Who has a better chance of winning, Chicago Cubs or Trump?

[Devout Centrist]

Nah, tonight solidified it. 2016 is cursed. Trump will win. Sorry folks.

LOL

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Cubs winning and then Hillary.  Nice knowing ya, time to build the fallout shelter.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I say this because of the Chicago Cubs, last time they won a World Series was in 1908. It's likely a good omen since Hillary is also from Chicago.

Furthermore, in 1908, the handpicked successor of a popular two-term (admittedly TR wasn't elected to his first term, but he served most of McKinley's) President easily won.

[BuckeyeNut]

She'd have done better in Ohio if the Indians won.

[Blue3]

Congrats Cubs!






Casino-Biff is even with us, BTTF2 was just 1 year off!

[Xing]

If anyone says that the Cubs have a better chance of winning the World Series than Trump does of winning the election at this point, that just proves that the system's rigged!

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Nah, tonight solidified it. 2016 is cursed. Trump will win. Sorry folks.

Rofl

[Joe Republic]

I say this because of the Chicago Cubs, last time they won a World Series was in 1908. It's likely a good omen since Hillary is also from Chicago.

Furthermore, in 1908, the handpicked successor of a popular two-term (admittedly TR wasn't elected to his first term, but he served most of McKinley's) President easily won.

So you're saying that Hillary will go on to lose massively in 2020, with Barack Obama running third party against her? 

[Xing]

Unfortunately, I've got the real indicator here: The candidate with the longer last name has lost every presidential election of the 21st century. Congrats, President Trump.

[Hammy]

Unfortunately, I've got the real indicator here: The candidate with the longer last name has lost every presidential election of the 21st century. Congrats, President Trump.

Now we know why the PV and EV split in 2000.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Unfortunately, I've got the real indicator here: The candidate with the longer last name has lost every presidential election of the 21st century. Congrats, President Trump.

Now we know why the PV and EV split in 2000.

2000 is technically part of the 20th century since there was no year 0

[ProudModerate2]

Congrats Cubs!



Casino-Biff is even with us, BTTF2 was just 1 year off!

That is so funny.
I dont remember that scene in the movie .... but then again, it has been many years since viewing it.
8-)

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

In 1908 when the Cubs last won, GOP won in November. Sorry Hillary fan girls.

[rafta_rafta]

[Person Man]

Wasn't it true that the Red Sox won when polls were tightening and then Bush ran away with it (for him) on Election Night?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Last time the Cubs they won a World Series was in 1908. Ottoman Empire still existed.

Are we about to witness Erdogan reinstating the Ottoman glory?

[Sir Mohamed]

For sure she will win. Without PA, WI or CO, the Trumpster has no realistic path to 270 EVs, even if he wins FL and OH, which is everything but certain. And as it looks like, these states hold on. In addition, I think Hillary will win FL and NC, what will put her over 300 EVs easily. Don’t forget that there is still time for the Trumpster to do or say something dumb. He’s an expert on this.

[jaichind]

She'd have done better in Ohio if the Indians won.

That is what I was thinking.  By being openly for the Cubs Clinton now risk a Ohio backlash vote on election day.

[TDantuono]

Given the Cubs' historic win,
I have to ask: Are there any election parallels with the election of 1908? So far I can see a rough parallel: Similar, but more conservative successor to a beloved Liberal President is the Liberal candidate; IMO Hillary and Taft will share being one termers. Also, like Taft, Hillary neither truly pleases conservatives nor liberals given her centrist leanings. Just as the Progressives came to dislike Taft for being too Conservative, while he was more Liberal than the Conservatives would've liked. Any other parallels anyone can see?

[Pyro]

According to Nate Silver (Atlas' favorite bae), the opposite is true.

[Sir Mohamed]

In some instances, yes. You could also argue that the candidate of the opposition party is a populist. 2020 may be a three-way race as 1912 was, if mainstream GOPers and Trumpists break up the GOP (at least for while), but I doubt that will happen. In the contrary, you could also point out similarities to 1964 (dangerous candidate disliked by GOP establishment), 1988 (not so much liked candidate of the incumbent party succeeds a popular president) and 2000 (close race despite popular incumbent, stronger third party support).

[Orser67]

Taft and Clinton are reasonably similar. Two quasi-incumbents and Cabinet Secretaries trying to succeed a fairly popular two-term president. Both are/were strong in the Northeast. Roosevelt did a far better job of clearing the field for Taft than Obama did for Clinton, but there are some definite similarities there.

Trump and Bryan have some similarities as populists, though Bryan was much less of an outsider at this point, as he had won three of the last four Democratic presidential nominations. Both Bryan and Trump are/were strong in the South.

As with the Democrats today, Taft's Republicans had won four of the last six presidential elections, and seemed to have a significant advantage in presidential elections. However, Taft's Republicans had also held control of Congress since the 1894 elections, whereas Clinton's Democrats have generally been in the minority in Congress since the 1990s.

[Illiniwek]

Cubs won

One more (IRL) blue win and we are set!

[nclib]

wow...

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

wow...