Be careful what you wish for.

Barring something cataclysmic coming out of the presidential primary contests throughout March, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are most likely now headed toward their national party's nomination.

Until recently, a Trump nomination at the head of the Republican Party in 2016 is what Clinton's staff and political consultants had hoped for. Trump's high negatives mirror Clinton's in a general election – meaning that party loyalty and voter turnout matter more than momentum or message.

That, in theory, gives Clinton an edge. In every head-to-head national poll, Clinton tends to beat Trump by a few points.

But here's the thing. You don't become president by winning the national popularity contest. If that were the case, Al Gore would have been president, not George W. Bush. You become president with 270 Electoral College votes or more. And Trump, based on data (not emotion), is within striking distance of that benchmark based on historical data points.



There's been an underlying truth of presidential politics for more than 50 years, one that political scientists such as Larry Sabato and data mavens including fivethirtyeight's Nate Silver have understood for some time now.

The truth is this: presidential elections are now fought and won in just seven states. The other 43 (with a few rare exceptions) are largely pre-ordained. States that vote Democratic or Republican in presidential elections have remained that way since John F. Kennedy's era. There have been only a handful of exceptions in states such as Indiana or North Carolina.

But those exceptions are rare. If the party's leadership supports their candidate (and I would argue that the GOP leadership will eventually swing in behind the Trump candidacy, because to fail to do so would end their party), then historical patterns and political data all show that the real presidential election is confined to just seven states: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire.

And, based on recent Clinton vs. Trump head-to-head polls in these seven states and the likelihood that the white vote may increase in 2016, Trump is within striking distance of winning a general election against Clinton. For those who believe a Trump presidency is not really possible in today's America, you may want to re-think that proposition.



There are, of course, a few caveats to this data. First, head-to-head polls in states (and nationally) right now don't necessarily mean that much. Second, if the GOP leadership fails to unite behind Trump, then some of those rare states that traditionally go for one party's candidate or another could flip to Democrats. And, third, if the huge sums of outside money that the Koch donor network has assembled for the 2016 election sit on the sidelines, that will impact voter turnout in both the swing states and a handful of others.

On the first caveat, time will tell. Yes, polls shift some over time – but they nevertheless tell a certain truth right now. On the second, the GOP leadership is already bracing itself for the necessity to back Trump. In the end, the party will embrace Trump.

And on the third, remember that Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, was the national voter registration director for the Koch donor network's massive and well-funded political grassroots field organization, Americans for Prosperity. Lewandowski was also the director for AFP in New Hampshire, one of the seven swing states that will determine the 2016 presidential election.

Trump – once you strip away his foul language about bombing the you-know-what out of ISIS – is precisely the presidential candidate for the new Republican Party that the Koch donor network has meticulously assembled for 20 years in partnership with the tobacco industry, and other industries threatened by Washington regulations. (I've written about this effort in a new book, "Poison Tea," scheduled for publication April 5.) Trump is, in fact, their nearly ideal, prototypical, anti-Washington candidate. So are Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz. For these and other reasons, the Koch network, too, will swing in behind Trump.

Here are the political data specifics. Clinton goes into the general election with a built-in advantage. She starts with an electoral base of 247 Electoral College votes out of 270 needed to win the presidency. That includes solid-to-leaning Democratic states. Trump starts with 207 solid-to-leaning GOP states.



Hillary Clinton View All 21 Images

For Clinton, then, she needs just 23 electoral votes to become president. Winning Ohio (18) and Virginia (13) puts her over the top. Virginia and two other smaller states (like Nevada and New Hampshire) also put her over the top. It's for this reason that her most likely running mate is Tim Kaine, Virginia's junior Democratic senator.

But Trump has the same electoral math in front of him. And, right now, he may be in better shape in these seven swing states than Clinton.

Start with Florida. There have been two head-to-head polls (PPD and Florida Atlantic University) since the first of the year, according to RealClearPolitics. Trump beats Clinton by 2 and 3 points respectively. So, for discussion purposes, add 29 electoral votes to Trump's column, moving him to 235.

In Ohio, there's been just one head-to-head Trump-Clinton poll (Quinnipiac) in 2016. But it's recent, conducted in late February. Trump beats Clinton by 2 points in Ohio in that one. But here's what's notable. In head-to-head matchups in Ohio last year, Trump lost to Clinton. Not now. So, again for the sake of argument, let's give Ohio to Trump. That gives him another 18 electoral votes, moving him closer to 270 with 253 electoral votes.

The next largest swing state, Virginia, likely goes to the D.C.-friendly Clinton, especially if Kaine is her running mate. So she picks up those 13 electoral votes, putting her at 260.

This is where it gets interesting. We could, quite possibly, see the 2016 presidency determined by just four states: Colorado, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire. None of these four are especially friendly to either Trump or Clinton. There aren't many current head-to-head polls in any of them.

But Colorado may be a lost cause for the former secretary of State. While there haven't been any head-to-head polls in Colorado this year, polling last year showed virtually any GOP candidate (including Trump) beating her by double digits. "A chilly if not frigid reception for…Clinton in her second quest for the White House," Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, said in the fall of 2015. So throw those to Trump. That's another 9 votes, putting him within striking distance of the presidency at 262.

The next largest swing state, Nevada, may also be friendly territory for Trump. He has deep roots in the state, and a great deal of support from wealthy casino owners. There haven't been any recent head-to-head matchups, but a Morning Consult poll in November had Trump beating Clinton by 3 points. So give those 6 electoral votes in Nevada to Trump. That puts him at 268, just two shy of what he needs to move into the White House.



So we're down to Iowa and New Hampshire. Iowa has been unkind to Trump – and will almost certainly be again in the general election against Clinton. The only poll that has been conducted recently has Clinton beating Trump by nearly double digits. So Iowa is almost certainly hopeless for Trump. Give those 6 electoral votes to Clinton, putting her at 266.

Which leaves New Hampshire. Those four electoral votes from the seventh, and final, swing state might just give the presidency to either Clinton or Trump. The head-to-head polling in New Hampshire is all over the map right now. One (NBC) has them in a dead heat. Another (CNN) had Clinton up by nine. But they were all taken in early January, long before primary madness swept through the state – and where Clinton was soundly beaten by Sanders, and Trump cruised to a massive victory over many rivals.

And, remember, Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, not only ran the Koch political network's national voter registration efforts, he also directed AFP's New Hampshire office. So, if you're being honest about the current points of data on the political table, you'd give New Hampshire to Donald Trump. That gives him 272 electoral votes, two more than he needs.

Welcome to the White House, Mr. Trump.