>Why aren’t you guys quoting Nate Silver anymore? Because he’s a crock.
>He hasn’t been ‘mistakenly’ wrong. He has been wrong again, and again, and again. Check it out.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/the-man-behind-the-hilarious-conservative-pundit-parody-account-speaks-out/
>>73004491
>Everyone is going to be looking at the Trump vs. Clinton general election from the prism of 2000 battleground. “First, let us give these states to Clinton, those states to Trump, and focus on the one or few battleground states.” 2000 was close because both candidates sucked. Gore? Bush Jr.? 2004 was also close because both candidates sucked. Bush Jr.? Kerry? 2008 was completely misread by people since 2006 was misread by people. Democrats won control of the House in 2006 due to conservative districts punishing Republican GW Bush Administration by voting for the Democrat. After all, Obama campaigned on lower taxes, stronger military, etc. Carville hilariously wrote a book saying that there would be 40 more years of Democratic control. 2012, you have Obama vs Romney, a terribel candidate.
>Here is why 2016 won’t be ‘close’ in the perspective of 2000 type ‘battleground’ scenarios and ‘ground game’ crap.
>>73004560
>First, I think we are in a Re-Alignment. I know this is said every election, but we are due for one. Liberal and Conservative alignment is dead. What is happening is a Globalist vs Nationalist alignment. Republicans would be very smart to have Trump help undergo the alignment of Republicans into Nationalists. The Democrats, especially with their super-delegate bullshit, are delaying their inevitable re-alignment into a Globalist Party. They will get there, but it may be a shellacking for a general election or two in order to get it.
Second, most people reading this site have never seen a true landslide election. The strangest general election ever was Carter’s. Reagan and Nixon won 49 states in two of their elections. The point is that the 2000-ish ‘this is going to be CLOSE and battleground states OMG’ type thinking may not apply here. It could very well be a blowout. Trump, like Reagan and Nixon, will get Democrat votes. Laffer, from the infamous Laffer’s Curve, predicts Republican candidate to win 47 states. He predicts this because he has seen Nixon and Reagan elections because in those cases the Democratic Party put up a ‘machine candidate’ who just royally sucked. Hillary Clinton royally sucks. I think she is the worst (electoral wise) candidate the Democrats could have chosen. They could have put in anyone else.
>>73004700
>Third, Hillary Clinton will be the first time we have ever had a female Presidential candidate. How will people respond? I do not think they will respond well. So many women do not want a female president. We have had two instances of female VP picks. Mondale in 1984 (lost 49 states) and McCain in 2008 (big loss). Cruz had Fiorina as a VP pick before Indiana primary and Cruz got blown out. Inside the beltway thinking says it is good to put up female VP candidates, but the public doesn’t seem to agree. Based on this, a main female presidential candidate will likely be blown out.
>Fourth, Hillary Clinton has the most baggage I’ve ever seen a political candidate have. It goes beyond the emails and money cheating. I am talking Monica Lewinsky and all the other bimbo eruptions. Many young people did not live through that. They will be shocked that Hillary Clinton stuck by and allowed Bill Clinton to humiliate her again and again. I expect young feminists to vote against Hillary Clinton because of that.
>>73004858
>Fifth, Hillary Clinton is seen as ‘status quo’. With so many Americans upset at the direction the country is going (polling wise), I think this will be an anti-status quo election.
>Sixth, this is extremely important and will not be mentioned anywhere. Pundits think Hillary Clinton is ‘popular’ because Bill Clinton was ‘popular’. The truth was that Bill Clinton was never popular. Did you know that Bill Clinton never won a majority of the vote in either the 1992 or 1996 elections? He won majority of electoral college votes, but he couldn’t get the majority of the popular vote. In 1996, he got 49% of the vote. In 1992, he got 42% of the vote. This happened because of a third party candidate called Perot who got, astonishingly, 20% of the vote in 1992.
>>73004941
>Seventh, the pundits will have tunnel vision because they believe that unfavorable ratings are equal. They are not. Most presidential candidates try to appear as the hero. Trump, in a most brilliant move, is trying to appear as the villain. This is why the media cannot stop reporting on what he says. It is why he loves being the ‘great villain’ with GOP against him, conservative pundits against him, Democrats against him, etc. The more Trump is attacked, the stronger he gets. Trump isn’t running as a hero or as a moral saint. This is why his unfavorables are so high but he keeps winning elections. In other words, I think Hillary’s unfavorable numbers doom her but Trump’s unfavorable numbers boost him. Trump isn’t seen by his supporters as a candidate, he is seen as a murder weapon. The supporters wish to use Trump to murder the political class and destroy them as they believe they have been destroyed by their policies. In 2020, when Trump runs for re-election, Trump will reverse this and run as the hero which will leave the 2020 candidate in the dust acting like he (and it will be a male Democratic candidate in 2020) prepared to go ‘more villain’ to answer 2016’s surprising Trump win. Trump will play the devil in 2016, the angel in 2020.
https://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/destruction-of-nate-silver/
hmm...
is this yours
>>73005952
the link is in the last post m8
>>73005028
>The supporters wish to use Trump to murder the political class and destroy them as they believe they have been destroyed by their policies.
kek, I think this may be true
>>73006084
my question still stands.
>>73006589
i just find the article interesting then i post on /pol/
>>73006814
It was a good one Charlie, cheers m8.
>He pegged Trump’s odds of winning the nomination at 2 percent, and laid out the so-called “six stages of doom” for his campaign.
This is why it's so easy to laugh at the people who say he has no chance against Shillary. They've been doing this song and dance since the beginning and they've been proven wrong time and time again, no matter how low they thought the odds were.
>>73008609
>mfw these people will continue to talk shit and get paid for it all the way through the general election.
How do these people have jobs?
>>73004491
Nate let his emotions get in the way of his rational thinking.
Normally he doesn't put feelings before logic, but he did and got +420 #STUMPED
>>73010162
I dont think its emotions so much as Trump broke all the rules.
I think Trump represents the entire political spectrum pivoting 90 degrees.
>>73011599
These poor bastards are trying to apply the rules of checkers to speed chess.
Not to toot our own horn but your average /pol/ack is far FAR more clued in to why the electorate is going one way than the poor ignorant ivory tower shills who haven't left their high class estate and social circle jerk
>>73006589
>>73005952
>He thought a jungle-gook may have written this
