Nate Silver: What A Clinton Landslide Would Look Like

[boilermaker55]

It should be something like the projection of a landslide for the right person, Hillary Clinton for President. But realistically that is a pipe-dream.
The best, and hopefully, it will become this is: Hillary Clinton 302 and "the donald" 218.
It would be so wonderful if it was projected in the landslide posted.
The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated.

We’re going to spend a lot of time over the next 87 days contemplating the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency. Trump is a significant underdog — he has a 13 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only model and a 23 percent chance according to polls-plus. But those probabilities aren’t that small. For comparison, you have a 17 percent chance of losing a “game” of Russian roulette.

But there’s another possibility staring us right in the face: A potential Hillary Clinton landslide. Our polls-only model projects Clinton to win the election by 7.7 percentage points, about the same margin by which Barack Obama beat John McCain in 2008. And it assigns a 35 percent chance to Clinton winning by double digits.

Our other model, polls-plus, is much more conservative about Clinton’s prospects. If this were an ordinary election, the smart money would be on the race tightening down the stretch run, and coming more into line with economic “fundamentals” that suggest the election ought to be close. Since this is how the polls-plus model “thinks,” it projects Clinton to win by around 4 points, about the margin by which Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012 — a solid victory but a long way from a landslide.

But the theory behind “fundamentals” models is that economic conditions prevail because most other factors are fought to a draw. In a normal presidential election, both candidates raise essentially unlimited money and staff their campaigns with hundreds of experienced professionals. In a normal presidential election, both candidates are good representatives of their party’s traditional values and therefore unite almost all their party’s voters behind them. In a normal presidential election, both candidates have years of experience running for office and deftly pivot away from controversies to exploit their opponents’ weaknesses. In a normal presidential election, both candidates target a broad enough range of demographic groups to have a viable chance of reaching 51 percent of the vote. This may not be a normal presidential election because while most of those things are true for Clinton, it’s not clear that any of them apply to Trump.

A related theory is that contemporary presidential elections are bound to be relatively close because both parties have high floors on their support. Indeed, we’ve gone seven straight elections without a double-digit popular vote victory (the last one was Ronald Reagan’s in 1984), the longest such streak since 1876-1900.

Just how bad could it get?

That would work out to 471 electoral votes, to 67 for Trump, which would be fairly typical for a win of that magnitude. Dwight D. Eisenhower won 457 electoral votes when beating Adlai Stevenson by 15 points in 1956, for example. And Franklin D. Roosevelt won 472 electoral votes in 1932, in an 18-point win against Herbert Hoover. Clinton would be a ways short of Ronald Reagan’s 525 electoral votes in 1984, however.

Much More: Nate Silver: What A Clinton Landslide Would Look Like

A very interesting analysis by Nate Silver - complete with charts and graphs.

 

[Grizz]

Sounds like Hillary has Florida locked up with early voters.

10/27 - 11/6 -- -- 46.9 46.7 2.6 1.2 Clinton +0.2

Not so much.....you must be shitting arrowheads.

 

[Grizz]

It should be something like the projection of a landslide for the right person, Hillary Clinton for President. But realistically that is a pipe-dream.
The best, and hopefully, it will become this is: Hillary Clinton 302 and "the donald" 218.
It would be so wonderful if it was projected in the landslide posted.
The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated.

We’re going to spend a lot of time over the next 87 days contemplating the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency. Trump is a significant underdog — he has a 13 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only model and a 23 percent chance according to polls-plus. But those probabilities aren’t that small. For comparison, you have a 17 percent chance of losing a “game” of Russian roulette.

But there’s another possibility staring us right in the face: A potential Hillary Clinton landslide. Our polls-only model projects Clinton to win the election by 7.7 percentage points, about the same margin by which Barack Obama beat John McCain in 2008. And it assigns a 35 percent chance to Clinton winning by double digits.

Our other model, polls-plus, is much more conservative about Clinton’s prospects. If this were an ordinary election, the smart money would be on the race tightening down the stretch run, and coming more into line with economic “fundamentals” that suggest the election ought to be close. Since this is how the polls-plus model “thinks,” it projects Clinton to win by around 4 points, about the margin by which Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012 — a solid victory but a long way from a landslide.

But the theory behind “fundamentals” models is that economic conditions prevail because most other factors are fought to a draw. In a normal presidential election, both candidates raise essentially unlimited money and staff their campaigns with hundreds of experienced professionals. In a normal presidential election, both candidates are good representatives of their party’s traditional values and therefore unite almost all their party’s voters behind them. In a normal presidential election, both candidates have years of experience running for office and deftly pivot away from controversies to exploit their opponents’ weaknesses. In a normal presidential election, both candidates target a broad enough range of demographic groups to have a viable chance of reaching 51 percent of the vote. This may not be a normal presidential election because while most of those things are true for Clinton, it’s not clear that any of them apply to Trump.

A related theory is that contemporary presidential elections are bound to be relatively close because both parties have high floors on their support. Indeed, we’ve gone seven straight elections without a double-digit popular vote victory (the last one was Ronald Reagan’s in 1984), the longest such streak since 1876-1900.

Just how bad could it get?

That would work out to 471 electoral votes, to 67 for Trump, which would be fairly typical for a win of that magnitude. Dwight D. Eisenhower won 457 electoral votes when beating Adlai Stevenson by 15 points in 1956, for example. And Franklin D. Roosevelt won 472 electoral votes in 1932, in an 18-point win against Herbert Hoover. Clinton would be a ways short of Ronald Reagan’s 525 electoral votes in 1984, however.

Much More: Nate Silver: What A Clinton Landslide Would Look Like

A very interesting analysis by Nate Silver - complete with charts and graphs.

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

Of course Komrade because that's the way you KGB types work

 

[boilermaker55]

You are mixed up with the Nazi types like you. Blame everyone for the problems that you are in and then take a vote from the minorities.

Check your history before you shoot off your mouth.

It should be something like the projection of a landslide for the right person, Hillary Clinton for President. But realistically that is a pipe-dream.
The best, and hopefully, it will become this is: Hillary Clinton 302 and "the donald" 218.
It would be so wonderful if it was projected in the landslide posted.
The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated.

We’re going to spend a lot of time over the next 87 days contemplating the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency. Trump is a significant underdog — he has a 13 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only model and a 23 percent chance according to polls-plus. But those probabilities aren’t that small. For comparison, you have a 17 percent chance of losing a “game” of Russian roulette.

But there’s another possibility staring us right in the face: A potential Hillary Clinton landslide. Our polls-only model projects Clinton to win the election by 7.7 percentage points, about the same margin by which Barack Obama beat John McCain in 2008. And it assigns a 35 percent chance to Clinton winning by double digits.

Our other model, polls-plus, is much more conservative about Clinton’s prospects. If this were an ordinary election, the smart money would be on the race tightening down the stretch run, and coming more into line with economic “fundamentals” that suggest the election ought to be close. Since this is how the polls-plus model “thinks,” it projects Clinton to win by around 4 points, about the margin by which Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012 — a solid victory but a long way from a landslide.

But the theory behind “fundamentals” models is that economic conditions prevail because most other factors are fought to a draw. In a normal presidential election, both candidates raise essentially unlimited money and staff their campaigns with hundreds of experienced professionals. In a normal presidential election, both candidates are good representatives of their party’s traditional values and therefore unite almost all their party’s voters behind them. In a normal presidential election, both candidates have years of experience running for office and deftly pivot away from controversies to exploit their opponents’ weaknesses. In a normal presidential election, both candidates target a broad enough range of demographic groups to have a viable chance of reaching 51 percent of the vote. This may not be a normal presidential election because while most of those things are true for Clinton, it’s not clear that any of them apply to Trump.

A related theory is that contemporary presidential elections are bound to be relatively close because both parties have high floors on their support. Indeed, we’ve gone seven straight elections without a double-digit popular vote victory (the last one was Ronald Reagan’s in 1984), the longest such streak since 1876-1900.

Just how bad could it get?

That would work out to 471 electoral votes, to 67 for Trump, which would be fairly typical for a win of that magnitude. Dwight D. Eisenhower won 457 electoral votes when beating Adlai Stevenson by 15 points in 1956, for example. And Franklin D. Roosevelt won 472 electoral votes in 1932, in an 18-point win against Herbert Hoover. Clinton would be a ways short of Ronald Reagan’s 525 electoral votes in 1984, however.

Much More: Nate Silver: What A Clinton Landslide Would Look Like

A very interesting analysis by Nate Silver - complete with charts and graphs.

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

Of course Komrade because that's the way you KGB types work

 

[Grizz]

You are mixed up with the Nazi types like you. Blame everyone for the problems that you are in and then take a vote from the minorities.

Check your history before you shoot off your mouth.

It should be something like the projection of a landslide for the right person, Hillary Clinton for President. But realistically that is a pipe-dream.
The best, and hopefully, it will become this is: Hillary Clinton 302 and "the donald" 218.
It would be so wonderful if it was projected in the landslide posted.
The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated.

We’re going to spend a lot of time over the next 87 days contemplating the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency. Trump is a significant underdog — he has a 13 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only model and a 23 percent chance according to polls-plus. But those probabilities aren’t that small. For comparison, you have a 17 percent chance of losing a “game” of Russian roulette.

But there’s another possibility staring us right in the face: A potential Hillary Clinton landslide. Our polls-only model projects Clinton to win the election by 7.7 percentage points, about the same margin by which Barack Obama beat John McCain in 2008. And it assigns a 35 percent chance to Clinton winning by double digits.

Our other model, polls-plus, is much more conservative about Clinton’s prospects. If this were an ordinary election, the smart money would be on the race tightening down the stretch run, and coming more into line with economic “fundamentals” that suggest the election ought to be close. Since this is how the polls-plus model “thinks,” it projects Clinton to win by around 4 points, about the margin by which Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012 — a solid victory but a long way from a landslide.

But the theory behind “fundamentals” models is that economic conditions prevail because most other factors are fought to a draw. In a normal presidential election, both candidates raise essentially unlimited money and staff their campaigns with hundreds of experienced professionals. In a normal presidential election, both candidates are good representatives of their party’s traditional values and therefore unite almost all their party’s voters behind them. In a normal presidential election, both candidates have years of experience running for office and deftly pivot away from controversies to exploit their opponents’ weaknesses. In a normal presidential election, both candidates target a broad enough range of demographic groups to have a viable chance of reaching 51 percent of the vote. This may not be a normal presidential election because while most of those things are true for Clinton, it’s not clear that any of them apply to Trump.

A related theory is that contemporary presidential elections are bound to be relatively close because both parties have high floors on their support. Indeed, we’ve gone seven straight elections without a double-digit popular vote victory (the last one was Ronald Reagan’s in 1984), the longest such streak since 1876-1900.

Just how bad could it get?

That would work out to 471 electoral votes, to 67 for Trump, which would be fairly typical for a win of that magnitude. Dwight D. Eisenhower won 457 electoral votes when beating Adlai Stevenson by 15 points in 1956, for example. And Franklin D. Roosevelt won 472 electoral votes in 1932, in an 18-point win against Herbert Hoover. Clinton would be a ways short of Ronald Reagan’s 525 electoral votes in 1984, however.

Much More: Nate Silver: What A Clinton Landslide Would Look Like

A very interesting analysis by Nate Silver - complete with charts and graphs.

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

Of course Komrade because that's the way you KGB types work

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

Priceless komrade, you advocate confiscation of an American's property and blame someone else.
You are quite the little Kommie.

 

[boilermaker55]

You are so illiterate.A typical "the donald" supporter.
Ignorant to anything and everything.
Bye!

You are mixed up with the Nazi types like you. Blame everyone for the problems that you are in and then take a vote from the minorities.

Check your history before you shoot off your mouth.

It should be something like the projection of a landslide for the right person, Hillary Clinton for President. But realistically that is a pipe-dream.
The best, and hopefully, it will become this is: Hillary Clinton 302 and "the donald" 218.
It would be so wonderful if it was projected in the landslide posted.
The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated.

We’re going to spend a lot of time over the next 87 days contemplating the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency. Trump is a significant underdog — he has a 13 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only model and a 23 percent chance according to polls-plus. But those probabilities aren’t that small. For comparison, you have a 17 percent chance of losing a “game” of Russian roulette.

But there’s another possibility staring us right in the face: A potential Hillary Clinton landslide. Our polls-only model projects Clinton to win the election by 7.7 percentage points, about the same margin by which Barack Obama beat John McCain in 2008. And it assigns a 35 percent chance to Clinton winning by double digits.

Our other model, polls-plus, is much more conservative about Clinton’s prospects. If this were an ordinary election, the smart money would be on the race tightening down the stretch run, and coming more into line with economic “fundamentals” that suggest the election ought to be close. Since this is how the polls-plus model “thinks,” it projects Clinton to win by around 4 points, about the margin by which Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012 — a solid victory but a long way from a landslide.

But the theory behind “fundamentals” models is that economic conditions prevail because most other factors are fought to a draw. In a normal presidential election, both candidates raise essentially unlimited money and staff their campaigns with hundreds of experienced professionals. In a normal presidential election, both candidates are good representatives of their party’s traditional values and therefore unite almost all their party’s voters behind them. In a normal presidential election, both candidates have years of experience running for office and deftly pivot away from controversies to exploit their opponents’ weaknesses. In a normal presidential election, both candidates target a broad enough range of demographic groups to have a viable chance of reaching 51 percent of the vote. This may not be a normal presidential election because while most of those things are true for Clinton, it’s not clear that any of them apply to Trump.

A related theory is that contemporary presidential elections are bound to be relatively close because both parties have high floors on their support. Indeed, we’ve gone seven straight elections without a double-digit popular vote victory (the last one was Ronald Reagan’s in 1984), the longest such streak since 1876-1900.

Just how bad could it get?

That would work out to 471 electoral votes, to 67 for Trump, which would be fairly typical for a win of that magnitude. Dwight D. Eisenhower won 457 electoral votes when beating Adlai Stevenson by 15 points in 1956, for example. And Franklin D. Roosevelt won 472 electoral votes in 1932, in an 18-point win against Herbert Hoover. Clinton would be a ways short of Ronald Reagan’s 525 electoral votes in 1984, however.

Much More: Nate Silver: What A Clinton Landslide Would Look Like

A very interesting analysis by Nate Silver - complete with charts and graphs.

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

Of course Komrade because that's the way you KGB types work

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

Priceless komrade, you advocate confiscation of an American's property and blame someone else.
You are quite the little Kommie.

 

[bendog]

We don't have to worry about a Clinton landslide. But assuming Hillary takes Nev and VA and the states traditionally dem, (which VA is becoming) then Trump has to pick off ALL of traditionally dem Mich (Clinton up by 4.7 spread) NC (Trump up 1.7) and Fla (tied).

 

[Grizz]

You are so illiterate. Bye!

You are mixed up with the Nazi types like you. Blame everyone for the problems that you are in and then take a vote from the minorities.

Check your history before you shoot off your mouth.

It should be something like the projection of a landslide for the right person, Hillary Clinton for President. But realistically that is a pipe-dream.
The best, and hopefully, it will become this is: Hillary Clinton 302 and "the donald" 218.
It would be so wonderful if it was projected in the landslide posted.
The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated.

We’re going to spend a lot of time over the next 87 days contemplating the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency. Trump is a significant underdog — he has a 13 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only model and a 23 percent chance according to polls-plus. But those probabilities aren’t that small. For comparison, you have a 17 percent chance of losing a “game” of Russian roulette.

But there’s another possibility staring us right in the face: A potential Hillary Clinton landslide. Our polls-only model projects Clinton to win the election by 7.7 percentage points, about the same margin by which Barack Obama beat John McCain in 2008. And it assigns a 35 percent chance to Clinton winning by double digits.

Our other model, polls-plus, is much more conservative about Clinton’s prospects. If this were an ordinary election, the smart money would be on the race tightening down the stretch run, and coming more into line with economic “fundamentals” that suggest the election ought to be close. Since this is how the polls-plus model “thinks,” it projects Clinton to win by around 4 points, about the margin by which Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012 — a solid victory but a long way from a landslide.

But the theory behind “fundamentals” models is that economic conditions prevail because most other factors are fought to a draw. In a normal presidential election, both candidates raise essentially unlimited money and staff their campaigns with hundreds of experienced professionals. In a normal presidential election, both candidates are good representatives of their party’s traditional values and therefore unite almost all their party’s voters behind them. In a normal presidential election, both candidates have years of experience running for office and deftly pivot away from controversies to exploit their opponents’ weaknesses. In a normal presidential election, both candidates target a broad enough range of demographic groups to have a viable chance of reaching 51 percent of the vote. This may not be a normal presidential election because while most of those things are true for Clinton, it’s not clear that any of them apply to Trump.

A related theory is that contemporary presidential elections are bound to be relatively close because both parties have high floors on their support. Indeed, we’ve gone seven straight elections without a double-digit popular vote victory (the last one was Ronald Reagan’s in 1984), the longest such streak since 1876-1900.

Just how bad could it get?

That would work out to 471 electoral votes, to 67 for Trump, which would be fairly typical for a win of that magnitude. Dwight D. Eisenhower won 457 electoral votes when beating Adlai Stevenson by 15 points in 1956, for example. And Franklin D. Roosevelt won 472 electoral votes in 1932, in an 18-point win against Herbert Hoover. Clinton would be a ways short of Ronald Reagan’s 525 electoral votes in 1984, however.

Much More: Nate Silver: What A Clinton Landslide Would Look Like

A very interesting analysis by Nate Silver - complete with charts and graphs.

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

Of course Komrade because that's the way you KGB types work

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

Priceless komrade, you advocate confiscation of an American's property and blame someone else.
You are quite the little Kommie.

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

You advocate the confiscation of an American' property and I'm the "illiterate Nazi", you aren't very intelligent are you?

 

[boilermaker55]

Hey, Nazi-boy, learn the facts.
How may workers...did "the donald" stiff.
Get back to us when you have facts.

You are so illiterate. Bye!

You are mixed up with the Nazi types like you. Blame everyone for the problems that you are in and then take a vote from the minorities.

Check your history before you shoot off your mouth.

It should be something like the projection of a landslide for the right person, Hillary Clinton for President. But realistically that is a pipe-dream.
The best, and hopefully, it will become this is: Hillary Clinton 302 and "the donald" 218.
It would be so wonderful if it was projected in the landslide posted.
The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated.

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

Of course Komrade because that's the way you KGB types work

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

Priceless komrade, you advocate confiscation of an American's property and blame someone else.
You are quite the little Kommie.

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

You advocate the confiscation of an American' property and I'm the "illiterate Nazi", you aren't very intelligent are you?

 

[boilermaker55]

 

[Lakhota]

You are so illiterate.A typical "the donald" supporter.
Ignorant to anything and everything.
Bye!

You are mixed up with the Nazi types like you. Blame everyone for the problems that you are in and then take a vote from the minorities.

Check your history before you shoot off your mouth.

It should be something like the projection of a landslide for the right person, Hillary Clinton for President. But realistically that is a pipe-dream.
The best, and hopefully, it will become this is: Hillary Clinton 302 and "the donald" 218.
It would be so wonderful if it was projected in the landslide posted.
The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated.

We’re going to spend a lot of time over the next 87 days contemplating the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency. Trump is a significant underdog — he has a 13 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only model and a 23 percent chance according to polls-plus. But those probabilities aren’t that small. For comparison, you have a 17 percent chance of losing a “game” of Russian roulette.

But there’s another possibility staring us right in the face: A potential Hillary Clinton landslide. Our polls-only model projects Clinton to win the election by 7.7 percentage points, about the same margin by which Barack Obama beat John McCain in 2008. And it assigns a 35 percent chance to Clinton winning by double digits.

Our other model, polls-plus, is much more conservative about Clinton’s prospects. If this were an ordinary election, the smart money would be on the race tightening down the stretch run, and coming more into line with economic “fundamentals” that suggest the election ought to be close. Since this is how the polls-plus model “thinks,” it projects Clinton to win by around 4 points, about the margin by which Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012 — a solid victory but a long way from a landslide.

But the theory behind “fundamentals” models is that economic conditions prevail because most other factors are fought to a draw. In a normal presidential election, both candidates raise essentially unlimited money and staff their campaigns with hundreds of experienced professionals. In a normal presidential election, both candidates are good representatives of their party’s traditional values and therefore unite almost all their party’s voters behind them. In a normal presidential election, both candidates have years of experience running for office and deftly pivot away from controversies to exploit their opponents’ weaknesses. In a normal presidential election, both candidates target a broad enough range of demographic groups to have a viable chance of reaching 51 percent of the vote. This may not be a normal presidential election because while most of those things are true for Clinton, it’s not clear that any of them apply to Trump.

A related theory is that contemporary presidential elections are bound to be relatively close because both parties have high floors on their support. Indeed, we’ve gone seven straight elections without a double-digit popular vote victory (the last one was Ronald Reagan’s in 1984), the longest such streak since 1876-1900.

Just how bad could it get?

That would work out to 471 electoral votes, to 67 for Trump, which would be fairly typical for a win of that magnitude. Dwight D. Eisenhower won 457 electoral votes when beating Adlai Stevenson by 15 points in 1956, for example. And Franklin D. Roosevelt won 472 electoral votes in 1932, in an 18-point win against Herbert Hoover. Clinton would be a ways short of Ronald Reagan’s 525 electoral votes in 1984, however.

Much More: Nate Silver: What A Clinton Landslide Would Look Like

A very interesting analysis by Nate Silver - complete with charts and graphs.

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

Of course Komrade because that's the way you KGB types work

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

Priceless komrade, you advocate confiscation of an American's property and blame someone else.
You are quite the little Kommie.

Thank you!

 

[Grizz]

Hey, Nazi-boy, learn the facts.
How may workers...did "the donald" stiff.
Get back to us when you have facts.

You are so illiterate. Bye!

You are mixed up with the Nazi types like you. Blame everyone for the problems that you are in and then take a vote from the minorities.

Check your history before you shoot off your mouth.

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

Of course Komrade because that's the way you KGB types work

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

Priceless komrade, you advocate confiscation of an American's property and blame someone else.
You are quite the little Kommie.

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

You advocate the confiscation of an American' property and I'm the "illiterate Nazi", you aren't very intelligent are you?

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

You advocate the confiscation of an American's property and I am the Nazi, you aren't a vey bright gal are you?

 

[Flopper]

We’re going to spend a lot of time over the next 87 days contemplating the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency. Trump is a significant underdog — he has a 13 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only model and a 23 percent chance according to polls-plus. But those probabilities aren’t that small. For comparison, you have a 17 percent chance of losing a “game” of Russian roulette.

But there’s another possibility staring us right in the face: A potential Hillary Clinton landslide. Our polls-only model projects Clinton to win the election by 7.7 percentage points, about the same margin by which Barack Obama beat John McCain in 2008. And it assigns a 35 percent chance to Clinton winning by double digits.

Our other model, polls-plus, is much more conservative about Clinton’s prospects. If this were an ordinary election, the smart money would be on the race tightening down the stretch run, and coming more into line with economic “fundamentals” that suggest the election ought to be close. Since this is how the polls-plus model “thinks,” it projects Clinton to win by around 4 points, about the margin by which Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012 — a solid victory but a long way from a landslide.

But the theory behind “fundamentals” models is that economic conditions prevail because most other factors are fought to a draw. In a normal presidential election, both candidates raise essentially unlimited money and staff their campaigns with hundreds of experienced professionals. In a normal presidential election, both candidates are good representatives of their party’s traditional values and therefore unite almost all their party’s voters behind them. In a normal presidential election, both candidates have years of experience running for office and deftly pivot away from controversies to exploit their opponents’ weaknesses. In a normal presidential election, both candidates target a broad enough range of demographic groups to have a viable chance of reaching 51 percent of the vote. This may not be a normal presidential election because while most of those things are true for Clinton, it’s not clear that any of them apply to Trump.

A related theory is that contemporary presidential elections are bound to be relatively close because both parties have high floors on their support. Indeed, we’ve gone seven straight elections without a double-digit popular vote victory (the last one was Ronald Reagan’s in 1984), the longest such streak since 1876-1900.

Just how bad could it get?

That would work out to 471 electoral votes, to 67 for Trump, which would be fairly typical for a win of that magnitude. Dwight D. Eisenhower won 457 electoral votes when beating Adlai Stevenson by 15 points in 1956, for example. And Franklin D. Roosevelt won 472 electoral votes in 1932, in an 18-point win against Herbert Hoover. Clinton would be a ways short of Ronald Reagan’s 525 electoral votes in 1984, however.

Much More: Nate Silver: What A Clinton Landslide Would Look Like

A very interesting analysis by Nate Silver - complete with charts and graphs.

Love to see, but very unlikely. Hillary will probably win but not by a landslide. Polls have never been that far off. The RCP average for Texas is Trump +11.5, Mississippi is Trump +15, Oklahoma is Trump +24. Red states like these would be more likely to vote for Putin than Clinton.

I think Democrats fail to realize just how much Red State Republicans hate Clinton. She represents all that is evil in world.

 

[boilermaker55]

Still not very smart are you nazi-boy.

Hey, Nazi-boy, learn the facts.
How may workers...did "the donald" stiff.
Get back to us when you have facts.

You are so illiterate. Bye!

You are mixed up with the Nazi types like you. Blame everyone for the problems that you are in and then take a vote from the minorities.

Check your history before you shoot off your mouth.

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

Priceless komrade, you advocate confiscation of an American's property and blame someone else.
You are quite the little Kommie.

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

You advocate the confiscation of an American' property and I'm the "illiterate Nazi", you aren't very intelligent are you?

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

You advocate the confiscation of an American's property and I am the Nazi, you aren't a vey bright gal are you?

Hey, Nazi-boy, learn the facts.
How may workers...did "the donald" stiff.
Get back to us when you have facts.

You are so illiterate. Bye!

You are mixed up with the Nazi types like you. Blame everyone for the problems that you are in and then take a vote from the minorities.

Check your history before you shoot off your mouth.

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

Priceless komrade, you advocate confiscation of an American's property and blame someone else.
You are quite the little Kommie.

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

You advocate the confiscation of an American' property and I'm the "illiterate Nazi", you aren't very intelligent are you?

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

You advocate the confiscation of an American's property and I am the Nazi, you aren't a vey bright gal are you?

 

[Intolerant]

 

[Lakhota]

We’re going to spend a lot of time over the next 87 days contemplating the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency. Trump is a significant underdog — he has a 13 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only model and a 23 percent chance according to polls-plus. But those probabilities aren’t that small. For comparison, you have a 17 percent chance of losing a “game” of Russian roulette.

But there’s another possibility staring us right in the face: A potential Hillary Clinton landslide. Our polls-only model projects Clinton to win the election by 7.7 percentage points, about the same margin by which Barack Obama beat John McCain in 2008. And it assigns a 35 percent chance to Clinton winning by double digits.

Our other model, polls-plus, is much more conservative about Clinton’s prospects. If this were an ordinary election, the smart money would be on the race tightening down the stretch run, and coming more into line with economic “fundamentals” that suggest the election ought to be close. Since this is how the polls-plus model “thinks,” it projects Clinton to win by around 4 points, about the margin by which Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012 — a solid victory but a long way from a landslide.

But the theory behind “fundamentals” models is that economic conditions prevail because most other factors are fought to a draw. In a normal presidential election, both candidates raise essentially unlimited money and staff their campaigns with hundreds of experienced professionals. In a normal presidential election, both candidates are good representatives of their party’s traditional values and therefore unite almost all their party’s voters behind them. In a normal presidential election, both candidates have years of experience running for office and deftly pivot away from controversies to exploit their opponents’ weaknesses. In a normal presidential election, both candidates target a broad enough range of demographic groups to have a viable chance of reaching 51 percent of the vote. This may not be a normal presidential election because while most of those things are true for Clinton, it’s not clear that any of them apply to Trump.

A related theory is that contemporary presidential elections are bound to be relatively close because both parties have high floors on their support. Indeed, we’ve gone seven straight elections without a double-digit popular vote victory (the last one was Ronald Reagan’s in 1984), the longest such streak since 1876-1900.

Just how bad could it get?

That would work out to 471 electoral votes, to 67 for Trump, which would be fairly typical for a win of that magnitude. Dwight D. Eisenhower won 457 electoral votes when beating Adlai Stevenson by 15 points in 1956, for example. And Franklin D. Roosevelt won 472 electoral votes in 1932, in an 18-point win against Herbert Hoover. Clinton would be a ways short of Ronald Reagan’s 525 electoral votes in 1984, however.

Much More: Nate Silver: What A Clinton Landslide Would Look Like

A very interesting analysis by Nate Silver - complete with charts and graphs.

Love to see, but very unlikely. Hillary will probably win but not by a landslide. Polls have never been that far off. The RCP average for Texas is Trump +11.5, Mississippi is Trump +15, Oklahoma is Trump +24. Red states like these would be more likely to vote for Putin than Clinton.

I think Democrats fail to realize just how much Red State Republicans hate Clinton. She represents all that is evil in world.

No, I think they fully realize. That's why the country is so polarized.

 

[Grizz]

Still not very smart are you nazi-boy.

Hey, Nazi-boy, learn the facts.
How may workers...did "the donald" stiff.
Get back to us when you have facts.

You are so illiterate. Bye!

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

Priceless komrade, you advocate confiscation of an American's property and blame someone else.
You are quite the little Kommie.

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

You advocate the confiscation of an American' property and I'm the "illiterate Nazi", you aren't very intelligent are you?

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

You advocate the confiscation of an American's property and I am the Nazi, you aren't a vey bright gal are you?

Hey, Nazi-boy, learn the facts.
How may workers...did "the donald" stiff.
Get back to us when you have facts.

You are so illiterate. Bye!

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

Priceless komrade, you advocate confiscation of an American's property and blame someone else.
You are quite the little Kommie.

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

You advocate the confiscation of an American' property and I'm the "illiterate Nazi", you aren't very intelligent are you?

"The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

You advocate the confiscation of an American's property and I am the Nazi, you aren't a vey bright gal are you?

""The larger scheme of things would be that "the donald" and his family and all their businesses go bust. And all their properties confiscated"

You advocate the confiscation of an American's property and I am the Nazi?
Tell me, should I be arrested and sent to a "re-education camp"?