Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Dr. Wang has a story up and it's not good for Trump.

Basically, the starting positions are based on voting from 1952 to 2012 gives Clinton 262, Trump 122, with 154 available.  It takes 270 Electoral Votes to win, meaning Trump has to run the board and that's not going to happen.

And it gets worse for the GOP:

Another way to look at the data is to force a win for whichever candidate is leading in each state. This does not take into account all the possibilities. But it does give the mode - the single most likely combination of wins and losses. That mode gives a total of Clinton 364 EV, Trump 174 EV, very close to Obama's win in 2008.

An interesting comment:

Gregory Scott // May 12, 2016 at 3:02 am

There's another state that bears watching. I learned some years ago that Texas has one of the nation's most Republican Hispanic electorates. That's one reason Republicans have done well there. Now, on RCP, David Byler has a map that lets you adjust turnout and vote share individually for black, white, Hispanic, and Asian/other. Raise the national Hispanic figure for turnout 2% to 55% and the Republican vote share down from 20% to 12%. Don't touch any other group. What happens? Just two states switch to Democratic--N. Carolina, which is expectable--and Texas.

I really don't expect Texas to flip but it is something to keep an eye on.  

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Tue May 17th, 2016 at 03:00:59 PM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series