WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
[quote]
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.

To me, Trump's victory means the end of democracy in America, so me turning out to be wrong in comparison seems trivial.

I'm not even voting for Trump but.. lulwut?

Hyperbole is not very helpful..

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

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.

I do agree with you that the path to victory will be narrow, but the fact that so many states could be in play is a scenario that many/most Dems never even considered, assuming that a Trump candidacy was a long shot and, even once that became clearly a reality, they just assumed he would be too unpalatable to the general electorate. All of a sudden, they are waking up to the reality that this is not going to be a slam dunk. And, according to NBC, Trump and Hillary are now statistically tied. All signs point to a swing states turf war, and that will get interesting, and nasty.

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.

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.

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

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.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

Nori wrote:
Can we all just agree that yvonne is a dumb cnt and call it a day?

I'm comfortable with that. I would add she is just too old to grasp the new reality.

No, I just refuse to drink the cultural kool-aid. Men do not belong in women's restroom/lockeroom/etc. The same people who complain about Obama and emails/privacy thinks nothing of privacy for women when she is most vulnerable.

Nori wrote:
Can we all just agree that yvonne is a dumb cnt and call it a day?

Yvonne wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/5190/5- ... dren-amanda-prestigiacomo

papadage wrote:
And it's a good thing. The more ignorance and bigotry is highlighted, argued against and ridiculed, the more awareness there is of the issue and the faster change occurs.

An occasional outspoken bigot like Yvonne is a good thing in that it provides an opposing voice.