Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure that everyone understands that Silver's work isn't just polling - it is probability of winning.

So, for instance if the election were held 100 times, Trump would win 46 and HRC would win 54. It's different than saying Trump gets 46% of the vote.

One of the best interactive graphics I have seen so far, let's you tinker with turnout and voter choice. Waaaay better than 270 to win


http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

out of date now

How is it out of date.

It isn't based on polls, it is based on turnout. Based on past election turnout not voter choice

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I come from Europe, and I can tell you that even between Hitler and Mussolini there was a difference. Hitler was worse. If that was my choice, I would vote Mussolini if only to keep Hitler away from power. Trump and Hillary might both be bad, but one is worse. Voting third party is hiding head in the sand at a very critical time.

Every fricking election we hear that it is a critical time! Heard it in 2000, 04. 08, 12 and now this go around.

There is nothing that critical this go around. We have a choice between two lousy candidates who have serious flaws. No matter who is elected the country will do fine and come 2020 we will again hear that it is a critical time!

Wow. For someone who was adult enough to remember hearing that as far back as 2000, I'm shocked at your poor memory and perspective. Remember in 2000 when people thought Bush wouldn't be that bad because there really weren't any terrible issues for him to handle? We were at peace, the economy was good, etc so a lot of people who just didn't like Al Gore thought that Bush would be fine and a nice change. Then 9/11 happened. Bush let us into a war that left thousands of citizens dead or grieving, gave rise to what became ISIS, and gave us Alito on the Supreme Court. The reason you keep hearing that every election is critical is because they all are. We never know what the future will hold and you need someone you trust at the helm, not someone you think probably couldn't do that much harm.

I'm not happy about either candidate, but I sure as hell know that this election IS critical and that Trump is unfit for office.

Do you know who is more critical of George Bush? It's surely not Hillary. She is targeting Bush people for campaign cash. Hillary voted for the war and gave rise to ISIS during her term as SOS. Many Bush folks may support Hillary over Trump.

Trump obliterated George Bush during the SC debate.

Well, Hillary can't be too critical of the Iraq war - she voted for it and did not express any regrets for her vote until 2011.

So did Pence, right?

Sure but he does not head the ticket and I can't see him condemning Hillary or anyone else for supporting the Iraq war.

Trump supported the war as well. He is lying when he says he didn't, and the media really needs to challenge him more about this.

Anonymous wrote:Not sure that everyone understands that Silver's work isn't just polling - it is probability of winning.

So, for instance if the election were held 100 times, Trump would win 46 and HRC would win 54. It's different than saying Trump gets 46% of the vote.

One of the best interactive graphics I have seen so far, let's you tinker with turnout and voter choice. Waaaay better than 270 to win


http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

out of date now

Anonymous wrote:

MikeL 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.

Nate's model actually underestimates Trump's support (or it could be the polls are under polling Trump voters). If Nate says Trump is ahead, he really is way ahead.

The wingnuts were all over Nate's polling in 2012, insisting that he was undercounting the 'Pubes.
Look how that turned out for 'em.

I'm sure that someone will also make up blatant lies about Trump then state "he didn't win, did he?"

What are you talking about?

MikeL 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.

Nate's model actually underestimates Trump's support (or it could be the polls are under polling Trump voters). If Nate says Trump is ahead, he really is way ahead.

The wingnuts were all over Nate's polling in 2012, insisting that he was undercounting the 'Pubes.
Look how that turned out for 'em.

I'm sure that someone will also make up blatant lies about Trump then state "he didn't win, did he?"

Anonymous wrote:

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

GOD YES!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I come from Europe, and I can tell you that even between Hitler and Mussolini there was a difference. Hitler was worse. If that was my choice, I would vote Mussolini if only to keep Hitler away from power. Trump and Hillary might both be bad, but one is worse. Voting third party is hiding head in the sand at a very critical time.

Every fricking election we hear that it is a critical time! Heard it in 2000, 04. 08, 12 and now this go around.

There is nothing that critical this go around. We have a choice between two lousy candidates who have serious flaws. No matter who is elected the country will do fine and come 2020 we will again hear that it is a critical time!

Wow. For someone who was adult enough to remember hearing that as far back as 2000, I'm shocked at your poor memory and perspective. Remember in 2000 when people thought Bush wouldn't be that bad because there really weren't any terrible issues for him to handle? We were at peace, the economy was good, etc so a lot of people who just didn't like Al Gore thought that Bush would be fine and a nice change. Then 9/11 happened. Bush let us into a war that left thousands of citizens dead or grieving, gave rise to what became ISIS, and gave us Alito on the Supreme Court. The reason you keep hearing that every election is critical is because they all are. We never know what the future will hold and you need someone you trust at the helm, not someone you think probably couldn't do that much harm.

I'm not happy about either candidate, but I sure as hell know that this election IS critical and that Trump is unfit for office.

Do you know who is more critical of George Bush? It's surely not Hillary. She is targeting Bush people for campaign cash. Hillary voted for the war and gave rise to ISIS during her term as SOS. Many Bush folks may support Hillary over Trump.

Trump obliterated George Bush during the SC debate.

Well, Hillary can't be too critical of the Iraq war - she voted for it and did not express any regrets for her vote until 2011.

So did Pence, right?

Sure but he does not head the ticket and I can't see him condemning Hillary or anyone else for supporting the Iraq war.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I come from Europe, and I can tell you that even between Hitler and Mussolini there was a difference. Hitler was worse. If that was my choice, I would vote Mussolini if only to keep Hitler away from power. Trump and Hillary might both be bad, but one is worse. Voting third party is hiding head in the sand at a very critical time.

Every fricking election we hear that it is a critical time! Heard it in 2000, 04. 08, 12 and now this go around.

There is nothing that critical this go around. We have a choice between two lousy candidates who have serious flaws. No matter who is elected the country will do fine and come 2020 we will again hear that it is a critical time!

Wow. For someone who was adult enough to remember hearing that as far back as 2000, I'm shocked at your poor memory and perspective. Remember in 2000 when people thought Bush wouldn't be that bad because there really weren't any terrible issues for him to handle? We were at peace, the economy was good, etc so a lot of people who just didn't like Al Gore thought that Bush would be fine and a nice change. Then 9/11 happened. Bush let us into a war that left thousands of citizens dead or grieving, gave rise to what became ISIS, and gave us Alito on the Supreme Court. The reason you keep hearing that every election is critical is because they all are. We never know what the future will hold and you need someone you trust at the helm, not someone you think probably couldn't do that much harm.

I'm not happy about either candidate, but I sure as hell know that this election IS critical and that Trump is unfit for office.

Do you know who is more critical of George Bush? It's surely not Hillary. She is targeting Bush people for campaign cash. Hillary voted for the war and gave rise to ISIS during her term as SOS. Many Bush folks may support Hillary over Trump.

Trump obliterated George Bush during the SC debate.

Well, Hillary can't be too critical of the Iraq war - she voted for it and did not express any regrets for her vote until 2011.

So did Pence, right?

Anonymous wrote:This thread has me really scared Trump might have a chance.

We aren't well off and don't usually donate much to political causes, but I think we better donate some more money to the Clinton Campaign.

I think Trump has a decent chance though it may be some external event that tips the election to him.

This thread has me really scared Trump might have a chance.

We aren't well off and don't usually donate much to political causes, but I think we better donate some more money to the Clinton Campaign.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I come from Europe, and I can tell you that even between Hitler and Mussolini there was a difference. Hitler was worse. If that was my choice, I would vote Mussolini if only to keep Hitler away from power. Trump and Hillary might both be bad, but one is worse. Voting third party is hiding head in the sand at a very critical time.

Every fricking election we hear that it is a critical time! Heard it in 2000, 04. 08, 12 and now this go around.

There is nothing that critical this go around. We have a choice between two lousy candidates who have serious flaws. No matter who is elected the country will do fine and come 2020 we will again hear that it is a critical time!

Wow. For someone who was adult enough to remember hearing that as far back as 2000, I'm shocked at your poor memory and perspective. Remember in 2000 when people thought Bush wouldn't be that bad because there really weren't any terrible issues for him to handle? We were at peace, the economy was good, etc so a lot of people who just didn't like Al Gore thought that Bush would be fine and a nice change. Then 9/11 happened. Bush let us into a war that left thousands of citizens dead or grieving, gave rise to what became ISIS, and gave us Alito on the Supreme Court. The reason you keep hearing that every election is critical is because they all are. We never know what the future will hold and you need someone you trust at the helm, not someone you think probably couldn't do that much harm.

I'm not happy about either candidate, but I sure as hell know that this election IS critical and that Trump is unfit for office.

Do you know who is more critical of George Bush? It's surely not Hillary. She is targeting Bush people for campaign cash. Hillary voted for the war and gave rise to ISIS during her term as SOS. Many Bush folks may support Hillary over Trump.

Trump obliterated George Bush during the SC debate.

Well, Hillary can't be too critical of the Iraq war - she voted for it and did not express any regrets for her vote until 2011.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I come from Europe, and I can tell you that even between Hitler and Mussolini there was a difference. Hitler was worse. If that was my choice, I would vote Mussolini if only to keep Hitler away from power. Trump and Hillary might both be bad, but one is worse. Voting third party is hiding head in the sand at a very critical time.

Every fricking election we hear that it is a critical time! Heard it in 2000, 04. 08, 12 and now this go around.

There is nothing that critical this go around. We have a choice between two lousy candidates who have serious flaws. No matter who is elected the country will do fine and come 2020 we will again hear that it is a critical time!

Wow. For someone who was adult enough to remember hearing that as far back as 2000, I'm shocked at your poor memory and perspective. Remember in 2000 when people thought Bush wouldn't be that bad because there really weren't any terrible issues for him to handle? We were at peace, the economy was good, etc so a lot of people who just didn't like Al Gore thought that Bush would be fine and a nice change. Then 9/11 happened. Bush let us into a war that left thousands of citizens dead or grieving, gave rise to what became ISIS, and gave us Alito on the Supreme Court. The reason you keep hearing that every election is critical is because they all are. We never know what the future will hold and you need someone you trust at the helm, not someone you think probably couldn't do that much harm.

I'm not happy about either candidate, but I sure as hell know that this election IS critical and that Trump is unfit for office.

Do you know who is more critical of George Bush? It's surely not Hillary. She is targeting Bush people for campaign cash. Hillary voted for the war and gave rise to ISIS during her term as SOS. Many Bush folks may support Hillary over Trump.

Trump obliterated George Bush during the SC debate.

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.

Nate's model actually underestimates Trump's support (or it could be the polls are under polling Trump voters). If Nate says Trump is ahead, he really is way ahead.

The wingnuts were all over Nate's polling in 2012, insisting that he was undercounting the 'Pubes.
Look how that turned out for 'em.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I come from Europe, and I can tell you that even between Hitler and Mussolini there was a difference. Hitler was worse. If that was my choice, I would vote Mussolini if only to keep Hitler away from power. Trump and Hillary might both be bad, but one is worse. Voting third party is hiding head in the sand at a very critical time.

Every fricking election we hear that it is a critical time! Heard it in 2000, 04. 08, 12 and now this go around.

There is nothing that critical this go around. We have a choice between two lousy candidates who have serious flaws. No matter who is elected the country will do fine and come 2020 we will again hear that it is a critical time!

Wow. For someone who was adult enough to remember hearing that as far back as 2000, I'm shocked at your poor memory and perspective. Remember in 2000 when people thought Bush wouldn't be that bad because there really weren't any terrible issues for him to handle? We were at peace, the economy was good, etc so a lot of people who just didn't like Al Gore thought that Bush would be fine and a nice change. Then 9/11 happened. Bush let us into a war that left thousands of citizens dead or grieving, gave rise to what became ISIS, and gave us Alito on the Supreme Court. The reason you keep hearing that every election is critical is because they all are. We never know what the future will hold and you need someone you trust at the helm, not someone you think probably couldn't do that much harm.

I'm not happy about either candidate, but I sure as hell know that this election IS critical and that Trump is unfit for office.

I just used the year 2000 given that most participants on this board are relatively young.

I actually could have gone back all the way to 1964, the first election when I was old enough to be really politically aware, though my interest in politics started with last couple of years of Eisenhower's presidency and then Kennedy.

Johnson vs Goldwater and the same dire warnings were being given about Goldwater being trigger happy with nuclear weapons ....... Johnson was ostensibly the safe vote but he then got us fully involved in the Vietnam war and we ended up with 65K American soldiers dead and countless others maimed and that does not include the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Cambodians who were killed. So much for the safe choice!

Onward to Reagan and Carter and we were told that Reagan was unqualified to be president at such a critical time what with the Soviets and Iran which was under the Ayatollah. Another critical election where the wrong choice - namely Reagan - would plunge us into war. I believed that, btw, and it turned out the Reagan was a fairly successful president despite some missteps.

So, I tend to view these "critical" elections somewhat cynically. IMO, irrespective of whether Trump or Clinton wins we will end up fine although we will have a few upheavals along the way. We have been through a lot of trauma over the past 60 years and we survived all of it. Maybe I am just more nonchalant about these things ....... or maybe it is the onset of senility, but I really have enormous faith in the American people and our system of government.

Yes, I squarely blame Bush for the Iraq fiasco and I squarely blame Obama and Hillary Clinton for Libya and Syria which have been total catastrophes. And although, ISIS may have had its genesis with Iraq, it was fostered along to become the potent and malevolent force it is because of Syria and Libya. Obama totally misread ISIS - remember when he said it was the JV team because the real threat was Al Qaeda?

BTW, I voted both times for Obama.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I come from Europe, and I can tell you that even between Hitler and Mussolini there was a difference. Hitler was worse. If that was my choice, I would vote Mussolini if only to keep Hitler away from power. Trump and Hillary might both be bad, but one is worse. Voting third party is hiding head in the sand at a very critical time.

Every fricking election we hear that it is a critical time! Heard it in 2000, 04. 08, 12 and now this go around.

There is nothing that critical this go around. We have a choice between two lousy candidates who have serious flaws. No matter who is elected the country will do fine and come 2020 we will again hear that it is a critical time!

Wow. For someone who was adult enough to remember hearing that as far back as 2000, I'm shocked at your poor memory and perspective. Remember in 2000 when people thought Bush wouldn't be that bad because there really weren't any terrible issues for him to handle? We were at peace, the economy was good, etc so a lot of people who just didn't like Al Gore thought that Bush would be fine and a nice change. Then 9/11 happened. Bush let us into a war that left thousands of citizens dead or grieving, gave rise to what became ISIS, and gave us Alito on the Supreme Court. The reason you keep hearing that every election is critical is because they all are. We never know what the future will hold and you need someone you trust at the helm, not someone you think probably couldn't do that much harm.

I'm not happy about either candidate, but I sure as hell know that this election IS critical and that Trump is unfit for office.