No...what I am looking at are factual numbers. I
Post# of 65629
Posted On: 07/19/2016 8:16:08 PM
No...what I am looking at are factual numbers. I do not think historic voting patterns have much to do with anything this year. If that were the case...Bernie Sanders would not have gone as far as he did.......and for goodness sake.....
.... Donald trump was just nominated .
...look here:
Donald Trump Will Not Win the Nomination
Stanford Politics
Jan 19 . 6 min read
"As the above histograms show, Trump has almost no chance of winning the Republican nomination if he only maintains his current level of support. In fact, in only one of 20,000 simulated elections did Trump achieve the requisite 1,236 delegates outright , and that was with two establishment candidates splitting the moderate vote. The most delegates he managed to win in the first model (one establishment candidate) was a mere 1,018."
So in this study, he had a 1 in 20,000 chance.
https://stanfordpolitics.com/donald-trump-wil....y72hsgdxr
Read the whole piece....my point is...throw out those historical voting patterns...because they are not working as well as they have(or may have)...in the past.
.... Donald trump was just nominated .
...look here:
Donald Trump Will Not Win the Nomination
Stanford Politics
Jan 19 . 6 min read
"As the above histograms show, Trump has almost no chance of winning the Republican nomination if he only maintains his current level of support. In fact, in only one of 20,000 simulated elections did Trump achieve the requisite 1,236 delegates outright , and that was with two establishment candidates splitting the moderate vote. The most delegates he managed to win in the first model (one establishment candidate) was a mere 1,018."
So in this study, he had a 1 in 20,000 chance.
https://stanfordpolitics.com/donald-trump-wil....y72hsgdxr
Read the whole piece....my point is...throw out those historical voting patterns...because they are not working as well as they have(or may have)...in the past.
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼