If Hillary carries Texas, unicorns will frolic in the bluebells. Mortal enemies will clasp each other fiercely, blubbering forgiveness and swearing brotherhood. Willy Nelson will be confirmed as the first official Texas Commissioner of Marijuana. High school football will be forgotten, replaced by hacky-sack and drum circles.
Groovy.
Bolding is mine.
Methinks you mean bluebonnets. Unless the unicorns you have in mind enjoy frolicking in ice cream.
And it’s Wille Nelson, not Willy. Just sayin’.
Willie
My current best guess as to how things will turn out in the Electoral College.
From your keyboard to God’s eyes.
My own prediction doesn’t have Hillary winning AZ, NV, IA, NC, OH or FL. I only give her a state if Nate Silver’s “Polls Only” prediction gives her an 80% chance of winning it. I’m a worst-case-scenario kind of guy. Luckily, under those conditions, she still currently wins 273-265. NH was the last state to go over 80%, and it was the state that broke the 269-269 tie.
I don’t give her AZ, NC, or IA either. I have no idea what OH, PA, and to a lesser extent WI and MI will do because they have a lot of unknowns about voter turnout (namely, how much disaffected whites will really turn out for Trump when they did not for other GOP candidates.)
It could still come down to Florida. If Hillary loses OH AND PA then Trump needs either Florida or two middle sized states such as MI and WI.
Based on the last several weeks polling, PA is pretty much out of reach for Trump. It’s been consistently around +8-10 or so for Hillary. FL is moving closer to out of reach, and is about +5 to +9 for Hillary.
There is a wildflower known as the Texas bluebell aka Eustoma russellianum.
All the polls say Trump is going to lose, but I am just not entirely convinced of that yet. This article presents a different angle and one worth reading. In his words, Hillary Clinton will lose because “Hillary Clinton is crap TV.”
And I did not need to read further.
Yes he is talking about how popular trash is on TV, but the thing is that you are still ignoring that while Trump was winning among Republicans with his trash, the American people on the whole was rejecting him. And I base that on the matching polls of then, that while not reliable then for predicting who will win in a general election, they were good enough IMO to show what the whole of America was seeing on El Trompo while at the same time when he was creaming the lesser Republicans.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
Many are indeed rejecting Donald Trump (for now), but many are also rejecting Hillary Clinton. I agree that Trump is a long shot, but I don’t think he can be completely written off yet, either.
I think it’s certainly easy to undercut the argument that American voters are going to elect Trump in 2016 because of their addiction to trash TV, but I think it is definitely within the realm of possibility that Trumpism lingers and even widens the rest of the cycle and even after the race.
I don’t think Trump will win, but I definitely see a path for Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho in the future.
Of course, but it is more likely that Trump could win by becoming complacent. I will not become one until after November 8th. And so should all Americans that do now know about how radically incompetent Trump is.
My concern is that people have been saying Trump can’t win for, what, 18 months now? So far he has been proving them wrong. He looks down now but if people get complacent he might make a come-back. I won’t feel comfortable until after the recount*.
The poll numbers during primary season were mostly correct. People thought Trump couldn’t win because they thought the Republican base had two brain cells to rub together. Silly them.
However I agree about the dangers of complacency. I bet there are some really great ads in the pipeline. I can imagine some from the small business owners Don the Con ripped off. Or from satisfied Trump U students.
No question that it is far from impossible for Trump to win, whether it be by complacency or by a Clintonian unforced error. No guards down until the election is long over with a metaphoric stake through the heart of the beast with its ashes scattered across the seas. And even then.
That said Wang today updated his model deciding that this election has adequately declared its polling S.D. to be in the 1996 - 2012 pattern rather than the 1952 - 1996 pattern, meaning 2/3s likely to stay within 3% of current polling rather than 2/3s likely to stay within 6% of current polling. That puts his Bayesian prediction (his priors not being economic fundamentals but longer term polling averages) now to 95% probable a Clinton win. That seems reasonable to me given the state of current state polling. But clearly a one out of twenty chance is way to high rest easy with.
Trump’s percentage keeps on creeping up on all three of 538’s forecasts-- right now Polls Only has Clinton at 78.8% (after a peak of high 80s in early August), with Polls Plus at 73.5%. The Nowcast is at 77.6% for Clinton. Trump having a 1 in 4 chance of winning is [del]a little[/del] pretty fucking terrifying.
My state (Michigan) has gone from Clinton at 98+% to just north of an 80% chance.
Currently my EV estimator has a 269 tie.
What is wrong with people?!? How is this even this close?
It’s not. With Trump getting killed in the polling or at least fairly behind in a whole bunch of swing states that he needs a sweep in, I would trust Wang’s analysis, linked by DSeid above, far more than Nate Silver’s. Frankly, with Silver’s decision to publish his click-baity “now-cast” he’s fast losing my faith.
I gotta agree a little bit - read his 2012 analysis vs. his 2016 and the 2016 is definitely showier.
Sabato’s crystal ball lists no toss-ups and tallies it at 348-190 in Electoral votes Clinton over Trump. Even if Trump won all the “leans Dem” states on that map, he’s still short of 270.