Presidential Elections

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Not a gold bug per se, as that ship has sailed with no turning back since the days of Nixon. 4th Amendment/Privacy supporter.

Cuban was going to distribute "Loose Change" not as a refutation of theory, but support thereof. He backed away once the complaints got loud enough to hear them in the boardroom.

My .02c

SGIP
 
Soylent Green Is People said:
Not a gold bug per se, as that ship has sailed with no turning back since the days of Nixon. 4th Amendment/Privacy supporter.

Cuban was going to distribute "Loose Change" not as a refutation of theory, but support thereof. He backed away once the complaints got loud enough to hear them in the boardroom.

My .02c

SGIP
Click to expand...

Okay, but that seems to be Rand Paul's sole driving mission - to "end the Fed." Other than that, he's typical Bible Belt social conservative stuff, no?
 
peppy said:
paydawg said:
Clinton is projected to easily win the Electoral College vote, regardless of how the popular vote turns out.  Unless she looses almost all the key battleground states, the Donald probably won't win....but....


...The Kansas City Royals & Cleveland Cavaliers are current champions for their respective leagues and Brexit was a surprise winner...so anything is possible...even a Trump victory.
Click to expand...

Trump's odds are at 40%
Click to expand...

More like 57.5% according to Nate Silver...NATE

SILVER: Donald Trump would most likely win the election if it were held today

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

If the election were held Monday, Donald Trump would likely win.

That's what renowned statistician Nate Silver  projected on Monday for his data journalism outlet FiveThirtyEight.

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
 
morekaos said:
If the election were held Monday, Donald Trump would likely win.

That's what renowned statistician Nate Silver  projected on Monday for his data journalism outlet FiveThirtyEight.

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
Click to expand...

46.8% after convention bump. Why not link 538 directly? http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast
 
I agree but he continues to gain in many battleground states (PN OH and VN).  Terror attacks elsewhere are helping him too.  If this convention implodes he is on a steep roll that will be hard to stop.  Bernie's people are looking like they may defect to a third party guy if they don't go to Trump.  Any way you cut it the table is clearing.
 
morekaos said:
I agree but he continues to gain in many battleground states (PN OH and VN).  Terror attacks elsewhere are helping him too.  If this convention implodes he is on a steep roll that will be hard to stop.  Bernie's people are looking like they may defect to a third party guy if they don't go to Trump.  Any way you cut it the table is clearing.
Click to expand...

Let's put it this way. If Trump does NOT win FL, there are not many paths to victory.

There's another interesting infographic here http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html. Different probabilities so take those with a grain of salt. It is interesting to play with the tree chart a bit down the page and click on different scenarios at the state level.
 
Wouldn't a vote for Gary Johnson essentially mean a vote for Trump?  If you are anti-Clinton but even more anti-trump, you shouldn't vote for GJ, bc he has no chance of winning.  Of course that thinking primarily applies to voters in battleground states.
 
Thought we could get a third party when Perot got 19% of the popular vote but still just have two parties.

Imo...... getting 19% of the popular vote and not one electoral vote means the masses aren't properly being represented in elections.
 
Ready2Downsize said:
Thought we could get a third party when Perot got 19% of the popular vote but still just have two parties.

Imo...... getting 19% of the popular vote and not one electoral vote means the masses aren't properly being represented in elections.
Click to expand...

It gets even worse than that. Say, several candidates are running and none gets at least 270 electoral votes. In that case the house of representatives gets to decide who to pick among the top 3 contenders (each state gets 1 vote).
 
peppy said:
Ready2Downsize said:
Thought we could get a third party when Perot got 19% of the popular vote but still just have two parties.

Imo...... getting 19% of the popular vote and not one electoral vote means the masses aren't properly being represented in elections.
Click to expand...

It gets even worse than that. Say, several candidates are running and none gets at least 270 electoral votes. In that case the house of representatives gets to decide who to pick among the top 3 contenders (each state gets 1 vote).
Click to expand...

Yes, BUT the way the system is now, it's difficult for a third candidate to carry a state and even get any electoral votes.

Perot got NONE despite garnering nearly 19% of the national popular vote.

California gets the short stick in elections. The GOP doesn't think they can win the state and the Dems know they'll win so both parties basically ignore the state despite the big 55 electoral vote prize. The state provides lots of tax revenue for the feds and imo we should matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top