.

Just, remember that the point of the "no tossup" map is to assume that current tossup states aren't tossups but instead are the average of today's going rate. I don't think Trump will win Florida, personally, but I could be wrong. But that's when this thing is a landslide... if he can't win Florida and Ohio both.

So this is what it comes down to when you can't answer?

Trump's America : |


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I do realize that you llve in Florida and have an opinion based upon that
but I just believe it's going to trend his way, like he did better in the primary then all of the predictions,

I still think Hillary probably wins but it's at maybe 280 - 285 which is at most one or two states, and that really is an embarrassing win, looking at the resumes, experience and where everybody said this would end up a year ago .

It speaks volumes about the quality and the character of the candidate.

I don't live in Florida anymore. I live in England.

But Florida is classical for being whatever is cliche/most popular. Trump was most popular, so they showed up for him. So was Clinton.

1992 aside, where Perot stole the show from Bush, Florida has always mirrored the will of the nation. That's just how Floridians are. Politically uninformed, and politically careless. Why did Florida shift currently to Trump? Because that's what other places are doing. Florida responds to the national media, and almost never to the state or local affairs. Clinton got sick, and her numbers in Florida predictably fell.

So, if the election were legitimately today, yes, I believe those polls. But, otherwise, so long as Clinton maintains her popular lead, I'll say that's around the ultimate result you'll see in Florida.

Nate Silver, which most of the people on the left seem to believe is credible
has his poll totals, the one that includes the economy and history, has Fl, OH, NV and NC projected Trump

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...forecast/#plus

I think his map puts it at 272 - 266

So Trump only needs to win one more state, than what 538 says is most likely????

Your critical mistake is assuming that everything minus that one state is set. In the world of probability, all of those states are still up for grabs. One singular projection is just one possible combination. The particular odds of that exact map happening, but with one state flipped for a Trump win, is very small. He doesn't need just one state...

That's not my map it's Nate Silver's map and again I said I expect Clinton to win, somewhere in the 280 vote range, she could go over 300 but I don't think go past 330

Former is true. Latter is debatable.

That's okay, Trump still has to prove to be remotely competent.

Unless you consider that bigoted, racist, woman hating, military insulting idiot to be fit for the White House. And now the latest nugget about Hillary's bodyguards dropping guns in gun crazy country...I don't even wanna know what BVS is getting at "nuking Europe" idea he had.

But hey, US did give the world a gift of 8 years of Dubya...so maybe this clown will get in too.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...bile.html?_r=0

According to the New York Times, 47% of people believe electing Clinton is a safe choice, while 51% believe it to be a risky choice.

You may not think it, but people certainly can think it. And do. In rather large numbers.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

For anyone keeping an eye on the third-party candidates...

Poll: How Third-Party Candidates Could Affect the 2016 Race - NBC News

If what I bolded is true, then this country is screwed.

Right, but how many of them would rather have Clinton over Trump?

I think Clinton is untrustworthy and corrupt to some degree, but she is far better than Trump. At least she isn't getting, or trying to get, cozy with Putin.

2016 US Presidential Election Thread XIII
 

I think everyone here is speaking a little too definitively about where this election is headed. We haven't even had any presidential or vice presidential debates. At this point in the election cycle both McCain and Romney were tied with Obama. Everyone was falling all over themselves to declare Romney the next President after Obama's dismal first debate.

I think it's a little premature to assume that current trends will only continue on in Trump's favor until November.

Both candidates get comfortable/matey with unsavoury-slash-dangerous world leaders/figures. It's a nil-all draw in that respect.

I'm not really arguing against that. Maybe 50-60% of the time, I agree with that.

However, just to play devil's advocate, one could make the argument that the democrat's attempts to rekindle a Cold War-esque tone toward Russia is at least equally as dangerous as Trump's fanboying


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

This is something that is particularly evident to me, given my perspective and also the plethora of silly to downright ridiculous thinkpieces on Russia that seemed to get churned out at the rate of knots.

I want to reiterate that I despise and strongly oppose Putin, but Western coverage of Russia is - for the most part - poor and often bordering on the cartoonish.

if trump wins he will make gwb look like john fucking kennedy.

Indeed.

:lol:

I find this to be a somewhat reasonable post, Anybody that is all in for either of the two candidates is seriously overlooking issues they both have.
It seems like a lot of people on here have no problem pointing out the flaws with Trump and quite a few of them think Clinton is going to be a fabulous president. Sure, they say she has a couple of minor issues. I see them both being poor candidates and likely not good presidents. I am very certain Clinton will be a very bad president, that said I'm not enthused about Trump but I just can't sit back with everybody and agree that Clinton will be a good president.