Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Well since none of the likely GOP candidates this year (including Trump) would appeal to the true Centrist swing voter, the most likely outcome is Clinton. That having been written: If Trump is the nominee, the chance of an upset increases, in spite of current polls, simply because Trump is so dirty (he's projecting when he says this of Cruz). If Cruz is the nominee, the weirdo "I'll do anything to vote to upset the apple cart" crowd will sit it out or vote for a 3rd party Trump. Clinton wins in that case.

Two pairs of Presidential elections, one pair in the 'fifties and another pair the last two. I think that we can see where the moderate swing vote is. With Donald Trump or Ted Cruz as the nominee, I can easily imagine Hillary Clinton winning enough states in white (and few elsewhere) to be elected President. Despite their vast differences in curricula vitae, I see Eisenhower as the closest analogue to Obama in style, achievements, agenda, and temperament. Both Presidents followed other Presidents then recognized as failures. To be sure, Truman has been vindicated; I can't imagine any unbiased historian ever vindicating Dubya.

This year should be the perfect opening for a moderate Republican, except that the Republican Party has few high-profile moderates.




gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

(This site uses the very old red for Democrats and blue for Republicans... I do not make waves about that in that website).

After eight years of one President, swing voters usually develop political fatigue for the Party that has held the Presidency. Unable to find and nominate a moderate nominee for which swing voters can feel comfortable voting, the Republican Party has little chance of winning the Presidential election. Polls for John Kasich, who will not be the Republican nominee for President, make a good proxy for a Republican moderate because he hasn't shot his mouth off enough times to expose himself as a demagogue or extremist. Draw your own conclusion about the states not colored in; I see about a 42-state win for the Republican nominee.


Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

... sometimes a polling projection looks like an election that simply does not happen.

This is my projection of the sort of election that one would ordinarily expect based upon partisan fatigue if the Republicans ran a halfway-decent nominee. It's roughly an inverse of 2008. Republican wins are in blue and Democratic shades are in red, with ties (or near-ties) in white. Dark shades involve the winner winning by 10% or more, medium shades for margins of 5-9.99%, and light shades with wins by 5% or less




This is roughly how I see 2020 with a Democratic failure in the White House.

The Great Demagogue picks up 105 pledged delegates, Cruz none, and Kasich 5 tonight.

950 Trump

559 Cruz

153 Kasich


...1237 clinches. Trump is 287 away.

Oh-oh.

A lawyer for Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s chief campaign aide, acknowledged Tuesday evening that the longtime GOP operative has been questioned by officials from the Cayman Islands in connection with a $26.2 million investment by a billionaire Russian oligarch who was his partner in an ill-fated telecommunications development in Ukraine. The lawyer’s comments came in response to an earlier story by Yahoo News about the Cayman officials’ efforts to track down Manafort for his testimony.

The dispute goes back years, but last summer, court-appointed liquidators from the Cayman Islands initiated legal action in federal court in Alexandria, Va., seeking to question under oath Manafort and two business partners about a business deal involving firms controlled by Oleg Deripaska, a Russian aluminum magnate who for years was barred from entering the United States over allegations of ties to organized crime.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-ca...214020365.html

Delegate results so far after Acela/I-95 primary:

Republican

CT
Trump 28
My projection was: Trump 16, Cruz 4, Kasich 8.

DE
Trump 16
My projection was: Trump 16

MD
Trump 38
My projection was: Trump 30, Cruz 2, Kasich 6

PA
Trump 17
My projection was: Trump 17

RI
Trump 11, Cruz 3, Kasich 5
My projection was: Trump 10, Cruz 4, Kasich 5

totals as of 4/27:
Trump 956, Cruz 551, Kasich 154, Rubio 173, others 15

MY projection for upcoming states: (including 11 committed delegates in ND)
Trump 256, Cruz 214, Kasich 46

Projected total:
Trump 1212, Cruz 765, Kasich 200

My projection now is for him to also pick up at least 30 from PA, and 9 from Ben Carson, which would put him over 1237.

Democratic

CT
Clinton 28, Sanders 27 (includes +1 each, based on the existing % of vote, which is 99.9% reported)
My projection was: Clinton 30, Sanders 25

DE
Clinton 12, Sanders 9
My projection was: Clinton 13, Sanders 8

MD
Clinton 61, Sanders 34
My projection was: Clinton 60, Sanders 35

PA
Clinton 106, Sanders 83 (includes +11 for Clinton, +16 for Sanders, based on the existing % of the vote, which is 99.5% reported)
My projection was: Clinton 100, Sanders 89

RI
Clinton 11, Sanders 13
My projection was: Clinton 10, Sanders 14

totals as of 4/27:
Clinton 1664, Sanders 1371

MY projection for upcoming states:
Clinton 513, Sanders 503

Projected total pledged delegates:
Clinton 2177, Sanders 1874

Sanders needs to beat my projection by 155 to pass Clinton in pledged delegates.

My projection for the Acela/I-95 primary was: Clinton 213, Sanders 171
Actual delegate winnings were: Clinton 218, Sanders 166

From Newsmax:

Republican Donald Trump declared himself the “presumptive nominee” and Hillary Clinton all but sealed the Democratic race as both scored dominating wins in northeastern state presidential primaries.

Trump won all five states holding votes Tuesday -- Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware and Rhode Island -- and earned a boost of momentum ahead of a key contest next week in Indiana.

“I consider myself the presumptive nominee,” the billionaire real-estate mogul told supporters at Trump Tower in New York. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s over.”

Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland, while the senator from Vermont was the victor in Rhode Island. Clinton’s wins put her in close reach of her party’s crown, with predictions from Sanders of altering that trajectory looking increasingly impossible.

“With your help, we’re going to come back to Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention with the most votes and the most pledged delegates,” Clinton said from the city that will host her party’s national convention in July. “We will unify our party to win this election and build an America where we can all rise together.”

Clinton applauded Sanders and his supporters, as she moved to unify the party following a night that put her on the brink of the nomination. "Whether you support Senator Sanders or you support me, there’s much more that unites us than divides us," she said.

The former secretary of state also criticized Trump, both by name and by inference. "We’re going imagine a tomorrow where hard work is honored, families are supported, streets are safe and communities are strong, and where love trumps hate,” she said.

Trump shot back at Clinton during his Trump Tower appearance.

“She knows nothing about jobs, except for jobs for herself,” he said. “She will not be a good president. She doesn’t have the strength, she doesn’t have the stamina."

The businessman also suggested Clinton is only where she is in the race because she’s a woman. "The only card she has is the woman card," he said. "If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote. And frankly, women don’t like her."

Trump still faces attempts by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Ohio Governor John Kasich to deny him the majority of delegates he’d need to avoid a fight for the nomination at the Republican convention in July. He and his rivals are already turning their attention to Indiana’s May 3 primary, which is shaping up to be a critical contest for the effort to keep Trump from securing the 1,237 delegates he needs for the nomination.

Trump led the Republican race with 950 delegates after some of those from the latest primaries were awarded, almost 77 percent of the number he needs, according to an Associated Press tally late Tuesday. He was followed by Cruz at 560 and Kasich at 153.


Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trum...#ixzz473FX9Qkl

Donald Trump Secures Vast Majority of Unbound Delegates in Pennsylvania
By JORDYN PHELPS RYAN STRUYK
Apr 27, 2016, 9:09 AM ET
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donal...ry?id=38695683

Donald Trump has won a vast majority of the unbound delegate count in the state of Pennsylvania, according to an ABC News analysis. Of the 54 available free-agent delegates in the state, 39 of them told ABC News they will support Trump on the first ballot of the Republican convention.

Twenty-three said they will support the Republican front-runner, while 16 additional delegates -- who said they would vote for the winner of their congressional district on the first ballot -- will also back Trump.

Only two delegates said they plan to vote for Cruz on the first ballot. Seven others ran as uncommitted.

While Trump won a resounding victory in Pennsylvania's popular vote Tuesday night, it was not assured that he would walk away with all of the state's 71 delegate votes because of the state's unusual delegation selection process.

Only 17 of the state's delegates are bound to vote for Trump on the first ballot, while voters directly elected the other 54 — three from each of the state's 18 congressional districts – to act as free agents at the convention.

Trump argued on Tuesday night that delegates have a "moral obligation" to support him on the first ballot as the winner of the state's popular vote.

"There's a moral obligation, at least on the first round, to support the person that won," Trump said in a victory speech on Tuesday night. "Now, we didn't only win, we won big."

But some outstanding delegates aren’t so sure.

Aaron Cohen, a delegate elected in the Pennsylvania's 2nd district, ran as uncommitted and has yet to declare who he will support, but told ABC News Tuesday night he will "probably…not support Trump."

While results were still coming at the time of Cohen's interview, he said he'd "have to evaluate" what he'd do at the convention if Trump is the resounding winner of both his district and the statewide vote.

But James Klein, who was elected in the 5th district and ran as a Trump supporter, told ABC News Monday that he is "wall-to-wall Trump."

"It's time for the party to begin to see the reality here and bring itself together," Klein said.

Wayne Buckwalter, a 6th district delegate who plans to vote for Trump on the first ballot, told ABC that he expected a Trump blowout.

"The suicide pact with Cruz and Kasich sabotaged themselves," he said. "That proved that the system is rigged against Trump."

Pennsylvania represents the largest potential delegate haul of the 136 total unbound delegates who will be free to vote for whomever they choose on the first ballot, likely holding the power the tip the scales in a tight convention.

ABC News' Jim Hill, Lauren Pearle, Jessica Puckett, John Kruzel, and Alana Abramson contributed to this report.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Oh-oh.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-ca...214020365.html

These MoFos could be actual SVR operatives or at least, influenced by SVR, for all we know. This is a very scary time. When the West supposedly "won" the Cold War, The Kremlin (wisely for them) diverted a substantial amount of their agents-of-influence operations from the Western Left to the Western Right. It is now clearly bearing fruit.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

From Newsmax:

Republican Donald Trump declared himself the “presumptive nominee” and Hillary Clinton all but sealed the Democratic race as both scored dominating wins in northeastern state presidential primaries.

Trump won all five states holding votes Tuesday -- Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware and Rhode Island -- and earned a boost of momentum ahead of a key contest next week in Indiana.

“I consider myself the presumptive nominee,” the billionaire real-estate mogul told supporters at Trump Tower in New York. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s over.”

Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland, while the senator from Vermont was the victor in Rhode Island. Clinton’s wins put her in close reach of her party’s crown, with predictions from Sanders of altering that trajectory looking increasingly impossible.

“With your help, we’re going to come back to Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention with the most votes and the most pledged delegates,” Clinton said from the city that will host her party’s national convention in July. “We will unify our party to win this election and build an America where we can all rise together.”

Clinton applauded Sanders and his supporters, as she moved to unify the party following a night that put her on the brink of the nomination. "Whether you support Senator Sanders or you support me, there’s much more that unites us than divides us," she said.

The former secretary of state also criticized Trump, both by name and by inference. "We’re going imagine a tomorrow where hard work is honored, families are supported, streets are safe and communities are strong, and where love trumps hate,” she said.

Trump shot back at Clinton during his Trump Tower appearance.

“She knows nothing about jobs, except for jobs for herself,” he said. “She will not be a good president. She doesn’t have the strength, she doesn’t have the stamina."

The businessman also suggested Clinton is only where she is in the race because she’s a woman. "The only card she has is the woman card," he said. "If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote. And frankly, women don’t like her."

Trump still faces attempts by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Ohio Governor John Kasich to deny him the majority of delegates he’d need to avoid a fight for the nomination at the Republican convention in July. He and his rivals are already turning their attention to Indiana’s May 3 primary, which is shaping up to be a critical contest for the effort to keep Trump from securing the 1,237 delegates he needs for the nomination.

Trump led the Republican race with 950 delegates after some of those from the latest primaries were awarded, almost 77 percent of the number he needs, according to an Associated Press tally late Tuesday. He was followed by Cruz at 560 and Kasich at 153.


Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trum...#ixzz473FX9Qkl

What a schmuck. Presumptive my ass. There are still hundreds of delegates and a number of primaries for him to be able to declare such. Any sort of nasty surprise or major scandal coming out (witness the Russian money connection noted above) could sink him big time.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

What a schmuck. Presumptive my ass. There are still hundreds of delegates and a number of primaries for him to be able to declare such. Any sort of nasty surprise or major scandal coming out (witness the Russian money connection noted above) could sink him big time.

Normal jackass Trump behavior. I agree.

But, given everything that has already happened, and the fact that he just gets stronger anyway among the GOPPERs who come out and vote in their primary/caucuses, I certainly doubt that much of anything could sink him before the convention. After all, as he said, he could shoot someone and he wouldn't lose any votes. GOPPERS will be GOPPERS.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

These MoFos could be actual SVR operatives or at least, influenced by SVR, for all we know. This is a very scary time. When the West supposedly "won" the Cold War, The Kremlin (wisely for them) diverted a substantial amount of their agents-of-influence operations from the Western Left to the Western Right. It is now clearly bearing fruit.

The Leftists were much less reliable allies for the KGB than the American Right is reliable to the SVR. With the Left it was issues of people likely to take the money and run. With the American Right it is graft. Graft allows a more stable relationship. I wonder who would be more likely to sell out the oil fields of Alaska?

The Russian Mafia is dangerous -- far more effective than the old Sicilian and Jewish crime syndicates.

The polling that now counts.

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Here's my projection based upon 270 to Win:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/Mw6RE

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



Deep red -- out of contention, strong D
Medium red -- fringe of contention, weak D
Gray -- in contention
Light blue -- fringe of contention, weak R
Dark blue -- out of contention, strong R.

I have seen two polls showing Utah, arguably the most unlikely state for a Democratic win in most years (Utah seems to be a well-run state, which is an excellent situation for incumbents), TIED. I am relying on behavior in recent years to suggest that Kansas has a deeply-divided Republican Party and that that could be a disaster in the making... although I see no evidence of such yet in polling. Louisiana elected a Democratic Governor last year. I really trust no poll of Texas, and one in Mississippi was really close. Indiana is just too close to suggest that Donald Trump can win nationally.

In any event I see Democrats having little chance of losing any of 257 electoral votes and Republicans having little chance of losing 147. (OK -- the Republican (Trump) has to win just about everything in blue and gray to become the next President.

Hillary Clinton can win, in order of increasing difficulty and likelihood (and I am trying to avoid overkill):

1. Colorado and either Iowa or Nevada -- barest win possible for Obama in 2012. These states are about PVI D+1 to D+2.
2. Virginia -- possible tipping-point state. The state is just about PVI 0
3. Ohio -- the current bellwether state is just more than enough to win. Kasich was going to win Ohio -- big. PVI R+2
4. Florida -- Obama's closest win in 2012, and demographics will not help Republicans. PVI R+3.
5. Arizona and Colorado -- if Hillary Clinton wins Arizona, then she is also winning Colorado, which has fewer Mormons and more Mexican-Americans. Trump has said much to offend Mexican-Americans and he is the worst cultural match for Mormons as a Republican nominee for President since at least Thomas E. Dewey in 1948.
6. Iowa, Nevada, and NE-02. Having Greater Omaha decide who becomes the next President of the United States is in fact possible. Also unlikely.

I can dismiss the following states from consideration:

North Carolina is enough, but if Hillary Clinton is winning North Carolina, then she is also winning Virginia, which is also enough.

Georgia is enough, too, but if Hillary Clinton is winning Georgia she is also winning Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Utah, should Trump lose it, indicates that he has also lost Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada.

Missouri indicates not only that she has won Iowa; but also Ohio and Virginia; likely Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and North Carolina; and probably Georgia (surprisingly similar in political orientation). States in the Mountain and Deep South might not be so certain for Republicans as they were against Barack Obama.

Good projection. It's too bad the Democrats can't win with just the 257 true-blue states. But thankfully Virginia is becoming more and more blue all the time.

Iowa and Nevada, for which I have no recent polls, both put Hillary Clinton at 263 -- which means that any one of Colorado, Florida, Ohio, or Virginia makes her the 45th President. Together? 269. Figuring that each gives her about a 50% chance of winning the state, and Donald Trump has only about a 6.2% chance of becoming President. Those four states are distant enough that campaigning heavily in all four of them will be time-consuming for travel. The states are different enough that nobody can craft a pitch that wins them all unless it causes states that Democrats rarely lose to go toward Trump. In probability, such is called 'independent events', like coin tosses or rolls of dice. I think that either Iowa or Nevada will quickly go off the table quickly, in which case

So what if the choices aren't 50-50? For Trumps chance of winning take the chance of Hillary Clinton the state in question and subtract the product of those values from 1. That is Trump's chance. Probability for the state going for Clinton is P_C for Colorado, P_F for Florida, P_O for Ohio, and P_V for Virginia.

P_CP_FP_OP_V is Donald Trump's chance of winning based upon his chance of winning in each state. Even an 80% chance of winning each state gives him only about a 41% chance of winning the Presidency.

What happens if one state practically goes into the Trump camp (90% chance of winning) and another becomes a high-likelihood Clinton win (10% chance of winning) while the other two remain 50-50 propositions?

We get .90 x .10 x .50 x .50, or
P_CP_FP_OP_V= 0.0225

That's 2.25%. Now that is a long-shot.

But what of such states as Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, or North Carolina? She's not winning those unless she is winning Colorado, Florida, Ohio, or Virginia, respectively. The Trump campaign has all but lost if it has an appreciable chance of losing Arizona -- or for that matter, Kansas.

In 2008 and 2012 Barack Obama's staff did a superb job of playing the numbers game to shred the chances in turn of John McCain and Mitt Romney. I expect much the same with the team of Hillary Clinton, whom I expect to not cast off a successful strategy.

By the way, now that most of the primaries are over and the two nominations will most likely be Clinton and Trump, do you think that Trump will win Wisconsin in 2016? I've noticed Wisconsin (my home state) has been becoming more of a swing state, at least voting more Republican in the midterms (although they voted for Obama in 2012). I wonder how that's gonna turn out because it's the first election I'll be voting in, and Wisconsin's a winner-take-all state, so my vote will help decide who Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes will go to.

Originally Posted by millst98

By the way, now that most of the primaries are over and the two nominations will most likely be Clinton and Trump, do you think that Trump will win Wisconsin in 2016? I've noticed Wisconsin (my home state) has been becoming more of a swing state, at least voting more Republican in the midterms (although they voted for Obama in 2012). I wonder how that's gonna turn out because it's the first election I'll be voting in, and Wisconsin's a winner-take-all state, so my vote will help decide who Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes will go to.

Recent polling suggests that Donald Trump will be crushed.

Yes. Vote. Wisconsin will also be deciding whether one of the most undistinguished Senators except for his right-wing stances, will be re-elected. If you despise Donald Trump you probably dislike Senator Ron Johnson, too.

Originally Posted by millst98

By the way, now that most of the primaries are over and the two nominations will most likely be Clinton and Trump, do you think that Trump will win Wisconsin in 2016? I've noticed Wisconsin (my home state) has been becoming more of a swing state, at least voting more Republican in the midterms (although they voted for Obama in 2012). I wonder how that's gonna turn out because it's the first election I'll be voting in, and Wisconsin's a winner-take-all state, so my vote will help decide who Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes will go to.

All states are winner-take-all in the general election, except Nebraska and Maine which also have a few electoral votes decided by winner-take-all in congressional districts, like in most Republican primaries.

Trump is in town here today. Given what happened in OC yesterday, I expect it to get quite ugly.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Trump is in town here today. Given what happened in OC yesterday, I expect it to get quite ugly.

Developing:


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...me-7383828.php

From the hotel it's a relatively short walk to get into the Burlingame CBD ... some Starbucks plate glass and notable others there ... we'll see what happens.

Donald Trump is incompetent to be President of the United States. We would see civil unrest that would make that of the 1960s look placid by contrast.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Donald Trump is incompetent to be President of the United States. We would see civil unrest that would make that of the 1960s look placid by contrast.

Heck, if it weren't for a heavy work day today I'd have been at the protest. That is saying a lot. To give some perspective, 10 years ago I spent a good deal of (probably too much) time on the "zombietime" site that was making fun of people at Code Pink protests and the like. I have not changed drastically although I'm decidedly Centrist as compared with back then when I was more Right of Center.

In any case, my protest impulse is now in force against this creep.

Funny sign I saw in one of the vid clips: "Welcome to Aztlan. Deport Donald Trump!."

Not that I agree with the Aztlan concept but Trump is really in the hornet's nest today.

This is a good indicator of the range of Bay Area sentiments these days.

If he should end up in Fort Wayne or South Bend I might make an appearance.

Would I put a Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam mustache on an image of Trump?

Deport bigotry now!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Good projection. It's too bad the Democrats can't win with just the 257 true-blue states. But thankfully Virginia is becoming more and more blue all the time.

I look at the electoral map and I see Donald Trump with a sliver of a chance of winning so long as the political climate is as it is -- but far too many ways to lose to allow anyone to expect a Trump victory. In 2000 Dubya was lucky (and America was unfortunate) in that he had to swing ten states to go from a Clinton-era win to a bare win for Dubya -- and did. He swung (in alphabetical order) Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia... and got every one of them. Any one of those, had it voted differently, might have given us President Al Gore. Even worse, Dubya was not the best Republican who could have been President at the time. As significantly, Gore could not flip a state like Colorado or Virginia that now figure big in the Obama wins.

I have even come up with a scenario in which the Second Congressional District of Nebraska can make all the difference in the world.

In essence, Trump needs to pick up Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado to win the Presidency. If he can pick up Iowa he is probably picking up Nevada and Wisconsin as well, and he then has about 300 electoral votes. (Iowa and Wisconsin are similar in demographics and in voting patterns, and the image of Wisconsin going for Kerry and Iowa going for Dubya ignores that both states were decided by tiny margins.

Obama does not have a sex scandal, and he does not have (so far) a questionable boom going bust (the dot.com bubble was beginning to burst late in 2000, which may have been the difference between Gore winning and losing some state). So which is more difficult -- Dubya supplanting Clinton or Trump supplanting Obama? Percentage chances may less favor Trump than they favored Dubya. Add to that, the Religious Right was much stronger in 2000 than it is now. Fewer people are receptive to a pitch like "Vote Republican or fear the anger of God on Judgment Day".

New polls involving Florida and Ohio, with 67 of the most critical electoral votes in the 2016 election.

Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)



Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich



Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

... a recent poll of Ohio suggests that 49% of Ohioans want Governor Kasich to abandon his quest for the Presidency. Also noteworthy: Kasich leads in Ohio by only 2%, which is very poor for a Favorite Son a swing state. Earlier polls had him up much more. PPP is a good pollster, and I see this result as evidence of a collapse of his campaign.

Whether it’s Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, the Republican presidential nominee looks like a sure loser to Hillary Clinton in Florida because of the Republicans’ lack of popularity with crucial voting blocs in the state, according to a poll conducted last week by the business lobby Associated Industries of Florida.

Clinton would wallop Trump by 49-36 percent if the election were held today and she’d best Cruz 48-39 percent, according to the poll of 604 likely Florida voters.

“In this critical swing state, it is clear to us that Republicans continue to suffer substantial brand damage amongst all segments of the ascending electorate (younger voters, Hispanics & No Major Party voters) and this presidential campaign has clearly exacerbated these attitudes,” Ryan Tyson, a Republican who serves as the group’s vice president of political operations, wrote in a memo to his members.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/articl...lsters-clinton



My comment:

The words "lament" and "panic" come to my mind. This material is from a business lobby, one that would be very happy with the usual Republican nominee for President.

To give an idea of how tough it would be for the Republican nominee to win without Florida, one would have to go back to the map of 2000 and compensate for the loss of Florida with Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. If the Republicans fail to hold New Hampshire from 2000, they must pick up Iowa as well as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- but Iowa is very close politically to Wisconsin, anyway. Beyond Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Wisconsin, things really get tough.

Neither Pennsylvania nor Wisconsin has voted for a Republican nominee for President since 1988; Iowa and New Hampshire have voted for a Republican nominee for President only once since then. Not one of those states shows any sign of voting for Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.