While you were arguing


is that supposed to mean something, dear?

Apparently it's the lingo. When someone reports something you don't like, it becomes fake by saying it's full of onions.

ah... thanks. i must not be up on things. lol.

it's been teetering the past few days...still could go either way on election day but it's not something donald would want to see. apparently no republican has ever been elected president without ohio. so i've been waiting to see it tip dem.
 

i like reliable polls....

do you not understand what fivethirtyeight is or how nate silver works and why he's so good at this?
Did you read the topic?

See post #3. ;)

just read it and edited. sorry... too much rightwingnuttery around. sometimes i forget who i'm reading. :)
 
apparently no republican has ever been elected president without ohio. so i've been waiting to see it tip dem.

Well yes, but to be fair Ohio had a very different significance once upon a time. Ohio used to be one of the biggest states in the electoral college in a time when there were fewer electors. The midwest as a whole was an important region. When Lincoln was elected, Ohio's 23 electors from a total of 303 was nearly 8% of the EC. The stretch of PA, OH, IA, and IL, was enough to get him half way to victory. Ohio was part of making a successful bid for the oval office. Nowadays, with a half the electoral power of yesteryear, it's just an indicator at best.

BTW, the latest poll I saw out of Ohio shows Trump up by 5 points. So how is it leaning Clinton?
 

is that supposed to mean something, dear?

Apparently it's the lingo. When someone reports something you don't like, it becomes fake by saying it's full of onions.

Nobody has ever said that. Shut up. :slap:

You weren't there, you don't know.
 

Forum List

Back
Top