This is the September edition of the reality-based 2016 election projection. The latest individual campaign contribution numbers released by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) have been carefully weighted, unweighted, and modeled to simulate an actual election.
Beginning with a count of contributions, tied to their donors’ zip code, 435 customized models, (one for each congressional district) projected their vote totals for Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Gary Johnson (see below for Methodology.) The district level results were composited to project an electoral vote winner for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The projected winners at the district level are displayed in the map above. The state-by-state electoral vote projections are summarized in the table below.
The projection shows a number of states jumping over the red state/blue state partisan divide in both directions. Evidence of a partisan shift among voters has already appeared in the media. When the Dallas Morning News’ endorsed Hillary Clinton for President, it was the first time in 75 years that its editorial board chose a Democrat over the Republican candidate. It’s been a while since the Republicans in Texas gave a thought to losing a Presidential election. It’s an “unusual election cycle” as the Texas Tribune noted recently.
How could Texas suddenly become a swing state with Hillary Clinton closing in on Donald Trump as the projection outlined here suggests?
Inside the election projection model there are some clues. The state added 1.4 million people to its population since the 2012 election. The RWNJers who stopped the construction of an invasion route an interstate freeway between the Rio Grande Valley and the rest of Texas couldn’t stop the hordes arriving from California and other blue states. The economy boomed with the introduction of widespread fracking and it quickly busted when the price per barrel collapsed. Drilling jobs disappeared first and the slowdown spread to other activities associated with oil and gas production in and around Houston. After adding 75,000 jobs in 2014, and 25,000 in 2015, employment is barely staying even this year. When the current fiscal cycle ends with a revenue shortfall caused by the drop in crude oil production and resulting in a budget deficit it will be about time to hand off the entire mess to the Democrats.
Building a wall at the border won’t solve the problems of people in Texas and in Utah, Donald Trump’s character, behavior, and persona make him unacceptable to the Mormon population. The state lands in Hillary’s column.
People in Arkansas probably know a little more than most about Hillary Clinton. Campaign contributions from donors in the state indicate enough support to project a win for her there.
Clinton’s support among African-Americans in the South was the essential element that carried her to victory in the primaries. Taking that into consideration, it seems logical to find Alabama and South Carolina in her column, The model projects a huge lead for Clinton in Alabama’s 7th District with 64% of the vote coming from African-Americans. Similarly, she has a big margin in South Carolina’s 6th District (represented by Jim Clyburn in the House.) The numbers show Trump falling short in the rest of both states. Gary Johnson may split the conservative vote just enough to hinder Trump.
The close contest projected for Louisiana is interesting because it includes the contribution data from the period when Trump visited the state after parts of it went under water due to flooding.
It’s not entirely clear why Trump would come out ahead in Wisconsin. Support for Clinton is noticeably weaker in the Midwest, compared to the Northeast where her totals exceed 60% in New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.
For more information about the district level projections, the map embedded here zooms in or out, and pans in all directions. Click on any district to open an info window for some interesting details.
Here’s a link to a larger version of the same map.
Methodology
The reality-based election projection model has been in development for almost a year. In February, it called the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton with a total of 2207 pledged delegates, The actual total came out to 2205. The projection is still posted here at Daily Kos. The model also produced accurate results when it was beta-tested with 2008 and 2012 campaign contribution data. It needs more of a track record to evaluate it for consistent reliability.
The current projection veers away from conventional wisdom and high-profile polling which was also true in February. It seemed unlikely, at that time, that Bernie would win 23 out of 57 contests (counting territories) in a roller coaster ride that would go to the bitter end in New Jersey and California. The current projection may seem just as unlikely, now.
The model counts individual campaign contributions that were made for the general election beginning June 15, 2016. The maximum contribution is $2700 per donor. The average contribution amount for Hillary Clinton’s campaign is $148. The contribution data includes the donor’s zip code which can be bridged to a congressional district and grouped. Demographic data, registered voter totals, partisan voter lean, turnout and results from recent elections, and other elements model and weight the contributions to simulate the realities of an actual election.
Jill Stein was disqualified from this projection because she isn’t officially on the ballot in a number of states, a unique situation that will probably suppress her vote totals in those locations. A projection of her vote total would need a different methodology more suited to her campaign’s reality.