Claiming that global warming isn't a real concern is beyond arrogant. It's in direct disagreement with every leading scientist in the world.

Well yeah but so are facts

@ MGSB

So are facts what?

"She won't win anyway ofc"

What? You think Trump's going to win the election? You can't be that dumb. I'd wager my yearly salary on her winning.

He's currently projected to get 186 electoral votes to Hillary's 352.

@ MGSB

So are facts what?

One, it was more or less a joke, two, I want you to take a long look at that sentence

I can't believe some idiots still think that Trump is going to win.

PE and co. will be very fast to yell "rigged" because they can't admit that they are wrong sometimes.

Nah, Trump can definitely win.

@Ox, the election is rigged in multiple ways, there have been dead people registered to vote lol. Voter Fraud sure isn't helping Trump.

There is a bigger chance of this map happening than Trump winning

Term limits (Yes)
Stop gov't growth (Yes and No)
Eliminate regulation/executive orders (I like my airbags, so no)
Cut lobbyist power (Yes)
Withdraw from TPP, change NAFTA (No comment)
Other trade specifics (Vague)
Allow energy expansion (Yes, but use renewable energy)
Redirect UN climate change money (Vague)
Replace Scalia (Vague)
Build the wall, keep out illegals (No.)
Suspend immigration from terrorist hotspots (Sure?)
Bring back business (Vague)
Lower taxes (Prefer lower class)
Rebuild infrastructure (Expensive and very long, to say the least)
Revamp education system (Unclear)
Create Crime Task Force (no comment)
National security specifics (unclear)
Clean up DC (Make it a state, then let the state handle it)

"Nah, Trump can definitely win."

No, he really can't.

I'm going to be super generous, and count states where he is polling at 30% as a win.

Idaho - 4
Montana - 3
Wyoming - 3
Utah - 6
Arizona - 11
Alaska - 3
North Dakota - 3
South Dakota - 3
Nebraska - 5
Kansas - 6
Oklahoma - 7
Texas - 38
Missouri - 10
Arkansas - 6
Louisiana - 8
Indiana - 11
Kentucky - 8
Tennessee - 11
Mississippi - 6
Alabama - 9
Georgia - 16
South Carolina - 9
West Virginia - 5
Iowa - 6
Ohio - 18

That is 25 states, he won't win all of those, I'm being super generous with giving him them.

The problem is, even if he does win them: 215

He needs 270 to win. Where do you propose he gets another 55 electoral votes?

215 isn't even what he's likely to get.

Arizona - 11
Iowa - 6
Ohio - 18

Are actually projected to vote for Clinton, which results in Trump realistically getting 180 electoral votes.

I'll be more generous, I'll give him everything he's showing a 20% chance to win rather than 30%.

Nevada - 6
North Carolina - 15
Florida - 29


Shucks, only 40, he'd still need another 15.

Maine is the next most favorable for Trump, where he is shown to have a 13.6% chance to win, he's polling at 9.4% behind Clinton in the state. It has 4 electoral votes. That'd make him need 11 more.

Next is New Hampshire at 12.4% where Trump is 8.8% behind Clinton. Also 4 electoral votes.

Minnesota is 10 electoral votes, it would secure the win. He's showing to have 11.8% chance to win Minnesota, he's 7.8% behind Clinton in the state.

So, he's projected to get 22 states, he'd have to win 9 upsets and get 31 states to win the election.


Arizona - 11 44.5%
Iowa - 6 47.7%
Ohio - 18 41%
Nevada - 6 27.9%
North Carolina - 15 28.6%
Florida - 29 24.9%
Maine - 4 14.2%
New Hampshire - 4 12.3%
Minnesota - 10 11%

The chance for him to win Arizona, Iowa, and Ohio is only 8.7%. Add in Nevada, North Carolina, and Florida and that drops to 0.17%.

Add in the last 3, cumulative chance at this point plummets to 0.0003%.

Yeah, Trump has a 3 in 1 million chance to win based on said math.

Totally still has a chance. Just like I have a chance to sprout wings and fly.

Edited 10/23/2016 17:21:38

Arizona - 11
Iowa - 6
Ohio - 18

Are actually projected to vote for Clinton, which results in Trump realistically getting 180 electoral votes.

All of these are actually states that lean seriously republican compared to the national average. Trump is currently in somewhat of a funk due to being about 7 points behind after all three debates, but this is pretty much his lowest point, overall he's pretty consistently been behind by around 4 points throughout the campaign. Given that he's respectively -1.3, +3.7, and +0.6 in Arizona, Iowa, and Ohio despite being -7 nationally, it's not at all implausible that he easily wins all three on election day, by which point his numbers will probably improve a bit nationally.

Yeah, Trump has a 3 in 1 million chance to win based on said math.

Your math is flawed, since you're calculating individual state probablities independently. In reality, most states are pretty well correlated with others, and fivethirtyeight actually made a pretty neat table on this:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ct9wTz5XEAAPn9p.jpg:large

So, for example, if he wins ohio, there is approximately an 84% chance that he will also win iowa. This is why most forecast models put his chances at around 10-20%, instead of the 0.0003% you calculated.

Basically trump has to improve his poll numbers a bit and there has to be a reasonable polling error in his favor, but it's definitely not impossible. There are still ~20 days until election day after all.

Edited 10/23/2016 18:16:24

Trump can definitely win.

@Ox, the election is rigged in multiple ways, there have been dead people registered to vote lol. Voter Fraud sure isn't helping Trump.

First off, how about that the government is counting all the votes? That's some voter fraud right there, not some distractions they try to pull like dead folk voting. And you don't have to think hard to realise that all folk die. Every registered voter in 1900 is likely dead now, you think that's voter fraud?

And you can't say that Trump is going to win and then say the vote is rigged against him.

Trump is a good guy.

Trump is a gross evil bloodthirsty loon.

Edited 10/23/2016 18:39:31

"All of these are actually states that lean seriously republican compared to the national average."

Kind of.

They lean republican for sure, I wouldn't say "seriously" perse. Oklahoma is more what I'd call seriously republican, akin to California being democrat.

"Given that he's respectively -1.3, +3.7, and +0.6 in Arizona, Iowa, and Ohio despite being -7 nationally, it's not at all implausible that he easily wins all three on election day"

I'm not saying these #'s are absolutely, 100% wrong, but I am curious where you're getting them from, as I'm personally seeing them be : -0.7, -0.4, -1.3, -6.5. You're citing him as ahead in Ohio and Iowa, I wouldn't.

I do agree however that calculating each state independently isn't particularly accurate, since if he performs well in a hypothetical debate, it can raise his votes in numerous states, not just a single one. Thus they will all fluctuate in a similar fashion, what raises his ratings in one region likely does so in all regions.

However calculating them all together like I did, doesn't seem particularly unfair were the election to be held today. I don't however think his chances are nearly as low as 3 in a million, because the election isn't today, which is why I specifically added: "based on said math".

At the same time, this is no Bush vs. Gore election, I don't think it's going to be remotely close, or too close to call ahead of time.

Edited 10/23/2016 18:46:40

Kind of.

They lean republican for sure, I wouldn't say "seriously" perse. Oklahoma is more what I'd call seriously republican, akin to California being democrat.

Some comparisons from 2012 are Montana (R+7), South Carolina (R+8), Mississippi (R+9), and Texas (R+10). While they indeed don't lean republican on the scale of states like Oklahoma (R+19) and Wyoming (R+22), they are on the level of most southern states in terms of republican leanings.

I'm not saying these #'s are absolutely, 100% wrong, but I am curious where you're getting them from, as I'm personally seeing them be : -0.7, -0.4, -1.3, -6.5. You're citing him as ahead in Ohio and Iowa, I wouldn't.

Numbers come from RealClearPolitics Polling averages:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/az/arizona_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6087.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5981.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5970.html

You can definitely get different numbers by weighting the data differently or including data from further back, but as of right now at least, he's definitely ahead in at least iowa and ohio. In ohio trump has lead two of the last five polls, wehreas clinton has lead one and the other two are tied, and in Iowa he's lead four of the last five polls and one has been tied.

However calculating them all together like I did, doesn't seem particularly unfair were the election to be held today. I don't however think his chances are nearly as low as 3 in a million, because the election isn't today, which is why I specifically added: "based on said math".

It's not just because the election is a while out though. Your math is off because for example, you calculated that:

"The chance for him to win Arizona, Iowa, and Ohio is only 8.7%. Add in Nevada, North Carolina, and Florida and that drops to 0.17%."

Whereas in reality, if he wins iowa, ohio, and arizona, there is an approximately 100% chance that he will also win florida and north carolina, not a 0.17% chance. The same applies further back as well, for example there is a very good chance that he will win arizona as well if he wins ohio and iowa, not an 8.7% one.

Edited 10/23/2016 19:38:39

"Whereas in reality, if he wins iowa, ohio, and arizona, there is an approximately 100% chance that he will also win florida and north carolina, not a 0.17% chance. The same applies further back as well, for example there is a very good chance that he will win arizona as well if he wins ohio and iowa, not an 8.7% one. "

This seems silly.

You're claiming if he wins states that show him as having 43.8%, 38.2%, and 43.3% chance to win in, that he's got a 100% chance to have also won states that show 24.6%, and 28.2%. That's obviously wrong.

If he wins the former it could be from him specifically campaigning in those specific states, and even if it isn't and it's the result of a upswing nation-wide, he'd still have to swing farther to win Florida and North Carolina than he would to win Iowa, Ohio, and Arizona.


"You can definitely get different numbers by weighting the data differently or including data from further back, but as of right now at least, he's definitely ahead in at least iowa and ohio. In ohio trump has lead two of the last five polls, wehreas clinton has lead one and the other two are tied, and in Iowa he's lead four of the last five polls and one has been tied. "

I agree that you can get different numbers from various sources, ut I don't agree that he's "definitely" ahead in Iowa and Ohio.

You linked sources that show him as being ahead, which is fine, but there's certainly also sources that show otherwise:

ie.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Ohio for example:
Polls-plus forecast shows him 0.8 points behind Clinton.
Polls-only puts him down by 1.7.
Now-cast puts him down by 1.3.

Can he win Ohio? Sure. Is he definitely ahead or the favorite to do so? I'd say that's much more of a grey area.

Stahp derailing pls does anyone else have a legitimate issue with any of these? And if you support another candidate and do not have an issue, ask yourself why you don't support Trump

This seems silly.

It's not. Fivethirtyeight, who you seem to be in love with (Hey, there's nothing wrong with that, I'm also a fan), wrote several articles about it:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-top-must-win-states-for-trump-and-clinton/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-north-carolina-is-becoming-a-backstop-for-clinton/

Are just two that come to mind.

I agree that you can get different numbers from various sources, ut I don't agree that he's "definitely" ahead in Iowa and Ohio.

You linked sources that show him as being ahead, which is fine, but there's certainly also sources that show otherwise:

All this really does is prove my point about taking the same data and coming up with a different result. If you actually look at the data they've collected, it definitely shows trump ahead. In ohio for example, He leads in 6 out of the last 10 polls they've collected, clinton leads 2, and there are 2 ties. It is only after a hefty amount of adjusting and weighting that they manage to show a clinton lead there. It's the same story pretty much everywhere else as well, which you can check yourself by sorting their polls by date and checking out the unadjusted numbers.

Term limits - Sounds good
Stop gov't growth - I doubt he'd do that
Eliminate regulation/executive orders - Good
Cut lobbyist power - Good
Withdraw from TPP, change NAFTA - change NAFTA how?
Other trade specifics - This is unspecific, ironically
Allow energy expansion - Sounds ok
Redirect UN climate change money - Good
Replace Scalia - Meh
Build the wall, keep out illegals - >when you build a wall but it collapses in the arroyos and illegals use ladders
Suspend immigration from terrorist hotspots - Nothing other presidents haven't done
Bring back business - Good
Lower taxes - Great
Rebuild infrastructure - Muh Roads
Revamp education system - Muh Schools
Create Crime Task Force - Why?
National security specifics - Unspecific
Clean up DC - Preferably with napalm

Create Crime Task Force - Why?

Duerte fanboys.

Stahp derailing pls does anyone else have a legitimate issue with any of these? And if you support another candidate and do not have an issue, ask yourself why you don't support Trump

Term limits (...)
Stop gov't growth (nice, although i will note that basically every single republican president since the new deal has said this and not actually done it)
Eliminate regulation/executive orders
(not sure what this is supposed to mean, but I seriously doubt he's going to eliminate executive orders as an executive power if that's what you're implying)
Cut lobbyist power (not sure how he would do this without more campaign finance restrictions, which come with their own set of problems)
Withdraw from TPP, change NAFTA (sigh...)
Other trade specifics (basically all of them bad. If there's one area where I vehemently disagree with him it's on trade)
Allow energy expansion (nice!)
Redirect UN climate change money (...)
Replace Scalia (not something unique to his campaign)
Build the wall, keep out illegals (what a waste of money)
Suspend immigration from terrorist hotspots (honestly a few terrorist attacks on the us a year aren't a threat, passing up the opportunity to have millions more citizens worth of economic growth is)
Bring back business (by which I suppose you mean kill competition and set america back a hundred years? Trust me, american workers are better off without these $900/year clothing manufacturing jobs that bangladeshis are currently doing)
Lower taxes (nice)
Rebuild infrastructure (interesting)
Revamp education system (...)
Create Crime Task Force (a national police force is absolutely terrifying, and we already have plenty of local police forces)
National security specifics (which ones?)
Clean up DC (...)