Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote:Wow. Trump might actually win this if the "rigged" polls are to be believed.

Green Habit wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Wow. Trump might actually win this if the "rigged" polls are to be believed.

The margin of error is still so damn small for him--he has to pry away even small states like New Hampshire and Nevada to really pull it off.

Simple Torture wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Wow. Trump might actually win this if the "rigged" polls are to be believed.

The margin of error is still so damn small for him--he has to pry away even small states like New Hampshire and Nevada to really pull it off.

If you go by today's map on 270towin.com, Trump would have to win 113 of the 123 "in play" electoral votes to win. Clinton would need to win just 12 of those 123 votes to win. And that's with Wisconsin in play--most sites list that as in line with Michigan, Colorado, and Minnesota when it comes to Clinton's margins. So if you take Wisconsin out, Trump needs 113 of 113 electoral votes, Clinton needs 2 out of 113.

Trump either has to pull off the insidest of inside straights, or one of these Clinton-leaning states has to flip. It's going to be a crazy week.

Green Habit wrote:I suppose one could see this map with different names a couple generations from now.



http://election.scholastic.com/vote/

Bi_3 wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Wow. Trump might actually win this if the "rigged" polls are to be believed.

The margin of error is still so damn small for him--he has to pry away even small states like New Hampshire and Nevada to really pull it off.

If you go by today's map on 270towin.com, Trump would have to win 113 of the 123 "in play" electoral votes to win. Clinton would need to win just 12 of those 123 votes to win. And that's with Wisconsin in play--most sites list that as in line with Michigan, Colorado, and Minnesota when it comes to Clinton's margins. So if you take Wisconsin out, Trump needs 113 of 113 electoral votes, Clinton needs 2 out of 113.

Trump either has to pull off the insidest of inside straights, or one of these Clinton-leaning states has to flip. It's going to be a crazy week.

Or the "shy Tory" effect is far greater than we recognize.

96583UP wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Wow. Trump might actually win this if the "rigged" polls are to be believed.

The margin of error is still so damn small for him--he has to pry away even small states like New Hampshire and Nevada to really pull it off.

If you go by today's map on 270towin.com, Trump would have to win 113 of the 123 "in play" electoral votes to win. Clinton would need to win just 12 of those 123 votes to win. And that's with Wisconsin in play--most sites list that as in line with Michigan, Colorado, and Minnesota when it comes to Clinton's margins. So if you take Wisconsin out, Trump needs 113 of 113 electoral votes, Clinton needs 2 out of 113.

Trump either has to pull off the insidest of inside straights, or one of these Clinton-leaning states has to flip. It's going to be a crazy week.

Or the "shy Tory" effect is far greater than we recognize.

and also Robert E. Lee will rise from the dead and save Virginia from its traffic problem

Simple Torture wrote:That's interesting; two states that will probably need more than a few generations would be Utah and Idaho. Unless the GOP can really, really change its message, it seems like a demographics race, and those states are still super, super white.

Reuters wrote:U.S. militia girds for trouble as presidential election nears

Down a Georgia country road, camouflaged members of the Three Percent Security Force have mobilized for rifle practice, hand-to-hand combat training -- and an impromptu campaign rally for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

"How many people are voting for Trump? Ooh-rah!" asks Chris Hill, a paralegal who goes by the code name "Bloodagent."

"Ooh-rah!" shout a dozen militia members in response, as morning sunlight sifted through the trees last weekend.

As the most divisive presidential election in recent memory nears its conclusion, some armed militia groups are preparing for the possibility of a stolen election on Nov. 8 and civil unrest in the days following a victory by Democrat Hillary Clinton.

They say they won't fire the first shot, but they're not planning to leave their guns at home, either.

Trump's populist campaign has energized militia members like Hill, who admire the Republican mogul's promise to deport illegal immigrants, stop Muslims from entering the country and build a wall along the Mexico border. Trump has repeatedly warned that the election may be "rigged," and has said he may not respect the results if he does not win. At least one paramilitary group, the Oath Keepers, has called on members to monitor voting sites for signs of fraud.

Armed paramilitary groups first gained prominence in the early 1990s, fueled by confrontations in Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco, Texas, culminating in a militia sympathizer's 1995 bombing of a federal office building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people.

Their numbers dwindled following that attack but have spiked in recent years, driven by fears that President Barack Obama will threaten gun ownership and erode the power of local government. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups, estimates there were 276 active militias last year, up from 42 in 2008.

In recent years, armed groups have confronted federal authorities in a series of land-use disputes in the western United States. Federal officials fear more clashes could come after seven militants were acquitted on conspiracy charges for occupying a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon.

"This is the last chance to save America from ruin," Hill said. "I'm surprised I was able to survive or suffer through eight years of Obama without literally going insane, but Hillary is going to be more of the same."

An hour south of Atlanta, the Three Percent Security Force started the day around the campfire, taking turns shooting automatic pistols and rifles at a makeshift target range. They whooped with approval when blasts from one member's high-powered rifle knocked down a tree.

The group operates independently, but is affiliated with a national armed movement that calls for members to defend individual rights in the face of what they see as an overreaching federal government. The movement draws its name from the notion that no more than 3 percent of the American population fought in the Revolutionary War against Britain.

Amid the war games, Hill weighed plans for a possible armed march on Washington if Clinton wins.

Trump's candidacy has emboldened extremist groups to speak more openly about challenging the rule of law, said Ryan Lenz, a researcher at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

"Prior to this campaign season, these ideas were relegated to sort of the political fringe of the American political landscape," he said. "Now these ideas are legitimized."

Over the past week, some prominent Trump supporters have hinted at violence.

"If Trump loses, I'm grabbing my musket," former Illinois Representative Joe Walsh wrote on Twitter last week. Conservative commentator Wayne Root fantasized about Clinton's death while speaking at a Trump rally in Las Vegas on Sunday.

Back in Georgia, the Three Percent Security Force wrapped up rifle practice in the midday sun. They then headed further into the trees to tackle an obstacle course with loaded pistols at their sides, ready for whatever may come.

"We've building up for this, just like the Marines," he said. "We are going to really train harder and try to increase our operational capabilities in the event that this is the day that we hoped would never come."

jwfocker wrote:I can't help but think people like 'Bloodagent' actually want the world to end. They all want to be Rick in Walking Dead.

Chomsky wrote:The bewildered herd is a problem. We've got to prevent their roar and trampling. We've got to distract them. They should be watching the Superbowl or sitcoms or violent movies. Every once in a while you call on them to chant meaningless slogans like "Support our troops." You've got to keep them pretty scared, because unless they're properly scared and frightened of all kinds of devils that are going to destroy them from outside or inside or somewhere, they may start to think, which is very dangerous, because they're not competent to think. Therefore it's important to distract them and marginalize them.

Bi_3 wrote:

jwfocker wrote:I can't help but think people like 'Bloodagent' actually want the world to end. They all want to be Rick in Walking Dead.

Chomsky wrote:The bewildered herd is a problem. We've got to prevent their roar and trampling. We've got to distract them. They should be watching the Superbowl or sitcoms or violent movies. Every once in a while you call on them to chant meaningless slogans like "Support our troops." You've got to keep them pretty scared, because unless they're properly scared and frightened of all kinds of devils that are going to destroy them from outside or inside or somewhere, they may start to think, which is very dangerous, because they're not competent to think. Therefore it's important to distract them and marginalize them.