jcd11235 0 #26 May 10, 2016 quadeIt's not about one state; it's about 50. I'm just not seeing it. http://www.270towin.com That hardly indicates Clinton can look forward to a landslide.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #27 May 10, 2016 jcd11235***It's not about one state; it's about 50. I'm just not seeing it. http://www.270towin.com That hardly indicates Clinton can look forward to a landslide. I didn't say landslide. Look around on the web site. Play with some of the interactive tools. Look at some of the other analysis other people have done. Right now it looks like Trump has a significantly more difficult time to get to 270 than Hillary does.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #28 May 10, 2016 quade******It's not about one state; it's about 50. I'm just not seeing it. http://www.270towin.com That hardly indicates Clinton can look forward to a landslide. I didn't say landslide. Look around on the web site. Play with some of the interactive tools. Look at some of the other analysis other people have done. Right now it looks like Trump has a significantly more difficult time to get to 270 than Hillary does. You said Trump has only an infinitesimal probability of winning. That implies Clinton will win by a landslide.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #29 May 10, 2016 jcd11235*********It's not about one state; it's about 50. I'm just not seeing it. http://www.270towin.com That hardly indicates Clinton can look forward to a landslide. I didn't say landslide. Look around on the web site. Play with some of the interactive tools. Look at some of the other analysis other people have done. Right now it looks like Trump has a significantly more difficult time to get to 270 than Hillary does. You said Trump has only an infinitesimal probability of winning. That implies Clinton will win by a landslide. Those aren't the same thing by any means. I didn't not imply that. I see an infinitesimal probability of Trump getting 270 electoral college votes. That doesn't mean Hillary wins by a landslide, only that she wins and he loses. Let's say we're having a drag race. My car has the proven ability to run a quarter mile in 12 seconds and yours has never gone quicker than 13 and further, it doesn't look as if your car could ever be quicker than 13. Okay, sure, my car could go out of control, crash and burn and you have an infinitesimal chance of winning. That doesn't mean I necessarily beat you by a landslide even if we both run our best races. All it means is, I beat you in the only meaningful way; crossing the finish line first.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #30 May 10, 2016 quadeI see an infinitesimal probability of Trump getting 270 electoral college votes. That doesn't mean Hillary wins by a landslide, only that she wins and he loses. You can't have it both ways. If Trump's chances are infinitesimal, there's no way he can get anywhere close to 270 electoral votes, hence Clinton wins by a landslide. If you believe Trump can get reasonably close to 270 electoral votes, avoiding a landslide loss, then his chances of exceeding 270 votes is nowhere close to infinitesimal.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #31 May 10, 2016 Phil "Duck Dynasty" Robertson"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #32 May 10, 2016 jcd11235You can't have it both ways. If Trump's chances are infinitesimal, there's no way he can get anywhere close to 270 electoral votes, hence Clinton wins by a landslide. If you believe Trump can get reasonably close to 270 electoral votes, avoiding a landslide loss, then his chances of exceeding 270 votes is nowhere close to infinitesimal. Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said he can get reasonably close to 270. I said Hillary has less of a distance to go to get there. Getting to 270 doesn't equate with a landslide victory. It doesn't have to be a landslide victory to be close to a sure thing either. If I could say with absolute certainty Hillary would get 270 (and ONLY 270) votes then Trump's chances would be absolutely zero, but again, that doesn't mean a landslide victory. It would simply mean she had enough votes locked in to win. If she gets 60% of the vote, THAT will be a landslide victory.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,600 #33 May 10, 2016 Someone used to dealing with the public. Ted Nugent. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #34 May 10, 2016 quade***You can't have it both ways. If Trump's chances are infinitesimal, there's no way he can get anywhere close to 270 electoral votes, hence Clinton wins by a landslide. If you believe Trump can get reasonably close to 270 electoral votes, avoiding a landslide loss, then his chances of exceeding 270 votes is nowhere close to infinitesimal. Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said he can get reasonably close to 270. I said Hillary has less of a distance to go to get there. Getting to 270 doesn't equate with a landslide victory. It doesn't have to be a landslide victory to be close to a sure thing either. Actually, it does, at least as close to a sure thing as you're claiming it will be. If he can't get reasonably close to 270 votes, then Clinton will have won by a landslide. The election will either be fairly close, meaning Trump has a non-infinitesimal probability of winning, or it will be a landslide. The link you provided indicates it will most likely be fairly close, and Trump's probability of victory is far greater than infinitesimal. It's probably well under 50%, but it's nowhere near zero. Is it the electoral college or probability that has you so confused?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,471 #35 May 10, 2016 Hi Paul, QuoteThose aren't the same thing by any means. And you are absolutely correct. It is simply too bad that some people cannot seem to understand the distinction. Re: infinitesimal probability of winning =/= win by a landslide Jerry Baumchen PS) =/= means does not equal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #36 May 10, 2016 JerryBaumchenAnd you are absolutely correct. You're both wrong. If we were talking about a small chance, such as the 25% probability estimate the bookmakers were recently giving him, that would be true. But Paul is claiming Trump's chances are essentially zero. There are no realistic scenarios in which Clinton is assured a victory this far out, with over 99% certainty, without taking an overwhelming majority of electoral votes, hence a landslide. ETA: I don't think Trump will win, and I'm in no way convinced it will be a landslide election. However, I think Trump's probability of victory is WAY above zero. He could reach 270 by winning in as few as four (of ten) states that are up for grabs, two of which are statistically tied at the moment, while he has a slight lead in another (not sure about the fourth). Trump sweeping those four states (1 of 84 possible winning combinations for competitive states) has a probability of about 6.25% (modeling each of them as a Bernoulli random variable with probability 0.5), which is well above "infinitesimal". The only way Trump could have an infinitesimal probability of winning is if Clinton is already dominating in enough states to already be assured of 270 electoral votes (or very close to that number) without help from any competitive states. There's a high probability of several states being competitive. If we assume that the competitive states are equally likely to go either way (that is, Clinton wins a randomly selected approximate half of them, winning about half their electoral votes), then a landslide victory would be the highly probable outcome.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #37 May 11, 2016 jcd11235******You can't have it both ways. If Trump's chances are infinitesimal, there's no way he can get anywhere close to 270 electoral votes, hence Clinton wins by a landslide. If you believe Trump can get reasonably close to 270 electoral votes, avoiding a landslide loss, then his chances of exceeding 270 votes is nowhere close to infinitesimal. Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said he can get reasonably close to 270. I said Hillary has less of a distance to go to get there. Getting to 270 doesn't equate with a landslide victory. It doesn't have to be a landslide victory to be close to a sure thing either. Actually, it does, at least as close to a sure thing as you're claiming it will be. If he can't get reasonably close to 270 votes, then Clinton will have won by a landslide. The election will either be fairly close, meaning Trump has a non-infinitesimal probability of winning, or it will be a landslide. The link you provided indicates it will most likely be fairly close, and Trump's probability of victory is far greater than infinitesimal. It's probably well under 50%, but it's nowhere near zero. Is it the electoral college or probability that has you so confused? There is an infinitesimal chance that he will get more than 270. There is a High probability he will get a few less than that. It is a mediocre possibility that it will be. Landslide.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nolhtairt 0 #38 May 11, 2016 wmw999 Someone used to dealing with the public. Ted Nugent. Wendy P. Vince McMahon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 905 #39 May 11, 2016 Did Ted pick up a felony hunting conviction of some sort for nicking a bear? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #40 May 11, 2016 >Did Ted pick up a felony hunting conviction of some sort for nicking a bear? All the better! He is pro-gun and anti-environmental. Heck, that might be a mark _against_ him - he could out-lean Trump. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #41 May 11, 2016 turtlespeedThere is an infinitesimal chance that he will get more than 270. It is (unfortunately) WAY higher than that. Check out this post.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #42 May 11, 2016 Tony the Tiger. Together they will make America GRRRREAT again scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,600 #43 May 11, 2016 Thanks to one and all for returning this thread to frippery and banter, as opposed to electoral dick-waving. It's a much better use of bandwidth And maybe he can pick Mitch McConnell. Get him out of Congress. Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #44 May 11, 2016 wmw999 Thanks to one and all for returning this thread to frippery and banter, as opposed to electoral dick-waving. It's a much better use of bandwidth And maybe he can pick Mitch McConnell. Get him out of Congress. Wendy P. Strom Thurman.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TriGirl 349 #45 May 11, 2016 wmw999 Thanks to one and all for returning this thread to frippery and banter, as opposed to electoral dick-waving. It's a much better use of bandwidth And maybe he can pick Mitch McConnell. Get him out of Congress. Wendy P. Wasn't that one of the suggestions for SC nominee? Daring them not to conduct confirmation hearings. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #46 May 14, 2016 Possibly Joe Arpaio, assuming Trump doesn't reach some sort of compromise with Republican leadership.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #47 May 14, 2016 PhreeZoneSo now that the Republicans have their presumptive pick - who will be chosen as the VP? The best that could come of this would be if Trump convinced Christie Whitman to be his running mate, got elected, and let her make all the real decisions. Trump would be the ideal person to freak everyone out and take the heat for it, and she would do a great job of actually getting things done. If Douglas Adams' observation that the presidency was too important to give the president any real power was taken to heart, we might have a chance. At this point, however, we are beyond fucked. It was fun while it lasted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #48 May 14, 2016 ryoderPhil "Duck Dynasty" Robertson Pat Robertson Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #49 May 14, 2016 Something horrifying has occurred to me; Cheney. There's no rule that says he can't be the Puppet Master of the Naval Observatory again.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #50 May 14, 2016 quadeSomething horrifying has occurred to me; Cheney. There's no rule that says he can't be the Puppet Master of the Naval Observatory again. See you and raise you. Al Gore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
