rickyp wrote:tom

I have to disagree with the claim " that nation wide popularity has been almost faultlessly predictive of elections"
The problem with this statement is it's not completely true or honest.

Tom, did you bother to read anything of the 538 article?
Here's what they said...

The truth is — with some notable exceptions — winning the national popular vote typically means winning the presidency;

And they linked to the Gore Bush election as a notable exception. But also said ....

During the past 50 years, for example, in only two elections has the national popular vote been within 2 percentage points.

And even in close elections, an Electoral College/popular vote split isn’t especially likely. Research by Nicholas R. Miller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, has found that — all else being equal — there’s about a 25 percent chance of a split if the national popular vote is decided by about 1 percentage point, and that the chance is cut in half when the margin is 2 percentage points. We all remember the razor-thin margin in the 2000 election, when George W. Bush won the presidency even though Al Gore won the popular vote. But we forget that the 1960 and 1968 elections were about equally close but didn’t produce a split. Jimmy Carter in 1976 and George W. Bush in 2004 won relatively clear victories in the Electoral College while winning the popular vote by a little more than 2 points. If the national popular vote margin is greater than 4 percentage points, Miller found, the chance of a split is about zero.

So yes, with the notable exception of Gore Bush ... the plurality of vote goes to the winner of the election.
Since its happened in 47 elections, and only once, not ... its almost certain- statistically ... to happen again.

rickyp wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S2G8jhhUHg

And, your Precious, the RCP average of national polls shows Trump ahead of Clinton by 0.2%

rickyp wrote:fate

And, your Precious, the RCP average of national polls shows Trump ahead of Clinton by 0.2%

And McCain was much further ahead at this point...

Clinton 347 Trump 191

(Unless the Libertarian campaign starts to seriously peel away Trump voters...)

The truth is — with some notable exceptions — winning the national popular vote typically means winning the presidency;

But you can play around to your hearts content on various scenarios on the map linked.
The central thesis is, however, that nation wide popularity has been almost faultlessly predictive of elections.
Which makes this chart the one to watch...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5491.html

I'm sure you told us the RCP average of national polls was all that mattered

A few pertinent facts from recent elections:

19 states and the District of Columbia have voted for a Democrat in the last six presidential contests. These alone account for 242 electoral votes — a mere 28 short of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

By comparison, the 13 states which voted Republican in the last six elections contain 102 electoral votes. You can take it to the bank that the GOP would carry these states were its nominee Charles Manson or Benito Mussolini — or even Donald Trump. But even were the GOP to draft Jesus Christ himself, upon resurrection he would have to round up another 168 electoral votes.

This effort did not work out terribly well for another man of faith, Willard Romney. In 2012, Romney received an additional 104 electoral votes. That left him at 206 compared to Barack Obama’s 332. In electoral college terms, a landslide.

rickyp wrote:Fate

I'm sure you told us the RCP average of national polls was all that mattered

I said that the plurality winner of popular vote will almost always win the election. The national poll reflects that, and the trend in the poll is vital.

But, we'll see how long Mr. Trumps little flutter keeps him close...
The last few elections there's been a flutter for both Romney and especially mcCain and then things settle in...
I'm willing to bet that demographics, economics and trends have pretty much determined the election. If Hillary is plus 2 points, she wins big... See below.

A few pertinent facts from recent elections:

19 states and the District of Columbia have voted for a Democrat in the last six presidential contests. These alone account for 242 electoral votes — a mere 28 short of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

By comparison, the 13 states which voted Republican in the last six elections contain 102 electoral votes. You can take it to the bank that the GOP would carry these states were its nominee Charles Manson or Benito Mussolini — or even Donald Trump. But even were the GOP to draft Jesus Christ himself, upon resurrection he would have to round up another 168 electoral votes.

This effort did not work out terribly well for another man of faith, Willard Romney. In 2012, Romney received an additional 104 electoral votes. That left him at 206 compared to Barack Obama’s 332. In electoral college terms, a landslide.

bbauska wrote:RickyP did say he is willing to bet...

GMTom wrote:. . . can you see why we are driven batty by such incredible blind partisan support???

So we look to the national poll and find Trump is in the lead only to be told it doesn't matter?

I said that the plurality winner of popular vote will almost always win the election. The national poll reflects that, and the trend in the poll is vital.

But, we'll see how long Mr. Trumps little flutter keeps him close.