jcd11235

Now let's see how things look when you don't cherry-pick. Clinton vs. Trump. Even Sanders has made a slightly higher proportion of false, mostly false, and "pant on fire" claims than Clinton. It appears that if you truly value honesty in your candidates, then your only viable option among the remaining major candidates is Hillary Clinton. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Nice spin. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to the wisdom of crowds. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Just a not-so-wild guess: Your machine might have a hybrid drive, a small solid state drive (SSD) combined with a larger hard disk drive (HDD) in a single component, a solid state hybrid drive (SSHD). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Interesting video here. "Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman. I’m a little biased because I’ve known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. And I’ve known her and her husband for years and I really like them both a lot. And I think she really works hard. And again, she’s given an agenda that’s not all of her. But again, I think she really works hard. I think she does a good job. And I like her."-Donald Trump, 2012, discussing the prospect of Clinton running for president in 2016 Also noteworthy is Trump's civility during the interview. I suspect 2012 Trump is closer to the real Trump, and 2015-2016 Trump is a theatric act to win the votes of the dumbest and/or most gullible 51 percent of Republican primary voters. It will be interesting to see if the act continues into the general election campaign. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If only there was a way to make that happen. "The voucher program’s performance in broadening housing choices for participants can profoundly affect children’s long-term well-being. Research finds that children whose families used vouchers to move to low-poverty neighborhoods when they were young were more likely to attend college, less likely to become single parents, and earned significantly more as adults. In addition, adults who moved to lower-poverty neighborhoods experienced substantial gains in mental and physical health." Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Perhaps I'm overestimating the negative impact an indictment would have on Clinton's chances. Regardless, as I said, I completely ignored the possibility of an indictment when calculating probability. For clarification, are you suggesting 3:1 odds against him winning, i.e., he has a 25 percent probability of winning? Or are you saying the odds are 1:3 against him winning, i.e., he has a 75 percent chance of winning? The former interpretation is consistent with the betting odds presented by the OP, as well as the rough estimates I calculated. The latter suggests he has a much better chance of victory. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I treated the 1024 outcomes as equally likely to occur, not as equally likely to produce a win. For each outcome, I summed the electoral votes Trump would win from toss-up states given that outcome, and added that sum to the 191 electoral votes the site suggests are safely his. If the total exceeded 269 electoral votes, the outcome resulted in a Trump victory. I'm a math and stats guy. If you claim something has an infinitesimal value, I have only the definition of infinitesimal to work with to understand what you mean. However, I don't think that we can reasonably interpret infinitesimal to mean anything greater than one percent, even colloquially. That being said, even if you really meant less than five percent chance, I can't make any realistic assumptions that can get Trump's chances that low. Also note that I completely ignored the possibility of a Clinton indictment over her private email server between the convention and the election. While every account I've read suggests that is unlikely, we can't rule it out until the FBI closes their investigation. An indictment would strongly favor Trump on election day. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It is (unfortunately) WAY higher than that. Check out this post. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The odds of every toss up state going for Trump is considerably less than equal to half of them going for Trump. There's probably a bell shaped curve in there. It appears you understand neither math nor probability. The assumption is that the probability of winning a toss-up state is 50 percent, which is reasonable, hence why the state is categorized as a "toss-up" state (think coin toss) by your source site. Given that, each of the 1024 possible outcomes for those states is equally likely. Of course, not every toss-up state is exactly 50/50. In some, Clinton has a slight edge, in others, Trump has a slight edge. In the second calculation, I addressed your concern, and gave Clinton a fairly large edge in every toss-up state. That's not likely, but it does provide us with a reasonable worst case for Trump's chances. Clinton still only wins about 80 percent of the time. While I didn't include it in the post, I also ran the simulation giving Clinton an unrealistic probability of 2/3 for winning each toss-up state. Trump still wins over 6.7 percent of the time, which gives him a win probability many orders of magnitude more than infinitesimal. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Note: I'm replying to this post, but it seemed more topical to this thread. You don't think there's upside if he wins? Don't get me wrong; I don't want to see him in the Oval Office. But I also think the probability of him winning is non-zero. Infinitesimal is technically non-zero. Sure. So, yes, I'm open to the possibility of Trump possibly winning on some fluke of nature, but I can not in all seriousness see it happening without something catastrophic happening first. That said, my statement stands, I see nothing but downside for anyone who accepts the VP offer. You provided a link to http://www.270towin.com. I decided to run the numbers. In the interest of reproducibility: I accessed the Webpage Tuesday, May 10, 2016. First, I selected the "2016 Toss-Up Map" from the drop down menu (located below the Gulf Coast). Next, I clicked on Map Options, and selected "Safe, Likely, Leaning, Tossup". Note that this did not change the shade of any state color, despite trying in three browsers (Safari, Chrome, Firefox). This might indicate individual states strongly favor one candidate or another, or it might indicate poor Web site coding. The map indicates ten states are toss-up states, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire. I did two separate calculations for a Trump win probability. For both, I assumed that states already assigned to one candidate or another will ultimately be won by that candidate. I wrote my code in: R version 3.3.0 (2016-05-03) -- "Supposedly Educational" Copyright (C) 2016 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing Platform: x86_64-apple-darwin13.4.0 (64-bit) I commented extensively so that the code can (hopefully) be followed by those not familiar with R. The # symbol indicates everything that follows on that line is a comment. For the first calculation I assumed that each candidate is equally likely to win each of the toss-up states. This is not exactly correct, but is pretty close. results = matrix( nrow = 1024, ncol = 10) # Initialize 1024 x 10 matrix colnames( results) = c( "FL", "PA", "OH", "NC", "VA", "WI", "CO", "IA", "NV", "NH") # Each column represents tossup state stateElectoralVotes = c( 29, 20, 18, 15, 13, 10, 9, 6, 6, 4) # Electoral votes for each state FL, PA, OH, etc. (see column names) for (i in 1:10) { results[ , i] = rep( c( 1, 0), each = 2 ^ (10 - i), length = 1024) } # Create all 2^10 possible results for 10 tossup states # Note that results are mutually exclusive. trumpElectoralVotes = apply( results, 1, function( X) {191 + sum( X * stateElectoralVotes)}) # Assign electoral votes for tossup victories, total, and add to 191 trumpWinProb = length( trumpElectoralVotes[ trumpElectoralVotes > 269]) / 1024 # Each of 1024 possible tossup state results is equally likely. so # find number of outcomes in which Trump wins at least 270 electoral votes # and divide by 1024 possible outcomes to obtain probability of Trump # victory. # display probability value trumpWinProb [1] 0.2929688 With our equally likely assumptions, we have obtain a probability of a Trump general election victory of just over 29 percent. Next, I wanted to see what happened if I assigned Clinton a win probability of 55 percent for each toss-up state. Any higher than that, and the state should fall into one of the "leaning" or "likely" categories, so this value should provide a reasonable lower bound for Trump's general election victory probability. Since each outcome is no longer equally probable with this assumption, I elected to use simulations. I simulated the election in the toss-up states 100,000 times. # Simulate 100000 election results for tossup states, giving Clinton a 55% # probability of winning each state. set.seed( 11235) # set seed so that random number generator results can be reproduced stateElectoralVotes = c( 29, 20, 18, 15, 13, 10, 9, 6, 6, 4) # Electoral votes for each state FL, PA, OH, etc. victoryCount = 0 # set counter to zero for (i in 1:100000) { trial = sample( c( 1, 0), size = 10, replace = TRUE, prob = c( .45, .55)) if (191 + sum( trial * stateElectoralVotes) > 269) { victoryCount = victoryCount + 1 } } # Run 10000 simulations, keeping count of number of Trump wins trumpWinProb2 = victoryCount / 100000 # Calculate percentage of simulations Trump wins general election # display probability value trumpWinProb2 [1] 0.2054 With our assumption that Clinton has a 55 percent probability of winning each toss-up state, we find that Trump has about a 20.5 percent chance of winning the general election. We can see that the 1:3 odds, implying a 75 percent chance of a Clinton victory, are reasonable. Our calculations suggest 71-80 percent. Further, it is clear that Trump's chance of victory is not infinitesimal, as claimed by Paul. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Why do you believe that both genders should not be treated equally? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

For the record, I didn't think to Snopes it until after it was already pointed out that it was fake. It seemed reasonable enough (as a news story, not as Department of Corrections policy). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Your first two sources are opinion pieces by a Republican politician and an author who writes "about big government's corrosive effects on civil society," respectively. They are hardly credible, objective sources. The third article doesn't do much to support the claims you've made, either. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

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!

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!

BTW I'm calling bullshit on this one. Isn't in the news anywhere else. http://www.snopes.com/jared-fogle-released-due-to-overcrowding/ Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

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!

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!

Why should transgender people be treated any different from cisgender people? They're both just people, equally entitled to dignity. That's what the anti-LGBT crowd just doesn't get. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That hardly indicates Clinton can look forward to a landslide. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I don't get the impression TriGirl thinks that at all. That is, however, the "danger" of which NC lawmakers claim to be afraid, that guys will pretend to be transsexual in order to gain access to women's restrooms/locker rooms. It is, as you point out, an unreasonable fear. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Trump has thus far pandered to those who lack critical thinking skills and bigots (large intersection of those groups). Why does this selection surprise you (assuming it's true; MotherJones isn't exactly a credible news source)? If Trumps bigoted rhetoric hasn't sunk him yet, what makes you believe this selection will do it? Don't forget, intelligent people capable of logical thought are a minority in this country. The US is a hotbed of anti-intellectualism. Being correct doesn't imply being popular, and all that matters is winning the (state by state level) popularity contest(s) in November. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

We're well past the point of attributing his results to incompetence. I agree he's a con man. That's not mutually exclusive of genius, however. While I'm inclined to believe he would probably be incompetent as president, he has proven to be anything but when it comes to campaigning. Make no mistake, if Clinton underestimates Trump as you do, he'll be the 45th president. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You don't think there's upside if he wins? Don't get me wrong; I don't want to see him in the Oval Office. But I also think the probability of him winning is non-zero. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!