Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

I'll look. Though a quick look at 1824 shows Henry Clay got Ohio with like 38%

And he would have lost if he had only gotten 35%.  I know it might sound pedantic to say 38.5% is more then 35% but it's actually a pretty significant difference when you are talking about a three way split.  It's the difference between a 1.67% wiggle room and a 5.17% wiggle room.  So it's actually tripling the margin that you have to play around with.

[RedKing]

... apparently, in reaction to those single gender poll maps 538 did, trump supporters are now spreading #RepealThe19th. I'd like to think it's just poe/trolls, but. This election.

This goddamn election.

I...wha.....THE HELL?

Future Trumpeter hashtags:
#BringBackSlavery
#PenalColoniesAreGreat
#SendPoorPeopleToAustralia

[Egan_BW]

replace austrailia with the moon and I'd tweet that

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I could honestly see Trump saying he wants debtors prisons back to pay off the deficit and instill fiscal responsibility in young people.

[smjjames]

I'll look. Though a quick look at 1824 shows Henry Clay got Ohio with like 38%

And he would have lost if he had only gotten 35%.  I know it might sound pedantic to say 38.5% is more then 35% but it's actually a pretty significant difference when you are talking about a three way split.  It's the difference between a 1.67% wiggle room and a 5.17% wiggle room.  So it's actually tripling the margin that you have to play around with.

The closest I can find in any of those I linked is Teddy Roosevelt with 36.5. Looked at 1824 and that one is, well, complicated, because Jackson and Adams split the electors in a couple states.

Actually, Lincolin got California with 32%, but then, it was aided by the Democrats being split between Northern and Southern Democrats, plus a significant 'third party' vote. So, it's possible to get there, just requires the amount of vote splitting seen in 1860 or 1912.

Also, I want to correct myself, Roosevelt got 35.22% in Washington. in 1912.

We'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out,

[mainiac]

Also, I want to correct myself, Roosevelt got 35.22% in Washington. in 1912.

Washington 1912 is actually pretty close to what it would need to look like for Clinton to swing Utah.  Although there was actually a fifth candidate there because the Prohibition candidate got 3% of the vote and I doubt Jill Stein is gonna swing that in Utah.

There is a bit of a problem with the comparison.  Roosevelt was one of three left wing candidates splitting the vote (Roosevelt, Wilson, Debs).  Whereas Clinton would be the only left wing candidate while there are three right wing candidates.  So it's a different dynamic.

Still, very interesting comparison.  But now, the million dollar question.  Do you think a Washington 1912 situation is a high enough probability to factor into the 25% odds that Clinton had on that website?

[Mephansteras]

Well, there is the portion of voters that will vote Clinton over Trump because they know no other candidate has a chance to win. That could factor in. It's not like McMahn has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election nationwide.

No idea how big a factor that is, but you only need a few % to do that.

[smjjames]

Well...... if the Utah numbers really are an accurate picture of the Utah electorate as a whole (I'd prefer a bigger sample size), it's not impossible. Outside of Utah though, we'd need more data because Utah seems to be the only one paying attention to the possible McMullin insurgency. McMullin and Johnson combined are certainly going to chip away at Trump's numbers.

Well, there is the portion of voters that will vote Clinton over Trump because they know no other candidate has a chance to win. That could factor in. It's not like McMahn has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election nationwide.

No idea how big a factor that is, but you only need a few % to do that.

Except that there are some people who will ABSOLUTELY NOT vote Clinton, no matter what and yet, are disgusted with Trump and won't vote for him. Even if McMahn or McMillen or whatever has a snowballs chance in hell of winning nationwide, he'd still be a viable outlet for those people.

You're assuming a typical election year, but this year isn't your typical election year.

[mainiac]

Well, there is the portion of voters that will vote Clinton over Trump because they know no other candidate has a chance to win. That could factor in.

I guess it depends on how well they understand the subtle points of the election.  Normally it is either a choice of Clinton or Trump.  But Utah looks like it might be an exception because McMullin could win there.  It's not the most electoral votes wins, you need a majority.

[Neonivek]

I am not lying when I say this but...

Sometimes I want Trump to win... specifically to sort of teach the USA a lesson.

Because this feels like one of those instances where until someone falls into the hole... no one will patch it up.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We're back to the odds of a Trump victory being around the odds of losing a round of Russian Roulette...

[Egan_BW]

I'll take those odds! Someone pass the gun...

[Max™]

Think he'd know you're not supposed to play that game with an M1911?

Also, there's no real hole to plug here, the idea of a fat little sheltered richboy piece of shit with zero consistency, understanding of realities, political or otherwise, and literally diametrically opposed views to the ones of a given party ending up being taken seriously and winding up representing said party in the actual election isn't the sort of thing you can prepare for until it has happened at which point you can stop and say "hey, look, this is actually something that happened now" or otherwise you have to go into really ridiculous contortions.

"Okay, we're in a post-Trump world now, so we need to take seriously the possibility that someone could run on a platform based around their claim that they used crystal energies to channel the spiritual vibrations of Adolph Hitler and Ghandi, and this has allowed them to come up with a 4 point plan for America and wind up winning their party convention."

[Neonivek]

I find it weird when people defend Trump based off of his Business skills.

Which if anyone knew his business history would immediately take that back.

This is also ignoring that as a business man he is also an immoral monster...

Seriously how does he have such a good reputation as a business man?

[Sergarr]

I find it weird when people defend Trump based off of his Business skills.

Which if anyone knew his business history would immediately take that back.

This is also ignoring that as a business man he is also an immoral monster...

Seriously how does he have such a good reputation as a business man?

Same way Clinton has the reputation of being "as corrupt as a single person could be", even though she's hilariously uncorrupted compared to basically every politician from Russia - unsubstantiated allegations, when repeated often enough, become "obvious truth". And Trump sure loves to repeat that "he's a winner with winning attitude who always wins".