Presidential Race: Predictably Unpredictable

Both parties have officially crowned their presidential nominees, signaling the lift-off of their campaigns for the White House.  Most political polls are predicting the race between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump will be a nail-biter.

Real Clear Politics, which takes the average of seven national polls, has Mr. Trump with a slight edge nationally over Ms. Clinton.  Mr. Trump's support stands at 45.6 percent compared to Mrs. Clinton's 44.7 percent. Since polls have a four percent margin of error, the race is considered a dead heat.

Although national polls are an indicator of voters' sentiment, winning the popular vote does not automatically guarantee a ticket to the White House. Unlike any other American election, presidential contests are decided by delegates chosen in each state to vote in the Electoral College.

In the presidential race of 2000, Democrat Al Gore won the popular contest by 540,000 votes. However, his opponent Republican George W. Bush squeaked out victory in the Electoral College by a 271-266 margin. That was the last time a candidate lost the popular vote, but won the presidency.

A state-by-state analysis of the last 10 presidential elections reveals trends that will shape this election. Unless there are shifts in voting patterns, the Democratic candidate starts with a decided advantage in reaching the magic total of 270 electoral votes.

Based on the past paradigm, the Democrat presidential candidate is nearly assured of carrying states with 207 votes. That's 76 percent of the votes needed to earn victory in the Electoral College. By comparison, Republicans enjoy a historical advantage in states with 137 electoral votes.

Those states which consistently fall in the (blue) Democratic column in the last ten presidential elections are California, New York, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Washington, Illinois and Oregon.  

Meanwhile, the Republicans have dominated in the same number of states (12), but with 70 fewer electoral voters.  Reliably red (GOP) states have included Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Arkansas and Arizona.

The key swing states this election are the usual suspects: Florida, Virginia, Ohio and North Carolina. Together the states account for 75 electoral votes.  If Ms. Clinton sweeps those four states and hangs on to the 12 true blue states listed above, she will become the first female to occupy the Oval Office.

Consider this:  Mr. Trump could win a clear majority of states (34) and be soundly thumped in the Electoral College.  Mr. Trump's only chance to turn the tide is to steal a blue state or two.  The good news is early polls show Pennsylvania looks like a toss-up.

Mr. Trump has to hold his own in the swing states, too.  That may be difficult because the Democratic vice presidential nominee is a popular senator from Virginia and Ohio Governor John Kasich has made no secret of his disdain for Trump.  That leaves Florida and North Carolina up for grabs.

Voter turnout is the one variable that could upset the red-blue balance. Both candidates have sky-scrapper-sized unfavorable ratings, topping negatives for any other presidential hopefuls in history. There are large swaths of voters who have sworn to Never Vote Trump or to Never Vote Hillary.

Those cynical convictions are hardly a rallying cry for generating voter enthusiasm. Democrats do best when turnout is above average and struggle in years when voters are passive.  The last two elections bagged by Barrack Obama marked the two highest voter-turnout cycles since 1968.

A Rasmussen Poll conducted in April found that nearly one-in-four voters said they would skip the election if Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump were the party nominees.  Sixteen percent of those surveyed insisted they would vote for a third-party candidate.  Only two percent were undecided.

What this means is this election could breed one of the lowest turnouts in years. The winner may end up with the fewest popular votes garnered in decades. If that happens, the nation will remain hopelessly divided, a bleak prospect after eight years of Mr. Obama's strident leadership.

Sharp ruptures also exist in both parties.  Significant pockets of Democrats and Republicans remain in a snit over the snubbing of their candidates.  Party unity, usually taken for granted in national elections, likely will be will be an unattainable objective for either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump.

Therefore, let the pundits beware.  The traditional rules do not apply to this election. Mix two flawed candidates, an angry electorate, the prospect of a mud-slinging campaign, a Democrat Party partisan media and a gusher of political cash and these ingredients may prove a combustible concoction.

This inevitable volatility may produce an explosive ending no one can predict.