"A new computer simulation of the general election by Prof. Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium predicts a near certain win for Hillary Clinton in November based on the state polls."
http://election.princeton.edu/2016/05/31/state-poll-snapshot-clinton-336-trump-202-ev-meta-margin-4-2/
1) if I was a stuffy liberal prof and a known university, I would make this as propaganda to make people think Hillary will win.
2) they """"""""""""""predicted""""""""""""" Trump would just barely get the delegates needed, when in fact, he crushed it
3) people are wrong a lot.
oh shit i'm a cruzmisile now
>>76109121
>Wang
Trump got cuck'd with a princeton wang...
>>76109121
>predicting the outcome of the wildest election in history.
How the hell can they factor in things which we KNOW will be huge stories? Either Clinton gets indicted, let off the hook, or the investigation continues all the way through Election Day. Regardless, that is a huge negative story that today's polls can't factor in.
Hell, Last months polls couldn't factor in that Trump would call out his Trump U judge for being Mexican. Who the Fuck knows what else he has up his sleeve.
Trying to predict an election between Trump and Clinton is like trying to predict Hellen Kellers favorite color. Fucking pointless.
>>76109121
This study, as Wang admits, is based on a "mythical" matchup of Trump vs Hillary by themselves.
Like all myths, this one isn't real, because the 2016 presidential election is already a 3-way with the Libertarian candidate.
Opinion discarded.
>>76110527
>libertarian candidate
>I'll take 'what is within rounding error of '0' for 1000, Alex'
>July, 2015
>Our experts have come together and said that Donald Trump has a 10, 5 and -10% chance of winning the Republican nomination
A fucking LEAF. How short do you think our memories are?
>>76111091
Uh-huh. A Ralph Nader "rounding error" in 2000 robbed Gore of the presidency.
Sure, push your bogus study if you want, but don't expect me to give it any credence if you omit significant variables, pencil dick.
>>76112976
>Ralph Nader "rounding error" in 2000 robbed Gore of the presidency
This isn't true.
>>76112976
green not libertarian.
>1972: John Hospers and Tonie Nathan - 3,674 popular votes (0.00%); 1 electoral vote
1976: Roger MacBride and David Bergland - 172,553 popular votes (0.21%)
1980: Ed Clark and David Koch - 921,128 popular votes (1.06%)
1984: David Bergland and James A. Lewis - 228,111 popular votes (0.25%)
1988: Ron Paul and Andre Marrou - 431,750 popular votes (0.47%)
1992: Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord - 290,087 popular votes (0.28%)
1996: Harry Browne and Jo Jorgensen - 485,798 popular votes (0.50%)
2000: Harry Browne and Art Olivier - 384,516 popular votes (0.36%)
2004: Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna - 397,265 popular votes (0.32%)
2008: Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root - 523,686 popular votes (0.40%)
2012: Gary Johnson and James P. Gray - 1,275,821 popular votes (0.99%)
>>76109121
The fact that its a close race
The fact that liberals are completely butthurt and scared of Trump
The fact they call him a clown everyday
Trump already won
the cracks are already apparant
>>76112533
i'm no leaf,sir
