Why I think That Trump Will Win the General Election

[Skylar]

I'll throw my hat in the ring and say he will not only win...he will win in a landslide.

And when he doesn't will you admit that your capacity for rational judgment is pretty piss poor?

As again, the evidence contradicting your conclusions is overwhelming. Making your claims not simply a bad guess. But a rejection of evidence as a basis of prediction.

Which historically has a *reaaaaaaaaally* bad record of success. In both elections and real life.

absolutely. If, and that's a BIG if, I'm wrong I will fully admit my spidey senses were severely impaired this election. If he wins will you freely admit you were clueless and in denial?

Not simply wrong. You're making your prediction in express contradiction of overwhelming evidence.

I want you to admit that your capacity for rational judgement was awful. As you're literally ignoring evidence to make your predictions. Which is irrational.

 

[Skylar]

absolutely. If, and that's a BIG if, I'm wrong I will fully admit my spidey senses were severely impaired this election. If he wins will you freely admit you were clueless and in denial?

You dont need to worry about it.

Ha! I'm not in the least. I'm very confident that he will win in a landslide. The ONLY thing that is going to change my mind is if he falls apart in the debates. Other than that, he has it locked up and will win bigly

And those with the poorest judgement and least ability are most often the most confident in both. Take Trump: he's confident that it will be 'easy' to beat Hillary. But he's having his ass handed to him, trailing by double digits in many of the most recent polls.

Trump insists that he knows more about ISIS than the generals do.

Or that his years in military school gave him more military training than a lot of people in the military.

Trump has confidence to spare. What he lacks is ability and the capacity for rational judgement. Rendering his confidence a bizarre kind of self delusion.

Something you may want to be especially careful of.

 

[JimBowie1958]

absolutely. If, and that's a BIG if, I'm wrong I will fully admit my spidey senses were severely impaired this election. If he wins will you freely admit you were clueless and in denial?

You dont need to worry about it.

Ha! I'm not in the least. I'm very confident that he will win in a landslide. The ONLY thing that is going to change my mind is if he falls apart in the debates. Other than that, he has it locked up and will win bigly

Yeah, I think the debate is his biggest risk also. It is looking likely that Johnson will be there too, and he and Hillary will put Trump into a cross fire double tag team from the start.

And there is always the possibility that Trump will get flustered and fall back in improv slams that get him into trouble with most people who expect more of their President than to just toss shit out there.

 

[cereal_killer]

I'll throw my hat in the ring and say he will not only win...he will win in a landslide.

And when he doesn't will you admit that your capacity for rational judgment is pretty piss poor?

As again, the evidence contradicting your conclusions is overwhelming. Making your claims not simply a bad guess. But a rejection of evidence as a basis of prediction.

Which historically has a *reaaaaaaaaally* bad record of success. In both elections and real life.

absolutely. If, and that's a BIG if, I'm wrong I will fully admit my spidey senses were severely impaired this election. If he wins will you freely admit you were clueless and in denial?

Not simply wrong. You're making your prediction in express contradiction of overwhelming evidence.

I want you to admit that your capacity for rational judgement was awful. As you're literally ignoring evidence to make your predictions. Which is irrational.

What the fuck are you babbling about? Christ I don't want to "listen" to you ramble incoherently... answer my question with a simple "yes" or "no".

 

[cereal_killer]

absolutely. If, and that's a BIG if, I'm wrong I will fully admit my spidey senses were severely impaired this election. If he wins will you freely admit you were clueless and in denial?

You dont need to worry about it.

Ha! I'm not in the least. I'm very confident that he will win in a landslide. The ONLY thing that is going to change my mind is if he falls apart in the debates. Other than that, he has it locked up and will win bigly

Yeah, I think the debate is his biggest risk also. It is looking likely that Johnson will be there too, and he and Hillary will put Trump into a cross fire double tag team from the start.

And there is always the possibility that Trump will get flustered and fall back in improv slams that get him into trouble with most people who expect more of their President than to just toss shit out there.

Doesn't Gary's Johnson need to be at 15% to participate?

 

[Skylar]

I'll throw my hat in the ring and say he will not only win...he will win in a landslide.

And when he doesn't will you admit that your capacity for rational judgment is pretty piss poor?

As again, the evidence contradicting your conclusions is overwhelming. Making your claims not simply a bad guess. But a rejection of evidence as a basis of prediction.

Which historically has a *reaaaaaaaaally* bad record of success. In both elections and real life.

absolutely. If, and that's a BIG if, I'm wrong I will fully admit my spidey senses were severely impaired this election. If he wins will you freely admit you were clueless and in denial?

Not simply wrong. You're making your prediction in express contradiction of overwhelming evidence.

I want you to admit that your capacity for rational judgement was awful. As you're literally ignoring evidence to make your predictions. Which is irrational.

What the fuck are you babbling about? Christ I don't want to "listen" to you ramble incoherently... answer my question with a simple "yes" or "no".

I'm speaking of how it is irrational to make confident predictions in the absense of evidence, while being contradicted by overwhelming evidence.

You're very confident that Trump will win by a landslide. The evidence overwhelmingly contradicts you. And the more the evidence contradicts you, the more your confidence grows.

That's irrational. And I want you to admit it when Trump loses. Not that you were wrong. But that your capacity for rational judgement was awful. Yours is a profound failure of process. Not simply a 'bad guess'.

I'll remind you of all of this in November.

 

[cereal_killer]

I'll throw my hat in the ring and say he will not only win...he will win in a landslide.

And when he doesn't will you admit that your capacity for rational judgment is pretty piss poor?

As again, the evidence contradicting your conclusions is overwhelming. Making your claims not simply a bad guess. But a rejection of evidence as a basis of prediction.

Which historically has a *reaaaaaaaaally* bad record of success. In both elections and real life.

absolutely. If, and that's a BIG if, I'm wrong I will fully admit my spidey senses were severely impaired this election. If he wins will you freely admit you were clueless and in denial?

Not simply wrong. You're making your prediction in express contradiction of overwhelming evidence.

I want you to admit that your capacity for rational judgement was awful. As you're literally ignoring evidence to make your predictions. Which is irrational.

What the fuck are you babbling about? Christ I don't want to "listen" to you ramble incoherently... answer my question with a simple "yes" or "no".

I'm speaking of how it is irrational to make confident predictions in the absense of evidence, while being contradicted by overwhelming evidence.

You're very confident that Trump will win by a landslide. The evidence overwhelmingly contradicts you. And the more the evidence contradicts you, the more your confidence grows.

That's irrational. And I want you to admit it when Trump loses. Not that you were wrong. But that your capacity for rational judgement was awful.

I won't admit my rational judgement was awful when everything I see leads me to believe he will win in a LANDSLIDE. BTW your opinion isn't factual, its based on things you see and hear on TV. There is no overwhelming evidence that contradicts what I observe.

 

[JimBowie1958]

absolutely. If, and that's a BIG if, I'm wrong I will fully admit my spidey senses were severely impaired this election. If he wins will you freely admit you were clueless and in denial?

You dont need to worry about it.

Ha! I'm not in the least. I'm very confident that he will win in a landslide. The ONLY thing that is going to change my mind is if he falls apart in the debates. Other than that, he has it locked up and will win bigly

Yeah, I think the debate is his biggest risk also. It is looking likely that Johnson will be there too, and he and Hillary will put Trump into a cross fire double tag team from the start.

And there is always the possibility that Trump will get flustered and fall back in improv slams that get him into trouble with most people who expect more of their President than to just toss shit out there.

Doesn't Gary's Johnson need to be at 15% to participate?

He could very well hit that number. I think he will as the two major party candidates get deeper into the mud.

 

[Mac1958]

I'll throw my hat in the ring and say he will not only win...he will win in a landslide.

I'll ask the same thing I asked in 2012:

What empirical evidence leads you to this conclusion?
.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'll probably have a heartattack and die if Trump somehow pulls off a win. That is how shocked I'll be.

 

[PredFan]

I have already shown you but just look at your previous post. "Remarkably similar"?? That's your opinion and it tailors their argument to fit what you are saying. Plus, you could say that about every election every time one side is behind. Sorry, if you have a case at all, it's extremely thin.

You were here in 2012. Romney supporters were constantly saying the polls were wrong, that they were skewed, that they under-sampled and over-sampled, that Romney was going to win going away. Just like now.

And, just like now, they were predicting a Romney win and gave purely subjective, partisan reasoning for it, just like this thread.

Are you saying that didn't happen?
.

You can say that about every election, but comparing this one to 2012 is silly. 0bama was FAR more popular that Hillary is today. Are you saying that isn't true?

Straw man.

I haven't brought up the popularity of the candidates - and it's in the toilet for both.

I said the behavior of the Republicans is the same,that was my point, and I'm right.
.

You were trying to make an argument against the OP. I showed you how the popularity of the candidates then (2012) and now, make your argument almost moot. The behavior is the same, yes, yes, it's always the same every single election, blah blah blah, that doesn't help your point at all. It's silly to compare this election to 2012 because of the FACT that Hillary is not 0bama. I don't know how I can make that more clear for you.

I'm not comparing elections. I'm comparing behaviors.
.

Well you could say that about every election on both sides of the isle. How does that help your point?

 

[Mac1958]

You were here in 2012. Romney supporters were constantly saying the polls were wrong, that they were skewed, that they under-sampled and over-sampled, that Romney was going to win going away. Just like now.

And, just like now, they were predicting a Romney win and gave purely subjective, partisan reasoning for it, just like this thread.

Are you saying that didn't happen?
.

You can say that about every election, but comparing this one to 2012 is silly. 0bama was FAR more popular that Hillary is today. Are you saying that isn't true?

Straw man.

I haven't brought up the popularity of the candidates - and it's in the toilet for both.

I said the behavior of the Republicans is the same,that was my point, and I'm right.
.

You were trying to make an argument against the OP. I showed you how the popularity of the candidates then (2012) and now, make your argument almost moot. The behavior is the same, yes, yes, it's always the same every single election, blah blah blah, that doesn't help your point at all. It's silly to compare this election to 2012 because of the FACT that Hillary is not 0bama. I don't know how I can make that more clear for you.

I'm not comparing elections. I'm comparing behaviors.
.

Well you could say that about every election on both sides of the isle. How does that help your point?

Well, I wasn't here in 2010, so I have no idea.

I can say for sure, though, that my point is correct about 2012 and 2016.
.

 

[PredFan]

Beating a dead horse is not my favorite activity.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well, I wasn't here in 2010, so I have no idea.

I can say for sure, though, that my point is correct about 2012 and 2016.
.

With all due respect, no, your argument is flawed.

1. The majority of the polls were wrong on Romney's turn out. He wound up losing by more than 3% more than the polls showed. The polls did not take into account the low favorables for Romney from conservatives. Romney lost because he could not get his own base to show up at the polls, while he actually won independents. 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama | RealClearPolitics

2. The polling is wrong again in this election, as Trump has brought in a whole new segment of the population to vote for him, some for the first time in their lives they are going to vote, but this is the 'Likely not Registered' voters that the Registered voter polls miss, and the differences in the polls during the primaries show this to be about a 10% missing vote for Trump. The polling companies are not trying to think outside the box, they are trying to please the people who hire them, and all of them are antiTrump.

3. Most of the discussion about polls during an election is media driven by party functionaries. No matter what the real numbers are they will try to spin an optimistic picture for their candidate. I have voted four times in my whole life for a Republican president, once for a Democrat and five times for a third party candidate and on llocal elections I always vote Democrat. I am about as independent as you are likely to ever meet. And even I see these polls as slanted and gave a specific example of Reuters deliberately shifting their polls to favor Hillary Clinton by dropping the 'Neither' category. They also dont normally run the full field of the top four candidates, and this also favors Hillary. IF you take the MEDIAN results from the latest poll of all four candidates, Hillary is only up by 4, not 7. RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

The polls are being stacked for a Clinton win by the people who own the media and thus are the polling companies customers who wont hire them again if they are not getting the results that their owners want, the owners being the elites of both parties.

Unless you are wealthy enough to not ever have to work again, you are not in that little club, friend. That means for you to support Hillary, you have to vote to cut your own throat.

 

[Skylar]

Well, I wasn't here in 2010, so I have no idea.

I can say for sure, though, that my point is correct about 2012 and 2016.
.

With all due respect, no, your argument is flawed.

1. The majority of the polls were wrong on Romney's turn out. He wound up losing by more than 3% more than the polls showed. The polls did not take into account the low favorables for Romney from conservatives. Romney lost because he could not get his own base to show up at the polls, while he actually won independents. 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama | RealClearPolitics

2. The polling is wrong again in this election, as Trump has brought in a whole new segment of the population to vote for him, some for the first time in their lives they are going to vote, but this is the 'Likely not Registered' voters that the Registered voter polls miss, and the differences in the polls during the primaries show this to be about a 10% missing vote for Trump. The polling companies are not trying to think outside the box, they are trying to please the people who hire them, and all of them are antiTrump.

3. Most of the discussion about polls during an election is media driven by party functionaries. No matter what the real numbers are they will try to spin an optimistic picture for their candidate. I have voted four times in my whole life for a Republican president, once for a Democrat and five times for a third party candidate and on llocal elections I always vote Democrat. I am about as independent as you are likely to ever meet. And even I see these polls as slanted and gave a specific example of Reuters deliberately shifting their polls to favor Hillary Clinton by dropping the 'Neither' category. They also dont normally run the full field of the top four candidates, and this also favors Hillary. IF you take the MEDIAN results from the latest poll of all four candidates, Hillary is only up by 4, not 7. RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

The polls are being stacked for a Clinton win by the people who own the media and thus are the polling companies customers who wont hire them again if they are not getting the results that their owners want, the owners being the elites of both parties.

Unless you are wealthy enough to not ever have to work again, you are not in that little club, friend. That means for you to support Hillary, you have to vote to cut your own throat.

I'm about to do another magic trick....and make you wipe your ass with your own standards again. You ready? Pay close attention; you spoke of conservative's dissatisfaction with Romney masking lower than reported poll numbers.

Well, chuckles......Romney was pulling 61% satisfaction rates in GOP primary exit polls while Trump has managed 49% .

Republican Voters Kind Of Hate All Their Choices

Thus, by your own metric, Trump's *actual* support is even lower than the polls indicate. Time to grab another roll of Charmins Confirmation Bias....and ignore your own standards yet again in your increasingly hopeless attempt to polish the turd that is Trump's candidacy.

 

[Toro]

Well, I wasn't here in 2010, so I have no idea.

I can say for sure, though, that my point is correct about 2012 and 2016.
.

With all due respect, no, your argument is flawed.

1. The majority of the polls were wrong on Romney's turn out. He wound up losing by more than 3% more than the polls showed. The polls did not take into account the low favorables for Romney from conservatives. Romney lost because he could not get his own base to show up at the polls, while he actually won independents. 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama | RealClearPolitics

2. The polling is wrong again in this election, as Trump has brought in a whole new segment of the population to vote for him, some for the first time in their lives they are going to vote, but this is the 'Likely not Registered' voters that the Registered voter polls miss, and the differences in the polls during the primaries show this to be about a 10% missing vote for Trump. The polling companies are not trying to think outside the box, they are trying to please the people who hire them, and all of them are antiTrump.

3. Most of the discussion about polls during an election is media driven by party functionaries. No matter what the real numbers are they will try to spin an optimistic picture for their candidate. I have voted four times in my whole life for a Republican president, once for a Democrat and five times for a third party candidate and on llocal elections I always vote Democrat. I am about as independent as you are likely to ever meet. And even I see these polls as slanted and gave a specific example of Reuters deliberately shifting their polls to favor Hillary Clinton by dropping the 'Neither' category. They also dont normally run the full field of the top four candidates, and this also favors Hillary. IF you take the MEDIAN results from the latest poll of all four candidates, Hillary is only up by 4, not 7. RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

The polls are being stacked for a Clinton win by the people who own the media and thus are the polling companies customers who wont hire them again if they are not getting the results that their owners want, the owners being the elites of both parties.

Unless you are wealthy enough to not ever have to work again, you are not in that little club, friend. That means for you to support Hillary, you have to vote to cut your own throat.

More conservatives voted for Romney than any other candidate in history. He captured the second highest share of conservatives since exit polling began 40 years ago.

The polls aren't being stacked or rigged. Pollsters don't adjust for party affiliation. It's merely a question.

Nor has Trump brought in new voters. He brought in new primary voters who vote Republican in the general but who have historically not voted in the primaries.

 

[OnePercenter]

absolutely. If, and that's a BIG if, I'm wrong I will fully admit my spidey senses were severely impaired this election. If he wins will you freely admit you were clueless and in denial?

You dont need to worry about it.

Ha! I'm not in the least. I'm very confident that he will win in a landslide. The ONLY thing that is going to change my mind is if he falls apart in the debates. Other than that, he has it locked up and will win bigly

What is Trumps plan to increase middle class wages and help the economy?

 

[80zephyr]

You were here in 2012. Romney supporters were constantly saying the polls were wrong, that they were skewed, that they under-sampled and over-sampled, that Romney was going to win going away. Just like now.
.

Was Romney a populist?

Was Romney promising to change the tax structure to lure over seas money back to America?

Was Romney promising to refocus our national policies on keeping Americans able to work?

No, they were not the same arguments or style of candidate either.

I've never said anything comparing the candidates. I'm talking about the behavior of Republican voters in both 2016 and 2012. It has nothing to do with anything else.

In both cases, they claimed the polls were wrong, that their guy was going to win.

I think this is pretty common knowledge here, and it wouldn't take much effort to search and find threads from 2012 that did exactly what I'm saying.

In fact, here are just a few examples from 2012. Lots of "the polls are wrong" and "Romney will win because I don't think people should vote for Obama":

Are we approaching a Romney blowout?
The Real Poll Data
Barone: Romney Will Win 315 Electoral Votes
‘The Bradley Effect’ Predicts a Huge Win for Romney
POLLING PROPAGANDISTS: The Walter Shapiro, Taegan Goddard and Doug Mataconis Edition
Obama Is Losing And Everyone In His Campaign Knows It
Democratic pollsters admit polls are skewed against Romney. The polls are LYING to U
Unskewed Polling Data
Why Romney Will Win
Stupid media tricks produce poll favoring Obama
Romney winner Polls were biased!!!!

Just as I said.
.

Have you ever heard of the "Bradley effect"? If there ever was an election where it would come into play, I would guess it would be this one.

Mark

 

[Brynmr]

I have no doubt Trump could beat Clinton. But will Trump defeat Trump.

 

[OnePercenter]

I have no doubt Trump could beat Clinton. But will Trump defeat Trump.

But will Trump defeat Trump.

Which I've been saying from the start, because that's the plan.