Trump to win?

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

....
You don't really want to talk about substantive issues, you want to make HRC the issue. If you want to talk about real issues...

yeah santa - lets DO talk about substantive issues - howzabout the most twistedly corrupt administration in US history - where the clinton-appointee-run dept of juicetess has allowed the biggest criminal syndicate in world history to gut the economy, debt+tax+ACA-enslaved the working class, start 3 wars (and counting) while laying waste to what was left of US foreign relations - and THEN how about this little nugget:

FBI Mutiny? Feds Reportedly Launch Clinton Foundation Corruption Probe Despite DoJ Objections

Multiple FBI investigations are reportedly underway involving potential corruption charges against the Clinton Foundation, according to a former senior law enforcement official... The actions are "seen by agents as a positive development as prosecutors there are generally thought to be more aggressive than the career lawyers within the DOJ.”

• Aug 12, 2016 9:18 AM

....
I look at where we were 8 years ago and where we are today and yes, I'll take 4 more years of economic progress. ....

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

you mean '4 more years' of economic OPPRESSION (masking the outright DEPRESSION their team's policies+politix directly created)

there... 'fixed' it for ya

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

fyi, fwiw, fivethirtyeight.com now showing odds of clinton win as 87.1%
i couldn't figure how to bring over the chart of how the odds have changed over time. the two were tied at 50.1 vs 49.9 on july 30. the spread is roughly the biggest it's ever been and fairly stable over the last 8 days.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

10 point lead? Seems to be dropping fast as the LA Times has a 1 point lead now:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

fyi, fwiw, fivethirtyeight.com now showing odds of clinton win as 87.1%
i couldn't figure how to bring over the chart of how the odds have changed over time. the two were tied at 50.1 vs 49.9 on july 30. the spread is roughly the biggest it's ever been and fairly stable over the last 8 days.

FWIW (which is exactly what you paid for it) either 3 out of 4 or 4 out of 5 of Martin Armstrong's models are calling for a Republican win.

[touchring]

Re: Trump to win?

And that would lead to a national level acceleration down a much darker path.

We're going to see much darker things happening if Americans don't want to admit that they made the mistake in the Middle East. There's no rule that says ISIS cannot be armed with nukes. What goes around comes around.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

fyi, fwiw, fivethirtyeight.com now showing odds of clinton win as 87.1%
i couldn't figure how to bring over the chart of how the odds have changed over time. the two were tied at 50.1 vs 49.9 on july 30. the spread is roughly the biggest it's ever been and fairly stable over the last 8 days.

I really do think this exercise of Silver's is little more than clickbait. He gets far more gravitas than his record deserves. He should stick to baseball.

We didn’t just get unlucky: We made a big mistake, along with a couple of marginal ones.

The big mistake is a curious one for a website that focuses on statistics. Unlike virtually every other forecast we publish at FiveThirtyEight — including the primary and caucus projections I just mentioned — our early estimates of Trump’s chances weren’t based on a statistical model. Instead, they were what we “subjective odds” — which is to say, educated guesses. In other words, we were basically acting like pundits, but attaching numbers to our estimates. And we succumbed to some of the same biases that pundits often suffer, such as not changing our minds quickly enough in the face of new evidence. Without a model as a fortification, we found ourselves rambling around the countryside like all the other pundit-barbarians, randomly setting fire to things.

There’s a lot more to the story, so I’m going to proceed in five sections:

1. Our early forecasts of Trump’s nomination chances weren’t based on a statistical model, which may have been most of the problem.
2. Trump’s nomination is just one event, and that makes it hard to judge the accuracy of a probabilistic forecast.
3. The historical evidence clearly suggested that Trump was an underdog, but the sample size probably wasn’t large enough to assign him quite so low a probability of winning.
4. Trump’s nomination is potentially a point in favor of “polls-only” as opposed to “fundamentals” models.
5. There’s a danger in hindsight bias, and in overcorrecting after an unexpected event such as Trump’s nomination.

How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump

I'll wait for the poll on November 8th and keep plugging away towards the goal. FWIW, I'm meeting with the NRA rep tonight and bringing a few friends along who expressed interest. He says he'll help open a few doors at the Trump state HQ for me so I can get to work. The local HQ gave me a truckload of signs for a small donation and I'm working with some locals to get them planted this weekend. And then beer!

I forgot how much fun campaigning can be. Then again, back in the day it was a job. Now it's a pleasure.

[rjwjr]

Re: Trump to win?

I can only work within my sphere of influence but I guarantee the Trumpster Fire will not win New Mexico. We only have 5 votes, but your guy is not getting them. No disrespect personally but I hope we crush your side. I don't want to win, I want to destroy your candidate.

Point #1: Trump supporters are against both "sides". We're not voting for GOP, we're not voting against Dems, we are voting to "crush" the current system. I wish more voters would recognize that. The more the mainstream media makes Trump out to be a loose cannon, the more I realize just how scared they are.

Point #2: Why must you call Trump names? Why are you focused on "destroying" a candidate? For a self-proclaimed tolerant group of people, my experience is that liberals are some of the most intolerant when it comes to alternative ideas/ideals. This is not about Trump and what the status-quo powers-that-be are trying to make him out to be in the mainstream media, this is about a group of concerned and fed-up American citizens (although we've been called every degrading & condescending name in the book) that would like to send both parties a message.

[rjwjr]

Re: Trump to win?

fyi, fwiw, fivethirtyeight.com now showing odds of clinton win as 87.1%
i couldn't figure how to bring over the chart of how the odds have changed over time. the two were tied at 50.1 vs 49.9 on july 30. the spread is roughly the biggest it's ever been and fairly stable over the last 8 days.

I believe you are mixing-up two different figures. Fivethirtyeight has Hillary as about a 9 point favorite, which gives her about an 85% chance of winning at this stage of the race.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Point #1: Trump supporters are against both "sides". We're not voting for GOP, we're not voting against Dems, we are voting to "crush" the current system. I wish more voters would recognize that. The more the mainstream media makes Trump out to be a loose cannon, the more I realize just how scared they are.

Point #2: Why must you call Trump names? Why are you focused on "destroying" a candidate? For a self-proclaimed tolerant group of people, my experience is that liberals are some of the most intolerant when it comes to alternative ideas/ideals. This is not about Trump and what the status-quo powers-that-be are trying to make him out to be in the mainstream media, this is about a group of concerned and fed-up American citizens (although we've been called every degrading & condescending name in the book) that would like to send both parties a message.

That's as clear a rationale as I've heard to date. Nice job.

It's strange that a cohort so sure of their impending victory, with elites of both parties and all the major media (news, opinion and entertainment) filling their sails seems so... well, terrified. I guess whistling past the graveyard doesn't help calm the nerves after all.

Their fear gives me confidence.

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

Point #1: Trump supporters are against both "sides". We're not voting for GOP, we're not voting against Dems, we are voting to "crush" the current system. I wish more voters would recognize that. The more the mainstream media makes Trump out to be a loose cannon, the more I realize just how scared they are.

+1

Point #2: Why must you call Trump names? Why are you focused on "destroying" a candidate?

always an interesting question.

For a self-proclaimed tolerant group of people, my experience is that liberals are some of the most intolerant when it comes to alternative ideas/ideals.

BINGO!
and +2
exactly my obs!
the so-called, self-described 'liberal' POV is ANYTHING but 'tolerant'

hows that one go?

when a 'conservative' doesnt like something, they dont buy it, avoid it.

but when a 'liberal' doesnt like something?

THEY WANT TO BAN OR 'DESTROY' IT

just like the so-called hot button issue of: gun 'control' (but funny, the cities that have 'tough' gun 'control' have wildly out of control gun murder rates - see chicago, detroit et al (or almost any other bluestate urban area for that matter)

its always been HILARIOUS to me to watch as the 'liberals' twist themselves into pretzel-shapes to justify their idiotlogical POV

mark my words: if The US 'society' or the so-called economic 'recovery' crumps (much more than it already has) and it comes down to mass rioting in the streets (more, that is, than whats occurred just the past year or so) ?

IT'LL BE THE GD 'liberals' - that would be hitlery&co pals - THAT FOIST MARTIAL LAW ON The Rest of US.


another thing i find HILARIOUS?
that IF (i'd rather not say 'when' ) our 'fearless leaders' lose control and the SHTF?
that they - the 'liberals' seem to think they will 'win' in the end...

uh huh... shur...

my money is on 'the redneck nation' (since the inner city ghetto mobs will be EATING the libs and the rest of the social justice warriors for dinner... you know, like..after the EBT cards dont recharge and god help them if they leave the 'safe zones' of their 'hoods - whereupon they WILL be running into the 'redneck' 2nd amendment defenders, who are MUCH better armed and actually KNOW HOW to aim/use em)

This is not about Trump and what the status-quo powers-that-be are trying to make him out to be in the mainstream media, this is about a group of concerned and fed-up American citizens (although we've been called every degrading & condescending name in the book) that would like to send both parties a message.

and +3

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

I believe you are mixing-up two different figures. Fivethirtyeight has Hillary as about a 9 point favorite, which gives her about an 85% chance of winning at this stage of the race.

no, their website said what i quoted. their model currently gives clinton an 87% chance of winning the electoral college.

national polls don't work. they are using a lot of state by state data and then running 10k [i think] monte carlo runs on the state by state numbers.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...d=rrpromo#odds

[rjwjr]

Re: Trump to win?

That's as clear a rationale as I've heard to date. Nice job.


Their fear gives me confidence.

Thank you.

I can't say I can go so far as to share your "confidence", but their fear does give me hope.

I'm also hopeful that Bernie supporters will come to believe that Trump is no more a GOP-er than Bernie was a Dem-er (he's already publicly shed the Democrat label & is officially Independent again). Both candidates wanted to disrupt the status quo. Both candidates recognized that it's fruitless to do so as an Independent. Both men are change agents attempting to work within the system to change the system in my opinion. Irrespective that their ideas/philosophies may differ, their methods (and goals I think) were interestingly similar.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Thank you.

I can't say I can go so far as to share your "confidence", but their fear does give me hope.

I'm also hopeful that Bernie supporters will come to believe that Trump is no more a GOP-er than Bernie was a Dem-er (he's already publicly shed the Democrat label & is officially Independent again). Both candidates wanted to disrupt the status quo. Both candidates recognized that it's fruitless to do so as an Independent. Both men are change agents attempting to work within the system to change the system in my opinion. Irrespective that their ideas/philosophies may differ, their methods (and goals I think) were interestingly similar.

You summed it up beautifully, rjwjr.

The Democrat and Republican parties are truly Republocrats, bought and paid for by the Oligarchy. Nothing proves this so well as their reactions to Trump and Sanders.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Bill Clinton’s pay at for-profit education company topped $17.5 million

"Laureate says that its international operations represent the largest global network of degree-granting universities in the world, enrolling more than 1 million students across 28 countries. In the United States, the company owns Walden University, a Minneapolis-based online school that the Education Department has placed on a list of colleges that officials are more closely monitoring because of concerns over its “financial responsibility."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz4HATiYL1F
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Clinton's made $238 million since leaving White House:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...ouse-mostly-sp