**** Elections thread *****

[OngBonga]

You're right. It's naive to doubt the existence of something that's so powerful it can hide it's very existence. I have the same feelings about people who don't believe in leprechauns and the Loch Ness Monster.

Right. So human beings, an intelligent and powerful species, having complex levels of conspiracy at the top, is on a par with a dinosaur in a lake, and Irish gold pixies.

That you even compare them is utterly ridiculous.

You'd have done much better to compare it to aliens, at least then you're not resorting to mockery.

[wufwugy]

I think if you want to build a wall, you don't understand the foundation of this country.

I respect that you don't want to get into it, so I won't get into it. I'll just leave you with this idea: I am well aware of the idea that immigration has played a quality role in turning America into what it is. In some ways it is true, and in other ways it is not. Different waves of immigration throughout history changed the country. For example, when we were mainly a country of Brit/Scot/Protestant immigrants, the country held the values of freedom from government tyranny to a much greater extent than when, later, we gained a great deal of German/Scandinavian/Catholic immigration, regions/ideals that typically look to a greater authority to dispense rules.

I'm a very big fan of immigration. What I am not a fan of is undermining the values that make lives better by importing values that make lives worse.

[wufwugy]

The POTUS wields somewhat more power than most other western democracies. More extensive veto rights, executive orders, supreme court nominations etc. Still, the president's job basically boils down to two things: pushing policies and acting as the representative and public face for the country.

With Hillary, we pretty much know what those policies are. There's some fairly progressive ones, but mainly more of the same old, and most likely nothing new as long as the congress and the senate are R-majority. As a representative she'd be a mixed bag, her minor controversies and corruption charges have not gone unnoticed globally, but at the same time electing a liberal woman would not be bad for most foreign relations. She's a flawed candidate with a mixed bag of negatives and some positives.

With Donald, sweet bloody jesus. We have absolutely no idea what kind of policies he is going to push, apart from a wall and flip-flopping on pretty much every issue, with no clear plans regarding anything. Hillary may be a tad crooked, but this guy is the epitome of plutocracy, old money, corruption, hate mongering and self interests. He might be the most hated and feared person on the planet right now.

It blows my mind that there are legit concerns he might be voted in. They're both...shall we say less than ideal as candidates, but we're still comparing a decent person with poop in her hands to a bucket of horse manure. If the election is rigged, it's by the russians someone hacking the voting machines.

https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events...tml/index.html

Given the sorts of things we've discussed in the past, I would think you'd be quite excited over Trump's lobby reform.

[Poopadoop]

I respect that you don't want to get into it, so I won't get into it. I'll just leave you with this idea: I am well aware of the idea that immigration has played a quality role in turning America into what it is. In some ways it is true, and in other ways it is not. Different waves of immigration throughout history changed the country. For example, when we were mainly a country of Brit/Scot/Protestant immigrants, the country held the values of freedom from government tyranny to a much greater extent than when, later, we gained a great deal of German/Scandinavian/Catholic immigration, regions/ideals that typically look to a greater authority to dispense rules.

I'm a very big fan of immigration. What I am not a fan of is undermining the values that make lives better by importing values that make lives worse.

That's one way to not get into it, Wuf.

[wufwugy]

That'd be a great tactic if anyone on Hillary's side was claiming the fix was in. But they're not.

If the election is close, either side will dispute it just like in 2000. If it's a blowout, I suspect only Trump will find a reason to argue it's rigged.

The tactic doesn't require both sides to claim rigging. The tactic is merely to get Trump's opponents to claim that the results must be taken at face value no matter what. The tactic has value if Trump thinks he's going to win because it then undermines his opponents' ability to challenge the results with credibility. The claim is that Farage did this in the early hours of Brexit when he asked for a redo. He got laughed at and emphatically denied. Then Leave won and those who just finished denying a redo couldn't turn around and proclaim the need for a redo.

[Poopadoop]

Right. So human beings, an intelligent and powerful species, having complex levels of conspiracy at the top, is on a par with a dinosaur in a lake, and Irish gold pixies.

That you even compare them is utterly ridiculous.

You'd have done much better to compare it to aliens, at least then you're not resorting to mockery.

You're right, I shouldn't have resorted to mockery as it didn't serve my argument. I apologise.

So, here's the thing: The whole idea that the election is being rigged by powerful forces (some visible, some not), is difficult to sustain. The arguments that you and others have made just aren't very good ones imo.

1. The democrats receive funding from corporations.

Yes, and so do the republicans.


2. The media is pro-Hillary.

Correct, and that's consistent with the pro-democrat bias they've had for the past 40 years or so. It would be suspicious if they had previously been neutral or pro-republican, but they weren't.


3. Clinton lies and plays dirty tricks.

Again, nothing new, and nothing that her opponent's camp isn't also doing (the reverse-twitter bot hypothesis notwithstanding).


4. (Not your argument, but what I've heard from others, including Trump himself) The polling stations are rigged.

The only evidence I've seen of systematic attempts to rig the voting have been regarding the voting rights issues, where the Supreme Court had to step in to prevent rigging that would obviously favour the republicans. Maybe there's other evidence, or maybe the Clinton campaign and the media are so good at covering it up that we'll never hear about it. I can't speculate about that, I can only go on the information I have.

[Poopadoop]

The tactic doesn't require both sides to claim rigging. The tactic is merely to get Trump's opponents to claim that the results must be taken at face value no matter what. The tactic has value if Trump thinks he's going to win because it then undermines his opponents' ability to challenge the results with credibility. The claim is that Farage did this in the early hours of Brexit when he asked for a redo. He got laughed at and emphatically denied. Then Leave won and those who just finished denying a redo couldn't turn around and proclaim the need for a redo.

That's one interpretation of his actions. Another is that he's just so narcissistic that he can't accept the idea that he might lose a fair fight. A third is that he's trying to incite his supporters to not accept a loss of any magnitude and support him in his attempts to fight it.

A fourth is that the media, Putin, and the globalists are actually conspiring with him by appearing to fall into his trap while all the time they're in on the game. It's a bigly double reverse bluff to hide the fact that he's heading the very conspiracy he's trying to make himself appear the victim of. Believe me.

[wufwugy]

People say nobody believes you more than I do. I have been given great credit by many great people for how much I believe you.

[Poopadoop]

People say nobody believes you more than I do. I have been given great credit by many great people for how much I believe you.

That just proves you're in on it. Probably a bot.

[wufwugy]

I'm switching my EV calculation. Giving Trump 348. Removing New Mexico but adding Minnesota.

[wufwugy]

I'm having a hard time calling Washington and Oregon. There are signs that over here we could experience an out-of-nowhere mega surge for Trump.

Washington is weird. We have a ton of hidden conservatives in this state with what seems to be very low turnout. Seattle dominates Washington politics so heavily that every statewide Republican uses the same strategy of running to the left and trying to get some swing in Seattle voters on Seattle issues, all the while counting on the conservatives to just hold their noses and hit R. So, we don't really know what it would look like with somebody who energizes Washington conservatives. What has me questioning things is that the WA GOP primary saw a huge boost in turnout, and it was ALL for Trump since Cruz and Kasich had dropped out by then. Turnout was just below Democrat turnout, which surprises me. In addition, Washington is really white, and if Trump performs as well with whites as I think he will, it makes Washington a toss up. There could also be a hidden vote for Trump among Asians.

[Savy]

In addition, Washington is really white, and if Trump performs as well with whites as I think he will, it makes Washington a toss up.

If you're going to slag off polls for their poor use of statistics you shouldn't be making the same mistakes. Either that or you're trying to rig the FTR media and convince people Trump is doing better than he actually is.

[Poopadoop]

There are signs that over here we could experience an out-of-nowhere mega surge for Trump.

I think when you mention the Whites you're forgetting the White Russians. They will definitely be voting Trump on Putin's orders.

Meanwhile, as everyone is focussing on the inner city voting stations thanks to the media's distraction campaign, Trump/Putin operatives will be surreptitiously adding republican votes to the suburbs. It's the perfect plan for orchestrating an out-of-nowhere mega surge.

[Poopadoop]

Either that or you're trying to rig the FTR media and convince people Trump is doing better than he actually is.

I lol'd.

[CoccoBill]

Given the sorts of things we've discussed in the past, I would think you'd be quite excited over Trump's lobby reform.

Let's assume he would actually try to do that and succeed. Limited lobbying in the future by former congressmen, executive branch members and foreign parties. Yup, I completely changed my mind now, Trump would be a great leader of the free world.

[wufwugy]

If you're going to slag off polls for their poor use of statistics you shouldn't be making the same mistakes. Either that or you're trying to rig the FTR media and convince people Trump is doing better than he actually is.

How's that?

[Savy]

How's that?

Assuming that white male voting patterns apply equally to all areas is completely false. Especially with statistics you've made up.

[wufwugy]

Assuming that white male voting patterns apply equally to all areas is completely false. Especially with statistics you've made up.

Yes it is. This is the reason why I haven't put Oregon in my red column already. If white turnout is what I think it will be and so across the board, Oregon would not be tossup but red. But it is unlikely to be the same across the board. I am just not sure how different it will be.

[Savy]

Yes it is. This is the reason why I haven't put Oregon in my red column already. If white turnout is what I think it will be and so across the board, Oregon would not be tossup but red. But it is unlikely to be the same across the board. I am just not sure how different it will be.

That's why people who publish statistical data make the effort to go into exactly how they got the figures they got and the assumptions they have made. Apparently making shit up can't be taken apart so well because people never state in detail how they got their figures. One of these is clearly bias bullshit the other isn't yet people view it the other way round.

You seem to be making a lot of false assumptions about things but then underplaying how important that is and why everything you predict using inductive reasoning is much shakier and made up than all the other data that you spend time trying to discredit. Another example of this is when your post saying you are going to extrapolate data which you say yourself is wrong but then conclude other things based on that. It's nonsense.

[Savy]

The claim is that Farage did this in the early hours of Brexit when he asked for a redo. He got laughed at and emphatically denied. Then Leave won and those who just finished denying a redo couldn't turn around and proclaim the need for a redo.

This is untrue. Farage like the rest of the people involved in the leave campaign were under the impression that they had lost. If you followed coverage of this early on in the night you would have seen evidence of this being true.

It's also worth noting that Farage actually played a very minor role in the late stages of Brexit. He was under the impression that it was more of a lost cause and for someone so prominent in the media constantly his presence became very little.

I think the idea that the right are all of a sudden playing some amazing political game and that is why they are getting more votes/power is nonsense. The reason for this is a shift to the right across the west (and Eastern Europe). For the GOP not to be completely dominating is embarrassing.

[wufwugy]

In part I'm spitballing. I'm doing what I can with what I have. My criticism of polling practices have never been about them using assumptions, but about them using pretty obviously poor assumptions. What I post here is mostly packaged neatly from a mix of a bunch of other stuff I don't mention. I try to do what most of the pollsters are not: account for change in voter sensibilities. This is a bunch of guesswork.

[wufwugy]

This is untrue. Farage like the rest of the people involved in the leave campaign were under the impression that they had lost. If you followed coverage of this early on in the night you would have seen evidence of this being true.

It's also worth noting that Farage actually played a very minor role in the late stages of Brexit. He was under the impression that it was more of a lost cause and for someone so prominent in the media constantly his presence became very little.

I mostly agree with this. I just pointed out that one interpretation is that Farage used that tactic on purpose. I'm not saying I think he did.

I think the idea that the right are all of a sudden playing some amazing political game and that is why they are getting more votes/power is nonsense. The reason for this is a shift to the right across the west (and Eastern Europe). For the GOP not to be completely dominating is embarrassing.

We'll see. I've been saying for a while that I think the GOP is dominating; it's just in the monster vote unaccounted for by polls. Britain experienced this with a ~6 point swing towards Leave from the previous day polling average, and I think the US monster vote will be an even more extreme swing.

[Savy]

We'll see. I've been saying for a while that I think the GOP is dominating; it's just in the monster vote unaccounted for by polls. Britain experienced this with a ~6 point swing towards Leave from the previous day polling average, and I think the US monster vote will be an even more extreme swing.

What I think is true about this election is that both candidates are pretty crap and two weeks is a long time for either of them when they both have so much in their closets. From what I've seen* I think this is more likely to effect Clinton but that adds some variance to predictions.

*I think it's quite strange that I get a pretty right wing view of American politics whilst a much more central view of things from UK media. It's quite interesting.

I mostly agree with this. I just pointed out that one interpretation is that Farage used that tactic on purpose. I'm not saying I think he did.

Fair.

I think it's somewhat strange that Farage is getting as far away from the limelight as possible now. It's understandable to a degree because he got what he wanted but if I was him I'd want to be pushing for it to go through as much to my ideals as possible. I have to say I hope UKIP collapses now whatever peoples views on Europe lots of people in that party are scum.

[Poopadoop]

I've been saying for a while that I think the GOP is dominating; it's just in the monster vote unaccounted for by polls.

Thing is Wuffy, your arguments keep starting with the conclusion that Trump is winning and then go backwards from there to find the evidence to support them. And a lot of that evidence is very subjective.

This is fine to do in your head, you're free to believe what you want to believe, but surely you can see how this way of arguing might irk people who are trying to look at things objectively.

[wufwugy]

Thing is Wuffy, your arguments keep starting with the conclusion that Trump is winning and then go backwards from there to find the evidence to support them. And a lot of that evidence is very subjective.

This is fine to do in your head, you're free to believe what you want to believe, but surely you can see how this way of arguing might irk people who are trying to look at things objectively.

My belief that Trump is ahead comes from the evidence. Concluding that Trump is ahead merely on feeling and then working backwards would be idiotic. If you would like, I can give you the rundown on the evidence for why Trump is likely ahead.

[Poopadoop]

If you would like, I can give you the rundown on the evidence for why Trump is likely ahead.

It's up to you if you want to do a rundown or not; it's your time. Can't promise I'll have time to read all of it, but maybe others will and are interested.

[JKDS]

Hillary has already won

[wufwugy]

It's up to you if you want to do a rundown or not; it's your time. Can't promise I'll have time to read all of it, but maybe others will and are interested.

I'll keep it short.

The primary model by Helmut Norpoth is a strong model that predicts a Trump win a very high percentage of the time. Like all models, it's not perfect, but even if we discard the model, the primaries statistics suggest big lean towards Republican relative to 2012. This includes Trump winning more votes than Clinton did in 2008 and the Democrat primary dropping by 20% while the Republican primary increased by 60% (contrasting competitive years). This signifies a reduction in enthusiasm for Clinton and an increase in enthusiasm for Trump.

Other signs of enthusiasm are a blowout for Trump and devastating for Clinton. His rallies, signage, and merchandise are off the charts in popularity, while hers are in the dumps. In addition, Trump has broken the GOP record for quantity of small donors, while Hillary is way behind Obama.

Even if the polls are rigged, they can be evaluated endogenously for some value. They have consistently shown that the effective incumbent (Clinton) is way below what is considered good for any incumbent, and they have shown that as undecideds and third party votes finally decide, they favor Trump. This is consistent with the orthodox political wisdom we heard about in every election before the current one.

The demographic that the signs suggest Trump does the best with and that he is energizing to turnout is one with the most room for improvement and the one that has been staying home for the last few cycles. Contrast this to Clinton, where there are no signs that she will perform at Obama turnout levels. Just a small solid performance in Trump key demographic and a small underperformance in Clinton's key demographic, which is what signs are pointing towards, gives him the win.

Finally, just step back and take it all in. Nate Antimatter gave Trump a 2% chance to win the nomination and yet he won. This is the type of thing that, when viewed in retrospect, correlates with wins. In the future, we will look back and say the Trump win was pretty obvious, and we will give reasons that include how consistently he outperformed expectations at every turn.

[Savy]

When was that 2% prediction made?

Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

It's actually pretty annoying that people look at events that are unlikely to happen and when they do happen they make out that the predictions must have been wrong. No something that happens 2% of the time isn't the same as an event that never happens. Any poker player worth their salt knows that through losing thousands of hands they were 98% favourite to win (whilst winning ~98% of those hands in the long run).

[wufwugy]

When was that 2% prediction made?

Early in the cycle.

Nate Antimatter's claim to fame is getting an easy to predict election right, an election where no surprises happened. Since then, he's been wrong over and over and over. Today, his bias is blatant. He pulls bull like weights the LA times poll to lean 4 points R for zero reason. Frankly, I've stopped paying attention to Nate Compost. I find it hilarious that back when he had a shred of credibility, he claimed that his poll aggregation strategy would be blown out of the water in a shift election, yet here we are in a shift election and he just keeps shilling.

It's actually pretty annoying that people look at events that are unlikely to happen and when they do happen they make out that the predictions must have been wrong. No something that happens 2% of the time isn't the same as an event that never happens. Any poker player worth their salt knows that through losing thousands of hands they were 98% favourite to win (whilst winning ~98% of those hands in the long run).

I agree with this. The issue is that his prediction wasn't reasonable. It was some basic bullshit (stuff that I too fell for) like "it doesn't matter that Trump leads in the polls, he's crazy and he has a ceiling blah blah." I think people would give somebody like Nate Pyrite the benefit of the doubt if a low probability thing happened. The issue is that he applied a low probability to Trump for non-scientific, non-statistical, pro-political-bias reasons.

[wufwugy]

Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

I'm not 100% sure of the point you're getting at, but, yeah, hindsight bias is the thorn in the side for all social models.

[Poopadoop]

When was that 2% prediction made?

Aug. 2015, six months before the first primary. Another person on his team gave Trump 0% and another gave him a minus 10% chance of winning. Shows how serious that estimate was.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/p...ugust-edition/

[wufwugy]

The only reason I argue with you guys is I love ya. Each and every one of you doofuses. You're all doofuses even though I'm positive you're each higher on intelligence scale than I am.

[wufwugy]

i dont mean doofus as an insult. everybody's a doofus as far as im concerned.

[Savy]

Aug. 2015, six months before the first primary. Another person on his team gave Trump 0% and another gave him a minus 10% chance of winning. Shows how serious that estimate was.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/p...ugust-edition/

So it's people pissing about. A bit idiotic on their part as people will use it to bash them but at the same time just worth ignoring.

Early in the cycle.

Nate Antimatter's claim to fame is getting an easy to predict election right, an election where no surprises happened. Since then, he's been wrong over and over and over. Today, his bias is blatant. He pulls bull like weights the LA times poll to lean 4 points R for zero reason. Frankly, I've stopped paying attention to Nate Compost. I find it hilarious that back when he had a shred of credibility, he claimed that his poll aggregation strategy would be blown out of the water in a shift election, yet here we are in a shift election and he just keeps shilling.

I agree with this. The issue is that his prediction wasn't reasonable. It was some basic bullshit (stuff that I too fell for) like "it doesn't matter that Trump leads in the polls, he's crazy and he has a ceiling blah blah." I think people would give somebody like Nate Pyrite the benefit of the doubt if a low probability thing happened. The issue is that he applied a low probability to Trump for non-scientific, non-statistical, pro-political-bias reasons.

People (and the systems they use) are notoriously bad at putting anything resembling realistic odds on things with very long odds. One of the few things betting companies routinely get wrong is giving people much better odds than they actually deserve when they have a very low chance of getting something right. A good example of this was Leicester city winning the premier league last year.

The fact that some people are full of shit and are riding a wave of past glory which gives them more say than they deserve in these things is unfortunately something that happens in all walks of life. That isn't to say that just because they say one thing the opposite must be true though. I also agree that people will happily try and "logic" away things that disagree with their view of things however false this is.

i dont mean doofus as an insult. everybody's a doofus as far as im concerned.

I don't remember the last time I heard that word used. Must have gone out of fashion about 15+ years ago.

[wufwugy]

I don't remember the last time I heard that word used. Must have gone out of fashion about 15+ years ago.

I think part of why I use it is the obscurity. Like every normal male on the face of the earth, insults are paramount to interaction with other males, just that they need be not too biting.

[bigred]

This was an interesting read for me. I'm definitely guilty of over simplying the subjects of this article. Maybe it was already posted but I'll leave it here anyway: https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...cans?CMP=fb_gu

I saved a few linked articles and books mentioned in the article for later reading. I'd be remiss to accuse islamaphobes of over simplifying an entire religion and 1.6 billion people and not recognize my own generalizations.

[Savy]

I think part of why I use it is the obscurity. Like every normal male on the face of the earth, insults are paramount to interaction with other males, just that they need be not too biting.

I prefer cunt.

[wufwugy]

I prefer cunt.

brits know that insulting each other is the name of the game. americans have too weak of feelings.

[Savy]

brits know that insulting each other is the name of the game. americans have too weak of feelings.

Tell that to some of the people I've called a cunt.

[OngBonga]

I remember hitting a one outer in a poker game when all in, then bust out a few hands later. Fat lot of good that 2% did me.

[Poopadoop]

I'll keep it short.

The primary model by Helmut Norpoth is a strong model that predicts a Trump win a very high percentage of the time. Like all models, it's not perfect, but even if we discard the model, the primaries statistics suggest big lean towards Republican relative to 2012. This includes Trump winning more votes than Clinton did in 2008 and the Democrat primary dropping by 20% while the Republican primary increased by 60% (contrasting competitive years). This signifies a reduction in enthusiasm for Clinton and an increase in enthusiasm for Trump.

The primary model has some merit given its past success. One thing worth noting is that since the primaries, no-one in history has fallen out of favour with their own party like Trump has.

Other signs of enthusiasm are a blowout for Trump and devastating for Clinton. His rallies, signage, and merchandise are off the charts in popularity, while hers are in the dumps. In addition, Trump has broken the GOP record for quantity of small donors, while Hillary is way behind Obama.

He might draw bigger crowds, but how much of that is due to popularity and how much due to the novelty and entertainment value he brings is open to question.

As far as the merchandise and donors are concerned, Clinton has twice as much funding as Trump. She spends her money on big ticket things like TV ads, whereas Trump spends his on hats and t-shirts. It's a big leap to go from some supporters accepting a free Trump hat at a rally to half the country being wild about him.

Even if the polls are rigged, they can be evaluated endogenously for some value.

Doesn't work that way I'm afraid. You don't get to pick and choose which data from a poll to believe. Either the polls are sound and all of their data is more or less reasonable, or they're biased/rigged and all of their data should be discounted. And this should be done on an individual poll basis and be done objectively, not just cherry picking the data you like and discounting the rest.

They have consistently shown that the effective incumbent (Clinton) is way below what is considered good for any incumbent,

The latest ABC poll (the same one that finished in the top five in accuracy the last three elections) has Clinton at 50%. Other ones have her in the 45-50 % range. There's some that have her lower and obviously these are the only ones you're referring to here. Just want us to be clear on that.

and they have shown that as undecideds and third party votes finally decide, they favor Trump.

You're gonna have to show the evidence that this is true, since even the polls that have favored Trump have also been showing the trend of Clinton getting stronger and Trump getting weaker.

The demographic that the signs suggest Trump does the best with and that he is energizing to turnout is one with the most room for improvement and the one that has been staying home for the last few cycles. Contrast this to Clinton, where there are no signs that she will perform at Obama turnout levels. Just a small solid performance in Trump key demographic and a small underperformance in Clinton's key demographic, which is what signs are pointing towards, gives him the win.

Again, please elaborate. 1) Which demographic are you referring to and what signs are suggesting they're going to turn out and vote Trump? 2) What signs suggest Clinton is not going to get a large turnout?

Finally, just step back and take it all in. Nate Antimatter gave Trump a 2% chance to win the nomination

Six months before the first primary. On a scratchpad.

This is the type of thing that, when viewed in retrospect, correlates with wins.

It's also the kind of thing that correlates with someone who's not yet serious about making predictions.

In the future, we will look back and say the Trump win was pretty obvious, and we will give reasons that include how consistently he outperformed expectations at every turn.

IIRC, a lot of the reason people underestimated Trump early in the cycle was because he played coy about whether he really wanted the nomination or was just after some free advertising. It was him who set the expectations low, not others. I don't think anyone is not taking him seriously now.

[Poopadoop]

Here's the thing about this election: The polls are all over the place. You can't have one poll that's +12 and another -2 without somebody being way off. Even if you double the normal margin of error to around 7 points for each poll, they still don't overlap. So even though all the polls follow the same trends in the same directions, it's really hard to get a handle on who's winning by how much.

[Poopadoop]

Online hotel booking confirmed rigged:

https://www.hipmunk.com/tailwind/are.../#.WA5wIsn6N7Z

[OngBonga]

Something something classified information.

[wufwugy]

On pace to hit those 348 electoral votes. The voting data so far is showing a very different story than the polls.

[Poopadoop]

I expect a tape will surface shortly of Trump wanting to have sex with his own daughter. Oh wait...

[wufwugy]

I can't believe how much of a gangster Scott Adams is. He shut down all of CTR (Clinton's paid shills) on twitter with one simple re-frame. It took no longer than 48 hours.

Some of the basics for a ~348 landslide are along the lines of reports of major depression of turnout for Clinton compared to Obama, and huge surge in support of Trump in traditionally blue collar Democrat districts. Illinois is possibly in play because of these. I don't think so though, on account of Chicago being one of the most statist, socialist, welfarist, corrupt, SJW hellholes in the world.

[Poopadoop]

When you've got both the creator of Dilbert and the guy who played Chachi behind you, how can you possibly not win by a landslide?

[wufwugy]

I get it. The sealed bottle of red pills is still sitting on the counter.

[Poopadoop]

You're right about how far off the polls are though. The last one had Clinton ahead by 17 in Washington. Boy are their faces going to be red when Trump takes that state.

[wufwugy]

He's not taking Washington. At least not unless something like Crooked getting indicted happens.

It was just an idea I batted around for a while. I think he's going to win by enough to barely take Michigan. Washington will still be several points blue in that situation. For Trump to win Washington, there would need to be severe depression from Sanders voters (could happen) and surprising support among Asians for Trump (could happen). I just don't think it will happen, because if it did, then I'd be way too conservative in my estimates, and I'm generally an edge pusher in estimates.

[Poopadoop]

I get it. The sealed bottle of red pills is still sitting on the counter.

The blue pills are all gone though.

[wufwugy]

I know.

[wufwugy]

You are good with the humor of it though

[Poopadoop]

It's all I have left.

[wufwugy]

god i cannot wait for a trump presidency. just imagine the number of shit regulations he's gonna cut. and taxes. if you thought 2016 a landslide, it'll be nothing compared to 2020, when the economy is exploding with growth.

[wufwugy]

i mean the fact that trump will give a simple "fuck you" to stupid inhibitions to energy production will be enough to double or triple rgdp.

[wufwugy]

Well shit I could be wrong about New Mexico. I used one heuristic, just one, right on the margin, to put it in the Crooked column. But reports of internal polls are showing it's in dead heat. In a way this makes sense since NM is traditional Republican territory and that it will have increased GOP turnout just like Texas is showing. But I put it in the D column due to the crazy amounts of reports of bullying of Mexican Trump supporters inside Mexican communities. I'd be thrilled to bump the forecast up to 353.

[Poopadoop]

I think if you give Trump all the states where Clinton's ahead by 5-10% in the rigged polls, and where the rigged early voting is mostly democrats then it's a clear 353. At least.

I might even toss in Washington for good measure and make it a nice round 365.

[wufwugy]

Clear. At least. You've convinced me. He's taking Cuckifornia. And Cuckachusetts.

At this rate he'll take Ontario.

[wufwugy]

I might even toss in Washington for good measure and make it a nice round 365.

Naw I'd defo throw him that Oregon bone first.

[BankItDrew]

I live in Ontario. How do I vote HRC?

[Poopadoop]

I'm surprised the Democrats haven't been in touch with you yet to get you to vote in Michigan.

[JKDS]

Dont republicans typically have better early vote turn out?

[JKDS]

Bae and I voted Clinton. Our two votes have made Clinton two votes stronger. How do you explain that, wuf? Checkmate.

[OngBonga]

It's imperative that the bureau explain this issue in question, whatever it is, without any delay.

Haha pretending she doesn't know. It's like when you get pulled over for speeding and you're all "what's the problem officer?".

[Poopadoop]

Bae and I voted Clinton. Our two votes have made Clinton two votes stronger. How do you explain that, wuf? Checkmate.

Don't forget all of your dead relatives, that's gotta be a few more for Clinton.

Unfortunately, even though the dead vote is rigged, Trump is so popular he will still win a yuge victory. He's virtually got the sexual predator/paedophile locked up.

[a500lbgorilla]

Now that Her has secured the presidency, I worry that she doesn't have anyone close to her that can bring her back down to Earth.

[wufwugy]

Dont republicans typically have better early vote turn out?

Not necessarily. It depends on type, where, when, and many other things. The early voting numbers in totality are devastating for Democrats and look very good for Republicans, even though the media is only covering the small ways in which it looks good for Democrats.

[wufwugy]

In a nutshell, Democrats are way behind where they need to be in order to win Florida or North Carolina. The Florida numbers are the most complete so far, and they're abysmal for Democrats. Others are reporting they think a 10 point win could be in it for Trump in Florida. Which is funny since that was my estimate a month or so ago.

The Midwest numbers are suggesting big time landslide. Blue districts are going red. White turnout is up and black turnout is way down. As more numbers come in, we'll be getting a better picture.

[wufwugy]

Bae and I voted Clinton. Our two votes have made Clinton two votes stronger. How do you explain that, wuf? Checkmate.

Didnt you say bae is libertarian?

[Savy]

Bae and I voted Clinton. Our two votes have made Clinton two votes stronger. How do you explain that, wuf? Checkmate.

That's the shy conservative effect mate, you both clearly voted Trump.

[wufwugy]

An issue with my forecast is that I'm assuming Asian/other will not stray that much from where it was in 2012, yet there is evidence to suggest that the demo could actually favor Trump, which would be a huge twist. My modeling uses what I think are pretty conservative estimates of the increase in white turnout/vote and decrease in blacks. But if I use more liberal estimates that I think are in the cards, states like Jersey and Delaware and Washington and Illinois start flipping.

[wufwugy]

Malik Obama twitter is the highest level of shitposting in the history of the internet. Barack's own brother wearing a maga hat and saying shit like "you survived 8 years of my brother, you can survive 8 weeks of me."