Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I thought Romney had a chance, but I knew beating an incumbent is difficult. Bill Clinton only did it because of the Perot effect.
Try and find any accusations of Cheating I posted on this forum in 2012.
No. This is false, very false.
CNN/ORC and a number of different pollsters still ran two-man matchups all the way up to election night 1992. Their final poll showed Clinton +6 over Bush 41 and Perot, but their 2-man poll showed him at +10, 55-45. The Perot effect would have actually helped Clinton had it vanished, which we clearly see from the 1996 race.
So Perot did not cost Bush a single state? Again you ignore the electoral college.
And again, you miss the point. Without Perot, Clinton would also have sailed over 400 EV, quite easily. No candidate has ever won a circa +10 or more race in the last 80+ and not come in at about 400 EV or more.
Reagan 1984, 1980
Nixon 1972
LBJ 1964
Eisenhower 1956, 1952
FDR 1940, 1936, 1932
Hoover 1928
And then there's Bush 41 1988 and FDR 1944, where both won by around +7.5% in the NPV and still came over 400 EV.
Pay attention.
Again, you are using national numbers, not state level numbers.
Are you saying Perot did not cost Bush a single state?
If the polling showed it at +6 for Clinton nationally in a three-way but at +10 in a two-way, that can only mean that Clinton would have done better in the respective states where it was relatively close. For instance, Clinton barely lost Florida in 1992. Without Perot, he probably would have won both that state and North Carolina. Also, polling in Indiana was the closest for a Democrat there since 1948 (excepting LBJs out and out win in 1964), so in a two man race, Clinton could easily have won the Hoosier state, 16 years before Obama did in a two man race in 2008. His numbers were also high enough in Georgia that I believe he would have kept the state in a two man race.
Montana, on the other hand, could indeed have swung for Bush in 1992 ina two man race.
So, after losing about 40 more EV, Bush could have picked up 3. What a deal!
I'm sure of it. I'll be ready for all of your side's complaints of cheating when Hillary loses.
Election Night 2016: Hillary with 57% of the NPV (when the final canvasses are in), and over 400 EV.
Good luck with that one, li'l slugger!
So i guess you know who is going to win the superbowl in January of 2017, because that is basically what you are trying to do with the 2016 election.
But if you have to tell yourself "unbeatable Hillary" Stories so you can sleep at night, go ahead.
You seem angry. I am just reporting the numbers, and btw, I have only written about a hundred times thus far in USMB: "if these numbers hold..."
That's enough of a disclaimer. Pay attention.
You are not just "reporting the numbers." You are drawing conclusions from them which agree with your political views.
Stop with this "I'm above it all because, numbers" bullshit. Its about as sad as JakeFarkey claiming he is a Republican.
I am all about the numbers. You are the one getting mad, not I.
I bet you have never really read my analyses from stem to stern. Were you to do that, you would realize that I truly am a numbers man, whether you like to admit it or not.
Pay attention.
And have a great day.
Tell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
When did you last see a Democrat consistently polling 10 points ahead of almost all GOP comers in Ohio? In Pennsylvania? When is the last time you saw a Democrat pulling even in Georgia, Lousiana and Arkansas?
There is a data-pattern going on here than cannot be denied.
No one is inevitable. Hillary can indeed lose. But that's not what the numbers are saying now and that's not what they have been saying for 2 years straight.
And in one year from now, when Hillary is still stomping the GOP, I am going to remind you of this thread.
It's simple math.
No. This is false, very false.
CNN/ORC and a number of different pollsters still ran two-man matchups all the way up to election night 1992. Their final poll showed Clinton +6 over Bush 41 and Perot, but their 2-man poll showed him at +10, 55-45. The Perot effect would have actually helped Clinton had it vanished, which we clearly see from the 1996 race.
So Perot did not cost Bush a single state? Again you ignore the electoral college.
And again, you miss the point. Without Perot, Clinton would also have sailed over 400 EV, quite easily. No candidate has ever won a circa +10 or more race in the last 80+ and not come in at about 400 EV or more.
Reagan 1984, 1980
Nixon 1972
LBJ 1964
Eisenhower 1956, 1952
FDR 1940, 1936, 1932
Hoover 1928
And then there's Bush 41 1988 and FDR 1944, where both won by around +7.5% in the NPV and still came over 400 EV.
Pay attention.
Again, you are using national numbers, not state level numbers.
Are you saying Perot did not cost Bush a single state?
If the polling showed it at +6 for Clinton nationally in a three-way but at +10 in a two-way, that can only mean that Clinton would have done better in the respective states where it was relatively close. For instance, Clinton barely lost Florida in 1992. Without Perot, he probably would have won both that state and North Carolina. Also, polling in Indiana was the closest for a Democrat there since 1948 (excepting LBJs out and out win in 1964), so in a two man race, Clinton could easily have won the Hoosier state, 16 years before Obama did in a two man race in 2008. His numbers were also high enough in Georgia that I believe he would have kept the state in a two man race.
Montana, on the other hand, could indeed have swung for Bush in 1992 ina two man race.
So, after losing about 40 more EV, Bush could have picked up 3. What a deal!
You keep using national numbers and ignoring state numbers. You also ignore that most Perot voters would probably either stay home or voted more in favor of Bush than Clinton.
You also ignore the fact that without Perot from the start the entire dynamics of the campaign would have changed.
Lets look at Michigan as an example with 18 electoral votes.
Michigan
Clinton 1,871,182 43.77 18
Bush 1,554,940 36.38
Perot: 824,813 19.30
One has to assume various ways Perot voters would vote if Perot was not in the race. Stay home, vote Bush, Vote Clinton. Considering the margin of winning for Clinton was just over 316k, The Perot effect is noticeable in the raw numbers.
Tell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
When did you last see a Democrat consistently polling 10 points ahead of almost all GOP comers in Ohio? In Pennsylvania? When is the last time you saw a Democrat pulling even in Georgia, Lousiana and Arkansas?
There is a data-pattern going on here than cannot be denied.
No one is inevitable. Hillary can indeed lose. But that's not what the numbers are saying now and that's not what they have been saying for 2 years straight.
And in one year from now, when Hillary is still stomping the GOP, I am going to remind you of this thread.
It's simple math.
So Perot did not cost Bush a single state? Again you ignore the electoral college.
And again, you miss the point. Without Perot, Clinton would also have sailed over 400 EV, quite easily. No candidate has ever won a circa +10 or more race in the last 80+ and not come in at about 400 EV or more.
Reagan 1984, 1980
Nixon 1972
LBJ 1964
Eisenhower 1956, 1952
FDR 1940, 1936, 1932
Hoover 1928
And then there's Bush 41 1988 and FDR 1944, where both won by around +7.5% in the NPV and still came over 400 EV.
Pay attention.
Again, you are using national numbers, not state level numbers.
Are you saying Perot did not cost Bush a single state?
If the polling showed it at +6 for Clinton nationally in a three-way but at +10 in a two-way, that can only mean that Clinton would have done better in the respective states where it was relatively close. For instance, Clinton barely lost Florida in 1992. Without Perot, he probably would have won both that state and North Carolina. Also, polling in Indiana was the closest for a Democrat there since 1948 (excepting LBJs out and out win in 1964), so in a two man race, Clinton could easily have won the Hoosier state, 16 years before Obama did in a two man race in 2008. His numbers were also high enough in Georgia that I believe he would have kept the state in a two man race.
Montana, on the other hand, could indeed have swung for Bush in 1992 ina two man race.
So, after losing about 40 more EV, Bush could have picked up 3. What a deal!
You keep using national numbers and ignoring state numbers. You also ignore that most Perot voters would probably either stay home or voted more in favor of Bush than Clinton.
You also ignore the fact that without Perot from the start the entire dynamics of the campaign would have changed.
Lets look at Michigan as an example with 18 electoral votes.
Michigan
Clinton 1,871,182 43.77 18
Bush 1,554,940 36.38
Perot: 824,813 19.30
One has to assume various ways Perot voters would vote if Perot was not in the race. Stay home, vote Bush, Vote Clinton. Considering the margin of winning for Clinton was just over 316k, The Perot effect is noticeable in the raw numbers.
And you keep deliberately ignoring that polling quite clearly indicated that had Perot lef the race (again) right before election day, Clinton would have done BETTER, not worse.
I will also remind that when Perot dropped out of the race for a while, Clinton sprang back up to +10, just like the 2-way hypothetical polling was still showing on election eve.
Furthermore, your assumption that Perot voters would have stayed home is just that: an assumption.
Not only that, there is no reason to religitate something that has already happened.
Tell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
When did you last see a Democrat consistently polling 10 points ahead of almost all GOP comers in Ohio? In Pennsylvania? When is the last time you saw a Democrat pulling even in Georgia, Lousiana and Arkansas?
There is a data-pattern going on here than cannot be denied.
No one is inevitable. Hillary can indeed lose. But that's not what the numbers are saying now and that's not what they have been saying for 2 years straight.
And in one year from now, when Hillary is still stomping the GOP, I am going to remind you of this thread.
It's simple math.
promises, promises
Tell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
When did you last see a Democrat consistently polling 10 points ahead of almost all GOP comers in Ohio? In Pennsylvania? When is the last time you saw a Democrat pulling even in Georgia, Lousiana and Arkansas?
There is a data-pattern going on here than cannot be denied.
No one is inevitable. Hillary can indeed lose. But that's not what the numbers are saying now and that's not what they have been saying for 2 years straight.
And in one year from now, when Hillary is still stomping the GOP, I am going to remind you of this thread.
It's simple math.
No its statistics based on polling, which is not Math. Statistics based on polling are not facts, they are trends and insinuations.
Tell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
When did you last see a Democrat consistently polling 10 points ahead of almost all GOP comers in Ohio? In Pennsylvania? When is the last time you saw a Democrat pulling even in Georgia, Lousiana and Arkansas?
There is a data-pattern going on here than cannot be denied.
No one is inevitable. Hillary can indeed lose. But that's not what the numbers are saying now and that's not what they have been saying for 2 years straight.
And in one year from now, when Hillary is still stomping the GOP, I am going to remind you of this thread.
It's simple math.
promises, promisesTell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
When did you last see a Democrat consistently polling 10 points ahead of almost all GOP comers in Ohio? In Pennsylvania? When is the last time you saw a Democrat pulling even in Georgia, Lousiana and Arkansas?
There is a data-pattern going on here than cannot be denied.
No one is inevitable. Hillary can indeed lose. But that's not what the numbers are saying now and that's not what they have been saying for 2 years straight.
And in one year from now, when Hillary is still stomping the GOP, I am going to remind you of this thread.
It's simple math.
No its statistics based on polling, which is not Math. Statistics based on polling are not facts, they are trends and insinuations.
Oh, polling values are definitely statistical fact, which is definitely math. And they can definitely show trends. I have no idea what you mean by "insinuations" in this context.
If you think that the GOP people are not looking at the aggregates just as closely as I do, then you are fooling yourself. Why in the world do you think that President Bush (43) tried to make a play for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and Hawaii in 2004? Why, because the polling aggregates told him that those states could maybe be ripe for the picking.
And in 2008, McCain gave up on Michigan, just as Romney did in 2012, when the aggregates were consistently pointing to an Obama landslide no matter what.. Likewise, Obama thought to make a hard play for Georgia in 2008, but the closest he could some in aggregate, consistently, was 5 points, which is not enough.
Based on polling aggregates, both political teams make informed decisions. You do realize this, right?
Tell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
When did you last see a Democrat consistently polling 10 points ahead of almost all GOP comers in Ohio? In Pennsylvania? When is the last time you saw a Democrat pulling even in Georgia, Lousiana and Arkansas?
There is a data-pattern going on here than cannot be denied.
No one is inevitable. Hillary can indeed lose. But that's not what the numbers are saying now and that's not what they have been saying for 2 years straight.
And in one year from now, when Hillary is still stomping the GOP, I am going to remind you of this thread.
It's simple math.
promises, promisesTell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
When did you last see a Democrat consistently polling 10 points ahead of almost all GOP comers in Ohio? In Pennsylvania? When is the last time you saw a Democrat pulling even in Georgia, Lousiana and Arkansas?
There is a data-pattern going on here than cannot be denied.
No one is inevitable. Hillary can indeed lose. But that's not what the numbers are saying now and that's not what they have been saying for 2 years straight.
And in one year from now, when Hillary is still stomping the GOP, I am going to remind you of this thread.
It's simple math.
No its statistics based on polling, which is not Math. Statistics based on polling are not facts, they are trends and insinuations.
Oh, polling values are definitely statistical fact, which is definitely math. And they can definitely show trends. I have no idea what you mean by "insinuations" in this context.
If you think that the GOP people are not looking at the aggregates just as closely as I do, then you are fooling yourself. Why in the world do you think that President Bush (43) tried to make a play for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and Hawaii in 2004? Why, because the polling aggregates told him that those states could maybe be ripe for the picking.
And in 2008, McCain gave up on Michigan, just as Romney did in 2012, when the aggregates were consistently pointing to an Obama landslide no matter what.. Likewise, Obama thought to make a hard play for Georgia in 2008, but the closest he could some in aggregate, consistently, was 5 points, which is not enough.
Based on polling aggregates, both political teams make informed decisions. You do realize this, right?
And again, you miss the point. Without Perot, Clinton would also have sailed over 400 EV, quite easily. No candidate has ever won a circa +10 or more race in the last 80+ and not come in at about 400 EV or more.
Reagan 1984, 1980
Nixon 1972
LBJ 1964
Eisenhower 1956, 1952
FDR 1940, 1936, 1932
Hoover 1928
And then there's Bush 41 1988 and FDR 1944, where both won by around +7.5% in the NPV and still came over 400 EV.
Pay attention.
Again, you are using national numbers, not state level numbers.
Are you saying Perot did not cost Bush a single state?
If the polling showed it at +6 for Clinton nationally in a three-way but at +10 in a two-way, that can only mean that Clinton would have done better in the respective states where it was relatively close. For instance, Clinton barely lost Florida in 1992. Without Perot, he probably would have won both that state and North Carolina. Also, polling in Indiana was the closest for a Democrat there since 1948 (excepting LBJs out and out win in 1964), so in a two man race, Clinton could easily have won the Hoosier state, 16 years before Obama did in a two man race in 2008. His numbers were also high enough in Georgia that I believe he would have kept the state in a two man race.
Montana, on the other hand, could indeed have swung for Bush in 1992 ina two man race.
So, after losing about 40 more EV, Bush could have picked up 3. What a deal!
You keep using national numbers and ignoring state numbers. You also ignore that most Perot voters would probably either stay home or voted more in favor of Bush than Clinton.
You also ignore the fact that without Perot from the start the entire dynamics of the campaign would have changed.
Lets look at Michigan as an example with 18 electoral votes.
Michigan
Clinton 1,871,182 43.77 18
Bush 1,554,940 36.38
Perot: 824,813 19.30
One has to assume various ways Perot voters would vote if Perot was not in the race. Stay home, vote Bush, Vote Clinton. Considering the margin of winning for Clinton was just over 316k, The Perot effect is noticeable in the raw numbers.
And you keep deliberately ignoring that polling quite clearly indicated that had Perot lef the race (again) right before election day, Clinton would have done BETTER, not worse.
I will also remind that when Perot dropped out of the race for a while, Clinton sprang back up to +10, just like the 2-way hypothetical polling was still showing on election eve.
Furthermore, your assumption that Perot voters would have stayed home is just that: an assumption.
Not only that, there is no reason to religitate something that has already happened.
This isn't litigating, this is people making the hard statement that Perot had not impact on Clinton winning, which is false. You have to use theoretical models like "Perot leaves on the last day" and ignore the state level numbers showing the margin of Clinton or Bushes win in a State were mostly within the number of Perot votes.
Is the Cult of Clinton so great with you people that you can't admit he got help winning his election from a 3rd party candidate?
Tell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
When did you last see a Democrat consistently polling 10 points ahead of almost all GOP comers in Ohio? In Pennsylvania? When is the last time you saw a Democrat pulling even in Georgia, Lousiana and Arkansas?
There is a data-pattern going on here than cannot be denied.
No one is inevitable. Hillary can indeed lose. But that's not what the numbers are saying now and that's not what they have been saying for 2 years straight.
And in one year from now, when Hillary is still stomping the GOP, I am going to remind you of this thread.
It's simple math.
promises, promisesTell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
When did you last see a Democrat consistently polling 10 points ahead of almost all GOP comers in Ohio? In Pennsylvania? When is the last time you saw a Democrat pulling even in Georgia, Lousiana and Arkansas?
There is a data-pattern going on here than cannot be denied.
No one is inevitable. Hillary can indeed lose. But that's not what the numbers are saying now and that's not what they have been saying for 2 years straight.
And in one year from now, when Hillary is still stomping the GOP, I am going to remind you of this thread.
It's simple math.
No its statistics based on polling, which is not Math. Statistics based on polling are not facts, they are trends and insinuations.
Oh, polling values are definitely statistical fact, which is definitely math. And they can definitely show trends. I have no idea what you mean by "insinuations" in this context.
If you think that the GOP people are not looking at the aggregates just as closely as I do, then you are fooling yourself. Why in the world do you think that President Bush (43) tried to make a play for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and Hawaii in 2004? Why, because the polling aggregates told him that those states could maybe be ripe for the picking.
And in 2008, McCain gave up on Michigan, just as Romney did in 2012, when the aggregates were consistently pointing to an Obama landslide no matter what.. Likewise, Obama thought to make a hard play for Georgia in 2008, but the closest he could some in aggregate, consistently, was 5 points, which is not enough.
Based on polling aggregates, both political teams make informed decisions. You do realize this, right?
Yes, they make decisions based on them, but again on trends and perceived outcomes. but you can't go around saying that Perot having an impact on the outcome of the 1992 election is a hard 100% "False" due to polling data and statistics.
The facts of an election without Perot, be it from the start or a withdrawal before the election cannot be determined because it DID NOT HAPPEN. The best you can do is assume based on the available data, and again, just spouting numbers does not allow ANYONE to say something is concretely "FALSE"
You have statistical evidence that Perot probably did not cause Bush to lose, you do not have that evidence as a "fact"
Tell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
When did you last see a Democrat consistently polling 10 points ahead of almost all GOP comers in Ohio? In Pennsylvania? When is the last time you saw a Democrat pulling even in Georgia, Lousiana and Arkansas?
There is a data-pattern going on here than cannot be denied.
No one is inevitable. Hillary can indeed lose. But that's not what the numbers are saying now and that's not what they have been saying for 2 years straight.
And in one year from now, when Hillary is still stomping the GOP, I am going to remind you of this thread.
It's simple math.
promises, promisesTell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
When did you last see a Democrat consistently polling 10 points ahead of almost all GOP comers in Ohio? In Pennsylvania? When is the last time you saw a Democrat pulling even in Georgia, Lousiana and Arkansas?
There is a data-pattern going on here than cannot be denied.
No one is inevitable. Hillary can indeed lose. But that's not what the numbers are saying now and that's not what they have been saying for 2 years straight.
And in one year from now, when Hillary is still stomping the GOP, I am going to remind you of this thread.
It's simple math.
No its statistics based on polling, which is not Math. Statistics based on polling are not facts, they are trends and insinuations.
Oh, polling values are definitely statistical fact, which is definitely math. And they can definitely show trends. I have no idea what you mean by "insinuations" in this context.
If you think that the GOP people are not looking at the aggregates just as closely as I do, then you are fooling yourself. Why in the world do you think that President Bush (43) tried to make a play for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and Hawaii in 2004? Why, because the polling aggregates told him that those states could maybe be ripe for the picking.
And in 2008, McCain gave up on Michigan, just as Romney did in 2012, when the aggregates were consistently pointing to an Obama landslide no matter what.. Likewise, Obama thought to make a hard play for Georgia in 2008, but the closest he could some in aggregate, consistently, was 5 points, which is not enough.
Based on polling aggregates, both political teams make informed decisions. You do realize this, right?
You realize the Progressive base considers Hillary to be a hard right wing Conservative who committed the mortal sin of voting for Bush's Illegal War for Oil and has been a No Show at Liz Warren's Daily 2 Minute Hate on "the Rich" right?
Again, you are using national numbers, not state level numbers.
Are you saying Perot did not cost Bush a single state?
If the polling showed it at +6 for Clinton nationally in a three-way but at +10 in a two-way, that can only mean that Clinton would have done better in the respective states where it was relatively close. For instance, Clinton barely lost Florida in 1992. Without Perot, he probably would have won both that state and North Carolina. Also, polling in Indiana was the closest for a Democrat there since 1948 (excepting LBJs out and out win in 1964), so in a two man race, Clinton could easily have won the Hoosier state, 16 years before Obama did in a two man race in 2008. His numbers were also high enough in Georgia that I believe he would have kept the state in a two man race.
Montana, on the other hand, could indeed have swung for Bush in 1992 ina two man race.
So, after losing about 40 more EV, Bush could have picked up 3. What a deal!
You keep using national numbers and ignoring state numbers. You also ignore that most Perot voters would probably either stay home or voted more in favor of Bush than Clinton.
You also ignore the fact that without Perot from the start the entire dynamics of the campaign would have changed.
Lets look at Michigan as an example with 18 electoral votes.
Michigan
Clinton 1,871,182 43.77 18
Bush 1,554,940 36.38
Perot: 824,813 19.30
One has to assume various ways Perot voters would vote if Perot was not in the race. Stay home, vote Bush, Vote Clinton. Considering the margin of winning for Clinton was just over 316k, The Perot effect is noticeable in the raw numbers.
And you keep deliberately ignoring that polling quite clearly indicated that had Perot lef the race (again) right before election day, Clinton would have done BETTER, not worse.
I will also remind that when Perot dropped out of the race for a while, Clinton sprang back up to +10, just like the 2-way hypothetical polling was still showing on election eve.
Furthermore, your assumption that Perot voters would have stayed home is just that: an assumption.
Not only that, there is no reason to religitate something that has already happened.
This isn't litigating, this is people making the hard statement that Perot had not impact on Clinton winning, which is false. You have to use theoretical models like "Perot leaves on the last day" and ignore the state level numbers showing the margin of Clinton or Bushes win in a State were mostly within the number of Perot votes.
Is the Cult of Clinton so great with you people that you can't admit he got help winning his election from a 3rd party candidate?
That's the point you are still missing, because you want to miss the point. If national polling were showing Clinton doing considerable better in margin WITHOUT Perot in the race, then that can only mean that at the state level, he would have to be doing considerably better as well.
But, just to humour you, let's take your Michigan data as an example. Clinton won by +316,242 votes. As you indicated, Perot got 824,813 votes in Michigan in 1992.
But assuming you really meant it when you said that Perot voters would have stayed home in 1992, then it would not matter, that would have meant that 824,000+ voters would simply not have showed up and Clinton would still have won the Wolverine State by 315,000+ votes. But let's assume that at least 80% of Perot voters had indeed stayed in the game in a hypothetical Perot drop out.
That would be 659,851 votes.
Now, in order to get enough Perot votes to Bush to erase that 316,242 Clinton lead, Bush would have needed to get about 490,000 of those 659,851 votes (74.6%) in order to get to a +320,000 margin over Clinton in those votes alone, those erasing the historically recorded +316,000 vote Clinton lead:
659,851 Perot votes (80% of the total Perot vote in MI in 1992)
Bush: 490,000
Clinton: 169,851
margin (in the Perot vote hypothetically split this way between Bush and Clinton): Bush +320,149
Add that to the historical totals and Bush would have won Michigan by about 4,000 votes, which would have surely triggered a recount at least.
But the Perot voters tended to say in polling they were more 1/2 1/2 were it a two-man race, so there is no way that Bush would have gotten 75% of the Perot vote, had he dropped out of the race,, to begin with. And I am speaking very specifically about the Michigan race that you mentioned.
No candidate has ever won in the NPV by +10, but lost in the EC. You do realize this, right?
It has nothing to do with your butthurt and inappropriate comments about "cult of Clinton". It has to do with math. And state for state, I can show you how it is very unlikely, outside of Montana, that Bush would have won a state that he lost in the historically recorded 3-way match from 1992.
Tell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
When did you last see a Democrat consistently polling 10 points ahead of almost all GOP comers in Ohio? In Pennsylvania? When is the last time you saw a Democrat pulling even in Georgia, Lousiana and Arkansas?
There is a data-pattern going on here than cannot be denied.
No one is inevitable. Hillary can indeed lose. But that's not what the numbers are saying now and that's not what they have been saying for 2 years straight.
And in one year from now, when Hillary is still stomping the GOP, I am going to remind you of this thread.
It's simple math.
promises, promisesTell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
When did you last see a Democrat consistently polling 10 points ahead of almost all GOP comers in Ohio? In Pennsylvania? When is the last time you saw a Democrat pulling even in Georgia, Lousiana and Arkansas?
There is a data-pattern going on here than cannot be denied.
No one is inevitable. Hillary can indeed lose. But that's not what the numbers are saying now and that's not what they have been saying for 2 years straight.
And in one year from now, when Hillary is still stomping the GOP, I am going to remind you of this thread.
It's simple math.
No its statistics based on polling, which is not Math. Statistics based on polling are not facts, they are trends and insinuations.
Oh, polling values are definitely statistical fact, which is definitely math. And they can definitely show trends. I have no idea what you mean by "insinuations" in this context.
If you think that the GOP people are not looking at the aggregates just as closely as I do, then you are fooling yourself. Why in the world do you think that President Bush (43) tried to make a play for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and Hawaii in 2004? Why, because the polling aggregates told him that those states could maybe be ripe for the picking.
And in 2008, McCain gave up on Michigan, just as Romney did in 2012, when the aggregates were consistently pointing to an Obama landslide no matter what.. Likewise, Obama thought to make a hard play for Georgia in 2008, but the closest he could some in aggregate, consistently, was 5 points, which is not enough.
Based on polling aggregates, both political teams make informed decisions. You do realize this, right?
Yes, they make decisions based on them, but again on trends and perceived outcomes. but you can't go around saying that Perot having an impact on the outcome of the 1992 election is a hard 100% "False" due to polling data and statistics.
The facts of an election without Perot, be it from the start or a withdrawal before the election cannot be determined because it DID NOT HAPPEN. The best you can do is assume based on the available data, and again, just spouting numbers does not allow ANYONE to say something is concretely "FALSE"
You have statistical evidence that Perot probably did not cause Bush to lose, you do not have that evidence as a "fact"
Alright, I can buy that. There is statistical evidence that Perot in or out of the race would not have changed the outcome. BTW, your statement "because it DID NOT HAPPEN" is what I could have been saying to you all the time here. You are the one who started with the hypotheticals, not I.
Yup, Hillary is great. Long as she doesn't open her mouth or voice her opinion she's perfect. Everybody else need not run because the media has already anointed her the winner. As long as she doesn't have to stand up for an extended period or participate in a debate, she wins, because the average American is so stupid that name recognition matters more than experience or competence.
Yup, Hillary is great. Long as she doesn't open her mouth or voice her opinion she's perfect. Everybody else need not run because the media has already anointed her the winner. As long as she doesn't have to stand up for an extended period or participate in a debate, she wins, because the average American is so stupid that name recognition matters more than experience or competence.
Sounds to me you're really butt hurt about this. It isn't the media that puts Hillary at the top....it's the people, so it could be there are not enough people with the wrong ideas about how this country should be run to get one of the clowns elected.
