How the math works - Trump cannot win

The DNC decided to ignore the Sanders voters, and instead mocked Trump for everything and chose an establishment, corrupt, hollow crony to run for president, just so they could mark another notch in the social justice belt.

4 years of comedy gold coming up in 3, 2, 1....

 

You might want to check your "math".....Trump is president elect but Hillary is still winning in the polls! LOL!

 

Care to revise and extend your remarks

 

Care to revise and extend?

 

We're celebrating, too.

 

and bumblebees can't fly

 

Hahahhaha ha

 

Absolutely wrong, as were many articles and polls and electoral projections. Even Fox polls were way off. I understand why the change occurred, but like a lot of people I don't understand how it was so completely missed. This is the first time in history a US Presidential candidate has won after being behind in the polls at such a late date.

They'll be studying this for years.

 

Math is hard!

 

Care to refresh your statement?

 

Yee-haaa!! And I like your sig.

 

Must not of been around when Reagan ran. The polls were off just as far. What polls cannot measure is the enthusiasm gap. Trump was pulling in crowds the size that Obama pulled in. Hillary had to co-opt celebrities just to bring anybody in. The posters choose who they poll so that in and of itself is a bias.

 

And......Wait for it....................................................................Trump Won!!!

 

Studying what? DNC emails make fairly obvious that collusion is commonplace on the media. They can easily schew the numbers that they provide to you in an attempt at a bandwagon effect.

 

Two of my friends had to get the pole workers when they had problems with the machine flipping votes. That is a person to person report not something I saw on TV and they had other family members there who had to wait for them to get everything straight that I also talked to so it isn't just made up but form most peoples communicated experience they didn't notice anything strange.

 

How does it feel, now, knowing how dead wrong you were?

 

My math was better

 

Reagan 1st term:
Reagan 47%
Carter 44%

Reagan 2nd term:
Reagan: 49%
Mondale: 41%

They were close.

You're on the right track I think. Pollsters are sheepishly admitting this week that their models aren't working as they're not considering who will actually go to the polls.

 

Even Trump's own pollster was showing what other pollsters were showing - that he was behind.

 

How amusing this thread is... and how absurdly wrong it was... I just love seeing these threads all over the internet that are just as wrong as the wretched media.

In reality D got its worst result since 1988, while R got its best result since 1988. It was so obvious that they'd win from the moment Trump became nominee and how easily he would win against either Sanders or Clinton. My only regret wasn't betting on it, but I rest assured he'll be a two-termer and will be betting on that. Who are they going to stand next, Kanye West? Hahaha...

 

Here's some math for you, Doug:


The Math: Trump 2016 Would've Beaten Obama 2012

It's easy to glance at Tuesday’s popular vote — which, with 92 percent of all precincts reporting, shows Hillary Clinton with six million fewer votes than Barack Obama won in 2012 – and reach the conclusion that Clinton lost the White House because she failed to turn out the Democratic base. But the truth is much more complicated. While she underperformed relative to Obama’s 2012 totals in several Midwestern states — Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin — Clinton ran virtually even with Obama in the battlegrounds of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Nevada, and New Hampshire. What’s more, she far surpassed Obama’s 2012 vote total in Florida, the country’s biggest swing state. Yet somehow, while Obama carried Florida, Clinton lost it. Which brings us to an important question: Was Donald Trump just good enough to beat a bad Democratic opponent on Tuesday, or does he deserve far more credit? Could he, for instance, have competed with the vaunted Obama machine? The answer, somewhat shockingly, is yes. A review of vote totals in the past two elections reveals that Trump 2016 would have defeated Obama 2012 in the electoral college. (Disclaimer: This obviously is an apples-to-oranges exercise because no two elections are the same, nor are any two electorates. Still, unlike debating whether the 2016 Cubs would defeat the 1927 Yankees, this is not an entirely abstract argument; a comparison of their respective performances in the country’s most competitive states shows Trump edging Obama in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup.) The math might seem impossible. After all, Obama won nearly 66 million votes in 2012; Trump is currently at 59.5 million and should finish around 60 million, which will actually be one million fewer votes than Mitt Romney won. How, then, could Trump have topped Obama in the electoral college? The answer: Republican turnout lagged in certain parts of the country but shot through the roof in the nation’s most critical battleground states. Let’s look at them individually, in descending order by population, and do the electoral-vote math. The 2016 totals aren’t yet final because not all precincts have reported. FLORIDA — 29 EVs — 98 percent reporting Obama 2012: 4,235,270 Clinton 2016: 4,485,745 Romney 2012: 4,162,081 Trump 2016: 4,605,515 Conclusion: Trump beats Obama by some 370,000 votes and wins Florida. (Note: Clinton herself won 250,000 more votes in Florida than Obama did in 2012.) PENNSYLVANIA — 20 EVs — 97 percent reporting Obama 2012: 2,907,448 Clinton 2016: 2,844,705 Romney 2012: 2,619,583 Trump 2016: 2,912,941 Conclusion: Trump squeezes past Obama by a margin of some 5,000 votes and wins Pennsylvania. (Note: Clinton runs about 60,000 votes behind Obama, but would’ve had more than enough to defeat Romney in 2012.) OHIO — 18 EVs – 94 percent reporting Obama 2012: 2,697,260 Clinton 2016: 2,317,001 Romney 2012: 2,593,779 Trump 2016: 2,771,984 Conclusion: Trump edges Obama by roughly 75,000 votes and wins Ohio. (Note: Clinton’s worst battleground state showing was Ohio, winning 380,000 [!] fewer votes than Obama.) Stop right there and crunch the numbers: Florida (29) + Pennsylvania (20) + Ohio (1 = 67 EVs. Romney finished with 206 EVs. By protecting all of those, and then taking 67 from Obama, Trump would hit 273 and win the presidency. The question: Did Trump 2016 defeat Obama 2012 in all of the states Romney won? Yes. Here’s a look at the competitive ones: – NORTH CAROLINA (98 percent reporting): Trump 2,339,603 … Obama 2,178,388 – ARIZONA (73 percent reporting): Trump 947,284 … Obama 930,669 – GEORGIA (93 percent reporting): Trump 2,068,623 … Obama 1,761,761 – UTAH (78 percent reporting): Trump 360,634 … Obama 229,463 A review of the Romney 2012 states confirms that Trump, in this hypothetical matchup, would have carried every single one against Obama. It doesn’t matter that Obama would have trounced Trump by nearly 300,000 votes in Michigan; by more than 200,000 in Wisconsin; by 175,000 in Virginia; and by 160,000 in Colorado. It’s similarly meaningless that Obama would have narrowly defeated Trump in Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire. The 44th president carried all of those states in 2012, and in this hypothetical contest, he would successfully defend all of them. But it wouldn’t be enough. The electoral college would produce a razor-thin margin: Trump 273, Obama 265. Again, this is an apples-to-oranges exercise. It’s impossible to know how the Obama campaign might have targeted certain voters in a contest against Trump, or whether Trump would have the same success in the three big battleground states against a more formidable opponent. But that’s not the point here; the point is that it’s not entirely fair to blame Clinton for depressing Democratic turnout when she ran even with him in five of the country’s most competitive states and ahead of him in a sixth, Florida, the single biggest swing state — and still lost the electoral college.

 

As I pointed out here many times before the election, Hillary was stuck in the mid-40's for months and it appeared as if people were just not owning up to their intent to vote for Trump in the polls because no matter how wildly his numbers swung, hers never really changed. Add to that Johnson's back-handed endorsement of Clinton right before the election sent conservatives porting in his waters back to Trump.

 

Clinton's numbers started in the 40s then went up 5 points.

Trump's started at 35 and went up as well, but not quite as much until the end. If you look at the graph you can see that the emails had an impact near the end. On the 28th (when Comey's letter went to Congress) to the 30th Trump's popularity really jumped. Clinton's didn't move but the gap closed.

As we know the polls were inaccurate so we'll never know if Clinton would have won had Comey not sent the letter. But the poll jump at the same time as the letter is interesting to note.

 

It's cool if you want to go back and edit this post.

 

I assume this very supportive language means you are in no way going to bash the EC result now?