Trump still has no path to 270 Electoral College votes-

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...p-electoral-math-no-path-270-despite-momentum



Yes. Despite all his "incredible poll numbers" that we've seen the Right cite.....using polls they dismissed 3 weeks ago ...

Trump still loses.

It's why they are told (by Rightwing Media) to use lines like "Trump's trajectory is good" or "If he keeps this up, he'll..." or "the momentum is with him".

Because STILL....right now, he has no path to 270.

 

That lefty rag National Review - no one believes anything they print! Also they use big words so don't expect Trump supporters to read the article.

 

Even the Trumpsters can't call NRO "liberal"...so they just the term they use for sane Republican "RINO" or "Establishment"....

but the numbers aren't "biased". As it stands, despite all Trump's "good polling"? He STILL loses the Electoral College.

And we are now less than one week away from the First Debate....which, despite their whistling past the graveyard, scares the Trumpsters right down to their socks.

THEY KNOW what happens if Trump "loses it", during that Debate. And are afraid of "sneaky Hillary" finding a way to get under Der Donald's ultra-thin skin.

 

You know already Hillary is going to top 400 electoral votes, so why do you even bother?

 

I will laugh so damn hard reminding you of your absurd threads.

 

I still like polls, go ahead Gorn pick one poll we can go with. Just pick one, any one will do. Too fun.

- - - Updated - - -

I doubt he will still get paid to troll when Trump wins.

 

Yes, but I hate to have to break it to you: the election wasn't held three weeks ago, the election isn't being held tomorrow, the election is being held on November 8th. And as we've seen recently, things are still rather fluid...

 

No path, really? Why don't you contact 538 then and advice them to lower Trump's chances of becoming president to zero? Cause at the moment they give him 41.4% chance (very close to a coin toss) of having the path to the electoral college win today and in November.

 

Trump probably does need at least a 1% cushion, but if he wins by 1% or more nationally, there is a very high probability that he will win the EC count as well. So as usual, this thread is just more silly talk from the left. And yes, National Review is an anti-Trump, pro-neocon, pro-establishment outlet.

Trump may have peaked for awhile, but he is probably still sporting a 2% to 5% national lead, so he has a good chance of winning this election; more so than Romney or McCain.

 

538 now has him at 41.3% chance of winning. If he wins JUST the states where he is more than 50% likely to win per 538, he gets 266EV.

The path is flipping one more state. Literally any state.

Gorn... what exactly do you think "path to victory" means? Because you seem to have an odd understanding of it.

 

I can't lose, Oxy. Even if Trump wins....

because he'll destroy the GOP if he becomes President.

- - - Updated - - -

What exactly does the word "if" mean?

- - - Updated - - -

Borat, RIGHT NOW, does Trump have enough states to win the Electoral College? yes or no?


No, don't use the words "if" or "he's on a trajectory".....RIGHT NOW, does he?

 

I'm surprised you don't know.

https://www.google.com/search?q=if+definition&oq=if+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1431j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Now that I've given you the answer, could you tell me what your working understanding of "path to victory" is? Because the way you use it it seems that the way that you mean the word is distinctly different from the standard usage.

 

RIGHT NOW, Troi....does Donald Trump win the Electoral College requisite 270? Does the polling show him if he loses the States he's behind,and wins the States where he's ahead.....

does he have a path RIGHT NOW that leads to 270 or more EC votes?

Yes or No?

 

Nope, he'd win 266EV, which isn't the requisite 270.

But that's isn't what "path to victory" means. So again I ask, what do you mean by path to victory? Because you clearly aren't employing the standard meaning.

 

I mean that he is "on his way to victory"....and 266 is not victory. That clearer?


BTW, you're being generous....as you have been...to Trump. It's starting to SMELL like Dean Chambers in 2012 and "un-skewing the polls for Romney" with you.

 

ok, thanks for clarifying. But, just for future reference, saying someone has "no path to victory" doesn't mean that "they are not on their way to victory", it means that there is no way that they could win enough EV to get elected. That word "path" is in there for a reason. Yet, again, per 538, the states where Trump has a greater than 50% chance of winning give him 266EV, and him flipping ANY STATE where Clinton is ahead would result in him winning. That is what we call a path to victory.

I'm "being generous" to Trump by citing 538's analysis? What nebulous reason do you have for believing that?



btw, I also noted 538 when it said Trump had a 10% chance of winning. You didn't seem to mind 538 back then. Is there a reason why you have such an issue with 538 just when it, like every other analyst, shows Trump doing better than he did previously?

 

Yes. Absolutely, according to 538 Trump RIGHT NOW has a 42% chance of winning the elections in November and if they were held today. Duh

 

So its your feeling that TRUMP IS DOOMED correct?

 

A long way to go.

But, in terms of "probable victory" I would still rather be Hillary than Trump.

 

What do you want people to say, Gorn?
The election isn't being held RIGHT NOW. Or do you not realize that?

Who knows what will happen between now and then.

 

Very true.

More than enough time for things to tilt back HEAVILY toward CLINTON.

 

True. And that will prove to be good for Hillary.

All indications point to Trump peaking too early.

 

I certainly hope he does, the GOP has undermined their supporters and sold out on core principles.

 

Trump is a NY Liberal who will appoint moderates to the SCOTUS and not be able to change anything through meaningful legislation.

So, outside of blowing up the world, what damage could he do?

 

He is not a liberal, and he will put conservative judges on the supreme court..where do you get your ridiculous information from?