Electoral Vote, Popular Vote, Final Model Prediction, 2016 Clinton v Trump

The 2016 Electoral Vote Prediction

I'm finished making predictions for the 2016 Presidential Election contest.

According to my model, Hillary Clinton will win with 310 electoral votes to Donald Trump's 228 electoral votes. The map is shown above.

Caveats and wrongosities:

  • My model puts Iowa barely in Clinton's column. Polls say Iowa is for Trump.
  • My model puts New Hampshire barely in Trump's column. Polls say it is for Clinton, barely.
  • My model puts Ohio barely in Trump's column, but the polls put it in Clinton's column.
  • Polls and other data are ambiguous about Florida, my model is uncertain, but puts the state in Clinton's column.
  • My model puts North Carolina squarely in Trump's column, though many will disagree.
  • What to look for on election night.

    Look for a tight race in New Hampshire. If polls are available early, which way those polls are going may be an indicator of how things will go elsewhere, though the behavior of New Hampshire voters will not be reflected in most other states.

    But, New Hampshire voter behavior may indicate how Iowa turns out, may give a flavor of Ohio, and if the New Hampshire Vote is strongly trending towards Trump, really strongly (and unexpectedly), then buy more popcorn and watch other blue states that have low Hispanic numbers and are not deep south, such as Wisconsin and Michigan.

    In other words, New Hampshire could go either way, but won't matter in and of itself. But if New Hampshire is unexpectedly strong, 3% or so, for Trump, then you are seeing a signal of a surprise Trump victory. Not likely to happen, but if it does, you heard it here first.

    screen-shot-2016-11-07-at-10-26-06-amEverything I just said about New Hampshire we can say about Maine's second district.

    If North Carolina starts to look like it is actually going for Clinton, then you might expect some surprises elsewhere, such as Arizona or even Georgia.

    If Florida actually goes for Trump, by a a few percent or so, then you might want to worry about some of the Blue states such as Nevada, New Mexico or Colorado. A Trump squeaker in Florida is bad for Clinton, but she'll still win. But an early strong Trump showing in Florida would be, like such a thing in New Hampshire, a warning that part of Clinton's Blue Wall of Votes will fall later in the evening and we'll all be moving to Canada by the end of the week. Not likely, but just make sure you know where your extra popcorn is, just in case.

    If all of the indicated uncertainty (in the map) goes for Trump, Clinton still wins, by five electoral votes.

    If all of the indicated uncertainty (in the map) goes for Clinton, Clinton wins with 332 electoral votes.

    The most possible path to Victory for Trump might be the just mentioned close race and then taking the next state down the line in Clinton territory. What is that state? According to my model, it is Pennsylvania. Not likely. According to polls, other states may be more vulnerable, but we're talking about my model here.

    This model is different from what the polls predict. Current polling data puts Florida right on the line, or maybe even slightly towards Trump. Current polls, as noted, put Iowa in Trumpland, as well as Maine CD 2.

    ___________________________
    Of related interest - Review of Drift: The unmooring of American Military Power by Rachel Maddow.
    ___________________________

    The biggest unknowns, in my opinion, have to do with early voting. This is a new phenomenon that has not been going on long enough, using the same rules, etc., to use the information reliably. Also, FBI Director Comey's shenanigans probably had an impact here. Democrats rely on an early voting strategy, and a big chunk of the early voting happens during the nine day period from the weekend prior to voting day backwards. Those are the exact days that Comey caused a change in the race, and likely, caused some of the Democratic strategy to work against the Democrats. The Democratic GOT-early-V strategy would have been bringing some people to the polls to vote AGAINST rather than FOR their own candidate during this time, possibly.

    It will be very disappointing to be an American on the day we realize, no matter who wins this race, that Comey is not going to be charged with violating the Hatch Act. Let us hope that does not happen.

    The Significance Of This Election

    I assume Secretary Clinton will be elected. Then, I assume she will be re-elected. So, the next presidential race with a truly uncertain outcome will be in eight years.

    Some people worry that this year, with the ascendancy of Trump, we see the beginning of a long term threat of fascism, increased racism, and widespread sexism. Maybe.

    But I see this as the last gasp of the sexist, racist, uneducated, white male. In eight years, a significant proportion of the older white males with little education and a propensity to suck on Rush Limbaugh's tit will be dead. They will be replaced with something else.

    What will they be replaced with? That is up to us. Let us not mess this up.

    The Exact Popular Vote Predictions

    My model predict the popular vote outcome in terms of percentage for each of the two main candidates of those two main candidate's votes. So, not the actual percentage for a full four person plus lizard people write in race. Below is a table showing these predictions by state. (Hawaii and Alaska are not expected to be accurate.)

    NOTE: We'll be following Election Results HERE.

    State Clinton Trump
    DC 86.0% 14.0%
    Hawaii 71.9% 28.1%
    Vermont 62.1% 37.9%
    New York 61.6% 38.4%
    Maryland 61.4% 38.6%
    California 61.2% 38.8%
    Rhode Island 60.3% 39.7%
    Massachusetts 58.5% 41.5%
    New Jersey 57.5% 42.5%
    Delaware 57.2% 42.8%
    Illinois 56.6% 43.4%
    Connecticut 56.2% 43.8%
    New Mexico 55.9% 44.1%
    Washington 55.5% 44.5%
    Maine 1 53.9% 46.1%
    Maine 2 53.9% 46.1%
    Oregon 53.9% 46.1%
    Nevada 53.4% 46.6%
    Michigan 52.5% 47.5%
    Minnesota 51.4% 48.6%
    Colorado 51.4% 48.6%
    Wisconsin 51.3% 48.7%
    Virginia 51.3% 48.7%
    Pennsylvania 50.8% 49.2%
    Florida 50.5% 49.5%
    Iowa 50.3% 49.7%
    New Hampshire 49.8% 50.2%
    Ohio 49.6% 50.4%
    North Carolina 48.8% 51.2%
    Georgia 47.1% 52.9%
    Arizona 46.7% 53.3%
    Mississippi 45.2% 54.8%
    South Carolina 45.1% 54.9%
    Alaska 44.6% 55.4%
    Texas 44.5% 55.5%
    Missouri 44.4% 55.6%
    Indiana 44.0% 56.0%
    Louisiana 42.7% 57.3%
    Montana 41.9% 58.1%
    South Dakota 40.7% 59.3%
    Tennessee 40.4% 59.6%
    Alabama 40.2% 59.8%
    North Dakota 39.8% 60.2%
    Kansas 39.7% 60.3%
    Nebraska 39.3% 60.7%
    Arkansas 38.8% 61.2%
    Kentucky 38.6% 61.4%
    West Virginia 36.2% 63.8%
    Oklahoma 36.0% 64.0%
    Idaho 34.6% 65.4%
    Wyoming 30.8% 69.2%
    Utah 28.2% 71.8%

    More like this

    The relationship between the popular vote, roughly reflected in national polls, and the Electoral College vote, is where the rubber meets the road. When you look at states that are very solid for each candidate, neither candidate has a lock on the race, but Clinton has way more electoral votes,…
    There are some interesting, and in some cases, potentially disturbing, things going on with the state by state numbers in the current election. Most of this has to do with third party candidates, and most of it with Gary Johnson. First, I'll note, that despite fears among liberals and progressives…
    The election is one week off. I think I've convincingly demonstrated, here, that Clinton is likely but not certain to win, that Trump has something of a chance, but not a great one, and that the swing states, therefore, matter. There are a lot of states that are called swing states but are not.…
    "Trump's chance of victory have doubled over the last two weeks," notes FiveThirtyEight, and this is in accord with what I've been saying. I suggested a few days ago that while Clinton would probably win, there is a nowhere near zero chance that she won't. FiveThirtyEight came out with an…

    I hope you're right Greg!!!

    Also, fellow Ohioans really annoy me.

    This seems like a solid prediction. However, I think there's some evidence that there is an emerging "coalition of the diverse" (what Ross Douthat downplayed in the NY Times) that is going to swing the electoral college vote significantly for Clinton. I'm going to predict 358 electoral votes (all the states you have, plus New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Arizona). Here's my post on the Coalition of the Diverse.

    By Jason Antrosio (not verified) on 07 Nov 2016 #permalink

    I'm a little surprised to see your predictions for PA and MI, but what the heck - as long as it keeps Trump out, I'm good.

    A shame about the Senate race.

    By Bruce Jensen (not verified) on 07 Nov 2016 #permalink

    I think if she's going to be re-elected, she might need a good track record in her first term.

    After all, that's the strategy Obama used, and it worked for him, even against all opposition (against having a black man as president).

    By Brainstorms (not verified) on 07 Nov 2016 #permalink

    Bruce@3: The thing that's surprising to me about Greg's prediction for Pennsylvania is that it is so close (less than two percentage points). All of the polling I have seen suggests that PA is safely blue: there are more voters in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh than in Pennsyltucky.

    I'm also not sure what you mean about the Senate race, but that's something else to watch because the battle for control looks very close. At this point polling indicates that the Democrats will hold Nevada (the only D seat this cycle with a competitive race) and pick up Illinois and probably Pennsylvania. New Hampshire is again a state to watch closely: if Ayotte holds on easily then the Republicans have a good chance to keep their Senate majority, while if Hassan wins easily then things look much more favorable for the Democrats to pick up several more (particularly IN, MO, NC, and WI, and maybe even FL). An early FL-SEN call for Rubio is also not a good sign for Democratic Senate candidates. whereas an early PA-SEN call for McGinty would be a good sign.

    By Eric Lund (not verified) on 07 Nov 2016 #permalink

    "Bruce what is surprising about those predictions?"

    I like your prediction for Michigan but I fear it will be much closer than that.

    Trump 295. Maybe more.

    By See Noevo (not verified) on 07 Nov 2016 #permalink

    I hope Greg’s approach will be the effective outcome. But it still is stringent. Mr. Trump behaves in public like the über narcist he is. So much focused on himself that it becomes reckless and dangerous from the point of view of proper statesmanship. If Mr. Trump succeeds in winning the Presidential elections and becomes President of the USA, what comes next? Arm-wrestling with whomever, whatever? Or enduring peace based upon social justice and happiness for all. I have the impression that we all know into what derailing processes we all can come under Trumps administration. I already put the candle ready to be lit for tomorrows world important election day. I will be relieved when we wake up the day after tomorrow if Mrs. Clinton has become the President-elect. Sell the hide of the bear after it has been shot, not before. Keep sober and act wisely. Laren NH, Monday 7 November 2016, 23.52 PM Dutch time.

    By Mr G.J.A.M. Bogaers (not verified) on 07 Nov 2016 #permalink

    Eric, 2% the day before the election is safe.

    Anyway, there are a lot of white people in PA.

    "Trump 295"

    That would be about 50 times the collective iq of his supporters, is that why you chose it?

    I recently heard an interview with the actress Lee Grant. She spent some time talking about the McCarthy years and being blacklisted. The language and social outlook by the Republicans then is eerily similar (quite similar) to the racist, mysogynist, and outright evil language they use now (sn is only one example of the horrible people in their camp). I had always had LBJ, Nixon, and Reagan, in my list of least moral and most dishonest presidents of my lifetime. They'll be moved way down the list by several orders of magnitude if Trump wins.

    *misogynist

    thanks keyboard.

    Hmm. What was something Joe McCarthy, Nixon, Reagan, and Trump had in common?
    .
    .
    .
    Answer: Consigliere Roy Cohn.

    By Obstreperous A… (not verified) on 07 Nov 2016 #permalink

    The silent majority rejects the establishment on both sides of the aisle. They hate polls and the media. They refuse to be part of that corrupt system.

    Expect a brexit-like surprise tomorrow night into Wed morning!

    You say NH goes to Clinton, yet that's not what you did with your map

    Obstreperous Applesauce @ 17: Lee Grant mentioned that too. She was not complementary in her words. :)
    I knew she had been through a lot, but I came away have a huge amount of respect for her.

    As of July 2015, Georgia is 61.6% white, 51.2% female, 31.7% black, 28.3% college-educated, 9.4% Hispanic/Latino, 9.7% foreign-born. 17% of its citizens live in poverty, which might favor Trump, but 15.7% lack health insurance. Also, Atlanta ranks third among U.S. cities in LGBT population, and the Atlanta metro area accounts for 53% of Georgia's population. I know the polls have put Georgia in Trump's camp, but I'm going to call it for Clinton along with Florida and North Carolina. (Tonight, RealClearPolitics has all three states in the "Toss Up" column.)

    By Christopher Winter (not verified) on 07 Nov 2016 #permalink

    Playing around with the RCP map, I made those three states likely Clinton, along with Michigan and Pennsylvania. That gives Clinton 304 electoral votes. We'll soon see.

    By Christopher Winter (not verified) on 07 Nov 2016 #permalink

    You say NH goes to Clinton, yet that’s not what you did with your map

    The table shows NH going narrowly for Trump. That's what the map is based on.

    Trump is leading the actual vote tally this morning, 32 to 25 with 3 of 301 precincts counted. This year three towns, all in the North Country, availed themselves of the right under NH law to hold the vote at midnight. Trump's margin comes from Millsfield, where the economy basically consists of outdoor sports (hunting, fishing, and snowmobiling). Clinton carried the other two towns, Dixville Notch and Harts Location.

    By Eric Lund (not verified) on 08 Nov 2016 #permalink

    Boy were you wrong!

    I think you may have got that 310 backwards!

    By Eric Graham (not verified) on 08 Nov 2016 #permalink

    I am so happy that people like the person who wrote this hilariously stupid article is weeping tonight....ha ha...looks good on you....left wing racist puke!

    By Shane Hill (not verified) on 08 Nov 2016 #permalink

    Dave wins this thread too.

    I'm glad the overly liberal media made a joke of themselves yesterday. Every site reporting easy victories for Hillary. Disgusting.

    By Media is Liberal (not verified) on 09 Nov 2016 #permalink

    I see that your model is as accurate as the AGW models.

    Kevin. Yes, because comparing physical science models that use terrabytes of data to political science phone polls with a thousand questionable data points solicited by uneducated phone workers makes so much sense.

    But I am definitely not the least bit concerned about global warming any more. Der Donald says it is not real, and besides, it if is, he can always cure it with New Cue Lar winter anytime he has to!

    SteveP, it must be hard being you, tilting at all those windmills.

    The analogy between behavior-control "wishful" / "bandwagon" polls and the concocted junk-science and farcical "consensus" vis-a-vis the AGW money-funneling behavior-control scheme, is a sound analogy..

    I have a degree in engineering ('with great honors') -- which means I can wrap my mind around practical physics, empirical data analysis and statistics, and theoretical modeling and extrapolation -- but even an uneducated manure-shoveler knows that if it looks like crap and smells like crap, it's probably crap.

    SteveP, it must be hard being you, tilting at all those windmills.

    The analogy between behavior-control "wishful" / "bandwagon" polls and the concocted junk-science and farcical "consensus" vis-a-vis the AGW money-funneling behavior-control scheme, is a sound analogy..

    I have a degree in engineering ('with great honors') -- which means I can wrap my mind around practical physics, empirical data analysis and statistics, and theoretical modeling and extrapolation -- but even an uneducated stable-boy knows that if it looks like horse excrement and smells like horse excrement, it's probably horse excrement.

    Zeke4455,

    I am always fascinated by how many trolls say they have a degree in "engineering", but not the field.

    Your degree doesn't "mean" anything about your abilities; if you were like any of the engineers I have worked with you would be up front with your specialty and able to make a cogent argument to support your position.

    But carry on with your fantasy. That's one of the great benefits of the internet; you can play any role you like.

    zebra, is the field really that important? The point is that I'm of a physics-oriented mindset. But here goes:

    Mechanical Engineering, with a focus/leaning toward solid mechanics and machine dynamics and design (e.g., advanced machine analysis with lab using FFT methods and frequency-domain analysis; gearing design; vibrations; acoustics; advanced sensor design and utilization) although I did also take upper-level electives in Heat Transfer and the requisite 400-level Thermodynamics and of course the 300-level Fluid Mechanics. Passed state FE exam on first try but never pursued the PE license as the necessity never confronted me.

    But of course you'll never listen to a :"lowly engineer" when you got all that liberal-arts education and soft science on your side.

    does all the back and forth insults and bickering really matter now we're all screwed

    Blah, blah, blah. Take it to the hard core, PhD scientists at RealClimate and let them be shocked and awed by your stupendous brilliance. Point them to all of your earth shattering peer reviewed papers that prove how over a hundred years of science is dead wrong. Gloat and sneer as they fall to the ground humiliated and weeping when they realize how small and stupid they are compared to your god-like presence. Laugh in glee as their teeny, weeny, weak little heads explode awesomely in shocked and awed pieces and shamed envy.

    Don't forget to explain to everybody why physics is a "soft science." And most especially look up the Dunning-Kruger effect before to go, you punk-ass little troll.

    By Obstreperous A… (not verified) on 09 Nov 2016 #permalink

    Obstreperous -- your faith in ostentatious sensationalized junk-science pushed by politically-motivated posers is impressive.

    You'd think the "consensus vs deniers -- believe or suffer the consequences! There can be no debate! Quash all who dare question us" close-minded rhetoric would give you a clue.

    Meanwhile, the seasons and the weather come and go as usual. Al Gore's "deadline to save the planet" is in the rear-view mirror. The melted ice-caps are not flooding the populated coastlines. There is snow in the winters and thunderstorms in spring.

    Blah blah blah.

    The melted ice-caps are not flooding the populated coastlines.

    That goof was too easy to simply look up. And with that fallacious claim, you have given us more than a clue -- you have proven to us beyond doubt that you are an ignorant, self-centered, little denialist troll.

    By Brainstorms (not verified) on 09 Nov 2016 #permalink

    Sounds like a plan, Brainiac. Don't know exactly what you're talking about, but if doing the old temper-tantrum frothing-at-the-mouth ranting-nonsensically routine helps ya sleep, then go to.

    # 41
    "...Don’t know exactly what you’re talking about..."
    Exactly. You haven't bothered to inform yourself.

    BTW, Brainstorms isn't the one who rants. That's me, you poor benighted git. I know all this must be very confusing to you. Maybe you should scamper back to the safety of Trump's lap, little troll.

    By Obstreperous A… (not verified) on 09 Nov 2016 #permalink

    At least Ze-eek has admitted that he is ignorant of what's going on in the world.

    It's cute that he imagines that all of two mild sentences, delivered in 6th-grade English so as to aid his comprehension, amounts to a "rant" or a "routine".

    There, there ::pat, pat:: little Ze-eek... It's past your bedtime, and mommy doesn't want you playing on the internet and annoying the adults there.

    By Brainstorms (not verified) on 09 Nov 2016 #permalink

    Brainiac, you sound really frustrated.

    But enlighten me -- did the planet get a fever when I wasn't looking? Did the beaches disappear? No more Spring Break fun in the sun?

    As to the majority of your rant, Brainiac -- it amounts to what I posted above regarding your ilk's rhetoric "“consensus vs deniers — believe or suffer the consequences! There can be no debate! Quash all who dare question us” --- except yours wasn't even at the level of grade-school English. More like a vomiting fit.

    But you only reinforce part of my point.

    Oh, hi Obstreperous -- you sound really frustrated too. (Didn't see your rant up there before I posted.)

    Pretty much everything I wrote above applies to your flailings as well. Good luck getting your point across, really winning the "hard science" debate with all that whiny meaningless vitriol.

    Heh! To late for you to save face.

    But if you're going to continue to pursue argumentum ad verecondiam (arguement from authority: a rhetorical, weak and often fallacious logical argument --as is every word of what you have posted) then you should have the integrity to give your name so that we can verify your claim and sample your paradigm changing, peer reviewed papers.

    By Obstreperous A… (not verified) on 09 Nov 2016 #permalink

    Zeke,

    One of the smartest guys I ever met was a ME (he did have a doctorate though); I am far from a snob about people's education. In fact, that's the real point of my comment. It doesn't matter who you say you are, what matters is your ability to make a cogent argument for your position. That to me is the beauty of this kind of forum-- forget identities and CV and so on and have a serious debate on the substance.

    So far, your performance is seriously deficient. You may well be what you claim, but you might also be a clever 16-year-old who is quoting stuff out of a college catalog. And you offer no arguments, only trite insults that you could glean from any Denialist blog, nothing that I can identify as "physics-oriented".

    As any good engineer from my generation would say, "put up or shut up".

    "I have a degree in engineering (‘with great honors’) — which means I can wrap my mind around practical physics, empirical data analysis and statistics"

    Your degree in engineering means you have about the level of statistical education a junior stat major would have. In other words - you don't know shit.

    zeke - your post detailing your "accomplishments" further demonstrates that your statistical knowledge is empty, and the amount of training you have that would be relevant to climate work is zero. You, like so many engineers who deny areas of science they don't understand (climate, evolution) are just too stupid to realize it.

    Wrong, wrong and wrong......stick to the physical sciences...lol

    By notlurking (not verified) on 17 Nov 2016 #permalink