Trump reelection has 91% chance ?

[F2d5thCav]

A political scientist who correctly predicted Donald Trump’s presidential win in 2016 eight months before it happened, has a new prediction for the president in the upcoming election. And Democrats are not going to like it.

Recent polls have Democratic presumptive presidential candidate Joe Biden ahead of the president.

However, Stony Brook professor Helmut Norpoth is predicting President Trump has a “91 percent” chance of a win in November.

According to Mediaite on Wednesday, July 8, the professor correctly predicted five out of six elections since 1996 with his Primary Model.

https://thebl.com/politics/political-sci...-2020.html

Looks like JoJo Biden has his work cut out for him.

Cheers

[beez]

I still think it's 50/50

I'll probably vote for him again (Trump) but I live in Oregon.

So it doesn't matter. 

[Wallfire]

Im not so sure, it could be that the "democrats" have something "big" that could lose Trump the vote

[Schmoe1]

I wouldn't put it at 91%, even Putin didn't "win" by that margin lol.

Still, I think Trump is the lesser of two evils, yet again I find myself voting based on that.  From what I've read online and hearing what people say in my circle, people are fed up with Democrats and their bullshit.

[F2d5thCav]

The "91%" doesn't mean he will get that much of the vote.  It is the analyst's estimate of how likely Trump is liable to obtain the needed quantity of votes in the electoral college to win.

The popular vote will probably be contested, but as this guy sees it, Trump is very likely to win in the electoral college.  Apparently, the model he has developed has only falsely predicted election results twice for elections from 1912 forward.  Pretty good for a political model, I'd say.

Cheers

[Mystic Wanderer]

I still think it's 50/50

I'll probably vote for him again (Trump) but I live in Oregon.

So it doesn't matter. 

The State's Representatives are responsible for each state's problems more than the President.  If you want change in OR, then you need to vote the democrats out and replace them with republicans, or at least better democrats.
I've seen a few good democrats who I agree with that are running this time, but I forget which state they were in.

[guohua]

Much, Much, Much Better D. Trump than Susan Rice. 

Someone the Deep State Loves will have to replace Touchy Feely Biden after he's elected.

[F2d5thCav]

So one thing that struck me about this fellow's model is that, if his model is so accurate based solely on primaries results . . . is there any reason to actually hold elections?  Is all they do simply a confirmation of his model's prediction ?

It sounds like information that invites gaming elections.  If primaries really are the key, then parties are advised to pour the bulk of their effort into gaining that all-important top dog position at the primaries and then let the rest of the chips fall onto their plate on election day.

But our political party system wouldn't play such games, would they ?



Cheers

[Mystic Wanderer]

I'll just drop this here, since this thread is the most recent regarding the election. Could be just a tad off topic.

Maybe they're about to make it illegal to do mail-in voting if it creates a big opportunity to cheat?

Trump legal adviser: Ballot harvesting unconstitutional if it creates 'wide opportunity for fraud'

'We can stand in line and social distance and be safe at a grocery store or hardware store, we can stand in line to vote,' said Trump 2020 senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis.

Allowing third parties to collect election ballots, a term sometimes called "ballot harvesting," is unconstitutional if it creates "wide opportunity for fraud," Trump campaign senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis says.

"I think that ballot harvesting is definitely opening up a ripe opportunity for fraud," Ellis told Just the News in an interview, while acknowledging there is no language in the Constitution specifying "exactly how a vote has to be held." 

Citing Supreme Court rulings that talk about the importance of election security, Ellis said: "We have to make sure that we are securing the sanctity of that ballot, and part of the right to vote is to make sure that my vote, your vote is fairly and accurately counted."

"When you undermine election security," she said, by allowing procedures "that provide such a wide opportunity for fraud, then yes, that can be unconstitutional on that basis."

Ellis is part of a legal team examining possible breakdowns in what they call the "chain of custody," e.g. the interposition of additional barriers that separate a voter from directly delivering his or her own ballot to be counted. Each additional degree of separation from a voter's personal custody of a ballot adds risk and opportunities for fraud, Ellis explained.

"If a ballot is mailed to an individual through the mail, and then they fill out their ballot, and then they give it to a third party to then go and return, and even if that third party happens to be a mail carrier, there are still documented instances where mail carriers have altered or destroyed ballots," Ellis said. "So that just breaks down the chain of custody, rather than going and voting in person. You know, we can stand in line and social distance and be safe at a grocery store or hardware store — we can stand in line to vote."

Source

[LSU2018]

A political scientist who correctly predicted Donald Trump’s presidential win in 2016 eight months before it happened, has a new prediction for the president in the upcoming election. And Democrats are not going to like it.

Recent polls have Democratic presumptive presidential candidate Joe Biden ahead of the president.

However, Stony Brook professor Helmut Norpoth is predicting President Trump has a “91 percent” chance of a win in November.

According to Mediaite on Wednesday, July 8, the professor correctly predicted five out of six elections since 1996 with his Primary Model.

https://thebl.com/politics/political-sci...-2020.html

Looks like JoJo Biden has his work cut out for him.

Cheers

He probably got the 2012 election wrong. 

I firmly believed Hillary's 95% chance was way off because too many people out there supported Trump and he's gained tons more support since he did as promised. I also think the polls we see consist of too many democrats which is why Trump is always behind. You can usually add about 15 more points to Trump and remove 15+ from the other guy. 

I don't think Trump will win 1984 Reagan style, but I think he'll beat Biden worse than he beat Clinton. Unless they pass a vote-by-mail rule. Then we'll lose handily. We just too honest to cheat. I wonder how fast democrats will reneg after Trump wins. In 2016, Clinton was the only candidate who could beat Trump, then she lost and became the worst candidate they could have put against Trump because anyone else could have beat him.