It will be great

It will be great.

Other urls found in this thread:

telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/04/calling-trump-names-wont-stop-him-becoming-us-president/
youtube.com/watch?v=7U6Pp5iflTs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

New Mexico will be red.

Cut Minnesota and it's a best case scenario assuming Hillary doesn't suspend her campaign.

I think it will be a lot closer than that though. Pic related is what the reuters polls (highly clinton biased) are showing at the moment, it will only get worse for Hillary

CHECKED, IT'S CONFIRMED

>Ohio
>Blue

If he's won WI & MI, he's won Ohio & IA too. It's just how the demographics play out.

kek wills it

As long as Trump locks up the white vote and makes gains in the black vote, I think we're looking at a sweep like this.

Only if Johnson memes Hillary out of her voters, otherwise no.

A tie would be fun, but he would definitely win Ohio in any tie scenario.

This is pretty much exactly what I expect with the sole possibility of shift being Oregon going blue. Trump is a fucking steamroller of glory.

This thread makes me all jittery and happy inside

Would probably get New Hampshire and at least one of Maine's votes.

>Hillary wins electoral vote
>Trump wins popular vote

> it's possible to get a tie under the electorate system

bravo america

Even (((Nate Silvers))) thinks that would be incredibly unlikely, and more likely to happen the other way around.

>Florida fucks up the election for Trump, just like in 2000.

Oh ye of little faith

If Trump loses the popular vote in Florida he doesn't have the slightest chance of winning any other states that matter.

Minnesota flipping ain't happening. The rest quite probable.

That map has a name, it's called the "jeb! surge".

It's always annoying that Democrats are always guaranteed to be a fifth of the way to 270 with California each election.

Trump is going to get muh monster vote.

if you look at how many votes he got in the primary, and you multiply that by the typical average turnout with primaries in comparison with generals, Trump is projected to get 10 million more votes than Hillary.

this projection has been true for the last 100 years and it is obvious everywhere that it is true just because of how much exposure Trump gets on the daily (How many people don't hear/ think about Trump at least once a day?) that he is going to get monster turnout.

The one thing he has to watch out for is that he doesn't also motivate subhumans to turnout in masses for his enemies on pure 'principle'.

>trump will lose new york

0.2 shekels has been deposited into your goy account

That changes 2020
>deportations
>winning the black vote
>crushing the democratic party
>winning unions
Red is the new blue

He would need the jewish vote to take New York and we all know who they are voting for.

Clinton's well entrenched there

telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/04/calling-trump-names-wont-stop-him-becoming-us-president/

> I suspect Mr Trump will marshal millions – possibly tens of millions – of Americans who would never normally vote in a presidential election. The turnout in 2012 was just 54.9 per cent – though that represented an improvement on 49 per cent in 1996, when Mrs Clinton’s husband won his second election, shortly before his impeachment for perjury about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. In 2012, more than 106 million Americans of voting age did not bother to vote. They are Mr Trump’s captive audience.

He's winning with Orthodox Jews, believe it or not.
I had new York blue so that the final showdown there between Trump and Julian Castro in 2020 will be more climactic.

Does a high turnout favour Republicans or Democrats?

If only Bernie could get the non-voters to vote.

(((Nate silver))) is a fucking faggot who has consistently been wrong all year.

>Minnesota
Unrealistic map

Republicans. Independents are the plurality if voters in America. They typically stay home during Democrat wins.

>makes gains in the black vote
youtube.com/watch?v=7U6Pp5iflTs
Houston i think we have a problem

1861 will commence again!

How hard did Romney try?

70% black women vote

65% white women

60% black men

I see Trump making inroads into the black male vote

What happens if there is a tie? Doesn't the leader of the house is representatives just choose, or did I just make that up?

Canada decides

>just like in in 2000
>2000
Holy fuck

You guys really don't think she will rig it?

In the case of someone not getting a majority then the entire house votes, and since its Republican controlled by a good margin then Trump would win.

> 1988: Media constantly reports Dukakis will win but Bush I beats him easily.
>2000: Media constantly reports Gore will win easily but Bush II does well enough to pull off a coup.
> 2004: Media constantly reports Kerry will beat Hitler but Bush II wins easily

hmm. Could it be that the media always reports Democrats are doing better than they actually are?????

I expect Trump will do better than is reported and will win.

nice digits

Will the turnout be over 58%??

He wins ME and NH before MI
He wins CT before MN

People have to be living in the sand if they believe no rigging anywhere. Won't be the first or last time.

I heard Trump is leading the pols. I am so happy for you, Ameribros.

kek has spoken!

Democrats. Republicans typically vote as part of their patriotic duty. Democrats are lazy college kids.

> 1988: Media constantly reports Dukakis will win but Bush I beats him easily.

Dukakis did good until the rumor's about him and his wife crushed him in the polls. Media pretty fairly reported this one. It was a very different era for how people got their information, anyone who lived through this election knows that Dukakis was not some media darling by any stretch. People believed what they heard on the TV because they had no reason not to.

>2000: Media constantly reports Gore will win easily but Bush II does well enough to pull off a coup.

Media liked Bush a lot. He was fun, homey, friendly neighbor guy. He made good statements that people liked to hear good or bad because they lay-man statements. Gore was dull as fuck, boring and played the intellectual. Gore was again by no means a media darling, and while they reported the election as close most of the time.

> 2004: Media constantly reports Kerry will beat Hitler but Bush II wins easily

The media loved the jingoistic stories they got with Bush. He brought the country together in a bad time, he got the terrorists etc. We didn't know what we know now, Bush was a great story to put out there. Kerry ran a shit campaign as well. Again, late rumors by the media hurt him... I'm not sure if it was the election or not, but it is hard to say on how the media covered this one. It was in the early stages of online news starting to matter.

I guess I don't see some pro-democrat bias, but rather coverage for the candidates winning in the polls who are better on TV. They do what it takes to get viewers. It's worse now because they are losing TV viewers and media is changing, so the big outlets are becoming more polarizing.

What I do see is late cycle rumors or facts that make a big hit late. The only way I see Trump winning is if he get some really nasty Clinton story out in about October that is fresh in people's minds when they go to the voting booth to pull off what happened in 88 and 04.

Iowa would be red too in this case.

Thanks Krautbro, I wish your AfD a profitable election as well. I don't understand German politics very well, though. Can the other parties form a coalition or something to block them?

Democrats.