firewall, as i've seen it, is the combination of the minimum states to 270 that at some point clinton held huge leads in: PA/VA/WI/MI/CO/NH (substitute for NV if you'd like). The firewall is certainly breaking down a little bit so it's probably a misnomer at this point.

I would think firewall would be the states people think *could* be flipped but one candidate is likely to win and also NEED to win to put them over.

pacino wrote:I would think firewall would be the states people think *could* be flipped but one candidate is likely to win and also NEED to win to put them over.

Does PA fit this description?

Doll Is Mine wrote:

pacino wrote:I would think firewall would be the states people think *could* be flipped but one candidate is likely to win and also NEED to win to put them over.

Does PA fit this description?

Probably not. If trump wins pa he's likely winning other closer states that can put him over 270 without pa.

Hispanic votes are up BIGLY in florida. lets do this.

JUburton wrote:firewall, as i've seen it, is the combination of the minimum states to 270 that at some point clinton held huge leads in: PA/VA/WI/MI/CO/NH (substitute for NV if you'd like). The firewall is certainly breaking down a little bit so it's probably a misnomer at this point.

Right, and she didn't trail in any polls in those states (totaling 272 EVs) from the end of the conventions till these NH polls this week. Seems like NV is more solid for her at this point and can replace NH on the shortest path to victory, though I think it would be a mistake to have Trump favored in NH.

i hate you all with this firewall bullshit. you guys can't even agree on what the fuck it means!

jerseyhoya wrote:

JUburton wrote:firewall, as i've seen it, is the combination of the minimum states to 270 that at some point clinton held huge leads in: PA/VA/WI/MI/CO/NH (substitute for NV if you'd like). The firewall is certainly breaking down a little bit so it's probably a misnomer at this point.

Right, and she didn't trail in any polls in those states (totaling 272 EVs) from the end of the conventions till these NH polls this week. Seems like NV is more solid for her at this point and can replace NH on the shortest path to victory, though I think it would be a mistake to have Trump favored in NH.

Is that a feeling you get from looking at the numbers? Talking to people in the biz?

jerseyhoya wrote:

JUburton wrote:firewall, as i've seen it, is the combination of the minimum states to 270 that at some point clinton held huge leads in: PA/VA/WI/MI/CO/NH (substitute for NV if you'd like). The firewall is certainly breaking down a little bit so it's probably a misnomer at this point.

Right, and she didn't trail in any polls in those states (totaling 272 EVs) from the end of the conventions till these NH polls this week. Seems like NV is more solid for her at this point and can replace NH on the shortest path to victory, though I think it would be a mistake to have Trump favored in NH.

100% agree.

jerseyhoya wrote:

JUburton wrote:firewall, as i've seen it, is the combination of the minimum states to 270 that at some point clinton held huge leads in: PA/VA/WI/MI/CO/NH (substitute for NV if you'd like). The firewall is certainly breaking down a little bit so it's probably a misnomer at this point.

Right, and she didn't trail in any polls in those states (totaling 272 EVs) from the end of the conventions till these NH polls this week. Seems like NV is more solid for her at this point and can replace NH on the shortest path to victory, though I think it would be a mistake to have Trump favored in NH.

now this is some bipartisanship.

Doll Is Mine wrote: 100% agree.

Wait i thought you disagreed with me!

JUburton wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

JUburton wrote:firewall, as i've seen it, is the combination of the minimum states to 270 that at some point clinton held huge leads in: PA/VA/WI/MI/CO/NH (substitute for NV if you'd like). The firewall is certainly breaking down a little bit so it's probably a misnomer at this point.

Right, and she didn't trail in any polls in those states (totaling 272 EVs) from the end of the conventions till these NH polls this week. Seems like NV is more solid for her at this point and can replace NH on the shortest path to victory, though I think it would be a mistake to have Trump favored in NH.

now this is some bipartisanship.

Doll Is Mine wrote: 100% agree.

Wait i thought you disagreed with me!

I agree with jh's point about NV and NH.

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

JUburton wrote:firewall, as i've seen it, is the combination of the minimum states to 270 that at some point clinton held huge leads in: PA/VA/WI/MI/CO/NH (substitute for NV if you'd like). The firewall is certainly breaking down a little bit so it's probably a misnomer at this point.

Right, and she didn't trail in any polls in those states (totaling 272 EVs) from the end of the conventions till these NH polls this week. Seems like NV is more solid for her at this point and can replace NH on the shortest path to victory, though I think it would be a mistake to have Trump favored in NH.

Is that a feeling you get from looking at the numbers? Talking to people in the biz?

Yes

Wish you would post better

She's got this. I'm more worried about the Senate.

I've been reading quite a bit about how the polls may not be as accurate as we think because typically they assume that two presidential campaigns are comparable in organization, which is not the case this year.

Do you buy this?

expected to be 2.2 million early voters in GA. 1.6m in 2012. Good sign, I would think.

CalvinBall wrote:expected to be 2.2 million early voters in GA. 1.6m in 2012. Good sign, I would think.

I would say it's a good sign, based on Wendy Davis recently claiming that Dem voters in TX and GA actually have a reason to vote this year and probably will.

CalvinBall wrote:Wish you would post better

I am a hall of famer. Hard to get better than that!

Here is what I posted on the best baseball message board in America - MetsRefugees - yesterday.

If the election was held today, I have a pretty high degree of confidence Hillary would win. But it is closer than it was two weeks ago. And if something else happens to shake things up, I guess it's now close enough for her to lose. The NYT model has Trump at 15%. That feels about right.

Important to note that even in the good polls for Trump in these states where he needs to break through - NH/CO etc. - he's stuck in the low 40s. With Johnson and Stein unlikely to combine for much more than say 4-5% of the vote at this point, he's gonna need to get that up toward 47%-48% to win. I keep thinking if you haven't broken for Trump yet, what the hell is gonna make you do so now? And while I guess you could say the same about Clinton, she's often in the mid to high 40s in these states, so she doesn't need the same sort of movement in her direction.

And even if NH goes for Trump to cut into Hillary's 272 EV firewall, it sure seems like Nevada is replacing it. If he loses Nevada, he needs to chip off another good state for Hillary - CO/WI/MI/PA/NM/whatever. Could it happen? I guess. But I think it'd take another exogenous shock rather than just Trump being on reasonably good behavior for four more days.

My guess at the moment - Clinton 49.6-Trump 45.3-Johnson 3.8-Stein 0.9-McMullin 0.3. 322-216.

CalvinBall wrote:
Is that a feeling you get from looking at the numbers? Talking to people in the biz?

Calvin, if he tells you, he'll have to kill you

CalvinBall wrote:expected to be 2.2 million early voters in GA. 1.6m in 2012. Good sign, I would think.

Are you and GA in a serious relationship? Seems like an odd state to focus on.