Originally posted by |King Joker|
I'm more referring to Trump's verbal blow jobs to Putin (i.e. his praise towards him).Also, can you specify Hillary's provocations toward Russia?
Why would she want to provoke them?
I mean okay, pop quiz: do you want to buy uranium from a douchebag? No, you wanna buy your uranium from a decent person. You want to buy your uranium from someone you get along with.
Originally posted by |King Joker|
Also, can you specify Hillary's provocations toward Russia?
She's always pointing fingers in Russia's direction every time an email gets leaked. Not to mention wanting to put a no fly zone over Syria where it's currently occupied by the Russian airforce. A no fly zone would mean if something enters your air space, you blow it out of the sky. Bernie, Obama, army generals, and even Donald say that's a bad idea.
Hilary
Because Trump has run a pisspoor campaign, had financial support withheld from major Right wing donors/groups, had a split RNC to aide him at best, and has little to no ground game when it comes to get out the vote efforts
In comparison to Hillary who is the establishment choice and has millions from banks, corporations, and stupid voters
Obama was on TV encouraging illegal immigrants to vote under the cover of anonymity that you won't be deported if you vote.
http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=47386
Further proof they rigged the electionx
Originally posted by Exactly
Which is more likely to vote red, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia or Wisconin?
Michigan and Pennsylvania are both probably equally as likely to go republican, though it's unlikely in both cases, Clinton has had a consistent lead in both of those states.
To put it in perspective, it's much more likely for Hillary to win Florida, NC, Ohio or even Arizona than Trump winning any of those states.
Originally posted by Exactly
Well, I disagree with Hillary likely to win red states but with Michigan and and Penn, their problem is mostly the big cities voting democrat. Idk if Detroit and Philly can sway them so much. VA and Wi are more cuckold states Imo.
I'm simply looking at 538's chances here. According to them, Arizona is slightly more likely to go dem than Michigan or Penn is to go to Trump.
Originally posted by Exactly
Well, there is your problem. 538 is anti-Trump porpoganda. Nate Silver hates Trump and constantly predicted he would be out of the race. They also predicted Indianna and Michigan to go for Hillary by 20 points......they went to Bernie.
538 is being much more favorable to Trump than other predictor sites, showing his chances of winning to be about 35%, other sites show him at below 20%, so they aren't anti Trump, they are interested in being as accurate as possible. They just look at polling and run simulations based on that polling.
They've gotten some wrong, but they are usually pretty on the nose when it comes to these things, I think they are still the most accurate predictor site around.
Originally posted by Exactly
They are anti Trump based on my points you dodged to address.So what if other sites are more bullshit than them? Your notion of "accuracy" is more 538 scared of losing credibility when Trump wins. The polls target democrat voters bet, Trump is a shit load more popular than Clinton.
This election is not like any other. Most of America thought it would be a case of Jeb losing to Hill cos you European now. Or something similar. ..
I didn't dodge? I said they get stuff wrong sometimes, Trump was one of those things. All predictors get things wrong sometimes, that's why they are predictors and not fortune tellers. Just because they were wrong about Trump in the primaries doesn't mean they are wrong now.
This election is unique, that is why Nate Silver himself has said that it's harder to predict, because of the potential for the secret Trump vote that may or may not exist. And the changing demographics. Polling is harder now than it's ever been. But they're still the best way to gauge what's going to happen.
Some of the polls lean Dem, some lean repub, that's just their nature. That's why the best thing to do instead of looking at individual polls is to look at aggregates of them, which do support what I said. Arizona is about as close as Penn or Michigan. I don't think any of them will flip, but the odds are what I said.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Predicting who will win is like saying the election is rigged. Wait...
...or it's like saying that there's this concept called probability. Statistical polling models have historically been incredibly accurate, with PEC getting the exact electoral margin for Obama in 2012. That seems more precise than Stigma's "gut feeling" (lol).
Ignoring the people like TI and Stigma who reject the validity of mathematics or something, the simple answer to the question is that Hillary is more likely to win the election than not - that's what every remotely credible model has concluded. Some models (.i.e. Sam Wang's) give far higher certainties than others (.i.e. Nate Silver's), but they all project a Clinton victory. I tend to lean towards Sam's.