US General Election Thread IV: The Beginning of the End

[AiliailiA]

Yo, another mini-poll by yours truly. Who here thinks that Johnson/ Weld can actually win some states?

Personally, I see them having a good chance in New Mexico, Colorado, and New Hampshire, but that's it.

Worse than zero. They don't have the numbers to carry any state. In order to win a state Gary Johnson is gonna need at least 35% of the vote. He's nowhere near that. His momentum is pretty much gone. If he can't even get in the debates, he certainly can't win all of any state's electoral votes the democratic way.

In an idealized 3-way race, he could technically win with 33.34% of the vote. That's incredibly unlikely because it requires the other candidates to tie in voter share (33.33% each).

It's not an ideal 3-way though, because there are a few votes for Greens, Reform or Constitution (or in some states independents: while irrelevant nationally, in some states they're more significant than Stein).

Johnson is projected (FTE polls-only) to get 10.7% in New Hampshire, 11.5% in Colorado and 17.1% in New Mexico.

Taking New Mexico as the most likely, it's currently
Clinton 44.0%
Trump 37.5%
Johnson 17.1%
Other 1.4%

The "other" is just the residual when Cl, Tr and Jo are added together and subtracted from 100%.

For Clinton and Trump to tie and Johnson to just surpass both of them, requires 98.6% ÷ 3 + 1 ... or 32.9% for Johnson.

Woohoo, more than half way!

Problem is though, that to get that tie between the others requires taking a very precise balance from each of them.
Clinton 44.0% — 32.8% = 11.2%
Trump 37.5% — 32.8% = 4.7%

Considering the more likely scenario that Johnson takes from both equally: the same number of votes (15.9%) will get Johnson to 32.9% but leave Clinton winning, on 36.1%

Taking the same amount from Clinton and Trump each, and winning (beating Clinton) requires taking x from each, according to this formula:
C — x < J + 2x
C — 3x < J
— 3x < J — C
3x > —(J — C)
x > (C — J) /3

J = 17.1%
C = 44.0%
x > 8.96666

Johnson's winning vote would be 17.1% + 2 * 8.97%

I didn't know it would turn out this way when I chose that example. That's 35.03%

[USS Monitor]

Yo, another mini-poll by yours truly. Who here thinks that Johnson/ Weld can actually win some states?

Personally, I see them having a good chance in New Mexico, Colorado, and New Hampshire, but that's it.

Odds are against it. Utah is better for him than Colorado or NH.

[AiliailiA]

Yo, another mini-poll by yours truly. Who here thinks that Johnson/ Weld can actually win some states?

Personally, I see them having a good chance in New Mexico, Colorado, and New Hampshire, but that's it.

Odds are against it. Utah is better for him than Colorado or NH.

Not much.

By the same calculation as above, taking the same amount from Clinton as from Trump, Johnson would need over 37.8% to win Utah.

[Eol Sha]

Worse than zero. They don't have the numbers to carry any state. In order to win a state Gary Johnson is gonna need at least 35% of the vote. He's nowhere near that. His momentum is pretty much gone. If he can't even get in the debates, he certainly can't win all of any state's electoral votes the democratic way.

In an idealized 3-way race, he could technically win with 33.34% of the vote. That's incredibly unlikely because it requires the other candidates to tie in voter share (33.33% each).

It's not an ideal 3-way though, because there are a few votes for Greens, Reform or Constitution (or in some states independents: while irrelevant nationally, in some states they're more significant than Stein).

Johnson is projected (FTE polls-only) to get 10.7% in New Hampshire, 11.5% in Colorado and 17.1% in New Mexico.

Taking New Mexico as the most likely, it's currently
Clinton 44.0%
Trump 37.5%
Johnson 17.1%
Other 1.4%

The "other" is just the residual when Cl, Tr and Jo are added together and subtracted from 100%.

For Clinton and Trump to tie and Johnson to just surpass both of them, requires 98.6% ÷ 3 + 1 ... or 32.9% for Johnson.

Woohoo, more than half way!

Problem is though, that to get that tie between the others requires taking a very precise balance from each of them.
Clinton 44.0% — 32.8% = 11.2%
Trump 37.5% — 32.8% = 4.7%

Considering the more likely scenario that Johnson takes from both equally: the same number of votes (15.9%) will get Johnson to 32.9% but leave Clinton winning, on 36.1%

Taking the same amount from Clinton and Trump each, and winning (beating Clinton) requires taking x from each, according to this formula:
C — x < J + 2x
C — x < J + 2x
— 3x < J — C
3x > —(J — C)
x > (C — J) /3

J = 17.1%
C = 44.0%
x > 8.96666

Johnson's winning vote would be 17.1% + 2 * 8.97%

I didn't know it would turn out this way when I chose that example. That's 35.03%

You may worship me now.

[AiliailiA]

In an idealized 3-way race, he could technically win with 33.34% of the vote. That's incredibly unlikely because it requires the other candidates to tie in voter share (33.33% each).

It's not an ideal 3-way though, because there are a few votes for Greens, Reform or Constitution (or in some states independents: while irrelevant nationally, in some states they're more significant than Stein).

Johnson is projected (FTE polls-only) to get 10.7% in New Hampshire, 11.5% in Colorado and 17.1% in New Mexico.

Taking New Mexico as the most likely, it's currently
Clinton 44.0%
Trump 37.5%
Johnson 17.1%
Other 1.4%

The "other" is just the residual when Cl, Tr and Jo are added together and subtracted from 100%.

For Clinton and Trump to tie and Johnson to just surpass both of them, requires 98.6% ÷ 3 + 1 ... or 32.9% for Johnson.

Woohoo, more than half way!

Problem is though, that to get that tie between the others requires taking a very precise balance from each of them.
Clinton 44.0% — 32.8% = 11.2%
Trump 37.5% — 32.8% = 4.7%

Considering the more likely scenario that Johnson takes from both equally: the same number of votes (15.9%) will get Johnson to 32.9% but leave Clinton winning, on 36.1%

Taking the same amount from Clinton and Trump each, and winning (beating Clinton) requires taking x from each, according to this formula:
C — x < J + 2x
C — x < J + 2x
— 3x < J — C
3x > —(J — C)
x > (C — J) /3

J = 17.1%
C = 44.0%
x > 8.96666

Johnson's winning vote would be 17.1% + 2 * 8.97%

I didn't know it would turn out this way when I chose that example. That's 35.03%

You may worship me now.

Nice goggles, but you could lose the goatee

[Ifreann]

You may worship me now.

Nice goggles, but you could lose the goatee

Why, that is anti-beard bigotry.

[Eol Sha]

You may worship me now.

Nice goggles, but you could lose the goatee

Never. It'd ruin the coat of arrogance I painted on myself.

[AiliailiA]

Nice goggles, but you could lose the goatee

Why, that is anti-beard bigotry.

Chin Pride! Take your oppressive growths elsewhere.

[USS Monitor]

Is Bernie to blame for Clinton doing poorly with young voters, compared to Obama?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/dont-hate-millennials-save-it-bernie-sanders

I'd say that he has a little bit to do with it, but I wouldn't count out my party's decade long Psy Op to paint her as "corrupt" in the eyes of young voters.

A lot of the people that Bernie appealed to were never loyal Democrats, so I don't think it's fair to blame him for turning them against Hillary. They just were never very enamored of her to begin with. Before I felt the Bern, I wasn't sure if I was even going to vote. A lot of people my age and younger don't vote. That's been an ongoing issue for the Democrats for a long time. It's not a problem that Bernie created.

Obama is charismatic, eloquent, and just good at connecting with people in a way that Hillary is not and never has been. That's why Obama won the primaries when they ran against each other in 2008.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Why, that is anti-beard bigotry.

Chin Pride! Take your oppressive growths elsewhere.

Anti-beardism is the reason that we haven't had a bearded President since Benjamin Harrison!

[Ifreann]

Why, that is anti-beard bigotry.

Chin Pride! Take your oppressive growths elsewhere.

What is a chin, but a canvas upon which to paint a beard?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Is Bernie to blame for Clinton doing poorly with young voters, compared to Obama?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/dont-hate-millennials-save-it-bernie-sanders

I'd say that he has a little bit to do with it, but I wouldn't count out my party's decade long Psy Op to paint her as "corrupt" in the eyes of young voters.

A lot of the people that Bernie appealed to were never loyal Democrats, so I don't think it's fair to blame him for turning them against Hillary. They just were never very enamored of her to begin with. Before I felt the Bern, I wasn't sure if I was even going to vote. A lot of people my age and younger don't vote. That's been an ongoing issue for the Democrats for a long time. It's not a problem that Bernie created.

Obama is charismatic, eloquent, and just good at connecting with people in a way that Hillary is not and never has been. That's why Obama won the primaries when they ran against each other in 2008.

I have to agree with you on this one. As far as I can tell, you were never for "The Democrat", but you were for Bernie, so there was nothing tying you to the party once he dropped out. On the other hand, I was a Democrat from before I started supporting him, so it was more likely that I'd drift towards the Hillary camp at that point. It was up to Hillary to make her case. I happen to think that she did an excellent job by putting most of what he wanted (including things she'd argued against or remained strictly neutral on) into the platform, but that's still not going to get all of the Bernie-supporting independents.

[AiliailiA]

Chin Pride! Take your oppressive growths elsewhere.

Anti-beardism is the reason that we haven't had a bearded President since Benjamin Harrison!

There's still a chance for Obama. He could start next month for Movember and by January he'd have the full beard.

[Arlenton]

Is Bernie to blame for Clinton doing poorly with young voters, compared to Obama?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/dont-hate-millennials-save-it-bernie-sanders

I'd say that he has a little bit to do with it, but I wouldn't count out my party's decade long Psy Op to paint her as "corrupt" in the eyes of young voters.

A lot of the people that Bernie appealed to were never loyal Democrats, so I don't think it's fair to blame him for turning them against Hillary. They just were never very enamored of her to begin with. Before I felt the Bern, I wasn't sure if I was even going to vote. A lot of people my age and younger don't vote. That's been an ongoing issue for the Democrats for a long time. It's not a problem that Bernie created.

Obama is charismatic, eloquent, and just good at connecting with people in a way that Hillary is not and never has been. That's why Obama won the primaries when they ran against each other in 2008.

That's true, but the pre-blame game has already begun and Bernie's a target, whether or not he has any fault in it or not.

It seems that low millennial turnout is key this election.

[Eol Sha]

Worse than zero. They don't have the numbers to carry any state. In order to win a state Gary Johnson is gonna need at least 35% of the vote. He's nowhere near that. His momentum is pretty much gone. If he can't even get in the debates, he certainly can't win all of any state's electoral votes the democratic way.

I heard some noise about Utah, since all the Mormons hate Trump but won't vote Dem.

Inconceivable.

I swear, if I see The Princess Bride I'm gonna set the thread on fire.

[Ifreann]

Anti-beardism is the reason that we haven't had a bearded President since Benjamin Harrison!

There's still a chance for Obama. He could start next month for Movember and by January he'd have the full beard.

Someone make this a White House petition.

[Liriena]

Oh, now he's done it...

[USS Monitor]

A lot of the people that Bernie appealed to were never loyal Democrats, so I don't think it's fair to blame him for turning them against Hillary. They just were never very enamored of her to begin with. Before I felt the Bern, I wasn't sure if I was even going to vote. A lot of people my age and younger don't vote. That's been an ongoing issue for the Democrats for a long time. It's not a problem that Bernie created.

Obama is charismatic, eloquent, and just good at connecting with people in a way that Hillary is not and never has been. That's why Obama won the primaries when they ran against each other in 2008.

I have to agree with you on this one. As far as I can tell, you were never for "The Democrat", but you were for Bernie, so there was nothing tying you to the party once he dropped out. On the other hand, I was a Democrat from before I started supporting him, so it was more likely that I'd drift towards the Hillary camp at that point. It was up to Hillary to make her case. I happen to think that she did an excellent job by putting most of what he wanted (including things she'd argued against or remained strictly neutral on) into the platform, but that's still not going to get all of the Bernie-supporting independents.

She managed to get me to at least think about coming back to the Democrats a few times, but when she's changing positions in the middle of the campaign it does raise questions about how much she'll follow through on them, and there are still the issues like interventionism and guns where she seems firmly committed to positions I don't agree with.

[Camicon]

Oh, now he's done it...

(Image)

"Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S."

Bless you, HuffPo.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I have to agree with you on this one. As far as I can tell, you were never for "The Democrat", but you were for Bernie, so there was nothing tying you to the party once he dropped out. On the other hand, I was a Democrat from before I started supporting him, so it was more likely that I'd drift towards the Hillary camp at that point. It was up to Hillary to make her case. I happen to think that she did an excellent job by putting most of what he wanted (including things she'd argued against or remained strictly neutral on) into the platform, but that's still not going to get all of the Bernie-supporting independents.

She managed to get me to at least think about coming back to the Democrats a few times, but when she's changing positions in the middle of the campaign it does raise questions about how much she'll follow through on them, and there are still the issues like interventionism and guns where she seems firmly committed to positions I don't agree with.

I won't argue with you on the interventionism, as I consider it a problematic part of her approach, as well. However, Hillary Clinton does at least have a record of fighting for the things that she says that she's going to fight for.

[Liriena]

Oh, now he's done it...

(Image)

"Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S."

Bless you, HuffPo.

HuffPo deserves a lot of the crap they get... but they did a good there.

[USS Monitor]

Oh, now he's done it...

(Image)

"Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S."

Bless you, HuffPo.

They've been putting that note on articles about Trump for a while, and it's brilliant.

[New West Guiana]

Oh, now he's done it...

(Image)

Those words have only been uttered 1,000 times since last June.

[New West Guiana]

They've been putting that note on articles about Trump for a while, and it's brilliant.

And for the past month CNN has been doing live fact checks.

But according to trump, fact checking him on things he's said is libel because you know, he said he never said those things.

[Liriena]

Oh, now he's done it...

(Image)

Those words have only been uttered 1,000 times since last June.

"Mexico sends us rapists" I can tolerate.
The whole Khan debacle was to be expected (what, with Trump being a crybaby who cannot take criticism from anyone with even a modicum of fake grace).

But Anderson Cooper? Nah-uh. He doesn't get to smear one of the few decent things about CNN just so he can preemptively have an excuse for his pathetic performance in the upcoming debate.