• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Predict The Electoral College

How great is this thread?

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
Clinton 318 / 333.

She carries Florida, Arizona and Nevada on the motivated Hispanic vote, NH narrowly on the backs of Massachusetts ex-pats and educated whites, loses the rural Maine elector.

North Carolina will be recount territory, but it will be moot.
 
Stacko said:
I'm with 322-216.
Click to expand...

PhantomWolf said:
+1
Click to expand...

mumblethrax said:
Clinton: 321
Trump: 216

One faithless elector for Evan McMullin.
Click to expand...

Foolmewunz said:
It's almost midnight (here) on the 5th.

<>
Hillary Clinton - 323
Donald Trump - 215

.
Click to expand...

TheL8Elvis said:
Just to be different

328 Hilary
210 Trump
Click to expand...

ddt said:
I'm going for the optimistic scenario.
Hillary 324
Orangutan 208
McMullin 6
Click to expand...

Cain said:
I'm gonna say Clinton with 323. She gets FL, NV, and even NC. She loses OH and IA.
Click to expand...

catsmate said:
Worst case a slim Clinton win by 12 votes (275/263). This is unlikely. More likely is a serious Clinton win by over a hundred EC votes (323 to 215).
Click to expand...

Somewhere around 320-something , with 323 the big winner so far.
 
Here I go.

This has to be the hardest election ever. The support for both candidates is so shallow that almost anything could sway them. That being said, the closing days of the campaign have been good for Hillary. I'm saying the last minute swings are in her favor.


Clinton 337
Trump 211


But I wouldn't be complete shocked at Trump 295, Clinton 243.


ETA: It occurs to me that my prediction adds up to 548. I'm sure that's what I pulled off of CNN's interactive map. The system is rigged!

But I'll revise by assuming I read a 3 as a 2, and will go with 327 to 211.

In 24 hours, I sure hope we will know who will be above 270, and the only thing left will be to figure out who gets the bragging rights for the exact guess.
 
Last edited:
I'm exercising my Ohio option, as mentioned earlier. There's got to be one that puts the talking heads in a tizzy and I think Clinton takes OH.

My guess, now is

Clinton 341 - Trump 197

(Those betting on the "one faithless elector" should note that we won't know that on election night. That only becomes a vote when the Electoral College votes.)

The final popular vote??? Anyone wanna pick the points. Based on adjusting the negatives (like the bias I believe is in the LA Times sampling and the IBD TIPP call list), I now think we're going to see

Clinton +5.
 
Stacko said:
OH, COME ON!


What a crap poll.

ETA: The article.
Click to expand...

Tony Stark said:
LOL, I guess they know their poll is garbage.

Also, exactly the same as my prediction!
Click to expand...

Foolmewunz said:
I think the LA Times political writers and pundits have always been at odds with the LAT/USC-Dornslife poll partnership. That article is not from the USC people at the Unruh Center who've been running the poll but by the regular staff.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the poll that was causing the issue, well it was I guess, but the problem was that it broke down the groups a lot more than other polls, and that resulted in one person having a massive effect in the Millennial Black Males category in such a way that when he was responding to the polls he caused to to way over weight the real support for Trump by young black males. and that skewed the poll toward Trump when he responded.

Most polls would have this effect just once, and then because the respondents change, the next polls would not have that issue, but because the LAT/USC-Dornslife poll retained the same people for each poll, whenever this one guy responded, he would push the results hugely towards Trump.

There is an article in the NYT that explains it a lot better then I do.
 
Help an interested foreigner out, please........

Does the Electoral College actually physically gather and vote? If they do, is this in all elections, or only tight ones? Or is the Electoral College a notional body?
 
MikeG said:
Help an interested foreigner out, please........

Does the Electoral College actually physically gather and vote? If they do, is this in all elections, or only tight ones? Or is the Electoral College a notional body?
Click to expand...

Yes they actually get together and vote in ever election. Though in every modern election the result was clear before they did.
 
MikeG said:
Help an interested foreigner out, please........

Does the Electoral College actually physically gather and vote? If they do, is this in all elections, or only tight ones? Or is the Electoral College a notional body?
Click to expand...

Sorta, but not really. They get together in their individual states, in an actual meeting (or 51 meetings). I don't know if any states have done away with the physical part. They don't actually meet for about six weeks (it's the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December.... no, I'm not being funny). This year, it will be the latest possible date... 19 Dec.

They then (per my earlier comment) will know if there are any legendary unfaithful electors. It's happened, but never influenced the result in modern times. After the states confirm their votes, they're submitted to Congress where I think they're formally accepted in the first week of January. (Not sure what format that takes.)
 
Foolmewunz said:
Sorta, but not really. They get together in their individual states, in an actual meeting (or 51 meetings). I don't know if any states have done away with the physical part. They don't actually meet for about six weeks (it's the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December.... no, I'm not being funny). This year, it will be the latest possible date... 19 Dec.

They then (per my earlier comment) will know if there are any legendary unfaithful electors. It's happened, but never influenced the result in modern times. After the states confirm their votes, they're submitted to Congress where I think they're formally accepted in the first week of January. (Not sure what format that takes.)
Click to expand...
You're right. They meet in their respective states (plus DC) rather than all together.
 
Thanks. Sounds like carrier pigeons are involved. :)
 
Foolmewunz said:
They then (per my earlier comment) will know if there are any legendary unfaithful electors. It's happened, but never influenced the result in modern times. After the states confirm their votes, they're submitted to Congress where I think they're formally accepted in the first week of January. (Not sure what format that takes.)
Click to expand...

The paper ballots submitted by the electors are counted in the Senate, and the President of the Senate counts them. The President of the Senate is the Vice President of the United States.

In 2000, that meant that Al Gore had to go through the ritual of officially declaring George W. Bush the President-elect.

ETA: In the event of "faithless electors", I don't know if elector ballots are secret. I don't think they are. In most states, I know that they are not. Therefore, there is no mystery about what the count is going to be. It's just a formality that is a holdover from the 18th century.

A word about "faithless electors". Each state has its own laws regarding how electors are required to vote. In some states, there are no restrictions. They vote however they want. In other states, they vote however they want, but not voting in accordance with the certified popular vote is a crime, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, with the penalty varying from one state to another. In many states, they can vote however they want, but there is a provision in state law that if they cast their ballot in any way other than in accordance with the popular vote of the state, they are immediately replaced, and their vote nullified. Repeat as necessary until someone agrees to vote for the victorious candidate.

In the election of 2000, one elector on Al Gore's slate abstained, so the official vote totals reflect 537 electoral votes instead of the expected value of 538. In the election of 1976, one elector on Gerald Ford's slate cast his vote for Ronald Reagan. This year, one elector on Hillary Clinton's slate in the state of Washington is on record saying he will not vote for Hillary Clinton. The penalty in that state is a $1,000 fine, and he says he'll pay it. I suppose we'll see if he keeps to that pledge. Hillary is certainly going to win that state.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
Most polls would have this effect just once, and then because the respondents change, the next polls would not have that issue, but because the LAT/USC-Dornslife poll retained the same people for each poll, whenever this one guy responded, he would push the results hugely towards Trump.
Click to expand...


There are some great things about tracking the same group of people. It captures changing attitudes, perceptions and reactions. It does, however, have the weakness of an unfixable partisan lean.

In all, it's a useful tool when combined with other types of polling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom