BTRTN's Complete By-The-Numbers Up-To-The-Minute View of the Presidential, Senate and House Races

[tgards79]

If you really want to know where EVERYTHING stands right now, here is your guide, in summary and in detail. State-by-state looks at the Electoral College and the Senate, plus our handy regression model to look at the House. (Governors to come!) Enjoy!
http://www.borntorunthenumbers.com/2016/08/btrtn-complete-by-numbers-up-to-minute.html

[BlueMTexpat]

1. Thanks for the link!

I believe, however, that their conclusions about Johnson slightly hurting Clinton more than Trump will be proven wrong in at least some western states that are now shown as solid R. If Trump were a "typical" R (like Romney or one of the more "establishment" candidates, for example), it would be different and those states would be solidly R indeed. But Trump has successfully courted and incorporated the lunatic fringe, including JBSers. Westerners knew JBSers especially "up close and personal" in the 1960s - and the majority - of whatever political party - did NOT care for them at all.

There is also an under-counted demographic in those supposedly "solid R" western states of women voters. Western states for the most part were much more liberal and earlier about women's suffrage and electing them to office than their counterparts elsewhere. Most are very proud of that heritage and women voters in the West, as elsewhere, generally do NOT like Trump at all.

Another factor is that in several of those states, there are some excellent Dems - well-known within the states, not recently-arrived "carpetbagger" types - who are running good campaigns for the House and Senate. There could be some mutually beneficial coattails.

IMO - based on my being a bred-and-born westerner with family and friends still scattered throughout those supposedly solidly "R" states, many voters that have consistently voted R in recent elections will either 1) not vote at all; 2) vote Johnson (NOT Stein); or 3) vote FOR Hillary even though they may never admit it. While we should take zilch for granted and still work as hard as we can for Hillary and other Dems, I believe that we may be in for some pleasant surprises in at least some of the supposedly "solid R" western states.

[tgards79]

2. Excellent analysis!

There has also been relatively light polling in the traditional Western GOP states, which the chart at the bottom notes. Trump is running weaker than Romney in states that have had polls. The notion of Clinton picking off some of the West is not out of the question. I had hopes for Utah and Arizona, among others. We'll see....

[reggieandlee]

3. If the polls haven't changed in the past three weeks, can anything make the core dynamic change?

Check this analysis out -- it is a comprehensive snap shot of today vs. two/three weeks ago... and virtually nothing has changed!! Sure, I suppose the answer to my question is some unfathomable "October Surprise." But look closely at what Tgards has done and you see that virtually nothing has moved an inch in the last two to three weeks... and some really crazy stuff has gone down (Trump flip flop on immigration, his nutty "what have you got to lose?" speech to African-American and Hispanic populations, and his new attempt to label Dems as bigots). Sure, the debates can change things... but they generally only cause a major shift if someone commits a huge gaffe... and does anybody really expect Hillary Clinton to commit a huge gaffe? It will be amazing to look at BornToRunTheNumbers.com in another two weeks and see if the picture is still identical. amazing!

[tgards79]

4. Only known catalysts

Gaffe
Revelation
World Event
Debates

What else? Stump speeches can only amplify the above, they are not game changers.

[Scurrilous]

5. K & R

[kurt_cagle]

6. Visibility

Clinton, when she gets a highly public forum, such as the debates or the convention, has generally skyrocketed in the polls. She's been doing a lot of state work, and generally (and rightly) continued to give Trump the rope to hang himself.

I also expect that she'll push to have Gary Johnson on the debate stage, which will essentially force Trump to debate. Trump is easily rattled, he won't be working off a teleprompter, and he will likely show his ignorance of both foreign and domestic policy that will be very hard for even Fox to pass off, even if they wanted to (and I'm not sure they do at this point - if Trump wins, then Fox will become the apologist network, not a position it does well).

[reggieandlee]

7. Gary Johnson on the debate stage ... good or bad for Hillary?

BornToRunTheNumbers.com data indicates that Gary Johnson takes more voters from Clinton that Trump. Seems counter-intuitive to me, but if true, Clinton would not want Johnson on the stage. Moreover, I think she'd prefer a one-on-one debate with Trump. It seems to be that Trump benefited from having many Republicans on the debate stage, as it reduced the amount of time available for in-depth policy discussion. I would have thought that Hillary's people would believe that the more time Trump has to talk, the more chance that he will commit a huge gaffe or reveal gross ignorance. So I am interested in your take that she'd actually want Johnson on stage...

[Adrahil]

8. Hard to say....

But Johnson seems unlikely to get the required polling in 2 weeks.

[tgards79]

9. Yes I agree with that....

...I doubt very seriously Johnson will ever make the stage.

[Demsrule86]

10. Thanks for this. nt

[tgards79]

11. You are welcome!