It ain't over yet

[SLD]

Real Clear Politics is showing surprising strength in Trump's numbers in both Florida and Pennsylvania. He's behind in both states, but gaining. If he gets both, HRC could be in real trouble. And of course, Trump continues to hold a slim lead in Ohio despite all the negative press. While HRC can lose Florida and Ohio and still win about 272 EV's. She cannot afford to lose Pennsylvania as well as those other two states. If PA were to switch she would have to capture both North Carolina and Nevada where the polls are just too close to call, but seem to be leaning her way. Arizona is also a possibility.

But it ain't over - no matter how bad Trump screws up. It's a long way from over. Let's just hope he manages to say something really stupid next week. That would really help.

SLD

 

[bilby]

Real Clear Politics is showing surprising strength in Trump's numbers in both Florida and Pennsylvania. He's behind in both states, but gaining. If he gets both, HRC could be in real trouble. And of course, Trump continues to hold a slim lead in Ohio despite all the negative press. While HRC can lose Florida and Ohio and still win about 272 EV's. She cannot afford to lose Pennsylvania as well as those other two states. If PA were to switch she would have to capture both North Carolina and Nevada where the polls are just too close to call, but seem to be leaning her way. Arizona is also a possibility.

But it ain't over - no matter how bad Trump screws up. It's a long way from over. Let's just hope he manages to say something really stupid next week. That would really help.

SLD

Oh, come on.

What are the chances of Trump saying something stupid?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Real Clear Politics is showing surprising strength in Trump's numbers in both Florida and Pennsylvania. He's behind in both states, but gaining. If he gets both, HRC could be in real trouble. And of course, Trump continues to hold a slim lead in Ohio despite all the negative press. While HRC can lose Florida and Ohio and still win about 272 EV's. She cannot afford to lose Pennsylvania as well as those other two states. If PA were to switch she would have to capture both North Carolina and Nevada where the polls are just too close to call, but seem to be leaning her way. Arizona is also a possibility.

But it ain't over - no matter how bad Trump screws up. It's a long way from over. Let's just hope he manages to say something really stupid next week. That would really help.

SLD

Look, it is this simple, Texas can't possibly be at 2 to 5 pts and Trump wins.

The one thing going for Trump right now is he isn't on TV. So people are forgetting... again... that he is a fucking political idiot. Regardless, Clinton will win.

 

[bilby]

There are a LOT of people who have a vested interest in making everyone think this is a close contest, including (but not limited to) both major candidates and their campaign teams, pollsters, and the media.

This is not a close race. Hillary is going to win, and likely she will win by a bigger margin than the aggregated poll based forecasts such as 538 suggest.

The question now is not 'will she win', but 'will she get a massive landslide'.

There is a better chance of Clinton winning Texas than there is of Trump getting 270 EVs.

 

[TSwizzle]

But it ain't over - no matter how bad Trump screws up. It's a long way from over. Let's just hope he manages to say something really stupid next week. That would really help.

What a sad state of affairs US politics are in. But in any event, I can't recall Trump not saying anything stupid so I am not sure how him saying more stupid shit is going to help. How about the Democrats put up a candidate that is viable instead of relying on a the Republicans putting up a buffoon ?

 

[bilby]

But it ain't over - no matter how bad Trump screws up. It's a long way from over. Let's just hope he manages to say something really stupid next week. That would really help.

What a sad state of affairs US politics are in. But in any event, I can't recall Trump not saying anything stupid so I am not sure how him saying more stupid shit is going to help. How about the Democrats put up a candidate that is viable instead of relying on a the Republicans putting up a buffoon ?

Hillary is a fairly typical Democratic candidate. She is not noticeably less viable than Barack Obama, who also got painted as an nonviable candidate who would destroy the country if elected, and who nevertheless won twice against considerably less buffoonish opponents than Trump.

This is not a close contest, despite all the hype. All the people who are saying it is close, stand to gain from a public perception that it is close. Including both candidates.

 

[skepticalbip]

But it ain't over - no matter how bad Trump screws up. It's a long way from over. Let's just hope he manages to say something really stupid next week. That would really help.

What a sad state of affairs US politics are in. But in any event, I can't recall Trump not saying anything stupid so I am not sure how him saying more stupid shit is going to help. How about the Democrats put up a candidate that is viable instead of relying on a the Republicans putting up a buffoon ?

It is just a shame that ballots don't allow a "None of the above" choice. My ideal system would be that if "none of the above" got more votes than either candidate then the parties would have to start over with new (and hopefully better) candidates.

 

[bilby]

What a sad state of affairs US politics are in. But in any event, I can't recall Trump not saying anything stupid so I am not sure how him saying more stupid shit is going to help. How about the Democrats put up a candidate that is viable instead of relying on a the Republicans putting up a buffoon ?

It is just a shame that ballots don't allow a "None of the above" choice. My ideal system would be that if "none of the above" got more votes than either candidate then the parties would have to start over with new (and hopefully better) candidates.

It sounds like a good idea, until you realize that it could be a long time (if ever) before anyone got elected under such a system. No matter who the candidates are, more people will probably say they are all no good than would support any particular one of them - lots of people agree with Douglas Adams' assessment that anyone who actively wants to become president should be immediately disqualified.

When I was in college, Student Union ballots included a RON option (Re-Open Nominations), and many posts went un-filled for years as a result. This did not help with the smooth running of the union.

Of course, in principle you could keep the incumbent until a replacement is found, but in practice that is no different from abolishing term limits and adding the incumbent to the ballot - and it is of no use when the office is vacant due to the death or retirement of the incumbent.

 

[TSwizzle]

It is just a shame that ballots don't allow a "None of the above" choice. My ideal system would be that if "none of the above" got more votes than either candidate then the parties would have to start over with new (and hopefully better) candidates.

Indeed, I wish there was such a box to tick. I voted for Libertarian (Gary Johnson) which I view as the same thing as "none of the above". But since we don't really vote for a president it doesn't really matter anyway.

 

[skepticalbip]

It is just a shame that ballots don't allow a "None of the above" choice. My ideal system would be that if "none of the above" got more votes than either candidate then the parties would have to start over with new (and hopefully better) candidates.

It sounds like a good idea, until you realize that it could be a long time (if ever) before anyone got elected under such a system. No matter who the candidates are, more people will probably say they are all no good than would support any particular one of them - lots of people agree with Douglas Adams' assessment that anyone who actively wants to become president should be immediately disqualified.

When I was in college, Student Union ballots included a RON option (Re-Open Nominations), and many posts went un-filled for years as a result. This did not help with the smooth running of the union.

Of course, in principle you could keep the incumbent until a replacement is found, but in practice that is no different from abolishing term limits and adding the incumbent to the ballot - and it is of no use when the office is vacant due to the death or retirement of the incumbent.

There are several methods of taking care of that "problem" such as the Senate could appoint an interim president to handle the office until another election (a bit like the PM is selected in parliamentary systems). Interim Senate seats could be appointed like we do when a Senator dies in office, by selection of the state legislature or Governor in some states.

Though I do tend to agree with Douglas Adams.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Trump is toast. It won't be close.

 

[Deepak]

It is just a shame that ballots don't allow a "None of the above" choice. My ideal system would be that if "none of the above" got more votes than either candidate then the parties would have to start over with new (and hopefully better) candidates.

You can submit a blank ballot which is effectively a none of the above. I do this in some local elections when I don't like a candidate who is running unopposed.

 

[skepticalbip]

It is just a shame that ballots don't allow a "None of the above" choice. My ideal system would be that if "none of the above" got more votes than either candidate then the parties would have to start over with new (and hopefully better) candidates.

You can submit a blank ballot which is effectively a none of the above. I do this in some local elections when I don't like a candidate who is running unopposed.

I do that too and sometimes even when there is opposition. However, it isn't the same as an official "none of the above" where the rules would be that if "none of the above" got more votes than either candidate then neither candidate is seated and new candidates need to be offered in a second election (sorta like a run off election but with fresh candidates). The way the election rules are now a real shit head that no one wants in office can be elected and seated even if no one voted for him but himself.

 

[Blackclaw]

It is just a shame that ballots don't allow a "None of the above" choice. My ideal system would be that if "none of the above" got more votes than either candidate then the parties would have to start over with new (and hopefully better) candidates.

It sounds like a good idea, until you realize that it could be a long time (if ever) before anyone got elected under such a system. No matter who the candidates are, more people will probably say they are all no good than would support any particular one of them - lots of people agree with Douglas Adams' assessment that anyone who actively wants to become president should be immediately disqualified.

Mr. Adams is right. Anyone thinking they can handle that much power is precisely the type of person that shouldn't have any. The people who would be best at the job are smart enough not to want it.

That's why we should implement my idea of kipnapping the most qualified candidates. A secret cabal, headed by me of course, selects two candidates who can actually do the job. We kidnap them, the people vote, and the winner is held for 4 years of servititude.

My first pairing will be Colin Powell verses Elon Musk. Colin comes across as a reasonable black man. Elon is basically Tony Stark with serious birth certificate issues. It's everything Americans look for in an election.

 

[Bronzeage]

But it ain't over - no matter how bad Trump screws up. It's a long way from over. Let's just hope he manages to say something really stupid next week. That would really help.

What a sad state of affairs US politics are in. But in any event, I can't recall Trump not saying anything stupid so I am not sure how him saying more stupid shit is going to help. How about the Democrats put up a candidate that is viable instead of relying on a the Republicans putting up a buffoon ?

A little late for that.

Are you certain you can't recall Trump saying something stupid? Can you recall him saying something smart?

 

[Elixir]

Are you certain you can't recall Trump saying something stupid? Can you recall him saying something smart?

Please re-read - "I can't recall Trump not saying anything stupid"

Neither can I. Cracked me up when I first saw that...

 

[SLD]

Real Clear Politics is showing surprising strength in Trump's numbers in both Florida and Pennsylvania. He's behind in both states, but gaining. If he gets both, HRC could be in real trouble. And of course, Trump continues to hold a slim lead in Ohio despite all the negative press. While HRC can lose Florida and Ohio and still win about 272 EV's. She cannot afford to lose Pennsylvania as well as those other two states. If PA were to switch she would have to capture both North Carolina and Nevada where the polls are just too close to call, but seem to be leaning her way. Arizona is also a possibility.

But it ain't over - no matter how bad Trump screws up. It's a long way from over. Let's just hope he manages to say something really stupid next week. That would really help.

SLD

Look, it is this simple, Texas can't possibly be at 2 to 5 pts and Trump wins.

The one thing going for Trump right now is he isn't on TV. So people are forgetting... again... that he is a fucking political idiot. Regardless, Clinton will win.

I hear you, Jimmy. And certainly hope you're right.

But I just read this article: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/302956-polls-tighten-for-trump-clinton

Polls tightening with Florida going more and more for Trump. But he's still got a ways to go to catch up. And I do indeed hope he says something stupid. I was hoping that the video with him using the N word would come out, but no luck on that so far.

SLD

 

[Ford]

If I understand the electoral math properly, it isn't enough for Trump to take one or two toss-up states. He basically has to take all of them. Clinton has to take just one or two.

At the moment, Real Clear Politics has Clinton at 252 electoral votes, Trump at 126, and 160 up for grabs. If Trump takes both Florida and Pennsylvania, that puts him still 95 short of the 270 needed to win.

Or if by some stretch Trump manages to take every toss-up state except EITHER Florida or Pennsylvania, he still loses.

The site http://www.270towin.com/ is a bit more favorable to Trump, giving him (at the moment) 157 electoral votes with 123 still up for grabs. But again, if he wins all their toss-ups and loses...say...North Carolina (15 EVs) then it's "Madam President."

If this were a football game, Team Trump would be down by two touchdowns, deep in their own territory, and out of time outs with a minute left in regulation. Could they manage a hail Mary pass, an on-side kick, another hail Mary and a two point conversion to win the game? Possibly. But Trump's been throwing interceptions all season long.

 

[Warpoet]

If I understand the electoral math properly, it isn't enough for Trump to take one or two toss-up states. He basically has to take all of them. Clinton has to take just one or two.

At the moment, Real Clear Politics has Clinton at 252 electoral votes, Trump at 126, and 160 up for grabs. If Trump takes both Florida and Pennsylvania, that puts him still 95 short of the 270 needed to win.

Or if by some stretch Trump manages to take every toss-up state except EITHER Florida or Pennsylvania, he still loses.

Yep, this is it. And it's also worth noting that a swing this drastic, this late in the election after all the major public appearances are past us, would be unprecedented. I'm hesitant to underestimate the stupidity and masochism of the American electorate, but the idea of Trump actually turning the tide enough now, with under two weeks to go, and with almost 10 million people having already voted on trendlines that appear to favor the democrats, seems like a stretch to me.

 

[bilby]

If I understand the electoral math properly, it isn't enough for Trump to take one or two toss-up states. He basically has to take all of them. Clinton has to take just one or two.

At the moment, Real Clear Politics has Clinton at 252 electoral votes, Trump at 126, and 160 up for grabs. If Trump takes both Florida and Pennsylvania, that puts him still 95 short of the 270 needed to win.

Or if by some stretch Trump manages to take every toss-up state except EITHER Florida or Pennsylvania, he still loses.

Yep, this is it. And it's also worth noting that a swing this drastic, this late in the election after all the major public appearances are past us, would be unprecedented. I'm hesitant to underestimate the stupidity and masochism of the American electorate, but the idea of Trump actually turning the tide enough now, with under two weeks to go, and with almost 10 million people having already voted on trendlines that appear to favor the democrats, seems like a stretch to me.

When people are discussing Iowa, Arizona and Ohio as 'battleground states', it is pretty clear that Trump is toast.

It reminds me of something I vaguely recall hearing from a guy who was in the Soviet Union during the German Invasion of 1941. He said something along the lines of "I could tell things were not going well simply by reading the newspapers. Pravda was, of course, relentlessly upbeat; But I had some knowledge of geography, and each of our great victories over the fascists took place closer to Moscow than the last". Each of the states where Trump is fighting a close campaign is redder than the last. I'm sure that he will win in Alabama. Well, probably.