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.

If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?

Because then you'd have to count on less reliable state polling.

How is it that wingnuts in 2020 still don't understand election polls?

All polling should be state polling. Why must you resort to name calling? Snowflake.

State polling isn't as reliable and it's more expensive and time consuming. Polling for the popular vote gives you exactly that. I'd figure Democrats need to win the presidency by about 2 or 3 points to win the presidency due to built in advantages the EC give rural, smaller populated states. Kind of like with the massive amounts of gerrymandering the House Democrats have to endure and need to have a 5 or 6 point edge to hold onto the chamber.

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.

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.

You know this because you have spoken with them via your Ouija board?

I know this because state populations didn't vary by nearly as much.

You are guessing and surmising. You don’t know. They also didn’t think African Americans would vote and that we would become a melting pot. Tough to speak for our founders. I agree that our system isn’t perfect. I do not like that people who can barely spell the word “cat” and do not pay taxes have as much voting power as I do. Such is life.

Again, our state populations by most to least varied only by about 100k in 1790, where as now it's over 38 million. No, our forefathers never imagined just as many (maybe not all) non-white male land owners would thankfully be able to participate in our representative democracy.

So you cannot speak for them. You’re guessing but I agree with you, our system is far from perfect.

I don't speak for them just as you implied that you knew what they were thinking is also not you speaking for them.

They were short sighted on quite a few things, variances in population is only one.

 

[22lcidw]

Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.

Oops!

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

What did you expect? Half the people living in Central and South America voted for her! Plus a few Caribe Islands! I had a problem with communist Cuba though.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.

Oops!

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

If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?

Because then you'd have to count on less reliable state polling.

How is it that wingnuts in 2020 still don't understand election polls?

All polling should be state polling. Why must you resort to name calling? Snowflake.

State polling isn't as reliable and it's more expensive and time consuming. Polling for the popular vote gives you exactly that. I'd figure Democrats need to win the presidency by about 2 or 3 points to win the presidency due to built in advantages the EC give rural, smaller populated states. Kind of like with the massive amounts of gerrymandering the House Democrats have to endure and need to have a 5 or 6 point edge to hold onto the chamber.

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.

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.

You know this because you have spoken with them via your Ouija board?

I know this because state populations didn't vary by nearly as much.

You are guessing and surmising. You don’t know. They also didn’t think African Americans would vote and that we would become a melting pot. Tough to speak for our founders. I agree that our system isn’t perfect. I do not like that people who can barely spell the word “cat” and do not pay taxes have as much voting power as I do. Such is life.

Again, our state populations by most to least varied only by about 100k in 1790, where as now it's over 38 million. No, our forefathers never imagined just as many (maybe not all) non-white male land owners would thankfully be able to participate in our representative democracy.

So you cannot speak for them. You’re guessing but I agree with you, our system is far from perfect.

I don't speak for them just as you implied that you knew what they were thinking is also not you speaking for them.

They were short sighted on quite a few things, variances in population is only one.

Of course but overall they did a very good job IMO.

 

[22lcidw]

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

Biden has no chance in TX or GA. I doubt he has one in OH or IA.

NC, FL...no chance in my view.

Biden has a good chance in AZ.

As for WI,MI, PA. If the DEMs show up at the polls, I think that they may flip back. You didn’t account for the DEMs being motivated. I think one of the reasons HRC lost was DEMs being over confident. That shouldn’t happen again in 2020. The problem is Biden is to Charisma what Superman is to Kryptonite; they both avoid it.

Also, VA is going to be a real dog fight.

Mostly agree

The wild card is we don’t know what shape the country will be in come November.

If Trump can sell himself as a savior, he will win
If he takes the blame, he and Republicans will lose big and Democrats will be left to pick up the pieces

There will be no picking up of anything. You have no answers. People are taxed out! They will establish a massive underground economy based on barter if need be.

 

[HappyJoy]

Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.

Oops!

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

If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?

Because then you'd have to count on less reliable state polling.

How is it that wingnuts in 2020 still don't understand election polls?

All polling should be state polling. Why must you resort to name calling? Snowflake.

Agree
National polling is irrelevant. I don’t know why they even do it

It's cheaper since you don't need to poll as many people.

It's quicker since a single national poll wouldn't require as many people as individually polling enough people from every state. By the time they were done the poll would probably be out of date. Also, more room for error as polling for the EC is more complicated.

National polls tell you exactly that in relatively short order. There are polls for individual states however many are few and far between, more likely to be off as compared to national polls and they tend to be infrequent.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Biden has no chance in TX or GA. I doubt he has one in OH or IA.

NC, FL...no chance in my view.

Biden has a good chance in AZ.

As for WI,MI, PA. If the DEMs show up at the polls, I think that they may flip back. You didn’t account for the DEMs being motivated. I think one of the reasons HRC lost was DEMs being over confident. That shouldn’t happen again in 2020. The problem is Biden is to Charisma what Superman is to Kryptonite; they both avoid it.

Also, VA is going to be a real dog fight.

Mostly agree

The wild card is we don’t know what shape the country will be in come November.

If Trump can sell himself as a savior, he will win
If he takes the blame, he and Republicans will lose big and Democrats will be left to pick up the pieces

There will be no picking up of anything. You have no answers. People are taxed out! They will establish a massive underground economy based on barter if need be.

The country will be in economic shambles come November.

If Trump has provided stable leadership in our time of trouble, he will be re-elected.
If he is looked at as being in over his head.....he will not

 

[HappyJoy]

Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.

Oops!

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

What did you expect? Half the people living in Central and South America voted for her! Plus a few Caribe Islands! I had a problem with communist Cuba though.

I didn't realize people in Central and South America voted for our president.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.

Oops!

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

If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?

Because then you'd have to count on less reliable state polling.

How is it that wingnuts in 2020 still don't understand election polls?

All polling should be state polling. Why must you resort to name calling? Snowflake.

Agree
National polling is irrelevant. I don’t know why they even do it

It's cheaper since you don't need to poll as many people.

It's quicker since a single national poll wouldn't require as many people as individually polling enough people from every state. By the time they were done the poll would probably be out of date. Also, more room for error as polling for the EC is more complicated.

National polls tell you exactly that in relatively short order. There are polls for individual states however many are few and far between, more likely to be off as compared to national polls and they tend to be infrequent.

Cheap and quick? This isn’t a search for chicks. We need to be accurate.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.

Oops!

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

What did you expect? Half the people living in Central and South America voted for her! Plus a few Caribe Islands! I had a problem with communist Cuba though.

I didn't realize people in Central and South America voted for our president.

Me neither. Think our founding fathers knew that would be the case? You claim you know their thoughts.

 

[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.

 

[HappyJoy]

Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.

Oops!

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

If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?

Because then you'd have to count on less reliable state polling.

How is it that wingnuts in 2020 still don't understand election polls?

All polling should be state polling. Why must you resort to name calling? Snowflake.

Agree
National polling is irrelevant. I don’t know why they even do it

It's cheaper since you don't need to poll as many people.

It's quicker since a single national poll wouldn't require as many people as individually polling enough people from every state. By the time they were done the poll would probably be out of date. Also, more room for error as polling for the EC is more complicated.

National polls tell you exactly that in relatively short order. There are polls for individual states however many are few and far between, more likely to be off as compared to national polls and they tend to be infrequent.

Cheap and quick? This isn’t a search for chicks. We need to be accurate.

National polls are more accurate for what they poll.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

Yes, assumptions extrapolated from polls.

That's not what national polls do,

That's what individual state polls do. In this case, with less than perfect accuracy.

Bottom line, most people don't like Trump.

Based on people who responded to polls. So what?

The election showed us that more people voted for Clinton than Trump.

That and $10 will get Hillary another bottle of her favorite vodka.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.

Oops!

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

If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?

Because then you'd have to count on less reliable state polling.

How is it that wingnuts in 2020 still don't understand election polls?

All polling should be state polling. Why must you resort to name calling? Snowflake.

Agree
National polling is irrelevant. I don’t know why they even do it

It's cheaper since you don't need to poll as many people.

It's quicker since a single national poll wouldn't require as many people as individually polling enough people from every state. By the time they were done the poll would probably be out of date. Also, more room for error as polling for the EC is more complicated.

National polls tell you exactly that in relatively short order. There are polls for individual states however many are few and far between, more likely to be off as compared to national polls and they tend to be infrequent.

Cheap and quick? This isn’t a search for chicks. We need to be accurate.

National polls are more accurate for what they poll.

Obviously not when it comes to the general election.

 

[eddiew]

If I was Trump I would NOT be scared of Joe Biden. Trump needs to be more presidential and get the economy back up before November and he's in.
Your polls are not scary because they don't show the margin of error, usually +/- 3% or so.

If I was Joe Biden or a democrat, what I would be worried about are the 2016 results vs the 2016 polls. IMHO many democrats will swear that they will vote for Biden, but when in that voters booth they will vote for Trump to keep the good jobs coming back to the US.

Please remember that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden have a China Problem, in that Hunter got $1.5b from China to their fund. Nice to have $1.5b to play with, huh??

Trump needs to be more presidential ??? You are fn kidding The man has been a prk since birth He can't change

 

[HappyJoy]

Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.

Oops!

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

If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?

Because then you'd have to count on less reliable state polling.

How is it that wingnuts in 2020 still don't understand election polls?

All polling should be state polling. Why must you resort to name calling? Snowflake.

Agree
National polling is irrelevant. I don’t know why they even do it

It's cheaper since you don't need to poll as many people.

It's quicker since a single national poll wouldn't require as many people as individually polling enough people from every state. By the time they were done the poll would probably be out of date. Also, more room for error as polling for the EC is more complicated.

National polls tell you exactly that in relatively short order. There are polls for individual states however many are few and far between, more likely to be off as compared to national polls and they tend to be infrequent.

Cheap and quick? This isn’t a search for chicks. We need to be accurate.

National polls are more accurate for what they poll.

Obviously not when it comes to the general election.

They accurately captured the popular vote. That Clinton received over 2% more than Trump.

Where the prediction models went wrong is they made some bad assumptions off of more inaccurate state polls in the upper midwest. If there was a single EC poll based on 50 individual state polls it most likely would have shown Clinton winning.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

 

[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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

 

[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