323-215 HRC www.electoral-vote.com

[lindysalsagal]

We have the entire west coast and the east coast except for SC and GA.

And that's her score without Ohio. So, let it go. She's up 100+

I still believe the orangatan has time to lose more of his own voters (or at least keep them home) and also lose the majority of undecideds.

[still_one]

1. As long as we GOTV

[roamer65]

2. I think Ohio will go in her column.

It may be razor thin, but I think she will win it.

[Jim Lane]

3. An interesting aspect is that the "tipping-point" state is Nevada

That site's tipping-point state chart ranks the states by their lean, per the most recent polls, and shows how far into the other candidate's territory each candidate must penetrate to win. A couple of "blue wall" states (Rhode Island and Maine) are surprisingly close. Clinton is actually doing better in the supposed swing states of New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, and New Hampshire, which bring her to 265.

If Trump were to put on a surge and flip every state where he's now trailing by 3% or less -- and, let's face it, 3% is not that much of a swing -- then the tally would be Trump 267, Clinton 265. The winner would be whoever got Nevada's six electoral votes.

If there's a Trump surge, maybe it will fall barely short in Nevada because of how he's just offended some voters there by lecturing them on pronouncing the state's name.

The 2000 election turned on several hundred people being confused by the infamous butterfly ballot. Maybe this year, the Presidency of the United States will depend on Nev-AD-a versus Nev-AH-da.

[Mandos the Judge]

4. An interesting aspect is that the "tipping-point" state is Nevada

The Rhode Island poll is probably an outlier though. That 3% Clinton lead was in an Emerson College poll taken on September 5th. Hillary probably actually has a double point lead in RI by now.

[Jim Lane]

5. Yes, I was surprised at Rhode Island, but it doesn't matter.

Rhode Island would take Clinton from 265 to 269. She would still need Nevada, because at a 269-269 tie the House would not pick her.

[bluesbassman]

6. "If Trump were to put on a surge". What would that look like?

As each day passes I'm finding it harder and harder to believe Trump's campaign is capable of mounting any sort of viable surge. The history of his campaign is strewn with the same lies, veiled threats, rudimentary ideas with no platform specifics, bigotry and hatred, and just plain nastiness that I find it hard to imagine what he could do to appeal to a broader section of the electorate than the diehard fans he already enjoys.

I suppose, although given his commercial and current political track record I find it highly unlikely, that he could become more "presidential", but that would risk alienating a significant portion of his base if they perceived him to be another DC politician. No, the only course I see is ramping up the negative ads against HRC, and as that would cost money I doubt he's going to put that much into that direction. He'll just to continue to count on the free ride he's been getting from the M$M, but it will not be enough.

[Jim Lane]

8. Not hard to do a mere 3%. My biggest worry is Johnson defections.

Johnson is polling far above his 2012 showing. I think one reason is that a lot of conventional Republicans are aghast at Trump and see Johnson/Weld (two former GOP governors) as a respectable alternative. As Election Day approaches, however, these voters (who aren't libertarians) will face up to the reality that the only candidate who can beat Clinton is Trump, so they'll cast a reluctant hold-your-nose vote for him.

There's also the possibility of something damaging to the Clinton campaign (debate gaffe, Foundation revelation, whatever).

IOW, Trump could pick up 3% despite his campaign's ineptitude.

[lindysalsagal]

7. Give him time: He'll figure out how to insult old white guys.

3 weeks left? No problem.