# data[].attributes.headline
This Class Is Too Hard (Shpetim, Andrew, Lana)

# data[].attributes.subject
This Class Is Too Hard (Shpetim, Andrew, Lana)

# data[].attributes.body
Kept it simple. The battleground states up for grabs in this year's election are just conservative enough for Trump to go after and win a big chunk of electoral votes. Trump doesn't need to appeal to the left on ideological beliefs or hispanics in most of them either. Age groups could land him these states. Florida, PA, IA, WV, MI, are the leaders in population over 64. I believe that if Trump can appeal to the older voters in the already moderately conservative states that he could conceivably win the 2016 election!!!!!

# data[].attributes.headline
free bRady (hunter, connor, zach, charlie)

# data[].attributes.subject
free bRady (hunter, connor, zach, charlie)

# data[].attributes.body
Listed on the X axis is conpct.m which represents the percentage of the public that is conservative. Listed on the Y axis is ev which represents the number of electoral votes in each states. Assuming Trump has a better chance of winning in states with more conservatives, he still does not seem to be in the position to obtain the 270 electoral votes. Most of the battleground states fall below 35 percent conservative as well as the states with the most electoral votes falling below 35. If he wants to win it is imperative that he wins those two types of states, but based on this information it seems unlikely for him to perform such a task. The worst part for Trump is that as the number of conservatives in a state increases, the electoral votes tend to decrease.

# data[].attributes.body
This graph represents the electoral votes within a state compared with the unions within the state. While looking at our data, we are assuming that states with a higher number of unions lean democrat and are less likely to vote for trump. The graph demonstrates that many of the battleground states have a lower tendency for unions (see the left half of the graph), which could ultimately benefit Trump if he can manage to sway these states to the right. Even though many battleground states on this graph could potentially give Trump electoral votes, they would not be enough for him to gain a significant lead over the states that are likely to give their votes to Hilary. From this graph we see that Hillary will take both California and New York along with many other states with a high number of electoral votes. Trump may win the vote in several electorally small states, but Hillary is assured the win simply due to the sheer numbers of the members of the electoral college in the states that she will win. We will see how this plays out over the course of the election process. This graph represents the electoral votes within a state compared with the unions within the state. While looking at our data, we are assuming that states with a higher number of unions lean democrat and are less likely to vote for trump. The graph demonstrates that many of the battleground states have a lower tendency for unions (see the left half of the graph), which could ultimately benefit Trump if he can manage to sway these states to the right. Even though many battleground states on this graph could potentially give Trump electoral votes, they would not be enough for him to gain a significant lead over the states that are likely to give their votes to Hilary. From this graph we see that Hillary will take both California and New York along with many other states with a high number of electoral votes. Trump may win the vote in several electorally small states, but Hillary is assured the win simply due to the sheer numbers of the members of the electoral college in the states that she will win. We will see how this plays out over the course of the election process.

# data[].attributes.headline
ab(sin)the [Jackson, Joe, Terence, Tianah]

# data[].attributes.subject
ab(sin)the [Jackson, Joe, Terence, Tianah]

# data[].attributes.body
In the above graph, electoral votes of a given state are shown on the Y axis, and the percent of people in a given state who support the gay community are shown on the X axis. The blue points and the blue best fit line represent the battleground states, while the red points and the red best fit line represent the non-battleground states. An interesting observation about our graph is that the non-battleground states have a positive sloping line, while the battleground states have a negatively sloping line. The positive sloping line represents that there is progressively more support for gays, as the amount of electoral votes rise too. In battleground states the opposite relationship occurs: less support as electoral votes drop. However, both of the slopes aren’t very steep, meaning that the data doesn’t show the biggest of trends.

Donald Trump will have a difficult time winning over the electoral votes in states that are high in gay support. The degree to which he loses support in these key tipping states is further exacerbated by what many perceive to be an anti-gay Republican party platform that was recently adopted, and by any potential statements Donald Trump may make prior to the election that swing-state voters discern as being against gay support.

Eliciting the information our graph shows, it can be concluded that Hillary Clinton will secure the electoral votes of swing states over Donald Trump.

# data[].attributes.body
Gay rights support has been a large debate separating the views of the Republican and Democratic parties. Contemporary Democratic states have been in support of same sex marriage while it is well known the republican party defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We hypothesize that Trumps chance of winning will greatly decrease in states in support of gay rights. States with higher gay support will be more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.

The graph below shows all battleground and non battleground states on a scale of low, medium, and high in regards to gay support. States with higher electoral vote counts such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida reside in the middle column however, almost all other battleground states in the middle column have a count of 15 or less electoral votes. In conclusion, it is unlikely these middle column states will prevent trump from reaching the 270 electoral votes needed for him to win the presidency. A states measurement of gay support will not be a heavily influencing factor in the success of his campaign.

# data[].attributes.body
(Paul, Jamie, John)

On the Y-axis of this graph the number of each State's electoral votes for Obama in 2008 are shown, while on the X-axis is the number of electoral votes for each state presented. According to our data we’ve come to the conclusion that Trump will not be able to obtain the 270 electoral votes. Our primary rationale based on this graph is that the states that did not vote for Obama at all in 2008 also have a low number of electoral votes. Thus those same states will be more likely to vote for Trump, however those are the states with a lower number of electoral votes, thus suggesting Trump won’t be able to capture the 270 necessary votes.

# data[].attributes.body
Nicole Bartone, Charles Meek, and Amanda Buck

# data[].attributes.body
Big T-Tests

# data[].attributes.body
Jessica Martinez
Yoselin Martin
Megan White

# data[].attributes.body
Luke Albers
Logan Dingwall
Antonia Wright

# data[].attributes.body
Members within Unions usually vote democrat, the graph shows that most battleground states have higher union members. If the union members vote as they have in the past, the majority of union members  will not vote for Trump. This leads to Trump having less votes in battleground states with higher union members thereby leaving Trump without enough votes for the presidency.

Ryan, Sophia, Aiden

# data[].attributes.body
As the number of conservatives in a state increases, generally the number of electoral votes decreases. So this puts a negative relationship between these two variables. While this isn't a large negative relationship, it is still a negative relationship. This comes more into play in states like California, that are large and Democratic.

# data[].attributes.body
A controversial topic dividing the Democrat and Republican parties in 2016 is gay support and resources for gay members of the community. Democrats, generally, have higher support rates for gay rights than the Republican party does. In the 2016 election, Donald Trump is the Republican candidate while Hillary Clinton is the Democrat, therefore we have derived the hypothesis that states who report more gay support are less likely to vote for Trump in the 2016 general election. Assuming that gay rights is a significant factor affecting voting tendencies this topic is likely to indicate the candidate Americans choose to vote for.

This graph measures gay support in each state and marks battleground and non battleground states.  According to the graph, among battleground states there is a negative correlation with number of electoral votes and gay support: the more gay support a state reports, the fewer electoral votes they have on average. If we apply this evidence to our hypothesis, Trump does in fact have an adequate chance of winning the Presidency, based on gay support. If a measure of less gay support is indicative of conservative or Republican voting in that state, then it would appear that Trump will not be as negatively affected by extremely pro-gay battleground states: those states that are on the far left of the graph (and therefore show more gay support) have fewer electoral votes.  The battleground states with more electoral votes show less support for gay rights, thus Trump’s campaign may benefit and he still has a shot at the Presidency.

# data[].attributes.body
Matt Arman, Fernando Estrada, Madison Martin, and Karan Jha.

Given Mr. Trump’s polarizing policies and views, we feel that he will have trouble reaching the moderate portion of the electorate. The above graph shows that most states have a larger moderate percentage than the percentage that leans towards any specific party. Most states have nearly half of their constituencies identifying as moderate,  thus his strong may be a large pill to swallow for many voters.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why R We Here? (Havanna, Rachael, and Natalie) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Why R We Here? (Havanna, Rachael, and Natalie) 

# data[].attributes.body
Question: Will Trump win the Presidential election?

Plot: Percentage of voters (by state) who voted for McCain in 2008 (X axis), against the total electoral votes each state has (Y axis). It is colored by blue: battleground states, and red: non-battleground states.

Conclusion: McCain was only able to secure one swing state in the 2008 election. Of the states that he did secure, only one state is of those with high electoral votes, Texas. Using this information, we conclude that if Trump follows the basic structure of the Republican party, he will not be able to secure the electoral votes needed to win the election. Historically, the states that have high electoral votes and those that are swing states vote democratic or independent.

# data[].attributes.body
Team One

# data[].attributes.body
Elections are won in the swing states, so as we began to predict what Donald Trump’s chances of winning this year's election were, we felt that battleground states were a vital statistic. From that we wanted to look at states that voted for Bush in the 2004 election and are therefore historically republican, as states that have voted red in the past are far more likely to vote for Trump this time around. The third polarizing statistic we chose to use was the level of college education from state to state as Trump seems to be attracting a far less educated crowd. When comparing the three measures of data in one plot some interesting trends emerge. With all of the battleground states having a roughly even chance of going red or blue we figured that historic swing states with a highly educated population would most likely favor Clinton and a less educated state would probably favor Trump. When analyzing the data we quickly realized that the majority of swing states contain a highly educated population, with most citizens having a college degree or higher. Therefore the chances of Trump winning this coming election look slim.

# data[].attributes.body
BOXPLOT

# data[].attributes.body
Trump will lose the election.
As the graph depicts, the more conservative a state is, the fewer electoral votes it has. This is evident in the negative slope of the blue line illustrating the relationship between these two variables. It is important to note that the swing states (blue) are varied throughout the graph vertically. It makes sense that swing states are generally not extremely conservative or liberal, but the fact that the line slopes down, indicates that Trump will be unsuccessful in capturing the vote of swing states.

# data[].attributes.body
We expect that Trump has a better chance to win electoral votes in Battleground states with fewer gun regulations this might be due to the Trump campaign's popularity with second amendment supporters.

# data[].attributes.body
Ethan Grabel
James Deluca
Adam Herrin
Ronnie Jensen

I would argue that Trump has a low, but still relevant, chance of winning the 270 electoral votes

needed for the presidency. Our research has shown that states registering higher on the cook index have a larger number of electoral votes and also include a majority of the battleground states.

While this appears to give Clinton the advantage, we must also look at the more conservative side of the population. We found that the battleground states had a high elderly population (typically above 12%).

Historically the elderly population has voted conservative as shown in our third graph. Trump's campaign has made use of this fact and has targeted elderly white voters in the battleground states. Therefore, for Trump to win the 270 votes, he must continue targeting this demographic as well as trying expand his constituency to a large number of voters.

# data[].attributes.headline
Appropriate names R advised (Connor, Shawn, Megan)

# data[].attributes.subject
Appropriate names R advised (Connor, Shawn, Megan)

# data[].attributes.body
We looked at the battle ground states and how their population is made up. According to our graph, the blue line shows that battle ground states that tend to be more republican have more electoral votes thus, the battle ground states will lean towards a more republican population and Trump will receive more electoral votes for those states. Given this information that gives him a better chance to win the vote.

# data[].attributes.body
In battleground states, as percentage of high school education increases, the number of electoral votes increases too. Because the demographics of Trump supporters tend to have lower education, he is less likely to win these key states.

# data[].attributes.body
64 year olds tend to be the largest population that votes within the U.S. We are seeing trend that the more 64 year olds there are in a state, the more democratic a state becomes. Looking at the boxplot graph (posted separately)   we can see that since some battleground states have higher populations of people
over 64, trump is likely to lose that state vote as it can be seen in the other graph that
as the population of 64 year olds rises, the more democratic the state becomes.

# data[].attributes.body
We found a correlation between battleground and non-battleground states through religion. The more religious states tend to be non-battleground states and southern. This graph shows the battleground states are not as religious as southern states. The southern states are non-battleground and vote Republican. According to this graph, Trump will not win because majority of the battleground states are non-religous. His demographic leans towards religious states.

# data[].attributes.headline
We Thought This Was Speed Dating (Nicholas, Kris, Lindsey)

# data[].attributes.subject
We Thought This Was Speed Dating (Nicholas, Kris, Lindsey)

# data[].attributes.body
Question: Will Trump win the Presidential election?

Graph: Percentage of voters (by state) who voted for McCain in 2008 (X axis), against the total electoral votes each state has (Y axis). It is colored by blue: battleground states, and red: non-battleground states.

Conclusion: McCain was only able to secure one swing state in the 2008 election. Of the states that he did secure, only one state is of those with high electoral votes, Texas. Using this information, we conclude that if Trump follows the basic structure of the Republican party, he will not be able to secure the electoral votes needed to win the election. Historically, the states that have high electoral votes and those that are swing states vote democratic or independent.

# data[].attributes.headline
We R dropping the class (Lauren, Cody, Miguel)

# data[].attributes.subject
We R dropping the class (Lauren, Cody, Miguel)

# data[].attributes.body
This is a plot of percent of urban population (y axis) and whether or not McCain or Obama won in '08. Based on this graph, Obama won more of the urban population than McCain did. Since the urban population has only continued to grow, we can infer that Clinton will take a majority of the urban population this year and replicate what Obama did. Therefore, this gives Trump a very low chance of winning.

# data[].attributes.body
Winning the presidential race appears to be a very difficult path for Donald Trump. This graph shows the Hispanic population from 2008 versus the amount of electoral votes for the democratic candidate Barack Obama. Looking at this graph we can see that California is a heavily Hispanic state with the most electoral votes out of any state. This bodes well for democrats and does not give Trump a lot of hope. Another important factor is to look at battleground states. Some battleground states with high Hispanic populations include Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico. In these states you can see that there is a decent amount of electoral votes given to Obama (and therefore usually democrats). These states are important to win and without them Trump would have a difficult time winning the election. States like Arizona and Texas may have high Hispanic populations but they are not battleground states and therefore are not as important to the Presidential race.

# data[].attributes.body
Taking into consideration unemployment rates and electoral votes, if Trump were to capture the battleground states with high unemployment (most Trump supporters come from the working class) he could capture some votes. Those unemployed only make up an estimated 7% and based on other factors, such as the parties the states favor, education levels, etc, it is unlikely Trump will win.

# data[].attributes.body
Does trump have a shot at the Whitehouse? We took a look at the gay.support variable. This showed where the state was on the scale of supporting gay rights. We are most interested in swing states, because other states like have their minds made up already. This graph shows that most of the battleground states are on the higher end of gay support. This would hinder Trump's chances because, we feel, that the gay community is more in support of Hilary. The only problem with this graph is that it shows that the battleground states with more gay support have less electoral votes. However, the correlation is not overwhelming, so we think it will not affect it that much.

# data[].attributes.body
Question: Do you see a way for Trump to capture the electoral votes needed to win the Whitehouse?
Our Thoughts: Possibly, this is a very controversial election but it has the potential to swing either way.

We decided to compare the democratic states in 2009 and electoral votes in relation with the battleground states. This graph shows that as battleground states swing towards a democratic state they lose electoral votes. This is a negative relation, but is the only semi-positive graph we could find that would indicate Trump winning. This graph shows the loss of electoral votes among battleground states that turn democratic. However, they are still swing states and they could swing the other way. Safe to say it will be an interesting election.

# data[].attributes.body
We decided to look at minority populations regarding the percentage of black or hispanic people in each state. We then looked at electoral votes to get somewhat of an idea of what impact they might have in the election. Seeing how much the minority population has increased, we are seeing that Donald Trump will have a tougher time winning the election since the country has an increasing population of minorities especially amongst hispanics and blacks and a more diverse population overall that tends to vote democrat.

# data[].attributes.body
As the data in this graph indicates, not only is there strong public support for gay rights in swing states, but in the majority of U.S. states in general. Therefore,, it is highly unforeseeable that Donald Trump will gain enough electoral votes to win the upcoming election.

# data[].attributes.body
This graph shows the percentage of democratic legislators elected by the state, and whether or not that state is a battleground state.  Based off of this data, 77% of battleground states have a majority of democratic legislators.  Assuming that voters will vote in the election in the same manner they voted for their representatives, Trump will lose the majority of battleground states.  Most of the states with a low percentage of democratic representatives tend to have a lower electoral votes.  Both points made from this graph make it extremely unlikely Donald Trump will win the presidency in November. �����D���?�

# data[].attributes.body
Will Trump Win
Do you see a way for Trump to capture the 270 to win the White House?

To analyze the Republican nominee's likelihood of successfully receiving the 270 necessary electoral votes needed to win the election, Trump's support was assessed across different education levels. Comparing his level of support

# data[].attributes.body
In this graph we tested the the relationship between the number of women legislators in a state (2010) with electoral votes and if the state is considered a battleground state(04).

We concentrated on the blue (battleground state) line because a good determinant on if Trump will be elected is his ability to win over these battleground states.

We also tested this against the population of women legislators because Trump tends to lack in support from women, which means a state with more women legislators will be more difficult for Trump to win.

The battleground line has a negative slope which means battleground states with larger percentages of women legislators generally have less electoral votes. Given this information Trump has a larger chance of winning battleground states with more electoral votes because the percentage of women legislators is smaller.

# data[].attributes.body
In March 2016 the Atlantic posted an article entitled “Who are Trumps supporters, really?” in which they describe the average Trump supporter as white, male, and poor but also frequently non college educated. In this scatter plot we compared the states amount of electoral votes to the percentage of the state with a college degree or higher. The red representing non battle ground states and the blue representing battle ground states. We can see there is a slight positive relationship between electoral votes and college education overall however in the battle ground states the relationship is largely non-existent as demonstrated through the straight blue line running through the data. That being said there are a few outliers of battleground states which have a high amount of electoral votes and a low percentage of college education such as Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. What we can take away from this is that education levels in battle ground states will most likely no effect Trumps chances.

# data[].attributes.body
We R not prepared

# data[].attributes.headline
The Three MuskRteers (Marine, Emily, and Andee)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Three MuskRteers (Marine, Emily, and Andee)

# data[].attributes.body
Like all presidential candidates, Trump needs to capture a majority of electoral votes from the battleground states to win.  This graph shows the battleground states from the 2004 presidential election in blue. The x-axis shows the percentage of women in state legislators, with the mean being 24.1%.  We assume that most states that are willing to elect an average or higher than average number of women to their legislatures are unlikely to vote Trump. This is because those states have an increasing influence from women and the regular statements that Trump makes regarding women can make it easier for women to shift their votes.

According to this graph, battleground states with more women in the legislator have fewer electoral votes.  States that are not battleground states with a higher percentage of women in the legislator have more electoral votes.
Therefore, according to this data, we believe the amount of women in the legislator will have a minimal impact on the outcome of the election.

In our opinion, due to the slight relationship between women in the legislature and the amount of electoral votes won between battleground and non-battleground states, we can conclude that Trump's ability to win will not be lowered by these variables.

# data[].attributes.headline
Team - DowneR (Alexis, Kendall, Ashely, Cameron)

# data[].attributes.subject
Team - DowneR (Alexis, Kendall, Ashely, Cameron)

# data[].attributes.body
This graph represents the percentage of yes and no’s between the republican and democratic states on whether Trump would have a chance to gain control over the White House. The red line shows ‘no’ states increasing in no support for the Trump administration. While the blue line shows ‘yes’ states decreasing their support for the Trump administration. This clearly defines how Trump has not substantial support to gain electoral votes to obtain the presidency.

# data[].attributes.headline
R we done yet (Cass Condon, Blake Curran)

# data[].attributes.subject
R we done yet (Cass Condon, Blake Curran)

# data[].attributes.body
The more dem states have more electoral votes. From this figure trump will have to appeal to the dem
states to try and receive there electoral vote. I do not see trump receiving those votes

# data[].attributes.body
In the battleground states with more electoral votes, there is a higher percentage of religiosity and therefore are more likely to vote for Trump in the upcoming election. People who are more religious are more likely to vote for Trump because it represents more conservative views and Trump is the conservative candidate.

Assuming that the religious states are more likely to vote Republican and that the states with more electoral votes are more religious, Trump is more likely to win the election.  For example, based off of this data, Florida has a high amount of electoral votes among swing states and is also a relatively high religious state.

# data[].attributes.body
Hypothesis: The more democratic legislature voters a battleground state has, the less electoral votes they receive.

This explains why Trump as the Republican nominee has a shot at winning the November election because it dictates which swing states he should focus his time and resources on.

# data[].attributes.body
The majority of battleground states have low percentages of hispanic voters. Not effecting a Trump presidency.

# data[].attributes.body
Analyzing this data set with college as the variable, we notice that the larger populated states such as California, Texas, New York and Florida are more unlikely to vote for Trump.  The majority of each states votes are less than 30% for Trump. We also found it surprising that California are for Trump. We found reasoning in this with the culture (wealth and issues with immigration) are more likely to vote a certain way.

# data[].attributes.body
Trump will have a hard time securing the road to the White house, particularly in regards to the Hispanic vote.

According to the graph most states other than outliers like California, Texas, and New Mexico have a lower percentage population of Hispanics compared to other races, so securing the Hispanic vote in most states will not equate to a large number of electoral votes.

Trump has a low chance of winning the Hispanic vote because among Hispanic voters he has negative electoral votes in swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Colorado; these states also have a large number of electoral votes.

# data[].attributes.body
Charts out for Harambe

# data[].attributes.body
Our graph depicts a slightly positive correlation between electoral votes and unemployment. It suggests that states with larger populations tend to have higher unemployment rates. Because Trump is the anti-establishment candidate--he's promised quite some change--the unemployed are more likely to vote for Trump. However, our data ultimately appears inconclusive. Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia--all crucial battleground states in recent elections--do not follow any evident pattern. Each has a relatively large amount of electoral votes, yet only Ohio appears above the regression line. Pennsylvania is on it, while Florida and Virginia fall far below it. For Trump to win, he would have to shift his rhetoric to focus on the unemployed in order to secure a greater percentage of electoral votes.