Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The difference between a lock and a lean at the same number is the past history of people changing their minds on election day.I'm just reporting what RCP said.And
(drum roll)
Connecticut from likely Clinton to leans Clinton
New Jersey from likely Clinton to leans Clinton
Colorado from leans Clinton to toss up
Missouri from toss up to leans Trump
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House
Most recent polling in CT is +15 for Clinton. So you tell me, is that "leans" or "likely"? They also show Texas as "leans" Trump, despite polling showing Trump by 6 points, and, ya know, the fact that it's Texas. Would you say that Texas is merely "leaning" toward Trump, or would you say that Texas is a lock for Trump? South Carolina shows as "leans" Trump, despite +15 polling.
Maybe you should pay more attention to numbers instead of pretty colors.
Of course. Like I said, you are reporting pretty colors. Ignoring the actual facts and figures.
How do your facts conflict with the pretty colors ?
If you had actually read, you would already have your answer. States are being labeled as without much regard. Kentucky polls at +13 for Trump, but is labeled as a lock. Why is +13 a lock in KY, but +15 is merely "leans" in CT?
I would say, don't be an idiot, but obviously you can't help it. Are you really stupid enough to believe RCP hasn't analyzed the data beyond the numbers?I'm just reporting what RCP said.And
(drum roll)
Connecticut from likely Clinton to leans Clinton
New Jersey from likely Clinton to leans Clinton
Colorado from leans Clinton to toss up
Missouri from toss up to leans Trump
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House
Most recent polling in CT is +15 for Clinton. So you tell me, is that "leans" or "likely"? They also show Texas as "leans" Trump, despite polling showing Trump by 6 points, and, ya know, the fact that it's Texas. Would you say that Texas is merely "leaning" toward Trump, or would you say that Texas is a lock for Trump? South Carolina shows as "leans" Trump, despite +15 polling.
Maybe you should pay more attention to numbers instead of pretty colors.
Of course. Like I said, you are reporting pretty colors. Ignoring the actual facts and figures.
RCP Demographic Interactive Map: Methodology | RealClearPolitics
The difference between a lock and a lean at the same number is the past history of people changing their minds on election day.I'm just reporting what RCP said.Most recent polling in CT is +15 for Clinton. So you tell me, is that "leans" or "likely"? They also show Texas as "leans" Trump, despite polling showing Trump by 6 points, and, ya know, the fact that it's Texas. Would you say that Texas is merely "leaning" toward Trump, or would you say that Texas is a lock for Trump? South Carolina shows as "leans" Trump, despite +15 polling.
Maybe you should pay more attention to numbers instead of pretty colors.
Of course. Like I said, you are reporting pretty colors. Ignoring the actual facts and figures.
How do your facts conflict with the pretty colors ?
If you had actually read, you would already have your answer. States are being labeled as without much regard. Kentucky polls at +13 for Trump, but is labeled as a lock. Why is +13 a lock in KY, but +15 is merely "leans" in CT?
Evidently in Kentucky the polls have produced fairly accurate numbers where at the same time the polls in Connecticut have been shown to swing drastically.
I'm just reporting what RCP said.And
(drum roll)
Connecticut from likely Clinton to leans Clinton
New Jersey from likely Clinton to leans Clinton
Colorado from leans Clinton to toss up
Missouri from toss up to leans Trump
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House
Most recent polling in CT is +15 for Clinton. So you tell me, is that "leans" or "likely"? They also show Texas as "leans" Trump, despite polling showing Trump by 6 points, and, ya know, the fact that it's Texas. Would you say that Texas is merely "leaning" toward Trump, or would you say that Texas is a lock for Trump? South Carolina shows as "leans" Trump, despite +15 polling.
Maybe you should pay more attention to numbers instead of pretty colors.
I'm just reporting what RCP said.And
(drum roll)
Connecticut from likely Clinton to leans Clinton
New Jersey from likely Clinton to leans Clinton
Colorado from leans Clinton to toss up
Missouri from toss up to leans Trump
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House
Most recent polling in CT is +15 for Clinton. So you tell me, is that "leans" or "likely"? They also show Texas as "leans" Trump, despite polling showing Trump by 6 points, and, ya know, the fact that it's Texas. Would you say that Texas is merely "leaning" toward Trump, or would you say that Texas is a lock for Trump? South Carolina shows as "leans" Trump, despite +15 polling.
Maybe you should pay more attention to numbers instead of pretty colors.
I'm just reporting what will happen. VA, PA, and WI are in the Dem's column.
In other words you were unable to understand the article, so I'll give it to you in such simple terms even you might be able to understand it. While polls of likely voters depend on the voters giving their own history of how often they have voted in the past and how strongly they feel about this election to determine if they are likely to vote this time, RCP divides voters into groups, such as young, older, white, African American, etc., analyzes voter turnout data from past elections for these groups and then weights the votes from each group to determine how likely members of that group actually are going to vote. So a group of 100 older voters would be given more weight than a group of younger voters because older voters are more likely to show up at the polls historically. Since much of Clinton's support comes from groups which have historically had low turnout at the polls, this method will tend to lower her numbers.I would say, don't be an idiot, but obviously you can't help it. Are you really stupid enough to believe RCP hasn't analyzed the data beyond the numbers?I'm just reporting what RCP said.And
(drum roll)
Connecticut from likely Clinton to leans Clinton
New Jersey from likely Clinton to leans Clinton
Colorado from leans Clinton to toss up
Missouri from toss up to leans Trump
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House
Most recent polling in CT is +15 for Clinton. So you tell me, is that "leans" or "likely"? They also show Texas as "leans" Trump, despite polling showing Trump by 6 points, and, ya know, the fact that it's Texas. Would you say that Texas is merely "leaning" toward Trump, or would you say that Texas is a lock for Trump? South Carolina shows as "leans" Trump, despite +15 polling.
Maybe you should pay more attention to numbers instead of pretty colors.
Of course. Like I said, you are reporting pretty colors. Ignoring the actual facts and figures.
RCP Demographic Interactive Map: Methodology | RealClearPolitics
Please, enlighten us. Tell us what "beyond the numbers" indicates that Texas is anything less than a lock for Trump? What beyond the numbers indicates that South Carolina, polling at +15%, is anything less than a lock for Trump? Are you really claiming that there's some kind of invisible wisdom that reveals that these states might actually go to Clinton?
In other words you were unable to understand the article, so I'll give it to you in such simple terms even you might be able to understand it. While polls of likely voters depend on the voters giving their own history of how often they have voted in the past and how strongly they feel about this election to determine if they are likely to vote this time, RCP divides voters into groups, such as young, older, white, African American, etc., analyzes voter turnout data from past elections for these groups and then weights the votes from each group to determine how likely members of that group actually are going to vote. So a group of 100 older voters would be given more weight than a group of younger voters because older voters are more likely to show up at the polls historically. Since much of Clinton's support comes from groups which have historically had low turnout at the polls, this method will tend to lower her numbers.I would say, don't be an idiot, but obviously you can't help it. Are you really stupid enough to believe RCP hasn't analyzed the data beyond the numbers?I'm just reporting what RCP said.Most recent polling in CT is +15 for Clinton. So you tell me, is that "leans" or "likely"? They also show Texas as "leans" Trump, despite polling showing Trump by 6 points, and, ya know, the fact that it's Texas. Would you say that Texas is merely "leaning" toward Trump, or would you say that Texas is a lock for Trump? South Carolina shows as "leans" Trump, despite +15 polling.
Maybe you should pay more attention to numbers instead of pretty colors.
Of course. Like I said, you are reporting pretty colors. Ignoring the actual facts and figures.
RCP Demographic Interactive Map: Methodology | RealClearPolitics
Please, enlighten us. Tell us what "beyond the numbers" indicates that Texas is anything less than a lock for Trump? What beyond the numbers indicates that South Carolina, polling at +15%, is anything less than a lock for Trump? Are you really claiming that there's some kind of invisible wisdom that reveals that these states might actually go to Clinton?
You are reporting what will happen because you believe you are a time traveler or because you believe you are clairvoyant?I'm just reporting what RCP said.And
(drum roll)
Connecticut from likely Clinton to leans Clinton
New Jersey from likely Clinton to leans Clinton
Colorado from leans Clinton to toss up
Missouri from toss up to leans Trump
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House
Most recent polling in CT is +15 for Clinton. So you tell me, is that "leans" or "likely"? They also show Texas as "leans" Trump, despite polling showing Trump by 6 points, and, ya know, the fact that it's Texas. Would you say that Texas is merely "leaning" toward Trump, or would you say that Texas is a lock for Trump? South Carolina shows as "leans" Trump, despite +15 polling.
Maybe you should pay more attention to numbers instead of pretty colors.
I'm just reporting what will happen. VA, PA, and WI are in the Dem's column.
You know something RCP does not ?WI, VA, and PA also belong to Ms. Clinton.
Not according to RCP.
You’ll see on a Tuesday in November.
I'm sorry, I tried to make it simple enough for even an idiot to understand, but even that was not simple enough for you.In other words you were unable to understand the article, so I'll give it to you in such simple terms even you might be able to understand it. While polls of likely voters depend on the voters giving their own history of how often they have voted in the past and how strongly they feel about this election to determine if they are likely to vote this time, RCP divides voters into groups, such as young, older, white, African American, etc., analyzes voter turnout data from past elections for these groups and then weights the votes from each group to determine how likely members of that group actually are going to vote. So a group of 100 older voters would be given more weight than a group of younger voters because older voters are more likely to show up at the polls historically. Since much of Clinton's support comes from groups which have historically had low turnout at the polls, this method will tend to lower her numbers.I would say, don't be an idiot, but obviously you can't help it. Are you really stupid enough to believe RCP hasn't analyzed the data beyond the numbers?I'm just reporting what RCP said.
Of course. Like I said, you are reporting pretty colors. Ignoring the actual facts and figures.
RCP Demographic Interactive Map: Methodology | RealClearPolitics
Please, enlighten us. Tell us what "beyond the numbers" indicates that Texas is anything less than a lock for Trump? What beyond the numbers indicates that South Carolina, polling at +15%, is anything less than a lock for Trump? Are you really claiming that there's some kind of invisible wisdom that reveals that these states might actually go to Clinton?
So yet again, this all makes voters in Texas and South Carolina less likely to turn out, increasing the chances that these states might go blue?
I'm sorry, I tried to make it simple enough for even an idiot to understand, but even that was not simple enough for you.In other words you were unable to understand the article, so I'll give it to you in such simple terms even you might be able to understand it. While polls of likely voters depend on the voters giving their own history of how often they have voted in the past and how strongly they feel about this election to determine if they are likely to vote this time, RCP divides voters into groups, such as young, older, white, African American, etc., analyzes voter turnout data from past elections for these groups and then weights the votes from each group to determine how likely members of that group actually are going to vote. So a group of 100 older voters would be given more weight than a group of younger voters because older voters are more likely to show up at the polls historically. Since much of Clinton's support comes from groups which have historically had low turnout at the polls, this method will tend to lower her numbers.I would say, don't be an idiot, but obviously you can't help it. Are you really stupid enough to believe RCP hasn't analyzed the data beyond the numbers?Of course. Like I said, you are reporting pretty colors. Ignoring the actual facts and figures.
RCP Demographic Interactive Map: Methodology | RealClearPolitics
Please, enlighten us. Tell us what "beyond the numbers" indicates that Texas is anything less than a lock for Trump? What beyond the numbers indicates that South Carolina, polling at +15%, is anything less than a lock for Trump? Are you really claiming that there's some kind of invisible wisdom that reveals that these states might actually go to Clinton?
So yet again, this all makes voters in Texas and South Carolina less likely to turn out, increasing the chances that these states might go blue?
I understand perfectly fine. The problem is that you're an idiot if you believe your bullshit holds any water. Clinton is not Obama. There was great enthusiasm among Obama voters, especially among younger Obama voters, but there is little to no enthusiasm among them for Clinton. This is why at her news conference today in answer to a question about how she will try to turn the momentum around, she said it all depended on getting the voters to the polls.You know something RCP does not ?WI, VA, and PA also belong to Ms. Clinton.
Not according to RCP.
You’ll see on a Tuesday in November.
No not really. RCP is a business and, like any business, they live on reputation so they are much more conservative (not the politically conservative but conservative in their predictions) than people who have no real vested interest in the outcome other than their personal preferences.
Clinton is going to win WI because of the Obama factor (it's dominated by the south which is basically suburban Chicago), VA because of the government employees and Kaine, and PA because it's is dominated by the larger cities that have historically broke blue, Biden, and college educated professionals.
They're not wrong. I'm just more correct. Sorry. Again, you will see in November.
What you call my bullshit is a simplified version of RCP's explanation of its methodology from the link I provided you. If you did understand it, as you claim you did, just what part of it do you take issue with?I'm sorry, I tried to make it simple enough for even an idiot to understand, but even that was not simple enough for you.In other words you were unable to understand the article, so I'll give it to you in such simple terms even you might be able to understand it. While polls of likely voters depend on the voters giving their own history of how often they have voted in the past and how strongly they feel about this election to determine if they are likely to vote this time, RCP divides voters into groups, such as young, older, white, African American, etc., analyzes voter turnout data from past elections for these groups and then weights the votes from each group to determine how likely members of that group actually are going to vote. So a group of 100 older voters would be given more weight than a group of younger voters because older voters are more likely to show up at the polls historically. Since much of Clinton's support comes from groups which have historically had low turnout at the polls, this method will tend to lower her numbers.I would say, don't be an idiot, but obviously you can't help it. Are you really stupid enough to believe RCP hasn't analyzed the data beyond the numbers?
RCP Demographic Interactive Map: Methodology | RealClearPolitics
Please, enlighten us. Tell us what "beyond the numbers" indicates that Texas is anything less than a lock for Trump? What beyond the numbers indicates that South Carolina, polling at +15%, is anything less than a lock for Trump? Are you really claiming that there's some kind of invisible wisdom that reveals that these states might actually go to Clinton?
So yet again, this all makes voters in Texas and South Carolina less likely to turn out, increasing the chances that these states might go blue?
I'm just reporting what RCP said.And
(drum roll)
Connecticut from likely Clinton to leans Clinton
New Jersey from likely Clinton to leans Clinton
Colorado from leans Clinton to toss up
Missouri from toss up to leans Trump
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House
Most recent polling in CT is +15 for Clinton. So you tell me, is that "leans" or "likely"? They also show Texas as "leans" Trump, despite polling showing Trump by 6 points, and, ya know, the fact that it's Texas. Would you say that Texas is merely "leaning" toward Trump, or would you say that Texas is a lock for Trump? South Carolina shows as "leans" Trump, despite +15 polling.
Maybe you should pay more attention to numbers instead of pretty colors.
Of course. Like I said, you are reporting pretty colors. Ignoring the actual facts and figures.
How do your facts conflict with the pretty colors ?
If you had actually read, you would already have your answer. States are being labeled as without much regard. Kentucky polls at +13 for Trump, but is labeled as a lock. Why is +13 a lock in KY, but +15 is merely "leans" in CT?
You know something RCP does not ?WI, VA, and PA also belong to Ms. Clinton.
Not according to RCP.
You’ll see on a Tuesday in November.
No not really. RCP is a business and, like any business, they live on reputation so they are much more conservative (not the politically conservative but conservative in their predictions) than people who have no real vested interest in the outcome other than their personal preferences.
Clinton is going to win WI because of the Obama factor (it's dominated by the south which is basically suburban Chicago), VA because of the government employees and Kaine, and PA because it's is dominated by the larger cities that have historically broke blue, Biden, and college educated professionals.
They're not wrong. I'm just more correct. Sorry. Again, you will see in November.
not what I saidThe difference between a lock and a lean at the same number is the past history of people changing their minds on election day.I'm just reporting what RCP said.
Of course. Like I said, you are reporting pretty colors. Ignoring the actual facts and figures.
How do your facts conflict with the pretty colors ?
If you had actually read, you would already have your answer. States are being labeled as without much regard. Kentucky polls at +13 for Trump, but is labeled as a lock. Why is +13 a lock in KY, but +15 is merely "leans" in CT?
Evidently in Kentucky the polls have produced fairly accurate numbers where at the same time the polls in Connecticut have been shown to swing drastically.
So.....Texas and South Carolina have a history of changing their mind and going blue?
not what I saidThe difference between a lock and a lean at the same number is the past history of people changing their minds on election day.Of course. Like I said, you are reporting pretty colors. Ignoring the actual facts and figures.
How do your facts conflict with the pretty colors ?
If you had actually read, you would already have your answer. States are being labeled as without much regard. Kentucky polls at +13 for Trump, but is labeled as a lock. Why is +13 a lock in KY, but +15 is merely "leans" in CT?
Evidently in Kentucky the polls have produced fairly accurate numbers where at the same time the polls in Connecticut have been shown to swing drastically.
So.....Texas and South Carolina have a history of changing their mind and going blue?
