What is the best election map for 2016? If this one is correct, we should feel pretty good.

[skip fox]

I just found this and it seems pretty compelling. It also makes me feel less nervous about a Trump candidacy. We would need to win only 33 of 120 tossup electoral college votes.

Are there better or more accurate ones?

[ibeplato]

1. i think we're looking at new map

i think Trump upsets the map we've seen for the last 20 years or so. He puts states like Michigan and Wisconsin into play, and probably costs Republicans a shot at Florida. The demographics are so much different when you've got a candidate who focuses his appeal on white, poor voters rather than on religious conservatives.

Have a look at:
http://www.270towin.com/polling-maps/bMcf/

It shows states like Minnesota and Iowa in play for Trump.

[merrily]

2. Lines on a map have a right to vote for President. The Framers were wrong about that.

Or, if they were right, their reasons no longer matter.

The popular vote should decide it. It's nuts that my vote doesn't matter in Massachusetts, but might if I move to New Hampshire.

[HooptieWagon]

3. The problem is Hillary will lose all those toss up states...

...and possible a couple blue states, ie: Penn. Sanders wins most of those states.

[Downtown Hound]

10. That's a bunch of crap.

Trump is the weakest of all GOP challengers against ANY Dem and most polls have Hillary beating Trump in the general. Combine that with the fact that Trump has pissed off just about every minority in the nation, there's no way he takes every swing state and some blue's.

I like Bernie and support him, and will probably vote for him when it's CA's turn. But the non-stop propaganda from his supporters about how he's the only one who can win the general is a flat out lie. I'd like to think his supporters are better than that.

[HooptieWagon]

11. Horseshit. Every Head to Head poll shows Clinton and Trump within the margin of error.

The polls models assume Sanders supporters will support Clinton, which isn't going to happen.

[Downtown Hound]

12. Every single one huh?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

Um, no. While I agree with you that Sanders polls better, the simple truth is that for nearly a year now the overwhelming majority of polls show Clinton beating Trump. And even if what you said was true, which it isn't, I am curious about how you interpreted beating Trump within the margin of error as Trump taking every single swing state plus some blue ones. That, my friend, is what's horseshit.

[skip fox]

4. Now I'm more worried. Thanks.

Here, by the way, are good tables of states' voting histories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_results_by_state

[sharp_stick]

5. It's way too early to even

look at a general election projection.

[skip fox]

6. You might be right, but

I know the campaigns are looking at maps. And the fear of Trump makes me want to see the biggest picture I can.

But in the sense that all could drastically change in two months and the maps are relatively tentative, you're right.

[Stallion]

7. Welcome to Reality-Democrats Start with Between 249-217 Electoral Votes

270towin.com has several expert projections

Here are the maps of three top experts

http://www.270towin.com/2016-election-forecast-predictions/

[skip fox]

9. Great. Thanks.

[Hortensis]

8. Don't forget our big problem of voter distribution.

Most Democrats are liberals who like the amenities and diversity of cities. Republicans are virtually entirely conservatives, who tend to prefer suburbs, smaller towns, rural areas with greater control by people they see as like them and the feeling of community that comes with a large proportion of like minds.

What this means is that Democrats "waste" many millions of votes by winning urban districts by 50K-vote margins, instead of the 1 vote needed, while the GOP takes many more districts by smaller margins by virtue of its more spread-out membership.

And then there's the jerrymandering of 2010, which we will finally have a chance to get rid of for the 2022 election.

For some time now we have had to win by very significant majorities nationally just to HOLD our current representation. And we often do. It takes a lot more to expand it, but it looks like it's going to happen this time.