The tipping state was Pennsylvania

Walt

Back To Reality
The tipping state was Pennsylvania, and a 0.86% in the PA vote would have meant the President would be Harris. While not the closest election we have ever seen, a 0.005% shift in the 2000 election would have changed the results, 2024 is still very close.

If trump delivers his promised success, then he will widen the tiny margin in future elections. If not, the Republicans are looking at some future lean years. Any normal person realizes this, and I do not see why anyone would argue with it.

Does anyone have an argument with that simple assertion?
 
Um…Walter, Pa. only has 19 electoral votes.

226 to 312
You do not know what a tipping point state is?

OK, you look at the states in order of how close the election is, and figure out which states would have to flip to change the result. So a margin of 0.9% would have gotten Wisconsin(10 Electors), a margin of 1.4% would have gotten Michigan(15 Electors), and a margin of 1.7 would have gotten Pennsylvania (19 Electors). That makes 270 Electors. Pennsylvania is the tipping point state.

Smh... What in the world is he talking about?...;)
If you do not understand something, just ask.
 
No disrespect Walt but did you come up with this on your own or did ChatGPT help? (the idea that someone, be it an individual or political party, is more likely to be voted back into office if the people like the job they do vs. not being voted back in if they don't like the job that they do)
 
The tipping state was Pennsylvania, and a 0.86% in the PA vote would have meant the President would be Harris. While not the closest election we have ever seen, a 0.005% shift in the 2000 election would have changed the results, 2024 is still very close.

If trump delivers his promised success, then he will widen the tiny margin in future elections. If not, the Republicans are looking at some future lean years. Any normal person realizes this, and I do not see why anyone would argue with it.

Does anyone have an argument with that simple assertion?

Smallest "mandate" in history! I'm just shocked that #TRE45ON isn't screaming about fraud and how he actually got all the votes.
 
No disrespect Walt but did you come up with this on your own or did ChatGPT help?
Tipping points have been a basic part of election analysis for about 75 years. It is the basic way we calculate how much the popular vote must shift to get a first past the post majority.

(the idea that someone, be it an individual or political party, is more likely to be voted back into office if the people like the job they do vs. not being voted back in if they don't like the job that they do)
The perception of how good of a job that Harris was doing compared to trump just needed to shift by 0.86% and we would have President-Elect Harris.
 
Tipping points have been a basic part of election analysis for about 75 years. It is the basic way we calculate how much the popular vote must shift to get a first past the post majority.


The perception of how good of a job that Harris was doing compared to trump just needed to shift by 0.86% and we would have President-Elect Harris.
The final electoral count was 312 - 226. PA has 19 electoral votes. What am I missing here?
 
The final electoral count was 312 - 226. PA has 19 electoral votes. What am I missing here?
OK, you look at the states in order of how close the election is, and figure out which states would have to flip to change the result. So a margin of 0.9% would have gotten Wisconsin(10 Electors), a margin of 1.4% would have gotten Michigan(15 Electors), and a margin of 1.7 would have gotten Pennsylvania (19 Electors). That makes 270 Electors. Pennsylvania is the tipping point state.
If you read that, and still do not understand it, I will post more explanation later today, or tomorrow.
 
This:

57-header.jpg


is a tipping point.
 
The tipping state was Pennsylvania, and a 0.86% in the PA vote would have meant the President would be Harris. While not the closest election we have ever seen, a 0.005% shift in the 2000 election would have changed the results, 2024 is still very close.

If trump delivers his promised success, then he will widen the tiny margin in future elections. If not, the Republicans are looking at some future lean years. Any normal person realizes this, and I do not see why anyone would argue with it.

Does anyone have an argument with that simple assertion?
its was a landslide.

you're a delusional fucktard.

you have no candidate for 2028.

we have several.
 
If you read that, and still do not understand it, I will post more explanation later today, or tomorrow.
Ok? USC led in the 4th qtr of every game this year (until our last against ND) and we had a 6-5 record (until ND and we finished 6-6). So many fans thought because we led all those games in the 4th that we were somehow close to being a good team (even with all those loses). It's the old "if my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle" adage. Losing is losing.
 
If you read that, and still do not understand it, I will post more explanation later today, or tomorrow.
What I would love to hear you explain is your claim that the President runs the Fed and determines monetary policy and by extension the Fed chair is simply just a mouthpiece for the President. That's a new one to me.
 
Ok? USC led in the 4th qtr of every game this year (until our last against ND) and we had a 6-5 record (until ND and we finished 6-6). So many fans thought because we led all those games in the 4th that we were somehow close to being a good team (even with all those loses). It's the old "if my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle" adage. Losing is losing.
So if a candidate sees a poll that they are losing, rather than analyzing the poll, figure out how to win, he should just quit?

No, common sense says you look at a poll, rather an election poll, or a sampled poll, and figure out how to turn it around in the future.
 
Back
Top