Anubis
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 3,628
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
I have a gut feeling Trump is not gonna attend all the debates...he's gonna turn em down for some stupid reason.
US Politics
- Thread starter RabzonKhan
- Start date
MilSpec
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Messages
- 12,931
- Reaction score
- 38
- Country
- Location
If he does, it will make for some good last week tonight, late show and daily show episodes.
Nilgiri
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 24,797
- Reaction score
- 81
- Country
- Location
Doubt it. Trump is going to expose how she targetted Bill Clinton's sexual assault victims right in front of her....among other things that will seriously make her sweat that no one has done before.
Its going to get quite personal (Trump is not going to be politically correct like an establishment politician would be)....and we all know how Clinton reacts when there is even a hint of her losing any part of her desperately crafted image over decades.
It should be quite entertaining, just sit back and watch.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Long, but worth the read. No political gimmick purely an in depth analysis.
Note, Nate Silver is widely considered the polling guru.
Warning: fellows there are still 86 days before the elections, so no one should jump from the roof…Yet.
What A Clinton Landslide Would Look Like
By Nate Silver
Filed under 2016 Election
We’re going to spend a lot of time over the next 87 days contemplating the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency. Trump is a significant underdog — he has a 13 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only model and a 23 percent chance according to polls-plus. But those probabilities aren’t that small. For comparison, you have a 17 percent chance of losing a “game” of Russian roulette.
But there’s another possibility staring us right in the face: A potential Hillary Clinton landslide. Our polls-only model projects Clinton to win the election by 7.7 percentage points, about the same margin by which Barack Obama beat John McCain in 2008. And it assigns a 35 percent chance to Clinton winning by double digits.
Our other model, polls-plus, is much more conservative about Clinton’s prospects. If this were an ordinary election, the smart money would be on the race tightening down the stretch run, and coming more into line with economic “fundamentals” that suggest the election ought to be close. Since this is how the polls-plus model “thinks,” it projects Clinton to win by around 4 points, about the margin by which Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012 — a solid victory but a long way from a landslide.
But the theory behind “fundamentals” models is that economic conditions prevail because most other factors are fought to a draw. In a normal presidential election, both candidates raise essentially unlimited money and staff their campaigns with hundreds of experienced professionals. In a normal presidential election, both candidates are good representatives of their party’s traditional values and therefore unite almost all their party’s voters behind them. In a normal presidential election, both candidates have years of experience running for office and deftly pivot away from controversies to exploit their opponents’ weaknesses. In a normal presidential election, both candidates target a broad enough range of demographic groups to have a viable chance of reaching 51 percent of the vote. This may not be a normal presidential election because while most of those things are true for Clinton, it’s not clear that any of them apply to Trump.
A related theory is that contemporary presidential elections are bound to be relatively close because both parties have high floors on their support. Indeed, we’ve gone seven straight elections without a double-digit popular vote victory (the last one was Ronald Reagan’s in 1984), the longest such streak since 1876-1900.
As with other theories of this kind, however, there’s the risk of mistaking what’s happened in the recent past for some sort of iron law of politics. Historically, the U.S. has ebbed and flowed between periods of close presidential elections — such in the late 19th century or early 21st century — and eras in which there were plenty of lopsided ones (every election in the 1920s and 1930s was a blowout).
These patterns seem to have some relationship with partisanship, with highly partisan epochs tending to produce close elections by guaranteeing each party its fair share of support. Trump’s nomination, however, reflects profound disarray within the Republican Party. Furthermore, about 30 percent of Republican or Republican-leaning voters have an unfavorable view of Trump. How many of them will vote for Clinton is hard to say, but parties facing this much internal strife, such as Republicans in 1964 or Democrats in 1972 or 1980, have often suffered landslide losses.
Perhaps the strongest evidence for a potential landslide against Trump is in the state-by-state polling, which has shown him underperforming in any number of traditionally Republican states. It’s not just Georgia and Arizona, where polls have shown a fairly close race all year. At various points, polls have shown Clinton drawing within a few percentage points of Trump — and occasionally even leading him — in states such as Utah, South Carolina, Texas, Alaska, Kansas and even Mississippi.
Just how bad could it get? Let’s start by giving Clinton the 332 electoral votes that Obama won in 2012. That’s obviously not a safe assumption: The race could shift back toward Trump, and even if it doesn’t, Clinton could lose states such as Iowa or Nevada, where her polling has been middling even after her convention bounce. But as I said, we’re going to focus on Clinton’s upside case today.
So I’m going to list the states Romney won in order of how easy it is for Clinton to flip them, according to our polls-only model.1 The number in parentheses by each state represents the point at which the model estimates it would flip to Clinton, based on her lead in the national popular vote. For instance, South Carolina (+9.5) means that Clinton would be favored in South Carolina if she leads by at least 9.5 percentage points nationally, but not by less than that. These projections are based on where the model has each state projected currently, along with each state’s elasticity score, a measure of how responsive it is to changes in the national environment. Here goes:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
North Carolina (+3.2): It wouldn’t be any surprise if Clinton carried North Carolina, which Obama narrowly won in 2008. But Obama lost North Carolina in 2012 despite winning by about 4 percentage points nationally. This year, it looks like Clinton would win North Carolina with a 3 percentage point national victory. In other words, North Carolina has drifted slightly bluer relative to the rest of the country and is closer to being a true tipping-point state this year.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Arizona (+7.1): Arizona and Georgia have been flickering between light blue and light red in our polls-only projection recently. That’s because the model figures each state would be a tossup with Clinton ahead by about 7 points nationally, and that’s where the forecast has been for the past few days. Arizona is the fourth-most-Hispanic state after New Mexico, Texas and California, although historically its Hispanic population has voted at relatively low rates. A strong Hispanic turnout, perhaps coupled with gains for Clinton among Mormon voters (about 6 percent of Arizona’s electorate), might swing the state to her.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District (+7.1): Nebraska and Maine award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. That came in handy for Obama in 2008, when he won Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional district, which consists of Omaha and most of its suburbs. District boundaries were redrawn after the 2010 Census to make them slightly tougher for Democrats, but Omaha’s highly-educated demographics — we estimate that 47 percent of voters in the district have a college degree, comparable to Virginia or Connecticut — could wind up being favorable to Clinton. There’s been no polling in the district yet, so its position on this list is based on the model’s guesses based on its demographics and voting history.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Georgia (+7.2): In some ways, Georgia might be more promising than Arizona for Democrats’ long-term future. It has more electoral votes — 16 to Arizona’s 11 — and could serve as part of a bloc of states (along with Virginia and North Carolina) that could eventually offset losses for Democrats in the Rust Belt. It’s easy enough to see how Georgia’s demographics are favorable for Clinton: It has a substantial black population, but also an increasingly well-educated white population, with lots of migration from the Midwest and the Northeast.
Let’s pause here to see what the map would look like if Clinton wins by 8 percentage points nationally — close to where her lead in the polls has been over the past week or so. This map you see below is worth 375 electoral votes, close to the 365 electoral votes Obama won in 2008 when he beat McCain by 7.3 percentage points. In fact, the map is identical to 2008 but for three changes: Georgia and Arizona turn blue, while Indiana (which surprisingly went for Obama in 2008) remains red:
But let’s say Clinton continues to build her lead, instead of Trump rebounding. Which dominoes might fall next?
South Carolina (+9.5): Public Policy Polling caused a big stir on Thursday when it published a poll showing Clinton down just 2 percentage points in South Carolina — but the result shouldn’t have been all that shocking. South Carolina was only a couple of points redder than Georgia in 2012 and 2008, so if Georgia has moved to being a tie, you’d expect South Carolina to follow just a half-step behind it. True, South Carolina doesn’t have a metropolis like Atlanta, but a relatively high percentage of white voters there have college degrees.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Missouri (+10.3): It’s surprising to see Missouri, once considered a bellwether state, so far down this list. Bill Clinton won it twice, and Obama came within 4,000 votes of winning it in 2008. But now we estimate that Hillary Clinton would need to win by about 10 points nationally to claim the state. Note, however, that the recent polling in Missouri has been mixed, with polls showing everything from a 10-point lead for Trump to a slight edge for Clinton.
There’s something of a gap after South Carolina and Missouri before the next set of states. Thus, Trump might be able to hold Clinton below 400 electoral votes even if she won by 12 points nationally:
But after that, the floodgates would really open, with lots of traditionally red states in all parts of the country potentially turning toward Clinton:
Mississippi (+12.3): I’m skeptical about this one, since Mississippi presents something of a modelling challenge. You can see why it’s an attractive target for Democrats, in theory: It has the highest share of black voters in the country (after the District of Columbia). But in 2008, only 11 percent of Mississippi’s white population voted for Obama. Clinton trailed Trump by just 3 percentage points in the only poll of Mississippi, taken in March. In that poll, Clinton got 20 percent of the white vote. If she can replicate that on Election Day, the outcome could be close.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Indiana (+13.2): Obama’s win in Indiana in 2008 — one of just two timesDemocrats have won the state since 1940 — might be hard to duplicate. He benefited that year from investing in the ground game in a state that is usually ignored, and from Indiana’s connections with Chicago. Plus, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is Trump’s running mate. Still, if Clinton stretches her national lead into the teens, Indiana could be competitive.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Texas (+13.8): Democrats have long talked about turning Texas blue — or at least purple — but the truth is they haven’t come anywhere close. Obama lost Texas by 12 points in 2008 despite his near-landslide margin nationally, for instance. But Clinton has a number of factors that could work in her favor. We estimate that about somewhere between 37 and 40 percent of Texas’s electorate will be Hispanic, black, Asian-American or Native American, depending on turnout. A high proportion of its white population has college degrees. And Trump has run afoul of locally popular politicians, such as Ted Cruz and George W. Bush. Previous polls of Texas had shown Trump with only a mid-single digit lead there, although a more recent survey had him up by 11.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Montana (+14.1): Obama also nearly won Montana in 2008, losing by just 2 percentage points. But Montana is historically an anti-establishment state, and Trump led Clinton in the only poll we can find — which, granted, was way back in November 2015 — by 21 percentage points. A winning scenario for Clinton would probably involve Libertarian Gary Johnson getting a substantial portion of the vote: Montana was Johnson’s second-best state, after New Mexico, in 2012.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Utah (+14.2): People are fascinated by Clinton’s prospects of winning in Utah, which went for Romney by 48 points in 2012. But it’s hard to say just how realistic those are. The polls-only model has Clinton just a couple of percentage points behind in the polling average in Utah, but its demographic model projects her to lose it by 16 points — a lot better than 2012, but not particularly close. As with Mississippi, therefore, the odds you assign to Clinton in Utah are highly sensitive to your choice of assumptions. She’s taking her chances seriously enough to make some efforts to campaign there, but is it a wild goose chase — like when Dick Cheney visited Hawaii in 2004 — or part of long-term plan to swing Mormons into the Democratic Party?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
South Dakota (+14.9): Less excitingly, Clinton could win South Dakota in the event of a national rout, as the state seems to have become the slightly bluer of the two Dakotas after North Dakota’s oil boom. Perhaps South Dakota has a soft spot for Clinton, having voted for her in the Democratic primary in both 2008 and 2016, when Obama and Bernie Sanders won almost all the surrounding states.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Kansas (+15.6): Polls have had Kansas surprisingly close — with onesurvey in June even having Clinton ahead. One can squint and make an argument for it: Kansas is relatively well-educated, and Republican Gov. Sam Brownback is extremely unpopular. But note that Kansas polls badly overstated Republicans’ problems in 2014, when both Brownback and Sen. Pat Roberts won re-election.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Alaska (+15.7): I doubt that Alaskans have much affection for Clinton, but the state is idiosyncratic enough that I don’t really know what they think of Trump, who lost to Cruz in the state’s Republican caucuses. As in Montana, a Clinton win would probably depend on Johnson sucking up a lot of Trump’s vote. Clinton trailed by just 5 percentage points in the only poll of Alaska in January, which didn’t include Johnson as an option.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Nebraska’s 1st Congressional District (+15.8): As goes Omaha, so goes Lincoln? Here’s what the map might look like if Clinton won by 16 percentage points nationally, along with all the states we’ve mentioned so far:
That would work out to 471 electoral votes, to 67 for Trump, which would be fairly typical for a win of that magnitude. Dwight D. Eisenhower won 457 electoral votes when beating Adlai Stevenson by 15 points in 1956, for example. And Franklin D. Roosevelt won 472 electoral votes in 1932, in an 18-point win against Herbert Hoover. Clinton would be a ways short of Ronald Reagan’s 525 electoral votes in 1984, however.
All right, let’s stop there. I’m trying to encourage you to keep an open mind. The way the polls-only model thinks about things, Clinton is ahead by 7 or 8 percentage points now, and the error in the forecast is symmetrical, meaning that she’s as likely to win by 14 or 16 points as she is to lose the popular vote to Trump. There have even been a couple of national polls that showed Clinton with a lead in the mid-teens. But my powers of imagination are limited. Other than losing North Dakota to go along with South Dakota, or perhaps the statewide electoral votes in Nebraska to go along with the congressional district ones, it’s hard for me to envision Trump doing any worse than this — unless he really does shoot someone on 5th Avenue. Link
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Note, Nate Silver is widely considered the polling guru.
Warning: fellows there are still 86 days before the elections, so no one should jump from the roof…Yet.
What A Clinton Landslide Would Look Like
By Nate Silver
Filed under 2016 Election
We’re going to spend a lot of time over the next 87 days contemplating the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency. Trump is a significant underdog — he has a 13 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only model and a 23 percent chance according to polls-plus. But those probabilities aren’t that small. For comparison, you have a 17 percent chance of losing a “game” of Russian roulette.
But there’s another possibility staring us right in the face: A potential Hillary Clinton landslide. Our polls-only model projects Clinton to win the election by 7.7 percentage points, about the same margin by which Barack Obama beat John McCain in 2008. And it assigns a 35 percent chance to Clinton winning by double digits.
Our other model, polls-plus, is much more conservative about Clinton’s prospects. If this were an ordinary election, the smart money would be on the race tightening down the stretch run, and coming more into line with economic “fundamentals” that suggest the election ought to be close. Since this is how the polls-plus model “thinks,” it projects Clinton to win by around 4 points, about the margin by which Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012 — a solid victory but a long way from a landslide.
But the theory behind “fundamentals” models is that economic conditions prevail because most other factors are fought to a draw. In a normal presidential election, both candidates raise essentially unlimited money and staff their campaigns with hundreds of experienced professionals. In a normal presidential election, both candidates are good representatives of their party’s traditional values and therefore unite almost all their party’s voters behind them. In a normal presidential election, both candidates have years of experience running for office and deftly pivot away from controversies to exploit their opponents’ weaknesses. In a normal presidential election, both candidates target a broad enough range of demographic groups to have a viable chance of reaching 51 percent of the vote. This may not be a normal presidential election because while most of those things are true for Clinton, it’s not clear that any of them apply to Trump.
A related theory is that contemporary presidential elections are bound to be relatively close because both parties have high floors on their support. Indeed, we’ve gone seven straight elections without a double-digit popular vote victory (the last one was Ronald Reagan’s in 1984), the longest such streak since 1876-1900.
As with other theories of this kind, however, there’s the risk of mistaking what’s happened in the recent past for some sort of iron law of politics. Historically, the U.S. has ebbed and flowed between periods of close presidential elections — such in the late 19th century or early 21st century — and eras in which there were plenty of lopsided ones (every election in the 1920s and 1930s was a blowout).
These patterns seem to have some relationship with partisanship, with highly partisan epochs tending to produce close elections by guaranteeing each party its fair share of support. Trump’s nomination, however, reflects profound disarray within the Republican Party. Furthermore, about 30 percent of Republican or Republican-leaning voters have an unfavorable view of Trump. How many of them will vote for Clinton is hard to say, but parties facing this much internal strife, such as Republicans in 1964 or Democrats in 1972 or 1980, have often suffered landslide losses.
Perhaps the strongest evidence for a potential landslide against Trump is in the state-by-state polling, which has shown him underperforming in any number of traditionally Republican states. It’s not just Georgia and Arizona, where polls have shown a fairly close race all year. At various points, polls have shown Clinton drawing within a few percentage points of Trump — and occasionally even leading him — in states such as Utah, South Carolina, Texas, Alaska, Kansas and even Mississippi.
Just how bad could it get? Let’s start by giving Clinton the 332 electoral votes that Obama won in 2012. That’s obviously not a safe assumption: The race could shift back toward Trump, and even if it doesn’t, Clinton could lose states such as Iowa or Nevada, where her polling has been middling even after her convention bounce. But as I said, we’re going to focus on Clinton’s upside case today.
So I’m going to list the states Romney won in order of how easy it is for Clinton to flip them, according to our polls-only model.1 The number in parentheses by each state represents the point at which the model estimates it would flip to Clinton, based on her lead in the national popular vote. For instance, South Carolina (+9.5) means that Clinton would be favored in South Carolina if she leads by at least 9.5 percentage points nationally, but not by less than that. These projections are based on where the model has each state projected currently, along with each state’s elasticity score, a measure of how responsive it is to changes in the national environment. Here goes:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
North Carolina (+3.2): It wouldn’t be any surprise if Clinton carried North Carolina, which Obama narrowly won in 2008. But Obama lost North Carolina in 2012 despite winning by about 4 percentage points nationally. This year, it looks like Clinton would win North Carolina with a 3 percentage point national victory. In other words, North Carolina has drifted slightly bluer relative to the rest of the country and is closer to being a true tipping-point state this year.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Arizona (+7.1): Arizona and Georgia have been flickering between light blue and light red in our polls-only projection recently. That’s because the model figures each state would be a tossup with Clinton ahead by about 7 points nationally, and that’s where the forecast has been for the past few days. Arizona is the fourth-most-Hispanic state after New Mexico, Texas and California, although historically its Hispanic population has voted at relatively low rates. A strong Hispanic turnout, perhaps coupled with gains for Clinton among Mormon voters (about 6 percent of Arizona’s electorate), might swing the state to her.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District (+7.1): Nebraska and Maine award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. That came in handy for Obama in 2008, when he won Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional district, which consists of Omaha and most of its suburbs. District boundaries were redrawn after the 2010 Census to make them slightly tougher for Democrats, but Omaha’s highly-educated demographics — we estimate that 47 percent of voters in the district have a college degree, comparable to Virginia or Connecticut — could wind up being favorable to Clinton. There’s been no polling in the district yet, so its position on this list is based on the model’s guesses based on its demographics and voting history.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Georgia (+7.2): In some ways, Georgia might be more promising than Arizona for Democrats’ long-term future. It has more electoral votes — 16 to Arizona’s 11 — and could serve as part of a bloc of states (along with Virginia and North Carolina) that could eventually offset losses for Democrats in the Rust Belt. It’s easy enough to see how Georgia’s demographics are favorable for Clinton: It has a substantial black population, but also an increasingly well-educated white population, with lots of migration from the Midwest and the Northeast.
Let’s pause here to see what the map would look like if Clinton wins by 8 percentage points nationally — close to where her lead in the polls has been over the past week or so. This map you see below is worth 375 electoral votes, close to the 365 electoral votes Obama won in 2008 when he beat McCain by 7.3 percentage points. In fact, the map is identical to 2008 but for three changes: Georgia and Arizona turn blue, while Indiana (which surprisingly went for Obama in 2008) remains red:
But let’s say Clinton continues to build her lead, instead of Trump rebounding. Which dominoes might fall next?
South Carolina (+9.5): Public Policy Polling caused a big stir on Thursday when it published a poll showing Clinton down just 2 percentage points in South Carolina — but the result shouldn’t have been all that shocking. South Carolina was only a couple of points redder than Georgia in 2012 and 2008, so if Georgia has moved to being a tie, you’d expect South Carolina to follow just a half-step behind it. True, South Carolina doesn’t have a metropolis like Atlanta, but a relatively high percentage of white voters there have college degrees.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Missouri (+10.3): It’s surprising to see Missouri, once considered a bellwether state, so far down this list. Bill Clinton won it twice, and Obama came within 4,000 votes of winning it in 2008. But now we estimate that Hillary Clinton would need to win by about 10 points nationally to claim the state. Note, however, that the recent polling in Missouri has been mixed, with polls showing everything from a 10-point lead for Trump to a slight edge for Clinton.
There’s something of a gap after South Carolina and Missouri before the next set of states. Thus, Trump might be able to hold Clinton below 400 electoral votes even if she won by 12 points nationally:
But after that, the floodgates would really open, with lots of traditionally red states in all parts of the country potentially turning toward Clinton:
Mississippi (+12.3): I’m skeptical about this one, since Mississippi presents something of a modelling challenge. You can see why it’s an attractive target for Democrats, in theory: It has the highest share of black voters in the country (after the District of Columbia). But in 2008, only 11 percent of Mississippi’s white population voted for Obama. Clinton trailed Trump by just 3 percentage points in the only poll of Mississippi, taken in March. In that poll, Clinton got 20 percent of the white vote. If she can replicate that on Election Day, the outcome could be close.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Indiana (+13.2): Obama’s win in Indiana in 2008 — one of just two timesDemocrats have won the state since 1940 — might be hard to duplicate. He benefited that year from investing in the ground game in a state that is usually ignored, and from Indiana’s connections with Chicago. Plus, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is Trump’s running mate. Still, if Clinton stretches her national lead into the teens, Indiana could be competitive.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Texas (+13.8): Democrats have long talked about turning Texas blue — or at least purple — but the truth is they haven’t come anywhere close. Obama lost Texas by 12 points in 2008 despite his near-landslide margin nationally, for instance. But Clinton has a number of factors that could work in her favor. We estimate that about somewhere between 37 and 40 percent of Texas’s electorate will be Hispanic, black, Asian-American or Native American, depending on turnout. A high proportion of its white population has college degrees. And Trump has run afoul of locally popular politicians, such as Ted Cruz and George W. Bush. Previous polls of Texas had shown Trump with only a mid-single digit lead there, although a more recent survey had him up by 11.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Montana (+14.1): Obama also nearly won Montana in 2008, losing by just 2 percentage points. But Montana is historically an anti-establishment state, and Trump led Clinton in the only poll we can find — which, granted, was way back in November 2015 — by 21 percentage points. A winning scenario for Clinton would probably involve Libertarian Gary Johnson getting a substantial portion of the vote: Montana was Johnson’s second-best state, after New Mexico, in 2012.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Utah (+14.2): People are fascinated by Clinton’s prospects of winning in Utah, which went for Romney by 48 points in 2012. But it’s hard to say just how realistic those are. The polls-only model has Clinton just a couple of percentage points behind in the polling average in Utah, but its demographic model projects her to lose it by 16 points — a lot better than 2012, but not particularly close. As with Mississippi, therefore, the odds you assign to Clinton in Utah are highly sensitive to your choice of assumptions. She’s taking her chances seriously enough to make some efforts to campaign there, but is it a wild goose chase — like when Dick Cheney visited Hawaii in 2004 — or part of long-term plan to swing Mormons into the Democratic Party?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
South Dakota (+14.9): Less excitingly, Clinton could win South Dakota in the event of a national rout, as the state seems to have become the slightly bluer of the two Dakotas after North Dakota’s oil boom. Perhaps South Dakota has a soft spot for Clinton, having voted for her in the Democratic primary in both 2008 and 2016, when Obama and Bernie Sanders won almost all the surrounding states.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Kansas (+15.6): Polls have had Kansas surprisingly close — with onesurvey in June even having Clinton ahead. One can squint and make an argument for it: Kansas is relatively well-educated, and Republican Gov. Sam Brownback is extremely unpopular. But note that Kansas polls badly overstated Republicans’ problems in 2014, when both Brownback and Sen. Pat Roberts won re-election.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Alaska (+15.7): I doubt that Alaskans have much affection for Clinton, but the state is idiosyncratic enough that I don’t really know what they think of Trump, who lost to Cruz in the state’s Republican caucuses. As in Montana, a Clinton win would probably depend on Johnson sucking up a lot of Trump’s vote. Clinton trailed by just 5 percentage points in the only poll of Alaska in January, which didn’t include Johnson as an option.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Nebraska’s 1st Congressional District (+15.8): As goes Omaha, so goes Lincoln? Here’s what the map might look like if Clinton won by 16 percentage points nationally, along with all the states we’ve mentioned so far:
That would work out to 471 electoral votes, to 67 for Trump, which would be fairly typical for a win of that magnitude. Dwight D. Eisenhower won 457 electoral votes when beating Adlai Stevenson by 15 points in 1956, for example. And Franklin D. Roosevelt won 472 electoral votes in 1932, in an 18-point win against Herbert Hoover. Clinton would be a ways short of Ronald Reagan’s 525 electoral votes in 1984, however.
All right, let’s stop there. I’m trying to encourage you to keep an open mind. The way the polls-only model thinks about things, Clinton is ahead by 7 or 8 percentage points now, and the error in the forecast is symmetrical, meaning that she’s as likely to win by 14 or 16 points as she is to lose the popular vote to Trump. There have even been a couple of national polls that showed Clinton with a lead in the mid-teens. But my powers of imagination are limited. Other than losing North Dakota to go along with South Dakota, or perhaps the statewide electoral votes in Nebraska to go along with the congressional district ones, it’s hard for me to envision Trump doing any worse than this — unless he really does shoot someone on 5th Avenue. Link
http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
Last edited:
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Utah is another red state that in November can end up as a blue state. Loving it!
Senator Bob Bennett's son, Jim, leaves Republican party because of Trump
by Cimaron Neugebauer 8/12/2016
(KUTV) A Utah businessman and longtime Republican is leaving the party based on its presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Jim Bennett, son of the late Utah Senator Bob Bennett told MSNBC on Friday he has switched his voter registration from Republican to independent due to the fact that the GOP no longer represents him. The party as a whole has changed in a bad way since Trump began his presidential run, he said.
“The Republican Party that was near and dear to my heart for most of my adult life bears very little or no resemblance to the party of Trump,” Bennett said, whose father served as a U.S. Senator for 18 years as a Republican.
(KUTV) A Utah businessman and longtime Republican is leaving the party based on its presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Jim Bennett, son of the late Utah Senator Bob Bennett told MSNBC on Friday he has switched his voter registration from Republican to independent due to the fact that the GOP no longer represents him. The party as a whole has changed in a bad way since Trump began his presidential run, he said.
“The Republican Party that was near and dear to my heart for most of my adult life bears very little or no resemblance to the party of Trump,” Bennett said, whose father served as a U.S. Senator for 18 years as a Republican.
Bennett said earlier this year that his father spent time before he died in May apologizing to Muslims for Trump’s comments.
As a Mormon, Bennett said Trump has a struggle trying to win over the Mormon Utah population, which is around 60 percent. It’s a demographic that consistently has been known for voting Republican but are now hesitant to support the GOP nominee. Mitt Romney has been one of Trump’s prominent critics.
This isn’t anything new for Trump though. He acknowledged that he has “a tremendous problem” winning over Utah voters on Thursday, calling the Beehive state, “a different place” while talking to conservative pastors in Florida.
Recent polls have indicated that Hillary Clinton is close to possibly winning over Trump in the longtime red state. Link
Senator Bob Bennett's son, Jim, leaves Republican party because of Trump
by Cimaron Neugebauer 8/12/2016
(KUTV) A Utah businessman and longtime Republican is leaving the party based on its presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Jim Bennett, son of the late Utah Senator Bob Bennett told MSNBC on Friday he has switched his voter registration from Republican to independent due to the fact that the GOP no longer represents him. The party as a whole has changed in a bad way since Trump began his presidential run, he said.
“The Republican Party that was near and dear to my heart for most of my adult life bears very little or no resemblance to the party of Trump,” Bennett said, whose father served as a U.S. Senator for 18 years as a Republican.
(KUTV) A Utah businessman and longtime Republican is leaving the party based on its presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Jim Bennett, son of the late Utah Senator Bob Bennett told MSNBC on Friday he has switched his voter registration from Republican to independent due to the fact that the GOP no longer represents him. The party as a whole has changed in a bad way since Trump began his presidential run, he said.
“The Republican Party that was near and dear to my heart for most of my adult life bears very little or no resemblance to the party of Trump,” Bennett said, whose father served as a U.S. Senator for 18 years as a Republican.
Bennett said earlier this year that his father spent time before he died in May apologizing to Muslims for Trump’s comments.
As a Mormon, Bennett said Trump has a struggle trying to win over the Mormon Utah population, which is around 60 percent. It’s a demographic that consistently has been known for voting Republican but are now hesitant to support the GOP nominee. Mitt Romney has been one of Trump’s prominent critics.
This isn’t anything new for Trump though. He acknowledged that he has “a tremendous problem” winning over Utah voters on Thursday, calling the Beehive state, “a different place” while talking to conservative pastors in Florida.
Recent polls have indicated that Hillary Clinton is close to possibly winning over Trump in the longtime red state. Link
CBU-105
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 1,136
- Reaction score
- -11
- Country
- Location
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...lver_trump_has_about_5_chance_of_winning.html
some guru
there is no shortage of anti Trump material in the press these days, he probably has thousands of negative articles out daily but it just shows that they are scared silly. He hasn't spent anything on adds so far, this race is far from over, in fact it is only just beginning.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
What rigging are you referring to can you specify?
Maybe you missed it, since the Democratic convention, (when our enemies tried to intervene in our elections) several polls have shown that more than 90% of Bernie Sanders supporters will vote for Hillary.
Actually, he supported the war in the beginning and only a year later started to criticize it.
He is a guru not a God, those were his opinion, not the data from his polling analysis program that he has developed and is well respected for.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...lver_trump_has_about_5_chance_of_winning.html
some guru
there is no shortage of anti Trump material in the press these days, he probably has thousands of negative articles out daily but it just shows that they are scared silly. He hasn't spent anything on adds so far, this race is far from over, in fact it is only just beginning.
And nobody is claiming the race is over, but it’s not going to be easy for Trump to put his house in order, that’s for sure.
Falcon29
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2013
- Messages
- 31,647
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
Establishment(Democrats, 'Republicans', 'Independents' ie scammers) kill their own:
Was A DNC Staffer Murdered In A Politically Motivated Hit? Wikileaks Founder Won’t Confirm Or Deny
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...o-have-been-my-source-for-dnc-emails-n2203815
.............
@MilSpec
I thought you were pro-Trump, did you change your mind because of me?
He should turn them down, they're a waste of time. He also shouldn't negotiate with them at all, ransack the whole Congress, do a purge on state department, Pentagon, everything, clean this country from this crooked, tyrannical establishment. I hope if he gets elected, the first thing he does is manufacture a coup, then use it as excuse to purge the government and replace it with American first folks.
The Congress will not cooperate with the President or the American people, they only push forward their neocon agenda. It needs to be ransacked , all Congressmen need to be harassed and humiliated. This country has become so lame, it's such a lame tyrannical joke of a government, entertainment industry and news industry also controlled by the crooked establishment, that push our children into lame practices(Drugs, alcohol, fun fun fun fun blah) to keep them distracted from the real issues. Our youth have become a total joke.
Was A DNC Staffer Murdered In A Politically Motivated Hit? Wikileaks Founder Won’t Confirm Or Deny
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...o-have-been-my-source-for-dnc-emails-n2203815
.............
@MilSpec
I thought you were pro-Trump, did you change your mind because of me?
He should turn them down, they're a waste of time. He also shouldn't negotiate with them at all, ransack the whole Congress, do a purge on state department, Pentagon, everything, clean this country from this crooked, tyrannical establishment. I hope if he gets elected, the first thing he does is manufacture a coup, then use it as excuse to purge the government and replace it with American first folks.
The Congress will not cooperate with the President or the American people, they only push forward their neocon agenda. It needs to be ransacked , all Congressmen need to be harassed and humiliated. This country has become so lame, it's such a lame tyrannical joke of a government, entertainment industry and news industry also controlled by the crooked establishment, that push our children into lame practices(Drugs, alcohol, fun fun fun fun blah) to keep them distracted from the real issues. Our youth have become a total joke.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Wow, well if he tries to act on what you are suggesting, he’ll definitely will be impeached and thrown in jail.Establishment(Democrats, 'Republicans', 'Independents' ie scammers) kill their own:
Was A DNC Staffer Murdered In A Politically Motivated Hit? Wikileaks Founder Won’t Confirm Or Deny
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...o-have-been-my-source-for-dnc-emails-n2203815
.............
@MilSpec
I thought you were pro-Trump, did you change your mind because of me?
He should turn them down, they're a waste of time. He also shouldn't negotiate with them at all, ransack the whole Congress, do a purge on state department, Pentagon, everything, clean this country from this crooked, tyrannical establishment. I hope if he gets elected, the first thing he does is manufacture a coup, then use it as excuse to purge the government and replace it with American first folks.
The Congress will not cooperate with the President or the American people, they only push forward their neocon agenda. It needs to be ransacked , all Congressmen need to be harassed and humiliated. This country has become so lame, it's such a lame tyrannical joke of a government, entertainment industry and news industry also controlled by the crooked establishment, that push our children into lame practices(Drugs, alcohol, fun fun fun fun blah) to keep them distracted from the real issues. Our youth have become a total joke.
This useless old propaganda is not going to affect her, her Republican opponents had brought up this issue in the Senate elections and still she won the Senate elections twice from New York state and in the Democratic primaries she won 15.8 million popular votes, more than 3 million votes then Trump.
General election audience is very different from the Republican primaries voters, trumps dirty language and tactics are not going to work, and the polls are just showing that.
Last edited:
LA se Karachi
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,672
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Not most polls. And I'm assuming that you are citing a figure from just one or two polls only when third-party candidates are excluded. And even that is among those who are actually voting in this election. Many of us won't be voting for President at all.
With all due respect, please don't bend the facts to suit your narrative.
Nilgiri
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 24,797
- Reaction score
- 81
- Country
- Location
Nilgiri
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 24,797
- Reaction score
- 81
- Country
- Location
Its really not that, its more about the Hildabeest "bimbo" war room:
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/every-clinton-sex-assault-victim/
http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/bills-sex-assault-victim-lashes-out-over-hillarys-terrorizing/
She really went after some women to further in what she could cash in later. She has always coveted the top job and has been very vicious to anyone (including women) that have put spanners in the works over time because of her philandering hubbie.
No mainstream politician has so far challenged her on this (given they are afraid their own skeletons will get aired)....but Trump simply doesn't care....the worst has been thrown at him.....its time to bring the shillary right down and expose her in front of everyone.
Anubis
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 3,628
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html
Child Rape...come on...look at it like this...they can't throw Hilary into prison....but they can throw Trump in...I recon both camps will reach a settlement not to bring up any of these in exchange for not fucking Trump over if Hilary gets elected...because even if Trump wins he can't go after Hilary because she is the one of the most influential Senators in the US.If Hilary wins and all cases against Bill are proven do not expect Hilary to be impeached...but Trump can and will be impeached.
Voters can say oh are taking over the establishment over one of our guys all they want....but the American system is far too rigid and "balanced" for one Trump to do anything.
Similar threads
