Electoral College 2020 by JEWELSTAITEFAN

I should probably start with this useful data.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
In 2012 Obama beat Romney, with only 409,500 votes deciding the race. This means if the right 205,000 voters had changed, Romney would have won. With an estimated Voting Eligible Population of 222,474,000 this means that less than one one-thousandth of the Eligible Voters decided the race, or less than 0.1%. With total vote count of 129,237,000 the percentage was about 0.15% of those who voted.

In 2016, Trump beat Hilliary, with only 54,996 votes (in MI and PA) deciding the race. This means that if the right 27,498 voters had changed, Hilliary would have won. (5,352 in MI and 22,146 in PA).
Quote:

Of course, no state has voted for Democrats in every elections since 1971, but Minnesota has done so for every election after 1972. Even when the most conservative President we've had in modern times was running, every other state voted for Reagan, but not MN. But they only had an 8 percent margin in 2012, meaning that if 4% of their voters had shifted, the state would have gone to Romney. In 2008 they had a margin of 10%.
Hilliary had a 1.51% margin in MN.

Let us review 2016.
Quote:

Consider these groups of states.
Group 1. 102 Electors. 13 States.
TX, SC, AL, OK, UT, KS, MS, NE, ID, WY, ND, SD, AK.
These states have voted Republican in every election since 1979, and the closest margin in 2012 was SC with 10%. Most people can assume they will go to the GOP in 2016. This group had 91 Electors in 1980, but they have embraced progress and Free Enterprise and flourished, expanding their proportional population.

Group 2. 19 Electors.
GA, MT.
These 2 have voted for GOP in each election since 1982 except for 1992. Both can be assumed to go for GOP in 2016, although GA had only an 8% margin in 2012. They had 16 Electors in 1980.

Group 3. 59 Electors.
TN, AZ, MO, LA, KY, AR, WV.
These states have voted for GOP in almost all elections since 1979 except for the Perot years, 1992 & 1996. They also each have a margin in 2012 of 9% or more. They are likely to vote GOP in 2016.

Group 4. 26 Electors.
NC, IN.
These 2 states have voted Right every election since 1979 except 2008. In 2012 IN voted R by a margin of 10%, and 2008 voted D by a margin of 1.0%. NC voted R in 2012 by a margin or 2% and in 2008 voted D by a margin of 0.32%. These would likely vote Republican if there was a decent candidate.

5. 29 Electors.
FL*.
Florida has voted R since 1979 except 1996, 2008, and 2012. The margin in 2012 was 0.9%. This would easily go to Republican if a decent candidate was available. Florida had 17 Electors in 1980.
Groups 1-5 all voted for Trump. 235 Electors. 25 States.
Quote:
6. 40 Electors.
CO*, VA, OH*.
These 3 States usually vote for the winner since 1979, and in 2012 voted Dem by a margin ranging between 3% and 5%. A decent candidate would put these back in the GOP column. Ohio has lost 28% of it's Elector count since 1980.

Group 6: OH maintained it's record of voting for every winner since 1963. The other 2 remained on the Dark Side. Trump 253 EV, 26 States. Hilliary 22 EV, 2 States.
Quote:

Group 7. 57 Electors.
NM*, MN, WI, IA, NV*, PA.
Other than the Reagan/Bush41 years, these states have mostly voted for Dems since then, and in 2012 had margins of between 5% and 10% for Obama. These would likely vote Democrat if there was a decent candidate. This group had 63 Electors in 1980.

Group 7 split: WI, IA, PA went to Trump, the others remained on the Dark Side. Trump 289 EV, 29 States. Hilliary 43 EV, 5 States.
Quote:

Group 8. 31 Electors.
MI, OR, NH*, ME
These states have voted for Democrats since 1990, and had a large margin in 2012, with MI the tightest margin at 10%. These are likely to go to Democrats in 2016. This group had 35 Electors in 1980.

Group 8: MI voted Trump in 2016, the rest stayed on the Dark Side. Trump 305 EV, 30 States.
Quote:

Group 9. 175 Electors. 12 States.
CA, NY, IL, NJ, WA, MA, MD, CT, VT, HI, RI, DE, DC.
These states have voted for Democrats in every Presidential election since 1990. Unless the GOP puts up somebody similar to the most conservative of recent history - Reagan - these states are likely to stick with the Democrats. This makes them useless in terms of campaigning - no need to spend money or time in these states, other than to raise money to spend in other, competitive states. This group had 187 Electors in 1980, and other than CA and WA have lost 25 Electors as a group. Their liberalism has decimated their states, shunning prosperity, turning their back on progress, forcing populations to go elsewhere like conservative states, but they drag along their inept liberal thinking so they can destroy their new homes like they did the place they left.

Group 9 voted Hilliary in 2016.
Quote:

States with an asterisk have voted for the winner in almost all elections since 1979. Only OH and NV have voted for the winner in every election since 1979, and OH since 1963.
OH and FL were the only asterisk States to vote for the winner.

Quote:

Groups 1-6 would garner 275 Electors for the GOP, winning the Presidency. A reasonable expectation.

Regarding Electoral shift since 1980, the States with the largest percentage increase of Electors are NV 100%, AZ 83%, FL 71%, UT 50%, TX 46%, GA 33%, which are in groups 1-6 except NV.
The states with the largest percentage loss of Electors are NY 29%, OH 28%, PA 26%, IA 25%, MI 24%, IL 23%, which are in groups 6-9 and vote Democrat more often.

Trump in 2016: EV 304, 30 STATES.
AK, ID, UT, AZ, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, IA, MO, AR, LA, WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, WV, KY, TN, NC, AL, MS, GA, SC, FL.
Hilliary: EV 227, 20 States.
WA, OR, CA, NV, HI, MN, IL, VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY, MA, CT, RI, VT, NH, ME, CO, NM.
2 Electors from TX did not vote for Trump.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 9, 2020 3:38 PM

So, how this data works moving forward in 2020:

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
In 2012 Obama beat Romney, with only 409,500 votes deciding the race. This means if the right 205,000 voters had changed, Romney would have won. With an estimated Voting Eligible Population of 222,474,000 this means that less than one one-thousandth of the Eligible Voters decided the race, or less than 0.1%. With total vote count of 129,237,000 the percentage was about 0.15% of those who voted.

Of course, no state has voted for Democrats in every elections since 1971, but Minnesota has done so for every election after 1972. Even when the most conservative President we've had in modern times was running, every other state voted for Reagan, but not MN. But they only had an 8 percent margin in 2012, meaning that if 4% of their voters had shifted, the state would have gone to Romney. In 2008 they had a margin of 10%.

Consider these groups of states.
Group 1. 102 Electors.
TX, SC, AL, OK, UT, KS, MS, NE, ID, WY, ND, SD, AK.
These states have voted Republican in every election since 1979, and the closest margin in 2012 was SC with 10%. Most people can assume they will go to the GOP in 2016. This group had 91 Electors in 1980, but they have embraced progress and Free Enterprise and flourished, expanding their proportional population.

TX 9% in 2016
Quote:

Group 2. 19 Electors.
GA, MT.
These 2 have voted for GOP in each election since 1982 except for 1992. Both can be assumed to go for GOP in 2016, although GA had only an 8% margin in 2012. They had 16 Electors in 1980.
GA 5.1% in 2016
Quote:

Group 3. 59 Electors.
TN, AZ, MO, LA, KY, AR, WV.
These states have voted for GOP in almost all elections since 1979 except for the Perot years, 1992 & 1996. They also each have a margin in 2012 of 9% or more. They are likely to vote GOP in 2016.

Group 4. 26 Electors.
NC, IN.
These 2 states have voted Right every election since 1979 except 2008. In 2012 IN voted R by a margin of 10%, and 2008 voted D by a margin of 1.0%. NC voted R in 2012 by a margin or 2% and in 2008 voted D by a margin of 0.32%. These would likely vote Republican if there was a decent candidate.

5. 29 Electors.
FL*.
Florida has voted R since 1979 except 1996, 2008, and 2012. The margin in 2012 was 0.9%. This would easily go to Republican if a decent candidate was available. Florida had 17 Electors in 1980.
FL 1.2% in 2016

Groups 1-5: 235 Electors, 25 States.

I'll insert a Group 10 here - the States which went to Trump but trended Dem.

OH - 18 EV. 8.1% to Trump.
WI - 10 EV. 0.77%
IA - 6 EV. 9.4%
PA - 20 EV 0.71%
MI - 16 EV 0.22%

If Trump retains OH and IA, that adds up to 259 Electors.
Another 11 Electoral Votes wins him another 4 years.
Quote:

6. 40 22 Electors.
CO*, VA, ~~OH*.~~
These 3 States usually vote for the winner since 1979, and in 2012 voted Dem by a margin ranging between 3% and 5%. A decent candidate would put these back in the GOP column. Ohio has lost 28% of it's Elector count since 1980.
CO 4.9%, VA 5.3%
Quote:

Group 7. 57 21 Electors.
NM*, MN, ~~WI, IA,~~ NV*, ~~PA.~~
Other than the Reagan/Bush41 years, these states have mostly voted for Dems since then, and in 2012 had margins of between 5% and 10% for Obama. These would likely vote Democrat if there was a decent candidate. This group had 63 Electors in 1980.
NM 8.2%, MN 1.51%, NV 2.4%
Quote:

Group 8. 31 15 Electors.
~~MI,~~ OR, NH*, ME
These states have voted for Democrats since 1990, and had a large margin in 2012, with MI the tightest margin at 10%. These are likely to go to Democrats in 2016. This group had 35 Electors in 1980.
OR 11%, NH 0.37%, ME 2.96%

Quote:

Group 9. 175 Electors.
CA, NY, IL, NJ, WA, MA, MD, CT, VT, HI, RI, DE, DC.
These states have voted for Democrats in every Presidential election since 1990. Unless the GOP puts up somebody similar to the most conservative of recent history - Reagan - these states are likely to stick with the Democrats. This makes them useless in terms of campaigning - no need to spend money or time in these states, other than to raise money to spend in other, competitive states. This group had 187 Electors in 1980, and other than CA and WA have lost 25 Electors as a group. Their liberalism has decimated their states, shunning prosperity, turning their back on progress, forcing populations to go elsewhere like conservative states, but they drag along their inept liberal thinking so they can destroy their new homes like they did the place they left.

States with an asterisk have voted for the winner in almost all elections since 1979. Only OH and NV have voted for the winner in every election since 1979, and OH since 1963.

Groups 1-6 would garner 275 Electors for the GOP, winning the Presidency. A reasonable expectation.

Regarding Electoral shift since 1980, the States with the largest percentage increase of Electors are NV 100%, AZ 83%, FL 71%, UT 50%, TX 46%, GA 33%, which are in groups 1-6 except NV.
The states with the largest percentage loss of Electors are NY 29%, OH 28%, PA 26%, IA 25%, MI 24%, IL 23%, which are in groups 6-9 and vote Democrat more often.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 13, 2020 8:36 PM

We don't yet know who the Dem candidate will be, but it might not matter.

The states which Trump could most easily (numbers-wise) bring to his side look like NH and MN. That's another 14 EV (4 + 10).
Trump could lose WI, MI, PA and still pull off a win.

2020 is a Census year. Census is 1 April. Results are due to Congress by end-of-year, usually are ready in December. The House is in charge of the Apportionment Formula, and this is applied to the House races in 2022.
So the Census will not have effect on the 2020 Elections.

Does this data, so far, make sense to everybody? Or is it confusing?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 13, 2020 8:48 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

You have far more energy to write this than I have to read it at the moment! (I'm still wheezing, coughing, and dragging anchor from when I had the flu 5 weeks ago.)

I was going to do a slightly different calculation, not about actual elections but about the electoral college in general, which was to compare House representation v electors, just to see which states are over-represented or underrepresented in terms of electors, and by how much. It doesn't make a difference to what I think, btw, it's just a matter of curiosity.

I think the electoral college is fine and basically democratic. What's NOT fine imo is the 'winner-take-all' assignment of votes for all but 2 states. That strikes me as deeply undemocratic.

I hope to get back to your posts in a bit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 13, 2020 9:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
We don't yet know who the Dem candidate will be, but it might not matter.

The states which Trump could most easily (numbers-wise) bring to his side look like NH and MN. That's another 14 EV (4 + 10).
Trump could lose WI, MI, PA and still pull off a win.

2020 is a Census year. Census is 1 April. Results are due to Congress by end-of-year, usually are ready in December. The House is in charge of the Apportionment Formula, and this is applied to the House races in 2022.
So the Census will not have effect on the 2020 Elections.

Does this data, so far, make sense to everybody? Or is it confusing?

I put NH as a strong favorite for Trump to flip in the predictions thread already. I haven't considered MN yet. I'll have to look into that one.

Should probably mention that Virginia is also in play because of Democrats seemingly losing their mind there and trying to destroy the 2nd Amendment.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 14, 2020 3:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
You have far more energy to write this than I have to read it at the moment! (I'm still wheezing, coughing, and dragging anchor from when I had the flu 5 weeks ago.)

I was going to do a slightly different calculation, not about actual elections but about the electoral college in general, which was to compare House representation v electors, just to see which states are over-represented or underrepresented in terms of electors, and by how much. It doesn't make a difference to what I think, btw, it's just a matter of curiosity.

I think the electoral college is fine and basically democratic. What's NOT fine imo is the 'winner-take-all' assignment of votes for all but 2 states. That strikes me as deeply undemocratic.

I hope to get back to your posts in a bit.

I don't think I understand what you mean.

You say House, and also Electors. Not sure of your comparison.
The House has Representatives, which are apportioned based upon population - the more populous States have more Representatives, the least populous States only have 1. The number of Electors for a State are determined by adding up the number of Congresspersons for that State - 2 Senators plus the number of Representatives. Except D.C., which has 3 Electors.

If you can explain what you are curious about, I might already have a post which covers the subject.
Over-represented or under-represented in what way? As in 2010, or as in 2020?

USA is a Republic. A federation of States. Most States have their Electors vote as a block, all for the candidate who carried the State. Two States have chosen to diminish the Republic form of Representative Government by pandering to small but densely concentrated cities, and split the vote in order to avoid the Great Compromise which was made in what is known as.....The Great Compromise.

Is the thread title confusing? Should it say something else? Or more?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 15, 2020 4:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
We don't yet know who the Dem candidate will be, but it might not matter.

The states which Trump could most easily (numbers-wise) bring to his side look like NH and MN. That's another 14 EV (4 + 10).
Trump could lose WI, MI, PA and still pull off a win.

2020 is a Census year. Census is 1 April. Results are due to Congress by end-of-year, usually are ready in December. The House is in charge of the Apportionment Formula, and this is applied to the House races in 2022.
So the Census will not have effect on the 2020 Elections.

Does this data, so far, make sense to everybody? Or is it confusing?
I put NH as a strong favorite for Trump to flip in the predictions thread already. I haven't considered MN yet. I'll have to look into that one.

Should probably mention that Virginia is also in play because of Democrats seemingly losing their mind there and trying to destroy the 2nd Amendment.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I'm not betting on VA flipping. Or being a critical State for Trump. That's the D.C. suburbs. Swamp creatures and DEEP STATE galore.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 15, 2020 5:20 PM

It's definitely not a critical state for Trump. I think it's important that Trump win both the popular vote and decimate the Democrats in the Electoral College as well this time though. Democrats need to learn a lesson and stop doubling down on stupid and blaming everybody else for how terrible they've become.

Virginia is easily in play. Moody's prediction models show Trump taking Virginia even if voter turnout is average. The only model that shows Trump losing Virginia is if voter turnout is "historical maximum"

If you've been paying any attention to the Democrats now, that is an extremely unlikely scenario. How many "X Candidate or Bust" comments and hashtags are out there now? One for every candidate.

I do believe we're on the verge of witnessing a historical collapse of a political party in the US.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 15, 2020 5:25 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I don't think I understand what you mean.

Oh, my sideline interest was simply how much does the addition of 2 senators to each state for total electors change the calculus from proportional to population, with the House of Representatives being the base numbers for proportional-to-population to not-proportional.

AFAIK each state gets to determine how they run their elections and apportion the votes, as long as they meet minimum standards. But perhaps you know more about that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2020 2:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I don't think I understand what you mean.
Oh, my sideline interest was simply how much does the addition of 2 senators to each state for total electors change the calculus from proportional to population, with the House of Representatives being the base numbers for proportional-to-population to not-proportional.

I am still not certain I understand your focus of curiosity.

As you surely know, the number of Electors for a State is the number of members representativing it has in both chambers of Congress.

As a Republic, a Federation of States, the simplest method of tallying Election results is to count the total number of these States forming The Republic which a candidate won, and the greater total is the winner. For instance, Trump won 30 States of The Republic, and Hilliary garnered 20 States - so Trump was the winner.

I am imagining a few possibilities.

1. I don' think your are talking about the population shift in the past 9 years, since the last Apportionment of Representatives. Therefore, you must be talking about how the apportionment of Electors would be done based upon the 2010 Census.

2. Perhaps you are saying that if we ignore the Republic Federation of States and the Great Compromise, and switch to a Federation of Large Cities, then the Apportionment of Electors could be based on a common pool of 538 Electors. In other words, while the Representatives for the House are apportioned for 435 Representatives, the Electors would follow the same apportionment formula applied to all 538 Electors.

Is that what you are talking about?
Or something else?

If I had a table for what you are curious about, would you want that posted in this thread, or another?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2020 4:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
We don't yet know who the Dem candidate will be, but it might not matter.

The states which Trump could most easily (numbers-wise) bring to his side look like NH and MN. That's another 14 EV (4 + 10).
Trump could lose WI, MI, PA and still pull off a win.

2020 is a Census year. Census is 1 April. Results are due to Congress by end-of-year, usually are ready in December. The House is in charge of the Apportionment Formula, and this is applied to the House races in 2022.
So the Census will not have effect on the 2020 Elections.

Does this data, so far, make sense to everybody? Or is it confusing?
I put NH as a strong favorite for Trump to flip in the predictions thread already. I haven't considered MN yet. I'll have to look into that one.

Should probably mention that Virginia is also in play because of Democrats seemingly losing their mind there and trying to destroy the 2nd Amendment.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
I'm not betting on VA flipping. Or being a critical State for Trump. That's the D.C. suburbs. Swamp creatures and DEEP STATE galore.

Check this very, very, VERY left-leaning article and what they have to say about Virginia. It's mentioned once or twice earlier in the article, but the main point is found where the good stuff in left-leaning articles always is found... in the second to last paragraph.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/the-states-trump-might-plausib
ly-aim-to-flip-in-2020.html

Quote:
Unfortunately for the president, though, his current approval numbers are terrible in Minnesota (40/56) and New Hampshire (39/58). He’s doing a bit better, though hardly well, in Nevada (42/53) and Maine (44/53). Of all the potential target states, the one in which he’s doing best in terms of current popularity is Virginia, where he’s at 45/51. His campaign might actually target Virginia, since it’s pretty convenient to the White House.

And this article was written 6 months before Senator Marsden called 2nd Amendment supporters "little kids" and then rather than apologizing he came out and doubled down on it and called them "mentally ill".

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democrat-says-second-amendment
-supporters-in-virginia-have-mental-issues

Quote:
Marsden supports red flag laws that allow courts the ability to seize guns from citizens temporarily if someone believes they are a danger to themselves or others.

"What people are upset with, and I can absolutely see their point of view, is that you have your guns removed from you, and then you have to go through the court process, spend money for a lawyer, to prove your innocence in order to get your rightfully owned guns back from the government," said Walter. "It's a guilty-before-innocent law."

He's not just being insulting by saying that. The laws he proposes will allow the government to enter your home in Virginia and take your guns if somebody believes you're a danger to yourself or others.

Ever heard of Twitter? Ask Sandmann what happens on Twitter.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2020 4:47 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I am still not certain I understand your focus of curiosity.

A LOT of people were whining about the electoral college ... as if it wasn't in the Constitution and should just be ignored ... I digress ... I'm just curious how much of a difference in per-vote weight it makes, compared to a population-proportional vote. It's just a matter of curiosity. But I actually agree with the electoral college. Whatever its original intent, I believe it keeps cities from running the entire country. Having a strictly popular-vote election could end up as a form of legislated slavery, serving city dwellers. Everyone needs to have their voice heard. Even in so-called fly-over country. Even the so-called basket of deplorables.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2020 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I am still not certain I understand your focus of curiosity.
A LOT of people were whining about the electoral college ... as if it wasn't in the Constitution and should just be ignored ... I digress ... I'm just curious how much of a difference in per-vote weight it makes, compared to a population-proportional vote. It's just a matter of curiosity. But I actually agree with the electoral college. Whatever its original intent, I believe it keeps cities from running the entire country. Having a strictly popular-vote election could end up as a form of legislated slavery, serving city dwellers. Everyone needs to have their voice heard. Even in so-called fly-over country. Even the so-called basket of deplorables.

So, does that mean my #2?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2020 5:05 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So, does that mean my #2?

Almost, if I understand your formulation. My calculation would use the House of Representatives as the basis for proportional apportionment, including the exceptions already made for states that would mathematically have less than 1 representative by strictly mathematical proportionality, that get a minimum of 1 representative no matter what the mathematical calculation is.

But I'm not arguing for it, just to be clear.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 6:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So, does that mean my #2?
Almost, if I understand your formulation. My calculation would use the House of Representatives as the basis for proportional apportionment, including the exceptions already made for states that would mathematically have less than 1 representative by strictly mathematical proportionality, that get a minimum of 1 representative no matter what the mathematical calculation is.

But I'm not arguing for it, just to be clear.

Try this thread:

http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=63508&mid=10939
59#1093959

Is that what you are looking for?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 7:08 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Since I don't know what the 'Federation of Large Cities' is, I can't answer that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 19, 2020 5:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Since I don't know what the 'Federation of Large Cities' is, I can't answer that.

Do you prefer 'Federation of Concentrated Population Centers' or Large Urban Centers?

Was the description confusing?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 19, 2020 6:20 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I wonder about the specifics and also the intended use. How large does something need to be to counted? Do you mean total metropolitan (of or constituting a large city or urbanized area, including adjacent suburbs and towns) population, or urban centers only? As a category, how does this lump together such diverse places as Los Angeles, Miami, Houston, and New York into something meaningful?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 20, 2020 3:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I wonder about the specifics and also the intended use. How large does something need to be to counted? Do you mean total metropolitan (of or constituting a large city or urbanized area, including adjacent suburbs and towns) population, or urban centers only? As a category, how does this lump together such diverse places as Los Angeles, Miami, Houston, and New York into something meaningful?

I have moved these questions to the other thread, where they belong.

This thread can get back on track.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 20, 2020 6:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
We don't yet know who the Dem candidate will be, but it might not matter.

The states which Trump could most easily (numbers-wise) bring to his side look like NH and MN. That's another 14 EV (4 + 10).
Trump could lose WI, MI, PA and still pull off a win.

2020 is a Census year. Census is 1 April. Results are due to Congress by end-of-year, usually are ready in December. The House is in charge of the Apportionment Formula, and this is applied to the House races in 2022.
So the Census will not have effect on the 2020 Elections.

Does this data, so far, make sense to everybody? Or is it confusing?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 20, 2020 9:59 PM

450+ Electoral votes for Trump.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 20, 2020 10:01 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Monday, July 20, 2020 9:59 PM
Electoral College 2020

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
450+ Electoral votes for Trump.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

copied to predictions thread
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51008&p=16

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
450+ Electoral votes for Trump.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Which States?

CA, NY, IL, NJ, WA, MA, MD?

Where does Obiden get only 88 EV?

55 + 28 + 20 + 14 + 12 + 11 + 10 = 151.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 22, 2020 8:38 PM

Marcos and his ultra-uber-left wing idiots keep their shit up, they're going to make California turn.

525 already happened once in my lifetime, and you don't have to go back much further for 520.

Legacy Media is going to pretend like there isn't a hidden Trump vote, when all signs point to a huge hidden Trump vote.

Nobody wants to wear any Trump clothes or put a Trump bumper sticker on their car when they know the only thing they're doing is asking for being attacked if they go out in public with them.

And that's the best case scenario. Unlike 1984 and 1972, everybody has a cell phone camera. Get in the middle of some bullshit because you walked out of your house wearing a MAGA hat and 20 minutes later you're on YouTube and CNN is playing it on Maddow's show and Marcos and his buddies are looking to dox you on Twitter so they can get you fired and ruin your life.

Nah... Keep that shit on the down low.

If you live in a Democrat ran shithole, walk your happy ass in the polling station wearing your Biden button and carrying a soy latte. Democrats are stupid. They won't even know that you voted Trump.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 10, 2020 7:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So, how this data works moving forward in 2020:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
In 2012 Obama beat Romney, with only 409,500 votes deciding the race. This means if the right 205,000 voters had changed, Romney would have won. With an estimated Voting Eligible Population of 222,474,000 this means that less than one one-thousandth of the Eligible Voters decided the race, or less than 0.1%. With total vote count of 129,237,000 the percentage was about 0.15% of those who voted.

Of course, no state has voted for Democrats in every elections since 1971, but Minnesota has done so for every election after 1972. Even when the most conservative President we've had in modern times was running, every other state voted for Reagan, but not MN. But they only had an 8 percent margin in 2012, meaning that if 4% of their voters had shifted, the state would have gone to Romney. In 2008 they had a margin of 10%.

Consider these groups of states.
Group 1. 102 Electors.
TX, SC, AL, OK, UT, KS, MS, NE, ID, WY, ND, SD, AK.
These states have voted Republican in every election since 1979, and the closest margin in 2012 was SC with 10%. Most people can assume they will go to the GOP in 2016. This group had 91 Electors in 1980, but they have embraced progress and Free Enterprise and flourished, expanding their proportional population.
TX 9% in 2016
Quote:

Group 2. 19 Electors.
GA, MT.
These 2 have voted for GOP in each election since 1982 except for 1992. Both can be assumed to go for GOP in 2016, although GA had only an 8% margin in 2012. They had 16 Electors in 1980.
GA 5.1% in 2016
Quote:

Group 3. 59 Electors.
TN, AZ, MO, LA, KY, AR, WV.
These states have voted for GOP in almost all elections since 1979 except for the Perot years, 1992 & 1996. They also each have a margin in 2012 of 9% or more. They are likely to vote GOP in 2016.

Group 4. 26 Electors.
NC, IN.
These 2 states have voted Right every election since 1979 except 2008. In 2012 IN voted R by a margin of 10%, and 2008 voted D by a margin of 1.0%. NC voted R in 2012 by a margin or 2% and in 2008 voted D by a margin of 0.32%. These would likely vote Republican if there was a decent candidate.

5. 29 Electors.
FL*.
Florida has voted R since 1979 except 1996, 2008, and 2012. The margin in 2012 was 0.9%. This would easily go to Republican if a decent candidate was available. Florida had 17 Electors in 1980.
FL 1.2% in 2016

Groups 1-5: 235 Electors, 25 States.

I'll insert a Group 10 here - the States which went to Trump but trended Dem.

OH - 18 EV. 8.1% to Trump.
WI - 10 EV. 0.77%
IA - 6 EV. 9.4%
PA - 20 EV 0.71%
MI - 16 EV 0.22%

If Trump retains OH and IA, that adds up to 259 Electors.
Another 11 Electoral Votes wins him another 4 years.
Quote:

6. 40 22 Electors.
CO*, VA, ~~OH*.~~
These 3 States usually vote for the winner since 1979, and in 2012 voted Dem by a margin ranging between 3% and 5%. A decent candidate would put these back in the GOP column. Ohio has lost 28% of it's Elector count since 1980.
CO 4.9%, VA 5.3%
Quote:

Group 7. 57 21 Electors.
NM*, MN, ~~WI, IA,~~ NV*, ~~PA.~~
Other than the Reagan/Bush41 years, these states have mostly voted for Dems since then, and in 2012 had margins of between 5% and 10% for Obama. These would likely vote Democrat if there was a decent candidate. This group had 63 Electors in 1980.
NM 8.2%, MN 1.51%, NV 2.4%
Quote:

Group 8. 31 15 Electors.
~~MI,~~ OR, NH*, ME
These states have voted for Democrats since 1990, and had a large margin in 2012, with MI the tightest margin at 10%. These are likely to go to Democrats in 2016. This group had 35 Electors in 1980.
OR 11%, NH 0.37%, ME 2.96%
Quote:

Group 9. 175 Electors.
CA, NY, IL, NJ, WA, MA, MD, CT, VT, HI, RI, DE, DC.
These states have voted for Democrats in every Presidential election since 1990. Unless the GOP puts up somebody similar to the most conservative of recent history - Reagan - these states are likely to stick with the Democrats. This makes them useless in terms of campaigning - no need to spend money or time in these states, other than to raise money to spend in other, competitive states. This group had 187 Electors in 1980, and other than CA and WA have lost 25 Electors as a group. Their liberalism has decimated their states, shunning prosperity, turning their back on progress, forcing populations to go elsewhere like conservative states, but they drag along their inept liberal thinking so they can destroy their new homes like they did the place they left.

States with an asterisk have voted for the winner in almost all elections since 1979. Only OH and NV have voted for the winner in every election since 1979, and OH since 1963.

Groups 1-6 would garner 275 Electors for the GOP, winning the Presidency. A reasonable expectation.

Regarding Electoral shift since 1980, the States with the largest percentage increase of Electors are NV 100%, AZ 83%, FL 71%, UT 50%, TX 46%, GA 33%, which are in groups 1-6 except NV.
The states with the largest percentage loss of Electors are NY 29%, OH 28%, PA 26%, IA 25%, MI 24%, IL 23%, which are in groups 6-9 and vote Democrat more often.

The Color Revolution thread mentions that when Trump wins, States with Dem Governors will demand that their electors will not be selected by the method of Trump selectees, but by only Biden Electors (thread 63781).

Group 2 loses MT - 3.
Group 3 loses LA - 8, KY - 8, WV - 5, total of 21.
group 4 loses NC - 15.
Group 7 loses WI - 10, PA - 20, total of 30.
Group 8 loses MI - 16.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 10, 2020 10:13 PM

Well remember...

Not too long ago Ted was thrilled to post about how laws were going to be passed to ensure that the Electors voted the way the people voted.

To which I subsequently pointed out that this is a good thing since this did not hurt Hillary at all in 2016 and it was in fact Trump that had two electors from Texas not vote by the will of the public. He should have had 2 more electoral votes in 2016 than were on the final tally.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 10, 2020 2:40 PM

About 7 weeks to go for in-person voting. Libtards have already started sending in fraudulent ballots - and will continue for 10-20 weeks.

I'm not tracking all of the polls for the battleground States, but so far the model in the 3rd post of this thread seems to be holding up.

OH, WI, IA, PA, MI are considered the Battleground States. FL could be in danger of being stolen.

OH - 18 EV. 8.1% to Trump.
WI - 10 EV. 0.77%
IA - 6 EV. 9.4%
PA - 20 EV 0.71%
MI - 16 EV 0.22%

Trump needs 35 EV from these, assuming all other states remain the same as 2016.

FL has 29 EV.

OH has went to the winner in every election since 1963.
The second best streak is FL with every election since 1999.
No other state has gone with the winner in every election since 1999.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 11, 2020 3:20 PM

I saw uselectionatlas.com had a prediction map up - he is always heavily leaning toward the Libtards.

This shows Trump wins with 306 EV.
https://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/evcalc.php

Here is a map of polls:
https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2020/polls.php

It indicates IA is borderline R, AZ borderline D, and GA, NC, OH, TX are tossup.

Also, MN is grouped with MI, WI, PA.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2020 2:15 PM

Following the Floyd riots MN has had such an uptick in poling that Trump campaign is now spending more money there, indicating they could win there.

MN was in my "Group 7" in this thread. Group 7 had 6 States before 2016, and 3 States after 2016.
If MN flips to Trump in 2020, Group 7 would be down to NV and NM. Both of those States have voted for the winner in almost all elections from 1979 until 2015, and then wrong in 2016.

MN only has 9 EV, NM and NV have 6 each. MN had 1.51% MoV in 2016, and NV had 2.4%

MN has voted Dem every Election since 1972 for Nixon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2020 6:17 PM

I think I just heard Cory Lewandowski predict that NV, NH, and MN will vote for Trump.

And also that Obiden will not win any state which went to Trump in 2016.

So, I wonder, with that sort of template in mind, Which States do Democrats or Liberals think Obiden will win?
Which States That Trump won in 2016 will Obiden win in 2020? There must be some, otherwise Trump is automatically the winner.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2020 8:57 PM

REAVERFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I think I just heard Cory Lewandowski predict that NV, NH, and MN will vote for Trump.

And we're supposed to care about what that shitstain says, because why? You are so bad at this.

God, you suck!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 1, 2020 3:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
And also that Obiden will not win any state which went to Trump in 2016.

So, I wonder, with that sort of template in mind, Which States do Democrats or Liberals think Obiden will win?
Which States That Trump won in 2016 will Obiden win in 2020? There must be some, otherwise Trump is automatically the winner.

Nobody can venture a possibility? No liberals can envision any possible way that Obiden can win?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 6, 2020 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
And also that Obiden will not win any state which went to Trump in 2016.

So, I wonder, with that sort of template in mind, Which States do Democrats or Liberals think Obiden will win?
Which States That Trump won in 2016 will Obiden win in 2020? There must be some, otherwise Trump is automatically the winner.

Not a single Liberal thinks Biden will win?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 8, 2020 5:00 PM

With all the turmoil and Election Theft Dems are promising, I started wondering what the EV amp would look like on Election Night.

I think that all of Groups 1-3, plus IN will be listed for Trump, out of range for Dems, unable to steal. So that would be 191 EV for Trump.

And all of Group 9 plus OR and NM would be for Obiden. For a total of 187 for Obiden.

The other States (without further examination) seem within range of Democrap Election Fraud Theft. Might need to wait for weeks or months for Dems to stuff the ballot boxes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 9, 2020 3:50 PM

270 to win is showing that Obiden will get 308 Electoral Votes.

And in the Senate, every Incumbent Dem will be re-elected ecept Jones in AL. All of the Incumbents who are going to lose are GOP.

Not endorsing any of this nonsense, just pointing out how delsional these assclowns are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 12, 2020 4:28 PM

Kevin McCullough predicts 330 for Trump.

[img] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ej5E5aZWsAE22EX?format=jpg&name=large [/img]

https://dougsanto.com/2020/10/11/2020-election-prediction-from-kevin-m
ccullough/

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/kevin-mccullough-i-predicted-obama
-in-2006-then-2012-and-i-predicted-within-a-half-state-the-exact-map-of-2016-this-election-isnt-hard/

https://welovetrump.com/2020/10/12/man-who-got-every-election-map-corr
ect-since-2006-releases-his-2020-map/

[img] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ej5E5aZWsAE22EX?format=jpg&name=large [/img]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ej5E5aZWsAE22EX?format=jpg&name=large

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 12, 2020 4:41 PM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...

Wait, you found a web site called welovetrump.com that predicted Trump would win?!? I don’t believe you! Link or it didn’t happen!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 13, 2020 2:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Kevin McCullough predicts 330 for Trump.

[img] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ej5E5aZWsAE22EX?format=jpg&name=large [/img]

https://dougsanto.com/2020/10/11/2020-election-prediction-from-kevin-m
ccullough/

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/kevin-mccullough-i-predicted-obama
-in-2006-then-2012-and-i-predicted-within-a-half-state-the-exact-map-of-2016-this-election-isnt-hard/

https://welovetrump.com/2020/10/12/man-who-got-every-election-map-corr
ect-since-2006-releases-his-2020-map/

His updated maps already show Obiden losing more, in OR, CO, NM.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 13, 2020 3:51 PM

REAVERFAN

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 15, 2020 2:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Kevin McCullough predicts 330 for Trump.

[img] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ej5E5aZWsAE22EX?format=jpg&name=large [/img]

Although it does not get to the 450 Electoral Votes of 6ix's prediction, this Kevin prediction does show the way to 350.

With CA, WA, IL and the usual suspects east, from VA north and east except NH, one CD of ME, going to The Wrong.

To The Right:
That is all of my Groups 1-5: 235 Electors, 25 States.
Plus all of Group 10: +70 = 305 EV, 30 States,
Plus CO from Group 6: +9 = 314 EV, 31 States,
Plus NM, MN, NV from Group 7: +21 = 335 EV, 34 States,
Plus OR, NH, and 1 of ME from Group 8: +12 EV = 347 EV, 36 whole States.

Of the Groups that I identified above, only Group 9 (175 EV) remains unmolested and irrelevantly toward Liberals, other than VA (13 EV) from Group 6 and half of Maine (3 EV, total of 191 EV). I guess this Kevin supports my methodology of Groups.

Anyway, to get to 350 EV, Trump would only need to pick off 3 more EV, like the other half of ME, or VT, DE (unlikely as Obiden's Home State), or RI. I would think ME the most likely of that list. I don't know why NJ is not considered in play. I know 6ix considers VA to be going for Trump, but I am wary of such a Swamp Creature Infested locale.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 19, 2020 3:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
And also that Obiden will not win any state which went to Trump in 2016.

So, I wonder, with that sort of template in mind, Which States do Democrats or Liberals think Obiden will win?
Which States That Trump won in 2016 will Obiden win in 2020? There must be some, otherwise Trump is automatically the winner.

Not a single Liberal thinks Biden will win?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 19, 2020 6:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:

Apparently Lindsey Graham doesn't know how things work.

No surprise though that a dumbass athlete doesn't either.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 31, 2020 12:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
About 7 weeks to go for in-person voting. Libtards have already started sending in fraudulent ballots - and will continue for 10-20 weeks.

I'm not tracking all of the polls for the battleground States, but so far the model in the 3rd post of this thread seems to be holding up.

OH, WI, IA, PA, MI are considered the Battleground States. FL could be in danger of being stolen.

OH - 18 EV. 8.1% to Trump.
WI - 10 EV. 0.77%
IA - 6 EV. 9.4%
PA - 20 EV 0.71%
MI - 16 EV 0.22%

Trump needs 35 EV from these, assuming all other states remain the same as 2016.

FL has 29 EV.

OH has went to the winner in every election since 1963.
The second best streak is FL with every election since 1999.
No other state has gone with the winner in every election since 1999.

With Real News today Trumping Fake News claims that Trump was losing PA and MI in polling, we could add MI and PA in the above quoted scenario.

That is 36 EV, giving Trump 271 Electoral Votes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 31, 2020 1:14 PM

I'm gonna post some reference data here, so I don't have to keep looking it up.

DC first had Votes in 1964, and have always voted Dem.

Historical States won, Electoral Votes, R/D-total, and turnout percentage, total votes cast.

2016 30/20-50 304/227-538 55.7% 138.8 million
2012 24/26-50 206/332-538 54.9% 126.8
2008 22/28-50 173/365-538 58.2% 129.4
2004 31/19-50 286/251-538 56.7%
2000 30/20-50 271/266-538 51.2%
1996 19/31-50 159/379-538 49.0%
1992 18/32-50 168/370-538 55.2%
1988 40/10-50 426/111-538 50.2%
1984 49/01-50 525/013-538 53.3%
1980 44/06-50 489/049-538 52.6%
1976 27/23-50 240/297-538 53.5%
1972 49/01-50 520/017-538 55.2%
1968 32/13-50 301/191-538 60.9%
1964 06/44-50 053/486-538 61.9%
1960 26/22-50 219/303-537 62.8%
1956 41/07-48 457/ 73-531 60.8%
1952 39/09-48 442/ 89-531 63.3%
1948 16/28-48 189/303-531 53.0% 4/39 for Dixiecrat.
1944 12/36-48 099/432-531 55.9%
1940 10/38-48 082/449-531 62.5%
1936 02/46-48 008/523-531 61.0%
1932 06/42-48 059/472-531 52.6%
1928 40/08-48 444/087-531 56.9%
1924 35/12-48 382/136-531 48.9%
1920 37/11-48 404/127-531 49.2%
1916 18/30-48 254/277-531 61.6%
1912 02/40-48 008/435-531 58.8% 6/88 for Bull Moose
1908 29/17-46 321/162-483 65.4%
1904 32/13-45 336/140-476 65.2%
1900 28/17-45 292/155-447 73.2%
1896 23/22-45 271/176-447 79.3%
1892 16/23-44 145/277-444 74.7%
1888 20/18-38 233/168-401 79.3%
1884 18/20-38 182/219-401 77.5%
1880 19/19-38 215/155-369 78.0%
1876 21/17-38 185/184-369 81.8%
1872 31/06-37 286/ -0-352 71.3%
1868 26/08-34 214/ 80-294 78.1%
1864 22/03-25 212/ 21-274 73.8%
1860 18/11-33 180/ 72-303 81.2%

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 31, 2020 9:07 PM

Do keep in mind that they're shooting themselves in the foot by counting ballots early and then announcing any states where Trump is behind.

There were always going to be far more Republicans voting in person on election day.

Genius idea to sound the horns and let people who don't want Biden to be president know that they need to get their asses off the couch and vote on Tuesday.

Pure genius.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 1, 2020 1:48 AM

Biden may as well just give up having his 12 person rallies in Iowa.

Trump is destroying him there, and the fake polls are even showing a huge reversal and swing as far in Trump's favor as they were lying were going for Biden just last month.

Expect to see more of this.

You can hardly read a news article now where they don't say something along the lines of "Trump still has a chance".

Sorry, Legacy Media... Trump was always going to win this.

And good luck getting the Left to believe a fucking word you have to say about anything after he does.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 1, 2020 2:23 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"the fake polls are even showing a huge reversal and swing"

That would be no. Only RCP had Biden mostly ahead for a few weeks. The other polls I looked at over the last 2 months showed a mixed picture for Biden at best, or Trump mostly leading.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/presidential-polls/iowa

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_trump_
vs_biden-6787.html

https://www.270towin.com/2020-polls-biden-trump/iowa/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/iowa/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 1, 2020 8:42 AM

My bad. You're right.

I read this article on the Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll and mixed up some of the smaller metrics as the entire poll results from last month to this month in general.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-donald-trump-leads-joe-bi
den-by-7-points-among-iowa-voters/ar-BB1azNvo

The most important demographic (independents), has seen a full swing the other way.

September's Poll (Independents): 50% Biden; 38% Trump
October's Poll (Independents): 35% Biden; 49% Trump

Also, women are now polling at 50% to 41% in favor of Biden currently, while they supposedly were 20 points in favor of Biden a month ago.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 2, 2020 5:44 PM