The Election Games! What will the margin of victory be?

[Jacuzzme]

Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

OK, I'll play! (Even though my history of political forecasts has never been very good, as I said at this time in 2016 that I thought the probability of a Hillary win was at least 90%.)

My WAG is that Donald squeaks out a narrow victory in PA and ends up with about 287 Electoral College votes while losing the popular vote by 2%, leading to a level of political chaos unprecedented in modern history. (The drumbeat for deep-sixing the Electoral College as presently constituted would become virtually deafening.)

Democrats recapture the House, starting out 2025 with a narrow 4-seat majority, while losing the Senate to Republicans, who hold 52 Senate seats next year.

That shouldn’t be a cause for chaos. People can advocate for scrapping the EC, but even if they’re successful (they wouldn’t be) it doesn’t change the results of the current election unless they can somehow make it retroactive. There’s zero chance that’d hold up in court, regardless of how butthurt they are.

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Here we go again.

The FIX IS IN,

Only way Trump loses is if it’s rigged.

Pathetic,

... Too Right there, mate. ...

... "Look Out Below! --- Landslide!"

### Salty

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

That shouldn’t be a cause for chaos. People can advocate for scrapping the EC, but even if they’re successful (they wouldn’t be) it doesn’t change the results of the current election unless they can somehow make it retroactive. There’s zero chance that’d hold up in court, regardless of how butthurt they are.

Though I agree with your view that it shouldn't be a "cause for chaos," I'm afraid the result would be widespread bitterness and nonstop caterwauling about how "the popular will of the people" was thwarted.

There is something called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would only go in effect if at some future date the states that signed onto it hold 270 or more Electoral votes. (And I suspect this is not likely to happen anytime soon. But who knows?)

In the meantime, a far-left Bay Area progressive who has a history of opposing fracking and supporting multi-trillion-dollar "green new deal" fantasies, and other goodies on the AOC/Bernie-style wish list, can run up the score in solidly blue states, but to no avail.

If a candidate or party can't sell it's proposed agenda to working-class voters in what many East Coast liberals deride as "flyover country," then maybe they have no business holding positions of power.

Some analysts have estimated that a Democrat today would need to win the national popular vote by somewhere between two and three percentage points to have a greater than 50% probability of winning the Electoral College tally. I think that's just about where we are now -- a virtual "coin toss" in the Electoral College contest.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Yes. Trump is the candidate best for democrats. Some legitimate Republican with good sense would be up 5 points.

I agree with you that the Rhino republicans that support Harris over Trump, would support a republican candidate with good sense. Not sure if that alone would put the republican up 5 points. For a lot of women, regardless of which party they belong to, the reversal of Roe verses Wade is a BIG issue. The republican party is on the wrong side of this issue. This issue is helping Harris. Neither Trump or Harris has debated policy issues that much.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Some analysts have estimated that a Democrat today would need to win the national popular vote by somewhere between two and three percentage points to have a greater than 50% probability of winning the Electoral College tally. I think that's just about where we are now -- a virtual "coin toss" in the Electoral College contest.

I read something recently that said the Republicans did have an advantage in the electoral vote (versus the popular vote) in 2016 and 2020, but now it should be negligible. They also said that if there's a 1% or less margin in the popular vote, there's only a 40% probability the electoral winner will be the popular vote winner. I can't find it but did run across this,

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...111/polp.12521

We confirm that the college is indeed disproportional as it provides a major bonus to the winning candidate. Although this disproportionality has become slightly stronger during the 1876–2020 period, it does not specifically benefit one political party.

And this,

https://www.degruyter.com/document/d...2023-2023/html

Specifically, with the Republican Party gaining significant support in rural areas and the Democratic Party becoming concentrated in urban areas, there is concern that the US electoral system increases the probability that the Republican Party will win a much higher percent of Senate seats than its public support and repeatedly win the presidency without having won a plurality of votes, as was the case in 2000 and 2016. I explore this concern using a relatively new measure called the Directional Proportionality Index (DPIx). Applying it to the Electoral College since 1872 and the US Senate since 1918, this paper demonstrates that while there does exist a small pro-Republican bias in the Electoral College owing to malapportionment, the pro-Republican malapportionment bias in Senate races is far more substantial.


They emphasized "small" by using italics.

I suspect the 2016 election was a statistical outlier. Since 1876, it's the only election where the electoral college winner lost the popular vote by more than 1%. If Kamala wins the popular vote by 2% or 3%, I think she'll probably win the electoral vote too.

Yes, some red states like Wyoming and Montana get more electoral votes than they should based on population. But so do some blue states like Delaware and Rhode Island.

[Tiny]

Here's an update,

Electoral College

Texas Contrarian: Trump by 36
Dali Lama: Trump by 86
Winn Dixie: Harris by 14
adav8s28: Harris by 6
Farmstud: Trump by 42
Tiny: Harris by 14

Popular Vote:

Texas Contrarian: Harris by 2
Winn Dixie: Harris by 1.5
SpeedRacer: Harris by 2.5
adav8s28: Harris by 1
Farmstud: Trump by 0.5
Why Yes I Do: Trump by 51, baked
Tiny: Harris by 1

Senate

Texas Contrarian: Repubs by 4
Winn Dixie: Tie
SpeedRacer: Repubs by 3
adav8s28: Dems by 2
Farmstud: Repubs by 4
Tiny: Repubs by 1

House

Texas Contrarian: Dems by 4
Winn Dixie: Dems by 5
adav8s28: Repubs by 5
Farmstud: Repubs by 7.5
Tiny: Dems by 5

Observations

SpeedRacer looks for a narrow Democratic Party victory in the House. Salty believes Trump will win.

I wonder if someone will come in at the last minute and predict Harris by 15 in the electoral college. That could be a winner. Winn Dixie, sly dog that he is, boxed me in. Now the only way I can win the Senate prediction is if independent Osborn wins in Nebraska. Same for SpeedRacer.

Consensus Probabilities from the Punters

And here are consensus probabilities based on betting odds from Stossel's web site as of this moment:

President: Trump 52.8% / Harris 46.7%
Senate Control: Repubs 78.8% / Dems 21.2%
House Control: Dems 53.5% / Repubs 46.5%

Democrats have gained in all three categories since the last time I looked.

[Texas Contrarian]

I thought Iowa was at least a moderately red state -- but a new poll, reportedly produced by a pollster with a good record, shows Kamala in the lead there. Is this significant? Sure looks a bit surprising, at the very least.

Given how Donald has been shooting himself in the foot at almost every turn lately, maybe this shouldn't really surprise anyone. But I'd think he would be able to stay on-message and at least hang on to some semblance of self-discipline, with so much at stake for his very freedom, not just his political life. (Nah, what the hell am I thinking? This is Donald Trump we're talking about!)

[Lantern2814]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... Too Right there, mate. ...

... "Look Out Below! --- Landslide!"

### Salty

With early voting being fairly close, that's not a good sign for the left. Republicans turn out in greater numbers on election day. This could get ugly for Harris quickly.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Trump by 86. he carries every swing state in a landslide

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1852...586279/photo/1


book it Danno!!


baahahhaaaa

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Trump by 86. he carries every swing state in a landslide

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1852...586279/photo/1


book it Danno!!


baahahhaaaa

Same as Dali Lama. I'll book it tomorrow McGarrett!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Trump by 86. he carries every swing state in a landslide

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1852...586279/photo/1


book it Danno!!


baahahhaaaa

Wishful thinking. Rose colored glasses. Remind us as to your 2020 predictions. I nailed it, as I did the 2022 results.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

With early voting being fairly close, that's not a good sign for the left. Republicans turn out in greater numbers on election day. This could get ugly for Harris quickly.

And more women are voting early. 55% of early voters in battleground states are women and women prefer Harris by about 10%. Good sign for Harris.

[eccieuser9500]

Harris by 15 percentage points.

Done, Chiquito.