Assuming that it was where it was locked and the NC, NV, and FL would have all voted Trump along with the other swing states that where in his favor which is unreasonable to assume.
Trump taking Nevada, North Carolina, and Florida was not merely the worst case scenario a few days ago; it was the likely outcome. Based on the polls, there was nothing unreasonable about this proposition. It was likely.
Ok sorry about that. Although a 10% chance of getting within the margin of victory is still relatively small
I did a quick calculation of 10% with the assumption that she gets 1% of the vote or less, so no. There is an extremely good chance that Stein will get X% in more than one swing state, with X being the margin of victory. The limiting factor in calculating these odds of a Stein effect is whether those swing states, specifically the tipping point state, are won by Clinton or by Trump.
Edit: Redoing my calculations more extensively, if Trump did win the Electoral College last week, for example, then there was a near 100% chance that the Stein votes would be in part to blame. In Colorado, for example, Stein's votes would have been well over the likely margin of victory. The same goes for any of the other likely tipping point states from a hypothetical election last week. Don't kid yourself into thinking Stein wouldn't cause harm.
But the thing is like I have stated, Clinton can lose 6 out of the 8 widely considered swing states and she still would win with 272.
You don't seem to understand that, only a few days ago, this was no longer the description of Clinton's Electoral College firewall worst-case scenario; it was the likely outcome if the election were held that day. In other words, she no longer had a firewall, and there was no wiggle room to spare. With polling like it was, a state like Colorado or New Hampshire could
easily flip to Trump, giving him the electoral college. Given the pre-debate polling, states like Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, and Iowa were red, not swing states.
Voting for third party candidates is a smart thing to do.
If you care who actually wins this year's election, voting third-party is objectively not the smart thing to do. If you care more about making a statement, funding issues, etc. over who actually wins in 2016, then vote third-party.
Jill is not anti-science.
She's anti-nuclear energy, anti-GMO, and arguably anti-vaccine to an extent. She's clearly anti-science. There's a very fair assessment on candidates and science issues
here from Scientific American. No, Clinton doesn't win them all, but she does win overall.
