2016 Electoral Math -- Hillary's Shrinking Lead
Hillary Clinton's lead in the race for Electoral College votes is shrinking. In fact, it has been shrinking for a solid month now. Two weeks ago (the last time I wrote one of these columns), this hadn't really benefited Donald Trump much. Now, however, Trump seems to be surging in the polls while Hillary slides even further.
Now, I wouldn't say it's quite time to panic for Democrats -- but that time may be just around the corner, unless Clinton can turn things around fairly quickly. The first presidential debate will happen one week from today, so such a turnaround is indeed possible in the near future.
Let's take a look at the overall picture. Two weeks ago, Clinton had lost two big states (Florida and Ohio) into the "Tied" category (white, on the graph below). This time around, Trump picked them up and a few others as well, putting him at his strongest point in the race so far. Hillary still holds an edge, but it is now razor-thin.
All of these charts, in one way or another, graph Electoral Votes (EV) over time. The overview chart shows who would be ahead if the election were held today and all the polling is correct. Clinton starts from the bottom of the graph and goes up, and Trump starts from the top of the graph and goes down. If blue crosses the 50 percent line, Clinton will win, and if red dips below the 50 percent line, then Trump will win.
[Click on any of theses images to see larger-scale versions.]
You can see how close things have gotten. One state is currently tied (Nevada), and Clinton only has four EV more than necessary to win. Trump, however, has improved to 258 EV, meaning he's only 12 EV away from the magic 270 EV mark.
The shift from two weeks ago is dramatic. Back then, Hillary had 312 EV, to Trump's 197 EV. She has now dropped to 274 EV, while he rose to 258 EV. The trend is even more dramatic if you go back four weeks. One month ago, Hillary Clinton had 358 EV -- a full 84 EV more than she's got now. Four weeks ago, Trump was at 180 EV, which was 78 EV lower than he's at now. That's a pretty substantial turnaround.
Before we go any further, however, there is one important caveat. The polling site I use for all of my data (Electoral-Vote.com) is now including 50-state internet polls in its data. These polls are rather unreliable, but they do at least provide some sort of data for states that normally don't get polled even once during the entire election season. Now, for states that are true battleground states, this polling might move the bar for a short period, but will soon be overshadowed by other (more reliable) polls, so any problems self-correct over time. But for states that rarely (if ever) get polled, this can lead to basing conclusions on rather shaky data. One of these internet polls happened the day after I wrote my previous Electoral Math column, and the results were rather slanted towards Trump in a few states where it's hard to believe their data. New Mexico is perhaps the most obvious of these, where the internet poll showed Trump up 10 points (48 percent to Clinton's 38 percent). But without a better poll to confirm or rebut this data, I find it more than a little unbelievable.
But even with this caveat, Trump is unquestionably doing better. More than half of the states (27) showed movement in the past two weeks, although five of these eventually returned to where they started (Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, and Utah). Of the others, Donald Trump got stronger in six of the states he's leading in (Georgia, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Texas) and weaker in two (Alabama and Alaska). Hillary Clinton's numbers were almost exactly the opposite. In states she's holding, Clinton got stronger in only two (Connecticut and Virginia) and weaker in seven states (Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin).
The bigger news, however, were the states that fully changed direction. Nevada went from Clinton's column to being tied, and Florida went from being tied to Trump's column. Three other states flipped all the way from Clinton to Trump. One of these, Ohio, may be flipping back and forth for some time to come, but the other two (Colorado and New Mexico) may flip comfortably back to Clinton when the next reliable poll is taken.
As you can plainly see, almost all the movement in the past two weeks has been towards Trump and away from Clinton. This is why many Democrats are already panicking, which I think is a little premature (more on this in a moment). First, let's take a closer look at each candidate's numbers, broken down into three categories: Strong, Weak, and Barely. First, we have Donald Trump's new chart.
[Definition of terms: "Strong" means 10 percent or better in the polls,
"Weak" means five percent or better, and "Barely" is under five percent.]
Donald Trump had the best two weeks he has so far managed. His Strong category went up from 101 EV two weeks ago to 157 EV now. Some historical context is necessary to understand how strong Trump is currently doing. In the entire 2008 election cycle, John McCain's best Strong showing was 161 EV. Mitt Romney's 2012 high point in this category was 158 EV -- only one more than Trump currently has. Trump lost two states from Strong in the past two weeks (Alabama and Alaska), but gained six (Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Texas). That's a pretty impressive showing (although, as I stated, I have reason to be suspicious of that New Mexico poll result).
Trump's Weak category actually decreased during this period, down from 50 EV to only 34 EV. This wasn't exactly bad news for him, though, as three states moved up to Strong (one of them being Texas), while two smaller states fell back from Strong to Weak (Alabama and Alaska). Georgia was the good news for Trump here, moving up from Barely to Weak.
Trump saw similar gains in the Barely column, which went up from 46 EV to 67 EV. Three states got stronger for Trump (Georgia, Missouri, and South Carolina), but the big news for Trump was the addition of three states that were previously either tied or in Clinton's column (Colorado, Florida, and Ohio). Florida and Ohio have 47 EV between them, it bears mentioning.
Of course, the metric I watch closer than any other is "Strong Plus Weak," which shows the states a candidate can comfortably count on going their way on Election Day. Four weeks ago, Trump had hit his all-time low in this category, at only 139 EV. Two weeks ago, he hadn't improved much, up to only 151 EV. Now, however, Trump is at his all-time high in this category, at 191 EV. That's a big turnaround, most of which happened in the past two weeks. Again, to put this number in context, both Mitt Romney and John McCain had periods above 200 EV in this category multiple times during their campaigns. So Trump still has some distance to go to match either of them.
Enough of Trump, though, let's take a detailed look at Hillary Clinton's numbers.
That is a pretty sobering chart for Clinton supporters. Hillary Clinton got a whole lot of bad polling news in the past two weeks, which only added to the bad polling news she had gotten the previous two weeks. Her overall number has not yet slipped below the 270 EV needed to win -- something that happened to Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012, for context. But she's only above it now by the skin of her teeth, meaning she has to turn things around fast or this is going to be a nail-biter of an election.
In the Strong category, Clinton was at 231 EV four weeks ago. Two weeks ago, she was at 198 EV. Today, she has slipped to 152 EV -- her lowest point to date. In the past two weeks, she added Connecticut to her Strong total, but lost five other states (Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Washington). Colorado went all the way from Strong Clinton to Barely Trump, in fact.
Clinton's Weak category wasn't quite as bad, with the movement in and out a little more mixed. Clinton gained four states in Weak that fell from Strong (Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Washington), but Connecticut moved up to Strong. However, Michigan, New Hampshire and Wisconsin all fell from Weak down to Barely Clinton. And New Mexico (rather unbelievably, as mentioned) went all the way from Weak Clinton to Strong Trump. The good news for Clinton here was that Virginia moved up from Barely Clinton to Weak Clinton -- and Virginia might be one of the two or three states that decide this election. All of this added up to Clinton moving from 62 EV in Weak up to 73 EV.
Clinton's Barely numbers stayed roughly the same, even though there was some movement both in and out of the category. She started with 52 EV in Barely two weeks ago, and finished with 49 EV in the category. Michigan, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin all fell back to Barely from Weak, but Nevada moved from Barely Clinton to Tied, and Ohio went over to Trump's column. Virginia also left Barely Clinton, but it actually moved up to Weak Clinton, so this was the only good news here.
Clinton's Strong Plus Weak number fell dramatically, but very slightly improved afterwards, so perhaps she's hit bottom here. She started off the period at 260 EV in Strong Plus Weak, fell back to her all-time low of 216 EV, but then inched up to 225 EV, where she remains. This is where some historical context becomes necessary (so as not to panic too much). Here is my chart of the Strong Plus Weak metric for Hillary Clinton versus Barack Obama's two elections.
As you can see, Clinton's Strong Plus Weak line is between where Obama was in 2008 and where he was in 2012, at precisely the same point in the election cycle. In 2012, Obama was at 241 EV in Strong Plus Weak right now, and in 2008 he had fallen to 200 EV (and he would fall even further before he bounced back). In fact, on Election Day in 2012, Obama was only at 217 EV in this category -- down eight from where Clinton is right now. This is why I caution that Democrats shouldn't be panicking (yet), because even though Clinton is indeed down in the polls right now, she hasn't lost her lead and could still very easily win the election (as Obama did, both times). One solid debate performance may be all that Hillary Clinton needs to start recovering a much bigger lead, in fact.
My Picks
Since predicting which states will do what on Election Day is (to me, at least) more than just a data-driven exercise, I have to take into account my gut feelings for each particular state. This is where I can freely discount poll numbers I simply don't trust, to put it another way. To signify this, I use different categories here, dividing states into Safe, Probable, and Leans for each candidate as well as the Too Close To Call category for those where things could still go either way. Before we get to individual picks, here's my updated map (which I created at 270toWin, where you can make your own map and post a link to it, if you disagree with my picks). And, as always, full lists of my state picks are at the end of the column, with their EV totals.
Likely States -- Clinton
Safe Clinton (14 states, 188 EV)
I only changed three states here this time around. I moved Maine and Rhode Island down to Probable Clinton, and Connecticut up from there. A few other states showed weaker polls in this category (Minnesota, New Jersey, Washington), but I think they're outlier polls so I'm keeping all three in Safe Clinton for now.
Probable Clinton (5 states, 46 EV)
This category had the most reshuffling this time around, with only two of the previous seven remaining in place. Pennsylvania stayed steady, which could in fact be the best news for Clinton this time around (Trump's path to victory almost requires him to win Pennsylvania). New Mexico is supposedly 10 points up for Trump right now, but I refuse to believe this poll because it is so far out from what any other poll has shown here. So perhaps I'll consider moving it if further polling justifies it, but for now I still think it remains as a Probable Clinton state. Connecticut moved up from this category to Safe, and Virginia moved up into Probable from Leans Clinton. Maine and Rhode Island moved down to Probable from Safe, but the bad news was the states moving down from this category to Leans Clinton (Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin), or even down to Too Close To Call (Colorado). So the new full list of Probable Clinton states this week is: Maine, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia.
Likely States -- Trump
Safe Trump (16 states, 95 EV)
Five states shifted within the Safe category for Trump. Two (Alabama and Alaska) moved down to Probable. Three (Montana, North Dakota, and Utah) moved up from Probable. Trump's EV total didn't change, however, as both of these groups added up to 12 EV each.
Probable Trump (5 states, 69 EV)
Other than the five states that shifted between Probable and Safe for Trump, two states moved up from Lean Trump to Probable -- Missouri and South Carolina. This leaves five states as Probable for Trump: Alabama, Alaska, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas.
Tossup States
Leans Clinton (3 states, 30 EV)
There was a lot of movement in all of the Tossup categories this time around. All three of the previous Leans Clinton states moved out of the category, two of which were bad news (Nevada and Ohio moved down to Too Close To Call), and one of which was good news (Virginia, which improved to Probable Clinton). Three other states moved in to take their place (Michigan, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin), all down from Probable Clinton.
Leans Trump (3 states, 33 EV)
Two of the four states previously in the Leans Trump category improved to Probable Trump (Missouri and South Carolina). Iowa moved up from Too Close To Call to Leans Trump, as almost all the recent polls have shown he has a very slight edge there. In addition to Iowa, Arizona and Georgia stayed Leans Trump this time around, leaving Trump with three states in this category.
Too Close To Call (5 states, 77 EV)
I try to keep this category as small as possible, but had to expand it this week. Iowa moved up to Leans Trump, but the other two states previously in Too Close To Call remained (Florida and North Carolina). My gut tells me Clinton's got an excellent chance in both Florida and North Carolina, but the poll numbers are so tight that I can't even bring myself to move them up to Leans Clinton yet. The bad news here for Clinton is that three states moved down to Too Close To Call from her categories this time around. Both Nevada and Ohio are too close to even put them in Leans Clinton, and the big surprise was Colorado moving all the way down from Probable Clinton to Too Close To Call. Colorado, unlike New Mexico, has had more than one poll showing Trump with a very tiny lead, so for the time being it has to be considered a tossup.
Final Tally
My final tally -- even with my possibly-biased gut feelings figured in -- is actually worse for Clinton than the straight poll numbers would indicate. Safe Clinton states add up to almost exactly what they were two weeks ago, but she lost a lot of ground in the Probable Clinton category. This means a total of only 234 EV that Clinton can still count on in November. This is down from 260 EV last time around, and is a lot further away from the 270 EV needed to win.
Donald Trump, unlike last time around, actually added states that Clinton was letting slide away from her. Most of these are still only in the Leans Trump category for now, but Trump added one state to his Safe column and one to his Probable column. This gave him 21 states that he doesn't currently have to worry about, for a total of 164 EV. This is up from last time around, but only by 19 EV -- not as high a jump as you might think.
I think one more quick "Don't panic!" note is necessary for worried Democrats, here. Even though Trump is now at a high and Clinton is at a low point, Clinton still has 70 EV more than Trump in these categories. Hillary's lead has indeed shrunk considerably (two weeks ago, she was leading by 115 EV here), but she is still in the lead, and by a fairly large margin. Clinton needs 36 EV more to win, but Trump needs 106 EV. Hopefully, that puts things into a better perspective.
There are now 11 battleground states, for a total of 140 EV. Both Trump and Clinton have three apiece that lean in their direction, and five are too close to accurately predict. But for the first time in this race, Clinton will need at least one of the Too Close To Call states, because her leaners added to her likely states only total 264 EV. If Clinton wins either Nevada or Colorado, she'll be our next president -- even if she loses Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio to Trump.
Adding Trump's leaners to his likely states only totals 197 EV, by comparison. Trump has to win all his leaners and all the Too Close To Call states to claim victory. Which is a tall order, although for the first time a Trump path to 270 EV is now a real possibility.
What this all means is that Hillary Clinton is still leading the presidential race for Electoral College votes, by a pretty wide margin. However, the trend lines don't look too good for her, so she's got to turn things around in several key states before her supporters stop considering panicking. She still has the lead, but that lead has been shrinking for the past month. If it shrinks any further, the entire race might be a lot closer than anyone would have thought (myself included) even one month ago.
-- Chris Weigant
[Electoral Vote Data:]
(State electoral votes are in parenthesis following each state's name. Washington D.C. is counted as a state, for a total of 51.)
Hillary Clinton Likely Easy Wins -- 19 States -- 234 Electoral Votes:
Safe States -- 14 States -- 188 Electoral Votes
California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), Minnesota (10), New Jersey (14), New York (29), Oregon (7), Vermont (3), Washington (12), Washington D.C. (3)
Probable States -- 5 States -- 46 Electoral Votes
Maine (4), New Mexico (5), Pennsylvania (20), Rhode Island (4), Virginia (13)
Donald Trump Likely Easy Wins -- 21 States -- 164 Electoral Votes:
Safe States -- 16 States -- 95 Electoral Votes
Arkansas (6), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Utah (6), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3)
Probable States -- 5 States -- 69 Electoral Votes
Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Missouri (10), South Carolina (9), Texas (38)
Tossup States -- 11 States -- 140 Electoral Votes:
Tossup States Leaning Clinton -- 3 States -- 30 Electoral Votes
Michigan (16), New Hampshire (4), Wisconsin (10)
Tossup States Leaning Trump -- 3 States -- 33 Electoral Votes
Arizona (11), Georgia (16), Iowa (6)
Too Close To Call -- 5 States -- 77 Electoral Votes
Colorado (9), Florida (29), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), Ohio (18)
Polling data weaknesses:
Unlike in 2008 and 2012, polling data does now exist for all 51 states (adding in Washington D.C.). The following list is of states where the polling data is rather suspect, since only one or two polls have been conducted, all on the internet.
Internet-only polling, with dates last polled -- 20 States
Alabama (9/8), Alaska (9/1), Delaware (9/8), Hawaii (9/1), Illinois (9/8), Kentucky (9/8), Louisiana (9/8), Maryland (9/8), Mississippi (9/8), Montana (9/8), Nebraska (9/8), New Mexico (9/8), New York (9/8), North Dakota (9/1), South Dakota (9/1), Tennessee (9/8), Washington (9/8), Washington D.C. (5/31), West Virginia (9/8), Wyoming (9/1)
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
The moment I have been waiting for!! :D
It's funny.. When it's all rainbows and unicorns for Hillary Clinton, there would have been a couple dozen comments already.... :D
Michale
Now, I wouldn't say it's quite time to panic for Democrats -- but that time may be just around the corner, unless Clinton can turn things around fairly quickly.
Nate Silver said that if the polls are this bad or worse by this coming Friday, it's time for Democrats to panic.. :D
Personally, I think (and dsws agrees :D ) that Democrats are there already... But I certainly won't fault ya'all for holding onto some shred of hope... :D
The first presidential debate will happen one week from today, so such a turnaround is indeed possible in the near future.
Possible?? Yes.. With the current hullabaloo over terrorism and Hillary Clinton's health?? Doubtful
The shift from two weeks ago is dramatic. Back then, Hillary had 312 EV, to Trump's 197 EV. She has now dropped to 274 EV, while he rose to 258 EV. The trend is even more dramatic if you go back four weeks. One month ago, Hillary Clinton had 358 EV -- a full 84 EV more than she's got now. Four weeks ago, Trump was at 180 EV, which was 78 EV lower than he's at now. That's a pretty substantial turnaround.
Why yes... Yes it is.. :D
But getting Weigantians to admit that is harder than pulling teeth.... :D
If it shrinks any further, the entire race might be a lot closer than anyone would have thought (myself included) even one month ago.
Ahem.... :D
There are two reasons why Democrats should panic..
1. That trend line you mentioned.. It's all going Trump's way...
2. Hillary Clinton has once again ceded the FEBA to Trump... Last time she did this, Trump took full advantage of her absence and used it to his MASSIVE benefit...
The terrorist attacks and the Left Wingers (DeBlasio & Obama) limp-dicked response to it is also helping Trump and hurting Hillary immeasurably...
Here's my predictions...
If the wave of terrorist attacks continue, Trump will be our next President..
If Hillary collapses at a debate, Trump will be our next President..
If neither of those things happen, I still think Trump will win, but I am less sure of it...
Michale
Why yes... Yes it is.. :D
But getting Weigantians to admit that is harder than pulling teeth.... :D
In all fairness to my fellow Weigantians, I don't make it easy for them to agree with me.. :D
Granted, that's not a worthy excuse, but it does make such reluctance to acknowledge the facts at least understandable.
Michale
Interesting anecdote...
More Americans (14%) believe that Bigfoot is real than they believe that Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy(11%)....
Kinda puts it all in perspective..
Michale
Still an easy win for Hillary. She really needs a landslide however otherwise the clowns will give us another Trump in 2020.
Still an easy win for Hillary.
Despite ALL the *facts* to the contrary.. :D
Such blind devotion is inspiring.... I guess.. :^/
Michale
Hillary could keel over from a stroke and there will be those Weigantians who say, "It's a faux-scandal.. It's still an easy win for Hillary.."
:D
Michale
I see a lot less prognosticator "herding" in some important states: notably Florida and Ohio. Florida seems pretty close to a 50:50 call, but Ohio is currently leaning fairly strongly towards a Trump win: 60% averaged among the five quantitative calls over at The NYT Upshot. Using the Electoral Math scheme, I color Ohio as light pink, and it may well get a darker red moving forward.
By the same reasoning, Colorado doesn't deserve to be a neutral tan, all five of the Upshot probabilities favor Clinton and the average Clinton probability of a win is a fairly strong 77%. I give it at least a light blue.
Overall, Clinton seems to have 270 electoral votes among states in which she has at least a 70% chance of winning, as averaged among the five Upshot quantitative predictions.
Clinton is down over the last month (and a bit more) but I give Clinton roughly 70% odds of winning the White House. Down, but it is still her race to lose. She is in a better position than Obama was at the same date in 2012.
Liz,
I know that you had asked me to stop with the partisan slavery, etc etc and I want you to know that I am really trying..
But honestly.. What else explains the complete and utter disregard of the facts when Hillary supporters claim "still an easy win for Hillary...."
There is simply not other logical and rational explanation for such gross disregard for the facts and reality other than fanatical, blind and slavish devotion to Party...
I am completely open to another possible rational and logical explanation...
But I just don't see one...
Michale
Clinton is down over the last month (and a bit more) but I give Clinton roughly 70% odds of winning the White House.
EXACTLY what I am talking about...
She is in a better position than Obama was at the same date in 2012.
And if Clinton were even a TENTH of the candidate that Obama was, then you might have a point..
But she's not, so you don't...
Michale
But if you WANT to compare to the 2012 election....
Trump is doing better with Hispanics than you think
Donald Trump is performing about as well with Hispanic voters as GOP nominee Mitt Romney did in 2012, according to opinion polls — something that unsettles Democrats and surprises even some Republicans.
Skeptics had suggested that Trump would suffer a blowout among Hispanics, given that his rhetoric, on illegal immigration in particular, has been controversial.
Trump’s promise to build a wall on the southern U.S. border and force Mexico to pay for it is perhaps the best known of his campaign pledges. And at his campaign launch in June 2015, he said people coming into the country illegally were “rapists.”
But as of right now, there is not much evidence to suggest that Trump is faring any worse among Hispanics than did Romney, who at one point argued that illegal immigrants in the United States could be persuaded to “self-deport.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/296747-trump-is-doing-better-with-hispanics-than-you-think
The hispanic anger vote is just NOT materializing.. :D
Michale
If we apply the "skittles" argument to refugees (sick comparison by the way), can't we use the same reasoning for guns and Americans.
If I told you that 43.5 million Americans* suffered from mental illness annually, i.e. 1 in 5, would you allow them all to buy guns?
* http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015.htm#tab8-1a
If we apply the "skittles" argument to refugees (sick comparison by the way), can't we use the same reasoning for guns and Americans.
If I told you that 43.5 million Americans* suffered from mental illness annually, i.e. 1 in 5, would you allow them all to buy guns?
As usual, your analogy is completely biased and one sided...
Much like you are... :D
Here is a more legitimate analogy. This assumes your 1 in 5 stat is NOT the bullshit it likely is...
If I told you that 1 in 5 Americans who buy a gun are mentally ill but that 3 out of 5 Americans will likely save their life or the lives of others with their gun...
Would you allow them all to buy guns???
But, by all means.. Let's prevent the mentally ill from buying guns..
All you have to do is convince the Democrat Party to quit arguing against disclosure laws in a bid to protect personal privacy...
Michale
The Washington Post is really diving into the Trump paper trail. Not only is he involved in two corruption investigations (Bondi and Hevesi) but his use of his "charity" to pay off lawsuits and commission portraits of himself are likely to make his audit a lot more interesting (if there wasn't an audit, and as usual he was lying, there will probably be one now).
Also, per CW, where are the calls for his 1998-2008 (i.e. pre-"audit") tax returns?
The Washington Post is really diving into the Trump paper trail. Not only is he involved in two corruption investigations (Bondi and Hevesi) but his use of his "charity" to pay off lawsuits and commission portraits of himself are likely to make his audit a lot more interesting (if there wasn't an audit, and as usual he was lying, there will probably be one now).
Keep dreaming, sunshine.. We're less than 50 days from election..
Do you HONESTLY believe anything will come of your fantasies?? :D
When you advocate Hillary releasing her full medical records including MRIs then you'll have a non-partisan leg to stand on..
But you and I both know that you won't.... So you won't... :D
Michale
New study shows that 3% of Americans own 50% of the guns in circulation. We need a study to determine if the incidence of mental illness in the 3% is the same, higher or lower than the general public. Seriously, this is exactly why the Gun industry doesn't want the CDC to investigate gun deaths the same way they investigate other causes of death.
Give it up, son..
As long as the 2nd Amendment is in play, your gun-free utopia will never come to be...
Michale
As long as the 2nd Amendment is in play, your gun-free utopia will never come to be.
Good try, but nobody is suggesting that the 2nd Amendment won't stay right where it is. But just as there are exceptions to the 1st Amendment (can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater) and the 4th Amendment (legal wiretaps) and the 5th Amendment (breathalyzer tests), there can and will be exceptions to the 2nd.
Universal Background Checking is the most likely to become law nationwide, followed by 'clarification' of the Heller decision by the next Supreme Court, and stricter controls on automatic and semi-automatic weapons ownership. Then we need to look at weapons manufacturer liability laws.
there can and will be exceptions to the 2nd.
Yer partially right..
There can and HAVE been exceptions to the 2nd..
And all the exceptions that are logical and rational exceptions HAVE been put into play...
There are no more exceptions that are in keeping with the 2nd Amendment..
The anti-gun weenies have shot their wad....
Michale
If the incidence of mental illness in the 3% of the arsenal owners of America is the same as the general population (statistically very likely) then about is 1.4 million people are mentally ill and armed to the teeth.
Simple math tells us that if you live in a town with more than 115 people, there is a 50% chance that at least 1 has mental problems and a large arsenal.
If you live in a town with 1,000 residents, the chances of having at least one person who is mentally ill and armed to the teeth is 399/400 = 99.8%, and the median number (if my stats are right) is probably 6.
This is not intended to stigmatize mental illness, or gun ownership, just the intersection of the two (let's see if the permanently indignant can parse that).
We need responsible gun ownership!
Universal Background Checking is the most likely to become law nationwide
It already IS law....
followed by 'clarification' of the Heller decision by the next Supreme Court,
What kind of "clarification" are you hoping for??
and stricter controls on automatic
There already IS a strict control on automatic weapons that CAN'T be made any stricter..
You see my point??
The anti-gun fanatics have gotten all they are going to get...
Michale
Simple math tells us that if you live in a town with more than 115 people, there is a 50% chance that at least 1 has mental problems and a large arsenal.
Yea, right.. PROVE it..
You can't because it's complete bullshit..
To anti-gun fanatics, a cap gun and 3 rolls of caps constitute a "large arsenal"...
Ya'all are NOT going to get your gun ban...
Give it up...
Michale
Then we need to look at weapons manufacturer liability laws.
Next, you can go after car manufactures when their cars are used to kill millions..
Then go after knife manufactures when their knives are used to kill and maim...
I wish ya'all could take a step outside yourselves and see how utterly ridiculous ya'all sound to Joe and Jane Sixpack... :D
Michale
We need responsible gun ownership!
"responsible" as defined by the Hysterical Left..
Meaning NO GUNS for citizens at all...
But hay.. I am MORE than happy to give ya'all yer gun ban...
Obama's Security detail, Hillary's Security detail and EVERY Security detail for EVERY Democrat must disarm first...
THEN, you'll get your gun ban..
What can be more fair then that???
Michale
Yea... That's what I thought....
Michale
https://youtu.be/x72oBpk9WPI
Watch Hillary's eyes during the speech...
They are all over the place independent of one another...
This woman has some MAJOR health issues...
Michale
It's also relevant to the EC vote that Hillary's support from hispanics and blacks is faltering greatly...
Without the minority vote and the youth vote, Hillary doesn't stand a chance...
Michale
If ya'all are honest with yourselves, you have to ask yourself one question..
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs0KPsxUkAAhp4-.jpg
Is that the face of someone who is in "perfect health"...
Michale
Is that the face of someone who is in "perfect health"
Trouble with that argument is that it sets the bar pretty low - all she has to do is look good all the way through the debate, and your 'concern' about her health dissipates like a Trump promise.
And we have no idea of his actual physical or financial health. He is also in imminent danger of being indicted for any number of frauds and cons.
With Trump Regaining North Carolina Lead, Hillary Unexpectedly Postpones Local Fundraiser "Without Reason"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-20/trump-regaining-north-carolina-lead-hillary-unexpectedly-postpones-local-fundraiser-
The reason is clear..
Hillary simply cannot go the distance...
Michale
And we have no idea of his actual physical or financial health.
Has he collapsed?? Has he cancelled WEEKs of appearances???
So, yes.. We have a pretty good idea of his health..
He is also in imminent danger of being indicted for any number of frauds and cons.
Yea.. Ya'all have been saying that for over a year now...
:^/
Michale
Trouble with that argument is that it sets the bar pretty low - all she has to do is look good all the way through the debate, and your 'concern' about her health dissipates like a Trump promise.
It's becoming more and more likely that she won't even MAKE it to the debates...
She definitely has neurological distress as evidenced by the cock-eyed eyes...
You just can't admit the facts...
Michale
It's becoming more and more likely that she won't even MAKE it to the debates...
I'd say that, of the two of them, he's more likely to skip at least one of the several planned debates. What do you think the odds are?
I'd say that, of the two of them, he's more likely to skip at least one of the several planned debates.
Your problem is you have NOTHING to base that on, except for Party loyalty.
Whereas I have a multitude of FACTS that indicate Hillary might not make the debates..
Michale
On the high, crenelated ramparts of Castle Clinton, a chill breeze is stirring ? a faint but gnawing sense that the White Walkers are coming, wearing “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN” baseball caps on their skinless noggins.
If Donald Trump does sack the fortress, no one who lost the battle will want to admit it was Hillary Clinton’s fault. It will have had nothing to do with, say, “transparency” or calling bearded villagers “deplorables” or the Iraq War vote or the simple fact that middle-of-the-road Clintonism ran out of gas as a public philosophy.
No, other individuals, groups and forces will have to be blamed. In fact, they already are, pre-emptively. If Trump wins, we’re all going to be too busy moving to Canada to read the postmortems (or write them), so we offer them to you now:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-hillary-clinton-lost_us_57dc4bece4b04a1497b491b6?section=&
Yep...
Hillary is as pure as the driven snow. According to the Left Wingery, NOTHING is her fault...
Michale