If Polls Right & Election Were Today

[Pop23]

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

They can, but it's I mighty steep hill to climb

 

[paulitician]

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

They can, but it's I mighty steep hill to climb

If Trump doesn't win Florida, just pack it in and go to bed. The Election is over. The Clinton Crime Family is in.

 

[Pop23]

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

They can, but it's I mighty steep hill to climb

If Trump doesn't win Florida, just pack it in and go to bed. The Election is over. The Clinton Crime Family is in.

Not true (except we should know about Mich, Penn and Wisc at roughly the same time. Western Florida reports at roughly the same time), a combo of those states, minus Florida is fine with me.

 

[paulitician]

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

They can, but it's I mighty steep hill to climb

If Trump doesn't win Florida, just pack it in and go to bed. The Election is over. The Clinton Crime Family is in.

Not true (except we should know about Mich, Penn and Wisc at roughly the same time. Western Florida reports at roughly the same time), a combo of those states, minus Florida is fine with me.

Can't win without winning Texas and Florida. Clinton takes California, New York, and Florida, it's all over. It'll be a route, like Obama beating McCain and Romney.

 

[Pop23]

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

They can, but it's I mighty steep hill to climb

If Trump doesn't win Florida, just pack it in and go to bed. The Election is over. The Clinton Crime Family is in.

Not true (except we should know about Mich, Penn and Wisc at roughly the same time. Western Florida reports at roughly the same time), a combo of those states, minus Florida is fine with me.

Can't win without winning Texas and Florida. Clinton takes California, New York, and Florida, it's all over. It'll be a route, like Obama beating McCain and Romney.

Clinton win Texas?????

 

[paulitician]

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

They can, but it's I mighty steep hill to climb

If Trump doesn't win Florida, just pack it in and go to bed. The Election is over. The Clinton Crime Family is in.

Not true (except we should know about Mich, Penn and Wisc at roughly the same time. Western Florida reports at roughly the same time), a combo of those states, minus Florida is fine with me.

Can't win without winning Texas and Florida. Clinton takes California, New York, and Florida, it's all over. It'll be a route, like Obama beating McCain and Romney.

Clinton win Texas?????

No, Trump should win Texas. But if Clinton wins California, New York, and Florida, it'll be a route. He can't win without winning both Texas and Florida.

 

[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.

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

And still, national polls bear no indication on state polls. Never have and never will. Even better, I've proven that by showing 3 elections where the winner led by less than percentage points od were even behind. Your idiocy simply doesn't hold up to reality.

 

[Faun]

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.

Moron... no one can read your words when you forget to post any.

 

[Faun]

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

They can, but it's I mighty steep hill to climb

If Trump doesn't win Florida, just pack it in and go to bed. The Election is over. The Clinton Crime Family is in.

Democrats are outvoting Republicans in Florida.

Statistics - County Vote-by-Mail and Early Voting Reports

 

[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.

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

And still, national polls bear no indication on state polls. Never have and never will. Even better, I've proven that by showing 3 elections where the winner led by less than percentage points od were even behind. Your idiocy simply doesn't hold up to reality.

You are too stupid to beleive. You only prove my theory.

Bush had only a 600,000 vote lead in overvotes (Texas minus California). Clinton has a 2,000,000 overvotes leads in the two states.

That's over three times as many dork. Of course the percent would be different!

 

[Faun]

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

And still, national polls bear no indication on state polls. Never have and never will. Even better, I've proven that by showing 3 elections where the winner led by less than percentage points od were even behind. Your idiocy simply doesn't hold up to reality.

You are too stupid to beleive. You only prove my theory.

Bush had only a 600,000 vote lead in overvotes (Texas minus California). Clinton has a 2,000,000 overvotes leads in the two states.

That's over three times as many dork. Of course the percent would be different!

You look at two states out of 57 and jump to conclusions.



Meanwhile, I've shown 3 separate election which prove you're nuts.

 

[jon_berzerk]

There really is no path for hitlery with NH going Trump. 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....

Yes, Trump and the Amish have so much in common don't they.

yes like a work ethic for example

 

[Pop23]

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

And still, national polls bear no indication on state polls. Never have and never will. Even better, I've proven that by showing 3 elections where the winner led by less than percentage points od were even behind. Your idiocy simply doesn't hold up to reality.

You are too stupid to beleive. You only prove my theory.

Bush had only a 600,000 vote lead in overvotes (Texas minus California). Clinton has a 2,000,000 overvotes leads in the two states.

That's over three times as many dork. Of course the percent would be different!

You look at two states out of 57 and jump to conclusions.



Meanwhile, I've shown 3 separate election which prove you're nuts.

Dancing on the Dem grave?

 

[Faun]

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

And still, national polls bear no indication on state polls. Never have and never will. Even better, I've proven that by showing 3 elections where the winner led by less than percentage points od were even behind. Your idiocy simply doesn't hold up to reality.

You are too stupid to beleive. You only prove my theory.

Bush had only a 600,000 vote lead in overvotes (Texas minus California). Clinton has a 2,000,000 overvotes leads in the two states.

That's over three times as many dork. Of course the percent would be different!

You look at two states out of 57 and jump to conclusions.



Meanwhile, I've shown 3 separate election which prove you're nuts.

Dancing on the Dem grave?

No, on your stupidity.

 

[Pop23]

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

And still, national polls bear no indication on state polls. Never have and never will. Even better, I've proven that by showing 3 elections where the winner led by less than percentage points od were even behind. Your idiocy simply doesn't hold up to reality.

You are too stupid to beleive. You only prove my theory.

Bush had only a 600,000 vote lead in overvotes (Texas minus California). Clinton has a 2,000,000 overvotes leads in the two states.

That's over three times as many dork. Of course the percent would be different!

You look at two states out of 57 and jump to conclusions.



Meanwhile, I've shown 3 separate election which prove you're nuts.

Dancing on the Dem grave?

No, on your stupidity.

 

[Pop23]

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

And still, national polls bear no indication on state polls. Never have and never will. Even better, I've proven that by showing 3 elections where the winner led by less than percentage points od were even behind. Your idiocy simply doesn't hold up to reality.

You are too stupid to beleive. You only prove my theory.

Bush had only a 600,000 vote lead in overvotes (Texas minus California). Clinton has a 2,000,000 overvotes leads in the two states.

That's over three times as many dork. Of course the percent would be different!

You look at two states out of 57 and jump to conclusions.



Meanwhile, I've shown 3 separate election which prove you're nuts.

Dems are too easy. Learn math moron.

I called it!!!!!!!