Where do you get that 99% figure? It looks to me like she’s winning about 80% of the runs. That’s what his topline number means, after all.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I simply meant that the OP’s thread title is technically accurate no matter WHAT happens, because every time Nate runs his models, there are always at least a FEW “Donald wins” results. Neither 80% nor 99% is 100%.
I blame this on modern English’s near absence of a subjunctive mood. I should have written:
Right – technically, Nate would be telling us “Trump could win…” even if Hillary were winning 99% of the 20,000 runs (using any of his three models).
According to that poll, Hillary’s crushing Trump among women, 61-28, while losing men, 48-37.
Every now and then, I think, “you know, we men have fucked things up long enough, maybe we should just hand the keys over to women and let them run things for awhile.”
This would be one of those times.
Could you give a for-instance of when Obama wasn’t willing to share credit in order to get a bill through Congress?
Another way to state this is to point out how Obama was sometimes most successful when he DIDN’T push hard for something – in other words, whether by accident or design, let the Republicans pretend it was their idea. Andrew Sullivan writes in the current New York (page 52) that two cultural/legal issues – same-sex marriage, and legal marijuana – evolved surprisingly quickly. “Why were these two issues different from all the others? Notably, Obama never campaigned for either.”
More notable, I would think, is the fact that those two issues did not move through Congress at all. Movement on marijuana has been driven by state ballot initiatives and SSM through the courts.
Ah, gotcha, and here I was getting my hopes up that there was some double-secret projection on 538 that really did say 99%.
Mmmmm… Other than strengthening the resolve (and turnout) of Anti-Trump voters, I doubt it. Trump went after white women and became an indefensible sexual predator (thus the general theme of ‘protecting our wives and daughters’). I seriously doubt there’d be a similar defense of minorities by the Republican Party.
You really think Trump being caught on tape using a racial slur wouldn’t be a seismic event?
The racism underpinning (much of) the GOP voting bloc exists largely because it remains screened behind a veil of still-barely-plausible deniability. A revelation like this would force everyone in the GOP to either abandon, or justify supporting, an undeniably bigoted presidential candidate. Good luck passing that off as “locker room talk.”
Seriously, though, I’m guessing it could possibly hit, say, 92% (Polls Only) around Halloween.
He’d lose every black voter that planned to vote for him. I understand the four of them meet for coffee every Thursday.
:rolleyes:
He is apparently getting 7% of the black vote on last check. Somehow. It kinda boggles the mind the figure is even that high.
The non-racist GOPers have already headed for the lifeboats. Everyone still standing on the deck of the Trumptanic is a True Believer.
Nothing about race targets that race for Donald. It’s about the white people who have assured themselves that he isn’t racist. They can’t call him racist unless he says something they feel they would never say.
Nonracists aren’t even the target. Just less-racists. The ones that don’t think they are racist.
I was amazed that they were able to find a couple of “undecided” black voters for the debate audience, not to mention a Muslim.
I couldn’t wait to see Trump supporters like Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee try to “defend” Trump by saying things like “We’ve all called blacks ‘niggers’ in private; that’s just the kind of unguarded talk that just shouldn’t be made public.”
I figure if they included Nyarolathotep, the Crawling Chaos, in polls, running on a platform of Returning the Cosmos to the Void, Destroying All Souls in An Eternity of Torment, it’d get at least 10% of the vote.
7% of any demographic being stark raving nutters isn’t that surprising.
That’s just lynchin’ room talk.
:smack: