Kalm is Calling the Election

[SDHornet]

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 also doesn't understand that Team Brown will be the deciding factor in '16.

[BDKJMU]

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 also doesn't understand that Team Brown will be the deciding factor in '16.

Keep believing that likely about 11% of the electorate will decide the election.

Women (53% of the electorate in 2012) will likely decide the election..

[SDHornet]

He also doesn't understand that Team Brown will be the deciding factor in '16.

Keep believing that likely about 11% of the electorate will decide the election.

Women (53% of the electorate in 2012) will likely decide the election..

By your logic a free throw in a basketball game could never be a deciding factor.
Jesus you are fucking stupid.

[BDKJMU]

Keep believing that likely about 11% of the electorate will decide the election.

Women (53% of the electorate in 2012) will likely decide the election..

By your logic a free throw in a basketball game could never be a deciding factor.
Jesus you are **** stupid.

Pot calling the kettle black- That's the logic you are using. But keep being stuck on stupid..

[Ibanez]

He also doesn't understand that Team Brown will be the deciding factor in '16.

Keep believing that likely about 11% of the electorate will decide the election.

Women (53% of the electorate in 2012) will likely decide the election..

You're not seeing the forest for the trees.

[Ibanez]

Keep believing that likely about 11% of the electorate will decide the election.

Women (53% of the electorate in 2012) will likely decide the election..

By your logic a free throw in a basketball game could never be a deciding factor.
Jesus you are fucking stupid.

Only if a brown person doesn't shoot it.

[JohnStOnge]

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

No, I was just looking at polls and saying that, unfortunately, Obama was going to win. I suspect Silver was saying the same thing.

[DSUrocks07]

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 think the #NeverTrump movement will have more of an impact than the Conk base not showing up in 2012. Plus. Even with a double digit spread with the white vote, the Browns and blacks still make up 20%+ of the electorate. Trump would still need to pull at least a few votes from them. By definition, he COULD win with just the white vote, but that goes back to the thought that the GOP is the "party of the white man".

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Ok now we've got a highly rated poll, ABC News/Washington Post (rated "A-" by 538, showing a "statistical tie" with Trump up 46 to 44% in the point estimates (http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conten ... nTrump.pdf).

I think the detail that strikes me most is that it looks like a pretty good chunk of the people who said they'd vote for Trump said that even though they don't think he's qualified to be President.

That's because 58% percent of the same sample group that favored Trump 46 to 44% said they don't think Trump is qualified to be President. 39% think he's qualified. Add the other 3% and you've got 42% who either think he's qualified or don't have an opinion one way or the other. That means that at a conservative minimum 4% of the sample had to have both said he's not qualified and said they'd vote for him anyway.

Another way to look at it: If you assume all of the people who favored Clinton think he's not qualified, that leaves 16% who think he's not qualified and either affirmatively said they favor him or were neutral.

That's pretty bad. President of the United States is a pretty important job. Seems to me like one would not want to "hire" someone who is not qualified for a really important job.

[JohnStOnge]

Separate post for another aspect of the ABC News/Washington Post poll:

It suggests that Sanders is hurting Clinton by staying in the race and stirring up resentment. I have been suspecting that. And it makes no sense because he's got to know Clinton's going to end up with the majority of the vote and the majority of the pledged delegates. Frankly, I think that when Cruz dropped out of the Republican race he had a better chance of winning that party's nomination than Sanders had of winning the Democratic Party nomination.

The Michigan thing is a lesson in uncertainty because all of the polls I know of as well as the 538 projection made it look like that was a done deal for Clinton. Nevertheless, I still think she's going to win both California and New Jersey. The 538 projection system, which has been very good overall in spite of being wrong when it pegged Clinton's chance of winning Michigan at 99%, estimates a 93% chance Clinton will win California along with a 97% chance that she'll win New Jersey.

And even if she doesn't it's EXTREMELY unlikely that Sanders can overcome her margin because allocation is purely proportional. For instance when he won Oregon he soundly beat her by 56 to 44% in a State with 59 delegates but only got a net gain of 9 delegates out of it. He's 274 behind in the pledged delegate count. There are 758 delegates at stake in the remaining primaries (California, Montana, New Mexico, New Jersey). He'd have to beat her by a combined total of 68 to 32% in those States to draw even in pledged delegates. Nothing is impossible but it's extremely unlikely.

Then what's he going to say if, as will almost certainly be the case, she ends up with more pledged delegates and the overall majority of the popular vote? Is he going to say the Super Delegates should overrule the will of the people after all the crap he's been saying about the Super Delegates overruling the will fo the poeple?

He's just being a prick.

[SDHornet]

By your logic a free throw in a basketball game could never be a deciding factor.
Jesus you are fucking stupid.

Only if a brown person doesn't shoot it.

Well done.

[houndawg]

Separate post for another aspect of the ABC News/Washington Post poll:

It suggests that Sanders is hurting Clinton by staying in the race and stirring up resentment. I have been suspecting that. And it makes no sense because he's got to know Clinton's going to end up with the majority of the vote and the majority of the pledged delegates. Frankly, I think that when Cruz dropped out of the Republican race he had a better chance of winning that party's nomination than Sanders had of winning the Democratic Party nomination.

The Michigan thing is a lesson in uncertainty because all of the polls I know of as well as the 538 projection made it look like that was a done deal for Clinton. Nevertheless, I still think she's going to win both California and New Jersey. The 538 projection system, which has been very good overall in spite of being wrong when it pegged Clinton's chance of winning Michigan at 99%, estimates a 93% chance Clinton will win California along with a 97% chance that she'll win New Jersey.

And even if she doesn't it's EXTREMELY unlikely that Sanders can overcome her margin because allocation is purely proportional. For instance when he won Oregon he soundly beat her by 56 to 44% in a State with 59 delegates but only got a net gain of 9 delegates out of it. He's 274 behind in the pledged delegate count. There are 758 delegates at stake in the remaining primaries (California, Montana, New Mexico, New Jersey). He'd have to beat her by a combined total of 68 to 32% in those States to draw even in pledged delegates. Nothing is impossible but it's extremely unlikely.

Then what's he going to say if, as will almost certainly be the case, she ends up with more pledged delegates and the overall majority of the popular vote? Is he going to say the Super Delegates should overrule the will of the people after all the crap he's been saying about the Super Delegates overruling the will fo the poeple?

He's just being a prick.

You're overthinking, John. Granted that's easy for you to do.... What you fail to grasp is the hate out there for all things Hillary. The wackjobs of your ilk will vote for Trump, but the vast majority of votes he receives will be votes against Hillary. I shouldn't need to point this out to you.

[CAA Flagship]

Separate post for another aspect of the ABC News/Washington Post poll:

It suggests that Sanders is hurting Clinton by staying in the race and stirring up resentment. I have been suspecting that. And it makes no sense because he's got to know Clinton's going to end up with the majority of the vote and the majority of the pledged delegates. Frankly, I think that when Cruz dropped out of the Republican race he had a better chance of winning that party's nomination than Sanders had of winning the Democratic Party nomination.

The Michigan thing is a lesson in uncertainty because all of the polls I know of as well as the 538 projection made it look like that was a done deal for Clinton. Nevertheless, I still think she's going to win both California and New Jersey. The 538 projection system, which has been very good overall in spite of being wrong when it pegged Clinton's chance of winning Michigan at 99%, estimates a 93% chance Clinton will win California along with a 97% chance that she'll win New Jersey.

And even if she doesn't it's EXTREMELY unlikely that Sanders can overcome her margin because allocation is purely proportional. For instance when he won Oregon he soundly beat her by 56 to 44% in a State with 59 delegates but only got a net gain of 9 delegates out of it. He's 274 behind in the pledged delegate count. There are 758 delegates at stake in the remaining primaries (California, Montana, New Mexico, New Jersey). He'd have to beat her by a combined total of 68 to 32% in those States to draw even in pledged delegates. Nothing is impossible but it's extremely unlikely.

Then what's he going to say if, as will almost certainly be the case, she ends up with more pledged delegates and the overall majority of the popular vote? Is he going to say the Super Delegates should overrule the will of the people after all the crap he's been saying about the Super Delegates overruling the will fo the poeple?

He's just being a prick.

You're overthinking, John. Granted that's easy for you to do.... What you fail to grasp is the hate out there for all things Hillary. The wackjobs of your ilk will vote for Trump, but the vast majority of votes he receives will be votes against Hillary. I shouldn't need to point this out to you.

[Ibanez]

Separate post for another aspect of the ABC News/Washington Post poll:

It suggests that Sanders is hurting Clinton by staying in the race and stirring up resentment. I have been suspecting that. And it makes no sense because he's got to know Clinton's going to end up with the majority of the vote and the majority of the pledged delegates. Frankly, I think that when Cruz dropped out of the Republican race he had a better chance of winning that party's nomination than Sanders had of winning the Democratic Party nomination.

The Michigan thing is a lesson in uncertainty because all of the polls I know of as well as the 538 projection made it look like that was a done deal for Clinton. Nevertheless, I still think she's going to win both California and New Jersey. The 538 projection system, which has been very good overall in spite of being wrong when it pegged Clinton's chance of winning Michigan at 99%, estimates a 93% chance Clinton will win California along with a 97% chance that she'll win New Jersey.

And even if she doesn't it's EXTREMELY unlikely that Sanders can overcome her margin because allocation is purely proportional. For instance when he won Oregon he soundly beat her by 56 to 44% in a State with 59 delegates but only got a net gain of 9 delegates out of it. He's 274 behind in the pledged delegate count. There are 758 delegates at stake in the remaining primaries (California, Montana, New Mexico, New Jersey). He'd have to beat her by a combined total of 68 to 32% in those States to draw even in pledged delegates. Nothing is impossible but it's extremely unlikely.

Then what's he going to say if, as will almost certainly be the case, she ends up with more pledged delegates and the overall majority of the popular vote? Is he going to say the Super Delegates should overrule the will of the people after all the crap he's been saying about the Super Delegates overruling the will fo the poeple?

He's just being a prick.

You're overthinking, John. Granted that's easy for you to do.... What you fail to grasp is the hate out there for all things Hillary. The wackjobs of your ilk will vote for Trump, but the vast majority of votes he receives will be votes against Hillary. I shouldn't need to point this out to you.

1000x This.


The only way this election could get more interesting would be if Bernie stole the nomination.

[houndawg]

You're overthinking, John. Granted that's easy for you to do.... What you fail to grasp is the hate out there for all things Hillary. The wackjobs of your ilk will vote for Trump, but the vast majority of votes he receives will be votes against Hillary. I shouldn't need to point this out to you.

1000x This.


The only way this election could get more interesting would be if Bernie stole the nomination.

[houndawg]

1000x This.


The only way this election could get more interesting would be if Bernie stole the nomination.

It wouldn't be stealing the nomination - thats what is happening now.

That's the one the establishment doesn't want even more than they don't want Trump. The super-delegates are going to decide whether the next President will be Bernie or Trump.

[SDHornet]

It wouldn't be stealing the nomination - thats what is happening now.

That's the one the establishment doesn't want even more than they don't want Trump. The super-delegates are going to decide whether the next President will be Bernie or Trump.

Technically incorrect, however figuratively it is accurate. @ the donk super delegate system.

Heard on the radio that hilldog won't debate bernie before the CA primary.

[JohnStOnge]

You're overthinking, John. Granted that's easy for you to do.... What you fail to grasp is the hate out there for all things Hillary. The wackjobs of your ilk will vote for Trump, but the vast majority of votes he receives will be votes against Hillary. I shouldn't need to point this out to you.

There is no doubt that there are plenty of people on the "right" who would vote against Hillary no matter what. But I think what's going on with Sanders right now is creating such a sentiment on the left. And Sanders has been ginning it up.

Look, I don't really care if it's Hillary or Bernie. In fact I've written before that if I were the Democrats I would strongly consider Bernie because he's WAY ahead of Trump in the polls and doesn't have the baggage. But it's pretty clear that Bernie is not going to get the majority of the popular vote in the Democrat Party. Along with that we have the Real Clear Politics average of polls for who Democrats want and Clinton is up by 8.6 percentage points over Sanders. She's up 9.5 percentage points in the average of California polls and 17 percentage points in the New Jersey polls.

For better or for worse, she's going to be the Democrat nominee and it's not going to be because the process was rigged. It's going to be because she's going to win a substantial majority of the popular votes in the Democratic Party primaries.

What Sanders is doing is doing nothing but helping Trump. He needs to stop.

[∞∞∞]

It'll be fine on the Dem side. Same thing happened in 2008 and that was a fiercer campaign.

Polls this early basically show a snapshot in time. Trump has no more opposition and his opponents' voters are finally coming around to his side. Clinton is waging a battle on two sides right now, so her numbers are going to be worse. Both Trump/Sanders are bashing her and Sanders supporters are in the "backlash" phase as she nears clinching the nomination. Once it sinks in, they'll come around as well.

Overall, the numbers people should focus on right now is how liked each candidate is, and the breakdown of those numbers demographically. Additionally, something like 90% of Sander supporters will vote for Clinton in order to not get Trump in office. So I think that eventually you'll see the Dems come together and Clinton's numbers begin to rise again. I don't think it'll be needed, but if unifying the party becomes a serious issue, Obama's clout can likely unify Democratic voters for Clinton.

[BDKJMU]

It'll be fine on the Dem side. Same thing happened in 2008 and that was a fiercer campaign.

Polls this early basically show a snapshot in time. Trump has no more opposition and his opponents' voters are finally coming around to his side. Clinton is waging a battle on two sides right now, so her numbers are going to be worse. Both Trump/Sanders are bashing her and Sanders supporters are in the "backlash" phase as she nears clinching the nomination. Once it sinks in, they'll come around as well.

Overall, the numbers people should focus on right now is how liked each candidate is, and the breakdown of those numbers demographically. Additionally, something like 90% of Sander supporters will vote for Clinton in order to not get Trump in office. So I think that eventually you'll see the Dems come together and Clinton's numbers begin to rise again. I don't think it'll be needed, but if unifying the party becomes a serious issue, Obama's clout can likely unify Democratic voters for Clinton.

Nope. 25% of them in an poll have said they will not vote for Hillary. Heck, in a more recent poll 20% said they'd vote for Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... ome-clues/

[kalm]

It'll be fine on the Dem side. Same thing happened in 2008 and that was a fiercer campaign.

Polls this early basically show a snapshot in time. Trump has no more opposition and his opponents' voters are finally coming around to his side. Clinton is waging a battle on two sides right now, so her numbers are going to be worse. Both Trump/Sanders are bashing her and Sanders supporters are in the "backlash" phase as she nears clinching the nomination. Once it sinks in, they'll come around as well.

Overall, the numbers people should focus on right now is how liked each candidate is, and the breakdown of those numbers demographically. Additionally, something like 90% of Sander supporters will vote for Clinton in order to not get Trump in office. So I think that eventually you'll see the Dems come together and Clinton's numbers begin to rise again. I don't think it'll be needed, but if unifying the party becomes a serious issue, Obama's clout can likely unify Democratic voters for Clinton.

Nope. 25% of them in an poll have said they will not vote for Hillary. Heck, in a more recent poll 20% said they'd vote for Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... ome-clues/

And I think that number could still grow.

Sanders is WAY ahead of Clinton in a head to head with Trump. Clinton is in serious trouble...even without the legal problems.

[GannonFan]

Nope. 25% of them in an poll have said they will not vote for Hillary. Heck, in a more recent poll 20% said they'd vote for Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... ome-clues/

And I think that number could still grow.

Sanders is WAY ahead of Clinton in a head to head with Trump. Clinton is in serious trouble...even without the legal problems.

She's basically disappeared as of late as well, you don't see her or stories on her much lately. I think she's hoping to keep a low profile until she has clinched the nomination and then hope that people forget the string of losses late in the campaign and the issues with voting that cropped up in many states that always seemed to help her. Not sure if that will be enough to appease the Bernie folks, though. Trump could very well end up being the preferred option for some of those folks.

[CID1990]

Those pie charts are wishful thinking for Bernie fans.

The bottom line is that come November, the lefties are going to faithfully line up and vote for Hillary (and then they'll go back to complaining about corporate owned government)

And the righties will line up and faithfully vote for Trump (and then go back to complaining about BIG government)

And the electoral math (which favors the Democrats when the country is 50/50) will deliver the election to Hillary/

[houndawg]

You're overthinking, John. Granted that's easy for you to do.... What you fail to grasp is the hate out there for all things Hillary. The wackjobs of your ilk will vote for Trump, but the vast majority of votes he receives will be votes against Hillary. I shouldn't need to point this out to you.

There is no doubt that there are plenty of people on the "right" who would vote against Hillary no matter what. But I think what's going on with Sanders right now is creating such a sentiment on the left. And Sanders has been ginning it up.

Look, I don't really care if it's Hillary or Bernie. In fact I've written before that if I were the Democrats I would strongly consider Bernie because he's WAY ahead of Trump in the polls and doesn't have the baggage. But it's pretty clear that Bernie is not going to get the majority of the popular vote in the Democrat Party. Along with that we have the Real Clear Politics average of polls for who Democrats want and Clinton is up by 8.6 percentage points over Sanders. She's up 9.5 percentage points in the average of California polls and 17 percentage points in the New Jersey polls.

For better or for worse, she's going to be the Democrat nominee and it's not going to be because the process was rigged. It's going to be because she's going to win a substantial majority of the popular votes in the Democratic Party primaries.

What Sanders is doing is doing nothing but helping Trump. He needs to stop.

It isn't clear at all John. The reason it isn't clear is because this election will be decided by independents, and Hillary doesn't have them. Bernie does and the super delegates are going to have to decide if they want to win with Bernie or be in a nail biter with a candidate who has about a 50/50 chance of beating Trump. Don't change the station yet, this ain't over.

[houndawg]

There is no doubt that there are plenty of people on the "right" who would vote against Hillary no matter what. But I think what's going on with Sanders right now is creating such a sentiment on the left. And Sanders has been ginning it up.

Look, I don't really care if it's Hillary or Bernie. In fact I've written before that if I were the Democrats I would strongly consider Bernie because he's WAY ahead of Trump in the polls and doesn't have the baggage. But it's pretty clear that Bernie is not going to get the majority of the popular vote in the Democrat Party. Along with that we have the Real Clear Politics average of polls for who Democrats want and Clinton is up by 8.6 percentage points over Sanders. She's up 9.5 percentage points in the average of California polls and 17 percentage points in the New Jersey polls.

For better or for worse, she's going to be the Democrat nominee and it's not going to be because the process was rigged. It's going to be because she's going to win a substantial majority of the popular votes in the Democratic Party primaries.

What Sanders is doing is doing nothing but helping Trump. He needs to stop.