ChrisWeigant.com

2016 Electoral Math -- Clinton Continues Her Rise

[ Posted Monday, October 10th, 2016 – 18:55 PDT ]

I have to begin today with a rather large caveat: nothing in this article deals with what has happened since Friday. Polling always lags reality, meaning that the effect of the Billy Bush/Donald Trump tape and the second debate are not reflected in today's data one tiny bit. That'll all show up in the next week, so you'll just have to check back next Monday to see how all of it turns out. For now, we're dealing with what happened before that tape hit the airwaves last Friday afternoon -- which largely consisted of the public's reaction to Donald Trump's tax returns being leaked (showing an almost $1 billion loss in a single year). So just to be crystal clear: nothing in this article will reflect the reaction to the Bush/Trump tape, or last night's debate.

Even with that big caveat, Hillary Clinton had another good week in the polls. In fact, almost all the news was good news for Clinton and bad news for Donald Trump. Clinton continued to ride the wave from the first debate, and this week shows the public's reaction to Trump's tax returns being leaked, showing an almost-billion-dollar loss in a single year (so much for the "I'm a great businessman" thing...). Trump is defiant about not paying any federal income taxes for almost two decades, which certainly didn't help him any with public opinion.

Let's take a look at our first chart, which shows how the candidates would do in overall Electoral Votes (EV), if the election were held today and the polls were all correct. Hillary (blue) starts from the bottom, and Trump (red) starts from the top. The white gaps are states which are perfectly tied. Whichever candidate crosses the middle line has enough Electoral College votes to win.

Electoral Math By Percent

[Click on any of theses images to see larger-scale versions.]

Hillary Clinton has almost completely regained the lead she held in mid-August. Percentage-wise, Clinton now holds 65 percent of the Electoral College, to Trump's 35 percent. This is up from last week's 60/40 split, and is very close to a whopping 2-to-1 advantage for Clinton in the Electoral College.

For the second week in a row, Clinton held onto every state she had last week, and flipped two more states into her column: Arizona and Ohio. The momentum she saw last week continued, to put it another way. I should mention that Ohio moved around quite a bit this week (more on this in a moment), but in terms of this particular chart, Ohio spent a single day being tied, which is why there's that small patch of white between the candidates.

Things look even better for Clinton when you dive down into each candidate's relative strength in the states they currently hold, as well. Let's take a look at Trump's chart first, to see this movement. As always, the categories used are from the same Electoral-Vote.com site I use to get all my raw data.

Trump Electoral Math

[Definition of terms: "Strong" means 10 percent or better in the polls,
"Weak" means five percent or better, and "Barely" is under five percent.
]

Donald Trump actually began this period with a little good news, but this didn't last long. By the end of the week, he was starting to see states flip over to Hillary Clinton.

Ohio is running polls almost constantly, at this point. Trump got one good poll early in the week which moved Ohio from Barely Trump to Weak Trump, which was a shot in the arm for him. But a few days later, Ohio fell back to Barely Trump and then over the weekend moved all the way to Barely Clinton. Since Ohio has 18 EV, this was very noticeable in the graph. Trump also lost Arizona to Clinton, which is the other step down his overall numbers took (Arizona only has 11 EV, so this wasn't as pronounced as the Ohio shift). To recap: the only good news Trump got this week turned into bad news for him in the end.

Overall, Trump did stay remarkably stable in both his Strong and Weak categories. Strong Trump started at 87 EV and didn't budge an inch all week long. Weak Trump started at 78 EV, briefly rose to 96 EV with the addition of Ohio, but then fell back to the same 78 EV it started with. So the silver lining (flimsy though it may be) for Trump was that he halted the slide in his base states. He didn't improve here, mind you, but he didn't lose any ground either.

The Barely Trump category saw a lot more movement. Trump started with 50 EV in Barely, which fell to 32 EV and then returned to 50 EV when Ohio briefly firmed up for him. But then Trump lost Arizona and Ohio entirely, leaving him with only 21 EV at the end. That's a loss of 29 EV, which Trump can't really afford to lose at this point in the race.

Overall, Trump started the week with a total of 215 EV, which fell to only 186 EV. That's the lowest he's been since August 22, to put this in perspective. Trump is now only 22 EV above his lowest point ever, to put it in even more perspective. And that's all before last Friday's revelations, I remind everyone.

Of course, the number I keep the closest track of is "Strong Plus Weak" because this shows the states a candidate can truly count on when people vote -- states where they're up by five points or better in the polls. Trump's Strong Plus Weak number started at 165 EV, rose briefly with the addition of Ohio to 183 EV, but then fell back to the same 165 EV he started the week with. So the week didn't hurt Trump with his base, but he also failed to expand this base at all.

OK, enough of Trump -- let's take a look at Hillary Clinton's chart, which is much more positive this week.

Clinton Electoral Math

Hillary Clinton has now almost completely recovered from the polling dip she experienced at the end of September. Clinton saw nine states shift around this week, and of these only two weren't good news. Both New Hampshire and Wisconsin tightened up with new polls, and fell back from Weak Clinton to only Barely Clinton. But the good news from the other seven states more than made up for this.

Three states made the opposite shift, firming up from Barely Clinton to Weak Clinton. Colorado, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania all made this shift, and while Colorado and New Mexico are good news, the best news for Clinton fans is seeing Pennsylvania moving to the point where few are even calling it a battleground state anymore. This is important, because Trump's supposed path to victory was supposed to start by flipping Pennsylvania. This now looks increasingly unlikely to happen.

Within the states Clinton already had, she got even better news from two other states. Washington state moved from Weak Clinton back to Strong Clinton (where it should have been, all along), but the biggest news was Rhode Island moving all the way from Barely Clinton to Strong Clinton. Both of these are states that have (historically) consistently voted Democratic, so neither was any big surprise, but it is nice to see stronger polling numbers in both of them.

But the best news for Clinton was flipping both Arizona and Ohio from Barely Trump to Barely Clinton. To be sure, neither one is exactly a lock for Clinton at this point, and either or both could flip back just as easily with another round of polling. While Ohio is the perennial battleground state, it is indeed remarkable that Arizona is even in play for Democrats. Of the last six presidential elections, Arizona has only voted Democratic once (for Bill Clinton in 1996), so it would be nothing short of astonishing to see Clinton win the state.

Overall, Clinton had a great week, rising from a total of 323 EV to hit an impressive 352 EV by the end of the week. This puts her right back in the territory she occupied in mid-August, and only 16 EV shy of her best-ever showing.

Breaking things down by category, Clinton improved her Strong numbers with the addition of Rhode Island and Washington state, moving from 152 EV up to 168 EV. This number still has a long way to go before it regains the strength Clinton showed in August, however, but at least it is now moving in the right direction -- up 36 EV from her low point a few weeks ago.

In the Weak category, Clinton began by rising from 79 EV up to 113 EV, with the addition of Colorado and New Mexico. This fell back by week's end to only 87 EV, with some of the losses moving up to Strong and some down to Barely.

By the numbers, Clinton's Barely didn't change much, but there was a lot of reshuffling. Clinton started with 92 EV in the Barely category, slipped back to 58 EV but then rose at the end (with Ohio's 18 EV) to finish at 97 EV -- five more than she started with.

The really good news for Clinton came in the Strong Plus Weak category, though. Clinton added four states to her total here (Colorado, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island) and only lost two (New Hampshire and Wisconsin). This meant adding 38 EV while subtracting 14 EV, for an overall gain of 24 EV. Clinton started the period with 231 EV in Strong Plus Weak, rose to 265 EV, but then fell back at the very end (with the loss of Wisconsin to Barely), to 255 EV. This puts her only 15 EV away from victory, in Strong Plus Weak alone. That is rather impressive, although still off from August's highs (she hit 320 EV for almost a week here, in late August).

Let's put this into historical perspective with our occasional chart which tracks how Hillary Clinton is doing in Strong Plus Weak measured against how Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012. As you can easily see, the positions are comparable.

Clinton versus Obama, Strong Plus Weak

Clinton's Strong Plus Weak ratings have bounced around more than Obama saw in either of his campaigns, and Clinton's highest point has already topped Obama's high in 2008. Clinton's low also never sank to where Obama dipped to in 2008 as well. What's interesting is that Obama's 2008 recovery is so far close to matching Clinton's recovery this year. A few days ago, they were almost a perfect match. Clinton was at 265 EV (until today), while Obama was at 264 EV in 2008, and 257 EV in 2012. The reason I decided to run this chart again is that this was the point where Obama's trendlines diverged, rising in 2008 to an easy win, but falling in 2012 to a much closer victory over Mitt Romney. Will Clinton follow one of these paths, or one somewhere in between? Well, considering what happened Friday, the safer bet would probably be that Clinton follows Obama's 2008 rise for the next week or so.

 

My Picks

Moving right along, let's get away from pure polling analysis and add in gut feelings, for how I now see the race. Here is my new map of how I'm rating all the states, broken down into Safe, Probable, and Lean for both candidates, as well as Too Close To Call for those where I have no firm idea which way the wind is currently blowing. So here's my map for this week, courtesy (as always) of the folks at 270toWin, where you can make a map of your own picks, if you feel so inclined.

My Picks Map

 

Likely States -- Clinton

Safe Clinton (15 states, 192 EV)
Clinton added one state to her Safe category this week, as Rhode Island moves up from Probable Clinton. Rhode Island is one of those states that isn't polled all that much, meaning one outlier poll can throw things off much more than, say, Ohio or Florida. There was one poll showing Rhode Island much closer than it likely actually is, a few weeks ago, but recent polling has put Hillary back with a comfortable lead.

Probable Clinton (7 states, 76 EV)
There was a goodly amount of activity in the Probable Clinton category, but most of it was good news for Clinton. Rhode Island moved up to Safe Clinton, and (the only bad news) New Hampshire moved down to just Leans Clinton. These two states were replaced by both Colorado and Pennsylvania moving up to Probable from Leans Clinton. In both Colorado and Pennsylvania, Hillary's poll numbers are getting noticeably better, and her lead is widening, so they have to be seen as stronger than just Leans at this point.

 

Likely States -- Trump

Safe Trump (16 states, 93 EV)
Trump lost one state here this week, as I had to move Indiana down to just Probable Trump. This was largely a gut-feelings move, since the polling hasn't really shifted at all. But Trump has never held an insurmountable lead in the Hoosier State, and what with all the turmoil it could conceivably come into play in the next few weeks. So, for now, Indiana moves down.

Probable Trump (5 states, 78 EV)
Other than Indiana moving down here, the rest of the Probable Trump category stayed the same this week. So far (and remember, this is before last Friday's bombshell and before the debate), Trump seems to be doing a fairly good job of holding onto his core states. The problem for him is, they don't add up to anywhere near what he needs to win.

 

Tossup States

Leans Clinton (2 states, 22 EV)
As happened last week, this category completely changed, as both states previously in Leans Clinton moved up to Probable Clinton, to be replaced by one state moving down from Probable Clinton (New Hampshire), and one state moving up from Too Close To Call (Ohio). Both of these moves are debatable, of course. New Hampshire saw one weak poll for Clinton -- she's still leading, but not by much. If it's an outlier and a future poll shows a bigger lead for her, then it could move right back up to Probable Clinton, but for now it has to be considered only a Leans Clinton state. Ohio is even more debatable, since it has been very close for quite some time now, and Trump had been leading in the polls up until very recently. Call this one a gut-feelings move if you will, but I feel that the momentum in Ohio has shifted in Hillary's favor. I could be wrong and it could move right back down to Too Close To Call, but for now I'm considering it a Leans Clinton state.

Leans Trump (2 states plus one district, 16 EV)
Trump had a more stable time of it in the Leans Trump category, losing one state but seeing the others stay put. Arizona moved down to Too Close To Call, as a recent poll showed Clinton taking the lead there. Iowa and South Carolina stayed Leans Trump, as did the Maine district (with a single EV) where Trump still probably has an edge.

Too Close To Call (4 states, 61 EV)
We've got four states in Too Close To Call, but they're not the same four as last week. Ohio moved up to Leans Clinton, and Arizona moved down from Leans Trump to replace it. The other three states (Florida, Nevada, North Carolina) remained complete tossups, though. Florida may be stuck here for weeks, because accurate polling may take some time to happen as the state's east coast recovers from the hurricane (making accurate polling difficult if not impossible, since many people have other things to do right now than answer pollsters' calls). Nevada and North Carolina both might be considered Leans Clinton, as she's been leading for a while, but her lead is still razor-thin in both places, so I've decided to keep them here for now.

 

Final Tally

Hillary Clinton continued to improve in the aftermath of the first debate, adding one state to her total Likely Clinton states (Safe and Probable combined), putting 22 states in her pocket for Election Day. While adding one state isn't that impressive, her rise in the Electoral College count was more so, as she moved up from 243 EV here last week to 268 EV this week -- a gain of 25 EV in a single week. This puts her only 2 EV short of winning, without even counting any of her Leans Clinton states or the true tossups. Clinton only has to add one state (any state) to her Likely Clinton totals to put her over the top, and put this election out of reach for Donald Trump. That's a pretty good place to be, one month out from the voting.

Donald Trump didn't lose any states from his Likely column, which is about the best news he could have hoped for, at this point. He still has the same 21 states here, with the same total of 171 EV between them. Once again, this leaves him a whopping 99 EV shy of victory.

The gap between the two candidates grew larger this week in the EV count. Last week, Clinton was ahead by 72 EV in the Likely states category, but this week, she's jumped ahead to a 97 EV lead over Trump.

Only eight states can be considered tossups this week, down one state from last week. Clinton has two states in her Leans column, for a total of 22 EV. Even if she just wins New Hampshire's 4 EV (and all her Likely states), she will be over the 270 EV mark, and she will be our next president. If she wins both her Leans states, she'll be at 290 EV without any of the Too Close To Call states at all. This is a much better place for her to be than last week, when she would have needed both her Leans states to win.

Trump has only two states leaning in his direction this week (plus that single district in Maine). This only adds up to 16 EV, down from 27 EV here last week. Adding together Trump's Likely states and his leaners only gives him 187 EV, down 11 EV from last week. This means not only would he have to win all the Too Close To Call states, he would also have to wrest both New Hampshire and Ohio from Clinton to win. That's a pretty steep hill to climb, to put it mildly.

Four states are too close to accurately make any predictions at all. Clinton is actually polling ahead in all four states (Arizona, Florida, Nevada, and North Carolina) right now, but by very small margins. Any of these states could flip back to Trump at any moment, in other words. Due to the double-digit nature of three of these states, they add up to a substantial 61 EV between them.

I would remind everyone once again that this is a snapshot in time taken before last Friday's news hit and also before the second debate. Call it a benchmark to measure next week's polls against. But even before the fallout hits from the Billy Bush bombshell videotape, Hillary Clinton is getting very close to clinching the entire race. All she needs from the eight states that are still close is a paltry 2 EV to win. She's got many paths to get there (eight, in fact).

With one month to go, Hillary Clinton is on the brink of putting the race away. This is not unprecedented -- Barack Obama managed the same feat this far out from the election in 2008. Trump would have to mount the biggest comeback in political history to even have a shot at winning, at this point. And that's before the polls start reflecting that leaked video. Next week is certainly going to be fun for poll-watchers everywhere, that is absolutely certain.

 

[Electoral Vote Data:]
(State electoral votes are in parenthesis following each state's name. Washington D.C. is counted as a state, for a total of 51.)

Hillary Clinton Likely Easy Wins -- 22 States -- 268 Electoral Votes:

Safe States -- 15 States -- 192 Electoral Votes
California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), Minnesota (10), New Jersey (14), New York (29), Oregon (7), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (12), Washington D.C. (3)

Probable States -- 7 States -- 76 Electoral Votes
Colorado (9), Maine (3), Michigan (16), New Mexico (5), Pennsylvania (20), Virginia (13), Wisconsin (10)

 

Donald Trump Likely Easy Wins -- 21 States -- 171 Electoral Votes:

Safe States -- 16 States -- 93 Electoral Votes
Alabama (9), Arkansas (6), Idaho (4), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Utah (6), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3)

Probable States -- 5 States -- 78 Electoral Votes
Alaska (3), Georgia (16), Indiana (11), Missouri (10), Texas (38)

 

Tossup States -- 8 States -- 99 Electoral Votes:

Tossup States Leaning Clinton -- 2 States -- 22 Electoral Votes
New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18)

Tossup States Leaning Trump -- 2 States (plus one district) -- 16 Electoral Votes
Iowa (6), Maine (1), South Carolina (9)

Too Close To Call -- 4 States -- 61 Electoral Votes
Arizona (11), Florida (29), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15)

 

Polling data weaknesses:

Unlike in 2008 and 2012, polling data does now exist for all 51 states (adding in Washington D.C.). The following is a list of states where the polling data is rather suspect, since the only polls which have been conducted were all conducted only on the internet. This list shrank by three states this week, leaving only eight states without accurate, recent polling.

Internet-only polling, with dates last polled -- 8 States

Alabama (9/1), Hawaii (9/1), Kentucky (9/1), Mississippi (9/1), Montana (9/1), South Dakota (9/1), Washington D.C. (5/31), West Virginia (9/1)

 

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

79 Comments on “2016 Electoral Math -- Clinton Continues Her Rise”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    There was a giant rally at Ohio State today for Hillary -- the tide is turning here.

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    There has been a new Google poll for Kentucky and Clinton is up by 1 (35-34).

    I'd discount it but since Trump insists on bragging about "the Google" when it suits him, it should be noted.

    In reality Trump will win Kentucky by double digits.

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    Prediction markets get less accurate as the value approaches zero or 100. Simply put, if the markets thought Trump was at 1% in early October it is a good bet for that there will be more tightening and so if you bought at 1 you could easily double or triple your money. Thus as Trump plummets the implied chance of winning is likely to be less than the market percentage. The smart money would be long on Clinton and hold until the result as she will be undervalued at the top end for basically the same reason (i.e. short term trading).

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    Note this is why options are a good idea in Capital Markets.

  5. [5] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In reality Trump will win Kentucky by double digits.

    Don't be so sure. Kentucky is famous for its ability to defy reason. Think about it: their Senators are Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, and the Governor, Bevin, just elected last year, is a Tea Party lunatic.

    The counties to watch are at the top of the state, which resemble conservative southern Ohio in their voting patterns. If they go for Clinton, then this contest really could be a blowout.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    In all ya'all's euphoria for the turning of the polls, keep in mind one *fact*...

    The NO-BREXIT polls were strong going in....

    BREXIT won....

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't be so sure. Kentucky is famous for its ability to defy reason. Think about it: their Senators are Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, and the Governor, Bevin, just elected last year, is a Tea Party lunatic.

    Kentucky is famous for defying YOUR concept of "reason"..

    But you are voting for a woman who is a liar, a cheat, an enabler of a serial rapist and who put this country's national security at risk...

    So, YOUR concept of "reason" is not logical or rational..

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    In related weird outliers, Alaska +3 Trump, according to Moore Info. (R). Wut?!?

    My conspiracy theory: Republican backed polls begin to lean anti-Trump, to justify RNC abandoning his campaign. Also, the Moon Landings were faked!

  9. [9] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [3] neilm

    Prediction markets get less accurate as the value approaches zero or 100.

    Or rather, less rational. Sounds like the scenario you describe (one should buy at 1, because the race will shortly tighten to, say, 2 - in which case, profit!) is the 'greater fool theory' approach; which works great until it doesn't.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    The thing about the polls ya'all are worshiping (now that Clinton is leading, funny, eh? :D) is that they don't take into account the Fear Factor..

    Trump supporters are physically ATTACKED and physically ASSAULTED by Hillary supporters...

    So, of course, they are not going to out themselves and risk physical danger from the Clinton loons, thugs and scumbags...

    Ya'all will know this to be factual when Trump wins by a comfortable margin if not an outright blowout...

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump supporters are physically ATTACKED and physically ASSAULTED by Hillary supporters...

    I would ask ya'all to condemn that, but I know THAT is a futile endeavor.. :^/

    Which says something in itself..

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-10/russian-tv-fans-war-hysteria-as-u-s-ties-hit-post-cold-war-low

    War with Russia....

    Courtesy of Odumbo and The Demcorat Party....

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [10] Michale

    The thing about the polls ya'all are worshiping (now that Clinton is leading, funny, eh? :D)...

    Well, it's not like Clinton having a lead in the polls is some new and/or unusual situation. That's just been the norm for the entire election season.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    However, it's still surprising to me that states like Alaska (which typically are very Republican leaning) are so soft for Trump. Do you think that's because Alaskan Trump supporters lie to pollsters about their voting intentions because they are especially afraid of violence by Democrats?

  14. [14] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I really enjoy the Electoral Math Column. As usual, I have some minor quibbles, but nothing much.

    Let me start with a prequel noting that prediction markets and polls indicate to me that Trump did not get any boost from Debate II. Betfair and PredictIt trading both strongly suggest Trump's performance only slowed his rate of decline. Snap polls that I can find agree with this, and as usual, you can find a pundit or push poll somewhere in the InfoSphere that will say nearly anything you might like to hear.

    Looking back roughly 1 year (PredictWise is good for this because it doesn't compress the time axis) a Generic Democrat matched against a generic Republican looked like a 60%:40% probability ratio. Trump is now looking like an 18% shot, which very nearly his all-time low. Clinton is in the 80%s, at her all time high. Trump has never seen odds any better than 35%, and these only for a matter of days. Trump was given better than his current odds at the White House when he was still a nominee fighting 3 other more or less credible contenders for the nomination! As I noted a few days back, Trump has had 5 major meltdowns in his quest to be President. He has clawed his way back 4 times, but he's never been able to break out of the 30% range and his broad trend is asymptotic to underdog. In her darkest days, Clinton has held the lead.

    None of this should surprise. Trump is an insurgent, with no prior political experience taking on the Super Bowl of world politics. He has shown NO political discipline or focus. He shows no desire to learn. He is a series of Tweets. Conventional Wisdom can be wrong, but not usually. Trump was and is a very weak candidate "heading" a fractured GOP. Thirty days to go.

  15. [15] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The quibbles:

    North Carolina and Florida. I color both of these a light blue. The Six Tenors over at NYT upshot all put Florida in the 70%-mid 80% range. That is a pretty strong lean in my book, bordering an upgrade to Mid Blue. North Carolina is less favorable for Clinton, but all 6 UpShot hosted prognosticators put her ahead with a range of 61%-80%. That does not look like a "toss up" to me.

    I am pleasantly surprised by Ohio. I had pretty much written it off, but Clinton is making a pretty good rebound. In the aggregate, NC looks a little more favorable to Clinton than OH, so color NC Light Blue.

  16. [16] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    I notice that your 7 category calls closely agree with the 7 UpShot categories. Upshot basically uses the following scheme (with some minor variation likely caused by rounding errors).

    The following is my analysis of the color probability scheme associated with Upshot probabilities of Clinton winning.

    Dark Blue (solid C): Greater than 95%
    Mid Blue (likely C): 85-95%
    Lt Blue (lean C) : 65-84%
    Yellow (toss up) : 36-64%
    Lt Red (lean T) : 16-35%
    Mid Red (likely T) : 5-15%
    Dark Red (solid T) : Less than 5%

    Do your perceptions match the UpShot scheme?

    I would personally favor narrowing the "Tossup" category to 45-55%, and call it "Competitive."
    The problem with the broader range is that it makes for a system that is too reluctant to call a winner. A better than 65% chance of winning seems more than just a lean to me.

    When I've run your colors matched to NYT p values thru a ranked ordered model over the past few weeks, I get Clinton prob of win in the better than 70% range. That seems more than just a lean, at least to me. The rank ordered computation model is giving very similar results to a simulation, which tends to be the case late in an election.

  17. [17] 
    TheStig wrote:

    NeilM-

    Yep, the smart money tend to make money by betting on the extremes. Prediction markets bias a bit too much toward 0 and 1. The bias is fairly small. I doubt more than a handful of traders can consistently out-perform the market + fees. Takes money to make money plus a lot of specialty software - or so I would guess.

  18. [18] 
    TheStig wrote:

    One more thing before I put another pot of coffee on:

    Trump always seems to do best on BetFair between the hrs of midnight and dawn. Seven am EDT, and his numbers have taken a for the worse. I think this something to do with vampires.

    As follow up to last years highly successful Trumpkin Pumpkin, I am going to start a Clinton stencil today. Pumpkins are really expensive this year. Six bucks!

    Sorry, that was two things.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    Well, it's not like Clinton having a lead in the polls is some new and/or unusual situation. That's just been the norm for the entire election season.

    True... But no one wanted to talk about the polls when Trump was closing to a tie...

    How come??

    Do you think that's because Alaskan Trump supporters lie to pollsters about their voting intentions because they are especially afraid of violence by Democrats?

    Yes I do... Violence from Democrats (which, I point out NO ONE here (NEN) has condemned) and scorn and ridicule from NeverTrumpers... Basically ideological slaves from the Left *AND* the Right...

    Trump support is NOT ideological.. It's patriotic...

    It's that simple...

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me start with a prequel noting that prediction markets and polls indicate to me that Trump did not get any boost from Debate II.

    And, once again, the ideological bias is on full display.. When ya'all talk about Clinton it's "We have to wait a week or so for the polls to catch up to the debate..."

    With Trump, ya'all are whining within 2 DAYS of the debate saying Trump didn't get no bounce at all..

    Why don't ya'all just concede that ya'all are merely the Clinton Sheeple that Camp Clinton emails about and be done with it?? :D

    It would make things so much easier as I wouldn't have to comment 100 times a day proving how wrong ya'all are.... :D

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump support is NOT ideological.. It's patriotic...

    It's that simple...

    Let me put it this way...

    We could have bona fide and confirmed factual video of Hillary holding down a screaming woman while Bill repeatedly molests the woman and Hillary would STILL enjoy the support amongst the Left Wingery..

    Hillary's support is IDEOLOGICAL... pure and simple....

    Trump's support is not.. As ya'all have aptly proven beyond ANY doubt....

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    We could have bona fide and confirmed factual video of Hillary holding down a screaming woman while Bill repeatedly molests the woman and Hillary would STILL enjoy the support amongst the Left Wingery..

    Am I wrong??

    "You're not wrong..."
    -God AKA Chuck

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    We could have bona fide and confirmed factual video of Hillary holding down a screaming woman while Bill repeatedly molests the woman...

    That is actually false. But it's an interesting bit of projection. Trump knows that there's more, and worse video out there, else he wouldn't be issuing threats to keep attacking Bill if they're aired.

    Unfortunately for the Great Pumpkin and his loyal Gourds, Bill isn't on the ticket, and I'd give 99-1 odds against a Hillary sex tape emerging.

    At this point, Hillary can coast to election day without releasing any new video, and the Orange One gets Squash(ed).

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is actually false.

    The facts say otherwise..

    Trump knows that there's more, and worse video out there,

    Prove it.. You can't because it's just wishful thinking on your part...

    Unfortunately for the Great Pumpkin and his loyal Gourds, Bill isn't on the ticket,

    But the wife who brutally attacked Bill's rape and sexual assault victims IS on the ticket..

    and I'd give 99-1 odds against a Hillary sex tape emerging.

    Eeeewww I think I just threw up in my mouth a little...

    At this point, Hillary can coast to election day without releasing any new video, and the Orange One gets Squash(ed).

    TRUMP IS TOAST prediction #422....

    Accuracy to date?? ZERO....

    :D

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    I will say this..

    If, and it's a BIG 'if'.... IF Hillary does win, there have better not be even the SLIGHTEST WHIFF of cheating or fraud..

    Because if there is, Trump supporters will take to the streets... And 98% of them are armed...

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I’m running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion.”
    -John Podesta, Clinton Campaign

    How do ya'all like yer candidate now, Sheeple?? :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Must be real fun to support a candidate that actually hates ya'all... :D

    Gotta love Wikileaks!! :D

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://nypost.com/2016/10/11/elections-official-caught-on-video-blasting-de-blasios-id-program/

    So much for the myth that there is no voter fraud...

    Like I said.. Armed rebellion if there is ANY evidence of cheating or fraud...

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wooops.. Gotta back pedal on that a bit, maybe...

    The spin is that Hillary hates THE PHRASE "everyday Americans".. but doesn't actually hate everyday Americans..

    That doesn't make much sense because the email doesn't put the phrase in quotes as it would if they were actually TALKING about the phrase..

    So, I am not sure..

    And, since I am not sure, I have to put out the possibility that I might be wrong..

    I am unique amongst Weigantians in that.... :D

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Like I said.. Armed rebellion if there is ANY evidence of cheating or fraud...

    Is this the bleak future that the Great Pumpkin and his Republican Gourds expect us to buy into? Tyranny? Politics at the point of a gun? Yuck.

    I thought Trump crossed a line Sunday night when he suggested having Hillary prosecuted immediately upon his win. That's so banana-Republican.

    The fact is that there's nothing, really, behind that terrible expression. It's a fake-out. It's really just a hollowed out shell that shines brightly, and only exists to amuse.

    Anyone's entitled to believe what they want, but waiting in the Pumpkin Patch for the polls to rise is one thing, threatening to shoot up the after-party is another. Good Grief!

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is this the bleak future that the Great Pumpkin and his Republican Gourds expect us to buy into? Tyranny? Politics at the point of a gun? Yuck.

    If Democrats have to cheat and commit fraud to win..

    What would you expect?? That Trump supporters would just accept it??

    I thought Trump crossed a line Sunday night when he suggested having Hillary prosecuted immediately upon his win. That's so banana-Republican.

    Considering the crimes that Hillary has committed, patriotic Americans call it JUSTICE...

    But I could understand why corporatists/globalists such as ya'all would feel different..

    Anyone's entitled to believe what they want, but waiting in the Pumpkin Patch for the polls to rise is one thing,

    threatening to shoot up the after-party is another.

    The way to avoid that is quite simple..

    Don't cheat or commit fraud....

    Duh...

    Like I said.. 98% of Trump supporters are armed..

    Does the Left Wingery REALLY want to give them a reason???

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Democrats have to cheat and commit fraud to win..

    What would you expect?? That Trump supporters would just accept it??

    Turning it around, if there is evidence of cheating or fraud that handed the Presidency to Trump, I would expect that the Left Wingery wouldn't accept it..

    And THEY would take up arms...

    Oh... wait... The Left Wingery is anti-gun...

    They don't HAVE any arms...

    Awwwwww... iddn't dat a shame.... heh :D

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/11/1580883/-Report-Why-Ohio-is-leaving-Donald-Trump-for-Hillary-Clinton-Plus-Hillary-excites-18-500-Ohians

    Hillary played the long game in Ohio. While polls looked tough the campaign continued to build a superior ground game, register scores of voters, and continued to push a strong economic message. Now that is bearing fruit in Ohio.

  34. [34] 
    Paula wrote:

    Separately: this expresses how I feel about Sunday's debate:

    She walked onto the stage last night to face man who we'd all just learned had confessed, twice, to sexually assaulting women. Who had bragged about it. A man who has on two occasions implicitly called for her assassination. A man who has presided over rallies at which people are screaming about her: Hang the bitch; kill her…

    http://www.shakesville.com/2016/10/lets-just-think-about-this-for-minute.html

    It's great to see her big smiles at that Ohio State rally.

  35. [35] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If Democrats have to cheat and commit fraud to win..

    I see now. The Trump folks have decided that they cannot win. Therefore, they're gearing up a face-saving narrative that the election was stolen from them a month ahead of time.

    I guess Trump has decided the same, since he's given up all pretense of attracting new voters to his cause, and decided to serve only red meat to the crowds from here on.

    So why is Kellyanne Conway still around? At this point 'outreach to women' by Trump is a bad joke, at best.

    What would you expect?? That Trump supporters would just accept it?

    Do you expect Trump supporters to grab up their phallic firesticks and murder their fellow Americans on behalf of the Great Pumpkin?

    That'll really make America Great Again.

    Democrats accepted the verdict of a Supreme Court split along party lines in 2000. Trump folks could man up and accept reality too, if they still have any perception of it.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see now. The Trump folks have decided that they cannot win. Therefore, they're gearing up a face-saving narrative that the election was stolen from them a month ahead of time.

    What part of *IF* do you not understand??

    The fact is, there have been numerous reports of voter registration fraud from many states...

    Do you expect Trump supporters to grab up their phallic firesticks and murder their fellow Americans on behalf of the Great Pumpkin?

    I expect that if Democrats try to steal the election, they will be met with a forcible response to dissuade them from such illegal activities...

    That'll really make America Great Again.

    Why yes... yes it will...

    Democrats accepted the verdict of a Supreme Court split along party lines in 2000.

    Apples and orangutans...

    There was no question of fraud in the 2000 election...

    Trump folks could man up and accept reality too, if they still have any perception of it.

    Trump supporters have no problem with accepting reality and the rule of law..

    But if a the rule of law is usurped...???

    Well, like I said.. 98% of Trump supporters are armed... .002% of Hillary supporters are armed..

    I am sure you can do the math....

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me put it another way, Balthasar...

    If there is unequivocal and bona fide factual PROOF of Democrat cheating in the election..

    Would YOU support Hillary if she won by cheating???

    I know the answer, but I just want to see if you will admit it...

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If there is unequivocal and bona fide factual PROOF of Democrat cheating in the election..

    I would certainly wait for a Justice Department investigation, including FBI confirmation that such a crime had been committed. You'd need hard evidence that Hillary had a part in it.

    But if the 'fraud' you allege is the penny-ante stuff that Republican zealots have complained about before, don't expect me to shed my loyalty. Voter fraud in US elections have never been significant percentage-wise, Republican talking points notwithstanding.

    Republican voter-supression attempts, however, are still a reality, the admonishment by the Court to Rick Scott over his attempt to curtail voter registration being only the latest example.

    As I said, this is all nothing more than an attempt to prepare the face-saving excuses for later.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    And you dodge the question..

    I'll try again..

    If there is unequivocal and bona fide factual PROOF of Democrat cheating in the election..

    Would YOU support Hillary if she won by cheating???

    It's a simple YES or NO question...

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here... let me show you how it's done..

    "Michale.. If there is unequivocal and bona fide factual PROOF of Republican cheating in the election..

    Would YOU support Trump if he won by cheating???"

    Frak no!!! I would hang him myself personally!!!!!

    You see how easy that is???

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, it doesn't really work when you switch it around, as it's unlikely Republicans, as a Party, would help Trump win the election..

    But you get the idea....

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Well, like I said.. 98% of Trump supporters are armed... .002% of Hillary supporters are armed..
    I am sure you can do the math.

    Are we supposed to be afraid? To quake and shiver in fright? As Hillary said today (and her life is constantly threatened): "Bring it on". She should have added: 'bitch!'.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are we supposed to be afraid? To quake and shiver in fright? As Hillary said today (and her life is constantly threatened): "Bring it on". She should have added: 'bitch!'.

    I believe ya'all condemned Bush when he said the exact same words to the terrorists...

    Thereby once again, proving there is no difference between the Left Wingery and the Right Wingery...

    But, if the Democrat Party cheats and commits fraud..

    I can guarantee you that you WILL see it brought on....

    And no amount of "safe spaces" will help the Demcorat Party.... :D

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    it's unlikely Republicans, as a Party, would help Trump win the election

    On this we agree, although Reince, who's been really trying, has that desperate look of a young host whose house party has gone horribly wrong. "Wait! We can still make this work! Look, I'm dancing!"

  45. [45] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I believe ya'all condemned Bush when he said the exact same words to the terrorists.

    Actually, that was one of his better moments.

  46. [46] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I can guarantee you that you WILL see it brought on....And no amount of "safe spaces" will help the Demcorat Party

    Keep it up. Maybe you can drive the independents who support Trump away, too. Certainly the Mormons, maybe some conservative Catholics...

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    I believe ya'all condemned Bush when he said the exact same words to the terrorists.

    Actually, that was one of his better moments.|

    I am pleasantly surprised to hear you say that.. :D

    Keep it up. Maybe you can drive the independents who support Trump away, too.

    How so?? By supporting the rule of law to the hilt, with force of arms, if necessary??

    How could that POSSIBLY drive away Independents??

    Even if it did drive them away, then it's probably a good thing as they would be useless anyways...

    "Five young boys went over the wall last night."
    "Well, it sounds like those 5 weren't much good to us anyways"

    -TAPS

    :D

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    On this we agree,

    See, it can happen!!

    Now, if you could be as critical of the Democrat Party as I am of the Republican Party, we would likely have absolutely NOTHING to debate..

    But you can't... Democrat is your religion and you MUST have faith....

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    All I am saying is that, if Camp Clinton think that they can win this election thru cheating and fraud and Trump supporters will just bend over and accept that???

    They are SERIOUSLY mis-reading Trump supporters...

    That's all I am saying...

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    And if that happens, what is the Obama Administration going to do about it???

    95% of the men and women who carry guns for a living are Trump supporters....

    What a perfect cluster-f*ck the Democrats have created here.... :D

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    So, let me see... you're saying that Trump voters won't admit they're Trump voters because they're terrified of the big, bad Dems who will use physical violence against them, but at the same time the day after the election, they'll all be armed and the Dems won't so therefore they'll be triumphant.

    Um, OK. No disconnect there.

    Heh.

    Balthasar [30] -

    "banana-Republican" -- that's pretty good! I like it!

    :-)

    Michale (re: cheating) -

    OK, let me get this straight. All the polls show Hillary with huge lead before election. Hillary wins election with huge margin. So, obviously, the answer has to be "she cheated!"

    Um, right. Because, you know, facts are irrelevant when your guy loses. Right-o.

    I mean, I do feel for you, this must be a rough time. And I'm not talking about storm cleanup, either. Even the LA Times skewed poll is about to show Hillary with a lead. Must be rough -- hasn't anyone created an "unskewed polls" page out there, a la Mitt? At least then you could look at numbers that said your guy was going to win (and then we'd all enjoy watching Karl Rove meltdown on Election Night once again, too!)...

    Michale [32] -

    (see: 2000 election, Bush v Gore)

    Here's a question for you:

    If Hillary Clinton wins by X votes, obviously there was no cheating.

    What value of X would you accept? 500,000? 5,000,000? If it's a landslide, then cheating wouldn't have changed anything one way or the other -- cheating can only work when the margins are tiny, so if Hill wins in a landslide, will Trump voters admit they got beat like a rug?

    Or will they whine about non-existent cheating? I think, a month out, we already have the answer to that.

    Here's what I've been wondering:

    Will Trump conceded with a gracious speech on Election Night? Or will he rant and rave? Or pout and refuse to appear?

    I know which one my money's on.

    :-)

    -CW

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, let me see... you're saying that Trump voters won't admit they're Trump voters because they're terrified of the big, bad Dems who will use physical violence against them,

    It's well documented that Democrats HAVE used physical violence against Trump supporters..

    but at the same time the day after the election, they'll all be armed and the Dems won't so therefore they'll be triumphant.

    Yep, pretty much.. :D

    OK, let me get this straight. All the polls show Hillary with huge lead before election. Hillary wins election with huge margin. So, obviously, the answer has to be "she cheated!"

    Not at all... But let's turn it around...

    Hillary shows a big lead in the polls, but Trump wins..

    What would the response from the Democrats be??

    yea... See??

    Or will they whine about non-existent cheating? I think, a month out, we already have the answer to that.

    And if I was talking about non-existent cheating, you would have a point... But I am not, so you don't.. :D

    I am talking about.. what was it I said???

    unequivocal and bona fide factual PROOF of Democrat cheating in the election..

    I'll ask you the same question that Balthasar was afraid to answer..

    If there is unequivocal and bona fide factual PROOF of Democrat cheating in the election...

    Would you still support Hillary for POTUS???

    Will Trump conceded with a gracious speech on Election Night? Or will he rant and rave? Or pout and refuse to appear?

    I would say it will depend on the circumstances of the loss...

    Now, let me ask you...

    Will Hillary conceded with a gracious speech on Election Night? Or will she rant and rave? Or pout and refuse to appear?

    I mean, I do feel for you, this must be a rough time. And I'm not talking about storm cleanup, either. Even the LA Times skewed poll is about to show Hillary with a lead. Must be rough -- hasn't anyone created an "unskewed polls" page out there, a la Mitt? At least then you could look at numbers that said your guy was going to win (and then we'd all enjoy watching Karl Rove meltdown on Election Night once again, too!)...

    Two words for you..

    BREX IT :D

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seriously...

    Just imagine what ya'all would say if we have a BREXIT type outcome???

    Won't ya'all be feeling a bit...uh.... "militant"???

    Or will you accept the outcome with a sigh and an "OH WELL"...

    You see my point???

    You would be thinking *EXACTLY* what I am saying now...

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay....

    If ya'all want to take a "Sherman" and state, for the record, that you will accept the outcome of the vote regardless of ANY other consideration.....?????

    "I'm all ears"
    -Ross Perot

    :D

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    No takers???

    Didna think so... :D

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Like I said.. Armed rebellion if there is ANY evidence of cheating or fraud..."

    The ONLY reason to bring this up is fear of Trump losing, and losing BIG. Remember, even though this is a Presidential election, there is NO such thing as a National election in the USA. It is held by THOUSANDS of local county election supervisors, who then report to 50 individual state governments for certification of results, a HUGE percentage of which would have to be in on some vast conspiracy in order to swing an election to one particular candidate. It just boggles the mind that ANYONE would even think this a remote realistic possibility.

  57. [57] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [42] Balthazar

    Are we supposed to be afraid? To quake and shiver in fright? As Hillary said today (and her life is constantly threatened): "Bring it on". She should have added: 'bitch!'.

    Hillary Clinton is Ellen Ripley!

  58. [58] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "If there is unequivocal and bona fide factual PROOF of Democrat cheating in the election...

    Would you still support Hillary for POTUS???"

    Actually, to be fair, that should read: If there is unequivocal and bona fide factual proof of either Hillary Clinton herself, her campaign organization, or the Democratic National Committee working either alone or in partnership to illegally insure that Hillary Clinton wins through massive fraud and cheating, would you still support Hillary for POTUS? THERE, FIXED IT for YA!

    Just to satisfy you, the answer would be, NO.

    Of course, I expect the answer to be different for Trump, since after all, because he has an R after his name, so many of his supporters seem to think he can do no wrong. :-D

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    CW: Will Trump conceded with a gracious speech on Election Night? Or will he rant and rave? Or pout and refuse to appear?

    He will concede gracefully while the cameras are on him, then go home, wind himself up and go on a rabid tweet storm about how he was cheated and the system is rigged.

    Then the Trumpettes will rant and rave about "riggers", because that is what they want to do anyway. Some of them might not be able to pronounce "riggers" correctly, but I'm sure that will be what they mean.

  60. [60] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Is there a point at which the hysteria directed at third party voters dies down?

    A

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Two words for you..

    BREX IT :D

    It probably makes you feel better to keep posting about how all the Brexit polls showed a different outcome, but the fact is that the Brexit polls were mixed.

    https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

    The fact is that there is still time and Trump could win. Trump's path to the White House has always been a narrow path that almost requires that he win the state of Pennsylvania, and the demographic makeup of voters in that state has never favored him. :)

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    The ONLY reason to bring this up is fear of Trump losing, and losing BIG.

    No, that is not the "only" reason...

    MY reason for bringing it up is a warning to the Democrat Party..

    Don't cheat.. The consequences would be bad..

    who then report to 50 individual state governments for certification of results, a HUGE percentage of which would have to be in on some vast conspiracy in order to swing an election to one particular candidate.

    What "vast conspiracy"??? Democrat leaders simply let it trickle down to the minions to do ANYTHING to insure that Hillary wins...

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just to satisfy you, the answer would be, NO.

    I am not surprised that you would take the Sherman, JM.. :D

    Must be the Floridian in ya.. :D

    Of course, I expect the answer to be different for Trump, since after all, because he has an R after his name, so many of his supporters seem to think he can do no wrong. :-D

    Actually, I already answered it.. And my answer was the same as yours..

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    It probably makes you feel better to keep posting about how all the Brexit polls showed a different outcome, but the fact is that the Brexit polls were mixed.

    Always trying to rewrite history to fit yer ideology.. :D

    Regardless, the Weigantian "Polls" clearly showed that every Weigantian was dead sure that BREXIT would fail...

    Ya'all were wrong then...

    Ya'all will be wrong again...

    "Marge, that rhymes and you know it!!!"
    -Homer Simpson

    :D

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/11/rape-victim-hillary-clinton-laughed-blamed-getting-raped/

    There's ya'all's chosen candidate..

    How anyone can vote for Hillary Clinton.... well, it just boggles the mind... :^/

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots
    https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/in-the-democratic-echo-chamber-inconvenient-truths-are-recast-as-putin-plots/

    If ya'all's Russian Fear Mongering wasn't so sad, it would be laughable...

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:
  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fact is that there is still time and Trump could win. Trump's path to the White House has always been a narrow path that almost requires that he win the state of Pennsylvania, and the demographic makeup of voters in that state has never favored him. :)

    It's funny how you NEVER wanted to talk about Pennsylvania when Trump had closed the gap to a tie...

    Now that Hillary has a lead again, NOW you are gushing about Pennsylvania...

    That's the difference between a Party sheep (you) and an independent thinker (me)...

    You are afraid of bad news so you don't discuss any issues when they are against your candidate..

    Since I am not a slave to Party, I have no such fear...

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/bill-clinton-son-issues-plea-to-father-stepmother/

    I guess black lives DON'T matter to Hillary when the black person is the son of her rapist husband...

    Color me shocked... :^/

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, so.. Trump indulging in locker room talk 11 years ago....

    BAD

    https://www.shtfplan.com/conspiracy-fact-and-theory/erection-2008-video-surfaces-of-obama-flaunting-his-junk-to-reporters-on-campaign-plane_10112016

    Obama flaunting his erection to a plane full of female reporters??

    NO PROBLEM

    Do you see why no one can take ya'all seriously when it comes to ya'all's Trump bashing??

    Because it is demonstrably obvious that it is ALL based solely and completely on who has the '-D' and who has the '-R' after their name...

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I could grab a her ass and never get fired!!"
    -Wylie Mao, Hillary Clinton Field Organizer

    So grabbing a woman by the pussy is BAD..

    Grabbing a woman by the ass is perfectly acceptable..

    Once again, you see why ya'all have absolutely NO MORAL FOUNDATION to condemn Trump....

    NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA...

    With ya'all, it's SOLELY and COMPLETELY about Party ideology..

    This has been PROVEN beyond ANY shadow of a doubt...

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    What value of X would you accept? 500,000? 5,000,000? If it's a landslide, then cheating wouldn't have changed anything one way or the other -- cheating can only work when the margins are tiny, so if Hill wins in a landslide, will Trump voters admit they got beat like a rug?

    I can turn the same question around...

    If Trump wins in a landslide will Weigantians admit they got beat like a rug??

    Of course they won't...

    The WPG will scream FRAUD!!!! and CHEAT!!!!! to the high heavens...

    You know I'm right...

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can turn the same question around...

    If Trump wins in a landslide will Weigantians admit they got beat like a rug??

    Of course they won't...

    The WPG will scream FRAUD!!!! and CHEAT!!!!! to the high heavens...

    You know I'm right...

    In other words, ya'all will do EXACTLY what ya'all are claiming Trump supporters will do... :D

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    chaszzzbrown [57] -

    Oh, nice catch! I read that and didn't make the Ripley connection, so thanks for pointing it out!

    :-)

    altohone [60] -

    Yep. When Hillary is clearly above 50% in the national polls. Then 3rd parties will be immaterial (if it happens, I should add -- her husband didn't manage this feat on either election day).

    Michale [68] -

    I think it was James Carville who best described PA. I forget the first part of the quote (about the metropolitan areas of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia) but it ended with "... and Alabama in the middle." Like many states, the urban/rural divide is pretty noticeable on Election Day (heck, it's even noticeable here in sunny CA). Problem for the GOP is (and has been, for the last SIX presidential elections) that there's more people in the blue areas. Game over.

    -CW

  75. [75] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    So if Trump is at 30%, and Hillary at 49%...?

    Winning isn't enough apparently.

    That's pretty sad.

    Is it based on ideological purity to the two party system, political greed, or paranoia?

    Anyway... remember this day if Hillary hits 51%.
    Hard to believe she's struggling to get there with an "opponent" like Trump.
    A

  76. [76] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    It's funny how you NEVER wanted to talk about Pennsylvania when Trump had closed the gap to a tie...

    It's funny how the House Troll thinks it knows what I talk about based on a comments section of a blog. *LOL*

    Trump NEVER "closed the gap to a tie" in Pennsylvania, and I did post with you about it, didn't I? Reminding you I said wake me up when Trump was ahead in Pennsylvania; Trump NEVER was even or ahead.

    Did House Troll NOT get enough attention about Pennsylvania? House Troll's posts today have the stench of desperation and neediness. Could House Troll ever get enough attention? :D

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump NEVER "closed the gap to a tie" in Pennsylvania, and I did post with you about it, didn't I? Reminding you I said wake me up when Trump was ahead in Pennsylvania; Trump NEVER was even or ahead.

    Ahhhh now you're delusional..

    You are no claiming that Pennsylvania NEVER went from Lean Clinton to toss up...

    I must really be getting to you.. :D

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump NEVER "closed the gap to a tie" in Pennsylvania, and I did post with you about it, didn't I? Reminding you I said wake me up when Trump was ahead in Pennsylvania; Trump NEVER was even or ahead.

    Ahhhh now you're delusional..

    You are no claiming that Pennsylvania NEVER went from Lean Clinton to toss up...

    I must really be getting to you.. :D

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    You are no claiming that Pennsylvania NEVER went from Lean Clinton to toss up...

    Oh, I see your problem, snowflake... it's your reading comprehension problem. Of course, I never claimed any such thing. I said... repeat: "Trump NEVER was even or ahead" in Pennsylvania, and it's a fact that Trump wasn't ever even or ahead in Pennsylvania.

    While it's true that Pennsylvania going from "lean Clinton" to "toss-up" means it has become a competitive state, it doesn't mean Trump "closed the gap to a tie." In contrast, Florida actually is a toss-up state where Trump held a lead. "Toss up" means "competitive"... NOT "tied."

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5964.html#polls

    Check the polling, snowflake; Trump was never tied in Pennsylvania. Oh, sure, you might be able to cherry pick a poll, but he NEVER held a lead... believe me.

    I must really be getting to you.. :D

    Oh, really? Well, as for who is getting to whom, I see you're calling other people "snowflake" now, and that is my name for you... MINE... ME... MY name for YOU. I'm not stealing your stuff, snowflake; you're stealing mine! :)

    But I heard you are on drugs, so I'll let it slide... this time. :D

Comments for this article are closed.