If Polls Right & Election Were Today

[bendog]

I thought it pretty close to what I figured. Spot on actually.

Did you also look at the totals???

my bad. To me that looks 297 to 239, but she really needs Fla. Or nev, but that looks a real stretch

 

[nat4900]

What did you do to them?

Eventually I had to borrow one of their "Slow Down" signs they post behind their carriages....LOL

 

[LordBrownTrout]

What did you do to them?

Eventually I had to borrow one of their "Slow Down" signs they post behind their carriages....LOL

So you were the one who drunk drove a horse carriage into the ditch.

 

[nat4900]

my bad. To me that looks 297 to 239, but she really needs Fla. Or nev, but that looks a real stretch

Actually, I think that the 297 may be way too high for Clinton.......My guess is 274 or 278 max....

 

[bendog]

my bad. To me that looks 297 to 239, but she really needs Fla. Or nev, but that looks a real stretch

Actually, I think that the 297 may be way too high for Clinton.......My guess is 274 or 278 max....

This would do it.

2016 Presidential Election Interactive Map

 

[Faun]

If Florida flips to Trump, it's 269-269.
View attachment 96810

Nope, Clinton needs a 2.0% lead going in nationally to win enough of the swing states to hit 269. That's not going to happen. At a 2.0% or less, trump wins the swing states. California and Illinois is the 2% that gives her that lead. And winning those states big gives her no additional EC's.

She's in trouble and I think she knows it.

You still don't know the difference between state polls versus national polls.



Maybe this will help you ...

In 2012, Obama was leading in the polls by just 0.7% on average...

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

... according to your deranged idiocy, with such a narrow lead in the national polls, he should have lost the election; when in reality, he won in an electoral landslide.

Do you understand now why most folks around here just laugh at the nonsense you post?

Sorry Daisy. I'm using the exact calculations that the ever popular 538 uses.

The Odds Of An Electoral College-Popular Vote Split Are Increasing

Too bad for you.

LOLOL

I just proved your idiocy wrong. Leave it to a moron like you to block out reality.

You claim Hillary needs to be ahead by at least 2 percentage points in the national polls to with the electoral vote (even though national polls don't indicate state polls)

... I just showed you how Obama was ahead by only 0.7 percentage points going into the 2012 election and he won in an electoral landslide.

Meanwhile, despite that reality, you can't let go of your idiotic notions.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

my bad. To me that looks 297 to 239, but she really needs Fla. Or nev, but that looks a real stretch

Actually, I think that the 297 may be way too high for Clinton.......My guess is 274 or 278 max....

Hey, we actually agree on something for the moment.

 

[Pop23]

If Florida flips to Trump, it's 269-269.
View attachment 96810

Nope, Clinton needs a 2.0% lead going in nationally to win enough of the swing states to hit 269. That's not going to happen. At a 2.0% or less, trump wins the swing states. California and Illinois is the 2% that gives her that lead. And winning those states big gives her no additional EC's.

She's in trouble and I think she knows it.

You still don't know the difference between state polls versus national polls.



Maybe this will help you ...

In 2012, Obama was leading in the polls by just 0.7% on average...

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

... according to your deranged idiocy, with such a narrow lead in the national polls, he should have lost the election; when in reality, he won in an electoral landslide.

Do you understand now why most folks around here just laugh at the nonsense you post?

Sorry Daisy. I'm using the exact calculations that the ever popular 538 uses.

The Odds Of An Electoral College-Popular Vote Split Are Increasing

Too bad for you.

LOLOL

I just proved your idiocy wrong. Leave it to a moron like you to block out reality.

You claim Hillary needs to be ahead by at least 2 percentage points in the national polls to with the electoral vote (even though national polls don't indicate state polls)

... I just showed you how Obama was ahead by only 0.7 percentage points going into the 2012 election and he won in an electoral landslide.

Meanwhile, despite that reality, you can't let go of your idiotic notions.

Lol, wait and learn tinkerbell

 

[Faun]

If Florida flips to Trump, it's 269-269.
View attachment 96810

Nope, Clinton needs a 2.0% lead going in nationally to win enough of the swing states to hit 269. That's not going to happen. At a 2.0% or less, trump wins the swing states. California and Illinois is the 2% that gives her that lead. And winning those states big gives her no additional EC's.

She's in trouble and I think she knows it.

You still don't know the difference between state polls versus national polls.



Maybe this will help you ...

In 2012, Obama was leading in the polls by just 0.7% on average...

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

... according to your deranged idiocy, with such a narrow lead in the national polls, he should have lost the election; when in reality, he won in an electoral landslide.

Do you understand now why most folks around here just laugh at the nonsense you post?

Sorry Daisy. I'm using the exact calculations that the ever popular 538 uses.

The Odds Of An Electoral College-Popular Vote Split Are Increasing

Too bad for you.

LOLOL

I just proved your idiocy wrong. Leave it to a moron like you to block out reality.

You claim Hillary needs to be ahead by at least 2 percentage points in the national polls to with the electoral vote (even though national polls don't indicate state polls)

... I just showed you how Obama was ahead by only 0.7 percentage points going into the 2012 election and he won in an electoral landslide.

Meanwhile, despite that reality, you can't let go of your idiotic notions.

Lol, wait and learn tinkerbell

LOLOL

I've already proven you're an imbecile.

Here, watch .... I'll do it again ....

This time, with the 2004 election ... Bush was up by only 1.5 percentage points in the polls on average as they went into the election. That's below the 2 point threshold you idiotically claim is needed to win. Meanwhile, even though Bush was below that 2 point margin, he won the electoral vote.

That's now 2 elections I've bitch-slapped you with across your face with that back side of my pimp hand. Want more?

Funniest part ... ? You still won't learn.

 

[Pop23]

Nope, Clinton needs a 2.0% lead going in nationally to win enough of the swing states to hit 269. That's not going to happen. At a 2.0% or less, trump wins the swing states. California and Illinois is the 2% that gives her that lead. And winning those states big gives her no additional EC's.

She's in trouble and I think she knows it.

You still don't know the difference between state polls versus national polls.



Maybe this will help you ...

In 2012, Obama was leading in the polls by just 0.7% on average...

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

... according to your deranged idiocy, with such a narrow lead in the national polls, he should have lost the election; when in reality, he won in an electoral landslide.

Do you understand now why most folks around here just laugh at the nonsense you post?

Sorry Daisy. I'm using the exact calculations that the ever popular 538 uses.

The Odds Of An Electoral College-Popular Vote Split Are Increasing

Too bad for you.

LOLOL

I just proved your idiocy wrong. Leave it to a moron like you to block out reality.

You claim Hillary needs to be ahead by at least 2 percentage points in the national polls to with the electoral vote (even though national polls don't indicate state polls)

... I just showed you how Obama was ahead by only 0.7 percentage points going into the 2012 election and he won in an electoral landslide.

Meanwhile, despite that reality, you can't let go of your idiotic notions.

Lol, wait and learn tinkerbell

LOLOL

I've already proven you're an imbecile.

Here, watch .... I'll do it again ....

This time, with the 2004 election ... Bush was up by only 1.5 percentage points in the polls on average as they went into the election. That's below the 2 point threshold you idiotically claim is needed to win. Meanwhile, even though Bush was below that 2 point margin, he won the electoral vote.

That's now 2 elections I've bitch-slapped you with across your face with that back side of my pimp hand. Want more?

Funniest part ... ? You still won't learn.

You are seriously that stupid? What state did bush win by 2.6 million votes?

Bush's largest win was Texas at 1.75 million.

Clinton has 9.5 million overage in blue states. Trump has 4.5. A 5 million skew of the national polling.

2004 was no where near that.

Learn some math Snowflake.

 

[nat4900]

Meanwhile, despite that reality, you can't let go of your idiotic notions.

Idiotic notions are often like grabbing at straws when one is drowning.

 

[nat4900]

Hey, we actually agree on something for the moment.

Don't let it go to your head....LOL

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Hey, we actually agree on something for the moment.

Don't let it go to your head....LOL

Don't flatter yourself, gnatbrains!

 

[Faun]

You still don't know the difference between state polls versus national polls.



Maybe this will help you ...

In 2012, Obama was leading in the polls by just 0.7% on average...

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

... according to your deranged idiocy, with such a narrow lead in the national polls, he should have lost the election; when in reality, he won in an electoral landslide.

Do you understand now why most folks around here just laugh at the nonsense you post?

Sorry Daisy. I'm using the exact calculations that the ever popular 538 uses.

The Odds Of An Electoral College-Popular Vote Split Are Increasing

Too bad for you.

LOLOL

I just proved your idiocy wrong. Leave it to a moron like you to block out reality.

You claim Hillary needs to be ahead by at least 2 percentage points in the national polls to with the electoral vote (even though national polls don't indicate state polls)

... I just showed you how Obama was ahead by only 0.7 percentage points going into the 2012 election and he won in an electoral landslide.

Meanwhile, despite that reality, you can't let go of your idiotic notions.

Lol, wait and learn tinkerbell

LOLOL

I've already proven you're an imbecile.

Here, watch .... I'll do it again ....

This time, with the 2004 election ... Bush was up by only 1.5 percentage points in the polls on average as they went into the election. That's below the 2 point threshold you idiotically claim is needed to win. Meanwhile, even though Bush was below that 2 point margin, he won the electoral vote.

That's now 2 elections I've bitch-slapped you with across your face with that back side of my pimp hand. Want more?

Funniest part ... ? You still won't learn.

You are seriously that stupid? What state did bush win by 2.6 million votes?

Bush's largest win was Texas at 1.75 million.

Clinton has 9.5 million overage in blue states. Trump has 4.5. A 5 million skew of the national polling.

2004 was no where near that.

Learn some math Snowflake.

You're certainly committed to your insanity, I'll grant you that.

California is also worth more electoral votes than other states. Yet another component of a presidential election which national polling provides no insight into; and something you neglected to consider in this idiotic notion of yours.

And wait, there's more... another election which demonstrates you're an imbecile -- 1976. Carter polled one point behind Ford going into the election. According to your craziness, that would have meant Ford won the election.

Fortunately for me, you never tire of being shown up as the fool you are.... more to come.

 

[Pop23]

Sorry Daisy. I'm using the exact calculations that the ever popular 538 uses.

The Odds Of An Electoral College-Popular Vote Split Are Increasing

Too bad for you.

LOLOL

I just proved your idiocy wrong. Leave it to a moron like you to block out reality.

You claim Hillary needs to be ahead by at least 2 percentage points in the national polls to with the electoral vote (even though national polls don't indicate state polls)

... I just showed you how Obama was ahead by only 0.7 percentage points going into the 2012 election and he won in an electoral landslide.

Meanwhile, despite that reality, you can't let go of your idiotic notions.

Lol, wait and learn tinkerbell

LOLOL

I've already proven you're an imbecile.

Here, watch .... I'll do it again ....

This time, with the 2004 election ... Bush was up by only 1.5 percentage points in the polls on average as they went into the election. That's below the 2 point threshold you idiotically claim is needed to win. Meanwhile, even though Bush was below that 2 point margin, he won the electoral vote.

That's now 2 elections I've bitch-slapped you with across your face with that back side of my pimp hand. Want more?

Funniest part ... ? You still won't learn.

You are seriously that stupid? What state did bush win by 2.6 million votes?

Bush's largest win was Texas at 1.75 million.

Clinton has 9.5 million overage in blue states. Trump has 4.5. A 5 million skew of the national polling.

2004 was no where near that.

Learn some math Snowflake.

You're certainly committed to your insanity, I'll grant you that.

California is also worth more electoral votes than other states. Yet another component of a presidential election which national polling provides no insight into; and something you neglected to consider in this idiotic notion of yours.

And wait, there's more... another election which demonstrates you're an imbecile -- 1976. Carter polled one point behind Ford going into the election. According to your craziness, that would have meant Ford won the election.

Fortunately for me, you never tire of being shown up as the fool you are.... more to come.

You truly are a moron.

Winning California by 1 or by 2.6 million gets you no more electors.

What winning by more than one only serves to skew the national polls by that %.

unless the total votes nationally is greater than 130 million, she better have a 3.9% lead on Monday, or her chances of winning the swings lowers greatly. At 2% she loses the vast majority of swings and close blues start turning red

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

I just proved your idiocy wrong. Leave it to a moron like you to block out reality.

You claim Hillary needs to be ahead by at least 2 percentage points in the national polls to with the electoral vote (even though national polls don't indicate state polls)

... I just showed you how Obama was ahead by only 0.7 percentage points going into the 2012 election and he won in an electoral landslide.

Meanwhile, despite that reality, you can't let go of your idiotic notions.

Lol, wait and learn tinkerbell

LOLOL

I've already proven you're an imbecile.

Here, watch .... I'll do it again ....

This time, with the 2004 election ... Bush was up by only 1.5 percentage points in the polls on average as they went into the election. That's below the 2 point threshold you idiotically claim is needed to win. Meanwhile, even though Bush was below that 2 point margin, he won the electoral vote.

That's now 2 elections I've bitch-slapped you with across your face with that back side of my pimp hand. Want more?

Funniest part ... ? You still won't learn.

You are seriously that stupid? What state did bush win by 2.6 million votes?

Bush's largest win was Texas at 1.75 million.

Clinton has 9.5 million overage in blue states. Trump has 4.5. A 5 million skew of the national polling.

2004 was no where near that.

Learn some math Snowflake.

You're certainly committed to your insanity, I'll grant you that.

California is also worth more electoral votes than other states. Yet another component of a presidential election which national polling provides no insight into; and something you neglected to consider in this idiotic notion of yours.

And wait, there's more... another election which demonstrates you're an imbecile -- 1976. Carter polled one point behind Ford going into the election. According to your craziness, that would have meant Ford won the election.

Fortunately for me, you never tire of being shown up as the fool you are.... more to come.

Try typing words next time.

 

[Pop23]

Lol, wait and learn tinkerbell

LOLOL

I've already proven you're an imbecile.

Here, watch .... I'll do it again ....

This time, with the 2004 election ... Bush was up by only 1.5 percentage points in the polls on average as they went into the election. That's below the 2 point threshold you idiotically claim is needed to win. Meanwhile, even though Bush was below that 2 point margin, he won the electoral vote.

That's now 2 elections I've bitch-slapped you with across your face with that back side of my pimp hand. Want more?

Funniest part ... ? You still won't learn.

You are seriously that stupid? What state did bush win by 2.6 million votes?

Bush's largest win was Texas at 1.75 million.

Clinton has 9.5 million overage in blue states. Trump has 4.5. A 5 million skew of the national polling.

2004 was no where near that.

Learn some math Snowflake.

You're certainly committed to your insanity, I'll grant you that.

California is also worth more electoral votes than other states. Yet another component of a presidential election which national polling provides no insight into; and something you neglected to consider in this idiotic notion of yours.

And wait, there's more... another election which demonstrates you're an imbecile -- 1976. Carter polled one point behind Ford going into the election. According to your craziness, that would have meant Ford won the election.

Fortunately for me, you never tire of being shown up as the fool you are.... more to come.

Try typing words next time.

Why? Idiots like you can't read.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Amish are not being polled in PA and they just came our and said they heard the call for help, and Trump is their answer....game over....

You just make stuff up to see what sticks, don't you

 

[owebo]

The Amish are not being polled in PA and they just came our and said they heard the call for help, and Trump is their answer....game over....

You just make stuff up to see what sticks, don't you

Do you realize your typing here using algores internet?

Don't make fun of me for your ignorance....

 

[paulitician]

No Republican can win without winning Florida. Period, end of story.