87% Chance Trump Will Win Says Top Professor

But that's not what CNN is telling me.

It's logically meaningless to assign a probability to a one-time event. The probability of Trump winning is either 0% or 100%, but which it is will be unknown until election day.

...

We're you born retarded, or did you eat paint chips as a child?

...

...

I think I get what you were trying to say, but you could not have phrased that any more incorrectly.
Instead of trying to sound more educated than you are by using mathematical terms you don't understand, just say "we don't know the outcome until it is actually decided".

Hillary's campaign managers name is Robby Mook.
mook
mook/
nounUSinformal:
a stupid or incompetent person.
Trump should use this.

Top kek, this is shitposting

"Durr it's a one time event so the probability of pulling a red out is either 100% or it's 0% and we dont know yet until he does!!"

Pulling balls out of bag is not the same a the Trump election. If I tell you there's a 1/3 chance of pulling out a red ball, that only enables you to predict the number of red balls drawn given repeated trials.

What does it mean that Trump has an 80% chance? Is that scientifically disprovable? No, because he can lose or win regardless of what the "true" likelihood is. If it's not disprovable then it's non-scientific.

The way you're looking at it, Trump could have a 95% chance of winning yet lose, or a 5% chance of winning and win. The prediction is linguistically meaningless because the election outcome fails to show whether the statement of likelihood was true or false.

I can certainly disprove false statements about the likilhood of drawing balls because I can repeat the experiment.

What you say is true but I meant what I said. Statements of likelihood only have meaning where events repeat. Stephen Toulmin explains this in his Introduction to Reasoning.

Not an argument.

Y'know what they say m8.

Slow and steady wins the race.

awoooooo

Never underestimate your enemy. We might be in for a nasty surprise if we think Trump is going to stump her that easily

VERY CONCERNED

What? No, you're wrong, that 87% is based on 'what if I were to rerun this election multiple times, how many times would Trump win?', and of course you can't do that but you CAN predict what would happen if you could.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.
All who have tried to stand against the God Emperor and his legion of bantz have found themselves stumped.
Muhammud Ali? Stumped to death. Patton Oswald? Cucked so hard his wife died. That jew shandling? Stumped to death. Lead singer of STP tried to call out Trump and reaped the Stump.
Shrillery is unlikable, unwatchable, dottering, feeble minded, and a compulsive liar. She will be stumped so hard she'll shit her pants on live TV.

This is old news, is CNN actually just talking about it now?

Brings a new meaning to "Grammar Nazi" saved. :^)

...

Bernie was walking wet cardboard that folds to any kind of pressure. Just like him folding and surrendering to the DNC and Hillary.

Just like Hillary, he would be a noodle at the debates against Trump.

nope

wow thats basically guaranteed

take the shot goyim

If we're making up numbers, why not ==88%==?

and we're backing to pulling numbers out of our arses.

With the hardcore vote rigging would you say Trump would still beat Hillary by 60 - 40?

...

the electoral pendulum shoudl have been poised to swing to the GOP this year, but then Trump fucked up his campaigning virtually every day by unnecessarily targeting nonwhite people. The lack of discipline he's shown means that many Republicans think he's no longer competent to be running. He's a meme candidate who's promoting pepe, Bretibart, and Milo to a larger audience, only for that audience to laugh at all the autism. Shit makes me shake my head. This was meant to be our election, if a competent candidate could be found and if the campaigning wasn't retarded.

WHO ELSE A #HILLFIREMISSILE NOW?

That's true, but what you are unable to do is to design a scientifically valid procedure for testing your hypothesis.

In other words, you can make your prediction, and I can make a contradictory prediction, and science lacks a procedure for deciding between the two.
Thus your prediction is meaningless even if it's correct.

Autism

thanks for Correcting the Record, Emilia.
Would you like a cuppa with me tonight?

How about 100%?

If Trump can't do it, then nobody can. He has greater support than any Republican since Reagan at least, maybe even further back than that.

Soon

...

bump, we won

soon

kek'd

more like he had no energy

kys weeb

65/35

...

hue

Could Trump winning so well allow the (((establishment))) too call it rigged and prevent the election?