Hillary is STOMPING Christie, Jeb Bush and Walker in NJ

[Statistikhengst]

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

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.

Again, its all conjecture you are trying to masquerade as fact.

And fuck you for calling my comments "inappropriate"

Little grumpy today, what?

Actually, I took time to really work out exactly the scenario YOU mentioned and then you write something like that. What a shame for you.

 

[martybegan]

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.

No, its the media and other fellow cheer-leaders such as yourself.

I find it sad you assholes are going snarky more than 20 months before the actual election. The only buffoonery is on your end.

 

[JoeMoma]

OK, it's kinda early in the day in some time zones.....

But has ANYBODY seen Hillary today?

Anybody?

I would bet $0.75 that Bill hasn't seen her today.

 

[HenryBHough]

I would bet $0.75 that Bill hasn't seen her today.

Slick can legitimately be called many things but, trust me, he's not dumb enough to willingly risk being turned to stone.....

 

[1stRambo]

Have you heard the latest? Hillary is excepting foreign Government money to the Clinton Foundation?

 

[JoeMoma]

Have you heard the latest? Hillary is excepting foreign Government money to the Clinton Foundation?

But all of that money is going to charity!

 

[1stRambo]

You don`t know your own Party? CHEAT!

 

[Esmeralda]

Have you heard the latest? Hillary is excepting foreign Government money to the Clinton Foundation?

Excepting? How do you except money?

 

[HenryBHough]

And a Happy Saturday to all of those liberals among us who have had a personal Hillary sighting today!

Oh, wait, none have??????

 

[Vigilante]

Out of sight...out of mind!

 

[Nyvin]

Is Hillary not being public the latest Republican noise machine scandal?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Is Hillary not being public the latest Republican noise machine scandal?

Yes, I think that is the newest meme.

 

[HenryBHough]

And the sun sets gently behind the sanitorium; another day passes into history with no Hillary sighting.

Not even a rumor of one.

Are we confronted with the possibility of a tired old body waiting for the final quietude? A staff of animatronics wizards impatiently standing by, feet tapping? Nervously watching the minutes ebb away before The Grand Democrat Party convention by which time their work MUST be done?

Fortunately science hasn't gotten that far so there IS hope for America!

But wait, maybe Apple's Project TITAN isn't about an electric mini-van at all!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

statistikmange seems pleasantly 'shocked' that a liberal Democrap is doing well in a deep blue state.

Film at 11.

 

[Statistikhengst]

statistikmange seems pleasantly 'shocked' that a liberal Democrap is doing well in a deep blue state.

Film at 11.

So, you didn't read the details of the OP.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Agit8r]

Hillary is overly corporate having said that I say ABAR...anyone but a Republican.....

Here's the thing. If you have the GOP nominating Scott Walker, you'd probably have a Republican with more blue collar street Cred than the Democrat.

What? He's a career politician who went on an actual witch hunt. Is that all it takes these days?

 

[Agit8r]

Maybe she isn't over the 2008 primaries...

 

[Vigilante]

Maybe she isn't over the 2008 primaries...

The way the old drunk drinks, I'm sure your right, being beat by a jug eared, black, communist takes many years to get over, if at all!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

statistikmange seems pleasantly 'shocked' that a liberal Democrap is doing well in a deep blue state.

Film at 11.

So, you didn't read the details of the OP.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I rarely read an entire wall of words such as you posted. But I did note that you seemed pleased that Shrillary is doing well in NJ against Republicans.

Which is just downright funny.

YAY! The NY football Giants are doing well in the kiddie's sandlot touch football league!