Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
That was followed immediately with:CNN wrote:Donald Trump's campaign manager Kellyanne Conway complained Wednesday his remarks about how Hillary Clinton "has to go to jail" are being taken "literally."
How does one take that figuratively? I can only imagine the self-loathing that is required to go on TV and try to defend this stupidity.Earlier Wednesday, Trump had said Clinton "has to go to jail" over her use of a private email server
Well, I hope you (and the polls) are right. I thought the whole point of this tangent was that they might be off, so citing more of them is circular reasoning. Mostly, I just can't fathom anyone being enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton.Defiant wrote:
There have been other polls that have shown the same kind of thing - that enthusiasm among Clinton supporters is higher than Trump supporters.
Well, sure, if we ignore the polls, anything might happen.Kraken wrote: Well, I hope you (and the polls) are right. I thought the whole point of this tangent was that they might be off, so citing more of them is circular reasoning.
Just keep in mind, if the bulk of the polls are wrong - and that's a possible, but very unlikely possibility - they're just as likely to be wrong in Trump's favor as they are in Clinton's favor.
If our election was based on a popular vote like the Brexit referendum, I would share your concern. I never thought I would say this, but thank God for the electoral college.tgb wrote:I'll believe the polls Nov. 9. There's still the possibility of a Brexit (or Tom Bradley)-like finish.
The Brexit polls were still showing a tight finish, and many were still within the margin of error. It's considered shocking in that the majority of the polls were showing a victory for Remainers, but it was WAY closer than this race is showing.tgb wrote:I'll believe the polls Nov. 9. There's still the possibility of a Brexit (or Tom Bradley)-like finish.
The Electoral College would be very unlikely to save us from President Trump. When the popular vote gets close, by and large so does the vote in the swing states. In fact, the main areas where Clinton is doing disproportionately well is in red areas (e.g., Texas, Georgia, etc.) where she's still likely to lose. As a result, as indicated in 538's models, Trump is more likely to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote, and vice versa.Carpet_pissr wrote:If our election was based on a popular vote like the Brexit referendum, I would share your concern. I never thought I would say this, but thank God for the electoral college.tgb wrote:I'll believe the polls Nov. 9. There's still the possibility of a Brexit (or Tom Bradley)-like finish.
Yup - as things stand now (with Clinton ahead by 7ish points on average, with that being mostly before Trump's bad third debate and bad following week), the polls would need to be off by a historic never-before level amount. That's *possible*, but super unlikely. Trump at this point basically needs probably two big anti-Clinton October Surprises *and* a big polling miss to have a chance.YellowKing wrote:The Brexit polls were still showing a tight finish, and many were still within the margin of error. It's considered shocking in that the majority of the polls were showing a victory for Remainers, but it was WAY closer than this race is showing.tgb wrote:I'll believe the polls Nov. 9. There's still the possibility of a Brexit (or Tom Bradley)-like finish.
The main reason for the Brexit switcheroo was that young voters didn't show up at the polls. I'd hope that in this country, by now, pollsters realize that young voters never show up and take that into consideration.
Nope. Voter ID laws were passed (and mostly struck down) in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, among others. Both are swing states (Pennsylvania less so this time). But Pennsylvania is also where Trump has been telling people at rallies to "monitor" the voting stations...Jaymann wrote:But isn't voter suppression mostly in the states controlled by bigots that will vote for Drumpf anyway? Though I suppose it could have an effect on Congress,
Unless I am reading something wrong, 538 shows an insurmountable lead in the EC poll votes (and polls plus forecast), compared to a rather tight race in the popular vote (if I am reading that wrong, please someone call me out and explain). Also, considering the controversial nature of Trump, I would expect this to be a year where more votes in the EC might choose to stray from the popular vote compared to historical norms.El Guapo wrote:The Electoral College would be very unlikely to save us from President Trump. When the popular vote gets close, by and large so does the vote in the swing states. In fact, the main areas where Clinton is doing disproportionately well is in red areas (e.g., Texas, Georgia, etc.) where she's still likely to lose. As a result, as indicated in 538's models, Trump is more likely to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote, and vice versa.Carpet_pissr wrote:If our election was based on a popular vote like the Brexit referendum, I would share your concern. I never thought I would say this, but thank God for the electoral college.tgb wrote:I'll believe the polls Nov. 9. There's still the possibility of a Brexit (or Tom Bradley)-like finish.
Right now, Clinton is leading by about six or seven polls, but if you look at the close swing states (NV, AZ, IA, FL, OH, NC, ME-2) she's winning by one to three points. If her lead shrunk by 4 points, and that was consistent everywhere, she'd be losing those state (or, if her lead shrunk by 2-3 points, but mostly occurred in the swing states). She'd still have a 2-3 point lead, and she'd have the barest win in the electoral college, but if she lost one more state anywhere, she'd lose that.Carpet_pissr wrote: Unless I am reading something wrong, 538 shows an insurmountable lead in the EC poll votes (and polls plus forecast), compared to a rather tight race in the popular vote (if I am reading that wrong, please someone call me out and explain).
538 shows about a 7 point Clinton lead (on average). That *is* a pretty insurmountable lead with so little time left (though not completely insurmountable). But the point is that if that vote lead evaporates, so will her electoral college lead. That's what happened when Clinton's post-convention lead fell apart in September - as her national polling lead disappeared she fell behind in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada, etc., and her "firewall states" (PA, CO) were getting close when her lead was down to a point or two. Because of course the national polling average is going to have a link to various state polling averages.Carpet_pissr wrote:Unless I am reading something wrong, 538 shows an insurmountable lead in the EC poll votes (and polls plus forecast), compared to a rather tight race in the popular vote (if I am reading that wrong, please someone call me out and explain). Also, considering the controversial nature of Trump, I would expect this to be a year where more votes in the EC might choose to stray from the popular vote compared to historical norms.El Guapo wrote:The Electoral College would be very unlikely to save us from President Trump. When the popular vote gets close, by and large so does the vote in the swing states. In fact, the main areas where Clinton is doing disproportionately well is in red areas (e.g., Texas, Georgia, etc.) where she's still likely to lose. As a result, as indicated in 538's models, Trump is more likely to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote, and vice versa.Carpet_pissr wrote:If our election was based on a popular vote like the Brexit referendum, I would share your concern. I never thought I would say this, but thank God for the electoral college.tgb wrote:I'll believe the polls Nov. 9. There's still the possibility of a Brexit (or Tom Bradley)-like finish.
From 538's polls-plus forecast:Carpet_pissr wrote:Unless I am reading something wrong, 538 shows an insurmountable lead in the EC poll votes (and polls plus forecast), compared to a rather tight race in the popular vote (if I am reading that wrong, please someone call me out and explain). Also, considering the controversial nature of Trump, I would expect this to be a year where more votes in the EC might choose to stray from the popular vote compared to historical norms.El Guapo wrote:The Electoral College would be very unlikely to save us from President Trump. When the popular vote gets close, by and large so does the vote in the swing states. In fact, the main areas where Clinton is doing disproportionately well is in red areas (e.g., Texas, Georgia, etc.) where she's still likely to lose. As a result, as indicated in 538's models, Trump is more likely to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote, and vice versa.
Clinton wins popular vote but loses Electoral College -- 5.3%
Trump wins popular vote but loses Electoral College -- 0.6%
Only about half of state laws require this (remember, there were faithless electors as recently as 2000, when one of the Democratic electors swapped the P and VP slots) and in some states it's only a fine (it would be really easy to get one side or the other to pay the fines for the elector).El Guapo wrote: And no, disloyal electoral college electors definitely would not save us from Trump. First, in general state law requires electoral college electors to vote however their state voted.
And that particular point is a very big deal this year. Normally being loyal to the candidate means being loyal to the party and vice versa, but that does not really hold true so much this year. At least a stronger case could be made this year than ever before (or at least in modern political history) to break with tradition.Defiant wrote:The bigger problem is that electors are usually selected to be loyal to the candidate (or at least, the party).
I could see a higher-than-normal number of Trump electors vote for Clinton if Clinton wins in a landslide. That would provide cover for any unbound electors who want to vote their conscience (and/or be on the winning side). But in that scenario, of course, it doesn't matter.Carpet_pissr wrote:And that particular point is a very big deal this year. Normally being loyal to the candidate means being loyal to the party and vice versa, but that does not really hold true so much this year. At least a stronger case could be made this year than ever before (or at least in modern political history) to break with tradition.Defiant wrote:The bigger problem is that electors are usually selected to be loyal to the candidate (or at least, the party).
That's really all I'm trying to do here. I'll take anything.El Guapo wrote: bring me any solace as someone terrified of Trump.
There are plenty more reasons to not be shitting your pants at the moment: (1) Clinton's up by a lot in the polling averages - more than Obama was ahead of Romney at this point, and at least comparable to Obama's lead over McCain - with very little time left; (2) with this margin, any polling errors (to be sufficient to change the outcome) would have to be historic first-ever type polling failures; (3) while you occasionally see a few polls showing Trump close or leading, they're pretty much all from places with a pro-Trump house effect this cycle; even where you see those, most of the time, when you look at the trend in that particular poll, it's in a pro-Clinton direction; (4) even if those polls worry you, there are at least as many showing Clinton blowout (double-digit win); and (5) there are at least as many reasons to think that Clinton may outperform her polling (better ground game, supporters who don't think the election is rigged, dispirited GOP anti-Trump voters) as there are to think that Trump would outperform rolls.Carpet_pissr wrote:That's really all I'm trying to do here. I'll take anything.El Guapo wrote: bring me any solace as someone terrified of Trump.
Yep. Just for comparison, Obama had about a 5-8 point lead in October/Early November.El Guapo wrote:at least comparable to Obama's lead over McCain
I think the Colombian peace treaty vote might be a better cautionary tale; it was favored 2:1. Turnout on election day was poor because the weather sucked and people felt sanguine about it passing.YellowKing wrote:The Brexit polls were still showing a tight finish, and many were still within the margin of error. It's considered shocking in that the majority of the polls were showing a victory for Remainers, but it was WAY closer than this race is showing.tgb wrote:I'll believe the polls Nov. 9. There's still the possibility of a Brexit (or Tom Bradley)-like finish.
The main reason for the Brexit switcheroo was that young voters didn't show up at the polls. I'd hope that in this country, by now, pollsters realize that young voters never show up and take that into consideration.
Measurably so...Kraken wrote:Still, it's a non-zero probability.
Clinton's lead (in getting to 270) is *substantial*. Not insurmountable. But *almost* insurmountable.Max Peck wrote:Anyone who reads 538 as saying that Clinton's lead is "insurmountable" is indeed reading it wrong.
Great...back to biting my fingernails until the election. Those are indeed much worse odds than I was hoping for at this stage.Max Peck wrote: It's slightly more likely than rolling a 1 on a d8.
I was riffing on the use of a black-and-white term like "insurmountable" when referring to anything on 538 -- they're statisticians, they bend over backwards to avoid that sort of thing.RunningMn9 wrote:Clinton's lead (in getting to 270) is *substantial*. Not insurmountable. But *almost* insurmountable.Max Peck wrote:Anyone who reads 538 as saying that Clinton's lead is "insurmountable" is indeed reading it wrong.
Yeah, as gamers we all know that 1 always comes up at the worst possible time.Carpet_pissr wrote:Great...back to biting my fingernails until the election. Those are indeed much worse odds than I was hoping for at this stage.Max Peck wrote: It's slightly more likely than rolling a 1 on a d8.
I've totally made harder savings throws many times.Carpet_pissr wrote:Great...back to biting my fingernails until the election. Those are indeed much worse odds than I was hoping for at this stage.Max Peck wrote: It's slightly more likely than rolling a 1 on a d8.
Now we at least have someone to reasonably attach the blame to......Isgrimnur wrote:I just remembered. My mother has told me before that my grandmother had a dream before I was born. They were going to name me Donald, and I'd grow up to be president. My mother hates the name Donald.
Therefore, it's my mother's fault, as the Donald presidential fate has now fallen on another.
Do we have Advantage or Disadvantage in this Roll under the 5th Edition ruleset?coopasonic wrote:Yeah, as gamers we all know that 1 always comes up at the worst possible time.Carpet_pissr wrote:Great...back to biting my fingernails until the election. Those are indeed much worse odds than I was hoping for at this stage.Max Peck wrote: It's slightly more likely than rolling a 1 on a d8.
Do we have a re-roll available? That would be great.coopasonic wrote:Yeah, as gamers we all know that 1 always comes up at the worst possible time.Carpet_pissr wrote:Great...back to biting my fingernails until the election. Those are indeed much worse odds than I was hoping for at this stage.Max Peck wrote: It's slightly more likely than rolling a 1 on a d8.
I would also wager that polling in Colombia is more difficult and less reliable as a general rule.Kraken wrote:I think the Colombian peace treaty vote might be a better cautionary tale; it was favored 2:1. Turnout on election day was poor because the weather sucked and people felt sanguine about it passing.YellowKing wrote:The Brexit polls were still showing a tight finish, and many were still within the margin of error. It's considered shocking in that the majority of the polls were showing a victory for Remainers, but it was WAY closer than this race is showing.tgb wrote:I'll believe the polls Nov. 9. There's still the possibility of a Brexit (or Tom Bradley)-like finish.
The main reason for the Brexit switcheroo was that young voters didn't show up at the polls. I'd hope that in this country, by now, pollsters realize that young voters never show up and take that into consideration.
But as others have noted, it's unlikely to happen here because the national popular vote is irrelevant; only the turnout in a handful of states matters.
Still, it's a non-zero probability.
On who?Rip wrote: Trump is coming.