PDA

View Full Version : Updated election predictions



benden1234
04-05-2019, 05:52 PM
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election

I'm wondering why the women are dropping so much

kusok
04-05-2019, 05:56 PM
Cliffss for phaggits like me who can’t read these charts?

Is Trump win? Please respawn

SillieBazzillie
04-06-2019, 04:03 AM
Trump being so far below $.50 is pretty telling.

TheFornicator1
04-06-2019, 04:11 AM
Trump being so far below $.50 is pretty telling.

24 cents above any other candidate? Pretty telling.

His Republican presidential nominee numbers are shocking. I'm putting 5 grand down (dead srs). Easy 17% return on investment.

401Delta
04-06-2019, 04:20 AM
Kamala Harris...literally a dime piece :D.

EDIT: Just realized a dime piece is not actually a trashy whore :eek:.

SillieBazzillie
04-06-2019, 04:48 AM
24 cents above any other candidate? Pretty telling.

His Republican presidential nominee numbers are shocking. I'm putting 5 grand down (dead srs). Easy 17% return on investment.

You do realize that a single dem candidate would coalesce most of the money being spread out among dems current, yes?

Even the betting markets think Trump sucks and has little chance at re-election.

SillieBazzillie
04-06-2019, 04:49 AM
Kamala Harris...literally a dime piece :D.

EDIT: Just realized a dime piece is not actually a trashy whore :eek:.

What are two bits?

TheFornicator1
04-06-2019, 04:51 AM
You do realize that a single dem candidate would coalesce most of the money being spread out among dems current, yes?

Even the betting markets think Trump sucks and has little chance at re-election.

I'd take you seriously, but you've never bet on anything in your life. You are a quintessential pussy.

SillieBazzillie
04-06-2019, 04:53 AM
I'd take you seriously, but you've never bet on anything in your life. You are a quintessential pussy.

Now why do you have to be like that? Here I thought we were having a reasonable dialogue. And for your information jackhole, I love to bet. I've had multiple ban bets on this stupid bored I like to bet so much.

Ikeman83
04-06-2019, 04:55 AM
You do realize that a single dem candidate would coalesce most of the money being spread out among dems current, yes?

Even the betting markets think Trump sucks and has little chance at re-election.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/70percent-of-wall-street-thinks-trump-will-be-reelected-in-2020.html


Shhhhhhhhhh

SillieBazzillie
04-06-2019, 05:03 AM
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/70percent-of-wall-street-thinks-trump-will-be-reelected-in-2020.html


Shhhhhhhhhh

lmfao. I bet 90% of christians do too. What do the betting markets say?

x-trainer ben
04-06-2019, 05:07 AM
Ha ha wall street, and what do they get right?

benden1234
04-06-2019, 07:16 AM
You do realize that a single dem candidate would coalesce most of the money being spread out among dems current, yes?

Even the betting markets think Trump sucks and has little chance at re-election.

Little chance at reelection? The conditional probability literally says if he is the republican nominee he is between 45-50 percent chance to win. And the point of betting markets is to get half the people on both sides, so the house gets the juice. Little chance at reelection= the percentage chance Chris Davis has of striking out the next time he is at the plate.

SillieBazzillie
04-06-2019, 07:20 AM
Little chance at reelection? The conditional probability literally says if he is the republican nominee he is between 45-50 percent chance to win. And the point of betting markets is to get half the people on both sides, so the house gets the juice. Little chance at reelection= the percentage chance Chris Davis has of striking out the next time he is at the plate.

Solid point and solid real life example.

:sadface:

ispy
04-06-2019, 07:28 AM
that comments section though...

Halfway
04-06-2019, 07:37 AM
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/2721/Which-party-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election

Does not correlate

benden1234
04-06-2019, 08:51 AM
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/2721/Which-party-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election

Does not correlate

It takes into account the 1/6 chance Trump doesn't run.

ack33
04-06-2019, 08:52 AM
You do realize that a single dem candidate would coalesce most of the money being spread out among dems current, yes?

Even the betting markets think Trump sucks and has little chance at re-election.

But why didn't that theory happen in the 2016 election? I don't recall the Hillary bets and Bernie bets merging 100% into one and beating Trump

Tamorlane
04-06-2019, 08:57 AM
Updated predictions, from the people who brought you the 2018 red tsunami

Antoine99
04-06-2019, 10:23 AM
Also Hillary Clinton has a 99% chance of winning in 2016.

deepfat
04-06-2019, 11:42 AM
Updated predictions, from the people who brought you the 2018 red tsunami

Who here that's reasonable said anything about a red tsunami, Tammy? Anyone with a brain knew the GOP would lose seats. You know, just like every other midterm. However, the GOP gaining seats in the senate is out of the ordinary.

Saw The Don get off AF1 yesterday. The ovation he got as he stepped off the jet was pretty impressive.

DukeOfWoodBerry
04-06-2019, 11:46 AM
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/2721/Which-party-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election

Does not correlate

Why are there 2 cents on Libertarian and Green? Literally 0% chance.

Noliberals4
04-06-2019, 11:49 AM
Who here that's reasonable said anything about a red tsunami, Tammy? Anyone with a brain knew the GOP would lose seats. You know, just like every other midterm. However, the GOP gaining seats in the senate is out of the ordinary.

Saw The Don get off AF1 yesterday. The ovation he got as he stepped off the jet was pretty impressive.Democrats came out like crazy in 2018. 61 million votes. That's not even fathomable. Trump only got 63 million.

Democrats got 61 million votes in the midterms; now imagine what will happen during a Presidential election. I could see 80 million coming out. Possibly even 85 million.

Streetbull
04-06-2019, 11:50 AM
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election

I'm wondering why the women are dropping so much

Let’s see...an actual non-politician who speaks bluntly and works tirelessly for the USA...versus an aging hippie who would ruin the economy and a Happy Hands old time politico....

How is this even a choice?

Xgamer791
04-06-2019, 12:04 PM
People hate Democrats, Demtards would stand a better chance if they just lied about everything instead of telling everyone their terrible policies.

John L
04-06-2019, 12:13 PM
Democrats came out like crazy in 2018. 61 million votes. That's not even fathomable. Trump only got 63 million.

Democrats got 61 million votes in the midterms; now imagine what will happen during a Presidential election. I could see 80 million coming out. Possibly even 85 million.

Let's not get carried away. But yes, Trump's trolling has really energized Democrats and is turning off moderates who want a "presidential" president. It's definitely an issue, and he's created much of it himself.

Honestly all of the Democrats aside from Biden right now are pretty uninspired (probably a bad choice of words since Biden is not inspiring, but he would have a real chance at winning)

Noliberals4
04-06-2019, 12:37 PM
Let's not get carried away. But yes, Trump's trolling has really energized Democrats and is turning off moderates who want a "presidential" president. It's definitely an issue, and he's created much of it himself.
n s
Honestly all of the Democrats aside from Biden right now are pretty uninspired (probably a bad choice of words since Biden is not inspiring, but he would have a real chance at winning)Normally you'd be right, but Republicans have gotten their asses kicked in nearly every election since 2016. Trump won because Democrats failed to show up in a few areas, which won't happen again. Trump is going to have to grow his base but if anything he's lost too much of his base.

The key problem? White women for the first time in recent history voted for Democrats as much as Republicans in 2018. Creepy ass Democrats like Anthony Weiner, Eric Schneidermann, Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, etc. etc. should've been the end of women voting en masse for Democrats, but Trump is too stupid and inept to take advantage of it know what I mean?

JUSA
04-06-2019, 12:38 PM
Kamala Harris...literally a dime piece :D.

EDIT: Just realized a dime piece is not actually a trashy whore :eek:. No, it's a 10/10.

isingmodel
04-06-2019, 12:53 PM
I've got $300 riding on Yang at 50:1 returns. Please don't fail me based giver of NEET bux

Trapstar4.4
04-06-2019, 12:56 PM
seems like BS. Looking at this poll at the same time during the 2016 election season Trump probably wouldn't even have been on that list.

DukeOfWoodBerry
04-06-2019, 12:56 PM
Who here that's reasonable said anything about a red tsunami, Tammy? Anyone with a brain knew the GOP would lose seats. You know, just like every other midterm. However, the GOP gaining seats in the senate is out of the ordinary.

Saw The Don get off AF1 yesterday. The ovation he got as he stepped off the jet was pretty impressive.

That senate map was out of the ordinary. GOP got crushed in 2018, especially in crucial states like MI, PA, and WI.

Noliberals4
04-06-2019, 01:27 PM
That senate map was out of the ordinary. GOP got crushed in 2018, especially in crucial states like MI, PA, and WI.Yup. The GOP should have actually picked up MORE seats than it did. In fact, the map was favorable enough for the GOP to take over 60 seats (thus, filibuster proof).

2016 caught people off guard and that's not going to happen in 2020.

Trapstar4.4
04-06-2019, 01:42 PM
Yup. The GOP should have actually picked up MORE seats than it did. In fact, the map was favorable enough for the GOP to take over 60 seats (thus, filibuster proof).

2016 caught people off guard and that's not going to happen in 2020.

Yep everybody was too confident about a Hillary victory. Lesson learned.nin 2020 it's time to vote MFers

Alphurious2039
04-06-2019, 01:47 PM
Little chance at reelection? The conditional probability literally says if he is the republican nominee he is between 45-50 percent chance to win. And the point of betting markets is to get half the people on both sides, so the house gets the juice. Little chance at reelection= the percentage chance Chris Davis has of striking out the next time he is at the plate.

If?

Surely, it is a matter of when? Can't see anybody else being selected. Can you?

MoeBettuh
04-06-2019, 01:49 PM
Yup. The GOP should have actually picked up MORE seats than it did. In fact, the map was favorable enough for the GOP to take over 60 seats (thus, filibuster proof).

2016 caught people off guard and that's not going to happen in 2020.


What happened in 2018 was historically average. To say it wasn't is dishonest at best.

DukeOfWoodBerry
04-06-2019, 02:07 PM
What happened in 2018 was historically average. To say it wasn't is dishonest at best.

That is not accurate. Democrats picked up around 38 seats, I think the average was something in the low 20s for the party out of power. And the % vote difference was much higher than typical. Don't buy the RNC/Fox News propaganda. Analyze the actual facts.

John L
04-06-2019, 02:13 PM
That is not accurate. Democrats picked up around 38 seats, I think the average was something in the low 20s for the party out of power. And the % vote difference was much higher than typical. Don't buy the RNC/Fox News propaganda. Analyze the actual facts.

I think the bigger problem is that Democrats were so easy to beat. They went bonkers after the 2016 election and were/are literally rejecting the elections results after months of telling conservatives that they better accept the election results

It should have been so easy to expose them and crush them after that but Trump and the GOP totally screwed up. Unreal that they’ve actually managed to win elections consistently since.

Noliberals4
04-06-2019, 02:14 PM
What happened in 2018 was historically average. To say it wasn't is dishonest at best.61 million Democrat votes is beyond a record. To compare, only 45 million Republicans voted in the 2010 midterms.

82 million people voted in TOTAL in 2010. 115 million people voted in 2018.

The 2018 midterms had a higher turnout than the 1998 and 1996 Presidential elections. This has never happened before. The 2018 midterms had higher turnout than midterms in the 60s even though 18-20 year olds can vote now. The Democrats got 61 million votes in 2018 - Trump only got 63 million votes in 2016. That is unheard of. To compare, Obama got 69 million votes in 2008.

And remember, Obama performed worse in 2012 than he did in 2008. Trump has little margin for error (he won WI, MI, and PA by less than a point each).

Noliberals4
04-06-2019, 02:15 PM
I think the bigger problem is that Democrats were so easy to beat. They went bonkers after the 2016 election and were/are literally rejecting the elections results after months of telling conservatives that they better accept the election results

It should have been so easy to expose them and crush them after that but Trump and the GOP totally screwed up. Unreal that they’ve actually managed to win elections consistently since.Democrats are screwing up again by misquoting a May 2018 Trump quote about the MS-13, but Trump won't (can't?) take advantage of it and it's so frustrating.

John L
04-06-2019, 03:20 PM
Normally you'd be right, but Republicans have gotten their asses kicked in nearly every election since 2016. Trump won because Democrats failed to show up in a few areas, which won't happen again. Trump is going to have to grow his base but if anything he's lost too much of his base.

The key problem? White women for the first time in recent history voted for Democrats as much as Republicans in 2018. Creepy ass Democrats like Anthony Weiner, Eric Schneidermann, Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, etc. etc. should've been the end of women voting en masse for Democrats, but Trump is too stupid and inept to take advantage of it know what I mean?

I will say that the media plays a big part in this as well, it’s not just Trump buffoonery. The media/left does an effective job at painting this great country as an oppressive place for women to live and that it’s all Republicans fault.

Streetbull
04-06-2019, 04:42 PM
I will say that the media plays a big part in this as well, it’s not just Trump buffoonery. The media/left does an effective job at painting this great country as an oppressive place for women to live and that it’s all Republicans fault.

MSNBC, NBC, NY TIMES....they have lost the American mind. They are increasingly seen as propaganda arms of the DNC.

Hispanics are turning also. They don’t want their neighborhoods ruined by gangs and swarms of violent Nicaraguans.

The game is up. The refusal to accept the Mueller Report, incessant subpoenas and lawsuits instead of governing responsibly...and the Democrats nominate...Bernie? Or Joe? What do they have that Trump doesn’t crush like a grape?

John L
04-06-2019, 05:03 PM
MSNBC, NBC, NY TIMES....they have lost the American mind. They are increasingly seen as propaganda arms of the DNC.

Hispanics are turning also. They don’t want their neighborhoods ruined by gangs and swarms of violent Nicaraguans.


Not so sure about this. In Central Islip and Brentwood NY here on Long Island (two towns with a huge illegal immigrant populations) teenagers throats were getting cut by the MS13 back in 2017 and they even found a couple of dismembered teenagers in a park in Central Islip who were murdered by gang members. There were some candlelight vigils but that's where it ended, no protests or vocal demands for a change aside from that one mother who was in the news and went to the State of the Union address. Then when Trump came to speak at the community college in Brentwood, there were many protesters and angry crowds who did not want him there.

And then in the midterms, my state senate district flipped to the Democrats due to massive voter turnout in both of those neighborhoods (not sure why they're in my district anyway, gerrymandering of peace). Those neighborhoods historically would never turn out that much on election day. You see where I'm going with this?

Jrd86
04-06-2019, 05:16 PM
You do realize that a single dem candidate would coalesce most of the money being spread out among dems current, yes?

Even the betting markets think Trump sucks and has little chance at re-election.

The Mueller investigation weighted negatively on Trump. Look at the 90 day average from the predict site... After his exoneration, his number has been rising sharply and steadily, you intellectually dishonest phag.

Secondly...Should point out most betting markets predicted a Hillary clinton landslide in 2016...worked out well. Wait until FISA abuses are exposed, and key Democrats known for leaking and their own collusion start being indicted. At this point, 2020 is Trumps to lose.

Halfway
04-06-2019, 05:24 PM
The Mueller investigation weighted negatively on Trump. Look at the 90 day average from the predict site... After his exoneration, his number has been rising sharply and steadily, you intellectually dishonest phag.

Secondly...Should point out most betting markets predicted a Hillary clinton landslide in 2016...worked out well. Wait until FISA abuses are exposed, and key Democrats known for leaking and their own collusion start being indicted. At this point, 2020 is Trumps to lose.

Except the cat ladies and pussyhats of the #resistance don't believe he's exonerated - our representative samples of double digit test voters here are still posting thesis sized rants about how Trump is still guilty

2020 they'll all show up, and the DNC billionaire sponsors will spend billions on bussing every voter to every poll, legal or otherwise

They won't repeat 2016s mistakes again -Hillary came close to killing the US forever and they can erase 4 years of Trump in a blink of an eye, the RINOs won't stop them and theres no army of R activist judges since most of then were appointed by a Bush and hate America as much as the Dens do

SillieBazzillie
04-06-2019, 06:13 PM
The Mueller investigation weighted negatively on Trump. Look at the 90 day average from the predict site... After his exoneration, his number has been rising sharply and steadily, you intellectually dishonest phag.

Secondly...Should point out most betting markets predicted a Hillary clinton landslide in 2016...worked out well. Wait until FISA abuses are exposed, and key Democrats known for leaking and their own collusion start being indicted. At this point, 2020 is Trumps to lose.

Sure it is. That less than 3% gdp growth, $3T deficit increase, and massive increase in illegals should be excellent talking points for dumb Donald.

MoeBettuh
04-08-2019, 11:24 AM
That is not accurate. Democrats picked up around 38 seats, I think the average was something in the low 20s for the party out of power. And the % vote difference was much higher than typical. Don't buy the RNC/Fox News propaganda. Analyze the actual facts.


61 million Democrat votes is beyond a record. To compare, only 45 million Republicans voted in the 2010 midterms.

82 million people voted in TOTAL in 2010. 115 million people voted in 2018.

The 2018 midterms had a higher turnout than the 1998 and 1996 Presidential elections. This has never happened before. The 2018 midterms had higher turnout than midterms in the 60s even though 18-20 year olds can vote now. The Democrats got 61 million votes in 2018 - Trump only got 63 million votes in 2016. That is unheard of. To compare, Obama got 69 million votes in 2008.

And remember, Obama performed worse in 2012 than he did in 2008. Trump has little margin for error (he won WI, MI, and PA by less than a point each).


Stats on the last couple of midterms under a new admin:

2018 Senate: +2 rep, House: +41 dem, gubernatorial: +7 dem
2010 Senate: +7 rep, House: +63 rep, gubernatorial: +6 rep


Average loss to the incumbent president's party is 2 and 32 (I didn't look hard enough to find gubernatorial numbers).

IAMBEE
04-08-2019, 12:05 PM
You do realize that a single dem candidate would coalesce most of the money being spread out among dems current, yes?

Even the betting markets think Trump sucks and has little chance at re-election.

Yeah, just like in 2012 when a decent conservative Republican would drop out of the primary we all assumed Mitt Romney would get over taken but that never happened.

soaponarope1
04-08-2019, 12:57 PM
Creepy ass Democrats like Anthony Weiner, Eric Schneidermann, Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, etc. etc. should've been the end of women voting en masse for Democrats, but Trump is too stupid and inept to take advantage of it know what I mean?

That's mostly because the right associates behavior with individuals rather than the groups that they belong to, and also care more about results from politicians than their personal lives, so we don't spend as much time smearing democrats as a whole with irrelevant to governing personal problems, nor do we really care that much.

The left is the side that spends all its time smearing large groups of people with nearly meaningless labels because a few members of the group may fit the bill.

RamataKahn
04-08-2019, 01:03 PM
Here I thought we were having a reasonable dialogue.

You are not capable of such a thing.

Noliberals4
04-08-2019, 01:06 PM
That's mostly because the right associates behavior with individuals rather than the groups that they belong to, which you should because Democrats protected these people for years.

Noliberals4
04-08-2019, 01:08 PM
Stats on the last couple of midterms under a new admin:

2018 Senate: +2 rep, House: +41 dem, gubernatorial: +7 dem
2010 Senate: +7 rep, House: +63 rep, gubernatorial: +6 rep


Average loss to the incumbent president's party is 2 and 32 (I didn't look hard enough to find gubernatorial numbers).once again, the situations are different.

The 2018 midterms had Presidential level turnout from Democrats. That has never happened before. And remember, Obama did WORSE In 2012 than he did in 2008. Trump does not have a margin of error to do worse than he did in 2016.

Noliberals4
04-08-2019, 01:09 PM
The Mueller investigation weighted negatively on Trump. Look at the 90 day average from the predict site... After his exoneration, his number has been rising sharply and steadily, you intellectually dishonest phag.

Secondly...Should point out most betting markets predicted a Hillary clinton landslide in 2016...worked out well. Wait until FISA abuses are exposed, and key Democrats known for leaking and their own collusion start being indicted. At this point, 2020 is Trumps to lose.Republicans have gotten their asses kicked in nearly every election since 2016.

Democrats came out for blood in 2018 and they got it.

Jrd86
04-08-2019, 01:30 PM
Republicans have gotten their asses kicked in nearly every election since 2016.

Democrats came out for blood in 2018 and they got it.

Over 30 republicans retired/did not run for reelection. You point how the senate favored republicans...while failing to also concede that the house favored democrats by even larger margins. Go ahead and point out the meaningless "popular vote". It came from places that were deep blue and the GOP wasnt going to carry in a general election anyway..

MoeBettuh
04-08-2019, 01:44 PM
once again, the situations are different.

The 2018 midterms had Presidential level turnout from Democrats. That has never happened before. And remember, Obama did WORSE In 2012 than he did in 2008. Trump does not have a margin of error to do worse than he did in 2016.


That's fine. What happened in 2018 wasn't significantly different (in terms of outcome) than other midterms. Turnout was yuge, I understand. I agree that Trump doesn't have any margin of error to work with.

Noliberals4
04-08-2019, 01:49 PM
That's fine. What happened in 2018 wasn't significantly different (in terms of outcome) than other midterms. Turnout was yuge, I understand. I agree that Trump doesn't have any margin of error to work with.Turnout wasn't just "huge," if that were the case, you'd have a point.

The turnout was bigger than Presidential elections (specifically 1988 and 1996). That has never happened before. Turnout was bigger than the 1960s midterms.... that is not even fathomable. On the other hand, the 2010 midterms were just typical turnout.

Gerrymandering, the electoral college, etc. etc. can only save you so much.

160 million people are going to vote in 2020. Republicans simply don't have the numbers to match that.

IAMBEE
04-08-2019, 01:49 PM
Sure it is. That less than 3% gdp growth, $3T deficit increase, and massive increase in illegals should be excellent talking points for dumb Donald.

Sounds like he should get 100% of the Obama vote then with that record.

Noliberals4
04-08-2019, 01:51 PM
Over 30 republicans retired/did not run for reelection. You point how the senate favored republicans...while failing to also concede that the house favored democrats by even larger margins. Go ahead and point out the meaningless "popular vote". It came from places that were deep blue and the GOP wasnt going to carry in a general election anyway..The House favored Republicans due to gerrymandering.

I do think Trump could have minimized damage if he spent money, but he doesn't because he doesn't care.

And Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania by less than 1 point each. Quit acting like they're red states. Obama laughs at Trump's puny numbers.

MoeBettuh
04-08-2019, 02:14 PM
Turnout wasn't just "huge," if that were the case, you'd have a point.

The turnout was bigger than Presidential elections (specifically 1988 and 1996). That has never happened before. Turnout was bigger than the 1960s midterms.... that is not even fathomable. On the other hand, the 2010 midterms were just typical turnout.

Gerrymandering, the electoral college, etc. etc. can only save you so much.

160 million people are going to vote in 2020. Republicans simply don't have the numbers to match that.



The GOP didn't get crushed in 2018 (as one poster above claimed). Your projection is that they will get crushed in 2020, fine. They didn't get crushed last year, though. That's my point. The outcome of the 2018 elections wasn't some humungous shift. It was expected (based on how these things have tended to go for years).

Noliberals4
04-08-2019, 02:19 PM
The GOP didn't get crushed in 2018 (as one poster above claimed). Your projection is that they will get crushed in 2020, fine. They didn't get crushed last year, though. That's my point. The outcome of the 2018 elections wasn't some humungous shift. It was expected (based on how these things have tended to go for years).Turnout surpassing Presidential levels have never happened before.

If anything, the GOP should have won more.

John L
04-08-2019, 02:22 PM
The GOP didn't get crushed in 2018 (as one poster above claimed). Your projection is that they will get crushed in 2020, fine. They didn't get crushed last year, though. That's my point. The outcome of the 2018 elections wasn't some humungous shift. It was expected (based on how these things have tended to go for years).

The main issue is that the historical trend should have been broken given how unhinged the left showed themselves to be after the 2016 election. It's crazy that they're actually winning elections.

MoeBettuh
04-09-2019, 07:36 AM
Turnout surpassing Presidential levels have never happened before.

If anything, the GOP should have won more.


Turnout doesn't happen to be a direct metric by which we determine the winners of elections. Similarly, the popular vote argument for the 2016 election is a moot point.


The main issue is that the historical trend should have been broken given how unhinged the left showed themselves to be after the 2016 election. It's crazy that they're actually winning elections.

So the fact that the results of the 2018 elections followed historical trends is an indication that the GOP is on the ropes?

benden1234
04-09-2019, 07:55 AM
Trump at about 50 percent to win if he is the republican candidate
https://electionbettingodds.com/

John L
04-09-2019, 08:03 AM
Turnout doesn't happen to be a direct metric by which we determine the winners of elections. Similarly, the popular vote argument for the 2016 election is a moot point.



So the fact that the results of the 2018 elections followed historical trends is an indication that the GOP is on the ropes?

What I’m saying is that it’s crazy that they weren’t able to easily reverse those trends given what the state of the left was

Cleveland33
04-09-2019, 08:06 AM
What I’m saying is that it’s crazy that they weren’t able to easily reverse those trends given what the state of the left was

they did on half of them.

MoeBettuh
04-09-2019, 08:57 AM
What I’m saying is that it’s crazy that they weren’t able to easily reverse those trends given what the state of the left was


Some weird things have been going on. We have ppl like Cortez out here now. What a time to be alive.

Jrd86
04-09-2019, 09:09 AM
The House favored Republicans due to gerrymandering.

I do think Trump could have minimized damage if he spent money, but he doesn't because he doesn't care.

And Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania by less than 1 point each. Quit acting like they're red states. Obama laughs at Trump's puny numbers.

LMAO Obama would have lost florida, and Ohio...while barely squeaking out wins in places like PA (with his 2012 turnout)...Democrat presidential turnout has gone down in these states since peaking in 2008...its been that way nationwide actually. Hell, I voted for Obama in 2008. Bad economy, an unpopular lame duck president that sent this country to ridiculous wars, and John ****ing McCain as the republican option? LMAO they couldnt have handed the election to the democrats any better.