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.

            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.   

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

 

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.

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.