Atsushi wrote:
I'm saying that while it is possible that Trump can win, in order for him to win, he cannot make any mistake whatsoever. Everything has to work for him just right.

I'm saying that it is unlikely.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:

PA (20)
OH (18)
FL (29)
VA(13)
MI(16)
--------
96

I see what you are saying, but I have a hard time imagining Trump winning MI and PA based on overwhelming white voters he would have to win on top of Romney won 4 years ago (Romney beat Obama pretty decisively for white voters).

So I think the most generous estimate for him would be (in my opinion) is this:

OH (18)
FL (29)
VA(13)
--------
60

D: 272 vs. R: 266

Sure, if you add NH(4), he can win. But wining OH, FL, VA AND NH all together seems to be a tall order.

You should re-read what I wrote... If Trump wins OH, PA and FL, he wins. He doesn't need NH (which I don't think would be in play, anyway) but getting VA (tough, but doable) and MI (also tough, but he has pull there) would just be icing on the cake.

PA is doable for the same reason he has done so well all along: there is a very strong/large subset of blue collar, working class voters who are angry, frustrated and deeply distrustful of the political establishment. That's a demographic and sentiments into which he has tapped and if they come out for him in droves, PA is very much in play. In fact, if Trump is smart enough, he would try to draft Tom Ridge as his VP candidate: that choice would likely play very well in PA and get him the state.

Atsushi wrote:

PA (20)
OH (18)
FL (29)
VA(13)
MI(16)
--------
96

I see what you are saying, but I have a hard time imagining Trump winning MI and PA based on overwhelming white voters he would have to win on top of Romney won 4 years ago (Romney beat Obama pretty decisively for white voters).

So I think the most generous estimate for him would be (in my opinion) is this:

OH (18)
FL (29)
VA(13)
--------
60

D: 272 vs. R: 266

Sure, if you add NH(4), he can win. But wining OH, FL, VA AND NH all together seems to be a tall order.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

DtJcQdMf wrote:
I think Trump may swing Ohio if he recruits Kasich, the current governor there. That's 18 votes right there.

Yes, I agree. OH could turn red. But that's only 18 votes.

That's not nearly sufficient.

D: 332 vs. R: 206 (2012) --> D: 314 vs. R: 224 (2016)

Where else do you think Trump can win?

I just gave you five examples. If you take move the 49 votes from PA and FL, then things turn in Trump's favor 273 to 265. Since you are intent on basing this on the 2012 results, look at the map closely and it wouldn't take a lot for things to go in Trump's favor.

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

DtJcQdMf wrote:
I think Trump may swing Ohio if he recruits Kasich, the current governor there. That's 18 votes right there.

Yes, I agree. OH could turn red. But that's only 18 votes.

That's not nearly sufficient.

D: 332 vs. R: 206 (2012) --> D: 314 vs. R: 224 (2016)

Where else do you think Trump can win?

DtJcQdMf wrote:
I think Trump may swing Ohio if he recruits Kasich, the current governor there. That's 18 votes right there.

DtJcQdMf wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
I have to admit that I had underestimated Trump's political talent. He is perhaps as talented as Hitler was (not saying he is the new Hitler, but Hitler wasn't the Hitler until he became one, right?)

Everyone in American Mainstream should be scared of the fact that he "can" win in theory. He may even get more votes.

But anyone who predicts an outcome or the other without referencing the electoral map, doesn't know what they are talking about.

I often hear from my racist coworkers that Clinton is so crooked and that Trump will win decisively.

But when I ask them which states he is going to win where Romney lost 4 years ago, they usually give me a blank facial expression--as if they have never thought about it.

Let's remind ourselves of the basic facts:

There are 18 states (and DC) that D has won consistently since 1992 (6 cycles). They are the bluest of the blue states, and their total electoral votes are 242. That's only 28 votes away from winning 270. (Florida has 29 electoral votes.) So if Clinton hangs onto the states where D usually wins, all she has to win is FL. It doesn't matter where else Trump wins.

If you add 3 states that D won 5 out of 6 elections (IA, NM and NH), the total is 257, which is only 13 votes away from 270.

On the other hand, there are only 13 states that R has won consistently during the same period. The total of their electoral votes are only 102. Even if you add 5 states that R has won 5 out of 6 elections, it only reaches 158 (99 less than that of D).

So just because there are two candidates, it doesn't mean that their chance of winning is 50-50. D has a huge advantage because many blue states have larger number of electoral votes.

http://www.270towin.com/

http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-willi ... -map-looks-grim-for-trump

So those who predict Trump's victory in November, please show me what the electoral map would look like when he does indeed win.

When my racist coworkers are confronted by this fact, they usually don't believe it and start to express racial resentment.

I think Trump may swing Ohio if he recruits Kasich, the current governor there. That's 18 votes right there.

Atsushi wrote:
I have to admit that I had underestimated Trump's political talent. He is perhaps as talented as Hitler was (not saying he is the new Hitler, but Hitler wasn't the Hitler until he became one, right?)

Everyone in American Mainstream should be scared of the fact that he "can" win in theory. He may even get more votes.

But anyone who predicts an outcome or the other without referencing the electoral map, doesn't know what they are talking about.

I often hear from my racist coworkers that Clinton is so crooked and that Trump will win decisively.

But when I ask them which states he is going to win where Romney lost 4 years ago, they usually give me a blank facial expression--as if they have never thought about it.

Let's remind ourselves of the basic facts:

There are 18 states (and DC) that D has won consistently since 1992 (6 cycles). They are the bluest of the blue states, and their total electoral votes are 242. That's only 28 votes away from winning 270. (Florida has 29 electoral votes.) So if Clinton hangs onto the states where D usually wins, all she has to win is FL. It doesn't matter where else Trump wins.

If you add 3 states that D won 5 out of 6 elections (IA, NM and NH), the total is 257, which is only 13 votes away from 270.

On the other hand, there are only 13 states that R has won consistently during the same period. The total of their electoral votes are only 102. Even if you add 5 states that R has won 5 out of 6 elections, it only reaches 158 (99 less than that of D).

So just because there are two candidates, it doesn't mean that their chance of winning is 50-50. D has a huge advantage because many blue states have larger number of electoral votes.

http://www.270towin.com/

http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-willi ... -map-looks-grim-for-trump

So those who predict Trump's victory in November, please show me what the electoral map would look like when he does indeed win.

When my racist coworkers are confronted by this fact, they usually don't believe it and start to express racial resentment.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
I have to admit that I had underestimated Trump's political talent. He is perhaps as talented as Hitler was (not saying he is the new Hitler, but Hitler wasn't the Hitler until he became one, right?)

Everyone in American Mainstream should be scared of the fact that he "can" win in theory. He may even get more votes.

But anyone who predicts an outcome or the other without referencing the electoral map, doesn't know what they are talking about.

I often hear from my racist coworkers that Clinton is so crooked and that Trump will win decisively.

But when I ask them which states he is going to win where Romney lost 4 years ago, they usually give me a blank facial expression--as if they have never thought about it.

Let's remind ourselves of the basic facts:

There are 18 states (and DC) that D has won consistently since 1992 (6 cycles). They are the bluest of the blue states, and their total electoral votes are 242. That's only 28 votes away from winning 270. (Florida has 29 electoral votes.) So if Clinton hangs onto the states where D usually wins, all she has to win is FL. It doesn't matter where else Trump wins.

If you add 3 states that D won 5 out of 6 elections (IA, NM and NH), the total is 257, which is only 13 votes away from 270.

On the other hand, there are only 13 states that R has won consistently during the same period. The total of their electoral votes are only 102. Even if you add 5 states that R has won 5 out of 6 elections, it only reaches 158 (99 less than that of D).

So just because there are two candidates, it doesn't mean that their chance of winning is 50-50. D has a huge advantage because many blue states have larger number of electoral votes.

http://www.270towin.com/

http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-willi ... -map-looks-grim-for-trump

So those who predict Trump's victory in November, please show me what the electoral map would look like when he does indeed win.

When my racist coworkers are confronted by this fact, they usually don't believe it and start to express racial resentment.

Of course the election is all about the Electoral College. Who doesn't know that by now? But, your arbitrary date of 1992 paints a slanted view of recent history. You could just as easily move it back another 12 years to 1980 and end up with a different result: 9 election cycles, 5 won by 3 Republican candidates, with a combined 20 years in the White House, against 2 Democrat Presidents, with 16 years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Anyone that underestimates Trump is making a huge mistake. This election will likely be very close. Hate him or love him, the guy is a shrewd nascent politician and he has obviously tapped into a lot of voter anger and frustration.

Atsushi wrote:
I have to admit that I had underestimated Trump's political talent. He is perhaps as talented as Hitler was (not saying he is the new Hitler, but Hitler wasn't the Hitler until he became one, right?)

Everyone in American Mainstream should be scared of the fact that he "can" win in theory. He may even get more votes.

But anyone who predicts an outcome or the other without referencing the electoral map, doesn't know what they are talking about.

I often hear from my racist coworkers that Clinton is so crooked and that Trump will win decisively.

But when I ask them which states he is going to win where Romney lost 4 years ago, they usually give me a blank facial expression--as if they have never thought about it.

Let's remind ourselves of the basic facts:

There are 18 states (and DC) that D has won consistently since 1992 (6 cycles). They are the bluest of the blue states, and their total electoral votes are 242. That's only 28 votes away from winning 270. (Florida has 29 electoral votes.) So if Clinton hangs onto the states where D usually wins, all she has to win is FL. It doesn't matter where else Trump wins.

If you add 3 states that D won 5 out of 6 elections (IA, NM and NH), the total is 257, which is only 13 votes away from 270.

On the other hand, there are only 13 states that R has won consistently during the same period. The total of their electoral votes are only 102. Even if you add 5 states that R has won 5 out of 6 elections, it only reaches 158 (99 less than that of D).

So just because there are two candidates, it doesn't mean that their chance of winning is 50-50. D has a huge advantage because many blue states have larger number of electoral votes.

http://www.270towin.com/

http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-willi ... -map-looks-grim-for-trump

So those who predict Trump's victory in November, please show me what the electoral map would look like when he does indeed win.

When my racist coworkers are confronted by this fact, they usually don't believe it and start to express racial resentment.

Atsushi wrote:

When my racist coworkers are confronted by this fact, they usually don't believe it and start to express racial resentment.

Atsushi wrote:
I have to admit that I had underestimated Trump's political talent. He is perhaps as talented as Hitler...

135jc wrote:
Hillary has stonewalled all requests for info and has been able to get away with it starting with Benghazi. Emails aside I'd like to know the content of her speeches for which she was paid $21 million dollars. Do you think she really told the big banks and foreign govts she planned to come after them if elected?

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
i read two interesting articles about mr. trump today. the economist wrote that he routinely underpaid small businesses for work they did for him; it's called the trump discount. the financial times reported that mr. trump made disparaging remarks about native americans in an effort to protect his atlantic city casinos; the article also pointed out that he overspend on construction of these casinos and that they filed chapter 11.

how is trump a proven, successful businessperson?

Well, he took a loan of a couple million from his father and turned it into billions of dollars. Very successful.

I'm not surprised that you read "interesting" articles about Mr. Trump. The mass media is out to get him at every turn.

If Hillary was a Republican, the media would be giving us daily reminders that she was under an FBI investigation. Think the Christie Bridgegate coverage only 10x worse, since what Hillary did actually was a huge deal.

Trump's business record is not impressive at all. If he invested his inheritance in index funds instead, he'd have approximately 10 billion more (double the performance), with far less risk.

This is your leader?

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-you ... esting-than-donald-trump/

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
i read two interesting articles about mr. trump today. the economist wrote that he routinely underpaid small businesses for work they did for him; it's called the trump discount. the financial times reported that mr. trump made disparaging remarks about native americans in an effort to protect his atlantic city casinos; the article also pointed out that he overspend on construction of these casinos and that they filed chapter 11.

how is trump a proven, successful businessperson?

Well, he took a loan of a couple million from his father and turned it into billions of dollars. Very successful.

I'm not surprised that you read "interesting" articles about Mr. Trump. The mass media is out to get him at every turn.

If Hillary was a Republican, the media would be giving us daily reminders that she was under an FBI investigation. Think the Christie Bridgegate coverage only 10x worse, since what Hillary did actually was a huge deal.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Just because someone is a successful businessperson does not mean they are qualified to be a politician.

It's a crapshoot-some, like Corzine are disasters; others, like Bloomberg can turn out somewhat decent.

hero69 wrote:
Just because someone is a successful businessperson does not mean they are qualified to be a politician.

hero69 wrote:
i read two interesting articles about mr. trump today. the economist wrote that he routinely underpaid small businesses for work they did for him; it's called the trump discount. the financial times reported that mr. trump made disparaging remarks about native americans in an effort to protect his atlantic city casinos; the article also pointed out that he overspend on construction of these casinos and that they filed chapter 11.

how is trump a proven, successful businessperson?