Arizona - 11
Iowa - 6
Ohio - 18

Are actually projected to vote for Clinton, which results in Trump realistically getting 180 electoral votes.

All of these are actually states that lean seriously republican compared to the national average. Trump is currently in somewhat of a funk due to being about 7 points behind after all three debates, but this is pretty much his lowest point, overall he's pretty consistently been behind by around 4 points throughout the campaign. Given that he's respectively -1.3, +3.7, and +0.6 in Arizona, Iowa, and Ohio despite being -7 nationally, it's not at all implausible that he easily wins all three on election day, by which point his numbers will probably improve a bit nationally.

Yeah, Trump has a 3 in 1 million chance to win based on said math.

Your math is flawed, since you're calculating individual state probablities independently. In reality, most states are pretty well correlated with others, and fivethirtyeight actually made a pretty neat table on this:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ct9wTz5XEAAPn9p.jpg:large

So, for example, if he wins ohio, there is approximately an 84% chance that he will also win iowa. This is why most forecast models put his chances at around 10-20%, instead of the 0.0003% you calculated.

Basically trump has to improve his poll numbers a bit and there has to be a reasonable polling error in his favor, but it's definitely not impossible. There are still ~20 days until election day after all.

Edited 10/23/2016 18:16:24

Trump can definitely win.

@Ox, the election is rigged in multiple ways, there have been dead people registered to vote lol. Voter Fraud sure isn't helping Trump.

First off, how about that the government is counting all the votes? That's some voter fraud right there, not some distractions they try to pull like dead folk voting. And you don't have to think hard to realise that all folk die. Every registered voter in 1900 is likely dead now, you think that's voter fraud?

And you can't say that Trump is going to win and then say the vote is rigged against him.

Trump is a good guy.

Trump is a gross evil bloodthirsty loon.

Edited 10/23/2016 18:39:31

"All of these are actually states that lean seriously republican compared to the national average."

Kind of.

They lean republican for sure, I wouldn't say "seriously" perse. Oklahoma is more what I'd call seriously republican, akin to California being democrat.

"Given that he's respectively -1.3, +3.7, and +0.6 in Arizona, Iowa, and Ohio despite being -7 nationally, it's not at all implausible that he easily wins all three on election day"

I'm not saying these #'s are absolutely, 100% wrong, but I am curious where you're getting them from, as I'm personally seeing them be : -0.7, -0.4, -1.3, -6.5. You're citing him as ahead in Ohio and Iowa, I wouldn't.

I do agree however that calculating each state independently isn't particularly accurate, since if he performs well in a hypothetical debate, it can raise his votes in numerous states, not just a single one. Thus they will all fluctuate in a similar fashion, what raises his ratings in one region likely does so in all regions.

However calculating them all together like I did, doesn't seem particularly unfair were the election to be held today. I don't however think his chances are nearly as low as 3 in a million, because the election isn't today, which is why I specifically added: "based on said math".

At the same time, this is no Bush vs. Gore election, I don't think it's going to be remotely close, or too close to call ahead of time.

Edited 10/23/2016 18:46:40

Kind of.

They lean republican for sure, I wouldn't say "seriously" perse. Oklahoma is more what I'd call seriously republican, akin to California being democrat.

Some comparisons from 2012 are Montana (R+7), South Carolina (R+8), Mississippi (R+9), and Texas (R+10). While they indeed don't lean republican on the scale of states like Oklahoma (R+19) and Wyoming (R+22), they are on the level of most southern states in terms of republican leanings.

I'm not saying these #'s are absolutely, 100% wrong, but I am curious where you're getting them from, as I'm personally seeing them be : -0.7, -0.4, -1.3, -6.5. You're citing him as ahead in Ohio and Iowa, I wouldn't.

Numbers come from RealClearPolitics Polling averages:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/az/arizona_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6087.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5981.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5970.html

You can definitely get different numbers by weighting the data differently or including data from further back, but as of right now at least, he's definitely ahead in at least iowa and ohio. In ohio trump has lead two of the last five polls, wehreas clinton has lead one and the other two are tied, and in Iowa he's lead four of the last five polls and one has been tied.

However calculating them all together like I did, doesn't seem particularly unfair were the election to be held today. I don't however think his chances are nearly as low as 3 in a million, because the election isn't today, which is why I specifically added: "based on said math".

It's not just because the election is a while out though. Your math is off because for example, you calculated that:

"The chance for him to win Arizona, Iowa, and Ohio is only 8.7%. Add in Nevada, North Carolina, and Florida and that drops to 0.17%."

Whereas in reality, if he wins iowa, ohio, and arizona, there is an approximately 100% chance that he will also win florida and north carolina, not a 0.17% chance. The same applies further back as well, for example there is a very good chance that he will win arizona as well if he wins ohio and iowa, not an 8.7% one.

Edited 10/23/2016 19:38:39

"Whereas in reality, if he wins iowa, ohio, and arizona, there is an approximately 100% chance that he will also win florida and north carolina, not a 0.17% chance. The same applies further back as well, for example there is a very good chance that he will win arizona as well if he wins ohio and iowa, not an 8.7% one. "

This seems silly.

You're claiming if he wins states that show him as having 43.8%, 38.2%, and 43.3% chance to win in, that he's got a 100% chance to have also won states that show 24.6%, and 28.2%. That's obviously wrong.

If he wins the former it could be from him specifically campaigning in those specific states, and even if it isn't and it's the result of a upswing nation-wide, he'd still have to swing farther to win Florida and North Carolina than he would to win Iowa, Ohio, and Arizona.


"You can definitely get different numbers by weighting the data differently or including data from further back, but as of right now at least, he's definitely ahead in at least iowa and ohio. In ohio trump has lead two of the last five polls, wehreas clinton has lead one and the other two are tied, and in Iowa he's lead four of the last five polls and one has been tied. "

I agree that you can get different numbers from various sources, ut I don't agree that he's "definitely" ahead in Iowa and Ohio.

You linked sources that show him as being ahead, which is fine, but there's certainly also sources that show otherwise:

ie.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Ohio for example:
Polls-plus forecast shows him 0.8 points behind Clinton.
Polls-only puts him down by 1.7.
Now-cast puts him down by 1.3.

Can he win Ohio? Sure. Is he definitely ahead or the favorite to do so? I'd say that's much more of a grey area.

Stahp derailing pls does anyone else have a legitimate issue with any of these? And if you support another candidate and do not have an issue, ask yourself why you don't support Trump

This seems silly.

It's not. Fivethirtyeight, who you seem to be in love with (Hey, there's nothing wrong with that, I'm also a fan), wrote several articles about it:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-top-must-win-states-for-trump-and-clinton/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-north-carolina-is-becoming-a-backstop-for-clinton/

Are just two that come to mind.

I agree that you can get different numbers from various sources, ut I don't agree that he's "definitely" ahead in Iowa and Ohio.

You linked sources that show him as being ahead, which is fine, but there's certainly also sources that show otherwise:

All this really does is prove my point about taking the same data and coming up with a different result. If you actually look at the data they've collected, it definitely shows trump ahead. In ohio for example, He leads in 6 out of the last 10 polls they've collected, clinton leads 2, and there are 2 ties. It is only after a hefty amount of adjusting and weighting that they manage to show a clinton lead there. It's the same story pretty much everywhere else as well, which you can check yourself by sorting their polls by date and checking out the unadjusted numbers.

Term limits - Sounds good
Stop gov't growth - I doubt he'd do that
Eliminate regulation/executive orders - Good
Cut lobbyist power - Good
Withdraw from TPP, change NAFTA - change NAFTA how?
Other trade specifics - This is unspecific, ironically
Allow energy expansion - Sounds ok
Redirect UN climate change money - Good
Replace Scalia - Meh
Build the wall, keep out illegals - >when you build a wall but it collapses in the arroyos and illegals use ladders
Suspend immigration from terrorist hotspots - Nothing other presidents haven't done
Bring back business - Good
Lower taxes - Great
Rebuild infrastructure - Muh Roads
Revamp education system - Muh Schools
Create Crime Task Force - Why?
National security specifics - Unspecific
Clean up DC - Preferably with napalm

Create Crime Task Force - Why?

Duerte fanboys.

Stahp derailing pls does anyone else have a legitimate issue with any of these? And if you support another candidate and do not have an issue, ask yourself why you don't support Trump

Term limits (...)
Stop gov't growth (nice, although i will note that basically every single republican president since the new deal has said this and not actually done it)
Eliminate regulation/executive orders
(not sure what this is supposed to mean, but I seriously doubt he's going to eliminate executive orders as an executive power if that's what you're implying)
Cut lobbyist power (not sure how he would do this without more campaign finance restrictions, which come with their own set of problems)
Withdraw from TPP, change NAFTA (sigh...)
Other trade specifics (basically all of them bad. If there's one area where I vehemently disagree with him it's on trade)
Allow energy expansion (nice!)
Redirect UN climate change money (...)
Replace Scalia (not something unique to his campaign)
Build the wall, keep out illegals (what a waste of money)
Suspend immigration from terrorist hotspots (honestly a few terrorist attacks on the us a year aren't a threat, passing up the opportunity to have millions more citizens worth of economic growth is)
Bring back business (by which I suppose you mean kill competition and set america back a hundred years? Trust me, american workers are better off without these $900/year clothing manufacturing jobs that bangladeshis are currently doing)
Lower taxes (nice)
Rebuild infrastructure (interesting)
Revamp education system (...)
Create Crime Task Force (a national police force is absolutely terrifying, and we already have plenty of local police forces)
National security specifics (which ones?)
Clean up DC (...)

Stop gov't growth - I doubt he'd do that

Did you read the link? Not hiring new employees is a good way to cut down

Withdraw from TPP, change NAFTA - change NAFTA how?

He didn't say exactly what he would change to be fair, but in terms of method he would either leave or renegotiate.

Other trade specifics - This is unspecific, ironically
National security specifics - Unspecific

See link for more

Suspend immigration from terrorist hotspots - Nothing other presidents haven't done

Obama hasn't

Create Crime Task Force - Why?

Drugs mostly

---

Stop gov't growth (nice, although i will note that basically every single republican president since the new deal has said this and not actually done it)

He has a real plan tho, he won't hire any new employees

Eliminate regulation/executive orders
(not sure what this is supposed to mean, but I seriously doubt he's going to eliminate executive orders as an executive power if that's what you're implying)

For each new regulation, two go. And I meant Obama's illegal executive orders

Cut lobbyist power (not sure how he would do this without more campaign finance restrictions, which come with their own set of problems)

See link, mostly saying ppl can't go straight from gov't to lobbying

Build the wall, keep out illegals (what a waste of money)

lol yh dude preserving the nation state is a waste of money

Suspend immigration from terrorist hotspots (honestly a few terrorist attacks on the us a year aren't a threat, passing up the opportunity to have millions more citizens worth of economic growth is)

>implying millions is a lot
>implying it won't also help with preserving our culture
>implying refugees will expand economy
I kek'd

National security specifics (which ones?)

Read link.

For the trade issues, I see where you are coming from and mostly agree tbh, but we need to do something about losing manufacturing.

@ Imperator

Who Scalia replaces is not something the campaign share though.

He has a real plan tho, he won't hire any new employees

Honestly I'll believe it when I see it. As I said, previous republican presidents don't give me much hope.

For each new regulation, two go. And I meant Obama's illegal executive orders

As far as I can tell, presidents can pretty much do whatever they want with executive orders, not sure if obama has made any illegal ones though.

See link, mostly saying ppl can't go straight from gov't to lobbying

In that case, it's unconstitutional as a violation of the first amendment right to petition.

lol yh dude preserving the nation state is a waste of money

Right now birth rates in the US are unsustainable, more people are dying than are being born. The only way the us can continue to grow is through immigration. To be honest a lovely solution would be for everyone to have five or six children, but instead people decided it would be a great idea to only have 1.88 children. "Preserving the nation state" involves making sure there are actually people in the nation, and honestly I don't care if they're mexicans, syrians, chinese, irish, pakistani, or german, we need people, and since people are refusing to have enough children, immigration is looking like the way to fill future generations of americans with people.

>implying millions is a lot

6 million internally displaced syrians + 6 million displaced out of the country = 12 million dudes/women/children, or 3% of the current us population of 319 million. In other words yeah, it's a lot.

>implying it won't also help with preserving our culture

Hey, I'm up for shifting american culture to be more conservative by throwing a few conservative muslims into the mix.

>implying refugees will expand economy

3% more people would seem to logically add 3% more on to the economy, which would currently be about $510 billion, but even if they're all literally dirt poor and only manage to add 1% on, it's still $170 billion. And if you think that's a number to scoff at, please give me 170 billion dollars so that your unimaginable riches can actually be appreciated by someone.

For the trade issues, I see where you are coming from and mostly agree tbh, but we need to do something about losing manufacturing.

Not really, america is moving on to more lucrative jobs than sitting around all day making clothes, like no joke you can make literally 15x as much as the average bangladeshi worker by flipping burgers at mcdonalds (and this is considered a really low paying and embarrassing job by the way).

Edited 10/23/2016 21:59:30

Term limits - This is something that sounds nice, but inexperience is usually bad for the political process and term limits tend to restrict the ability of government to compromise. I'm against this.

Stop gov't growth - bit of a misrepresentation of his actual position. I'm not a huge fan of blanket hiring freezes, and I think his hiring freeze's exemptions make it a bit of an empty gesture, but I don't see anything else wrong with it.

Eliminate regulation/executive orders - I think his "eliminate regulation" stance is too extreme, and he says nothing about eliminatng executive orders, unless you mean cancelling Obama's executive orders, which one would expect from an opposition candidate.

Cut lobbyist power - Yes, please

Withdraw from TPP, change NAFTA - I'm ok with this.

Other trade specifics - I asume you're talking about him vaguely ordering departments to search for "abuses" and labelling China a currency manipulator. I really think this is just empty talk.

Allow energy expansion - Sounds like someone doesn't believe in climate change. I'm not a huge fan of this, as I think it would move our energy production in the wrong direction.

Redirect UN climate change money - I think we could fix the infrastructure without hurting the environment.

Replace Scalia - Should've been Garland, I don't always agree with Trump's judges, but I have nothing against them specifically and the spot needs to be filled.

Build the wall, keep out illegals - Hah. The wall is an impossible bad idea. I support removing the criminals and such, though.

Suspend immigration from terrorist hotspots - Already the case.

Bring back business - watch them prices rise. Basically a sales tax.

Lower taxes - Watch out for that deficit tho.

Rebuild infrastructure - Sure ("revenue neutral" XD)

Revamp education system - Why are tuition charging private schools going to be given government money that is taken away from free public schools? Thank god Common Core is gone, though.

Create Crime Task Force - If it was free, go for it. Since it isn't this is a resounding meh, ok.

National security specifics - Lots of money spent here.

Clean up DC - Really unspecific. Would like to see an actual plan before I judge this.

I'm up for shifting american culture to be more conservative by throwing a few conservative muslims into the mix.

As those wiser than me say, "A muslim is not an infidel.". And America's culture is deeply rooted in infideality tshhh

Edited 10/23/2016 22:15:44

The thing is, Reagan wanted to limit government size too. Did he do it? Not exactly. And Trump is trying to emulate Reagan, so I could see the same process being repeated here.

3% more people would seem to logically add 3% more on to the economy, which would currently be about $510 billion, but even if they're all literally dirt poor and only manage to add 1% on, it's still $170 billion. And if you think that's a number to scoff at, please give me 170 billion dollars so that your unimaginable riches can actually be appreciated by someone.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

170 billion/ 12 million = $14,166

But where does that $14,166 come from exactly...?

I mean, as it is, 47% of the US is already on some form of welfare.

And it's not like we don't have enough people to fill up the jobs. If the governmeny forced people to move away from the shore (which is overpopulated) into other more inland/ north central areas (where there are jobs) we could give everyone in America jobs.

Some of the economical problems America is facing come from people living in the wrong part of the country.

As far as I can tell, presidents can pretty much do whatever they want with executive orders, not sure if obama has made any illegal ones though.

If that were true they would just be dictators. Obama has made plenty of illegal ones

Right now birth rates in the US are unsustainable, more people are dying than are being born. The only way the us can continue to grow is through immigration. To be honest a lovely solution would be for everyone to have five or six children, but instead people decided it would be a great idea to only have 1.88 children. "Preserving the nation state" involves making sure there are actually people in the nation, and honestly I don't care if they're mexicans, syrians, chinese, irish, pakistani, or german, we need people, and since people are refusing to have enough children, immigration is looking like the way to fill future generations of americans with people.

1. Population loss is not a huge issue compared to the downfall of the West, due to mechanisation and robots. 2. Nation-states by definition cannot be multi-cultural, you cuck.

6 million internally displaced syrians + 6 million displaced out of the country = 12 million dudes/women/children, or 3% of the current us population of 319 million. In other words yeah, it's a lot.

I meant millions of dollars in economic growth. Also, do you really expect refugees to be as productive as whites in America?

Hey, I'm up for shifting american culture to be more conservative by throwing a few conservative muslims into the mix.

Shitpost discarded

Opinion on Trump's Manifesto (point by point):
1) Good idea in practice, but seems more like a political ploy to take down old and powerful Democratic Congressmen (not referring to all Democrats, and this would also affect Republicans).
2) Stalin does not approve of stealing his ideas.
3) Quite arbitrary.
4) Violation of 1st Amendment, technically.
5) Sure, although could just be a political tool to remove dissent from high ranking positions.
6) Sure.
7) Just because someone intends to do something doesn't think they will do it. On the plan to renegotiate NAFTA, I would rather stick with the current plan.
8) Eh... no comment.
9) We do trade with China.. so labeling China as a currency manipulator would not be the best move.
10) So many diplomatic repercussions.
11) Meh. Oil could be very profitable, but green energy would be much more beneficial in the long run- climate change or not.
12) Sure, but tax profits to promote more green energy.
13) Diplomatic repercussions...
14) It is a matter of perspective on what to change. It could be argued that all orders were constitutional.
15) Let Obama select it...
16) No. They do not have a huge effect on crime.
17) Good luck with displacing two million people by having 58 immigration courts.
18) Already done.
19) Not well versed in economics, so no comment.
20) No comment
21) Expensive and very time-consuming
22) No comment
23) Would rather trust govt. with healthcare than companies.
24) "
25) No. Building a wall would be very costly to try and stop the supply of immigration. Rather, the US should give aid to the governments in the region in order to try and improve the conditions in the region.
26) No. Current police forces are sufficient.
27) "What's that in the distance?" "Oh, that's the growing American deficit"
28) The Great Purge (Michael Bay Edition) is upon us!

If that were true they would just be dictators

Well, we did have a dictator, his name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. You could probably say Woodrow Wilson was too, on account of a stroke possibly being what took him out of the race instead of him serving two terms.

Also, do you really expect refugees to be as productive as whites in America?

If you refuse to give them welfare, they probably will be. Then they'll have to work for a living, instead of being able to leech off the leech.