Poll
8 votes (16.32%) | |||
11 votes (22.44%) | |||
5 votes (10.2%) | |||
14 votes (28.57%) | |||
4 votes (8.16%) | |||
1 vote (2.04%) | |||
No votes (0%) | |||
1 vote (2.04%) | |||
1 vote (2.04%) | |||
4 votes (8.16%) |
49 members have voted
I therefore am asking the wisest beings on the planet: the denizens of this board (and that's even with a couple of prominent posters dragging down our grade point average):
Who will win the 2016 Presidential election?
In answering, please do NOT consider who you WANT to win. This means that you don't let your views be distorted by selective perception. Trumpers, don't take into account that Breitbart story about how Hillary killed forty-nine people in Libya with a machete. Clinton supporters, don't take into account that MSNBC story about Trump looting the bank accounts of three hundred elderly nuns (many of them weren't actually elderly).
Ideally, we collect a large enough sample size that the Wizard can release our results to the media, and obviate the need for any more %^%#$% polls, and maybe even the election itself!
/thread
Quote: RSTrump, landslide.
My betting window is open.
Quote: WizardMy betting window is open.
I'll take Trump at +1,000.
Dems will hold a narrow majority in the Senate, which means little since 60 votes are required to do much of anything.
GOP holds House, but loses 12-15 seats...
Looking ahead to 2018. Senate returns to GOP control, while House Republicans pick up 15-20 seats...
I'm not sure if that qualifies as a "landslide" in the poll options, so I didn't vote.
*I feel like this prediction could change based on the events of next Monday's debate. So maybe it's a good thing I didn't vote in the poll.
At this point, I think that Clinton will win but it may be very close. I don't know how any of us can be very accurate, though, because there is a lot of time left and a lot of things left to be said. This thread is not much better than any other poll, in spite of the brilliance of some of the folks here.
Tossing out the "reality" of all the things said about Trump and his potential voters (that is, suspending the conversation about it; just taking them as things being said), how many people would really want to face an angry mob of people attacking you personally for wanting to vote for that person? Why would they answer questions from anyone, including a pollster, in a way that might lead people to attack them? They only have to give their real answer once.
(I know one person will likely try to twist the statement above into something that it is not; the point is that both major candidates face a lot of hate from the other side...who really wants to be involved in that in real life situations? Just say my vote is my vote and run along...)
Define landslide and I'm probably willing to fade you.Quote: RSTrump, landslide.
/thread
Quote: SOOPOOThe only chance I see for Trump is if Hillary has a clearly visible medical problem. That means one that is noticeable by ams and JS, not just EvenBob.
Well, the video of her collapsing into the van on 9/11 was noticeable by me, FYI.
I take them at their word that it was due to pneumonia. EB...... doesn't.
Clinton/Kaine- 45.96%
Trump Pence- 43.23%
Johnson/Weld 7.94%
Stein/Baraka- 2.87%
Clinton/Kaine- 287 Electoral Votes
Trump/Pence- 251 Electoral Votes
Another trend I think is possible we will be down in voter turnout for second straight presidential election.
Quote: beerseasonAnother trend I think is possible we will be down in voter turnout for second straight presidential election.
I'm thinking the turnout will actually be higher than last year. The Trump supporters are energized, and demonstrated their numbers in record primary turn outs. I think they will also show up in November. Clinton's campaign has the novelty of electing the first female President. I think this adds interest from young females who would not have turned out if it was two old white guys going at it.
Quote: WizardMy betting window is open.
What's the moneyline on Trump? I already booked some action here at +250....
Quote: bigfoot66What's the moneyline on Trump? I already booked some action here at +250....
Speaking of which... I will offer you a one time 20% discount to settle our wager by September 25. If you send me $80 by 9/25/16 we can consider it settled, otherwise it's the full $100 in January.
Of course, it could be $250 to you in January, but that hope appears to be fading...
Quote: SOOPOOI believe Trump is likely to make some faux pas that even he cannot escape from. I am standing by my Hillary in a landslide prediction. The only chance I see for Trump is if Hillary has a clearly visible medical problem. That means one that is noticeable by ams and JS, not just EvenBob.
Is there actually such a faux pas that he could commit? Calling women "ignorant, slutty bitches"? Saying that Europeans, Africans, and Asians are inferior and should all be sterilized? Saying that his company invented the Internet? Disemboweling a live puppy onstage?
There have already been ten times as many faux pas (plural?) as should be necessary to make all but the most deplorable deplorables run away from Trump, retching. Imagine if Hillary had done or said any of those things--she'd be crucified in the press. Which makes me wonder about the whole process. I'm increasingly suspicious that the press is manipulating the coverage of this campaign so as to either make the race appear closer than it is or influence it directly, in order to boost ratings. I mean, Trump, for example, admits a lie about the birther crap, retracts it, then states another lie about it. Is this paid any real attention? No. Instead, we have five hundred and seventeen more articles about Hillary's EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS. I mean, Jesus! And it's disgusting that Trump gets all the attention he does simply because he's (supposedly) entertaining. We should be hearing MUCH more about Clinton's detailed plans on pressing issues. Instead, all we get is repeated video clips of an evil buffoon blathering about building a wall.
Quote: MathExtremistDefine landslide and I'm probably willing to fade you.
I'll lay even money that Clinton beats Trump by at least the margin that Obama beat Romney in 2012. I refer only to popular, not electoral votes, and not gross amount, but percentage of votes cast ONLY FOR EITHER OF THOSE TWO CANDIDATES as a ratio. That would factor out any third-party votes. So if Clinton got 45% of the vote and Trump 40%, the ratio would be 9:8.
The results for 2012 were Obama, 65,915,796 and Romney, 60,933,600. I'm too lazy to convert that into a ratio right now (it's fairly close to 11:10), but that would be the measuring stick I would wish to use to decide the wager. So this is not money line--if Clinton beats Trump, but not by the same proportionate margin as Obama beat Romney, or if Trump wins outright, you win! It's more like a pointspread.
Minimum bet is $100, maximum $200. I'll deposit funds with the Wiz to match, if he's willing to hold them (for a small commission, of course).
Quote: AyecarumbaSpeaking of which... I will offer you a one time 20% discount to settle our wager by September 25. If you send me $80 by 9/25/16 we can consider it settled, otherwise it's the full $100 in January.
Of course, it could be $250 to you in January, but that hope appears to be fading...
Kind of you to offer but I am very happy to keep that bet on the books. We clearly see the race very differently as it appears to me that Mr Trump is continuing to gain momentum, but regardless of that I think we can both agree that Trump appears more likely to win today than when we booked the bet. As such I think I have the best of it, and in fact would be willing to take more Trump at +250.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI'll lay even money that Clinton beats Trump by at least the margin that Obama beat Romney in 2012. I refer only to popular, not electoral votes, and not gross amount, but percentage of votes cast ONLY FOR EITHER OF THOSE TWO CANDIDATES as a ratio. That would factor out any third-party votes. So if Clinton got 45% of the vote and Trump 40%, the ratio would be 9:8.
The results for 2012 were Obama, 65,915,796 and Romney, 60,933,600. I'm too lazy to convert that into a ratio right now (it's fairly close to 11:10), but that would be the measuring stick I would wish to use to decide the wager. So this is not money line--if Clinton beats Trump, but not by the same proportionate margin as Obama beat Romney, or if Trump wins outright, you win! It's more like a pointspread.
Minimum bet is $100, maximum $200. I'll deposit funds with the Wiz to match, if he's willing to hold them (for a small commission, of course).
Is this an even money wager? If so I will book the whole $200 or a smaller amount.
Well it's working.Quote: onenickelmiracleDoes anyone else think Jbot is actually a Trump supporter? My theory is he wants you to associate him with anti-trump, therefore, you wind up wanting trump.
Quote: WizardBetting odds suggest Trump has a 32% chance.
For what it's worth, Nate Silver has it higher with Trump at 43.9% yesterday.
Quote: BozFor what it's worth, Nate Silver has it higher with Trump at 43.9% yesterday.
It is interesting that probabilities are attached to elections because they do not appear to have "random" components. Is the uncertainty related to the accuracy of the polls, the weather, or malfunctioning counting machines? It's not like a sporting event where the performance of the individuals or teams determines the outcome. It is up to the voters, the majority of whom, have already decided on a candidate.
Quote: WizardMy betting window is open.
At what odds for any Trump victory?
Quote: AyecarumbaIt is interesting that probabilities are attached to elections because they do not appear to have "random" components. Is the uncertainty related to the accuracy of the polls, the weather, or malfunctioning counting machines? It's not like a sporting event where the performance of the individuals or teams determines the outcome. It is up to the voters, the majority of whom, have already decided on a candidate.
It's still up to the candidates in that what they say (may) determine or sway votes one way or another. A random-type variable would be other candidates -- if/when they drop out, where are those votes moving? Or perhaps something like the Charlotte, NC riots and stuff, if it's determined the black guy was unarmed and no gun was found, then that could favor Hillary, whereas if the guy did have a gun, I think that'd favor Trump. If there are more terrorist attacks in the USA, that'd (unfortunately) favor Trump....and if there are none, it'd favor Hillary. Etc etc....
Quote: AyecarumbaIt is interesting that probabilities are attached to elections because they do not appear to have "random" components. Is the uncertainty related to the accuracy of the polls, the weather, or malfunctioning counting machines? It's not like a sporting event where the performance of the individuals or teams determines the outcome. It is up to the voters, the majority of whom, have already decided on a candidate.
The surveys have random elements. HRC doesn't have a 51% chance of winning because the election is random, she has a 51% chance of winning because the polls showing her ahead only have a 51% chance of having been correct given that the actual election outcome will have occurred.
If the election were held today, Hillary would win easily. I think the electoral map would be Obama's 2012 map, plus North Carolina, minus Iowa (and that one district in Maine).
I suspect there could be "tightening" between now and Nov. 8. Trump had the worst week ever last week...
Nevada and Ohio are the states that could go from Blue to Red (in my mind) between now and election day. He'd still lose even with Ohio.
Still haven't voted in the poll because "landslide" needs to be defined.
I cannot imagine Harry Reid will allow Trump to win in NV. Paint it blue.
OH is a wildcard...Trump hanging in even with Gov. Kasich's pointed lack of support (which really isn't doing the governor much good, if he hopes to run for Pres in 4 years).
Early voting starting in some states right now, more will be added to the list next week. Every day that goes by, the number of voters who could be persuaded to change their minds shrinks....
Put a gun to my head and I'd say Clinton wins with anywhere between 275 and 315 electoral votes...
Quote: iamnomadTrump probably needs FL if he's gonna win. Polls show that's not happening right now.
I cannot imagine Harry Reid will allow Trump to win in NV. Paint it blue.
OH is a wildcard...Trump hanging in even with Gov. Kasich's pointed lack of support (which really isn't doing the governor much good, if he hopes to run for Pres in 4 years).
Early voting starting in some states right now, more will be added to the list next week. Every day that goes by, the number of voters who could be persuaded to change their minds shrinks....
Put a gun to my head and I'd say Clinton wins with anywhere between 275 and 315 electoral votes...
Stop with the polls and look at results. Trump is winning early voting in Florida by unprecedented margins despite Clinton outspending him 5:1 in the state. Clinton pulled out of Ohio because she thought the fix was in. You can't manipulate a landslide.
Quote: MaxPenStop with the polls and look at results. Trump is winning early voting in Florida by unprecedented margins despite Clinton outspending him 5:1 in the state. Clinton pulled out of Ohio because she thought the fix was in. You can't manipulate a landslide.
What idiot is saying it's unprecedented? Republicans traditionally do well in early voting.
Quote:As of Thursday morning, about 2.4 million Floridians have cast early or absentee ballots and, the GOP current leads Democrats by 140,123 votes, which is down from the 141,363 vote margin registered Wednesday.
Quote: iamnomadClinton over Trump 47-44, minimum 325 electoral votes
Dems will hold a narrow majority in the Senate, which means little since 60 votes are required to do much of anything.
That sounds about right to me, although I think the margin will be a little larger (50-43 or so); I predict that, for the 25th election in a row (and celebrating the 100th anniversary of the last time it didn't happen), California "won't matter." Not since 1916 has the elected President needed California's electoral votes to win the election.
However, if the Democrats do get both the White House and somehow control both the House and Senate, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the Senate "invoke the nuclear option" and get rid of filibustering, so it can push through things like massive income tax reform, as well as take filibustering a Supreme Court nominee off the table - after which, Congress will pass campaign finance reform, which will end with the Supreme Court saying in a 5-4 opinion, "We need to reconsider Citizens United v. FEC". Then, if the Republicans get either house of Congress back in 2018, the Democrats vote to bring filibustering back before the new Congress takes over in early January.
Quote: ThatDonGuyThat sounds about right to me, although I think the margin will be a little larger (50-43 or so); I predict that, for the 25th election in a row (and celebrating the 100th anniversary of the last time it didn't happen), California "won't matter." Not since 1916 has the elected President needed California's electoral votes to win the election.
However, if the Democrats do get both the White House and somehow control both the House and Senate, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the Senate "invoke the nuclear option" and get rid of filibustering, so it can push through things like massive income tax reform, as well as take filibustering a Supreme Court nominee off the table - after which, Congress will pass campaign finance reform, which will end with the Supreme Court saying in a 5-4 opinion, "We need to reconsider Citizens United v. FEC". Then, if the Republicans get either house of Congress back in 2018, the Democrats vote to bring filibustering back before the new Congress takes over in early January.
I don't think anyone is predicting Dems taking control of the House. Even so, I could see the "nuclear option" coming into play to get Supreme Court justices through.
Quote: MaxPenStop with the polls and look at results. Trump is winning early voting in Florida by unprecedented margins despite Clinton outspending him 5:1 in the state. Clinton pulled out of Ohio because she thought the fix was in. You can't manipulate a landslide.
Voting results aren't released until after the polls close on election day. How do you know Trump is winning early voting in FL? Is it because more GOPers than Dems are voting early? If so, how do you know that isn't Cuban Americans voting for HRC and not for an embargo-dodging assclown?
Quote: ams288Quote: ThatDonGuyThat sounds about right to me, although I think the margin will be a little larger (50-43 or so); I predict that, for the 25th election in a row (and celebrating the 100th anniversary of the last time it didn't happen), California "won't matter." Not since 1916 has the elected President needed California's electoral votes to win the election.
However, if the Democrats do get both the White House and somehow control both the House and Senate, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the Senate "invoke the nuclear option" and get rid of filibustering, so it can push through things like massive income tax reform, as well as take filibustering a Supreme Court nominee off the table - after which, Congress will pass campaign finance reform, which will end with the Supreme Court saying in a 5-4 opinion, "We need to reconsider Citizens United v. FEC". Then, if the Republicans get either house of Congress back in 2018, the Democrats vote to bring filibustering back before the new Congress takes over in early January.
I don't think anyone is predicting Dems taking control of the House. Even so, I could see the "nuclear option" coming into play to get Supreme Court justices through.
The Dems are likely to pick up about 5 seats in the House, with another dozen tossups that are currently GOP-held. That'd cut the GOP's lead, but the House is VERY well gerrymandered. In the entire country, only about 10% of house seats have a partisan split that is within even 5% of parity. For example, the district I'm sitting in now is D + 15ish. The one across the river from me (which I can see from my chair) is R + 21. Neither seat will change parties within my lifetime. but, across my entire combined statistical area, the split is D+2.5 (in parts of 4 CDs)