First General Election Forecast: Hillary 50, Trump 44, Johnson 4, Stein 2. (Electoral College 348-190)

The Original Splash Brother, Manute Bol

I have been meaning to write a post about the general election race for weeks. It's not a very exciting topic this far out but I wanted to put my "morning line on the record and now that Nate Silver's forecasts are up, it's time to write.  Nate's forecast is Hillary 49, Trump 45, Johnson 5. That leaves a little more than 1 percent for Jill Stein, the Green Party candi anddate.  (When writing abot 538.com's models, I will, unless otherwise indicated, refer to their Polls-Plus Forecast, because I believe it's most accurate.)

My morning line is HIllary 50, Trump 44, Johnson 4, Stein 2, with the Electoral College at 348-190.

My central thesis for this election is that Hillary Clinton is the favorite for two broad reasons: the fundamentals of the election favor the incumbent party and the Republican nominee is unlikely to persuade many voters to vote for him over Clinton who didn't already vote Republican four years ago. As for fundamentals, I mean the fact that Barack Obama is liked by more voters than he is disliked. The economy is generally solid and the opposition party has nominated a dumpster-fire. That dumpster-fire said things to get the nomination that probably preclude mutliple paths to the White House.

This shold make Hillary Clinton the clear favorite, and she is that.  But she comes with her own baggage and has some highy unfavorables.  As a betting matter she has been right about a 3-1 favorite ever since both parties settled on their respective nominees.  I think that accurately reflect the state of the race, and is consistent with the 538 model.

1. Specific States.

In 2012 Barack Obama won 332 Electoral Votes. Mitt Romney won 206. President Obama won 10 out of 11 close states that year. That's actually good news for the GOP.  The only state they really have to defend is North Carolina, which Romney won by just two points. The next closest margins of victory was Georgia by eight, Arizon and and Missouri by nine. Clinton needs to worry about Florida (less than one point in 2012), Ohio (three), Virginia (4), Colorado and Pennsyvlania (5) and New Hampshire (six).

So Donald trump needs a net gain of 64 Electoral Votes.  The quickest distance to that, using 2012 margins of difference is to win Florida (29 EV), Ohio (18), Virginia (13) and Colorado (9). I think that Trump's racist comments about undocumented immigrants will translate into atrocious numbers among Latino voters. That probably puts Florida and Colorado out of reach. If so, he will need to win some blue states in the Upper Midwest.

Think of Trump as having three paths to 270 Electoral votes. Each is based on the assumption that he doesn't lose any Romney states. The crucial states are Florida and Colorado, because they have high numbers of Latino voters and I think they will be hard for Trump to win.   :

A. Direct Line: Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Colorado.

B.  Without Colorado:  If he wins FL, OH & VA but loses Colorado, he will have 262 Electoral Votes. He could get the remaining eight by carrying one of the below configurations;
        i. Pennsylvania
        ii.Iowa and New Hampshire
        iii Minnesota or Wisconsin. (Or Michigan, which is extremely unlikely.)

C. Without Florida.  If he wins OH & VA but not CO or FL, Trump is in a huge electoral hole. He would have 237 electoral votes and need to win. To dig out of that hole, he probably needs to win either Michigan or Pennsylvania. Winning both PA & MI would be enough to win, but that's unlikley to happen.  If he wins Pennsylvania, he gets within 13 votes and needs two more upsets among New Hampshire, Michigan and Wisconsin. If he wins Michigan but loses Pennsyvlania, then he needs to win both Wisconsin and Minnesota.

If Trump loses both FL and CO,  He would probably need to win Pennsylvania and Michigan. That's very unlikely.

The forecasts on 538.com show some traditionally red states as being competitive. At the moment, Nate gives Hillary a 25% chance of winning Arizona, Missouri and Georgia. But as the election gets closer, I think those states will tend to move in Trump's diretion.  My official prediction is depressingly familiar. I think Clinton will win back North Carolina and I think she will win Nebraska' 2nd congressional district. That will get her 348 Electoral Votes.


2.  Vice Presidential Choices.

Way back in November of last year I wrote that Tim Kaine would be the Democratic nominee for Vice-President.  I'm sticking with that. He's the safe, sensible choice with experience in the senat and the exective. He also helps win one of the most competitive states, Virginia  Hillary has the lead and she's a small-c conservative by nature. This is the safe pick.

The Republican running mate sweepstakes have come down to a handful of choices. Chris Christie would be absurd. Newt Gingrich would be terrible, but I think he's good at telling people like Donald Trump what they want to hear.  That can't hurt when wooing a narcissist. I think General Flynn disqualified himself when he said today that he was tepidly pro-choice.  I think Trump wold face a delegate revolt if he chose Flynn.

That leaves Governor Mike Pence of Indiana.  The biggest question about this pick is whether Pence wants to give up being governor of Indiana.  He's up for re-election and can't be on the ballot there twice.  I don't know if he wants to give up being Governor for a 25% chance of being Vice-President. But he has to know that this will elevate his name recognition and it will allow him to play the grown up for the next 18 weeks.  When 2020 comes around, he will have credibility with the people who loved Trump and perhaps with the establishment if he is thought to have made the race more competitive than it should have. He also has to consider the possiblity that should they win this thing, Trump might resign after a few months to cash in on his new fame. (This is a real prospect.)

So I think Pence is the smart choies of the remaining candidates. And really, how exciting can it be to govern Indiana?  So we are looking at Clinton-Kaine and Trump-Pence.  Neither of these choices affect any of my electoral college predictions, but they probably make Virginia and Indiana slightly more likely to stay with the party that they chose in 2012.


3. Worst Case Scenarios.

So I'm writing that there is a 25% chance that Donald Trump will be the next President-elect of the United States. Let's try to break down that that means.

First let me say that I'm always open to the idea that the Trump campaign is a giant scam and that the candidate will back out at some point rather than face ignoble defeat.  But I don't think he will do this before the convention. He can't pass up that much free air time. But if things look bad in September, he might invent an excuse for him to dropout and say that his electors should just vote for Pence instead of him. I know this is crazy. The stuff of a bad novel by a political beat reporter. But what part of 2016 has not been just that?  So let me clarify that I think the odds of the election winner are something like this: Clinton 75%, Trump 23%, somebody else, 2%.

But that leaves Mr. Trump with a 23% chance of winning. To put that in sports terms that's roughly equivalent to Manute Bol's three point field goal percentage. Sounds crazy but some of those shots went in. A more common sports analogy would be an NFL team with a 7 point defecit halfway through the third quarter. So Trump can win this. It's just not very likely.

My operating assumption for the past several months was that Trump's best chance of winning involved something horrible happening on American soil, most likely a terrorist attack that makes people willing to try out his ridiculous idea of banning Muslims and building a wall along the southern border. The mass shooting at the Orlando night club did nothing to move the prediction markets. So far the the mass shooting of Dallas police officer has also had no effect. But I'm leaving the room open for an October surprise. If we have multiple ISIS-linked or insipred attacks on the homeland in October, Trump's odds will improve.

He also has some issues to make hey with. He is running, contra the mainstream of the Republican party against free trade. He's going to promise people a return to the economy of the 1950 and 60s. He's also going to imply a trunt ot the culture of the 1950s. That does has some appeal. He is currently leading white men by more than 20 points. (Makes you proud, doesn't it?)

I think a Trump victory means four things happened:
1. Major terrorist attack on American soil or extended instances of violence against police officers.
2. A "scandal" of some sort that tarnishes Hillary more than Benghazi or the Email server have.
3. Tepid economic numbers in the fall.
4. Trump rebranding his message for the general electorate in a way that accentuates the economic insecurity of working class people while simultaneously convincing Wall Street that he won't actually impose any of his whackadoo economic poliices.

That last one is quite the typerope to walk. I don't think he has political chops or interpersnal skills to do it.  That's why I'm an optimist.

4. Best Case Scenarios

This election cycle is already a wasted opportunity. When Hillary's only meaningful challenge came from a 74 year old socialist, it meant that the party was not about to change. And when the Republicans nominated Donald Trump they doomed themselves to four years of bleating the No True Scotsman Fallacy.  When Trump loses,people like Ted Cruz will say "It's because we didn't nominate a real conservative."  And in four years, they probably will do just that.

Hillary's vote margin over Trump will probably be bigger than the 3.95% that Obama's beat Romney by. But I don't think he will win by a bigger margin than the 7.3% that Obama beat McCain by in 2008. Even if she does, I think the only red states that become competitive are Georgia, Arizona and Missouri.  A sweep of all the battlegrounds plus those three would get her up to 384 Electoral Votes. That's close to a route, but not quite the stuff of history. A truly historic meltdown by Trump might make Kansas, South Carolina and Montana competitive. But even adding them to the Blue pile would leave Trump far short of Goldwater-McGovern-Mondale territory.

A Clinton blowout probably involves for things happening;
1. A relative lack of serious terrorist activity.
2. Trump being unwilling or incapable of toning down his campaign rhetoric.
3. A massive fund raising dsparity because rich people determine that they are better off with Hillary for four years than the dumpster-fire.
4. Television ads that rehabilitate Clinton's image and cement Trump's imge among indpendents.

The hardest part is rehabilitating Clinton's image.  I think there's 40% of the population that will vote for her opponent no matter how dangerous that opponsent is.  That's why I'm not too excited about Kansas or Mississippi turning blue or even purple.  Hillary won't play aggressively enough to make them copetitive.

5.  Third &; Fourth Party Effects.

Gary Johnson is approaching double-digits in polls that include him. A lot of this is the result of Trump and Clinton both being so unpopular. But as people begin to take their vote seriously, they will not turn to Libertarians in huge numbers. I think his ceiling is eight percent and will have to fight like hell to get five percent.  His best chance of making a dent is that Trump becomes so odious that many Republicans just can not vote for him and look their neighors in the eye.  But I don't see the groundswell happening this year.  Mid single digits it is.

Jill Stein of the Green Party recently offered to ste aside so that Berne Sanders coud instead run as the Green Party candidate. Okay, that was difficult to type with a straight face. What she actually did was she pretended that she would step aside for a candidate who she knew full well intends to endorse Clinton because she things it will curry her favor with disaffected lefties.  It might, but they are small in number. Bernie supporters are already telling pollsters they will vote for Mrs. Clinton in higher numbers than Clinton supporters were saying the same of Barack Obama in 2008.  But to be fair, these Sanders voters are from the left-wing of the party whereas the Clinton supporters of 2008 were from the rightwing of the party. Voting Green was never an option for them. But it will be for about 5% of the population, especially if the polls indicate that Clinton is certain to win the election and prevent a Trump presidency.  Her ceiling is three percent. People still remember the Nader effect. It will kee her number down.  (As will her pseudoscientific opinions about GMO and vaccines, among other things.)

6.  What to Look Forward To:
A quick run down of the major events of the next 17 and a half weeks.

i. Trump's VP announcment: Probably No Later than July 15th. (That's when Pence has to decide between running for Governor or running for Veep.  I think he's say Veep.)

ii.  GOP convetion in Cleveland (and the ensuing riots). This is really Trump's best chance to put a new spin on his shtick. His one big asset as a candidate is that he knows how to use the medium of television to his advantage.  I think the convention will be more variety show than politcal theater.  People will talk about it. And there will be lots of confrontation in the streets. Here's a big prediction: on July 22nd pundits will be calling this a toss-up election. (Bettors will not.)

iii. Hillary's VP announcement. Probably Kaine but maybe some other boring white guy.

iv. DEM convention in Philadelphia (and the ensuing floor debates). I think Bernie's delegation will vote for HIllary. I also thin it will include enough young Occupy types to make the convetion less boring and sanitized than the Democratic conventions have been ever since Bill and Hillary took the reigns of the party 25 years ago.  But Hillary and Kaine will both give great speeches that no one will be offended by or remember 2 months later and she will get her bounce and the pundits will say she's the favorie again.

v.  First Presidential Debate, September 26th in Dayton, OH.

Circle your calendars for this one.  The Quantum unknown in this election will be how Hillary reacts to debating a sociopath. If Bobby the Brain Heenan were not in ill health, I would want the Dems to hire him for debate preparation.  She has to be ready for the worst of it. But Trump's big advantage is that he can also probably benefit from being (relatively) sane at this forum.  He will be on stage, one one one with someobe that's been in the national political scene since before I could vote. He can probably do 50% crazy and 50% relatively calm and come away scoring points. Or he might call her something horrific and storm off the stage  30 minutes in.  Like I said, circle your calendars.

vi. Vice Presidential Debate October 4th in Farmville, VA
I lived in Virginia for like 4 years. No idea where Farmville is.  And I can't be bothered to Google it. Becuase that's how important the Vice Presidential debate is.

vii. 2nd Presidential Debate in St. Louis, MO.
Probably less compelling TV than the first, but Trump might act from the other end of the crazy scale just to keep her guessing this time.

viii. 3rd Presidential Debate in Las Vegas, NV
Perfect location but I shudder at the lame analogies about who needs to win the big jackpot and roll box cars on top of split aces in order to parlay a oh,, fuck it. We'll all be so sick of these two people by then.  Trump might sneak in one last attempt to look normal in order to hold onto a state or two, The big questioin will be which stattes are in play by then.

ix.  Election Day, November 8th.
Don't forget to vote. And then the polls will close and we'll find out that we have elected our first president.  The only concession will probably come in the form of a deranged Tweet storm of obscenities  And won't hat be worth watching?

Meanwhile Back in Crazy Town (Updated GOP forecast)

I have taken up a new way of reading Republican primary polls.  Normally as Iowa and New Hampshire draw near, the candidates sort themselves into two broad categories; contenders and pretenders.  Two to four people are fighting for the lead and the rest are hoping to get lucky and outlast some of the more mainstream candidates.  That model does not compute for 2016.  The polls have been dominated by two candidates with absolutely zero political experience.  All of the candidates with credible resumes are huddles in a pack fighting to get to the upper single digits and more than a handful of  hopeless candidates soldier on without a blip of support or a plausible path to the nomination.  Here's the taxonomy I have created:

Outsiders	RCP	Serious	RCP	Niche	RCP	Charity	RCP
Trump	27.2	Rubio	9	Huckabee	3.7	Graham	0.5
Carson	21.3	Cruz	8	Paul	3.3	Jindal	0.3
Fiorina	5.5	Bush	7	Christie	2.5	Pataki	0.3
		Kasich	2	Santorum	0.5	Gilmore	0
TOTAL:	54.3%		26.0%		10.0%		1.1%

The Outsiders have dominated the polls.  Yesterday I was looking at the Real Clear Politics Polling and those three candidates had gotten between 52 and 54 percent of the voters in every single poll for the last month.  And they always appear in the same order: Trump first, Carson 2nd, Fiorina 3rd. This morning a new ABC/Washington Post poll has come out and it shows this group's support swelling to 59 percent!  (That's Trump 32, Carson 22 and Fiorina 5.)

Two weeks ago Trump's numbers slipped noticeably and the establishment began to breath easier. It looked like the Trump bubble had burst and he was going to be remembered as this year's Herman Cain. Cain led the RCP average for about three weeks in the summer of 2011. Donald Trump has now led the polls for more than three months.

Note that this Taxonomy is not a typical "Tiers" system.  The point of this taxonomy is to sort the candidates into categories based on the nature of their support rather than the volume of their supporters.  Marco Rubio is in the 2nd category but I still think he's the most likely nominee.  Mike Huckabee might do very well in Iowa and last longer than several Ousider and Serious candidates.

I still believe the nominee will be a candidate with a credible resume and broad appeal to the various demographics that make up the present Republican party. All of those candidates are in the Serious category. The Niche candidates are semi big names but who only appeal to one type of voter. Huckabee and Santorum to social conservatives. Chris Christie appeals to the pro-business and tough on crime crowds that used to form the bulk of the party. Rand Paul is hoping to catch some interest among the mostly younger conservatarian types who hate the government and know the party has to appeal to new segments if it's going to remain a major party. Together they are getting 10 percent of the vote. Four completely hopeless candidates are continuing to run because they have nothing better to do. They combine for just over one percent support and their primary purpose at this point is to warm up the crowds on GOP debate nights.  They are political opening acts.

The Road Ahead.

If the Serious candidates want to get down to winning this thing, they have to appeal to the people currently supporting the Outsiders. To paraphrase Willie Sutton, that's where the votes are.  And that's why I despair of the coming months. Rubio, Bush and Kasich are ill suited to Trump's game.  Cruz has cleverly stuck to a non-aggression strategy with the Outsiders. If any of them were to drop out, Cruz would likely benefit enormously.

But they are unlikely to drop out unless something personal rocks their campaign. Trump lives for this attention. Carson is making boat loads of money selling his books. Fiorina is ambitious enough to tell any lie and stick to it in the face of overwhelming evidence. So far Jeb Bush has been most willing to confront Donald Trump. He has lost every single round of that match up and he will keep losing them if he thinks he can be a bigger bully than Trump. Jeb is way too much of the establishment to make headway with that crowd now.  I don't think Kasich has the fight in him. Rubio and Cruz are best positioned to gobble up those points when this race is mercifully over.  And that leaves me with this revised forecast for the 2016 Republican nomination:

Candidate	Pre 1st debate	Post 1st Debate	Pre 2nd Debate	Pre 3rd Debate	Change
Trump	2	1	8	12	4
Bush	34	31	24	17	-7
Walker	32	29	22	--	-22
Rubio	23	28	26	46	20
Huckabee	3	3	1	1	0
Santorum	1	1	1	1	0
Paul	2	1	1	0	-1
Cruz	1	1	2	10	8
Kasich	1	2	6	3	-3
Carson	0	0	3	5	2
Christie	0	0	0	0	0
Jindal	0	0	0	0	0
Fiorina	0	2	3	2	-1
Graham	0	0	0	0	0
Perry	0	0		--	--
Pataki	0	0	0	0	0
Gilmore	0	0	0	0	0
The Field	1	1	3	3	0

So the headline is that I'm giving almost all of Walker's chance to win the nomination to Rubio. Ted Cruz's chances have also increased greatly, mostly at the expense of Jeb Bush. Trump and Carson have both grown a bit while Kasic and Fiorina have slipped.

After the debate I will update the field again and I will begin to try to analyze what the race for delegates might look like next year. The most tantalizing thing about a fractured field is that it feeds the ultimate dream of every political nerd; the prospect of a brokered convention. I have been hoping for one all of my political life so I remain skeptical that it can happen this time. But Trump is well positioned to gobble up delegates in the early states. And he's not known for hi ability to play well with others.



.

The Fun Stuff: General Election Matchup Speculation

Things Change.

Note: a draft of this post was accidentally posted on October 5th. The final version was written on October 18, 2015.

The above map looks very different than our current political alignment. But it wasn't so long ago. That election was held 2 days before my 3rd birthday.  In 2012, only 20 states voted the same way they did that night. And only 8 states (plus DC) have given all of their electoral votes to the same party in every election of my lifetime.  (Minnesota and DC for the Dems, Alaska, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas and Oklahoma for the GOP. Nebraska has been won by the Republican candidate in all those elections, but Obama did win one electoral vote from there in 2008.)

In my last post I made the case for why I believe the Democratic nominee is likely to win the next presidential election. My premise is that Democrats have a small but significant and growing advantage with the current presidential electorate.  To demonstrate this advantage, I categorize all of the states based on how they have voted in the past four presidential cycles.

True Blue (18 states that voted Dem in all four Bush/Obama Elections):  241
Baby Blues (3 states that voted Dem 3 out of 4 times)                                 15
Purple States (5 states that voted for the winner 4 times:                              75
Pink States (2* states that voted for the GOP 3 out of 4 times)                     27
Deep Red (23 states that voted GOP in all 4 Bush/Obama elections:         179
Note: Nebraska's second district is counted with the pink states.

So there are 256 votes likely to vote for the Democrat and 206 likely to vote for the Republican in a close election.  These 206 votes are the exact votes that Romney won in 2012.

But it's not all good news for Team Blue. In 2012 the Democrat won every close state except North Carolina. That is actually good news for the next Republican nominee. He or she will only have to really defend one state in a close election. Everywhere else they will be on offense.  So the biggest question is what is the quickest path for them to get to 270.  The simplest way to compute this is to flip the states they came closet to winning last time.

Here is every Baby Blue, Purple and Pink State, Red font indicates jurisdictions won by Mitt Romney in 2012.

Competitive States
Votes	State	Margin 2012
29	Florida	0.88%
15	N. Carolina	2.04%
18	Ohio	2.97%
13	Virgnia	3.87%
9	Colorado	5.36%
4	New Hamp.	5.58%
6	Iowa	5.81%
6	Nevada	6.68%
1	Nebraska-2nd	7.17%
5	New Mexico	10.15%
11	Indiana	10.20%

So the Republican nominee can get to 235 by just adding Florida, 253 by also adding Ohio and 266 by flipping Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Beyond that they only need to pick up one more state. Colorado, New Hampshire and Iowa were all decided by less than six points and would be competitive if the Republicans run a better candidate and campaign than they did last time.

Establishing a Baseline.

Incumbent candidates tend to be re-elected but incumbent parties running a new candidate lost more often than they win. Since 1952, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush 43 were all re-elected. Jimmy Carter and Bush 41 were the only incumbents to lose. That's 5 out of 7. In that same span, Adlai Stevenson, Dick Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, Gerald Ford, Al Gore and John McCain all lost when running as candidates of the incumbent party who were not running for a second term. Only Bush 41 succeeded in that role. That's 6 out of 7.

But that is a small sample size and I think the historical trends discussed in an earlier post make the Democrats favorites to win next year.  Another factor that has to be considered is the effect of race. Some credible analysis of the election returns suggest that Barack Obama' race cost him about 4 points in the 2008 election.  (Source)  But that effect was strongest in states that were not particularly competitive, with Missouri being the only state that might have gone blue but-for the Democrats nominating a black candidate. Missouri was not competitive in 2012 and as we've already seen, Barack Obama carried most of the close states in 2012. The only additional state that probably would have been carried by Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden was North Carolina.  I also think Hillary will outperform Obama in that state next year. But for sake of simplicity, we'll stick with 332-206 as our baseline.

Match-ups with Hillary Clinton

1. Marco Rubio. I think Rubio is by far the strongest candidate that the Republicans might nominate. If he is the nominee, he has a very high likelihood of carrying Florida, which would get the Republicans to 235 electoral votes.  He would do well to consider John Kasich for a running mate and that will help in Ohio.  That would get them up to 253. Then they would have to win Virginia and one more Obama state. That is the best scenario for them and why I think Clinton is likely to choose Tim Kaine or Mark Warner as her running-mate. In any close election scenario, Virginia becomes extremely important.

Official Prediction:  Clinton 303, Rubio 253.  

2.  Jeb! Bush.  Jeb! is also more likely than not to win Florida but it will be very competitive there and I think the Bush name will hurt him in the rust belt. He also should pick Kasich to make Ohio competitive but Jeb! has already shown himself to be a lackluster (read: low-energy) candidate and I don't think he will make the race as close as handsome, charming Rubio.  I suspect he's pick up Florida but lose North Carolina.

Official Prediction: Clinton 318, Bush 220. 

3.  Donald Trump.  Let's put Trump mania in some perspective. In 2008 Dean Cain was the polling front runner for about three weeks.  Donald Trump has now led the Real Clear Politics Polling Average (RCPA) for more than 11 weeks. After the 2nd debate his poll number slipped a little. And then they rebounded.  He has a clear and often commanding lead in every national poll and almost every state-specific poll.  All very impressive.  But he averages about 25% in recent national polls. Consider that around 20 million people voted in the Republican primaries in 2008 and 2012. So 25% of the likely Republican primary voters is around 5 million people. In 2012 Mitt Romney got just over 10 million primary votes and 60 million votes in the general election.

So Trump holds sway over a plurality of Republican voters but those translate into a small sliver of the general election electorate.  If he is nominate he will get most Republican votes and some smattering of quirky independents. But his shtick would run very thin. Clinton will wipe the map with him.  She will win North Carolina, she will win Nebraska's 2nd congressional district and she will have the luxury of campaigning in places like Georgia, Missouri and Indiana in hopes of running up the score on election night. She might make Mississippi competitive if she can match the black turnout from 2012.

Official Prediction: Clinton 374, Trump 164.  (That's Clinton winning NC, NE-2, MO and GA but not Indiana. I think her husband will be an asset in MO, having carried the state twice and having been a long term governor of a neighboring state.)

4. Ted Cruz.  Senator Cruz is taking an interesting tact in this election.  He plans to run to the far-right in the primaries and hope to be the last man standing. Then he will try to increase voter turnout among working class whites in states like Pennsylvania to win the general election.  He seriously overstates his charms.  He may succeed in making some places like PA and WI competitive, but he will not flip any of them, although Ohio would probably be a true toss-up.

 (This prediction is rooted in my belief that those working class whites he thinks he speaks for are actually unlikely to be motivated to vote for a Canadian of Cuban ancestry who drips with Ivy league snobbery.)

Official Prediction: Clinton: 348, Cruz 190 (NC and NE-2 go back to blue.)

5. Carly Fiorina.  She'll fight hard and she'll sell herself well. But Hillary will savage her with commercials about outsourcing and layoffs. This will be a blow out.

Official Prediction: Clinton 363, Fiorina 175 (NC, NE-2 and GA go blue.)

6. John Kasich.

I think he'll win his home state of Ohio and be competitive in all the right places but I don't see him flipping Florida or any other battle ground. Clinton should also be able to carry NC against him.

Official Predicition: Clinton 329, Kasich 209.

And the Rest.

It's very difficult for me to imagine any of the other candidates being nominated, but I'll humor them with an official prediction.

Same Result as Trump:

7. Ben Carson: Clinton 374, Carson 164 

8. Chris Christie: Clinton 374, Christie 164 (Same result as Trump)

Same Result as Romney in 2012:

9.  Mike Huckabee: Clinton 332, Huckabee 206

Same Result as Cruz

10. Rick Santorum Clinton 348, Romney 190.  (With a lot of  wasted resources in Pennsylvania.)

11. Rand Paul Clinton 348, Romney 190

Why are the Bothering?

12.  Pataki: Clinton 385, Pataki 153 (That's the Trump result minus Indiana)

13. Jindal:  Clinton 396, Pataki 142 (Trump minus Indiana and Arizona)

14.  Lindsay Graham; Clinton 385, Pataki 153

15. Jim Gilmore: Clinton 372, Gilmore 165. (I'm giving him his home state of Virginia. This blog post is the high-watermark of Gilmore 2016.)

Match-ups With Bernie Sanders.

I think Sanders' identification as a democratic socialist is at least as big a handicap in a general election as Barack Obama's race was in the past two cycles.  If Clinton would have outperformed Obama in 2012 by carrying NC, then I think it's equally true that Sanders would have under performed by not winning Florida. So his baseline is 303 to 235.  

But I would still favor him against most likely Republican nominees. I think he cold beat Jeb! like a drum by using his family name against him and he probably salivates at the idea of running against an actual plutocrat in the form of Donald Trump.  But Rubio will play the commie card deftly. And he is a handsome young latino that listens to Jay-Z, not an aging Hippy who probably does not own an Ipod.  I think he would carry the truly close states: FL, OH, NC and VA. That gets him to 266 and he just needs to win Colorado or Iowa or Nevada.  My official hunch: he wins one of those states and sneaks into the White House.

Here are the Sanders matchups:

Rubio 272, Sanders 266

Sanders 285, Jeb! 253 (picking up FL and OH)

Sanders 332, Trump 206 (repeat of 2012 Results)

Sanders 303, Cruz 235 (Cruz wins Florida)

Sanders 285, Fiorina 253 (same result as Jeb!)

Sanders 272, Kasich 266 (Kasich wins the three big battle grounds of OH, FL and VA but fails to pick off PA or any of the western battle grounds or Iowa.)

Cason, Christie and Huckabee would probably put up a Romney and lose 302-236. Santorum and Paul might do the same although I think Bernie wold be able to pick off NC against those mediocrities. The sad-sacks would also get crushed but probably win one or two more states than they would against Hillary Clinton.

Musing on Long Shot Scenrios.

• Joe Biden's numbers would be virtually identical to Secretary Clinton's. Elizabeth Warren would start with a stronger baseline and would be most likely to win back NC and to make places like Indiana and Missour competitive. But all of them would be in a dog fight with Rubio, and a semi-comfortable place against all other potential nominees.

• If Scott Walker is the GOP running mate there will be endless talk about Wisconsin becoming competitive but I think his early exit means he won't be on anyone's short list.  (Kasich and Susan Marinez will always be a better option for any candidate on this list.)

• Trying to think of real long shot scenarios, one might be tempted to think that Hillary Clinton could win Arkansas.  She was first lady of that state for more than a decade. But that was a long time ago. In 1992 Bill Clinton won 53% of that stat's votes in a 3 way race. Four years later his share of the national vote went up by more than six points but only by one point in his home state.  Since that high water mark of 5.38% in 1996, the Democratic nominees have gotten 46, 45, 39 and 38 percent.  Obama's share of the vote dropped that much compared to Gore and Kerry. This is the most obvious case of Obama's race affecting his poll results in a non-competitive state. I think Hillary will return the Democratic number to something closer to 45 percent but 50% seems like a very long shot. Arkansas has become a pretty conventional Red State in presidential elections. I don't think the Big Dog can change that for his wife.

• Missouri is more fertile ground for an Ozark upset. In 2008 Barack Obama came within 4,000 votes of winning that state and chose not to pursue a recount because it would not have affected the election result. In 2012, he lost by 9 points. This pattern is similar to Indiana, where he won a squaker in 2008 and lost by 10 points in 2012. Nationally Obama's vote share dropped by less than 2 points, but by more than 10 points in these states. The difference of course is that Obama actively campaigned for those states in 2008. The closer polling numbers during his re-election made it necessary to spend resources elsewhere.  If Hillary is in blowout mode, she might be able to pick off Missouri, especially if she thinks she can help some marginal Democratic house candidates or the race for Roy Blount's senate seat becomes competitive. (If for instance he loses a primary to a Tea Party fringe candidate.)
• Arizona should be ripe for a competitive race. Obama lost by 7.3 points to John McCain in 2008 and by 9.0 points to Mitt Romney in 2012. That fall off, 1.7 points was slightly less than the national trend, which makes sense since he was not running against a candidate from Arizona. But Arizona politics are warped by immigration policy more than any other state. Texas is a hopelessly red state but Arizona should be competitive. Fear of illegal immigrants has led to some ghastly laws being passed and the repeated election of a clown like Joe Arapaio as sheriff responsible for a major American city. In the long run, demographics will make this a purple state and eventually a blue one, assuming the GOP doesn't change course on some of it policies. But for the immediate future, I think immigration leaves the state off of the competive list.
• New Mexico might be the decisive state in 2016. Obama carried it by double digits twice. But Bush carried the state in 2004 and lost it in 2000 by just 370 votes. If a Republican wants to win, his or her best option is this:  Romney States (206) + Ohio, Florida and Virginia (60 to get to 266. Then one more state among Colorado, Nevada, Iowa or New Mexico. New Mexico could be influenced by having a native daughter on the ticket. The GOP may need Kasich to carry Ohio but that might be all for naught if they do not win one of these small states. Susana Martinez remains a very strong candidate for the Vice-Presidency. And under at least one plausible scenario, she could win the White House for the Republicans.