Kalm is Calling the Election

[DSUrocks07]

10% of the electorate isn't as important as 72% of the electorate..

No, but Obama lost among Whites both times and still won because of overwhelming support among non Whites. Democrats have been going without the majority of the White vote nationally for quite some time now. No Democrat has won the majority of the White vote in a Presidential race since at least as far back as Nixon vs. Humphrey in 1968.

So you're saying more whites voted AGAINST the Democratic candidate, than voted for them?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[YoUDeeMan]

I think it will be interesting to find out
And there is no indication that they won't "go back into their holes"

Also:
Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?
A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it

Good job cutting and pasting from factcheck.org!

Factcheck puts a nice spin on it. Is it "taxpayer money" when it is a separate fee collected by the telecom companies (they don't use their own profits) and submitted to the FCC (or its agent) so we can support this program?

Chizzy...yet another fail.

[SDHornet]

The blacks that actually vote in November will mostly vote donk, regardless of the fact that they have not prospered under Obama’s 8 years. Trump can make in roads (see DSU) but it’s really a wasted effort and the wrong demographic for him to target. Team Black is a lost cause (politically speaking) for a multitude of reasons.

CNN view on Team Black economics. Right wing view on Team Black economics (BTW DSU, you'd really dig Larry Elder ). Team Black undoubtedly falls somewhere in the middle, but if they heed their own words and have their mind on their money and their money on their minds then they would have been bailed on the donks by now. Stupidly and to their continued plight, they have not.

Trump needs in roads with Team Brown. We’re the one’s going to decide the WH from here on out, and it’s been that way for a while, just ask W.

Nope. Demographics of 2012 electorate:
72% non hispanic white
13% black
10% Hispanic
3% Asian
2% other.

10% of the electorate isn't as important as 72% of the electorate..

Higher because of Obama, everyone knows the black turnout won't be that high for 2016. You can do better than this.

[BDKJMU]

Nope. Demographics of 2012 electorate:
72% non hispanic white
13% black
10% Hispanic
3% Asian
2% other.

10% of the electorate isn't as important as 72% of the electorate..

Higher because of Obama, everyone knows the black turnout won't be that high for 2016. You can do better than this.

What? You were peddling the myth that "Team Brown", 10% of the electorate in 12,' is going to decide the election..

[SDHornet]

Higher because of Obama, everyone knows the black turnout won't be that high for 2016. You can do better than this.

What? You were peddling the myth that "Team Brown", 10% of the electorate in 12,' is going to decide the election..

We will.

Oh I forgot to mention that your breakdown of the national voting demographics is meaningless thanks to the electoral college...but I figured you knew that before I bothered to reply.

[BDKJMU]

What? You were peddling the myth that "Team Brown", 10% of the electorate in 12,' is going to decide the election..

We will.

Oh I forgot to mention that your breakdown of the national voting demographics is meaningless thanks to the electoral college...but I figured you knew that before I bothered to reply.

You won't. Irregardless of the electoral college, to say that 10% of the electorate (or even if it rises to 11% this year) in any election will be a bigger deciding factor than 72% is But keep on believing that if you wish..

[Ivytalk]

We will.

Oh I forgot to mention that your breakdown of the national voting demographics is meaningless thanks to the electoral college...but I figured you knew that before I bothered to reply.

You won't. Irregardless of the electoral college, to say that 10% of the electorate (or even if it rises to 11% this year) in any election will be a bigger deciding factor than 72% is But keep on believing that if you wish..

"Regardless."

And an 11% bloc vote can be more decisive than a splintered or divided 72%. Shirley you know that.

[SDHornet]

We will.

Oh I forgot to mention that your breakdown of the national voting demographics is meaningless thanks to the electoral college...but I figured you knew that before I bothered to reply.

You won't. Irregardless of the electoral college, to say that 10% of the electorate (or even if it rises to 11% this year) in any election will be a bigger deciding factor than 72% is But keep on believing that if you wish..

This is just for you BDKKK, a Pew Center article (hey Jelly it has a graph too!!!)...Florida is kinda important no?

Florida has long been a battleground state in presidential elections, with Hispanic voters playing a growing role in determining the outcome of the state’s presidential vote. Hispanic voters this year make up an even larger share of the state’s registered voters than in past years, but the profile of the Latino electorate has shifted over the past decade or so, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of state voter registration data.

Democrats hold voter registration advantage among Florida HispanicsDue to the state’s large Cuban voting bloc, the Latino vote had been reliably Republican. For example, President George W. Bush won both the Hispanic vote and the state in 2004. But 2008 represented a tipping point: More Latinos were registered as Democrats than Republicans, and the gap has only widened since then. This has led to the growing influence of Democrats among the state’s Hispanic voters in 2008 and 2012, two presidential elections in which Barack Obama carried both Hispanics and the state. At the same time, the number of Latino registered voters in Florida who indicate no party affiliation has also grown rapidly during this time, and by 2012 had surpassed Republican registrations.

In 2014, 4.8 million Hispanics lived in Florida, making it the third-largest Hispanic population in the nation, behind California and Texas. It is also growing faster than Florida’s population. Today 24% of Floridians are Hispanic, up from 17% in 2000. Overall, 1.8 million Hispanics were registered to vote in Florida as of February 2016, according to the state’s Division of Elections.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... n-florida/

My work here is done.

[YoUDeeMan]

Higher because of Obama, everyone knows the black turnout won't be that high for 2016. You can do better than this.

What? You were peddling the myth that "Team Brown", 10% of the electorate in 12,' is going to decide the election..

Are you that bad at math?

Team Brown will have a large say in the election.

They are registering in record numbers. Team White will split their vote...and Team Black will be mostly (+90%) behind Hillary. Team Brown needs to wake up and not go to the dark side.

Trump needs to make serious inroads into Team Brown. If he does...he'll win. If not, he'll lose.

What is amazing is that Team Brown is being played like a fiddle. No one should support unlimited immigration...that will take jobs from the Hispanics that are already here legally. But that is what Hillary is truly supporting when she plays up the Wall comments. Either you have a border or you don't. Either you have immigration rules or you don't. Either you have decent paying jobs protected from predatory illegal job seekers, or you let illegal people in to get paid less and take a job away from a resident.

If Trump truly wants to put together a team for America, he needs to include on his team and in his speeches some level headed Latinos. They are out there...find them and get them on board. Ditto with women and Blacks. Have them step up and be heard. Hillary is vulnerable...very vulnerable. Dictate the terms of the campaign and get ahead of the curve with ideas that support Americans...ALL of the people who are struggling.

This is an easy win for Trump if he truly wants to make the country great for the people of this country...and not just the established, closed-minded, selfish clowns that currently reside in Washington.

[BDKJMU]

Otherwise: I don't think there is a "significant" falling trend for Clinton in polling at this point. You've had stuff like Trump up by 2 then Clinton up by 13 in two consecutive polls in the RCP average. There's a lot of variation. I did a trend thing for the poll results up right now and there's no significant trend. But you can see that by just noting that Clinton was +3 in the earliest poll up right now....conducted 4/17 through 4/20...and is +3 in the latest one...conducted entirely on 5/10. In between there were a couple of Clinton spikes to 11.. in a poll conducted 4/20 through 4/24...and to 13... in a poll conducted 4/28 through 5/1.

To list it out, it's like this for Clinton in the set of polls listed right now for Clinton:

+3, +7, +11, -2, +13, +6, +2.

Things could change but right now there's not a lot of evidence of any trend one way or another. Just an overall impression that Clinton is ahead by a modest margin and a lot of variability in the results of different polls.

One thing that gives me hope, though:

The polls that gave Clinton +11 and +13 (USA Today and CNN) are both rated A- by the Poll ratings at http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives ... r-ratings/. And those ratings were constructed well before the current situation. The other four polls are rated C+, B, C, B-, and C.

In other words, the two most highly rated polls according to that site are the two that showed Clinton up by double digits. At least right now:

Well, that Clinton RCP avg that was +5.7 last week is now +3.3. Listing the 6 current RCP polls by most recent 1st:
May:
Trump +5
Trump +3
Clinton +2
Clinton +6
Late April:
Clinton +13
Clinton+7
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... _race.html

[Ivytalk]

What? You were peddling the myth that "Team Brown", 10% of the electorate in 12,' is going to decide the election..

Are you that bad at math?

Team Brown will have a large say in the election.

They are registering in record numbers. Team White will split their vote...and Team Black will be mostly (+90%) behind Hillary. Team Brown needs to wake up and not go to the dark side.

Trump needs to make serious inroads into Team Brown. If he does...he'll win. If not, he'll lose.

What is amazing is that Team Brown is being played like a fiddle. No one should support unlimited immigration...that will take jobs from the Hispanics that are already here legally. But that is what Hillary is truly supporting when she plays up the Wall comments. Either you have a border or you don't. Either you have immigration rules or you don't. Either you have decent paying jobs protected from predatory illegal job seekers, or you let illegal people in to get paid less and take a job away from a resident.

If Trump truly wants to put together a team for America, he needs to include on his team and in his speeches some level headed Latinos. They are out there...find them and get them on board. Ditto with women and Blacks. Have them step up and be heard. Hillary is vulnerable...very vulnerable. Dictate the terms of the campaign and get ahead of the curve with ideas that support Americans...ALL of the people who are struggling.

This is an easy win for Trump if he truly wants to make the country great for the people of this country...and not just the established, closed-minded, selfish clowns that currently reside in Washington.

You know, a guy can take that two ways.

[YoUDeeMan]

Are you that bad at math?

Team Brown will have a large say in the election.

They are registering in record numbers. Team White will split their vote...and Team Black will be mostly (+90%) behind Hillary. Team Brown needs to wake up and not go to the dark side.

Trump needs to make serious inroads into Team Brown. If he does...he'll win. If not, he'll lose.

What is amazing is that Team Brown is being played like a fiddle. No one should support unlimited immigration...that will take jobs from the Hispanics that are already here legally. But that is what Hillary is truly supporting when she plays up the Wall comments. Either you have a border or you don't. Either you have immigration rules or you don't. Either you have decent paying jobs protected from predatory illegal job seekers, or you let illegal people in to get paid less and take a job away from a resident.

If Trump truly wants to put together a team for America, he needs to include on his team and in his speeches some level headed Latinos. They are out there...find them and get them on board. Ditto with women and Blacks. Have them step up and be heard. Hillary is vulnerable...very vulnerable. Dictate the terms of the campaign and get ahead of the curve with ideas that support Americans...ALL of the people who are struggling.

This is an easy win for Trump if he truly wants to make the country great for the people of this country...and not just the established, closed-minded, selfish clowns that currently reside in Washington.

You know, a guy can take that two ways.

You're one of the few that is playing the game correctly.

Respect.

[SDHornet]

What? You were peddling the myth that "Team Brown", 10% of the electorate in 12,' is going to decide the election..

Are you that bad at math?

Team Brown will have a large say in the election.

They are registering in record numbers. Team White will split their vote...and Team Black will be mostly (+90%) behind Hillary. Team Brown needs to wake up and not go to the dark side.

Trump needs to make serious inroads into Team Brown. If he does...he'll win. If not, he'll lose.

What is amazing is that Team Brown is being played like a fiddle. No one should support unlimited immigration...that will take jobs from the Hispanics that are already here legally. But that is what Hillary is truly supporting when she plays up the Wall comments. Either you have a border or you don't. Either you have immigration rules or you don't. Either you have decent paying jobs protected from predatory illegal job seekers, or you let illegal people in to get paid less and take a job away from a resident.

If Trump truly wants to put together a team for America, he needs to include on his team and in his speeches some level headed Latinos. They are out there...find them and get them on board. Ditto with women and Blacks. Have them step up and be heard. Hillary is vulnerable...very vulnerable. Dictate the terms of the campaign and get ahead of the curve with ideas that support Americans...ALL of the people who are struggling.

This is an easy win for Trump if he truly wants to make the country great for the people of this country...and not just the established, closed-minded, selfish clowns that currently reside in Washington.

That's the sad part. We should know better, but unfortunately many do not. Trump being a business guy should be able to use the economic argument to his advantage here. The older (sometime legal) Hispanics should know the younger, more able illegals will replace them with the status quo Obama has ushered in (that hilldog will continue).

Trump's problem is his wall comments will reverberate among Team Brown voters, even thought it was just rhetoric to whip up the right wing base. A wall isn't getting built, but that doesn't mean his comments won't continue to hurt him. I'm interested to see how Trump walks back from that stance because he is going to have to if he wants to have a shot to beat hilldog.

Oh and we're still laughing at you BDKKK for trying to down play the role of Team Brown in the electorate from here on out.

[BDKJMU]

What? You were peddling the myth that "Team Brown", 10% of the electorate in 12,' is going to decide the election..

Are you that bad at math?

Team Brown will have a large say in the election.

They are registering in record numbers. Team White will split their vote...and Team Black will be mostly (+90%) behind Hillary.

Are you that bad at math I'm didn't say "Team Brown won't have a say in the election, but it won't be as big as "Team White". Just like in 2012. There is the myth out their that Romney lost because only getting 27% of the Team Brown vote to Obama's 73%. He could have gotten 50% of the team Brown vote and still would have lost. He lost because the conk base didn't turn out high enough.

Regardless of "Team Brown's" registration #s, they're not going to be more than 11% of the electorate (again 10% in 12'). White vote will be about 6 1/2 times as big (It was over 7x as big in 12'). Team White isn't going to split split their vote. Trump will win the white vote by double digits (Romney won by 59%-39% in 12'). And even winning the white vote by only 55%-45% would more than offset losing the Brown vote 80%-20% because again the White vote will be at least 6.5 times as big as the Brown vote.

Yeah Team Black will be 90+% behind Hillary but their turnout will slip some from 12'.

Teams Brown and Black will be big factors, but Team White will still be the biggest factor..

[Ivytalk]

Are you that bad at math?

Team Brown will have a large say in the election.

They are registering in record numbers. Team White will split their vote...and Team Black will be mostly (+90%) behind Hillary. Team Brown needs to wake up and not go to the dark side.

Trump needs to make serious inroads into Team Brown. If he does...he'll win. If not, he'll lose.

What is amazing is that Team Brown is being played like a fiddle. No one should support unlimited immigration...that will take jobs from the Hispanics that are already here legally. But that is what Hillary is truly supporting when she plays up the Wall comments. Either you have a border or you don't. Either you have immigration rules or you don't. Either you have decent paying jobs protected from predatory illegal job seekers, or you let illegal people in to get paid less and take a job away from a resident.

If Trump truly wants to put together a team for America, he needs to include on his team and in his speeches some level headed Latinos. They are out there...find them and get them on board. Ditto with women and Blacks. Have them step up and be heard. Hillary is vulnerable...very vulnerable. Dictate the terms of the campaign and get ahead of the curve with ideas that support Americans...ALL of the people who are struggling.

This is an easy win for Trump if he truly wants to make the country great for the people of this country...and not just the established, closed-minded, selfish clowns that currently reside in Washington.

That's the sad part. We should know better, but unfortunately many do not. Trump being a business guy should be able to use the economic argument to his advantage here. The older (sometime legal) Hispanics should know the younger, more able illegals will replace them with the status quo Obama has ushered in (that hilldog will continue).

Trump's problem is his wall comments will reverberate among Team Brown voters, even thought it was just rhetoric to whip up the right wing base. A wall isn't getting built, but that doesn't mean his comments won't continue to hurt him. I'm interested to see how Trump walks back from that stance because he is going to have to if he wants to have a shot to beat hilldog.

Oh and we're still laughing at you BDKKK for trying to down play the role of Team Brown in the electorate from here on out.

He already has "walked that back" -- like he has so much else. He'll deport millions of people, but he'll let most of them right back in. And his latest slate of potential conservative SCOTUS justices? Looks good on the surface, but he didn't commit to appoint any of them if elected. Everything is negotiable with Trump. Show me one major policy position that he hasn't waffled on.

[BDKJMU]

Are you that bad at math?

Team Brown will have a large say in the election.

They are registering in record numbers. Team White will split their vote...and Team Black will be mostly (+90%) behind Hillary. Team Brown needs to wake up and not go to the dark side.

Trump needs to make serious inroads into Team Brown. If he does...he'll win. If not, he'll lose.

What is amazing is that Team Brown is being played like a fiddle. No one should support unlimited immigration...that will take jobs from the Hispanics that are already here legally. But that is what Hillary is truly supporting when she plays up the Wall comments. Either you have a border or you don't. Either you have immigration rules or you don't. Either you have decent paying jobs protected from predatory illegal job seekers, or you let illegal people in to get paid less and take a job away from a resident.

If Trump truly wants to put together a team for America, he needs to include on his team and in his speeches some level headed Latinos. They are out there...find them and get them on board. Ditto with women and Blacks. Have them step up and be heard. Hillary is vulnerable...very vulnerable. Dictate the terms of the campaign and get ahead of the curve with ideas that support Americans...ALL of the people who are struggling.

This is an easy win for Trump if he truly wants to make the country great for the people of this country...and not just the established, closed-minded, selfish clowns that currently reside in Washington.

That's the sad part. We should know better, but unfortunately many do not. Trump being a business guy should be able to use the economic argument to his advantage here. The older (sometime legal) Hispanics should know the younger, more able illegals will replace them with the status quo Obama has ushered in (that hilldog will continue).

Trump's problem is his wall comments will reverberate among Team Brown voters, even thought it was just rhetoric to whip up the right wing base. A wall isn't getting built, but that doesn't mean his comments won't continue to hurt him. I'm interested to see how Trump walks back from that stance because he is going to have to if he wants to have a shot to beat hilldog.

Oh and we're still laughing at you BDKKK for trying to down play the role of Team Brown in the electorate from here on out.

And you still think likely 11% of the electorate is a bigger factor than 72%...

Oh and Talking about the influence of Team Brown or Black..
Talking about the influence of Team White = KKK. Gotcha..

[Ibanez]

Are you that bad at math?

Team Brown will have a large say in the election.

They are registering in record numbers. Team White will split their vote...and Team Black will be mostly (+90%) behind Hillary.

Are you that bad at math I'm didn't say "Team Brown won't have a say in the election, but it won't be as big as "Team White". Just like in 2012. There is the myth out their that Romney lost because only getting 27% of the Team Brown vote to Obama's 73%. He could have gotten 50% of the team Brown vote and still would have lost. He lost because the conk base didn't turn out high enough.

Regardless of "Team Brown's" registration #s, they're not going to be more than 11% of the electorate (again 10% in 12'). White vote will be about 6 1/2 times as big (It was over 7x as big in 12'). Team White isn't going to split split their vote. Trump will win the white vote by double digits (Romney won by 59%-39% in 12'). And even winning the white vote by only 55%-45% would more than offset losing the Brown vote 80%-20% because again the White vote will be at least 6.5 times as big as the Brown vote.

Yeah Team Black will be 90+% behind Hillary but their turnout will slip some from 12'.

Teams Brown and Black will be big factors, but Team White will still be the biggest factor..

I don't know the numbers but wouldn't it make more of a difference at the state level? For instance, Team Brown having large numbers in Florida or California?

[YoUDeeMan]

Are you that bad at math I'm didn't say "Team Brown won't have a say in the election, but it won't be as big as "Team White". Just like in 2012. There is the myth out their that Romney lost because only getting 27% of the Team Brown vote to Obama's 73%. He could have gotten 50% of the team Brown vote and still would have lost. He lost because the conk base didn't turn out high enough.

Regardless of "Team Brown's" registration #s, they're not going to be more than 11% of the electorate (again 10% in 12'). White vote will be about 6 1/2 times as big (It was over 7x as big in 12'). Team White isn't going to split split their vote. Trump will win the white vote by double digits (Romney won by 59%-39% in 12'). And even winning the white vote by only 55%-45% would more than offset losing the Brown vote 80%-20% because again the White vote will be at least 6.5 times as big as the Brown vote.

Yeah Team Black will be 90+% behind Hillary but their turnout will slip some from 12'.

Teams Brown and Black will be big factors, but Team White will still be the biggest factor..

I don't know the numbers but wouldn't it make more of a difference at the state level? For instance, Team Brown having large numbers in Florida or California?

BDK doesn't understand that kind of math. He is secretly part of the liberals who still think Gore should have been President after the 2000 election results.

[Ibanez]

I don't know the numbers but wouldn't it make more of a difference at the state level? For instance, Team Brown having large numbers in Florida or California?

BDK doesn't understand that kind of math. He is secretly part of the liberals who still think Gore should have been President after the 2000 election results.

He's part of the 6.93% that just don't get it.

[JohnStOnge]

Well, that Clinton RCP avg that was +5.7 last week is now +3.3. Listing the 6 current RCP polls by most recent 1st:
May:
Trump +5
Trump +3
Clinton +2
Clinton +6
Late April:
Clinton +13
Clinton+7

Since you posted that a CBS/New York Times poll was reported with Clinton at +6. Nevertheless I think at this point it's reasonable to conclude that Trump's position has improved.

I will say, though, that the three recent polls that have it Clinton +2, Trump +3, and Trump +5 are rated C, C+, and C by 538 while the two May polls that have it at Clinton +6 are rated B and B+. Not a big difference in grades but, still, the two May polls that look best for Clinton are the two most highly rated polls as rated by that site.

I'm not happy regardless. If we didn't have a serious problem with the United State electorate we'd be seeing Clinton completely blowing Trump out because he is unqualified, mentally ill, and perhaps the most dishonest Presidential nominee by either Party in my lifetime. And it's obvious. Extremely poor judgement being shown by a disturbingly large proportion of the United States electorate regardless of what the exact numbers are. The fact that he's competitive does not portend well for the future of this country; not because of him but because of what it says about a large proportion of the population.

[JohnStOnge]

A comment by Nate Silver on the faulty predictions on Trump:

The big mistake is a curious one for a website that focuses on statistics. Unlike virtually every other forecast we publish at FiveThirtyEight — including the primary and caucus projections I just mentioned — our early estimates of Trump’s chances weren’t based on a statistical model. Instead, they were what we “subjective odds” — which is to say, educated guesses.

Unless he's just lying that means that the outcomes of their publicized faulty predictions on Trump have no bearing on their credibility with respect to quantitative prediction. In fact, I looked at it and when it comes to their actual quantitative predictions on primaries involving Trump (before Cruz suspended) they were 21-3. And when I say that I mean I counted them as correct when the candidate they said had the highest probability of winning won. In the three they got "wrong" they predicted that Trump had a 46% chance of winning (Iowa), that Trump had a 51% chance of winning (Kansas), and that Trump had a 68% chance of winning (Oklahoma). So it wasn't like they were saying he was an absolute sure thing in any of the cases in which they had him as the candidate with the highest probability of winning but he didn't win.

[JohnStOnge]

A comment by Nate Silver on the faulty predictions on Trump:

The big mistake is a curious one for a website that focuses on statistics. Unlike virtually every other forecast we publish at FiveThirtyEight — including the primary and caucus projections I just mentioned — our early estimates of Trump’s chances weren’t based on a statistical model. Instead, they were what we “subjective odds” — which is to say, educated guesses.

Unless he's just lying that means that the outcomes of their publicized faulty predictions on Trump have no bearing on their credibility with respect to quantitative prediction. In fact, I looked at it and when it comes to their actual quantitative predictions on primaries involving Trump (before Cruz suspended) they were 21-3. And when I say that I mean I counted them as correct when the candidate they said had the highest probability of winning won. In the three they got "wrong" they predicted that Trump had a 46% chance of winning (Iowa), that Trump had a 51% chance of winning (Kansas), and that Trump had a 68% chance of winning (Oklahoma). So it wasn't like they were saying he was an absolute sure thing in any of the cases in which they had him as the candidate with the highest probability of winning but he didn't win.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW I think one thing that is going on is that we've got resentment going on among Sanders supporters. A lot of acrimony.

But I think Clinton is going to win California and New Jersey. I think that might tamp some of that down.

Right now 538 puts Clinton as having a 93% chance of winning California and a 97% chance of winning New Jersey.

That's not an absolute done deal. We do have the Michigan thing where all the polls showed Clinton way ahead. 538 had Clinton as having a 99% chance of winning. But that's kind of the exception. Overall 538's predictions have been very good.

[kalm]

A comment by Nate Silver on the faulty predictions on Trump:

The big mistake is a curious one for a website that focuses on statistics. Unlike virtually every other forecast we publish at FiveThirtyEight — including the primary and caucus projections I just mentioned — our early estimates of Trump’s chances weren’t based on a statistical model. Instead, they were what we “subjective odds” — which is to say, educated guesses.

Unless he's just lying that means that the outcomes of their publicized faulty predictions on Trump have no bearing on their credibility with respect to quantitative prediction. In fact, I looked at it and when it comes to their actual quantitative predictions on primaries involving Trump (before Cruz suspended) they were 21-3. And when I say that I mean I counted them as correct when the candidate they said had the highest probability of winning won. In the three they got "wrong" they predicted that Trump had a 46% chance of winning (Iowa), that Trump had a 51% chance of winning (Kansas), and that Trump had a 68% chance of winning (Oklahoma). So it wasn't like they were saying he was an absolute sure thing in any of the cases in which they had him as the candidate with the highest probability of winning but he didn't win.

Were following Nate Silver in 2012? Were you on board with his predictions then?

[BDKJMU]

I don't know the numbers but wouldn't it make more of a difference at the state level? For instance, Team Brown having large numbers in Florida or California?

BDK doesn't understand that kind of math. He is secretly part of the liberals who still think Gore should have been President after the 2000 election results.

Yes I understand that kind if math. Only ONCE in the last 31 elections 1892-2012 has the winner of the popular vote not won the electoral college. In 00' Gore won the popular vote over Bush by about 1/2 of 1% (48.4 to 47.9). Previous to 00' the last time the popular vote winner winner didn't win the electoral college was 1888 when Grover Cleveland won the popular vote over Benjamin Harrison by less than 1% (48.6% to 47.8%) but Harrison won the electoral (were only 38 states then).
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelec ... ?year=1888

If its 1% or less difference in the popular vote difference like in 00' its possible the popular vote winner won't win the electoral. If its greater than 1% its EXTREMELY remote that the popular vote winner won't also win the electoral.

Basically I'll give it a 96.93% chance that the popular vote winner wins the electoral..