Place your bets here - Electoral College and Senate

I'm coming for you Tiny if somebody burns my house down! Originally Posted by HedonistForever

That's the risk you took when you signed up Hedonist. All the high profile posters -- I B Hankering, Lusty Lad, Sistine Chapel -- they've all had their houses torched at least once or twice.

the only problem with this thinking.



bill clinton never got 51% of the popular vote. he may have gotten the majority of the electoral college vote, but I wouldn't call him a uniter.


same with obama, he barely got the popular vote at 51%. doesn't sound very popular like wise. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

You're right -- I just looked at the numbers and Clinton only got 49.23%. And I agree, Obama was definitely not a uniter despite winning over 50% of the popular vote. I should have just posted about Reagan.

Dilbert, do you care to put numbers to that? Republicans win 1 or 2 seats means either 54/46 or 55/45 in the Senate. It's 270 electoral votes to win the presidential election. Originally Posted by Tiny

if you want hard numbers, i'd have to find a electoral college map calculator site and play with it. and post the results. lol.


theres some talk of a possible tie at 269/269 and theres this thing with a spoiler candidate taking a few electoral votes throwing the election to the house.



media would love that. lol.

media would love that. lol. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Yes, Lots of drama. They could sell more commercials.

You're right -- I just looked at the numbers and Clinton only got 49.23%. And I agree, Obama was definitely not a uniter despite winning over 50% of the popular vote. I should have just posted about Reagan. Originally Posted by Tiny

actually you could have mentioned FDR and LBJ. those two were the only dem presidents to have 51% of the popular vote in 20C.

honorable mention goes to James Monroe. he had 99% of the electoral college vote. it helps that he had no candidate to run against. lol!

Yeah, you compare someone like Ronald Reagan (who beat Mondale) or even Bill Clinton to our current choices and wonder what's happened. Why did they do well in their second term elections? Well one reason was they were uniters, not dividers. Originally Posted by Tiny

Raising the debt ceiling eighteen times does tend to do that.

Lowering interest rates didn't do the same. Imagine that!

OK, truth be told, I didn't want to comment because I think not only is Trump going to lose but Republicans will lose the Senate. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Murkowski, Collins and Graham are all going down. I think Graham goes down easier than the other ladies.

That's the risk you took when you signed up Hedonist. All the high profile posters -- I B Hankering, Lusty Lad, Sistine Chapel -- they've all had their houses torched at least once or twice. Originally Posted by Tiny

Sistine Chapel high profile? Are you high?

Another great thread. I'll do more research.




Preliminary guess: Senate goes Democratic 52 and Republican 48.

if you want hard numbers, i'd have to find a electoral college map calculator site and play with it. and post the results. lol.


theres some talk of a possible tie at 269/269 and theres this thing with a spoiler candidate taking a few electoral votes throwing the election to the house.



media would love that. lol. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

https://election.princeton.edu/electoral-college-map/

These maps reflect the ratings of a number of quantitative and qualitative forecasters, as well as some consensus projections. Click or tap any of the thumbnails for an interactive version that you can use to create and share your own 2020 Presidential forecast.

actually you could have mentioned FDR and LBJ. those two were the only dem presidents to have 51% of the popular vote in 20C.

honorable mention goes to James Monroe. he had 99% of the electoral college vote. it helps that he had no candidate to run against. lol! Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

A little off topic, but Fareed Zakaria, a CNN pundit who has a show called Global Public square, was up on his high horse, playing the sanctimonious Democrat, a couple of weekends ago. He said Republicans had only won the popular vote in one presidential election since 1992. And then went on about 5 minutes about how Republicans have to suppress the vote to win elections.

What he failed to note was that the Democratic candidate only won the popular vote twice since 1992. And by starting in 1992, Clinton's first term, he was "cooking the books." If he'd started, say, with Reagan's first term, you'd have 4 elections where Republicans won the popular vote and only two for Democrats.

Anyway, thanks, interesting to look at the longer term perspective. Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan all had blow out elections, where they won over 55%.

Sistine Chapel high profile? Are you high? Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Sistine Chapel was a controversial figure, and I alone am responsible for torching his place three times. Read this and maybe you'll understand. I think this got me points after he RTM'ed me, when he should have been thanking me for improving his brand:

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...ht=halliburton

Another great thread. I'll do more research.

Preliminary guess: Senate goes Democratic 52 and Republican 48. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I already know your strategy -- wait until the last minute and stake out the most territory possible, like you did with the Covid death guess game. As mentioned previously, if anywhere between 290,000 people and 960,000 die, you win. The rest of us were rank amateurs at the game compared to you.

Murkowski, Collins and Graham are all going down. I think Graham goes down easier than the other ladies. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

you got spanked again. lol

murkowski is not running this year. she will in 2 years. Palin is interested in challenging her. lol.

A little off topic, but Fareed Zakaria, a CNN pundit who has a show called Global Public square, was up on his high horse, playing the sanctimonious Democrat, a couple of weekends ago. He said Republicans had only won the popular vote in one presidential election since 1992. And then went on about 5 minutes about how Republicans have to suppress the vote to win elections.

What he failed to note was that the Democratic candidate only won the popular vote twice since 1992. And by starting in 1992, Clinton's first term, he was "cooking the books." If he'd started, say, with Reagan's first term, you'd have 4 elections where Republicans won the popular vote and only two for Democrats.

Anyway, thanks, interesting to look at the longer term perspective. Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan all had blow out elections, where they won over 55%. Originally Posted by Tiny

20th century was a republican century. lol

Princeton Election Consortium

https://election.princeton.edu/electoral-college-map/ Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

well ugh, thank you.


I was going to use Real Clear Politics electoral map as they use aggregate total of poll data from other companies.

https://election.princeton.edu/electoral-college-map/ Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Wow. They show Texas as a toss up and Georgia going to Biden. I was banking on Trump getting both states.

OK, truth be told, I didn't want to comment because I think not only is Trump going to lose but Republicans will lose the Senate. Unless there are millions of silent Americans not showing up in the polling, that is what I think will happen.


I think it's possible that the Dem's pick up 4 maybe 5 seats in the Senate. I'm to lazy to do the electoral count but Biden wins.


Sorry guys, not my wish and I hope the hell I'm wrong but that's what I'm seeing right now.


I'm coming for you Tiny if somebody burns my house down!


For the first time in my life, please let me be wrong. Although I have already voted for Trump myself, I think history will show he ran the worst campaign in history. The list of things he has said that he didn't need to say. The things he could have, should have said but didn't, could fill a book. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

But you still voted for him?

YOW!

He is the "best?" Are you kidding me? I didn't realize the bar was set that low. Originally Posted by Jam3768

From what I've read, HF has methodically eviscerated your arguments on more than one occasion. But that's no biggie. You're hardly a challenge in any debate. The best I can say is you rank slightly higher than tsmokies, matchingmole and assup rider, and that's because they are 100% trolls incapable of any serious forensic engagement.

Instead of badmouthing HF, why don't you consider the possibility that in blowing apart your arguments he is doing you a big favor if it forces you to figure out how to defend yourself with more persuasive counter-points instead of whining helplessly whenever your lame DNC talking points are demolished.