Emily Badger of "The Upshot" looks at the nonexistent "alternative" of 100 percent turnout:
"It’s impossible to know what would have happened had the people sitting out elections voted. But Bernard Fraga, an Indiana University political scientist, has tried to gauge that alternative reality using data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which annually surveys thousands of Americans.
"The survey asks which candidates people preferred even if they did not vote. And if we add their preferences to the voting population in the last several elections, we get different election results. 'If everybody voted, Clinton wins. If minority turnout was equal to white turnout, Clinton wins,' said Mr. Fraga."
Well of course, you say. But here's the interesting part:
"Many white voters who preferred Mr. Trump sat out 2016 as well. So in this full-turnout counterfactual, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t overcome Mr. Trump’s narrow victories in Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania. Rather, she flips Florida, North Carolina and Texas."
From an admittedly anecdotal, and therefore probably flawed, view, I'm skeptical that Trump would win Michigan if the election were re-held today. I've now spent two weeks in the Wolverine State, and I've yet to encounter anyone who has a good thing to say about America's version of President Hugo Chávez. This bodes well for next Tuesday, if indeed the election materializes as a referendum on Hugo Trump.