Throatpunch
Banned
In one thread I have tried to justify Hillary winning, in this one I will try to make cause for Trump.
I think there are some ways he could manage it:
Trump's best chance of winning is to turn the industrial Midwest/Rust Belt, which remains a Democratic stronghold, into Trump country. This map hands him not just the swing state of Ohio but long-time Republican targets (and misses) Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The idea here is that Trump's demonstrated appeal to white, working-class voters would be most potent in this area, which has been ravaged by the collapse of the manufacturing economy. Notice, too, that if Trump could pull off this sort of Midwestern sweep, he could lose Florida and still get elected.
The Florida Route: Trump 282, Clinton 256
As the first map shows, Trump can win the presidency without winning Florida. But, man, is his path a lot easier if he can win his adopted home state. That's not totally implausible given his demonstrated strength in the state during the primary season and the fact that a decent chunk of the Latino population in Florida are Cubans who tend to be more conservative than most other Hispanic groups. The map above also gives Trump Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa. Subtract Iowa, the toughest of those three for him to win (I think), and Trump is at 276. Subtract Wisconsin and keep Iowa, and he's at 272 — and still president.
Iowa and New Hampshire: Trump 280, Clinton 258
This map is very similar to #2 above. The only difference is that Trump loses Iowa but wins New Hampshire, giving him two less total electoral votes — hence 280. Trump's numbers in New Hampshire during the primary seasons were consistent and consistently high. And his combative manner and rebellious reputation are a nice fit for the Granite State ethos.
The close shave: Trump 270, Clinton 268
In this map, Trump wins the key, big swing states of Ohio and Florida and the key, slightly smaller swing state of Virginia. He also claims New Hampshire's four electoral votes that put him (barely) over the top. It's worth noting that in 2000, George W. Bush's winning map looked a lot like this — minus his victories in Colorado and Nevada.
And then there is this map, which is not totally out of the question, in which Trump and Clinton tie at 269 electoral votes and the election is thrown to the U.S. House. Probably won't happen, but in an election year like 2016, I rule nothing out.
All credit goes to the Washington post for the above electoral predictions
Michigan (16 Electoral Votes)
With its strong base of working class and union workers, Michigan has been a Democratic presidential election stronghold since the 1990s. But the exit polls from both parties’ primary races this year suggest that Trump has a shot at turning the state red. In the exit poll after the Democratic Primary, which was won by Bernie Sanders, 57% said that trade deals take away jobs from Americans. In the Republican Primary, 55% of those polled felt the same way.
Hillary Clinton is painted as a pro-NAFTA free-trader, largely because of the policies of her husband’s administration. Trump, meanwhile, has based most of his Midwest campaign on being against trade agreements like NAFTA.
Then there is the fact that, among Democratic voters in Michigan, 69% of those polled said they were either “dissatisfied” or “angry” with the federal government. And 34% said they would not be satisfied if Clinton won the nomination. Brabender says Trump may be able to pick up Bernie Sanders voters — not the young progressive part of his coalition, but the populist part that allowed him to win the Michigan primary.
Ohio (18 Electoral Votes)
Trump’s strong stance against free trade could help him make his case to Ohio voters. Democratic primary exit polls found 53% of people believed that free trade deals killed American jobs. Polls found 54% of Republican primary voters believed the same thing.
Pennsylvania (20 Electoral Votes)
Pennsylvania could be Trump’s most difficult target. Though it has a large rural population in the middle of the state, the urban Democratic strongholds in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia have kept the state blue during presidential elections over the past two decades.
In exit polls, only 42% of polled Democratic primary voters said that free trade costs American jobs, compared with 44% who believe it creates job. In exit polls on the Republican side, 53% believe trade takes away jobs.
Wisconsin (10 Electoral Votes)
Wisconsin has fewer electoral votes than the others we have discussed, but it could still prove critical to the 2016 election. Again, the Democratic numbers aren’t encouraging, with just 42% of those polled believing trade takes away jobs. Exit polling data wasn’t available for the Republican primary in the Badger State.
Another problem for Trump in Wisconsin: he lost the primary to Ted Cruz. During the primary, Republican Governor Scott Walker actively supported Cruz’s candidacy. Trump does not need to worry about Walker breaking for Clinton.
—
Missouri, with 10 electoral votes, and Iowa with 6, are both more traditional swing states. Trump will have to appeal to the religious voters in both, something he didn’t have much of a struggle with in the primaries.
So, here is how the map could look for Trump if he turns the Midwest and the Rust Belt for the GOP:
This leaves three swing states: Virginia, North Carolina, and New Hampshire. And Brabender says that Trump might have a shot in Florida — it is a heterogeneous state and it does have a lot of former New Yorkers who could be drawn to Trump. If Trump manages to win in the Rust Belt and the Midwest, he’ll only need to win one of the in-play Southern states mentioned above to take the White House.
Credit to Fortune Magazine and Ben Geir for the above predictions.
I think there are some ways he could manage it:
- The American People are very fickle and short-sighted; if Trump cools his speeches down and becomes more centred, he could possibly beat her.
- I know I said earlier that Hillary's mischief in the 80's and 90's is incongruous, but only because it hasn't been properly brought up yet. Maybe the shit they dig up will stink so badly that people will be so busy holding their noses and feeling disgusted to focus on Trump's earlier statements.
- If Trump does well in the debates, and picks someone like the moderate Kasich as his running mate he could do well.
- Hillary is winning in the polls, but polls get confounded often so I don't think they should have any attention paid to them.
- She is almost certain to make the mistake Al Gore made: looking down on your opponent as inferior. Gore managed to alienate Bill Clinton and his voters, while not establishing himself as a new brand.
- Mr Trump has a chance of the White House because modern Republicans have either governed disastrously or had nothing to offer except platitudes and drivel
- A journalist said it well: when two-thirds of the country is unhappy, a rational outcome can’t be taken for granted.
- She is the most vulnerable candidate to attack ads I have ever seen. She will be brutalised. He can dig up every single nasty thing about the couples history. Trump could Turn her into a lying sleazy female Machiavelli. Almost everyone knows she is a dodgy, they just need to be properly exposed.
- He might end up doing some kind of as that exposes her as weak on Islamic Terrorism, and him as a saviour from the threat of ISIS. The American people love ballsy rhetoric that disparages their enemies when times are tough, and Trump does ballsy disparaging rhetoric better than anyone else.
- America, or other first world countries could be attacked by terrorists again, making Hillary look weak, and people will flock to Trump. His polls went up after the tragedy in Paris. Fear is a driver.
- I suspect some Bernie voters will come to Trump, because they hate the establishment, and see him as the lesser of two evils
Trump's best chance of winning is to turn the industrial Midwest/Rust Belt, which remains a Democratic stronghold, into Trump country. This map hands him not just the swing state of Ohio but long-time Republican targets (and misses) Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The idea here is that Trump's demonstrated appeal to white, working-class voters would be most potent in this area, which has been ravaged by the collapse of the manufacturing economy. Notice, too, that if Trump could pull off this sort of Midwestern sweep, he could lose Florida and still get elected.
The Florida Route: Trump 282, Clinton 256
As the first map shows, Trump can win the presidency without winning Florida. But, man, is his path a lot easier if he can win his adopted home state. That's not totally implausible given his demonstrated strength in the state during the primary season and the fact that a decent chunk of the Latino population in Florida are Cubans who tend to be more conservative than most other Hispanic groups. The map above also gives Trump Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa. Subtract Iowa, the toughest of those three for him to win (I think), and Trump is at 276. Subtract Wisconsin and keep Iowa, and he's at 272 — and still president.
Iowa and New Hampshire: Trump 280, Clinton 258
This map is very similar to #2 above. The only difference is that Trump loses Iowa but wins New Hampshire, giving him two less total electoral votes — hence 280. Trump's numbers in New Hampshire during the primary seasons were consistent and consistently high. And his combative manner and rebellious reputation are a nice fit for the Granite State ethos.
The close shave: Trump 270, Clinton 268
In this map, Trump wins the key, big swing states of Ohio and Florida and the key, slightly smaller swing state of Virginia. He also claims New Hampshire's four electoral votes that put him (barely) over the top. It's worth noting that in 2000, George W. Bush's winning map looked a lot like this — minus his victories in Colorado and Nevada.
And then there is this map, which is not totally out of the question, in which Trump and Clinton tie at 269 electoral votes and the election is thrown to the U.S. House. Probably won't happen, but in an election year like 2016, I rule nothing out.
All credit goes to the Washington post for the above electoral predictions
Michigan (16 Electoral Votes)
With its strong base of working class and union workers, Michigan has been a Democratic presidential election stronghold since the 1990s. But the exit polls from both parties’ primary races this year suggest that Trump has a shot at turning the state red. In the exit poll after the Democratic Primary, which was won by Bernie Sanders, 57% said that trade deals take away jobs from Americans. In the Republican Primary, 55% of those polled felt the same way.
Hillary Clinton is painted as a pro-NAFTA free-trader, largely because of the policies of her husband’s administration. Trump, meanwhile, has based most of his Midwest campaign on being against trade agreements like NAFTA.
Then there is the fact that, among Democratic voters in Michigan, 69% of those polled said they were either “dissatisfied” or “angry” with the federal government. And 34% said they would not be satisfied if Clinton won the nomination. Brabender says Trump may be able to pick up Bernie Sanders voters — not the young progressive part of his coalition, but the populist part that allowed him to win the Michigan primary.
Ohio (18 Electoral Votes)
Trump’s strong stance against free trade could help him make his case to Ohio voters. Democratic primary exit polls found 53% of people believed that free trade deals killed American jobs. Polls found 54% of Republican primary voters believed the same thing.
Pennsylvania (20 Electoral Votes)
Pennsylvania could be Trump’s most difficult target. Though it has a large rural population in the middle of the state, the urban Democratic strongholds in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia have kept the state blue during presidential elections over the past two decades.
In exit polls, only 42% of polled Democratic primary voters said that free trade costs American jobs, compared with 44% who believe it creates job. In exit polls on the Republican side, 53% believe trade takes away jobs.
Wisconsin (10 Electoral Votes)
Wisconsin has fewer electoral votes than the others we have discussed, but it could still prove critical to the 2016 election. Again, the Democratic numbers aren’t encouraging, with just 42% of those polled believing trade takes away jobs. Exit polling data wasn’t available for the Republican primary in the Badger State.
Another problem for Trump in Wisconsin: he lost the primary to Ted Cruz. During the primary, Republican Governor Scott Walker actively supported Cruz’s candidacy. Trump does not need to worry about Walker breaking for Clinton.
—
Missouri, with 10 electoral votes, and Iowa with 6, are both more traditional swing states. Trump will have to appeal to the religious voters in both, something he didn’t have much of a struggle with in the primaries.
So, here is how the map could look for Trump if he turns the Midwest and the Rust Belt for the GOP:
This leaves three swing states: Virginia, North Carolina, and New Hampshire. And Brabender says that Trump might have a shot in Florida — it is a heterogeneous state and it does have a lot of former New Yorkers who could be drawn to Trump. If Trump manages to win in the Rust Belt and the Midwest, he’ll only need to win one of the in-play Southern states mentioned above to take the White House.
Credit to Fortune Magazine and Ben Geir for the above predictions.