Post: #26

I used to think Michigan is a pipe dream to get red but after hearing about the discrepancy during the Sanders win with the DNC Primary (where all the polls had HRC winning by a huge margin) and what Michael Moore is saying (https://twitter.com/JaredWyand/status/79...0776811522) - I'd say it's a swing state. It'll be confirmed a swing state if Trump holds any rallies in Michigan between now and Nov 8th.

Post: #27

Hey bro no need for a long msm rant for me, I'm not a Hiliary supporter either in this joke of an election. Ive said it before I'll say it again you couldn't make this shit up, stranger than fiction.....

Post: #28

Yeah i'm not sure which side Michael Moore is on, but this is a really good video.

Post: #29

based on trump signs search terms, trump by a landslide

https://www.google.ca/trends/explore?geo...mp%20signs

Post: #30

Red states above are a lock.

He''ll need either of these states to win.

1. Nevada + New Hampshire
2. Pennslyvania
3. Michigan
   

Post: #31

It could get dicey if Trump won the popular vote by a margin such as 55-45, 60-40 or more but lost the electoral vote. Hillary then becomes president (SHTF) and then moves to change the system due to public protests. Hillary Clinton has mentioned in the past her desire to change the U.S. system from a more republican form of government with an electoral college to a more democratic form of government with a popular vote.

Even more crap would be stirred up if another candidate won a few electoral votes and a 12th Amendment scenario unfolded. For those unaware, this is where neither candidate receives 270 electoral votes and the U.S. House of Representatives elects the president based on the candidates with the top three electoral votes. For added drama the U.S. Senate could determine the VP from the top two VP candidates; even if it was not the President-Elect´s choice. There could be large numbers of voters on both sides with symptoms of nausea and poisoning.

The prediction is pain (Clubber Lang). Heads the elites win and tails the people lose. Suffering on the other hand is our choice and not in the hands of someone else.

----------------------------------
The only easy day was yesterday.

Post: #32

It's going to be tough. This is giving him FL, OH, NV, NC and IA. He still falls short. And there is no guarantee of him running the table with all those, he is tied in many of them.

He has to pick off a PA, MI or WI to have a chance.

Post: #33

PA upgraded to toss-up on RCP! http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...anges.html

Post: #34

#MAGA

Post: #35

Texas is a toss up on RCP??

Post: #36

(10-27-2016 03:35 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:  Texas is a toss up on RCP??

Yeah, which is why Real Clear Politics is

Post: #37

This explains the electoral college fairly well, and now I understand why they always seem to rally in certain states during the general.

Post: #38

Quote:He has to pick off a PA, MI or WI to have a chance.

The rust belt is clearly key to his whole strategy and campaign.

Post: #39

Early voting is putting Hillary ahead as much as 6% in NC, the November files is going to have to be something truly dynamite to keep the state from going blue.

Post: #40

(10-28-2016 06:55 AM)Vicious Wrote:  Early voting is putting Hillary ahead as much as 6% in NC, the November files is going to have to be something truly dynamite to keep the state from going blue.

Early voting always goes Democrat in NC. Romney was behind there by like 16-18% or something in November before winning on election day. It's just the way that state works. Trump is actually doing better than Romney was at this point and has better numbers with independents than Romney did, so NC is looking pretty good right now.

Post: #41

Huh? From every news article I'm reading its being mentioned how Dem early voting is outpacing Romney early lead in 2012.

This is all public data so it sounds like a pretty bold thing to lie about even for msm.

Post: #42

(10-28-2016 10:10 AM)Vicious Wrote:  Huh? From every news article I'm reading its being mentioned how Dem early voting is outpacing Romney early lead in 2012.

This is all public data so it sounds like a pretty bold thing to lie about even for msm.

Actually the info about NC is correct. Dems are behind their 2012 pace in NC, but they are doing better in other states.

Quote:However, for the first time since in-person early voting started last week, Democrats are behind their 2012 pace. At this point four years ago, they led Republicans by 167,401, or 20.5 points, in the early vote.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/e...index.html

Post: #43

Here's my updated prediction after the FBI investigation reopened and now the Podesta emails about Spirit dinners.

Michigan will probably end up tied, but Trump will have over 270 so they won't bother doing a recount. Kept VA as a slight blue because of all the government workers near DC.



EDIT: Forgot about Alaska, so of course that will go to Trump for >300 electoral votes.

Post: #44

My take:



Given the reports of depressed voter turnout amongst African-Americans, I'd say that Michigan, instead of Pennsylvania, is the surprise state that will put Trump over the top. If Hillary feels compelled to do GOTV in fucking Detroit, that tells me they think they're in trouble there.

Post: #45

I thought I would keep this in this thread since my concern is more related to the electoral college. I'm not trying to reduce morale here, but rather 1) Stay as objective as possible and 2) trying to highlight how important a fight to the death is in this election.

In the other Trump thread, there are some members casting doubt over a Trump win. These guys and some doubters outside the forum that I know keep citing Nate Silver and Five thirty eight. Apparently he's been right many times before and sees this election in Clinton's favor right now.

I consider some members' predictions here very credible. That said, I'm wondering what you guys think about Nate Silver's statistical model versus your own predictions. If we can objectively cite why Nate's model works versus why it doesn't, things will be in much better perspective.

Right now, on the forum, our predictions are something between a very right side view and a dick measuring contest. More objectivity at this point wouldn't hurt.

For perspective, here is a choice article from five thirty eight: "The cubs have a smaller chance of winning than Trump does."

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-...rump-does/

So, yes they have been wrong before.

Post: #46

(11-06-2016 08:19 AM)Cobra Wrote:  That said, I'm wondering what you guys think about Nate Silver's statistical model versus your own predictions. If we can objectively cite why Nate's model works versus why it doesn't, things will be in much better perspective.

Nate's is actually the most bullish model on Trump right now. He has Hillary at a 65.5% chance of winning, versus Trump at 34.5%. At this point in 2012 he had Obama at a 91% chance, even though he had a smaller poll lead over Romney. The reason Nate gives for this is that in the last few days of the campaign Obama was pulling away from Romney, and the trend lines favored him. This year Trump is closing in on Hillary, or at least he was, the polls seem to have stabilized now. But, there is more uncertainty and more undecided voters.

Nate is in the unique position this year of being attacked by both Hillary and Trump supporters. The former for being too pessimistic about her chances and the latter for showing a Trump loss.

For comparison, Sam Wang's model, and the one that most Hillary supporters cite has her chances of winning at 99%. His position is that the cake was baked months ago, and all of these recent developments are just noise. You can review his model here:

http://election.princeton.edu/

He called the the 2012 election on the nose for Obama.

Post: #47

I'm not going to take any of these prediction sites seriously if they base their credibility on recent past elections, without considering the differences in this one. This isn't like the last several elections, but much closer to the 1980 race. So how do their models hold up if they use the same methodology with 1980 data? I don't know, because they haven't run those simulations from what I've found. But since their models are based on polling data, it's unlikely they would be reliable in a 1980 scenario.

I have to say, my gut (AKA the subconscious of my scientifically trained mind) says anyone predicting a 99+% chance of a Hillary win is a fucking moron. I'm just not willing to spend all day digging into the guy's method and explaining why. I don't care that much.

Meanwhile, we have a guy like Allan Lichtman who has correctly predicted not just one or two recent races correctly, but every single presidential election since 1984. His predictions are not based on poll data, but on a set of questions about the state of our society and government. Poll data can be faked or simply wrong--GIGO--but the answers to his questions ("keys") are simply yes or no, and hard to mess up. Dr. Lichtman says Mr. Trump is going win. He made that prediction in September, and reaffirmed his prediction about a week ago.

I don't know what's going to happen. My gut says Mr. Trump is going to win, but I know it's possible Hillary might pull off a victory by some nefarious means, or simply because the demographic distribution in this country has shifted to make a Republican presidential win nearly impossible. Yet the behavior of the left and the establishment/media complex shows they are afraid. For example, they're running pre-suasion routines to try to cast doubt on the outcome of the election, and they wouldn't do that if they were confident of a Hillary win. And of course, there's a massive, obvious enthusiasm gap. Mr. Trump could show up unannounced to a corn field in Nebraska to perform a Katy Perry cover concert with nothing but a bowl of beans and flatulence and he'd still have a couple thousand people show up. Hillary can barely fill a living room without busing in students from local schools, who are bribed with extra credit if they show up.

What I do know is this election is not the end, either way. It's just a fork in the road. I hope we take the Trump fork because it will make things easier for us, but if not, I'm still determined to do whatever I can to fight back against the cultural takeover we've been ignoring for the past fifty odd years. And that's why I'm content to simply wait and see, and not agonize over every micrometric twitch in the polls and predictions. This isn't the end of anything, and even if we lose this battle the war will rage on.

Post: #48

Quote:I have to say, my gut (AKA the subconscious of my scientifically trained mind) says anyone predicting a 99+% chance of a Hillary win is a fucking moron. I'm just not willing to spend all day digging into the guy's method and explaining why. I don't care that much.

Sam Wang reminds me of the guys at LTCM who thought they found the secret to alchemy. Then Russia defaulted and they lost almost 2bn. I hope the bug he promised to eat if Trump gets 240+ EV is really disgusting.

Post: #49

I think CO is more likely to go for trump than he polls are predicting. Polls base their likely voter models on the previous presidential election. The CO marijuana legalization measure was on the 2012 ballot which probably skewed the turnout more liberal than usual. Likewise I predict Trump will do worse in AZ than predicted by the polls because they have a legalization measure on the ballot this year. I wouldn't be surprised if NM went red again. Obama campaigned there heavily in 2008 but I feel like Clinton is taking the blue southwest states for granted.

Post: #50

(11-06-2016 10:19 AM)weambulance Wrote:  What I do know is this election is not the end, either way. It's just a fork in the road. I hope we take the Trump fork because it will make things easier for us, but if not, I'm still determined to do whatever I can to fight back against the cultural takeover we've been ignoring for the past fifty odd years. And that's why I'm content to simply wait and see, and not agonize over every micrometric twitch in the polls and predictions. This isn't the end of anything, and even if we lose this battle the war will rage on.

I don't think this is the end either but i'm far less optimistic. The e-mails have shown how deep the corruption goes with Hillary. It's not just alarming but sick how completely and totally co-opted everything is.

She'll run the nation into the ground there's no doubt about it and put in further institutional corruption which will benefit another generation of leaders annointed by the same collection of elites who propped her up.

The geopolitical role the U.S plays with the petrodollar means that the worse regimes in the world and the U.S. government will always walk hand in hand dragging along the unwilling taxpayer. More wars, reduced standard of living, and more of the same... and worse.

If Hillary wins I really doubt there will be any semblance of a real democracy left. The political institution will become so broken and the floodgates will are opened to ensure demographic destruction after that.

It's pretty hard to come back when you let in an entirely different people from a neighboring country and then allow them to "vote" with the same rights as actual citizens.