GrandNicolas 2

While all analysts have heavily -Unfortunately- been misled into believing that the Trump candidacy would deflate during the Republican primaries, these same analysts now drafting new beautiful columns in which one you can see them saying that anyway, a Republican candidate Trump would be literally swept by the candidacy of Democrat Hillary Clinton.

How is it possible to be so wrong also automatically in a so short time ?

Trump is the likely future 45th president of the United States, and if this perspective is far from rejoicing me, I'm going to explain why, not on a partisan analysis "the finger in the air" and smoky theory, but rather on a comprehensive analysis of data available so far, and which announce this disastrous result.

As everyone knows, to be elected President of the United States does not implicate a majority of voters, but a majority of electors votes by States. Thus, and in order to become president of the United States, you need to get 270 of those electorals votes from 538 availaible. The number of electors by state is calculated from the demographics. Also, the currently assigned number of electors of each State has been calculated from the last major census conducted in the USA in 2010 and the current distribution is the same as that which was applied to the 2012 election (Barack Obama reelected against Mitt Romney). Note that during the last major census, the states of the Northeast have mostly lost electoral votes, in favor of those of the great South, which will be real important (I'll come back on this later).

Let's talk about Swing States. What you should know is that on all presidential elections since 2000, plenty of states always vote for the same party. Thus, on all 50 states of United States, and that in 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012, only 10 have changed of political color to at least one recovery. Those States are the states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire.

Therefore, we can predict without much risk of error that the next election will still be played on only these 10 States. This is important, because it means that even before the real beginning of the elections, Democrats begin the presidential race with a potential of 242 electors already acquired, and with only 28 more to win on these famous Swing States to be sure of winning the presidential election. Besides, the Republicans begin the race with a total of 180 electors already acquired, and the need to earn a total of 90 to win the election.

On paper and therefore, the elections sounds good for the Democratic candidate, assuredly Mrs. Clinton.

But it would be a huge mistake to really trust that.

Indeed, the Republicans are clearly on the rise. What you must see is that between his election in 2008 and 2012, President Obama lost two great States, Indiana and North Carolina, for a total of 26 electoral votes (I count them in Swing States, but there is a high probability for them of staying Republicans). Also, he (Obama) has emerged only narrowly in 2012 in Florida, Virginia and Ohio, also 3 Swing States States corresponding to a total of 60 electoral votes, and these States naturally lean more towards the Republicans! To sum up, and still on paper, a total of 86 electoral votes from the Swing States lean toward to the Republicans ... and we approach the 90 to achieve. But that's not all.

Now study the Republican primary and Democrats who are currently playing, and delivered their results in already 7 of the 10 Swing States. And what can we observe ?

In these States, the sum of Republican activists which has voted for the primary is systematically and always higher than the sum of Democrats. Sure, we can relativize by considering that a fan of Marco Rubio may not vote for Trump. The fact is that it's also true that a fan of Sanders cannot be automatically transfered to Clinton.

I honestly do not pretend that my analysis is infallible, and there is hope that Republican voters will not sustain up the discourse of Trump. But the fact is that Clinton is for many Republicans (and not only !) a foil that could lead them to vote for the Republican candidate, whoever he is. A bit like in France, the conservative voters voted for Sarkozy in 2012 despite the fact that they were clearly disappointed by him, and as just as many socialists voters ultimately vote to support "their" government despite they hate it, because they consider they still are from the same "family".

Thus, and if we only stick to the analysis of Democrats votes against Republicans votes, the conclusion is clear: the Republicans beat the Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Virginia , North Carolina, Florida and Ohio. For a total of 91 electoral votes ... 1 more than enough for Trump to become president of the United States.

You consider that after all, it's only a primary and the number of voters in the primary is not representative of the number of voters in the presidential? So here is a table which comparing in these 7 states the number of voters for presidential elections in 2012, and the number of voters in the 2016 primary (Democrats and Republicans cumulative).

As you can see, in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Ohio, more than 46% of the stock of the voters who voted in the 2012 presidential election and vote in the 2016 presidential election (with few minor variations) voted to primary! Better, 74% of the stock of New Hampshire voters voted! Enough to say that the result of the New Hampshire vote in the 2016 presidential election is already known, and that's again a State which landed into the hands of the Republicans, so Trump.

Now, you can understand that what seemed only a Hollywood scenario six months ago is about to become reality.



Translated from French, original version is here.
Here is another article about primary, and Trump chances.