Anonymous wrote:How could Trump not win? He's been endorsed by Putin, Kim Jong Un, David Duke and now Obama's Kenyan half-brother.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nate Silver's latest projection is that if the election were held today, Trump has a greater likelihood of winning the election than Clinton.

This will come as a shock to posters here who have been citing Silver repeatedly projecting that Clinton would win.

"In his "Now-cast" election model for who would win if ballots were cast Monday, Silver gave the Republican nominee a 57.5% chance of winning the presidency.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton had a 42.5% chance of securing the nation's highest office if voters were to take to the polls Monday.

Silver's model had Trump winning in the swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire. He would win 285 electoral votes in Silver's model.

It's the first time in Silver's "Now-cast" forecast that Trump has been projected to win."

http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-silver-donald-trump-polls-2016-7

It's a good thing then that elections aren't held in late July, on the weekend in between the conventions.

Yes, I know ....... Nate Silver's view was much more interesting when he was projecting Clinton's chances at 80%

538 updated their forecast this morning. They have Hillary with 56% of the popular vote.

Trump could win, but it isn't likely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nate Silver's latest projection is that if the election were held today, Trump has a greater likelihood of winning the election than Clinton.

This will come as a shock to posters here who have been citing Silver repeatedly projecting that Clinton would win.

"In his "Now-cast" election model for who would win if ballots were cast Monday, Silver gave the Republican nominee a 57.5% chance of winning the presidency.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton had a 42.5% chance of securing the nation's highest office if voters were to take to the polls Monday.

Silver's model had Trump winning in the swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire. He would win 285 electoral votes in Silver's model.

It's the first time in Silver's "Now-cast" forecast that Trump has been projected to win."

http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-silver-donald-trump-polls-2016-7

It's a good thing then that elections aren't held in late July, on the weekend in between the conventions.

Yes, I know ....... Nate Silver's view was much more interesting when he was projecting Clinton's chances at 80%

Anonymous wrote:Trump got no bounce, according to a CBS poll that came out today. It shows a tie 42-42. Last week in the CBS poll, Trump and Clinton were tied 40-40

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump-tied-going-into-democratic-convention/

So which poll would you like to believe? Personally, I think summer weekends polls are unreliable because so many people are out of town.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nate Silver's latest projection is that if the election were held today, Trump has a greater likelihood of winning the election than Clinton.

This will come as a shock to posters here who have been citing Silver repeatedly projecting that Clinton would win.

"In his "Now-cast" election model for who would win if ballots were cast Monday, Silver gave the Republican nominee a 57.5% chance of winning the presidency.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton had a 42.5% chance of securing the nation's highest office if voters were to take to the polls Monday.

Silver's model had Trump winning in the swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire. He would win 285 electoral votes in Silver's model.

It's the first time in Silver's "Now-cast" forecast that Trump has been projected to win."

http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-silver-donald-trump-polls-2016-7

Nate himself says the forecasts are not reliable around the conventions, and that poll watchers should wait until mid-August, when any convention effects have dissipated.
It's a good thing then that elections aren't held in late July, on the weekend in between the conventions.

Yes, I know ....... Nate Silver's view was much more interesting when he was projecting Clinton's chances at 80%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nate Silver's latest projection is that if the election were held today, Trump has a greater likelihood of winning the election than Clinton.

This will come as a shock to posters here who have been citing Silver repeatedly projecting that Clinton would win.

"In his "Now-cast" election model for who would win if ballots were cast Monday, Silver gave the Republican nominee a 57.5% chance of winning the presidency.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton had a 42.5% chance of securing the nation's highest office if voters were to take to the polls Monday.

Silver's model had Trump winning in the swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire. He would win 285 electoral votes in Silver's model.

It's the first time in Silver's "Now-cast" forecast that Trump has been projected to win."

http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-silver-donald-trump-polls-2016-7

It's a good thing then that elections aren't held in late July, on the weekend in between the conventions.

Yes, I know ....... Nate Silver's view was much more interesting when he was projecting Clinton's chances at 80%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nate Silver's latest projection is that if the election were held today, Trump has a greater likelihood of winning the election than Clinton.

This will come as a shock to posters here who have been citing Silver repeatedly projecting that Clinton would win.

"In his "Now-cast" election model for who would win if ballots were cast Monday, Silver gave the Republican nominee a 57.5% chance of winning the presidency.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton had a 42.5% chance of securing the nation's highest office if voters were to take to the polls Monday.

Silver's model had Trump winning in the swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire. He would win 285 electoral votes in Silver's model.

It's the first time in Silver's "Now-cast" forecast that Trump has been projected to win."

http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-silver-donald-trump-polls-2016-7

It's a good thing then that elections aren't held in late July, on the weekend in between the conventions.

Anonymous wrote:Nate Silver's latest projection is that if the election were held today, Trump has a greater likelihood of winning the election than Clinton.

This will come as a shock to posters here who have been citing Silver repeatedly projecting that Clinton would win.

"In his "Now-cast" election model for who would win if ballots were cast Monday, Silver gave the Republican nominee a 57.5% chance of winning the presidency.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton had a 42.5% chance of securing the nation's highest office if voters were to take to the polls Monday.

Silver's model had Trump winning in the swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire. He would win 285 electoral votes in Silver's model.

It's the first time in Silver's "Now-cast" forecast that Trump has been projected to win."

http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-silver-donald-trump-polls-2016-7

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we have a do over? Maybe Rubio or pence versus this Caine guy?

Kaine Mutiny?

Kaine v. Pence! Now that would bring some adults into politics again. The system is broken when the two main political parties in the world's most important democracy nominate Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I know that there are women of a certain age who are emotionally invested in HRC as a candidate and as a cause, but she is nothing more than Nixon in a pantsuit.