I was right: President Elect Trump

[djAdvocate]

Aug 29, 2016 20:48:27 GMT -5 Opti said:

Aug 29, 2016 20:39:21 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Trump is about the same odds now as Obama was at the same time in 2008. Who won 2008 again?

Are you sure they are similar?

Here's a wiki page with polls from 2008. I see one from Gallup in late August with likely voters going for McCain and some more for McCain in early Sept.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008

McCain was never favored to win- even in the middle of his huge convention bounce (which cratered within weeks as people began to realize what a loon Palin was, and McCain botched the campaign down the stretch, and the economy collapsed).  he did, however, lead very briefly in EC states if you remove the tossups:

www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/ec_graph-2008.html

[Deleted]

Aug 29, 2016 20:45:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 29, 2016 20:39:21 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Trump is about the same odds now as Obama was at the same time in 2008. Who won 2008 again?

you really should fact check your stuff before you post it:

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

I do fact check. I didn't say "real clear politics polls say"... I said the very specific word "odds". I was going with bets being taken on betting sites.

The two are almost identical... right at $1 will get you $1.

ETA: basically "even odds".

[Opti]

Dr. Drew canned

Was in the works before whatever Hillary health stuff he did. I'm thinking it was fairly unimportant given I don't remember much if any press on it.

[tallguy]

Aug 29, 2016 20:58:41 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 29, 2016 20:45:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you really should fact check your stuff before you post it:

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

I do fact check. I didn't say "real clear politics polls say"... I said the very specific word "odds". I was going with bets being taken on betting sites.

The two are almost identical... right at $1 will get you $1.

ETA: basically "even odds".

Where are you getting those odds?  I did a search for betting odds on the race.  The first one that came up showed:

PARTY TO WIN 2016 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Odds as of August 18 at xxxxxx (Site name deleted)

Democratic Party -450

Republican Party +325

Please, PLEASE tell me where you are getting an even-money quote!  

[djAdvocate]

Aug 29, 2016 20:58:41 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 29, 2016 20:45:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you really should fact check your stuff before you post it:

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

I do fact check. I didn't say "real clear politics polls say"... I said the very specific word "odds". I was going with bets being taken on betting sites.

like this one?

electionbettingodds.com/WIN_chart_maxim_lott_john_stossel.html

The two are almost identical... right at $1 will get you $1.

the odds are precisely as i am posting them, Richard.  they are the odds that me and most other gamblers are willing to take.

ETA: basically "even odds".

not that i have seen.  show me.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 29, 2016 21:25:19 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Aug 29, 2016 20:58:41 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I do fact check. I didn't say "real clear politics polls say"... I said the very specific word "odds". I was going with bets being taken on betting sites.

The two are almost identical... right at $1 will get you $1.

ETA: basically "even odds".

Where are you getting those odds?  I did a search for betting odds on the race.  The first one that came up showed:

PARTY TO WIN 2016 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Odds as of August 18 at xxxxxx (Site name deleted)

Democratic Party -450

Republican Party +325

Please, PLEASE tell me where you are getting an even-money quote!  

for realz.  i want a piece of that action.

[djAdvocate]

here is my point:

you said that Trump's odds were about the same as Obama's were in 2008.  but Obama was never favored to lose in 2008, and Trump has never been favored to win.  in other words, you can pick any time frame during that year that you please, and there is no similarity between Trump and Obama in terms of where they stood on the odds.

[tallguy]

Aug 29, 2016 21:27:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 29, 2016 21:25:19 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Where are you getting those odds?  I did a search for betting odds on the race.  The first one that came up showed:
Please, PLEASE tell me where you are getting an even-money quote!  

for realz.  i want a piece of that action.

Seriously!  I would MUCH rather bet $100 to win $100 than bet $450 to win $100.  Of course with that much of an overlay it wouldn't be a measly $100.  I'd probably even cut Richard in for part of the profit!     

[djAdvocate]

i might be utterly wrong about this, but i watch the betmakers all the time.  they are every bit as good as the pollsters, and for good reason:

they are watching the same data as me, LIKE A HAWK, and they have a lot on the line.  one site i watch is already at $40M.

[tallguy]

They are probably every bit as good.  They need to be.  It's real money to them.

[Deleted]

Can't find it now (it was, admittedly, a lucky confluence of clicks). It was one of many link to link to link to link chains of searches...

In my posting history of being on boards I've never posted anything as fact that wasn't (in fairness, I have posted opinions that turned out to be wrong, though)... So... believe me or not. Your choice.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 29, 2016 22:49:51 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Can't find it now (it was, admittedly, a lucky confluence of clicks). It was one of many link to link to link to link chains of searches...

In my posting history of being on boards I've never posted anything as fact that wasn't (in fairness, I have posted opinions that turned out to be wrong, though)... So... believe me or not. Your choice.

not clear, here.  are you claiming that your statement was fact or opinion?  if you are claiming it was fact, i hope you will contend with this:

i review the betting sites weekly, and i have never seen any site giving anything approaching even odds.

if you have one, PLEASE present it, as i have a pile of idle cash that i would be willing to invest in it.

[Deleted]

Aug 29, 2016 21:30:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

here is my point:

you said that Trump's odds were about the same as Obama's were in 2008.  but Obama was never favored to lose in 2008, and Trump has never been favored to win.  in other words, you can pick any time frame during that year that you please, and there is no similarity between Trump and Obama in terms of where they stood on the odds.

Au contraire...

Just after the Lehman Bros/AIG scandal McCain actually jumped ahead in the polls (I know... that's not "odds"... but still I did find it interesting).

THAT one I can find (that one was a response to a direct Google Search)


Note the mid September spike for McCain and the equivalent drop for Obama? Who's winning and who's losing there?

[Deleted]

Aug 29, 2016 22:53:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 29, 2016 22:49:51 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Can't find it now (it was, admittedly, a lucky confluence of clicks). It was one of many link to link to link to link chains of searches...

In my posting history of being on boards I've never posted anything as fact that wasn't (in fairness, I have posted opinions that turned out to be wrong, though)... So... believe me or not. Your choice.

not clear, here.  are you claiming that your statement was fact or opinion?  if you are claiming it was fact, i hope you will contend with this:

i review the betting sites weekly, and i have never seen any site giving anything approaching even odds.

if you have one, PLEASE present it, as i have a pile of idle cash that i would be willing to invest in it.

I'm "claiming" that it's a fact of what I saw. 1:1. It's not opinion I was offering.

(and 1:1 is not much of an investment... as you would only get your bet handed back to you. hence why "an even bet" means nothing won)



In fairness to Occam's Razor and everything... The site itself could have been inaccurate. If I'm given something claimed to be fact, I take it as such until it's proven not to be. An error of that nature however is not on me but on the presenter of the "false fact".

[tallguy]

Aug 29, 2016 23:02:16 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 29, 2016 22:53:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not clear, here.  are you claiming that your statement was fact or opinion?  if you are claiming it was fact, i hope you will contend with this:

i review the betting sites weekly, and i have never seen any site giving anything approaching even odds.

if you have one, PLEASE present it, as i have a pile of idle cash that i would be willing to invest in it.

I'm "claiming" that it's a fact of what I saw. 1:1. It's not opinion I was offering.

(and 1:1 is not much of an investment... as you would only get your bet handed back to you. hence why "an even bet" means nothing won)



In fairness to Occam's Razor and everything... The site itself could have been inaccurate. If I'm given something claimed to be fact, I take it as such until it's proven not to be. An error of that nature however is not on me but on the presenter of the "false fact".

No, it means that you get back your bet plus the winnings.  Your $100 bet would give you $200 back, since your winnings are equal to your original bet.  In the example I gave earlier, -450 means that you have to bet $450 to win $100, while +325 means that you bet $100 and get $425 back if you win.  The difference is how the bookies make their money.  They pay out less on winning bets than they collect on losing bets.

ETA:  The other format for odds is what is used at the racetrack and some other places.  Odds of 10/1 pay ten dollars for every one you bet, so a $2 win ticket would pay $22.00.  A 3/2 favorite would pay three for every two you bet, so a $2 win ticket would pay $5.00.  "Odds-on" means that the odds are less than even, such as 3/5.  Such a heavy favorite would pay three dollars for every five you bet, or $3.20 for a $2 ticket. 

The benefits of a misspent youth.  

[Jaguar]

I found this link for that image :

understandinguncertainty.org/node/222

[djAdvocate]

Aug 29, 2016 22:56:49 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 29, 2016 21:30:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

here is my point:

you said that Trump's odds were about the same as Obama's were in 2008.  but Obama was never favored to lose in 2008, and Trump has never been favored to win.  in other words, you can pick any time frame during that year that you please, and there is no similarity between Trump and Obama in terms of where they stood on the odds.

Au contraire...

Just after the Lehman Bros/AIG scandal McCain actually jumped ahead in the polls (I know... that's not "odds"... but still I did find it interesting).

THAT one I can find (that one was a response to a direct Google Search)


Note the mid September spike for McCain and the equivalent drop for Obama? Who's winning and who's losing there?

ok, assuming that i agree with how they define "probability" here (which even the author puts in quotes), the "probability" of McCain winning on August 29th, 2008 was less than 50%.  even at his peak, he was never more "probable" of winning than 52%.

Clinton's "probability" of winning was 48% in OCTOBER.  after that, she never had a lower "probability" than that.  currently, her "probability" is about 75%.  i think we can both agree that 75% is more than 52% by a long shot, but if we can't, then i have no further interest in a debate that uses "feelings" rather than facts.

[Deleted]

Aug 29, 2016 23:42:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 29, 2016 22:56:49 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

djAdvocate said:

here is my point:

you said that Trump's odds were about the same as Obama's were in 2008. but Obama was never favored to lose in 2008, and Trump has never been favored to win. in other words, you can pick any time frame during that year that you please, and there is no similarity between Trump and Obama in terms of where they stood on the odds.

Au contraire...

Just after the Lehman Bros/AIG scandal McCain actually jumped ahead in the polls (I know... that's not "odds"... but still I did find it interesting).

THAT one I can find (that one was a response to a direct Google Search)


Note the mid September spike for McCain and the equivalent drop for Obama? Who's winning and who's losing there?

ok, assuming that i agree with how they define "probability" here (which even the author puts in quotes), the "probability" of McCain winning on August 29th, 2008 was less than 50%.  even at his peak, he was never more "probable" of winning than 52%.

Clinton's "probability" of winning was 48% in OCTOBER.  after that, she never had a lower "probability" than that.  currently, her "probability" is about 75%.  i think we can both agree that 75% is more than 52% by a long shot, but if we can't, then i have no further interest in a debate that uses "feelings" rather than facts.

See... this is why arguing with you can be frustrating.

You made a statement that was provably false... I proved it... and you ignored the proof and said something completely unrelated.

This chart was in direct answer to your false statement of "Obama was never favored to lose in 2008".

Obama is Blue, McCain is red. McCain is ABOVE Obama in Mid September AND above 50%. That means that Obama WAS, in fact, "favored to lose" at some point in 2008... completely and utterly destroying the word "never" as having any truth to it in your statement.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 30, 2016 0:02:40 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 29, 2016 23:42:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ok, assuming that i agree with how they define "probability" here (which even the author puts in quotes), the "probability" of McCain winning on August 29th, 2008 was less than 50%.  even at his peak, he was never more "probable" of winning than 52%.

Clinton's "probability" of winning was 48% in OCTOBER.  after that, she never had a lower "probability" than that.  currently, her "probability" is about 75%.  i think we can both agree that 75% is more than 52% by a long shot, but if we can't, then i have no further interest in a debate that uses "feelings" rather than facts.

See... this is why arguing with you can be frustrating.

You made a statement that was provably false... I proved it... and you ignored the proof and said something completely unrelated.

This chart was in direct answer to your false statement of "Obama was never favored to lose in 2008".

Obama is Blue, McCain is red. McCain is ABOVE Obama in Mid September AND above 50%. That means that Obama WAS, in fact, "favored to lose" at some point in 2008... completely and utterly destroying the word "never" as having any truth to it in your statement.

you also made a statement that was provably false.  you said that Obama was in a similar position to Trump.  i was merely following suit, my friend.

if you ever gave an inch, you would find that i would give a foot.

edit: for the record, i can back up what i said, IN SPITE OF YOUR GRAPH.  i said that he was "never favored to lose", i didn't say BY WHOM.    i also noted, with a chuckle, that you have not taken the similar statement i made about Trump, which also contradicts your claim, to task. 

tell you what- if you can find someone that thinks Trump has a 48%+ chance of winning a week from now, i will concede the point- if for no other reason to be a good sport. 

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2016 0:10:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 30, 2016 0:02:40 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

See... this is why arguing with you can be frustrating.

You made a statement that was provably false... I proved it... and you ignored the proof and said something completely unrelated.

This chart was in direct answer to your false statement of "Obama was never favored to lose in 2008".

Obama is Blue, McCain is red. McCain is ABOVE Obama in Mid September AND above 50%. That means that Obama WAS, in fact, "favored to lose" at some point in 2008... completely and utterly destroying the word "never" as having any truth to it in your statement.

you also made a statement that was provably false.  you said that Obama was in a similar position to Trump.  i was merely following suit, my friend.

if you ever gave an inch, you would find that i would give a foot.

edit: for the record, i can back up what i said, IN SPITE OF YOUR GRAPH.  i said that he was "never favored to lose", i didn't say BY WHOM.    i also noted, with a chuckle, that you have not taken the similar statement i made about Trump, which also contradicts your claim, to task.   

Whatever.

I already said I can't locate that link. Believe me or not. I don't care at this point. I know the truth of what I saw.

As to your "noted with a chuckle" I haven't taken that to task because I can't locate the proof that I know is out there because I've seen it with my own two eyes.

Believe what you want. I know they (Obama 2008, Trump 2016, odds) are about equal according to what I have seen. If you don't want to believe it... fine. I cannot convince you without that link that I already clearly admitted I can't find and am not going to waste HOURS looking for.

I'm going to go work on my book.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 30, 2016 0:32:22 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 30, 2016 0:10:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you also made a statement that was provably false.  you said that Obama was in a similar position to Trump.  i was merely following suit, my friend.

if you ever gave an inch, you would find that i would give a foot.

edit: for the record, i can back up what i said, IN SPITE OF YOUR GRAPH.  i said that he was "never favored to lose", i didn't say BY WHOM.    i also noted, with a chuckle, that you have not taken the similar statement i made about Trump, which also contradicts your claim, to task.   

Whatever.

I already said I can't locate that link. Believe me or not. I don't care at this point. I know the truth of what I saw.

where have i heard that before?

As to your "noted with a chuckle" I haven't taken that to task because I can't locate the proof that I know is out there because I've seen it with my own two eyes.

Believe what you want. I know they (Obama 2008, Trump 2016, odds) are about equal according to what I have seen.

the only problem i have with that statement is that i feel like i spend a lot of time looking at this stuff, and i have no idea what you are talking about.

If you don't want to believe it... fine. I cannot convince you without that link that I already clearly admitted I can't find and am not going to waste HOURS looking for.

I'm going to go work on my book.

probably a better use of your time.  esp if you come up empty.  which, as you already noted, would prove nothing to you, since you are already 100% convinced it is true.

Trump has never had a better than 1/3 chance of winning according to any sites i have visited this year.  Obama never had less than a 48% chance of winning, even according to you.  Clinton has not had less than a 65% chance of winning since Trump became the front runner.

the only thing that matters is what happens in 10 weeks.  we both know it.  and i will continue reporting on it just as honestly as ever, no matter what the tea leaves say.  it will sicken me if he ever gets odds as good as Obama's worst, but i will report it dutifully.  of course, Paul seems to think it is in the bag for Trump, so it MUST be true.  after all, he is never wrong.

[tallguy]

Aug 30, 2016 0:32:22 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 30, 2016 0:10:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you also made a statement that was provably false.  you said that Obama was in a similar position to Trump.  i was merely following suit, my friend.

if you ever gave an inch, you would find that i would give a foot.

edit: for the record, i can back up what i said, IN SPITE OF YOUR GRAPH.  i said that he was "never favored to lose", i didn't say BY WHOM.    i also noted, with a chuckle, that you have not taken the similar statement i made about Trump, which also contradicts your claim, to task.   

Whatever.

I already said I can't locate that link. Believe me or not. I don't care at this point. I know the truth of what I saw.

As to your "noted with a chuckle" I haven't taken that to task because I can't locate the proof that I know is out there because I've seen it with my own two eyes.

Believe what you want. I know they (Obama 2008, Trump 2016, odds) are about equal according to what I have seen. If you don't want to believe it... fine. I cannot convince you without that link that I already clearly admitted I can't find and am not going to waste HOURS looking for.

I'm going to go work on my book.

Any thought of checking your browser history?

[tallguy]

Aug 30, 2016 0:38:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 30, 2016 0:32:22 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Whatever.

I already said I can't locate that link. Believe me or not. I don't care at this point. I know the truth of what I saw.

where have i heard that before?

As to your "noted with a chuckle" I haven't taken that to task because I can't locate the proof that I know is out there because I've seen it with my own two eyes.

Believe what you want. I know they (Obama 2008, Trump 2016, odds) are about equal according to what I have seen.

the only problem i have with that statement is that i feel like i spend a lot of time looking at this stuff, and i have no idea what you are talking about.

If you don't want to believe it... fine. I cannot convince you without that link that I already clearly admitted I can't find and am not going to waste HOURS looking for.

I'm going to go work on my book.

probably a better use of your time.  esp if you come up empty.  which, as you already noted, would prove nothing to you, since you are already 100% convinced it is true.

Trump has never had a better than 1/3 chance of winning according to any sites i have visited this year.  Obama never had less than a 48% chance of winning, even according to you.  Clinton has not had less than a 65% chance of winning since Trump became the front runner.

the only thing that matters is what happens in 10 weeks.  we both know it.  and i will continue reporting on it just as honestly as ever, no matter what the tea leaves say.  it will sicken me if he ever gets odds as good as Obama's worst, but i will report it dutifully.  of course, Paul seems to think it is in the bag for Trump, so it MUST be true.  after all, he is never wrong.

I didn't know they even sold industrial-strength Kool-Aid.  How many of the 55-gallon drums have you finished?

[djAdvocate]

this discussion could devolve to "13:12 is about the same as 3:1.  i win". 

my point is simply this: even when Trump briefly lead the race, the bookmakers never had him as "the predicted winner".  leading a few days after your convention is meaningless, as McCain proved rather spectacularly in 2008.

no matter how accurately i try to state things, a determined poster will still find a creative interpretation that i never anticipated. 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 30, 2016 0:52:59 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Aug 30, 2016 0:38:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

probably a better use of your time.  esp if you come up empty.  which, as you already noted, would prove nothing to you, since you are already 100% convinced it is true.

Trump has never had a better than 1/3 chance of winning according to any sites i have visited this year.  Obama never had less than a 48% chance of winning, even according to you.  Clinton has not had less than a 65% chance of winning since Trump became the front runner.

the only thing that matters is what happens in 10 weeks.  we both know it.  and i will continue reporting on it just as honestly as ever, no matter what the tea leaves say.  it will sicken me if he ever gets odds as good as Obama's worst, but i will report it dutifully.  of course, Paul seems to think it is in the bag for Trump, so it MUST be true.  after all, he is never wrong.

I didn't know they even sold industrial-strength Kool-Aid.  How many of the 55-gallon drums have you finished?

i am on a sugar free diet, sadly. 

[tallguy]

I'm sure they still make unsweetened Kool-Aid.  The X-factor is what else is added to it.  

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2016 0:48:16 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Aug 30, 2016 0:32:22 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Whatever.

I already said I can't locate that link. Believe me or not. I don't care at this point. I know the truth of what I saw.

As to your "noted with a chuckle" I haven't taken that to task because I can't locate the proof that I know is out there because I've seen it with my own two eyes.

Believe what you want. I know they (Obama 2008, Trump 2016, odds) are about equal according to what I have seen. If you don't want to believe it... fine. I cannot convince you without that link that I already clearly admitted I can't find and am not going to waste HOURS looking for.

I'm going to go work on my book.

Any thought of checking your browser history?

Nope. Because it would be pointless. I have an extension called "Auto History Wipe" (if you've got chrome and want it, it's here) that wipes my history when I close Chrome. Between when accessed the link and when I was asked to produce it, I'd done a shutdown and reboot because my laptop locked up. Then to make sure whatever locked me up was gone, I opened Chrome without using the 'Restore" option. then closed it again to clear whatever it was.


That history all gone. Who knows what it was that did it. I "hibernate" my computer and leave Chrome running for weeks.

Anyway... the simple answer to your question is "Nope. The thought never crossed my mind."

[Deleted]

I'll just have to start remembering to always post links... even when they should be completely unnecessary (as some people in this thread believe them to be, apparently).

Case in point: djAdvocate made 3 posts with "facts" in them on this very page... yet no links in those posts! 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 30, 2016 3:02:24 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I'll just have to start remembering to always post links... even when they should be completely unnecessary (as some people in this thread believe them to be, apparently).

Case in point: djAdvocate made 3 posts with "facts" in them on this very page... yet no links in those posts! 

Richard:

i asked for that link, because i was trying to see in WHAT CONTEXT that chart was made, and what ARGUMENT it was presenting.

like you, i ONLY present links when asked.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 29, 2016 17:06:59 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Aug 29, 2016 16:46:34 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

This is not without precedent. It even has a name.

"The Bradley Effect"

Reverse Bradley effect is not likely.

1) People don't have a problem saying they don't like Hillary. About 51% of the country says they don't like her already. So people are not likely to claim they will vote for Hillary and then vote for Trump instead, just because voting for Hillary is 'cool.'   It isn't cool at all. If she wasn't running against Trump, hardly anyone would be voting for her.

2) Trump has a better shot at the large number of voters who still are undecided. If every undecided voter ended up voting for Trump, he might win. But odds are, the undecided will probably split 50/50, or just not vote at all. Chances of every undecided voter voting for Trump are very slim to none.

On point 1) What is the "cool" answer this election cycle? What's the late night comedy TV answer to who you're voting for? What's your "out" this year?  The question almost answers itself, but since someone here won't get it-- I'll help you out-- using hashtags:  #NeverHillary #NeverTrump.  2) There are fewer undecideds than people think-- there always are. Here's where Trump has an advantage: he locked in hard core support early, and Trump voters are the most "certain they'll vote" crowd out there. He's got a rock-ribbed base of "likely voters" who have blinders on-- they're going to vote for him and it doesn't matter what he says or does because he conveys a credible "outsider" status. 

Trump is winning, and he is winning big. People downplay his record shattering primary vote total (in a 17 person race), they downplay the fact he holds one rally after another to large, packed venues. Trump appears on hard news shows-- Hillary is approaching 270 days without a press conference. Trump is speaking before voters in arenas, Hillary is going to fundraisers. Someone ask Jeb how that plan worked out?

Trump's real strength is not with "likely voters". It's with people that haven't voted in years.  Anecdotal point- our elderly neighbors have not cast a vote since Perot in 1992, and they are enthusiastic TRUMP supporters. They are not alone.  I know people that didn't vote for Romney, and didn't vote for McCain-- we're all voting Trump.

You don't have to believe me. There's every reason not to.  However, there's one big reason to believe me: this has been anything but an ordinary year, and the the Trump card is The Donald. For every Ceasar Milktoast establishment David French wringing his hands and expressing their concern in a nasally tone on Sunday talk shows nobody under 80 watches anymore, there are 100,000 fired up Trumpists champing at the bit to take their country back. 

Mark. My. Words.

Trump is going to be elected, and it's not going to be close.