Time to make your predictions. You might want to try this tool, what would it take, to get totals. My take is this:

It looks like black turnout is depressed, and looks to be ~15% or more for Trump.

White-no-college is fired up for him. High turnout.

White-college-educated are depressed, except for those that like him. Skewed turnout.

Long-resident Hispanics are not no thrilled with additional competition from open borders. Wild-card.

I’m thinking 398 electoral college votes for Trump is possible, using 2012 as a starting point.

Using RCP’s Create Your Own, and current polling/gut check, Trump gets nearly all the “too close to call states, earns at *least* 317 of the vote. Subtract ~40 points for fraud (PA, WI, MN, or equivalent), and he walks away with 277 for the win.

So…. What you got?



13 thoughts on “Predictions

  1. I assert people that lived through the US Civil War knew war was coming, but only in retrospect was it possible to determine when the war began. I don’t mean the shooting part of the war; I mean the event horizon – when was it crossed?

    I submit World War One was much the same.

    So here we are.

    Prediction? In retrospect, historians will decide a specific act was the keystone pulled from the arch. Where will our generation’s Fort Sumter be? Who will play the role of Archduke Franz Ferdinand? Doesn’t matter.

    Regardless of the result, half of the voters will feel the election was stolen from them.

    • My father and I both point to the 2000 elections for when the left decided ‘screw it, win at all costs and to hell with morals’. They felt they were cheated, and decided they didn’t want to play nice any more.

      Now they’re looking at the prospect of the other side taking those lessons to heart, and they’re crapping bricks.

      And as far as I’m concerned, they can pound sand.

    • To sidetrack the discussion a little (but only a little), I think that the decisions that made war inevitable were taken years or even decades before the shooting started. I have said, in alternate-history discussions, that there is a difference between the First World War and a First World War. The First World War could have trivially been avoided; it was due to low-probability events. A First World War, though, was inevitable, the result a chain of events going back at least to Olmütz.

      Future historians will declare that the Second American Civil War began when the first shot was fired. The point of inevitability may, as Toastrider suggests, be decided to be the 2000 election, or something even further in the past.

      • Plenty of shots have already been fired. Pick one.

        I’ll say that the Second American Revolution (SAR, which will in the future be called the Counter-American Revolution) was started with the organization of the Progressive Movement over a hundred years ago, that it has been raging ever since, that we lost this war via tacit surrender sometime before any of us currently able to read this were born, and that world wars One and Two were both results of this revolution. Prove me wrong.

        • Agreed in principle. I suspect the soil tilled in the resolution of the first US Civil War was so fertile, so readily planted, the seeds scattered afterwards were able to bear the fruit we continue to consume.

          To our great detriment.

        • Yeah, over 100 years ago: The 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act (both 1913) being two significant events. Not much chance of a free society coexisting with either of those much less both.

        • I would argue that the perceived humiliation of Olmütz motivated Bismarck (assisted by the elder Moltke and Roon) to create a Kleindeutschland dominated by Prussia. The final step in that was the Franco-Prussian War; France, humiliated in its turn, began working on the alliances that, by 1914, had turned Europe into two armed camps, and Bob’s your uncle.

Comments are closed.