Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Donald Trump’s odds to win the U.S. presidential election may not match that of bookmaker’s favorite Hillary Clinton, but a late surge of bets have been placed on the Republican candidate ahead of the final presidential debate on Wednesday.
I will also note that I do not see the true parallels between the Brexit vote, which after all was a nationwide referendum requiring but a simple majority for passage (or rejection) and the Presidential election.
While we certainly have the 'nationwide popular vote', such does not determine the presidency. Rather, it is the state-by-state vote that is important, with each candidate vying for the Electoral college votes of each state.
Donald John Trump will certainly ring up many votes, especially in the mid-west. Indeed, let us assume that he receives 99 percent of the Texas vote (a reliably Republican state): that does not mean that he is awarded more than the 38 electoral votes slated for Texas.
I have noted for a year or more that I take polls with a grain of salt, since many pollsters are still experimenting with how to poll accurately, given the mass movement of people (especially younger) from having 'land lines' versus cellular telephones. It is why Gallup is not taking part in the presidential race this time.
However, that does not mean that I utterly reject all polling data, especially the more specialized polls that will poll only black Americans, Hispanics, women with a college degree, men without a college degree, etc. Mr. Trump does poorly in many of these specialized categories.
I also like to remind people that both major political parties pay for private polling. It is an assumption, perhaps unfounded, that these polls may be more accurate than the public polls. However, it does appear that members of the Republican party believe their own private polling. As I have said, if the Republicans saw a surge in support for Mr. Trump, you would have more Republicans running for election or re-election jumping on the Trump bandwagon. Yet, I do not see this happening.
It was not for willy-nilly reasons that Mr. Ryan told Republicans running for 'down ballot' offices to essentially disengage themselves from Mr. Trump.
In past elections, when you had a popular candidate holding rallies, local politicians would (state and local levels) appear at said rallies to show their support for said popular candidate, and hopefully obtain votes by that method. I certainly do not see that happening with Trump rallies. He appears to have a set guest list of speakers, whom travel with him from place to place.
Yet, I do not think that Mr. Trump has 'no chance' to win. Only a fool would claim that. Indeed, if betting on the presidential race were legal in the US, and if the bookie gave me attractive odds (such as, for every dollar I bet on Mr. Trump, I would receive $300 if he did win), I would certainly pluck down $10. I have been known to bet on horses with the same odds, although to date such horses usually come in close to last (no doubt, one or two are still struggling to cross the finish line, even months later).
I will also note that I do not see the true parallels between the Brexit vote, which after all was a nationwide referendum requiring but a simple majority for passage (or rejection) and the Presidential election.
While we certainly have the 'nationwide popular vote', such does not determine the presidency. Rather, it is the state-by-state vote that is important, with each candidate vying for the Electoral college votes of each state.
Donald John Trump will certainly ring up many votes, especially in the mid-west. Indeed, let us assume that he receives 99 percent of the Texas vote (a reliably Republican state): that does not mean that he is awarded more than the 38 electoral votes slated for Texas.
I have noted for a year or more that I take polls with a grain of salt, since many pollsters are still experimenting with how to poll accurately, given the mass movement of people (especially younger) from having 'land lines' versus cellular telephones. It is why Gallup is not taking part in the presidential race this time.
However, that does not mean that I utterly reject all polling data, especially the more specialized polls that will poll only black Americans, Hispanics, women with a college degree, men without a college degree, etc. Mr. Trump does poorly in many of these specialized categories.
I also like to remind people that both major political parties pay for private polling. It is an assumption, perhaps unfounded, that these polls may be more accurate than the public polls. However, it does appear that members of the Republican party believe their own private polling. As I have said, if the Republicans saw a surge in support for Mr. Trump, you would have more Republicans running for election or re-election jumping on the Trump bandwagon. Yet, I do not see this happening.
It was not for willy-nilly reasons that Mr. Ryan told Republicans running for 'down ballot' offices to essentially disengage themselves from Mr. Trump.
In past elections, when you had a popular candidate holding rallies, local politicians would (state and local levels) appear at said rallies to show their support for said popular candidate, and hopefully obtain votes by that method. I certainly do not see that happening with Trump rallies. He appears to have a set guest list of speakers, whom travel with him from place to place.
Yet, I do not think that Mr. Trump has 'no chance' to win. Only a fool would claim that. Indeed, if betting on the presidential race were legal in the US, and if the bookie gave me attractive odds (such as, for every dollar I bet on Mr. Trump, I would receive $300 if he did win), I would certainly pluck down $10. I have been known to bet on horses with the same odds, although to date such horses usually come in close to last (no doubt, one or two are still struggling to cross the finish line, even months later).
The UK has a much larger percentage of less educated whites than does the USA. The makeup of the US electorate is far more diverse and one should not expect a similar result.
The UK has a much larger percentage of less educated whites than does the USA. The makeup of the US electorate is far more diverse and one should not expect a similar result.
So says a typical elitist snob.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
