Nate Silver has a new prediction

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time for Joe to run. The Democratic candidate can't be so close with Trump. TRUMP FFS! The Democrats need to be creaming this guy.

Democrats need to thank HRC or her work and run someone capable of beating Trump. The stakes (trump stakes?) are too high.

Time for Al Neri to tap Hillary on the shoulder and take her fishing.

Yes! Joe! I love him. I won't vote for Hillary.

Agreed! I'd vote for Biden but not Hillary.

Perhaps Hillary will do the noble thing and withdraw

You're both disgusting.

+1. It blows my mind that people can't separate the person (Hillary) from the platform (Democratic). She may not be everyone's cup of tea but allowing Trump to become president is so incredibly dangerous. But then again, I think the majority of people on this forum are UMC whites who don't stand to lose much either way, and thus don't care about the rest of us.

The problem is that she totally lacks any convictions as evidenced by her constantly changing positions based on what is politically expedient and what sells to her patrons. So the platform means little. She will not stick to it as evidenced by her switch on TPP which she will go back to if she is elected.

Is it any wonder why she has such a trust and honesty deficit - and it is getting worse.

+100. She will do whatever is politically expedient for her, platform be damned.

You're just talking out of your rear end, now. You cannot possibly know anything about HRC and come to this conclusion. It is 100% false. You can look at her votes, positions, etc. to see that. But, I get it is just easier to make stuff up.

[Anonymous]

I'm assuming not everyone knows this...Nate Silver has been 99% accurate. Out of 100 states in the past 2 elections, he predicted 99 states correctly so when he says Trump is ahead, you better believe it's likely true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming not everyone knows this...Nate Silver has been 99% accurate. Out of 100 states in the past 2 elections, he predicted 99 states correctly so when he says Trump is ahead, you better believe it's likely true.

His prediction model is still saying that Clinton will win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming not everyone knows this...Nate Silver has been 99% accurate. Out of 100 states in the past 2 elections, he predicted 99 states correctly so when he says Trump is ahead, you better believe it's likely true.

His prediction model is still saying that Clinton will win.

http://www.salon.com/2016/07/25/shock_poll_nate_silvers_election_forecast_now_has_trump_winning/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming not everyone knows this...Nate Silver has been 99% accurate. Out of 100 states in the past 2 elections, he predicted 99 states correctly so when he says Trump is ahead, you better believe it's likely true.

Fortunately, Nate knows his stuff better than you apparently do.

The numbers this thread is based on are the "NowCast" which asks what would happen if the election were today. So these numbers include Trump's convention bump but not Clinton's, since the DNC hasn't happened, yet.

To draw any conclusions about the election in November based on the snapshot that is the NowCast is silly, and Silver would say that himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming not everyone knows this...Nate Silver has been 99% accurate. Out of 100 states in the past 2 elections, he predicted 99 states correctly so when he says Trump is ahead, you better believe it's likely true.

His prediction model is still saying that Clinton will win.

http://www.salon.com/2016/07/25/shock_poll_nate_silvers_election_forecast_now_has_trump_winning/

Why do you look at his website instead of someone else's?

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because trump hasn't changed his mind - ever. Especially not multiple times in one day.

He been married 3 times. Yes, he has changed his mind very publically and legally 3 times.

It should be 2 times. Sorry, it'a math thing, can't resist.

There's still time. Melanie isn't getting any younger after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because trump hasn't changed his mind - ever. Especially not multiple times in one day.

He been married 3 times. Yes, he has changed his mind very publically and legally 3 times.

It should be 2 times. Sorry, it'a math thing, can't resist.

There's still time. Melanie isn't getting any younger after all.

If Trump loses Melania's in trade-in territory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because trump hasn't changed his mind - ever. Especially not multiple times in one day.

He been married 3 times. Yes, he has changed his mind very publically and legally 3 times.

It should be 2 times. Sorry, it'a math thing, can't resist.

There's still time. Melanie isn't getting any younger after all.

What is DWTS? I can only find Dancing with the Stars.

[Anonymous]

well, marla was already on that show

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because trump hasn't changed his mind - ever. Especially not multiple times in one day.

He been married 3 times. Yes, he has changed his mind very publically and legally 3 times.

It should be 2 times. Sorry, it'a math thing, can't resist.

There's still time. Melanie isn't getting any younger after all.

What is DWTS? I can only find Dancing with the Stars.

Melania is trying out the blue steel a little bit, huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time for Joe to run. The Democratic candidate can't be so close with Trump. TRUMP FFS! The Democrats need to be creaming this guy.

Democrats need to thank HRC or her work and run someone capable of beating Trump. The stakes (trump stakes?) are too high.

Time for Al Neri to tap Hillary on the shoulder and take her fishing.

Yes! Joe! I love him. I won't vote for Hillary.

Agreed! I'd vote for Biden but not Hillary.

Perhaps Hillary will do the noble thing and withdraw

You're both disgusting.

+1. It blows my mind that people can't separate the person (Hillary) from the platform (Democratic). She may not be everyone's cup of tea but allowing Trump to become president is so incredibly dangerous. But then again, I think the majority of people on this forum are UMC whites who don't stand to lose much either way, and thus don't care about the rest of us.

The problem is that she totally lacks any convictions as evidenced by her constantly changing positions based on what is politically expedient and what sells to her patrons. So the platform means little. She will not stick to it as evidenced by her switch on TPP which she will go back to if she is elected.

Is it any wonder why she has such a trust and honesty deficit - and it is getting worse.

+100. She will do whatever is politically expedient for her, platform be damned.

You're just talking out of your rear end, now. You cannot possibly know anything about HRC and come to this conclusion. It is 100% false. You can look at her votes, positions, etc. to see that. But, I get it is just easier to make stuff up.

If you look at her record and historical tendencies, she will throw that platform away in a heart beat. She is not that platform. She is a '90's center democrat. Platforms means nothing and are not followed by any candidates once elected.

[Anonymous]

Wouldn't read too much into it. Trump got an expected modest convention bounce and Clinton will too. Voters don't really focus until after August anyway. My guess is that when it hits home that Trump actually could be president, the numbers will swing far away from him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't read too much into it. Trump got an expected modest convention bounce and Clinton will too. Voters don't really focus until after August anyway. My guess is that when it hits home that Trump actually could be president, the numbers will swing far away from him.

I sure as hell hope so. Because I am just ready to curl up in the fetal position over here that he's even this close

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time for Joe to run. The Democratic candidate can't be so close with Trump. TRUMP FFS! The Democrats need to be creaming this guy.

Democrats need to thank HRC or her work and run someone capable of beating Trump. The stakes (trump stakes?) are too high.

Time for Al Neri to tap Hillary on the shoulder and take her fishing.

Yes! Joe! I love him. I won't vote for Hillary.

Agreed! I'd vote for Biden but not Hillary.

Perhaps Hillary will do the noble thing and withdraw

You're both disgusting.

+1. It blows my mind that people can't separate the person (Hillary) from the platform (Democratic). She may not be everyone's cup of tea but allowing Trump to become president is so incredibly dangerous. But then again, I think the majority of people on this forum are UMC whites who don't stand to lose much either way, and thus don't care about the rest of us.

The problem is that she totally lacks any convictions as evidenced by her constantly changing positions based on what is politically expedient and what sells to her patrons. So the platform means little. She will not stick to it as evidenced by her switch on TPP which she will go back to if she is elected.

Is it any wonder why she has such a trust and honesty deficit - and it is getting worse.

+100. She will do whatever is politically expedient for her, platform be damned.

You're just talking out of your rear end, now. You cannot possibly know anything about HRC and come to this conclusion. It is 100% false. You can look at her votes, positions, etc. to see that. But, I get it is just easier to make stuff up.

If you look at her record and historical tendencies, she will throw that platform away in a heart beat. She is not that platform. She is a '90's center democrat. Platforms means nothing and are not followed by any candidates once elected.

Give us examples when she threw away the party platform. And please contrast the party platform with her vote. We'll wait

Those people who found her to be one of the most progressive Senator must've been all smoking something. Unlike you. You know better than everyone.