Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Fivethirtyeight have also had pieces about Arizona as a potential new swing state. The demographics there have been changing in two ways that benefit the Democrats. First, the number of voters who are either Hispanic or Asian-American is growing. Second, the voters that Trump normally would rely on (white men without a college education) are either dying out or just not showing up to vote.
This will continue, especially if Trump continues to alienate Republicans by being Trump and by talking about fraud.
Arizona could easily become a swing state in future elections - or, indeed, this one, if Clinton's campaign can get new voters to join in.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.In a serious/comedic side notes, anyone else feel like we're gonna have another "Dewey Defeats Truman"
SNAFU the day of the election results, no matter who wins?
EDIT: Also, due to the physics game Mr. President, I now feel obligated to refer to Trump as Ronald Rump. Sorry, Oliver, Drumpf was good while it lasted.
EDIT EDIT: How does one become a swing state, anyway?
edited 23rd Oct '16 12:35:01 PM by Shippudentimes
@arizona: 538's
projections have Clinton at 56% in polls only. Check out those trend lines tho. Clinton will grab a very narrow margin then trump jumps back up to 75% so -shrugs-
EDIT:
edited 23rd Oct '16 12:34:47 PM by thatguythere47
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?An ABC poll has Clinton up to 50% (the first time she's been at that level in months at least) with Trump down to 38%. Johnson has suffered, he's down to 5% (perhaps to Clinton's benefit?) and Stein continues to hold at 2%.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/23/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-presidential-polls/index.html
Funny [the NY Times forecast shows them at a 93%-7%, with Clinton at the 93%
edited 23rd Oct '16 12:37:48 PM by Shippudentimes
This is one of the biggest criticisms of the electoral college system, incidentally. Personally, I'd like to see electoral college votes assigned proportionally, instead of winner-take-all by state. As far as I'm aware, this is an issue of state law rather than federal law (and there are like, two states that are proportional), but I honestly couldn't tell you why they do it that way.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Shippu: It's largely a matter of a given state's demographics (the big ones race, religion, and as we're seeing this election education level) and how much they normally lean Republican or Democrat. A swing will end up being one that, just taking those factors into account, ends up being about 50-50 in terms of overall trendline support - this also means a swing state can be a swing state for different reasons (e.g., New Hampshire's reason for being a swing state is different from, say, North Carolina's). In an election like this, though, where it appears more and more like Clinton's going to win solidly, the definition may not be all that useful (since in a close election it would probably be solidly in the other camp); it's for that reason Nate Silver at 538 likes the tipping point state (if you ordered all the states of the candidate who won by margin of victory largest first, this will be the state who puts that candidate over 270 electoral votes) better.
Also, I believe the Upshot at the NYT uses a somewhat different formula than 538 - I know that 538's model tends to be more conservative, e.g., allowing a Trump win a higher probability but also allowing a Clinton landslide a higher probability, in its variance when basing off polls to make its forecasts.
This is an issue of state law - Maine and Nebraska award 2 EV to the statewide popular winner and 1 EV to the popular winner in each of its House districts. This is how Obama snagged an EV from Nebraska in 2008 - the 3rd District was basically Omaha, which is far more Democratic than the rest of the state.
edited 23rd Oct '16 12:50:48 PM by megarockman
The damned queen and the relentless knight.![]()
Recently (a year or so ago?) there was a controversy over some Republican state legislatures trying to engineer a scenario where D-leaning states split their electoral college proportionally, but R-leaning states still give all of their electoral college votes to the Republican candidate.
edited 23rd Oct '16 12:55:51 PM by Blueeyedrat
Oh? Interesting. He'd better step up his voter intimidation game. ("Don't mind the volunteers, they're not taking down your race, name and address for a little blanket party later.")
It's certainly a case of realpolitik over governing principles.
@proportional EV: I don't see this happening unless the federals make some big noise or the states team up to do it at the same time i.e. cali/texas switching at the same time.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?"The Associated Press this week moves Arizona, where recent polls have shown a close race and early vote numbers appear positive for the Democratic nominee, to a toss-up.
The AP also moves Texas and Alaska, where surveys have suggested unexpectedly narrow gaps between Trump and Clinton, to leaning Republican"
Utah is now a toss-up as well
@megarockman: Obama took Nebraska's 2nd District, not the 3rd. The 2nd District is basically Omaha plus a little bit of extra red space tacked on or minus some blue space they kicked over to the solidly red 1st District when they gerrymandered everything in 2010 to try to prevent a repeat of 2008, but this year, the 2nd is at roughly 50/50 odds. Nebraska's 3rd District is the far west part of the state and pretty much the reddest of red states/districts.
Maine's 2nd is also a swing district with similar odds this year to Nebraska's 2nd.

My main thought is whether or not this is a one time thing due to the GOP candidate being Trump.