Donald Trump's chances of winning are approaching Zero (voters, thought, Democrats)

[Greenpastures23]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...outputType=amp

You could write this right now and dems would believe it

[JohnBoy64]

Nate kind of scolded him Cillizza on the this

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/st...86276261777418

20% chance of winning is better than zero.....and No this not 2016

[Greenpastures23]

Originally Posted by JohnBoy64

Nate kind of scolded him Cillizza on the this

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/st...86276261777418

20% chance of winning is better than zero.....and No this not 2016

You're right. Trump will win 320 EV's instead of just 306

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Greenpastures23

You're right. Trump will win 320 EV's instead of just 306

I think it will be more like 330. Although the Democrats are trying real hard to cheat their way to a win in Pennsylvania.

[Greenpastures23]

Trump can get 329 best case.

It's funny, If he did that he could lose Texas and easily win

[PilgrimsProgress]

Those aren't fans at Trump rallies. They are myths and ideas.

[jbcmh81]

I'm wondering if you all understand what a probability is and actually means.

[JohnBoy64]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

I'm wondering if you all understand what a probability is and actually means.

No they don't

[JohnBoy64]

For what it's worth, first Scientific (i know that word is bad) poll is out post debate

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/01/bide...st-debate.html

[texan2yankee]

I assume the poll below has been posted elsewhere on CD.

https://www.newsweek.com/66-percent-...debate-1535176


In a poll conducted after the debate, 66 percent of participants told Telemundo they believed Trump won the debate. Only 34 percent of poll participants thought Biden made a better showing in Tuesday's debate. Telemundo hosts warned the poll was "not scientific" but was based on the responses on the participation of its followers on Twitter.