IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2016 elections , donald trump , hillary clinton , political predictions , prediction thread

View Poll Results: How great is this thread?
So great! 7 24.14%
The word "great" has lost all meaning. 6 20.69%
Picard, blow up the damn ship! 19 65.52%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 9th November 2016, 06:53 AM   #121
Skeptic Tank
Trigger Warning
 
Skeptic Tank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,033
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Including the people whom he wants to kick out of the country?
Should people who break into our country against our will not be kicked out?
__________________
"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." - Thomas Jefferson
Skeptic Tank is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 07:07 AM   #122
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank View Post
Should people who break into our country against our will not be kicked out?
Depends. I'm a case-by-case kind of guy.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 11:50 AM   #123
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,955
Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank View Post
Should people who break into our country against our will not be kicked out?
No, no. I'm sure your will should triumph.
mumblethrax is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 11:56 AM   #124
applecorped
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Just to be different

328 Hilary
210 Trump

Trump gets ohio.
Lol
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 12:13 PM   #125
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,002
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Including the people whom he wants to kick out of the country?
Perhaps those people stand to benefit most, now that he's elected.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2016, 10:49 PM   #126
Skeptic Tank
Trigger Warning
 
Skeptic Tank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,033
I had trump at 280 and I wasn't nearly optimistic enough. He got 306
__________________
"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." - Thomas Jefferson
Skeptic Tank is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2016, 02:15 PM   #127
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 16,095
Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank View Post
Should people who break into our country against our will not be kicked out?
There was a time migrant workers basically freely crossed the border at seasonal times to tend to agriculture's demand for their labor. When the border became harder to cross, workers began to opt to stay in the US in case they couldn't get back in. "Breaking in" isn't what I'd call answering a job advert no one else in the receiving country is at all interested in, and still isn't. Such hard work at low wages only makes sense for someone who is sending the money home to a country where the wages are more significant due to differences in living standards. - Gosh, that last sentence makes a hell of a lot of sense, doesn't it? How about a time-out to change thinking? - Migrant agricultural workers are a benefit to the US economy, and are the right fit for the job according to conservative economic thinking. They just make good fodder for radio hate jocks and the suckers who tune in.

@OP And I was pretty darn close on my estimate of Trumps electoral votes.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2016, 02:42 PM   #128
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Amy thoughts on the number of faithless electors and to abd for whom they will be unfaithful?
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2016, 06:39 PM   #129
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Amy thoughts on the number of faithless electors and to abd for whom they will be unfaithful?
I've seen 7 electors pledge to be faithless, but all 7 were pledged to Clinton. Seems like a useless move on their part.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2016, 11:31 PM   #130
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I've seen 7 electors pledge to be faithless, but all 7 were pledged to Clinton. Seems like a useless move on their part.
Some people just don't want Trump to be president. If Trump loses 37 electoral boats, the Electoral College will be deadlocked and the election will go to the House of Representatives at which point the States will vote on the top three candidates put forward by the Electoral College.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2016, 05:06 AM   #131
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Some people just don't want Trump to be president. If Trump loses 37 electoral boats, the Electoral College will be deadlocked and the election will go to the House of Representatives at which point the States will vote on the top three candidates put forward by the Electoral College.
Right, but the 7 faithless electors are pledged to Clinton. If they follow through on not voting for Clinton, that means 44 other electors pledged to Trump would have to vote another way. What these 7 are doing gives Trump a bigger margin of victory, even though none of the 7 claims to want a Trump presidency.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2016, 09:45 AM   #132
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Right, but the 7 faithless electors are pledged to Clinton. If they follow through on not voting for Clinton, that means 44 other electors pledged to Trump would have to vote another way. What these 7 are doing gives Trump a bigger margin of victory, even though none of the 7 claims to want a Trump presidency.
No, a candidate must have at least 270 votes in the Electoral College to win the presidency. Regardless of how many electoral votes Clinton loses, Trump only needs to lose 37 for him to lose the majority of the votes of all the electors. When there is no absolute majority in the Electoral College, the house decides the election by voting one state one vote on the top three candidates who received electoral votes. Taking votes away from Clinton--who is probably not going to win the Electoral College anyway--is a strategic move to put someone else on the ballot submitted to the House.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2016, 09:56 AM   #133
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
No, a candidate must have at least 270 votes in the Electoral College to win the presidency. Regardless of how many electoral votes Clinton loses, Trump only needs to lose 37 for him to lose the majority of the votes of all the electors. When there is no absolute majority in the Electoral College, the house decides the election by voting one state one vote on the top three candidates who received electoral votes. Taking votes away from Clinton--who is probably not going to win the Electoral College anyway--is a strategic move to put someone else on the ballot submitted to the House.
You are correct. However many jump ship from Clinton doesn't mean more have to jump ship from Trump, I was wrong.

However, Clinton getting 7 fewer electoral votes than she won does nothing whatsoever to take votes from Trump. It is a symbolic gesture that has no chance stopping a Trump presidency. For faithless electors to change the outcome, we would need those pledged to Trump to be abstaining of voting for someone else, not those pledged to Clinton.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2016, 10:13 AM   #134
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
You are correct. However many jump ship from Clinton doesn't mean more have to jump ship from Trump, I was wrong.

However, Clinton getting 7 fewer electoral votes than she won does nothing whatsoever to take votes from Trump. It is a symbolic gesture that has no chance stopping a Trump presidency. For faithless electors to change the outcome, we would need those pledged to Trump to be abstaining of voting for someone else, not those pledged to Clinton.
There is a possibility that one or two of the recounts that are currently going on find that Clinton actually won those States. Clinton has to win all three of those states to win a majority of votes in the Electoral College. However, Clinton's winning the states that Trump previously had one would mean fewer electors would have to be faithless get rid of Trumps majority.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2016, 10:16 AM   #135
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
There is a possibility that two of the recounts that are currently going on find that Clinton actually won those States. Clinton has to win all three of those states to win a majority of votes in the Electoral College. However, Clinton's winning the states that Trump previously had one would mean fewer electors would have to be faithless get rid of Trumps majority.
True, except 7 of the electors that Clinton won have already declared that they won't be voting for Clinton. It's not likely that she will win any of the three recount states (I read this morning of a filing for a recount in Florida, too), but losing these 7 electors puts her further away even if by some crazy happening she does get any state she lost.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2016, 12:45 PM   #136
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
True, except 7 of the electors that Clinton won have already declared that they won't be voting for Clinton. It's not likely that she will win any of the three recount states (I read this morning of a filing for a recount in Florida, too), but losing these 7 electors puts her further away even if by some crazy happening she does get any state she lost.
I think the point is, as I stated before, that people are more interested in stopping Trump from becoming president and then having Clinton become president. In other words, Clinton electors are willing to vote for anyone even if it's not Clinton as long as it stop Trump from becoming president.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2016, 01:22 PM   #137
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
I think the point is, as I stated before, that people are more interested in stopping Trump from becoming president and then having Clinton become president. In other words, Clinton electors are willing to vote for anyone even if it's not Clinton as long as it stop Trump from becoming president.
And how exactly will people who were pledged to vote for Clinton refusing to vote for Clinton prevent Trump becoming president?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2016, 01:36 PM   #138
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
 
Dumb All Over's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name)
Posts: 6,580
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
I think the point is, as I stated before, that people are more interested in stopping Trump from becoming president and then having Clinton become president. In other words, Clinton electors are willing to vote for anyone even if it's not Clinton as long as it stop Trump from becoming president.
It makes no sense to me why the faithless Clinton electors believe this tactic will work. It won't. The 306 electors pledged to vote for Trump will vote for Trump, and will do so enthusiastically.
__________________
The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty forum word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead."
"Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." -Steve Martin
Dumb All Over is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2016, 01:44 PM   #139
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 26,900
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
And how exactly will people who were pledged to vote for Clinton refusing to vote for Clinton prevent Trump becoming president?
They'll try anything.

It won't work. It won't even come close. But I think I understand their thinking, at least on the surface.

At least one of the ones who has publicly discussed her intended faithlessness plans to vote for "Another Republican". She didn't say who, at least in the article I read. Her theory is that she will inspire some Trump electors to vote for some Republican other than Trump. If enough of them do that, then Trump doesn't have an electoral majority, so the House gets to pick the President from among the top vote getters, and the Republican House picks a non-Trump Republican.

I think the underlying theory is that Republicans also hate Trump, but feel stuck with him. She's trying to demonstrate that there is, technically, an alternative.


It could work in a made for TV movie, but not in the real world. Trump is going to be President.


I thought of another plot for a made for TV movie. Again, unrealistic, but it could produce an interesting bit of legal maneuvering. It has been asked on this board what happens if the President elect or vice President elect dies before the college votes. That contingency is pretty much taken care of, but I'll pose another one. What if, in a razor thin election, like the one of 2000, one or more electors die before casting their votes.

I'll bet that states have contingencies to cover that sort of thing, but I'm imagining that those contingencies vary from one state to another. Perhaps a governor can appoint a replacement? So I'm imagining that there's a one vote margin, and then two electors die. The governor, of the opposite party, finds two replacement electors, but interviews them first to make sure that they will be "faithless" electors, voting for the other party.

You could come up with a few variations on the theme for interest, but basically, you have electors that win the vote, but die before doing their one official act, which is casting their electoral vote, and somehow the state governor finds a way to change the election outcome in the course of replacing the electors.

To make a movie about it, you would have to fill in a whole lot of plot lines, but I wonder if such a thing is even legally possible. I wonder what provisions there are for replacing electors? There are enough of them that I'm sure it has come up, but never in a controversial situation where their vote could change an election.

ETA: A quick google found lots of sites discussing death of candidates, but not much about the death of electors. I did see a reference that in the election of 1820, James Monroe lost a total of four electoral votes from states he won because one of his electors was a faithless elector, and three others died before the election, and were not replaced.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 4th December 2016 at 01:50 PM.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2016, 01:49 PM   #140
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by Dumb All Over View Post
It makes no sense to me why the faithless Clinton electors believe this tactic will work. It won't. The 306 electors pledged to vote for Trump will vote for Trump, and will do so enthusiastically.
It makes sense to me when I consider the idea that Clinton is pretty much a lost cause and that there may be electors pledged to Trump who don't want him to be president. The Republican Party had not exactly been united in their support of Trump, so it is conceivable that there might be electors pledged to Trump who would prefer to vote for someone from the Party establishment rather than Trump. Ire all depends on where the Trump-pledged electors see their loyalty as lying.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2016, 02:03 PM   #141
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
 
Dumb All Over's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name)
Posts: 6,580
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
It makes sense to me when I consider the idea that Clinton is pretty much a lost cause and that there may be electors pledged to Trump who don't want him to be president. The Republican Party had not exactly been united in their support of Trump, so it is conceivable that there might be electors pledged to Trump who would prefer to vote for someone from the Party establishment rather than Trump. Ire all depends on where the Trump-pledged electors see their loyalty as lying.
The only elector I have heard of who pledged to vote for the Republican winner and now will not do so has resigned his position. I don't know how the rules in Texas work, but I will go out on a limb and predict the vacated position will be filled by an elector who will be enthusiastically voting for Trump. Are there other faithless Republican electors? I haven't heard of any.
__________________
The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty forum word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead."
"Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." -Steve Martin
Dumb All Over is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2016, 02:12 PM   #142
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by Dumb All Over View Post
The only elector I have heard of who pledged to vote for the Republican winner and now will not do so has resigned his position. I don't know how the rules in Texas work, but I will go out on a limb and predict the vacated position will be filled by an elector who will be enthusiastically voting for Trump. Are there other faithless Republican electors? I haven't heard of any.
I don't know how electors are chosen or if they are chosen for their loyalty to the Party or to the candidate. The former and the latter loyalties appear to be somewhat different for both major parties this year.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2016, 02:41 PM   #143
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
 
Dumb All Over's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name)
Posts: 6,580
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
I don't know how electors are chosen or if they are chosen for their loyalty to the Party or to the candidate. The former and the latter loyalties appear to be somewhat different for both major parties this year.
I believe they are chosen based on party loyalty. The Republican Party will be in control of the Senate, the House and the Presidency, and the President-elect will appoint Supreme Court justices solidifying a conservative bench. For at least the next two years, the Republicans will dominate Washington at every level. Every party loyalist knows this and will vote accordingly. Any differences separating party and candidate are miniscule and not enough to sway an elector to vote faithlessly and ignore the political riches the immediate future holds.
__________________
The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty forum word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead."
"Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." -Steve Martin
Dumb All Over is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2016, 02:45 PM   #144
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 26,900
Originally Posted by Dumb All Over View Post
The only elector I have heard of who pledged to vote for the Republican winner and now will not do so has resigned his position. I don't know how the rules in Texas work, but I will go out on a limb and predict the vacated position will be filled by an elector who will be enthusiastically voting for Trump. Are there other faithless Republican electors? I haven't heard of any.
In a news article I read, it said that the first order of business for the Texas electors will be to replace the elector. Presumably, Texas law provides that the existing electors elect a new elector in the event that there is a vacancy as they prepare to vote.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2016, 03:03 PM   #145
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
 
Dumb All Over's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name)
Posts: 6,580
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
In a news article I read, it said that the first order of business for the Texas electors will be to replace the elector. Presumably, Texas law provides that the existing electors elect a new elector in the event that there is a vacancy as they prepare to vote.
Interesting. Thanks.
__________________
The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty forum word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead."
"Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." -Steve Martin
Dumb All Over is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2016, 03:40 PM   #146
Slings and Arrows
Graduate Poster
 
Slings and Arrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,743
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz
I'm exercising my Ohio option, as mentioned earlier. There's got to be one that puts the talking heads in a tizzy and I think Clinton takes OH.

My guess, now is Clinton 341 - Trump 197
Edited by jsfisher:  <snip> Edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.


Recap:
mumblethrax: Clinton 360
ddt: Clinton 342
Foolmewunz: Clinton 341
Stacko: Clinton 341
Meadmaker: Clinton 337
TheL8Elvis: Clinton 328
MikeG: Clinton 319
Craig4: Clinton 317
Sherkeu: Clinton 308
Loss Leader: Clinton 303
Nate Silver: Clinton 302
Skeptic Ginger: Clinton 300
Tero: Clinton 290
shemp: Clinton 272
Cain: Clinton +270

Final result ----> Crooked Hillary 232

Last edited by jsfisher; 8th December 2016 at 05:44 PM.
Slings and Arrows is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2016, 04:59 PM   #147
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows View Post
Edited by jsfisher:  <snip> Moderated content redacted.

Recap:
mumblethrax: Clinton 360
ddt: Clinton 342
Foolmewunz: Clinton 341
Stacko: Clinton 341
Meadmaker: Clinton 337
TheL8Elvis: Clinton 328
MikeG: Clinton 319
Craig4: Clinton 317
Sherkeu: Clinton 308
Loss Leader: Clinton 303
Nate Silver: Clinton 302
Skeptic Ginger: Clinton 300
Tero: Clinton 290
shemp: Clinton 272
Cain: Clinton +270

Final result ----> Crooked Hillary 232
With ~200000 out of over 12000000 votes cast making the difference.

Last edited by jsfisher; 8th December 2016 at 05:46 PM.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2016, 11:47 AM   #148
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,647
Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows View Post
Edited by jsfisher:  <snip> Moderated content redacted.

Recap:
mumblethrax: Clinton 360
ddt: Clinton 342
Foolmewunz: Clinton 341
Stacko: Clinton 341
Meadmaker: Clinton 337
TheL8Elvis: Clinton 328
MikeG: Clinton 319
Craig4: Clinton 317
Sherkeu: Clinton 308
Loss Leader: Clinton 303
Nate Silver: Clinton 302
Skeptic Ginger: Clinton 300
Tero: Clinton 290
shemp: Clinton 272
Cain: Clinton +270

Final result ----> Crooked Hillary 232
I later changed my vote to Clinton 323.

And if somebody had bet me a hundred dollars that Trump would win, I would've taken it.

If somebody would've bet me a hundred dollars that Cleveland would beat Golden State (when they were down three games to one), I might've taken that bet as well. Same with the series when the Cubs were facing elimination and had only one win.

It's true that some people had faith in their underdogs, but it's poor form to celebrate that faith. Faith is stupid.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Diablo: You're a lousy bigot. Apologise and withdraw that remark.
Cain: Nah.

Last edited by jsfisher; 8th December 2016 at 05:46 PM.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2016, 08:10 AM   #149
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 32,556
Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows View Post
Edited by jsfisher:  <snip> Moderated content redacted.

Recap:
mumblethrax: Clinton 360
ddt: Clinton 342
Foolmewunz: Clinton 341
Stacko: Clinton 341
Meadmaker: Clinton 337
TheL8Elvis: Clinton 328
MikeG: Clinton 319
Craig4: Clinton 317
Sherkeu: Clinton 308
Loss Leader: Clinton 303
Nate Silver: Clinton 302
Skeptic Ginger: Clinton 300
Tero: Clinton 290
shemp: Clinton 272
Cain: Clinton +270

Final result ----> Crooked Hillary 232
Where is The Don in your list ?

edited to add....

Originally Posted by The Don View Post
<snip>
or Hlafordlaes ?

Last edited by jsfisher; 8th December 2016 at 05:46 PM.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2016, 12:03 PM   #150
Slings and Arrows
Graduate Poster
 
Slings and Arrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,743
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Where is The Don in your list ?

or Hlafordlaes ?

Well, my list only included the "Basket of Deludables."

Conversely, these two insightful individuals called it damn near spot-on:
Hlafordlaes: Clinton 228
The Don: Clinton 230
Slings and Arrows is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 04:19 PM   #151
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,218
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
And how exactly will people who were pledged to vote for Clinton refusing to vote for Clinton prevent Trump becoming president?
They can vote for anybody they like. The idea is that they would join with dissenting Republicans to elect a palatable Republican.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 04:20 PM   #152
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
They can vote for anybody they like. The idea is that they would join with dissenting Republicans to elect a palatable Republican.
Know what that requires? Dissenting Republicans. Know what we have instead? Dissenting Democrats.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 04:21 PM   #153
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,218
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
I don't know how electors are chosen or if they are chosen for their loyalty to the Party or to the candidate. The former and the latter loyalties appear to be somewhat different for both major parties this year.
They are active party members. Theoretically the interests of the party and the party's candidate should be the same.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 04:25 PM   #154
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,218
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Know what that requires? Dissenting Republicans. Know what we have instead? Dissenting Democrats.
Actually, one of the protest leaders is a Republican firefighter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/op...ald-trump.html
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 04:35 PM   #155
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Actually, one of the protest leaders is a Republican firefighter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/op...ald-trump.html
Ok. One Republican elector won't vote for Trump, 7 Democratic ones won't vote for Clinton, so unless 38 or so more Republican electors join the one we have, Trump will be President. Notice how the 7 Democratic faithless electors don't actually alter that?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 04:42 PM   #156
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,218
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Ok. One Republican elector won't vote for Trump, 7 Democratic ones won't vote for Clinton, so unless 38 or so more Republican electors join the one we have, Trump will be President. Notice how the 7 Democratic faithless electors don't actually alter that?
I don't think they have a chance of winning, mostly because electors are party loyalists and activists. But theoretically, they could.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2016, 06:14 AM   #157
Caper
Philosopher
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,732
Man. In my lifetime I will never enjoy an election more then this one.
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2016, 06:27 AM   #158
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
Man. In my lifetime I will never enjoy an election more then this one.
You enjoy watching America get destroyed?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2016, 06:40 AM   #159
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
You enjoy watching America get destroyed?
Surprisingly more people share that sentiment than I would have expected. Even more surprisingly, a lot of them are Americans. Not surprisingly at all, though, I'm already seeing squawking (on Facebook) by those who were enthusiastic Trump supporters about the Republican moves on Social Security that anyone not drunk on Fox/Breitbart knew would happen with a Trump win.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2016, 09:12 AM   #160
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
Man. In my lifetime I will never enjoy an election more then this one.
I don't get that. Why would you enjoy seeing the political party in power damage the country they were elected to run?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:42 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.