As the 2016 Democratic and Republican primaries wind down, two clear victors have emerged. On the Republican side, Donald Trump managed an overwhelming, unprecedented victory, using rhetoric cultivated by the GOP in previous years to upset the field of 16 other Republican candidates while somehow winning almost every demographic group along his quixotic journey. In the Democratic Party, the youthful and populist appeal of Bernie Sanders proved little match for Hillary Clinton, who as of May led Sanders by over 300 pledged delegates and almost 500 superdelegates, totaling at nearly a third of the delegates needed for the nomination. Every remaining primary brings us closer to a Clinton vs. Trump general election scenario, which begs the question: what will the electoral map in 2016 look like?
The United States’ electoral college is a body in which for the most part, a fixed number of delegates, calculated statewide by adding up the number of U.S. Senators (2 per state) and U.S. Congresspeople (1–53 per state), are given in a winner-take-all manner to the statewide winner of the presidential election. This system often leads to a much larger margin of victory in delegate count compared to that of the popular vote, as many states will give all their delegates to winners in tightly contested “swing states” where the margin of victory is frequently below five points.
My forecast for this year’s general election is shown in the map above. States shown in the second-darkest shade are states that will reliably go for Trump based on demographics, voting trends and opinion polling, and states in black are the same for Clinton. The paler states are states which will be more highly contested but as of now will likely vote Republican (lightest) or Democrat (second-lightest).
This hypothetical map looks very similar to that for the 2008 general election. The reasons for swing states in both maps, like Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Nevada, going Democratic are the same: a Republican candidate who is unable to attract certain factions of the party. In 2008, McCain’s appeal among conservatives was low as he moved to the left of the political spectrum in the fall, leading to low turnout among evangelicals and fiscal conservatives; this year, Trump’s disparagement of minorities and criticism of many prominent Republicans will result in the isolation of establishment voters, very conservative voters, women, and independents, leading to the large swaths of baby blue on the map. This will result in states such as Georgia and Missouri, both of which have large minority and suburban voting blocs, leaning in favor of Clinton despite a generally conservative disposition in state politics.
Trump’s isolation of key voting groups will result in problems in more than just traditional swing states. This was evident in a Deseret News Poll in Utah, one of the nation’s safest red states, where Clinton led Trump by two points. Trump’s disadvantages among suburban voters will result in competition in states such as Arizona and Indiana, the latter of which Obama won in 2008 as a result of similar factors. Similarly, the South’s high prevalence of African-American voters—almost hitting 40 percent in Mississippi and Louisiana—could pose a challenge for Republicans, as high turnout in these communities along with low turnout among disenfranchised Republican voters could flip states in ways they haven’t even been close to doing since the 1980s. While it is likely these states will stick to their general voting trends, the GOP needs to immediately begin targeting them to avoid an utter calamity in November. Trump will need to win all of the pink states, as well as make significant inroads in states where he polls badly below Clinton such as North Carolina and Colorado.
However, the slate also presents challenges for Hillary Clinton. Firstly, she is vastly unpopular among American voters. While it is nowhere as low as that of Donald Trump, Clinton’s popularity ratings are among the worst since Carter’s unsuccessful reelection bid against Reagan. The success of Tea Party politics in Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin and the general quirkiness of New Hampshire’s voting trends will create trouble for Clinton in states that went for Obama in both of his successful presidential election campaigns. She will need to unify the Democratic Party and maximize turnout, but not move so far left as to isolate independents and moderates, in order to not only win the general election but dominate state by state.
The 2016 general election is bound to be a spectacle. Both presumptive candidates are unpopular, needing to improve public standing drastically in order to be competitive. In this projection, the electoral college breaks down at a whopping 373 for Clinton and 165 for Trump, though it will be up to the candidates to unify their party, provide a clear and inclusive message for independent voters, and refine public image and party values to cater not only to factions of the American electorate, but to the nation as a whole.