The 1985 movie Clue had a gimmick where three different endings were shot and a different ending was placed on different prints. The idea was to try and get theater goers to see the movie in different theaters to see the different endings. The movie did poorly and was pulled from theaters after a short time. However, not wanting to waste the endings, all three were put on when released on VHS with the ending of Wadsworth being Mr. Boddy being touted as the "real" ending. However, none of the endings actually work as is. In all three endings, there are plot holes or mistakes that just don't work. I'm going to list the three endings, why they don't work as is and then propose an amalgamation that is the best fit ending in my opinion.
Solution A: Yvette/Miss Scarlet
In this ending, the maid, Yvette, kills both Mr. Boddy and the cook under orders from Miss Scarlet. Miss Scarlet steps up and kills the motorist, Yvette, the cop and the singing telegram girl. Her motivation is revealed to be that she is stealing classified information and selling it to foreign powers, essentially taking over Mr. Boddy's blackmail scheme.
This is arguably the best ending as it contains the fewest holes viewing-wise. The principle problems actually come with the first two murders done by Yvette. Wadsworth's explanation is that after Miss Scarlet grabbed the gun, Yvette snuck out of the billiard room, stole the dagger, killed the cook and then ran back to the billiard room and screamed. Except that in the following scene, Yvette repeats parts of their conversation. If she had been running off to kill the cook, she would not have heard that conversation. There was also no way of her knowing that Mrs. Peacock had dropped the dagger right near the door. It would seem an unnecessary risk to try and steal a weapon from the room to kill the cook when she could have just grabbed something from the billiard room or the hall.
Another problem with Yvette being the murderer for the first two is that Yvette would have to have been aware of what Mr. Boddy's plan was to tell Miss Scarlet so that they could have planned what to do. Given that Mr. Boddy was already suspicious of Wadsworth, it is unlikely that he would have disclosed any information of what he was planning to Yvette on risk of Wadsworth becoming aware of it. Miss Scarlet could have done things on the fly, but coordination would have been needed to involve someone else like Yvette and that would have taken time and knowledge of Mr. Boddy's intentions.
Solution B: Mrs. Peacock
This is the least likely scenario and one that would have turned off many viewers I would think. In this scenario, Mrs. Peacock kills all six victims, the latter four solely to cover up the fact that the first two would have pointed clearly to her. Mrs. Peacock committing the first two murders works fine, but the other four make no sense. For comedic effect, the four pairs of partners are shown watching each other very closely during the time that the motorist is killed. Colonel Mustard and Miss Scarlet are the only ones shown to have a clear moment where they are separated, making them the only real possibility. Worse, when the lights go out, almost immediately Mrs. Peacock is shown backing into the furnace. This would mean that after running up the stairs for a second time without Professor Plum noticing to turn off the lights, she then ran back down the stairs to run into the furnace and then back up to commit the three murders. None of these events make any sense.
Solution C: All of them/Wadsworth is Mr. Boddy
This is the "real" solution according to the tape. In it, Professor Plum kills Mr. Boddy, Mrs. Peacock kills the cook, Colonel Mustard kills the motorist, Mrs. White kills Yvette, Miss Scarlet kills the cop and Wadsworth kills the singing telegram girl. When he is revealed to be Mr. Boddy, Mr. Green reveals himself as an FBI plant and kills Wadsworth.
This solution works best for motive and also for how much of the action was staged. Professor Plum and Mrs. Peacock are clearly shown as missing in their respective murder scenes and there is a fairly strong implication of Colonel Mustard in the destruction of the evidence right before the motorist is killed. The problems really rise in the other three murders. Like with Mrs. Peacock, both Mrs. White and Wadsworth are shown in comic scenes upstairs. You can actually hear Mrs. White screaming upstairs while Yvette is walking downstairs to the billiard room. Yet we are supposed to believe that Mrs. White is waiting for her in the billiard room, having been the one to sneak downstairs and turn off the lights. Likewise, Wadsworth would have had to come downstairs to retrieve the gun, kill the singing telegram girl, run back upstairs to get lost and turn the shower on himself, then run back downstairs to turn the lights back on. Possible but not very likely.
There is also the odd factor of why Wadsworth would admit to killing the singing telegram girl if he were Mr. Boddy. He should have been tipped off that the FBI was on to him when J. Edgar Hoover called for Mr. Green. In that scenario, he could have fled after killing the singing telegram girl. Or, should he not wanted to go on the run, he could have hidden the gun so that it wouldn't have been called out to him. Implicating the others in their murders would have kept them in line out of fear of arrest. By process of elimination he should have guessed that Mr. Green was the plant and hidden the gun either on him or in a random location. The other guests were quick to jump on Mr. Green as the one who shot the singing telegram girl and when the gun fails to turn up, he would have been out of metaphorical ammo. Either way, Mr. Green would have been left without any evidence against Mr. Boddy as his network was dead and no evidence of him killing any of them. Wadsworth admitting that he killed the singing telegram girl and exposing himself as Mr. Boddy suggests that he didn't know or suspect that Mr. Green was a plant and could go Bond villain to ensure that the blackmail would continue. That doesn't make much sense either.
The Proposed Solution
Weighing everything out, the best solution is where we take little bits from each scenario based solely off the evidence shown in the movie. Each victim should be taken one at a time.
1. Mr. Boddy - Professor Plum killing him makes the most sense. It is unlikely that anyone with any medical knowledge would mistake someone alive to be dead. He fires the gun but claims that someone grabbed his hand. He also stays behind in the study and when Mr. Boddy jumps up to escape, he cracks him on the head with the candlestick. Professor Plum is noticeably absent from the kitchen and shows up in the doorway at the end of the scene, near Mrs. Peacock.
2. The cook - Given that two of the three scenarios showed Mrs. Peacock killing the cook, that is the obvious solution. She is missing from the billiard room when Yvette screams and her given weapon was the dagger. What's more, not only did she have motivation but as the cook was once her cook, she could have easily learned from her about the secret passage in the kitchen, shoring up that little plot element.
3. The motorist - This is actually the most tricky one. All the major evidence points to Colonel Mustard. He was his driver so there is motive. Colonel Mustard is also in good position to switch the keys in Wadsworth's pocket, being behind Wadsworth when the motorist is at the door and being the one to tap Wadsworth on the shoulder when he locks the motorist in. He also makes the suggestion that they split up, giving a better chance of breaking away to commit the murder. He is shown separating from Miss Scarlet in the ballroom and while he says he is going to search the kitchen, he is shown later being surprised by the location of the ironing board, suggesting he did not go to the kitchen. Unlike all the other murders, the killer of the motorist took time and effort. They destroyed the blackmail evidence (where a picture of the motorist and Colonel Mustard can be seen) including the tape recording. The murderer also goes to the trouble of wearing gloves, something not seen in the other murders.
So why not just say it was Colonel Mustard? Because then you have to answer the question of how he knew about the secret passage in the conservatory. Miss Scarlet would have known about it through Yvette, making her more likely to be able to go through with it. Of course, it is shown earlier that Colonel Mustard was a client of Miss Scarlet's and he was quite familiar with Yvette. It is possible that she mentioned the secret passage in one of their encounters. Although the knowledge logistics might better allow Miss Scarlet to be the murderer here, I think the bulk of the evidence favors Colonel Mustard for the motorist.
4. Yvette - Up until now, the best solutions have all come from Solution C. Here is where we deviate. The logistics of what is shown on screen rule out Mrs. Peacock and seemingly rule out Mrs. White given her limited mobility shown when the lights go out. What's more, the two planned murders on the first floor make sense for Miss Scarlet to do. With Mr. Boddy dead Miss Scarlet is no longer in need of Yvette as a network operative with Mr. Boddy. Yvette was also the source of the information to Miss Scarlet of Mrs. White's husband's work but he was also dead. Yvette was also exposed as working for her so simple relaying of information via prostitution was also dried up. In short, Yvette was no longer useful to Miss Scarlet. Yvette's behavior in slipping into the billiard room when the lights going out suggests a prearranged signal between her and Miss Scarlet. Miss Scarlet then takes advantage of the meeting by eliminating her operative.
5. The cop - Again, two out of the three scenarios had Miss Scarlet killing the cop so her killing him makes the most sense. It is easy to imagine that Miss Scarlet offered the signal to eliminate Yvette and then took advantage of the opportunity to eliminate the other person she paid off but who sold her out to Mr. Boddy.
6. The singing telegram girl - the telegram girl has always been the oddball in the murder mystery. It is Professor Plum who has the motive to actually kill her but he is never offered. Wadsworth killing her makes some sense as she was the last of his agents and he closed the loop. But given the logistics shown, it makes little sense as to how he could have done it and I think the best solution does not have him being Mr. Boddy. Mrs. Peacock is impractical and with Miss Scarlet having killed Yvette and the cop, it makes the most sense that she would kill her too.
I would change the motive a bit though. In Solution A, Miss Scarlet is suggested to have killed the girl because she recognized her from her photograph. However, as Colonel Mustard destroyed the evidence in this scenario, Miss Scarlet would have had little chance to see those pictures. Given that her affair was with Professor Plum, she would likely not have been on the negatives showing Colonel Mustard and Yvette that everyone did see. So I'm inclined to put Miss Scarlet's murder of the girl as a point of random confusion. The two murders on the ground floor would be suggestive of her. Adding a third random person, whom she would not have necessarily known, would have given legs to the idea that there was a murderer hiding in the house and that person killed the other two, killed the girl and then ran out with the gun. So her death becomes an attempt as misdirection on an unknown rather than any part of a clean up effort.
As for the final wrap up, it would have been a blend of Solutions A and C. Wadsworth was in fact an FBI agent, assigned to track the case of Mr. Boddy, who fingers the first three individual murderers. He then fingers Miss Scarlet for the last three and she pulls the gun out on them. While the motive for all the murders would have been revenge or clean up, Miss Scarlet could still have stepped up to take Mr. Boddy's place as the new blackmailer. It would also keep her motivation to pay the blackmail as shown because Mr. Green is correct and that being exposed as a Madame was not a significant point for blackmail as she could have taken down most of Washington with her. But if the cop or Yvette exposed her to Mr. Boddy as a mercenary spy, that was worth paying him off to keep her hidden. She does overlook Mrs. White being able to pay her in government information, given that her husband is dead, but with five deceased husbands, Mrs. White was probably the one guest who still could have paid Miss Scarlet in cash.
Others would probably come up with their own solutions and little changes could be made here and there, but I think given the weight of information shown on screen that the above solution represents the most plausible outcome of events. Motivations change and the final scene would have to have been fixed, but I think it addresses the most grievous plot holes. At the very least, it leaves you in a position where you can paper over the small ones with head cannon.
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Wednesday, November 09, 2016
Election Post Mortem
In Hebrew, numbers are represented by letters. This has the amusing coincidence of having numbers sometimes form words. The number 45 would be written Mem-Hey (מה). This letter set also spells out the word "What." I can't think of a better descriptor of this election than that.
I had a thought that Mr. Trump would have a chance but I must admit that I was a bit surprised by the overall result. I had a feeling that he would win the trifecta of Ohio, North Carolina and Florida as the raw numbers and empirical evidence did not mesh with the polling data. I was also pretty sure he would take Utah, Iowa and the second district of Maine. This got him to 260 on my map.
My thought was that the mostly likely scenario was that he would manage to snag the combo of Colorado and New Hampshire. Actually, just Colorado would probably have been enough as that would have given him 269 and the House would go along. But Colorado went fairly quickly to Mrs. Clinton and Nevada followed suit, confirming my skepticism there. They are still counting but at the moment, it appears that Mrs. Clinton will win New Hampshire as well, although at a spread of 1,500 votes, there will likely be a recount.
So, for my scenario, Mrs. Clinton had pulled it off and was in route to a narrow victory. I thought there might be an outside chance at Michigan given the way it had been pushed. I also thought Pennsylvania was an outside shot, although I was expecting Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to push it into Mrs. Clinton's column. I did not expect Wisconsin at all. Despite it being very close in both Bush elections, I legitimately thought it would stay Democrat. Instead, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania push Mr. Trump over the top and Michigan is looking like gravy on top, giving Mr. Trump a likely 306-232 victory.
So what is the source of this victory. I think it comes down to two major factors: a large turnout of Republican voters and a depressed turnout among African-American and young voters. We won't know until all the votes are counted but it appears that Mr. Trump is going to finish behind Mr. Obama's vote totals of nearly 66,000,000. He may even finish behind Mr. Romney's totals but again, we need to see what the final tally is. But after four years of growth, a minimal increase in the Republican turnout doesn't say much but an over 5,000,000 vote drop in the Democrat tally does.
Some of this is from young voters who were either not energized by Mrs. Clinton or still seriously angry over not getting Mr. Sanders. But I think it more significant that African-Americans didn't turnout. Mrs. Clinton is likely to lose Michigan because African-Americans in the southern part of the state (especially Detroit) did not turn out. She lost Pennsylvania because voters in the Philly suburbs did not turn out for her. I haven't taken a close look but I assume Wisconsin's fall was due more to the youth vote failure rather than the African-American but I won't hang my hat on that.
I definitely believe that the shortcomings in these two constituencies led to the loss of Florida and North Carolina. Possibly Ohio too although given where the shortfalls were, I'm more inclined to put that on blue collars turning to Mr. Trump than a failure of turnout.
So what comes next? Obviously Mr. Trump will become President next year and will govern for the next four. Given his age, questions abound as to whether he will keep to only one term or if he will seek reelection. But that's a long way off and the Democrats actually have a bigger problem. Who is next in line?
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders will almost certainly be too old to be considered viable candidates in 2020 and both have the taint of failure now. So far as I know, there are no significant rising stars in either the governorships or the Senate. This was hinted at in the somewhat limited selection for Mrs. Clinton when she decided on her Vice Presidential pick. I would suspect that Mr. Kaine would be considered the frontrunner as of now but I can't imagine a lot of people being super excited about him. I'm sure whispers will begin to swirl around some one, probably out of the south or southwest, but that person is hidden to me for now.
Anyway, elections are over now and we can all concentrate on more important things, like trying to figure any way to avoid a Patriots-Cowboys Super Bowl.
I had a thought that Mr. Trump would have a chance but I must admit that I was a bit surprised by the overall result. I had a feeling that he would win the trifecta of Ohio, North Carolina and Florida as the raw numbers and empirical evidence did not mesh with the polling data. I was also pretty sure he would take Utah, Iowa and the second district of Maine. This got him to 260 on my map.
My thought was that the mostly likely scenario was that he would manage to snag the combo of Colorado and New Hampshire. Actually, just Colorado would probably have been enough as that would have given him 269 and the House would go along. But Colorado went fairly quickly to Mrs. Clinton and Nevada followed suit, confirming my skepticism there. They are still counting but at the moment, it appears that Mrs. Clinton will win New Hampshire as well, although at a spread of 1,500 votes, there will likely be a recount.
So, for my scenario, Mrs. Clinton had pulled it off and was in route to a narrow victory. I thought there might be an outside chance at Michigan given the way it had been pushed. I also thought Pennsylvania was an outside shot, although I was expecting Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to push it into Mrs. Clinton's column. I did not expect Wisconsin at all. Despite it being very close in both Bush elections, I legitimately thought it would stay Democrat. Instead, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania push Mr. Trump over the top and Michigan is looking like gravy on top, giving Mr. Trump a likely 306-232 victory.
So what is the source of this victory. I think it comes down to two major factors: a large turnout of Republican voters and a depressed turnout among African-American and young voters. We won't know until all the votes are counted but it appears that Mr. Trump is going to finish behind Mr. Obama's vote totals of nearly 66,000,000. He may even finish behind Mr. Romney's totals but again, we need to see what the final tally is. But after four years of growth, a minimal increase in the Republican turnout doesn't say much but an over 5,000,000 vote drop in the Democrat tally does.
Some of this is from young voters who were either not energized by Mrs. Clinton or still seriously angry over not getting Mr. Sanders. But I think it more significant that African-Americans didn't turnout. Mrs. Clinton is likely to lose Michigan because African-Americans in the southern part of the state (especially Detroit) did not turn out. She lost Pennsylvania because voters in the Philly suburbs did not turn out for her. I haven't taken a close look but I assume Wisconsin's fall was due more to the youth vote failure rather than the African-American but I won't hang my hat on that.
I definitely believe that the shortcomings in these two constituencies led to the loss of Florida and North Carolina. Possibly Ohio too although given where the shortfalls were, I'm more inclined to put that on blue collars turning to Mr. Trump than a failure of turnout.
So what comes next? Obviously Mr. Trump will become President next year and will govern for the next four. Given his age, questions abound as to whether he will keep to only one term or if he will seek reelection. But that's a long way off and the Democrats actually have a bigger problem. Who is next in line?
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders will almost certainly be too old to be considered viable candidates in 2020 and both have the taint of failure now. So far as I know, there are no significant rising stars in either the governorships or the Senate. This was hinted at in the somewhat limited selection for Mrs. Clinton when she decided on her Vice Presidential pick. I would suspect that Mr. Kaine would be considered the frontrunner as of now but I can't imagine a lot of people being super excited about him. I'm sure whispers will begin to swirl around some one, probably out of the south or southwest, but that person is hidden to me for now.
Anyway, elections are over now and we can all concentrate on more important things, like trying to figure any way to avoid a Patriots-Cowboys Super Bowl.
Monday, November 07, 2016
Saturday, November 05, 2016
The Red Bull vs. the Chameleon
Our long national nightmare is almost over. Or just getting ready to begin based on your point of view.
Mrs. Clinton, as most Democrats would be, is sitting in the catbird seat. The lock the Democrats have on large states such as California, New York and Illinois and most of New England means that they start the map with nearly 200 Electoral Votes. Should anything in that Democratic firewall break a Republican's way, the contest is automatically over because of what has already broken before. But we shall take a look at how things might play out to give us indicators on who might to win.
Because of the statistical advantage Mrs. Clinton should have, lets focus on what Mr. Trump has to do. His last line of defense is the Romney states minus Utah and North Carolina. I think you can lump Maine's second district in here as well. This starts him out at 186 EVs. Should there be any hint that any of these states (outside of Maine's second district) are trending for Mrs. Clinton, we can all say goodnight at 11 when California is called for Mrs. Clinton and she is declared the winner.
The next line of defense for Mr. Trump is the big trifecta of North Carolina, Florida and Ohio. Put simply, Mr. Trump needs all three of these to win. Yes, it is possible to win other states to make up the difference should he lose one but let's be honest. If a Republican loses Ohio, the demographics don't work that they can make up the difference by winning Pennsylvania because the voters he lost in Ohio are the same ones he would have to convince to vote for him in Pennsylvania.
Fortunately for Mr. Trump, these three states seem to be breaking in his favor. Mr. Obama failed to carry North Carolina a second time even with a D+6 turnout in 2012 and I've yet to see hard evidence that the state has become more liberal after four years. African-American turnout in early voting is down in Florida, furthering my personal belief that Florida will swing back into the red column after relatively narrow Democrat victories in 2008 and 2012.
For reasons that I've yet to figure out, Ohio has continuously stayed in the Trump column in polling, even with favorable Democratic turnout models. I would have expected Ohio to be much more of a battleground given the lackluster support Trump has from the Ohio GOP. Governor Kaisich's win here in the primaries obscures the ability to look at Mr. Trump's potential support among the regular people with turnout, but it does seem that Democrats have more or less abandoned the state to Mr. Trump.
This trio would push Mr. Trump's EV total to 248, 22 short of victory. Again, if Mrs. Clinton manages to snag just one of these states, she will win the Presidency. Florida especially would be a dagger to the heart, but any state loss means that Mr. Trump has failed to garner the support he needs among the demographics that would shift some other blue state into the red column.
Assuming he gets this far, what would Mr. Trump need to get to 270? There are several options, but the easiest path would be a sweep of four small states: New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and Utah (bringing him to 270 exactly). Iowa and Utah are relatively easy. Utah is naturally conservative and the presence of Mr. McMullin as a third party candidate is the only reason why this state is not automatically in Mr. Trump's column. Iowa is in more 50-50 territory with conservative farmers, blue collar Democrats in the cities and liberals in the college towns. However, if the youth vote is still butthurt about Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump is actually making inroads into blue collar regions, Iowa can be taken.
New Hampshire is a little closer to Maine's second district in outlook. It is still the most conservative of the New England states and usually is in some kind of play. Like Iowa, the conservative elements are balanced out by the Boston bedroom communities that have sprung up in the southern portions of the state. New Hampshire has been shown to be close and if the turnout models are down for Democrats, New Hampshire could fall into Mr. Trump's lap.
Nevada is probably the hardest as Mr. Trump hasn't exactly been overly popular with Hispanics, especially in the West. But he is popular with business and that is going to cause a bit of schism in Las Vegas. You don't really have any hard core liberals in Nevada, but you do have a lot of Mormons and they could potentially swing for McMullin as well. Nevada is difficult but not impossible.
Should Mr. Trump fail in one or more of these states, does he have any other outlets? If he only loses one (say Nevada) he has a chance to make it up with Colorado. Colorado has become significantly more liberal with the influx of a number of Californians and the more conservative ranching heritage is dying off. Nevertheless, it is still a close state and a reduced Democratic turnout could pull it back into the red column where Mr. Bush held it in 2000 and 2004. If Mr. Trump fails to gain Nevada and New Hampshire but takes Colorado, he would be at 269, the dreaded tie. But a tie would be acceptable as the Republican controlled House would probably, albeit grudgingly, vote for Mr. Trump over Mrs. Clinton.
There is also the outside possibility of snagging Virginia. Virginia has been turning a more solid blue over the last few years due to the strength of the DC workers residing in Northern Virginia and African-American strength in Richmond and other urban areas along the coast. These counter the conservative rural vote as well as the absentee military vote, which tends to break Republican. Decreased turnout in other areas will almost certainly not affect the DC suburbs so this area will turn out strong for Mrs. Clinton. If there is any other flag in the state, the selection of Mr. Kaine as VP should shore that up. If at any point it looks like Mr. Trump will win Virginia, then the race will be over as that will be as nearly fatal gash to Mrs. Clinton as losing a state like Pennsylvania or Michigan would be.
Of these five practical states, New Hampshire will probably be the first available to call given its Eastern location and that fact that most of the polling locations close at 7pm. The cities permit staying open until 8pm, but you're likely to have a significant volume of the votes counted by then so New Hampshire could be called by 8pm. If Mrs. Clinton is called the winner, then she is holding but if Mr. Trump is declared the winner, it could be the first significant sign of trouble.
8pm will probably be the time that a good bead will be able to be made on the night. Florida will have fully closed. Ohio and North Carolina close at 7:30 so there will be a bit of a swell around those three. But I think the big tell will be when Pennsylvania is called.
Pennsylvania has been touted as a swing state this entire election cycle despite not voting for a Republican since George H. W. Bush in 1988. Liberal Philadelphia and the conservative middle balance each other out, leaving the blue-collar areas of Pittsburgh to be the deciding factor in the state. If it is called immediately for Mrs. Clinton, she is at least in the safe zone and at worst is looking at a Bush-Kerry kind of fight. If it takes a while but she still wins it, it could be a bit of a nail biter out West.
Should she actually lose Pennsylvania, that is a very serious problem. The demographics that would swing Pennsylvania into the Republican column would mean a strong win in Ohio for Mr. Trump and much worse, potentially put Michigan and Wisconsin into play. As we've already seen, Mr. Trump is in a decent position to capture 248 EVs. If he snags Pennsylvania, that shoots him up to 268 and any of the five states mentioned above would put him over the top.
So, my own personal focus on three states at each level of defense. Florida is the first tier with a Clinton win there meaning a Clinton presidency. New Hampshire is next in line with that potentially giving us a fulcrum on how a close race would swing. Finally Pennsylvania if the dam well and truly bursts for Mr. Trump.
Mrs. Clinton, as most Democrats would be, is sitting in the catbird seat. The lock the Democrats have on large states such as California, New York and Illinois and most of New England means that they start the map with nearly 200 Electoral Votes. Should anything in that Democratic firewall break a Republican's way, the contest is automatically over because of what has already broken before. But we shall take a look at how things might play out to give us indicators on who might to win.
Because of the statistical advantage Mrs. Clinton should have, lets focus on what Mr. Trump has to do. His last line of defense is the Romney states minus Utah and North Carolina. I think you can lump Maine's second district in here as well. This starts him out at 186 EVs. Should there be any hint that any of these states (outside of Maine's second district) are trending for Mrs. Clinton, we can all say goodnight at 11 when California is called for Mrs. Clinton and she is declared the winner.
The next line of defense for Mr. Trump is the big trifecta of North Carolina, Florida and Ohio. Put simply, Mr. Trump needs all three of these to win. Yes, it is possible to win other states to make up the difference should he lose one but let's be honest. If a Republican loses Ohio, the demographics don't work that they can make up the difference by winning Pennsylvania because the voters he lost in Ohio are the same ones he would have to convince to vote for him in Pennsylvania.
Fortunately for Mr. Trump, these three states seem to be breaking in his favor. Mr. Obama failed to carry North Carolina a second time even with a D+6 turnout in 2012 and I've yet to see hard evidence that the state has become more liberal after four years. African-American turnout in early voting is down in Florida, furthering my personal belief that Florida will swing back into the red column after relatively narrow Democrat victories in 2008 and 2012.
For reasons that I've yet to figure out, Ohio has continuously stayed in the Trump column in polling, even with favorable Democratic turnout models. I would have expected Ohio to be much more of a battleground given the lackluster support Trump has from the Ohio GOP. Governor Kaisich's win here in the primaries obscures the ability to look at Mr. Trump's potential support among the regular people with turnout, but it does seem that Democrats have more or less abandoned the state to Mr. Trump.
This trio would push Mr. Trump's EV total to 248, 22 short of victory. Again, if Mrs. Clinton manages to snag just one of these states, she will win the Presidency. Florida especially would be a dagger to the heart, but any state loss means that Mr. Trump has failed to garner the support he needs among the demographics that would shift some other blue state into the red column.
Assuming he gets this far, what would Mr. Trump need to get to 270? There are several options, but the easiest path would be a sweep of four small states: New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and Utah (bringing him to 270 exactly). Iowa and Utah are relatively easy. Utah is naturally conservative and the presence of Mr. McMullin as a third party candidate is the only reason why this state is not automatically in Mr. Trump's column. Iowa is in more 50-50 territory with conservative farmers, blue collar Democrats in the cities and liberals in the college towns. However, if the youth vote is still butthurt about Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump is actually making inroads into blue collar regions, Iowa can be taken.
New Hampshire is a little closer to Maine's second district in outlook. It is still the most conservative of the New England states and usually is in some kind of play. Like Iowa, the conservative elements are balanced out by the Boston bedroom communities that have sprung up in the southern portions of the state. New Hampshire has been shown to be close and if the turnout models are down for Democrats, New Hampshire could fall into Mr. Trump's lap.
Nevada is probably the hardest as Mr. Trump hasn't exactly been overly popular with Hispanics, especially in the West. But he is popular with business and that is going to cause a bit of schism in Las Vegas. You don't really have any hard core liberals in Nevada, but you do have a lot of Mormons and they could potentially swing for McMullin as well. Nevada is difficult but not impossible.
Should Mr. Trump fail in one or more of these states, does he have any other outlets? If he only loses one (say Nevada) he has a chance to make it up with Colorado. Colorado has become significantly more liberal with the influx of a number of Californians and the more conservative ranching heritage is dying off. Nevertheless, it is still a close state and a reduced Democratic turnout could pull it back into the red column where Mr. Bush held it in 2000 and 2004. If Mr. Trump fails to gain Nevada and New Hampshire but takes Colorado, he would be at 269, the dreaded tie. But a tie would be acceptable as the Republican controlled House would probably, albeit grudgingly, vote for Mr. Trump over Mrs. Clinton.
There is also the outside possibility of snagging Virginia. Virginia has been turning a more solid blue over the last few years due to the strength of the DC workers residing in Northern Virginia and African-American strength in Richmond and other urban areas along the coast. These counter the conservative rural vote as well as the absentee military vote, which tends to break Republican. Decreased turnout in other areas will almost certainly not affect the DC suburbs so this area will turn out strong for Mrs. Clinton. If there is any other flag in the state, the selection of Mr. Kaine as VP should shore that up. If at any point it looks like Mr. Trump will win Virginia, then the race will be over as that will be as nearly fatal gash to Mrs. Clinton as losing a state like Pennsylvania or Michigan would be.
Of these five practical states, New Hampshire will probably be the first available to call given its Eastern location and that fact that most of the polling locations close at 7pm. The cities permit staying open until 8pm, but you're likely to have a significant volume of the votes counted by then so New Hampshire could be called by 8pm. If Mrs. Clinton is called the winner, then she is holding but if Mr. Trump is declared the winner, it could be the first significant sign of trouble.
8pm will probably be the time that a good bead will be able to be made on the night. Florida will have fully closed. Ohio and North Carolina close at 7:30 so there will be a bit of a swell around those three. But I think the big tell will be when Pennsylvania is called.
Pennsylvania has been touted as a swing state this entire election cycle despite not voting for a Republican since George H. W. Bush in 1988. Liberal Philadelphia and the conservative middle balance each other out, leaving the blue-collar areas of Pittsburgh to be the deciding factor in the state. If it is called immediately for Mrs. Clinton, she is at least in the safe zone and at worst is looking at a Bush-Kerry kind of fight. If it takes a while but she still wins it, it could be a bit of a nail biter out West.
Should she actually lose Pennsylvania, that is a very serious problem. The demographics that would swing Pennsylvania into the Republican column would mean a strong win in Ohio for Mr. Trump and much worse, potentially put Michigan and Wisconsin into play. As we've already seen, Mr. Trump is in a decent position to capture 248 EVs. If he snags Pennsylvania, that shoots him up to 268 and any of the five states mentioned above would put him over the top.
So, my own personal focus on three states at each level of defense. Florida is the first tier with a Clinton win there meaning a Clinton presidency. New Hampshire is next in line with that potentially giving us a fulcrum on how a close race would swing. Finally Pennsylvania if the dam well and truly bursts for Mr. Trump.
Thursday, November 03, 2016
Tuesday, November 01, 2016
Gut Punch a Week Out
We are now one week out before we can finally all go to the polls and vote, thank goodness.
The storyline that we've been hammered with for the last two months is that people see Mr. Trump for the arrogant jackass that he is and that Mrs. Clinton, despite people being less than enthused about her, is going to crush him. I generally do not share that opinion.
I do not care for either candidate as neither has a proper handle on my views and both have personalities that make my stomach turn. Perhaps it is my indifference or perhaps my enjoyment of the political game, no matter how bad the players, but I've tried to take a little time and look at things more as they are rather than the way people want them to be.
First, Mrs. Clinton's lead: I don't believe it. Her lead is based on polling but as has been discussed by myself and many others, polling has it's share of problems and I think those are becoming more acute as more and more people drop landlines. Some companies have been permitted to call cell phones, but by in large, that is not the case so you can rely less and less on the raw data and it becomes more about manipulating the data you have. That manipulation introduces error and error can be very significant, especially if you want a poll to produce a certain set of results.
The easiest error that can crop up is how you predict the sampling. Many of the polls out there seem to be predicting an electorate that could be greater than Mr. Obama's 2008 win. In that election Mr. Obama got a D+7 turnout, getting major pushes from youth and the African-American vote. This fell off a bit in 2012 as Mr. Obama's turnout was reduced to D+6. Polls showing Mrs. Clinton with a big lead, usually have numbers similar to this and sometimes even higher. However, while many people are not thrilled to see Mr. Trump, there is not a lot of evidence that they are as passionate about Mrs. Clinton as they were Mr. Obama. Several more recent polls that show the race tightening reflect a reduced spread for the Democrats.
The reduced spread I think can be tied not only to mainstream Democrats that are less than thrilled about Mrs. Clinton but also reductions in the youth and African-American vote, a major piece of Mr. Obama's puzzle. The youth broke for Mr. Sanders in the primary and many of them are still bitter. Certainly some of the Wikileaks e-mails regarding Democratic attitudes towards Mr. Sanders aren't helping. Youth voters are difficult to get to the polls in regular circumstances and if they are upset in large enough numbers, you could see a number of them either skipping voting or voting third party.
African-American enthusiasm is also down. Mrs. Clinton will still get the large majority of their votes, but decreasing that number either in overall percentage or in distribution would be very bad for her. The last report I saw showed her getting between 80-85% of the vote as opposed to the 90-95% that Mr. Obama got. It might not seem like much, but that would give Florida to Mr. Trump if all else remained the same and you used the 2012 numbers. I think that combined with the decrease or defection of the youth vote would also secure North Carolina in Mr. Trump's column, a state that Mr. Romney managed to pull out of Mr. Obama's hands.
Regarding North Carolina, there is something there that should be noted. North Carolina, like a number of southern states, has a higher registration of Democrats than Republicans. However, although Democrats are very competitive in state races, Republicans tend to win nationally. Like West Virginia, Democrats in these states tend to be more conservative and will buck party identification at the top. That has diminished over time as the expanding region of the "research triangle" has grown in power with a more traditionally liberal ideology. But if the turnout is down there, conservative votes elsewhere will overcome, despite more registered Democrats being out there.
Another thing that would give me pause as a Democrat supporter is the discussion of the race. It is a bit of an adage in politics that whichever candidate has the race revolve around them, they typically win. Even negative coverage is still coverage. This election has revolved heavily around Mr. Trump. Mrs. Clinton, despite being an historic nominee, does not garner the coverage. Indeed, much of her campaign strategy has seemed to be to stay quiet and let Mr. Trump fill the room, hoping he will self-immolate. I would argue that while he has been set on fire on several occasions, he is still viable and he is defining the argument. That is a very dangerous game for Mrs. Clinton and could bit her in the end.
On top of all of this, there has been a steady cascade of negative information for Mrs. Clinton. The Wikileaks continue and although most of the issues are fall too in the weeds for most voters, the steady trickle of negative information and disdainful attitude towards voters is less than helpful. Then there was the resurgence of the e-mail issue.
Mr. Comey, contrary to many political views, is in CYA mode. I doubt he gives a rat's ass about either candidate and their standing but with people under him talking about going public with the knowledge of these new e-mails, Mr. Comey had little choice but to release a statement lest he be crucified and potentially held up on chargers for failing to disclose this to Congress in his initial deposition in July. Much of what is in these e-mails is irrelevant but it brings back the perception that Mrs. Clinton was careless with potentially dangerous material. There is also the remote chance (although we won't see it before the election) that there is some very nasty information in there. People love to generate rumors, many of which have no basis in fact, that there are one or two damning bits of information of either a political or moral nature. If even a whisper of this is true, Mrs. Clinton could be looking at charges. If she were the sitting President, that raises the specter of impeachment and removal, a process people got sick of during her husband's term. Fair or not, this is a fact that will weigh on some people's minds when they go to the polls.
I don't intend to give an official estimate of the final total. I've been too wrong before and the information we have is unreliable in my opinion. However, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that things are not as they seem. I will give a quick pass on what we should look for on election night. Depending on how a few early indicators go, we could have an early idea of how this election will turn.
The storyline that we've been hammered with for the last two months is that people see Mr. Trump for the arrogant jackass that he is and that Mrs. Clinton, despite people being less than enthused about her, is going to crush him. I generally do not share that opinion.
I do not care for either candidate as neither has a proper handle on my views and both have personalities that make my stomach turn. Perhaps it is my indifference or perhaps my enjoyment of the political game, no matter how bad the players, but I've tried to take a little time and look at things more as they are rather than the way people want them to be.
First, Mrs. Clinton's lead: I don't believe it. Her lead is based on polling but as has been discussed by myself and many others, polling has it's share of problems and I think those are becoming more acute as more and more people drop landlines. Some companies have been permitted to call cell phones, but by in large, that is not the case so you can rely less and less on the raw data and it becomes more about manipulating the data you have. That manipulation introduces error and error can be very significant, especially if you want a poll to produce a certain set of results.
The easiest error that can crop up is how you predict the sampling. Many of the polls out there seem to be predicting an electorate that could be greater than Mr. Obama's 2008 win. In that election Mr. Obama got a D+7 turnout, getting major pushes from youth and the African-American vote. This fell off a bit in 2012 as Mr. Obama's turnout was reduced to D+6. Polls showing Mrs. Clinton with a big lead, usually have numbers similar to this and sometimes even higher. However, while many people are not thrilled to see Mr. Trump, there is not a lot of evidence that they are as passionate about Mrs. Clinton as they were Mr. Obama. Several more recent polls that show the race tightening reflect a reduced spread for the Democrats.
The reduced spread I think can be tied not only to mainstream Democrats that are less than thrilled about Mrs. Clinton but also reductions in the youth and African-American vote, a major piece of Mr. Obama's puzzle. The youth broke for Mr. Sanders in the primary and many of them are still bitter. Certainly some of the Wikileaks e-mails regarding Democratic attitudes towards Mr. Sanders aren't helping. Youth voters are difficult to get to the polls in regular circumstances and if they are upset in large enough numbers, you could see a number of them either skipping voting or voting third party.
African-American enthusiasm is also down. Mrs. Clinton will still get the large majority of their votes, but decreasing that number either in overall percentage or in distribution would be very bad for her. The last report I saw showed her getting between 80-85% of the vote as opposed to the 90-95% that Mr. Obama got. It might not seem like much, but that would give Florida to Mr. Trump if all else remained the same and you used the 2012 numbers. I think that combined with the decrease or defection of the youth vote would also secure North Carolina in Mr. Trump's column, a state that Mr. Romney managed to pull out of Mr. Obama's hands.
Regarding North Carolina, there is something there that should be noted. North Carolina, like a number of southern states, has a higher registration of Democrats than Republicans. However, although Democrats are very competitive in state races, Republicans tend to win nationally. Like West Virginia, Democrats in these states tend to be more conservative and will buck party identification at the top. That has diminished over time as the expanding region of the "research triangle" has grown in power with a more traditionally liberal ideology. But if the turnout is down there, conservative votes elsewhere will overcome, despite more registered Democrats being out there.
Another thing that would give me pause as a Democrat supporter is the discussion of the race. It is a bit of an adage in politics that whichever candidate has the race revolve around them, they typically win. Even negative coverage is still coverage. This election has revolved heavily around Mr. Trump. Mrs. Clinton, despite being an historic nominee, does not garner the coverage. Indeed, much of her campaign strategy has seemed to be to stay quiet and let Mr. Trump fill the room, hoping he will self-immolate. I would argue that while he has been set on fire on several occasions, he is still viable and he is defining the argument. That is a very dangerous game for Mrs. Clinton and could bit her in the end.
On top of all of this, there has been a steady cascade of negative information for Mrs. Clinton. The Wikileaks continue and although most of the issues are fall too in the weeds for most voters, the steady trickle of negative information and disdainful attitude towards voters is less than helpful. Then there was the resurgence of the e-mail issue.
Mr. Comey, contrary to many political views, is in CYA mode. I doubt he gives a rat's ass about either candidate and their standing but with people under him talking about going public with the knowledge of these new e-mails, Mr. Comey had little choice but to release a statement lest he be crucified and potentially held up on chargers for failing to disclose this to Congress in his initial deposition in July. Much of what is in these e-mails is irrelevant but it brings back the perception that Mrs. Clinton was careless with potentially dangerous material. There is also the remote chance (although we won't see it before the election) that there is some very nasty information in there. People love to generate rumors, many of which have no basis in fact, that there are one or two damning bits of information of either a political or moral nature. If even a whisper of this is true, Mrs. Clinton could be looking at charges. If she were the sitting President, that raises the specter of impeachment and removal, a process people got sick of during her husband's term. Fair or not, this is a fact that will weigh on some people's minds when they go to the polls.
I don't intend to give an official estimate of the final total. I've been too wrong before and the information we have is unreliable in my opinion. However, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that things are not as they seem. I will give a quick pass on what we should look for on election night. Depending on how a few early indicators go, we could have an early idea of how this election will turn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
