No statewide recount, much less a nationwide recount, would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 57 presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
“It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg

The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the minuscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state by-state winner-take-all methods.

The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.