onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
You seem to be the first. Another couple of days like the last three, I'll join you, though not the slight margin part. I think there is a decent chance Trump wins by well over 100 EV.
J
Political Prediction Thread
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
J
Things will always be irrational to some degree, and collapses of irrational systems under their own contradictions often lead to more irrationality - something like half of all revolutions end up with a regime worse than the one that was overthrown. It's virtually impossible to predict when an irrational regime will fail, though; the collapse of the entire Eastern Bloc in Europe was unthinkable before 1989 and happened quite suddenly, but North Korea still chugs along today.
It certainly is true that politics in this decade in Europe and the US have featured sclerotic systems unable to make the sorts of reforms that would push them in a more reasonable direction, though. When the safety valve of incremental but steady and non-trivial change gets welded shut, the odds of an explosion go way up. Eventually it becomes a matter of when rather than if, but when is still extremely unpredictable.
There are a few people, ranging from Elizabeth Warren to Yanis Varoufakis, who understand current political and economic systems while also pushing concrete ideas for how to make substantial changes so that we end up moving in a direction that is both more inclusive and more functional at the same time. But such people are really rare and don't usually make it into power. Instead we get people like Clinton who want to continue the status quo with some little tweaks to sand off the roughest edges, people like Paul Ryan who actively want to make the status quo even worse, and people like Donald Trump who don't know anything relevant and just act as a personification of popular rage against a dysfunctional system. It will take something akin to a miracle to get the constructive, substantial reformers into office against the tide of people whom the status quo suits quite well, people who want to make it even more extreme, and people who oppose the status quo but wouldn't know what they're doing if they got into power.
Give us the states that he wins to get there. I cannot even see his realistic path to any sort of EV victory.
All you have to do is imagine that he wins everywhere where he has even the slightest chance, and you can get him to a 162 EV margin (350-188). You can even flip a couple of the more unlikely ones back and still get him to win with an EV margin of at least 100. I don't believe this map, but I'm sure something like it is what the inhabitants of Breitbartistan currently believe:
Spoiler :
Clinton has consistent leads of 3-8 points on a 3-point national lead in a bunch of states including MN, WI, MI, PA, NH, ME statewide, CO, and VA. If Trump were to win nationally by 5 points, this sort of map would be what we expect to see. Something like this is probably what is floating around in J's head.
We tried to do an avatar bet - loser has to have the winning candidate as an avatar, but J wanted EVERYONE to have to change their avatar to the winner. I'm not going to cotton to such chicanery.
stfoskey12
Emperor of Foskania
Anyone wanna predict this?
Kennigit
proud 2 boxer
It's not impossible if the polls are just way off in one consistent way: whites.
ohio pennsylvania wisconsin michigan all have somewhat similar demographics (76-79% white) Throw in even whiter states iowa 85% or new hampshire 91%. Obama beat romney in minnesota, wisconsin, michigan, ohio, and iowa all with 49-51% of the vote. Romney ranged 45-48%. New hampshire was 52-46.
If trump was going to win, he has to do it on the backbone of the white vote, and he absolutely must flip one of those longstanding democratic laregly-white-but-not-completely-white rustbelt states (WI, MI, PA).
Here's a map I think generous to Trump. If clinton wins ANY of the remaining uncolored states, she wins
The Republicans were hoping to make grounds in other demographics since the white population is declining -- I am not going to look it up, but I think bush had like 44% of hispanics in 2000 and now romney had like ~30%. If the white vote goes 60% for trump, 78*.6 = 46.8.
Clinton probably won't do as well as obama, so the Republican arithmetic of saying "We can't only win with the white vote anymore" may not be true IFF trump does great with whites. Romney had 59% of the white vote, mccain had 55, kerry vs bush had george w with 58. The analysis was that they weren't going to get better than Romney, and it just wasn't enough and soon definitely won't be enough with demographic trends. But if Trump can reel in a reliable 46% of the vote or so, it may be able to beat clinton with a few votes here and there from other groups.
The problem is that MN/WI/MI/PA have all been democratic since 1992. They are white, but democrat. A good example is WI, the rcp aggregate polls in wisconsin is like 46.7 clinton and 41.3 trump. In the primaries, it was all trump/cruz, meaning the voters were completely for the very conservative or nonstandard republican sideshow. One wouldn't imagine a +5 poll swing, but it is possible if a lot of white people show up no one expected. A state like minnesota where Rubio won, or New Hampshire where the moderates were closer, is a lot less likely to flip.
ohio pennsylvania wisconsin michigan all have somewhat similar demographics (76-79% white) Throw in even whiter states iowa 85% or new hampshire 91%. Obama beat romney in minnesota, wisconsin, michigan, ohio, and iowa all with 49-51% of the vote. Romney ranged 45-48%. New hampshire was 52-46.
If trump was going to win, he has to do it on the backbone of the white vote, and he absolutely must flip one of those longstanding democratic laregly-white-but-not-completely-white rustbelt states (WI, MI, PA).
Here's a map I think generous to Trump. If clinton wins ANY of the remaining uncolored states, she wins
Spoiler :
The Republicans were hoping to make grounds in other demographics since the white population is declining -- I am not going to look it up, but I think bush had like 44% of hispanics in 2000 and now romney had like ~30%. If the white vote goes 60% for trump, 78*.6 = 46.8.
Clinton probably won't do as well as obama, so the Republican arithmetic of saying "We can't only win with the white vote anymore" may not be true IFF trump does great with whites. Romney had 59% of the white vote, mccain had 55, kerry vs bush had george w with 58. The analysis was that they weren't going to get better than Romney, and it just wasn't enough and soon definitely won't be enough with demographic trends. But if Trump can reel in a reliable 46% of the vote or so, it may be able to beat clinton with a few votes here and there from other groups.
The problem is that MN/WI/MI/PA have all been democratic since 1992. They are white, but democrat. A good example is WI, the rcp aggregate polls in wisconsin is like 46.7 clinton and 41.3 trump. In the primaries, it was all trump/cruz, meaning the voters were completely for the very conservative or nonstandard republican sideshow. One wouldn't imagine a +5 poll swing, but it is possible if a lot of white people show up no one expected. A state like minnesota where Rubio won, or New Hampshire where the moderates were closer, is a lot less likely to flip.
Anyone wanna predict this?
Spoiler :
Why would I do that when this map is equally plausible and so much more entertaining?
Spoiler :
Under this scenario, Evan McMullin would have a nonzero chance of becoming president. The House votes by state delegations among the top three candidates, so as long as he gets Utah or, alternatively, at least one faithless elector, McMullin would be in contention. It could happen that he wins over the delegations of enough states to deadlock the first ballot, and then slowly cobbles together enough delegations to be chosen by the House delegations of at least 26 states. Meanwhile, the Senate picks among the top two candidates for VP, but only after Jan 3. If the Dems win at least 50 seats, they are in a position to choose.
The result: a victory for the McMullin/Kaine ticket. Because that sort of thing apparently made sense to the Founding Fathers (pbut) and no constitutional amendments to make our system make any more sense could possibly get through in this era.
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
I don't predict but I hope Hillary Clinton wins Texas
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
It's a simple case of the tide raising all boats. Trump gets all the usual plus sweeping most of what Nate Siver calls the firewall: CO, MN, MI, WI, PA, NH, VA. Trump could do this with less than a 5% national margin. This is about 7% from where he is polling now.
The possibility has been raised several times. If Trump gets NH he probably gets one from ME first, so 270-268.Anyone wanna predict this?
[
J
Last edited:
Make a bet with a local bookie and retire on your winnings. With your confidence, you should be set for life.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
I am still betting on Clinton. Trump can make it close fairly easily. getting the last five EV is much more difficult.
If he gets the five, the next fifty are close at hand, particularly the Great Laks states. The possibility that should not be discounted. Like the Cubs winning the WS, it has happened before.
J
If he gets the five, the next fifty are close at hand, particularly the Great Laks states. The possibility that should not be discounted. Like the Cubs winning the WS, it has happened before.
J
Last edited:
Which is of course why you've spent the better part of 18 months constantly shilling the anti-Clinton line.
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
18 months jfc
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
I'm guessing that by now you've hedged completely. Smart move, though it totally betrays your earlier confidence.
So, you want Y to win but you think X will win? Is that it?
Or is it that you think X will win but in case you're wrong you also think Y will win?
I mean saying that there is a possibility that either could win is not saying anything at all.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
With Sig icons? In any event, no one wanted to be stuck using either Trump or Clinton, so there were no bets.
I felt Clinton would find a way to lose. She still might. That said, you are correct. Trump threw me off. He's hard as hell to predict.
With Clinton, it has always been that I want her to lose. In the primaries not so much. I really did not like any of the options, but there was no other really bad choices.
J
No. We were willing to bet with the LOSERS of the bet having to sport an avatar. You wanted to just make it a forum-wide avatar-fest for the winning candidate. You refused to take the bet offered. We refused the avatar-fest.
Similar threads
