oh Trump is certainly questionable you don't have to tell me that. Why do you think Johnson could get things done? A guy who's been ripping apart the 2 parties is somehow going to get those parties to agree with his plans once in office? I'd say he has the least chance of getting things done. I am not a person who hates 3rd party people at all, in fact I really wish we had a decent one that I aligned with this campaign cycle. But johnson just isn't that guy and honestly I think those embarrassing mistakes he made do a lot to set back the prospect of 3rd party candidates unfortunately. fair or unfair
the whole basis of that stupid video is that Johnson isn't Libertarian enough... i think it's awesome that he doesn't simply hold party beliefs, especially since some of the Libertarian platforms are really out there. he's actually an independent thinking moderate, which is something we need in this country. maybe the other 2 are the idiots, as they don't seem to go against anything their party wants. that is exactly what is wrong with the 2 party system. and if you want to talk about policies (which nobody seems to do anymore), i don't see how Clinton's or Trump's are better either. too far left and too far idiotic, respectively.
I don't see Johnson ripping apart the 2 parties, he may be tearing into each individual candidate but that is all part of elections. I think he would be able to get things done because his positions hit on both sides of the aisle and don't favor Dems or Reps, this makes compromise a bit easier than a Dem President with a Rep controlled Congress. When that Dem president has nothing in his policies to entice the Reps you get the gridlock we have had. Now by no means is Johnson the perfect candidate but when I look at each one on the issues, Johnson to me stands out from Clinton and Trump. When I then look at how ethical each one is the moves Johnson up more in my eyes. He also has Executive Office experience so that is another plus.
sounds legit http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/10/helmut_norpoth_donald_trump_victory.html
I'm left with no choice. By the time I got to vote in the primaries my preferred candidate wasn't even on the ballot, and I still didn't vote Trump. Unless the D candidate was some wacky kind of D I would never even consider voting for them.
Have you seen the undercover video of the democratic operatives who were scheming up ways to commit mass voter fraud? Did you know one of those fuckheads had 47 meetings at the white house with Obama? They also setup the rioters at the trump ralleys, They also collude with the media to get hillary debate questions, decide what can be removed from publication, give story ideas, the list goes on. There's quite a bit of evidence that they're doing a lot of shady ass shit. But trump said he might not trust the results so that's the outrageous thing. god damn.
Running the model on earlier campaigns comes up with the correct outcome for every race since 1912, except the 1960 election.
From my experience working with statistical models, this model is bunk. Essentially what's going on is Norpoth found a few factors that have explained previous election results and is using them to predict the future. The problem is that events like that are mainly just coincidences (the statistical term is Type I errors) and won't apply to future elections. He claims that he has predicted elections since 1996, but looking on his website, his only predictions were for 2008 and 2012, and they weren't very accurate. He correctly forecasted Obama to beat Romney in 2012, but he also said McCain and Obama would be neck and neck in 2008, which was wrong. I realize Norpoth is a PoliSci and not a Math/Econ professor, but I can't imagine Stony Brook is happy with him making their department look bad. In other words, the model provides accurate post-dictions for the data it's trained on. I could accomplish the same thing with the following variable x (let's ignore reelection campaigns to keep things simpler): If the candidate's last name is Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Obama, let x = 1. Else let x = 0. So x will give the correct outcome for every election since 1912. But clearly x will not work for future elections.
And the 1960 election was one of the closest in history popular vote wise, with some pretty credible evidence that voter fraud helped tip the scales in Illinois and Texas which could have given the nod to Nixon. Nixon, however, against the urging of many advisors, conceded the election and did not pursue the issue or recounts. So the model, may be spot on.
Im on dvr...ok he is crossing the line and its too much Hillary and this stuff is just eye rolling now
