• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

If the election were held today Trump would win in a landslide against nearly every major Democrat candidate! (Based off RCP and 538 polling)

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,611
2,886
960
What would happen if the election where held today instead of 2020? The following charts use polling aggregates that face-off Trump and several democrats (not individual polls) to determine which states Trump and one of 5 democrat opponents would win in the Electoral College if today was election day. Due to bad coverage of Tulsi some independent polls were added to her overall Real Clear Politics and fivethirtyeight averages.


Trump Vs. Joe:


Trump Vs, Apache Chief:


Trump Vs. Sanders:


Trump Vs. Bootyedge:


Trump Vs. Gabbard:



Even in recent news articles Pete is show to be one of the biggest losers when paired against Trump, so this isn't surprising in the least. What is surprising is how the DNC keeps rigging the polls giving Pete high poll numbers yet their media keeps putting out articles about how he is having issues reaching voters and trying to improve name recognition. Hmmm, suspect...

I suspect that Trumps chances of winning will skyrocket next year and cause an even bigger landslide once the Impeachment attempt falls to pieces. I do fully expect the Democrats to double down and we'll see the Senate vote on it. We of course know how that will end.
 
Last edited:

Jigsaah

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,568
1,765
475
Judging from the amount of views with no response...I'd suspect people generally don't believe you.

Honestly, 2020 is up in the air. Trump has his base and his base is solid. I think this OP is evidence of that. Democrats are PISSED and 2018-present is evidence of that.

A landslide...not even close. An earth sized Samurai wielding similarly sized blade couldn't cut this country more cleanly down the middle.

Your sources suck.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,093
31,379
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Doesn't really look all that different from the 2016 map.



The electoral college was 302 Trump, 227 Clinton, so a pretty big margin there too.

If Trump wins, I expect it will be by a larger margin this time around.
 
Oct 26, 2018
5,785
5,097
505
Doesn't really look all that different from the 2016 map.



The electoral college was 302 Trump, 227 Clinton, so a pretty big margin there too.

If Trump wins, I expect it will be by a larger margin this time around.
Huge margin.

Hillary could have won Florida at 29 pts and Trump would have still won 273 - 256, despite that scenario having Hillary winning 3 of the 4 biggest states.

Goes to show how many states Trump actually won to scoop up so many votes.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
26,371
29,886
1,095
Those pot growers in Colorado switched real quick when it came to socialism Sanders, LOL

:pie_roffles: :messenger_ok:
 
  • Like
Reactions: oatmeal

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
14,340
1,451
1,375
Comparison doesn't really make sense on an individual democratic candidate basis, isn't the democratic vote effectively split between all candidates? I mean, sure I think Trump is going to win by a landslide unless monkeys fly out of his butt between now and the election but I don't put much weight in head to head comparisons until we have a democratic nominee.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,500
2,745
1,500
Judging from the amount of views with no response...I'd suspect people generally don't believe you.

Honestly, 2020 is up in the air. Trump has his base and his base is solid. I think this OP is evidence of that. Democrats are PISSED and 2018-present is evidence of that.

A landslide...not even close. An earth sized Samurai wielding similarly sized blade couldn't cut this country more cleanly down the middle.

Your sources suck.
It depends on who the democratic candidate is. If its Warren Trump wins in massive fashion.

The only one where I feel it will be competitive is with Biden, and even then, unless something big happens, Trump beats any of the current crop of Democrats. Americans really noticed how crazy Democrats have become and the ringer when they all decided it would be a great idea for illegals to get benefits, and raised their hands on stage. Beto really drove the point home with his idiotic gun rhetoric, and even fellow Democrats know it and have talked about it. His dumbass words are going to haunt the Democrats for years to come, and there is a reason he has all but disappeared from the national stage seemingly overnight.

If a simple, moderate Democrat who didn't hate half the country, wasn't trying to fundamentally alter the country's course, wasn't warped by identity politics, and rejected 90% of the fringe lunatics rhetoric, they would crush Trump.

Unfortunately, that's not the case.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
5,785
5,097
505
It depends on who the democratic candidate is. If its Warren Trump wins in massive fashion.

The only one where I feel it will be competitive is with Biden, and even then, unless something big happens, Trump beats any of the current crop of Democrats. Americans really noticed how crazy Democrats have become and the ringer when they all decided it would be a great idea for illegals to get benefits, and raised their hands on stage. Beto really drove the point home with his idiotic gun rhetoric, and even fellow Democrats know it and have talked about. His dumbass words are going to haunt the Democrats for years to come.

If a simple, moderate Democrat who didn't hate half the country, wasn't trying to fundamentally alter the country's course, wasn't warped by identity politics, and rejected 90% of the fringe lunatics rhetoric, they would crush Trump.

Unfortunately, that's not the case.
That's the problem with the left. They portray themselves as angels, so once you promote left policies there's no turning back. It just gets lefter and lefter (if that's such a word). That's probably why nobody has changed tune and tried gravitating a bit more right to be close to Biden policies. You can't go right once you put your stake in the sand.

For righties it's different. Righties are supposed to be scrooges, so a righty has more flexibility to be nice and give a bit and help the economy, and then scrooge it back like a teeter totter if they want to.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,611
2,886
960
Judging from the amount of views with no response...I'd suspect people generally don't believe you.

Honestly, 2020 is up in the air. Trump has his base and his base is solid. I think this OP is evidence of that. Democrats are PISSED and 2018-present is evidence of that.

A landslide...not even close. An earth sized Samurai wielding similarly sized blade couldn't cut this country more cleanly down the middle.

Your sources suck.
What? Rcp and 538 are huge. Resetera is that way <<<<<

How dare it take more than 10 minutes before someone posts in a thread. You know, like the Hillary thread, or the Beto abortion thread. Those got no post at al- ohhhhhh....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,296
2,462
1,695
Montreal, Quebec
I don't personally put any stock in those predictions. A lot will change between now and July 2020. Pete's rise in particular makes sense to me, one of his biggest weaknesses as of now can be addressed by picking the right running mate. He might need to walk back his position on the electoral college, though, Trump would probably bludgeon him with that.
 

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
712
370
280
I think you have a very different definition of landslide.

2016 sure wasn't one. 2020 probably won't be either.
 
Last edited:

Sosokrates

Member
Feb 22, 2017
1,500
301
345
Op includes gabbard but not yang?

Get the fuck outta here...

I think yang would beat trump rather easily. Because all the people who voted for hillary would vote for him, and enough in the swing states would give him the win.

Unless trump melts him down in the general, which is possible.
It would be interesting to see how trump will argue against the freedom dividend. I actually don't think trump would tackle that head on, and go after yang on law + order, the boarder, dealing with NK + and other countries.
It would be interesting to see how yang would deal with trump.

Sanders might beat trump, his medicare for all, is pretty good and he has a big following.

Trump has done a pretty good job, NK has not tested nukes for the longest time period in like the last 15yrs, jobs are up and stock market is doing well, buttttttt poverty and homelessness in America is just as bad, trump may of made America greater for the American government and big companies but, all the problems that America has for the last 50yrs are still here under trump.

Democrats and republican policies are actually not all that different America is not that different under trump as it was under Obama.

Yangs proposal of $1000 a month would actually change America quite a bit,

A free healthcare service would to.
 
Last edited:

Platinumstorm

Member
Oct 19, 2011
1,088
196
635
Who posted these charts originally?


Whatever they are, sorta meaningless now, since there isn't a unifying Democratic candidate yet. I don't put much stock in these as I consider the states to watch to be MI, PA, OH, WI and everything else to remain exactly the same except perhaps Arizona and NH.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,611
2,886
960
Who posted these charts originally?


Whatever they are, sorta meaningless now, since there isn't a unifying Democratic candidate yet. I don't put much stock in these as I consider the states to watch to be MI, PA, OH, WI and everything else to remain exactly the same except perhaps Arizona and NH.
Anything can change in a year.

But with the Democrats still having issues finding a strong candidate, and the Impeachment plot not working as Pelosi hoped, it does give an idea of what may come.

The biggest difference between now and Nov. 2020 is the Impeachment inquiry will be old news. They won't really have any ammunition left for "the October surprise" this time. Without that, Trump can just coast from September to November.
 

FMXVII

Member
Aug 27, 2019
754
520
300
I think you have a very different definition of landslide.

2016 sure wasn't one. 2020 probably won't be either.
Landslide: the sliding down of a mass of earth or rock from a mountain or cliff.

See: California.

Landfill: Also California.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Madonis

Jigsaah

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,568
1,765
475
Ok...apparently you guys are seeing something that at least half of the country isn't seeing. I'm not saying Trump won't win. But there's no way it'll be a landslide. If it is, the country is in a lot of trouble.
 

Jigsaah

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,568
1,765
475
What? Rcp and 538 are huge. Resetera is that way <<<<<

How dare it take more than 10 minutes before someone posts in a thread. You know, like the Hillary thread, or the Beto abortion thread. Those got no post at al- ohhhhhh....
Fuck Reset Era, I never even visited the site.

Just be happy I got the conversation started bro.

Controversy sells.
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,698
4,688
765
The sudden beat drumming ao
Judging from the amount of views with no response...I'd suspect people generally don't believe you.

Honestly, 2020 is up in the air. Trump has his base and his base is solid. I think this OP is evidence of that. Democrats are PISSED and 2018-present is evidence of that.

A landslide...not even close. An earth sized Samurai wielding similarly sized blade couldn't cut this country more cleanly down the middle.

Your sources suck.
I don't think there's anything wrong with his sources. I think most people just don't really see today's polling as reliable enough to get excited or dejected over when talking about a year from now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jigsaah

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,091
540
1,605
USA
Anything can change in a year.

But with the Democrats still having issues finding a strong candidate, and the Impeachment plot not working as Pelosi hoped, it does give an idea of what may come.

The biggest difference between now and Nov. 2020 is the Impeachment inquiry will be old news. They won't really have any ammunition left for "the October surprise" this time. Without that, Trump can just coast from September to November.
You were asked who posted these charts originally

You replied to the post with the question but ignored the request for your sources

Did you make these charts?

Are you willing to share the source of this information? saying "Based off RCP and 538 polling" isn't telling us anything. We should be able to see the source data used from these sites, or some sort of numbers indicating why specific states are colored specific ways
 

Jigsaah

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,568
1,765
475
The sudden beat drumming ao

I don't think there's anything wrong with his sources. I think most people just don't really see today's polling as reliable enough to get excited or dejected over when talking about a year from now.
Also a good point. The only polls that really matter now are in regards to impeachment, because it actually has a real-time effect on how people like Pelosi react.

And even then...should the Republicans hold the line in the Senate regardless of what the polls say...then I guess even those polls don't matter.
 
Last edited:

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,091
540
1,605
USA
I don't think there's anything wrong with his sources.
Why specifically do you think there's nothing wrong with his sources?
Because they confirm your biases?

He hasn't provided his sources. In fact, he's gone out of his way not to provide them despite replying to someone who asked for them

What about this situation makes you confident that this data is valid? Can you show me how these maps were generated from what's available on 538 and RCP?
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
2,107
2,483
550
You were asked who posted these charts originally

You replied to the post with the question but ignored the request for your sources

Did you make these charts?

Are you willing to share the source of this information? saying "Based off RCP and 538 polling" isn't telling us anything. We should be able to see the source data used from these sites, or some sort of numbers indicating why specific states are colored specific ways
Lol good luck getting sources from this guy, his MO is basically making wild claims as if they were facts and ignoring requests for sources time and time again.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: PkunkFury

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,611
2,886
960
Sometimes the media can brainwash a left-wing voter to the point they forget they have critical thinking and common sense. like say, an OP was made that specifically told them how something was extrapolated to reach a conclusion, but they ignore it because they hate Trump so much they pretend that information wasn't there, then dimiss it in favor of what they believe is reliable, usually CNN or MSNBC.

It would be crazy if that happened here. Oh wait....
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,091
540
1,605
USA
Sometimes the media can brainwash a left-wing voter to the point they forget they have critical thinking and common sense. like say, an OP was made that specifically told them how something was extrapolated to reach a conclusion
:messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:

oh boy, this is good

okay Afro Republican Afro Republican

show me in the OP where you "specifically told 'them' how something was extrapolated to reach a conclusion"

bare in mind, we've already covered
saying "Based off RCP and 538 polling" isn't telling us anything. We should be able to see the source data used from these sites, or some sort of numbers indicating why specific states are colored specific ways
to which you still have no response; that's twice now you've acknowledged and ignored this request

and I, yes, I believe this data was "extrapolated" (such a fun and permissive term) so don't worry, you aren't exactly wrong. But you can explain the extrapolation methodology and provide the source data such extrapolation is based on so we can validate your methods, right??? Of course you can...

You still refuse to answer the question

Did you create these charts?

The colors are wonderful, they'll look great on the fridge!

, but they ignore it because they hate Trump so much they pretend that information wasn't there, then dimiss it in favor of what they believe is reliable, usually CNN or MSNBC.
This is not about hating Trump

This is not about CNN or MSNBC

I did not post charts from CNN or MSNBC, I'm not even aware they've published equivalent charts. I do not follow them; they are not my primary news sources

This is specifically about Afro Republican Afro Republican making shit up or believing stupid shit he finds on The_Donald

Show us why we should trust the data you've posed

It would be crazy if that happened here. Oh wait....
Except it didn't happen

Oh, and nice job digging on me without quoting me since you were afraid I'd get flagged and reply
 
Last edited:

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,611
2,886
960
The following charts use polling aggregates that face-off Trump and several democrats (not individual polls) to determine which states Trump and one of 5 democrat opponents would win in the Electoral College
Man it's funny how all the information needed was in the OP.

Someone did not get their chocolate milk from mama and is very cranky today.

Good thing the sources mentioned are free to use and search so anyone can verify the metric used. But sometimes people would rather listen to Rachel Maddow lie about finding Trumps tax returns than read the OP.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,091
540
1,605
USA
Man it's funny how all the information needed was in the OP.
still too scared to reply to me, and still unable to provide any data on these maps?
I see we aren't getting anywhere

for the third time:
saying "Based off RCP and 538 polling" isn't telling us anything. We should be able to see the source data used from these sites, or some sort of numbers indicating why specific states are colored specific ways
and for the third time:
Did you make these charts?
This should be an easy question for you to answer
The fact that you don't answer tells me either:
A) You're embarrassed because you know you got these charts somewhere dumb
B) You're embarrassed because you know the methods you used to create them won't hold up to scrutiny
Either way, you aren't giving us any reason to be confident in the validity of the images

For context
I was genuinely interested in finding the source of this data and understanding how dire the situation is for Dems when I clicked on this thread

If a laymen searches for Trump vs Biden polls on RCP, they get this:
with Biden at +10.2 (holy shit I provided a link, I must be a sneaky, lying, Maddow loving liberal!)

Now I get that these are national polls, and don't account for the electoral college, and that such polls disappointed liberals in 2016. Thus I'm curious how you came up with this data, because it's not impossible for the National polls to miss the electoral winner
By the same metric, Clinton only beat Trump in 2016 by +3.3, so the math showing Biden would lose at +10.2 would be interesting enough that I'd enjoy seeing it

So I take a look at one of the states I'm curious about in your image: Ohio
Now I check RCP for Ohio Trump/Biden head-to-head polls:
I only see two listed, one has Biden at +6, another has Biden at +8

I understand that aggregating polls is as much art as it is science, and there's likely other data out there I'm not privy to, however, if we split the two on RCP 50/50 and call Biden at +7, we're going to need some other major outliers or some interesting weighting on other polls to color Ohio red in your chart
Which is fine, such polls might exist and such weighting might be valid
But if they do, and if it is, you should be able to show us.

I would legitimately like to know how much trouble Biden's in using a 2020 electoral breakdown.
At this point, I no longer expect you can provide what should have been the cornerstone this thread is based on, which is... unfortunate

So I'm going to make this reeeaaally easy for you. Can you show us why Ohio is colored red in your Trump vs. Biden chart? Can you provide the specific spread which Trump has over Biden in Ohio by your projections and how it was calculated?
This is something you should be happy to provide if you have confidence in your methods

Someone did not get their chocolate milk from mama and is very cranky today.
I do love me some chocolate milk, but mama ain't been holdin' back

Good thing the sources mentioned are free to use and search so anyone can verify the metric used.
If "the sources mentioned are free to use and search so anyone can verify the metric used." than why in the hell are you unable to verify them??!!??!?!

verifying your BS is not our responsibility, it's a fool's errand

But sometimes people would rather listen to Rachel Maddow lie about finding Trumps tax returns than read the OP.
Do we have to keep doing this?

This is not about Trump's tax returns

This is not about Rachel Maddow

I did not post 2020 head-to-head charts from Rachel Maddow, I'm not even aware she's published equivalent charts. I do not follow her in any capacity

This is specifically about Afro Republican Afro Republican making shit up or believing stupid shit he finds on The_Donald

The information I've asked you for is explicitly related to that which you've presented in the OP

But it's fun watching you continue to try to score brownie points with the hoard by dodging with a flavor-of-the-week left-wing media boogie-man reference. At least CNN, NBC, or Maddow would have provided me the source of their information.

Keep grinding those NPC levels
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GingerNathan

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,738
1,988
755
Man it's funny how all the information needed was in the OP.

Someone did not get their chocolate milk from mama and is very cranky today.

Good thing the sources mentioned are free to use and search so anyone can verify the metric used. But sometimes people would rather listen to Rachel Maddow lie about finding Trumps tax returns than read the OP.
Don't be obtuse. You effectively did not provide your sources; where did those maps come from? Did you generate them yourself?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PkunkFury

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,611
2,886
960
Obtuse is a triangle.

The reality is you guys can't jump in a moonbounce with a pair of scissors, and you don't realize that.

The fact Plunky and the oneness shifted the topic to Reddit, and a blocked sub-forum on Reddit at that, proves this is nothing more than a left-wing rant with the usual talking points. I don't get Plunkyfurrys agenda here.

The data was totaled from all "vs.Trump" matchups on both sites, there's nothing more to elaborate on. Some states may have more results than others, I never said these maps was 100% accurate and was going to happen in 2020, but it does give us a glimpse of where things are going.

Everyone here agrees anything can happen in a year, especially since Impeachment will be off the table by then imo.

Edit: My bad, his name was Plunkyfury
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: GingerNathan

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,091
540
1,605
USA
Obtuse is a triangle.

The reality is you guys can't jump in a moonbounce with a pair of scissors, and you don't realize that.

The fact Plunky and the oneness shifted the topic to Reddit, and a blocked sub-forum on Reddit at that, proves this is nothing more than a left-wing rant with the usual talking points. I don't get Plunkyfurrys agenda here.

The data was totaled from all "vs.Trump" matchups on both sites, there's nothing more to elaborate on. Some states may have more results than others, I never said these maps was 100% accurate and was going to happen in 2020, but it does give us a glimpse of where things are going.

Everyone here agrees anything can happen in a year, especially since Impeachment will be off the table by then imo.

Edit: My bad, his name was Plunkyfury
you are still being obtuse

You are still not answering the questions

Did you make the charts?
This half explanation makes it sound like you made the charts

If you know this much about the data, why do you still refuse to post the Trump win spread for Ohio in the Biden vs. Trump chart?

If you acutally know where the data was pulled from, why can't you link to it?
I linked you to the data for Ohio on RCP, it shows Biden at +7
Can you link me to the 538 data that offsets this +7 margin? I didn't look that hard, but it's not jumping out at me

Also, I did not shift the topic to Reddit, and a blocked sub-forum on Reddit at that. That was me poking you back for shifting the topic to CNN and MSNBC in the post I replied to.

You get what you give

My post was very on topic, as it's about your charts and the data used to create them, but I see why you think this was a topic shift considering that's what you tried and failed to do when you brought up left-wing media. yay projection

And yet me bringing up Reddit was still more relevant, because you still haven't told us where you found the charts, and if you're too embarrassed to tell us where you found them, I'm going to assume the worst
You bet your ass that any chart I've posted on this forum from CNN or MSNBC, I've been happy to source

So anyway, I'm happy to not talk about CNN, MSNBC, Maddow, The_Donald, or the "usual talking points" you've invented for me, and rather talk specifically about the topic at hand, which is the charts you posted in the OP, and what data drove them, so I can better understand how dire the 2020 election situation is for the Democrats
 
Last edited:

cheezcake

Member
Feb 21, 2013
3,784
32
450
You could accurately rephrase this as “incumbent wins election in landslide against opponent who performed no campaigning whatsoever” and see just how meaningless a hypothetical it is.
 
Last edited:
Apr 12, 2013
6,099
140
595
I dont know how you take these maps seriously when it shows Trump beating Sanders in Wisconsin, Colorado, and so on. That wouldnt happen now, in a year, or probably ever.
 

Super Mario

Mario Mario
Nov 12, 2016
1,406
1,631
545
538 polling is extremely left-leaning, now that they are owned by ABC (Disney). For them to have this data, it must be real bad.

A few loud Liberals would tell you Sanders and Warren would win easily, and that is extremely laughable. Your vote does not count for 100 because you post on ResetEra.

I'm actually surprised how well Gabbard does here. It doesn't surprise me to see her and Joe up there. The left absolutely cannot win with a far-left candidate. I don't like Biden, but he can pull a lot more moderates and casuals into his space by touting experience/Obama and a less drastic approach to health care. but still "raising the bar".
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Tesseract

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,611
2,886
960
If you know this much about the data, why do you still refuse to post the Trump win spread for Ohio in the Biden vs. Trump chart?
I'm not taking you seriously because you aren't reading the OP. Every post you have made with your pointless breakdowns involves you ignoring what's written in the OP.

that face-off Trump and several democrats (not individual polls)
You've ignored the bolded area since you posted in this thread. You've been using individual polls for the democrats and comparing them to Trumps individual polls when I specifically said the data only includes the polls that match Trump against the democrats. Instead of making long posts pretending you are breaking data down. you should attend some classes on reading comprehension.

There's nothing to discuss, you're trying and failing to start some argument that veers off-topic. All you had to do was read the OP and the problem would be solved. I have nothing else to say other than what's in the OP you clearly did not read. All that effort and whining for nothing, all because you ignored the OP since you entered. If you disagree with the OP that's one thing, but pretending there's some grand conspiracy to try and make yourself look smart only results in the opposite of what you intended.

As I said, it's not 100% accurate, there's limited data, and things can change in a year. Case dismissed.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,091
540
1,605
USA
You've ignored the bolded area since you posted in this thread.
I am specifically asking you what data was used to make the charts because I do not know.
I'm also specifically asking where you got the charts, or if you made them yourself, something you still refuse to answer

So no, I am not ignoring anything.

You continue to withold any and all information about your source data, which makes it clear you're full of shit.
It would be so easy for you to not be full of shit
You just have to link your source data
Why do you project Trump winning Ohio over Biden?

You've been using individual polls for the democrats and comparing them to Trumps individual polls when I specifically said the data only includes the polls that match Trump against the democrats. Instead of making long posts pretending you are breaking data down. you should attend some classes on reading comprehension.
WHICH POLLS THAT MATCH TRUMP AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS!!?!?!

All. You. Have. To. Do. Is. Link. Those. Polls.

And you are dead wrong about the polls I linked earlier. I used this link:
This link shows the only two head-to-head polls for Biden vs. Trump in Ohio on RCP, and Biden wins both handily

I showed my work, and you still have no idea what I'm saying. Talk about crappy reading comprehension...

There's nothing to discuss, you're trying and failing to start some argument that veers off-topic. All you had to do was read the OP and the problem would be solved. I have nothing else to say other than what's in the OP you clearly did not read. All that effort and whining for nothing, all because you ignored the OP since you entered. If you disagree with the OP that's one thing, but pretending there's some grand conspiracy to try and make yourself look smart only results in the opposite of what you intended.
Holy shit, how is this so hard for you? I have repeatedly stated that I am probably not able to find the data you are using and would love to see the full data. I want you to prove to me that you are right. I want to believe that Trump will beat Biden in Ohio in 2020. If you're goal was to get me to believe this, the fact that you now refuse to prove it to me just makes you bad at your job

I'm not pretending there's a grand conspiracy. What the hell are you talking about?
Good God everything is a conspiracy with you fools
How is asking where your charts originated from a conspiracy??

I'm asking for the data used to generate these charts, and considering you refuse to provide it, they've clearly been made up wholesale
How does making this shit up benefit anyone?

As I said, it's not 100% accurate, there's limited data, and things can change in a year. Case dismissed.
Of course it's not 100% accurate, you have no idea how it was made

You're full of shit, as usual

case dismissed
 
Last edited:

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,611
2,886
960
I am specifically asking you what data was used to make the charts because I do not know.
The OP directly tells you were the polls are from. and how they were used, There is no controversy here.

You spent multiple posts insulting me by using the WRONG polls I specifically said were NOT used in the OP because you can't read. Now that you have been caught you're suddenly no longer able to go find the real ones? What about all those long posts of you pretending to be smart with all your links to the polls that contradicted the OP?

Even now you ignore the OP AGAIN, and this time only post one source as your "proof of showing work" (RCP) when the OP says it used RCP AND 538 for the maps. You're entire argument is based on you ignoring the OP and making up your own world of make believe. Magic penguins everywhere! Let's come back to reality.

Like I said, if you had just read the OP there wouldn't even be a discussion. The OP tells you where the information comes from, and you are the only person struggling with that. Now, read the OP, notice that it contains where the maps come from and how they were made from which sources, and then realize everything was there the whole time.

You can keep insulting me all you want, but you just spend multiple posts attacking me on something you got wrong because you didn't read the OP. That's pretty stupid, try not making the same mistake twice this time. Now, I have nothing more to say, it's all right there in the OP, so have a good night Mr.Plunky.
 
Last edited:

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,091
540
1,605
USA
The OP directly tells you were the polls are from. and how they were used, There is no controversy here.
No, it doesn't.

If it did, you could show me where those polls are

You spent multiple posts insulting me by using the WRONG polls I specifically said were NOT used in the OP because you can't read. Now that you have been caught you're suddenly no longer able to go find the real ones? What about all those long posts of you pretending to be smart with all your links to the polls that contradicted the OP?
How can I use the "wrong" polls when you refuse to explain which polls are the "right" polls to use

I used the only two polls for a head-to-head Biden vs. Trump race posted on RealClearPolitics.

Please explain to me how using head-to-head Biden vs. Trump polls when projecting which of the two would win if the election were held today is using the "wrong" polls

And what the hell are you talking about? I linked the same poll in my last post as I linked before. Why do you think I'm suddenly unable to find a poll I already linked to?

And yes I'm smart. If you are smart as well, all you have to do is explain the methodology used to make your charts. It shouldn't be that hard for a smart person to do


Like I said, if you had just read the OP there wouldn't even be a discussion. The OP tells you where the information comes from, and you are the only person struggling with that. Now, read the OP, notice that it contains where the maps come from and how they were made from which sources, and then realize everything was there the whole time.
lol, you've had multiple people in this thread call out your BS, I'm just the only one dogging you for it

And for the sixth time, the OP does not provide the source of your data.

If you based those charts off of RCP data, you clearly fucked up your math
Like really fucked it up, not just a slight miss

You can keep insulting me all you want, but you just spend multiple posts attacking me on something you got wrong because you didn't read the OP. That's pretty stupid, try not making the same mistake twice this time. Now, I have nothing more to say, it's all right there in the OP, so have a good night Mr.Plunky.
You are the one who started insulting me here, by pretending only brain-washed liberals who lack critical thinking skills would validate data sources. Of course checking sources indicates an absence of critical thought! How silly of me... My request for the source of your data was quite tame.

But you fools always play the victim card, so have fun with it. Not my fault the political policies you fervently masturbate over depend on keeping you uneducated to survive

It's sad to me that you're so embroiled in your own misinformation spiral that you need to fabricate 2020 election predictions to feed your confirmation bias

but hey, you do you
 
Last edited:

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,611
2,886
960
No, it doesn't.

If it did, you could show me where those polls are

How can I use the "wrong" polls when you refuse to explain which polls are the "right" polls to use
It's almost like reading the OP is some kind of hard task for you. Here's the part your asking about again in big bold letters:

The following charts use polling aggregates that face-off Trump and several democrats (not individual polls) to determine which states Trump and one of 5 democrat opponents would win in the Electoral College if today was election day. Due to bad coverage of Tulsi some independent polls were added to her overall Real Clear Politics and fivethirtyeight averages.
I really don't get why you want to keep responding without reading the OP lying that it doesn't give you the information your looking for. The only reason why you are still debating is because your desperate. It's clear by now none of your previous posts have addressed the OP, and you posted several links that ignore that part where I say it doesn't compare individual polls to other individual polls.

You honestly, aren't even looking for any information just trying to start some fantasy argument. Your sources are RCP/538 and the chart was built on that, and there's nothing more to talk about. No further information is needed. So we are done with this conversation that you have been lying about from the start.

If you actually want to discuss the content in the OP by actually debating what's IN THE OP instead of you ignoring it completely than I might actually answer your questions. But if your whole argument involves ignoring it than you just continue to show you are arguing for no reason other than trying to make yourself look smart.

Think it over.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,091
540
1,605
USA
It's almost like reading the OP is some kind of hard task for you. Here's the part your asking about again in big bold letters:
Holy shit, you finally admit you didn't make the projections in the OP, yet you were too embarrassed to do it here, so you did it in another thread...
You make long posts that usually aren't nothing more than fluff. Not to mention saying I made projections when the projections were not mine just makes you look foolish.
I guess you realized they are horrendously off and you didn't want to be responsible for the bad math? As if it makes me foolish to say they were yours, when you posted them as if you knew how they were created (you don't) and repeatedly refused to clarify how they were made. Glad I got that out of you

So now we know you didn't make them, why wouldn't you tell us that?
And why won't you tell us where you found them?

Because you clearly have no idea how they were made. You just keep copying and pasting the meaningless dreck you put in the OP

Time for some serious self reflection.

Somewhere you get your information presented these to you, and you believed them.

Maybe it's time to ask yourself why you trust this place for information. I wonder what other bullshit they feed you to get you to behave how they want you to?

It's clearly working.

Maybe it's time to consider how lying to you like this might be benefiting them...

I really don't get why you want to keep responding without reading the OP lying that it doesn't give you the information your looking for. The only reason why you are still debating is because your desperate. It's clear by now none of your previous posts have addressed the OP, and you posted several links that ignore that part where I say it doesn't compare individual polls to other individual polls.

You honestly, aren't even looking for any information just trying to start some fantasy argument. Your sources are RCP/538 and the chart was built on that, and there's nothing more to talk about. No further information is needed. So we are done with this conversation that you have been lying about from the start.

If you actually want to discuss the content in the OP by actually debating what's IN THE OP instead of you ignoring it completely than I might actually answer your questions. But if your whole argument involves ignoring it than you just continue to show you are arguing for no reason other than trying to make yourself look smart.
lol, every post I've made in this thread has been a direct request for the information used to create the charts in the OP. You still won't provide that information, and now it's clear you don't know how the charts were made since you found them somewhere. Somewhere you are afraid to tell us, because you know it's somewhere stupid

I am absolutely, honestly, looking for information as to how these charts were made. I enjoy statistics, I'm interested in election predictions, I even make light wagers. I saw these charts and I was interested in how they were created. Still am. If I weren't I wouldn't have bothered responding to you. You make a dozen stupid posts a day on here. Clearly the only reason I would respond to one is because I actually wanted the information. Why else would I have gone to RCP myself to check?

I don't need to argue with you to make myself look smart, I know that I am smart
Show me any point at which I have lied in this thread, now that you are saying I'm a liar.

You, on the other hand, are a liar and the proof is in the OP.
You posted charts that you pretended you understood, which you clearly don't understand.
You claimed they were sourced form 538/RCP, yet you are unable to show how they are sourced from these sites, and the data on these sites clearly contradicts what you've posted
You refuse to acknowledge that you don't understand the content you posted, instead you spin

Why do you do it?

Do you need to lie about Donald Trump's 2020 chances to feel better at night?

clearly I have
 
Last edited: