Electoral College Breakdown

[HappyJoy]

Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.

Oops!

Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.

Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.

They also, inaccurately, predicted she'd win the Electoral College.
With something like a 98% chance she'd do so, as late as election day.

Those weren't polls, dipshit, they were predictions. Polls don't measure the odds of winning the presidency they measure popular opinion.

"Toddster", sounds like a legacy kid in the market for roofies.

Those weren't polls, dipshit, they were predictions.

Oh, they made state by state predictions without polling...…..LOL!
You're such a fucking moron.

Yes, assumptions are made when making predictions. That's why it's a prediction.

Polls don't measure the odds of winning the presidency they measure popular opinion.

Well, when the polls show you'll easily win enough states for more than 270 electoral votes,
they did use them to predict the odds of winning the presidency. In Hillary's case....hilariously.

That's not what national polls do, they measure the preference for one candidate over another and anything beyond that is people who didn't conduct the poll trying to figure out what it all means.

Bottom line, most people don't like Trump. Most polls showed that most people won't be voting for Trump. The election showed us that more people voted for Clinton than Trump.

View attachment 326731


These state predictions weren't based on a national poll.

You're right, they were based on inaccurate state polling where there are problems in states that are close. This is a prime example why a national EC poll based off of individual state polling would be less accurate then just having a national poll that only measures the popular vote.

You may not know the end game but you at least know who most Americans would vote for.

You're right, they were based on inaccurate state polling

Yup.

This is a prime example why a national EC poll based off of individual state polling would be less accurate then just having a national poll that only measures the popular vote.

As we've seen, popular vote doesn't make you President.

You may not know the end game but you at least know who most Americans would vote for.

Why bother?

I think it's a more accurate representation as to who will win an election. However, there should be an understanding of the differences between the EC and popular vote. National polls also demonstrate how a candidate is doing with different demographics such as age, race, sex, religion and sometimes region.

National polls can also give insight into how a candidate is doing with their own base or are they making inroads into the other side's base. Over time they also show you trends, how is a candidate doing over time and how is a candidate doing over time with the demographics previously mentioned.

To me I find them interesting. Maybe in the same way a marketing firm will poll soup or auto brands. But there needs to be a basic understanding of what a poll can and cannot do. If you ever hear someone say a poll gives so and so a certain percentage chance of winning then you know it's not a poll. Anyway, polls tells more than who is going to win and I just wish more people understood their purpose.

 

[Markle]

The Democraps are pinning a lot of hope on the expectation that by November, voters will blame Trump for the economic disaster that the Democraps have deliberately created in relation to the COVID-19 hoax. Truly, that is what it comes down to. They are hoping that the American people are stupid enough to blame Trump for what anyone can see is the Democraps' doing.

Really? Did the Democrats ignore the problem for three months like Trump did?
Did the Democrats call it a hoax?
Did the Democrats push quack cures or promise to have the country back open by Easter?

No, Mormon Bob, Trump will get the blame because he deserves the blame. But even if he didn't, it really wouldn't matter. Jimmy Carter and Poppy Bush had shitty economies and crisis that were beyond their control, and THEY LOST ANYWAY.

Hey, Mormon Bob, as long as I got you here, how about the way Trump is dissing Mitt Romney? I mean, yeah, funny how he turned on one of your fellow cultists out of spite.

 

[HappyJoy]

Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.

Oops!

Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.

Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.

They also, inaccurately, predicted she'd win the Electoral College.
With something like a 98% chance she'd do so, as late as election day.

Those weren't polls, dipshit, they were predictions. Polls don't measure the odds of winning the presidency they measure popular opinion.

"Toddster", sounds like a legacy kid in the market for roofies.

Those weren't polls, dipshit, they were predictions.

Oh, they made state by state predictions without polling...…..LOL!
You're such a fucking moron.

Yes, assumptions are made when making predictions. That's why it's a prediction.

Polls don't measure the odds of winning the presidency they measure popular opinion.

Well, when the polls show you'll easily win enough states for more than 270 electoral votes,
they did use them to predict the odds of winning the presidency. In Hillary's case....hilariously.

That's not what national polls do, they measure the preference for one candidate over another and anything beyond that is people who didn't conduct the poll trying to figure out what it all means.

Bottom line, most people don't like Trump. Most polls showed that most people won't be voting for Trump. The election showed us that more people voted for Clinton than Trump.

View attachment 326731


These state predictions weren't based on a national poll.

State polling is poorly funded and is generally not current. That is why they got it so wrong on 2018.

Polling should be conducted in only ten states.
Polling people in NY, CA or Texas does no good

That's not entirely true. For example if you want to know how a candidate is doing among African Americans and how that trends over time and getting enough of a sample, where the person is located often times is secondary.

 

[Markle]

What flaw in the system?
If there was a flaw it was the BULLSHIT MSM POLLS.
In November the UE rate won't be 10%

Actually, it will be 10% next month. And the one thing we know about the unemployment rate is that it takes a lot longer to go down than it does to go up. For instance, it went from 5% to 10% in less than a year and half, but it didn't go back down to 5% until 2015 or so.

THANK YOU! Good to see you finally acknowledging the fact failed former President Obama led the slowest recovery in modern history.

 

[eddiew]

aghhhhh I can't take it anymore This scumbag this pos is patting himself on the back for being the king of ventilators All nations are congratulating him Have another rally you MF Shake hands with all your SB supporters

 

[rightwinger]

Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.

Oops!

Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.

Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.

They also, inaccurately, predicted she'd win the Electoral College.
With something like a 98% chance she'd do so, as late as election day.

Those weren't polls, dipshit, they were predictions. Polls don't measure the odds of winning the presidency they measure popular opinion.

"Toddster", sounds like a legacy kid in the market for roofies.

Those weren't polls, dipshit, they were predictions.

Oh, they made state by state predictions without polling...…..LOL!
You're such a fucking moron.

Yes, assumptions are made when making predictions. That's why it's a prediction.

Polls don't measure the odds of winning the presidency they measure popular opinion.

Well, when the polls show you'll easily win enough states for more than 270 electoral votes,
they did use them to predict the odds of winning the presidency. In Hillary's case....hilariously.

That's not what national polls do, they measure the preference for one candidate over another and anything beyond that is people who didn't conduct the poll trying to figure out what it all means.

Bottom line, most people don't like Trump. Most polls showed that most people won't be voting for Trump. The election showed us that more people voted for Clinton than Trump.

View attachment 326731


These state predictions weren't based on a national poll.

State polling is poorly funded and is generally not current. That is why they got it so wrong on 2018.

Polling should be conducted in only ten states.
Polling people in NY, CA or Texas does no good

That's not entirely true. For example if you want to know how a candidate is doing among African Americans and how that trends over time and getting enough of a sample, where the person is located often times is secondary.

Not relevant

You want to know how he is doing with Hispanics in Arizona
You want to know how he is doing with blacks in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

How he does with blacks and Hispanics in California doesn’t matter

 

[Markle]

Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.

For sake of this argument, let's assume Biden will get all the states Hillary won for 232 Electoral votes. Let's also assume for the argument that no matter how awful the economy gets, Trump will still 19 safe states, for a total of 123.

That leaves us with the following states in play - WI, MI, PA, NC, AZ, FL, TX, IA, OH, and GA. We can also put in there ME2 and NE2

So I will break them down into three groups.

The Ones Hillary Should have Won- WI, MI, PA - Because she didn't devote resources, because Comey sandbagged her, or because of Russian Shennanigans, Hillary lost these states. So how is Biden doing there.

Well, he's leading in all three.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden

www.realclearpolitics.com

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden

www.realclearpolitics.com

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Michigan: Trump vs. Biden

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Michigan: Trump vs. Biden

www.realclearpolitics.com

This is before the full effect of Trump's Recession are hit, and Biden's still ahead. When these folks realize that not only won't they get Daddy's factory job back, they probably won't get to keep that service job they have, it WILL be worse.

Those three will put him over 278, game over, man, game over.

But wait, there's more!

Next up we have the three Hillary tried really hard for - NC, AZ and FL

Biden is competitive in those, and has a firm lead in Arizona.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Florida: Trump vs. Biden

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Florida: Trump vs. Biden

www.realclearpolitics.com

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden

www.realclearpolitics.com

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Arizona: Trump vs. Biden

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Arizona: Trump vs. Biden

www.realclearpolitics.com

If he wins those three, he will be up to 333, actually better than Obama did in 2008. Let's throw in Maine2 into that mix, and go with 334.

Then you have the Swinging for the Fences states. These are states the Democrats could potentially win. = IA, OH, TX and GA. Not as much polling data on these from RCP. But what little there is shows Biden could be competitive. Probably a lot more after the bottom completely falls out of the economy. That would bring him up to 413

he's withing 3 points in Texas

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Texas: Trump vs. Biden

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Texas: Trump vs. Biden

www.realclearpolitics.com

5 Points in Iowa

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Iowa: Trump vs. Biden

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Iowa: Trump vs. Biden

www.realclearpolitics.com

Actually LEADING Trump in Ohio.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Ohio: Trump vs. Biden

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Ohio: Trump vs. Biden

www.realclearpolitics.com

Trailing him by 8 points in Georgia, but again- this assumes the economy collapses completely and Trump won't be so popular anymore.

Next up, we have

 

[rightwinger]

What flaw in the system?
If there was a flaw it was the BULLSHIT MSM POLLS.
In November the UE rate won't be 10%

Actually, it will be 10% next month. And the one thing we know about the unemployment rate is that it takes a lot longer to go down than it does to go up. For instance, it went from 5% to 10% in less than a year and half, but it didn't go back down to 5% until 2015 or so.

THANK YOU! Good to see you finally acknowledging the fact failed former President Obama led the slowest recovery in modern history.

Slowest recovery that tripled the Stock Market and cut unemployment by five percent.

 

[Markle]

What flaw in the system?
If there was a flaw it was the BULLSHIT MSM POLLS.
In November the UE rate won't be 10%

Actually, it will be 10% next month. And the one thing we know about the unemployment rate is that it takes a lot longer to go down than it does to go up. For instance, it went from 5% to 10% in less than a year and half, but it didn't go back down to 5% until 2015 or so.

THANK YOU! Good to see you finally acknowledging the fact failed former President Obama led the slowest recovery in modern history.

Slowest recovery that tripled the Stock Market and cut unemployment by five percent.

Yep, over a period of eight years.

 

[HappyJoy]

Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.

Oops!

Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.

Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.

They also, inaccurately, predicted she'd win the Electoral College.
With something like a 98% chance she'd do so, as late as election day.

Those weren't polls, dipshit, they were predictions. Polls don't measure the odds of winning the presidency they measure popular opinion.

"Toddster", sounds like a legacy kid in the market for roofies.

Those weren't polls, dipshit, they were predictions.

Oh, they made state by state predictions without polling...…..LOL!
You're such a fucking moron.

Yes, assumptions are made when making predictions. That's why it's a prediction.

Polls don't measure the odds of winning the presidency they measure popular opinion.

Well, when the polls show you'll easily win enough states for more than 270 electoral votes,
they did use them to predict the odds of winning the presidency. In Hillary's case....hilariously.

That's not what national polls do, they measure the preference for one candidate over another and anything beyond that is people who didn't conduct the poll trying to figure out what it all means.

Bottom line, most people don't like Trump. Most polls showed that most people won't be voting for Trump. The election showed us that more people voted for Clinton than Trump.

View attachment 326731


These state predictions weren't based on a national poll.

State polling is poorly funded and is generally not current. That is why they got it so wrong on 2018.

Polling should be conducted in only ten states.
Polling people in NY, CA or Texas does no good

That's not entirely true. For example if you want to know how a candidate is doing among African Americans and how that trends over time and getting enough of a sample, where the person is located often times is secondary.

Not relevant

You want to know how he is doing with Hispanics in Arizona
You want to know how he is doing with blacks in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

How he does with blacks and Hispanics in California doesn’t matter

What if you want to know how a candidate is doing with Hispanics across the country?

Like I said earlier, state polling is expensive and often times not reliable. I don't think we shouldn't poll individual states but I think those polls need to be confirmed with a lot more other polls and there just isn't that many of them considering the scope of what they poll (bang for the buck).

 

[HappyJoy]

What flaw in the system?
If there was a flaw it was the BULLSHIT MSM POLLS.
In November the UE rate won't be 10%

Actually, it will be 10% next month. And the one thing we know about the unemployment rate is that it takes a lot longer to go down than it does to go up. For instance, it went from 5% to 10% in less than a year and half, but it didn't go back down to 5% until 2015 or so.

THANK YOU! Good to see you finally acknowledging the fact failed former President Obama led the slowest recovery in modern history.

Slowest recovery that tripled the Stock Market and cut unemployment by five percent.

Yep, over a period of eight years.

Name 3 Republican Presidents who were in office that got us out of a deeper ditch than the Great Recession.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What flaw in the system?
If there was a flaw it was the BULLSHIT MSM POLLS.
In November the UE rate won't be 10%

Actually, it will be 10% next month. And the one thing we know about the unemployment rate is that it takes a lot longer to go down than it does to go up. For instance, it went from 5% to 10% in less than a year and half, but it didn't go back down to 5% until 2015 or so.

THANK YOU! Good to see you finally acknowledging the fact failed former President Obama led the slowest recovery in modern history.

Slowest recovery that tripled the Stock Market and cut unemployment by five percent.

Slowest recovery that tripled the Stock Market.

8K to 20K isn't a triple.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

State polling isn't as reliable and it's more expensive and time consuming. Polling for the popular vote gives you exactly that.

So what? If a more difficult, time-consuming process is what it take to produce a more accurate result, then that's what it takes.

There's nothing new or radical about this principle. I suppose I shouldn't take it for granted than an unproductive parasite living in his mother's basement would understand this, but those of us who have experience working in the real world very clearly understand that it is usually more expensive and time consuming to do the job right, and that it is no gain to cut corners on time or money to do a poor job, that ends up producing a bad result.

Basically Republicans have a built in advantage, even in the senate where senators from smaller states represent a considerably smaller population therefore giving an undue amount of importance to an individual's vote if they are from smaller states. Then, if there is an imbalance in power for the presidency and senate that also tilts the balance of power in the judicial branch.

If the Electoral College gives an “unfair” advantage to Republicans, then it is only because Republicans, in line with the intent of the great men who set up this system, are paying attention to the needs of all Americans, and not just those living in a few small, densely-populated areas.

They recognized that under a pure popular-vote democracy, that government would be dominated by just the one group, and the needs of the others would be completely disregarded. That is exactly why they set up our bicameral legislature, the way they did, with the House to represent the people equally, and the Senate to represent the states equally, with the Electoral College set up to mirror this representation in electing the President.

None of the above our forefather's realized in the system they had created considering the early states populations didn't vary nearly as much as they do now where California has almost 40 million people and Wyoming is less than a million. These large variances simply didn't exist during the founding of the country.

Which only means that the Electoral College system is more important, now, than it originally was. Even more now than then, the situation has been set up where just a very small handful of densely-populated states would otherwise completely dominate the election, with the population of most of the country being, in effect, completely disenfranchised.

If this suggests any need for change, it would be to go, not in the direction of eliminating the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote, but in the opposite direction, of giving even greater voice to the less densely-populated areas relative to the more densely-populated areas.

 

[rightwinger]

What flaw in the system?
If there was a flaw it was the BULLSHIT MSM POLLS.
In November the UE rate won't be 10%

Actually, it will be 10% next month. And the one thing we know about the unemployment rate is that it takes a lot longer to go down than it does to go up. For instance, it went from 5% to 10% in less than a year and half, but it didn't go back down to 5% until 2015 or so.

THANK YOU! Good to see you finally acknowledging the fact failed former President Obama led the slowest recovery in modern history.

Slowest recovery that tripled the Stock Market and cut unemployment by five percent.

Slowest recovery that tripled the Stock Market.

8K to 20K isn't a triple.

Ain’t no slow recovery ...is it?
No President has had a bigger gain

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Because he's JoeB131. It's what he does. It's what he is.

You might as well ask a pig why it wallows in mud, or a flounder why it lies on the bottom on the sea.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What flaw in the system?
If there was a flaw it was the BULLSHIT MSM POLLS.
In November the UE rate won't be 10%

Actually, it will be 10% next month. And the one thing we know about the unemployment rate is that it takes a lot longer to go down than it does to go up. For instance, it went from 5% to 10% in less than a year and half, but it didn't go back down to 5% until 2015 or so.

THANK YOU! Good to see you finally acknowledging the fact failed former President Obama led the slowest recovery in modern history.

Slowest recovery that tripled the Stock Market and cut unemployment by five percent.

Slowest recovery that tripled the Stock Market.

8K to 20K isn't a triple.

Ain’t no slow recovery ...is it?
No President has had a bigger gain

Ain’t no slow recovery ...is it?

Weakest recovery since WWII.

No President has had a bigger gain

Incorrect.

 

[Jitss617]

 

[Jitss617]

The way democrats dismiss the existence of traditional Americans.. is the reason why your going to get your ass kicked in 2020

 

[JoeB131]

Once you filter out the fraud, being used to deceitfully pad the numbers, it's no worse than any other years' flu season.

Should we be shutting down the economy every year, and keeping citizens under house arrest without due process of law, and trashing everyone's Constitutional rights, just because some people get sick, and allowing the corrupt pieces of shit who infest our government to seize more and more unjust power, every time some flu-like disease goes around?

Oh, are we getting into Covid denial now? the guy who thinks he's wearing magic underwear thinks all the doctors are lying to "pad" the numbers in a big old conspiracy to, um, do what, exactly? You're getting into Dale Smith level of crazy here, bud.

Place where I work, they've shut down three times because someone tested positive for Covid-19. This isn't a joke. It's why the big companies all shut down and started taking action LONG before the government did.

 

[JoeB131]

View attachment 326806

We've been bombing "terrorists" for 40 years now. How is that working out for us again?

Yes, it's horrible. Obama gave Iran back the money we illegally stole from them. That bastard.