Interactive Electoral Map

[shortylickens]

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map

Dont know if its been posted already or not. I found it from Google while looking for Virginia stuff.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-virginia-senate-allen-vs-kaine

 

[RampantAndroid]

Err, we trust things from huffpo?

 

[Ryan]

Err, we trust things from huffpo?

Considering they're mostly an aggregator of information...I trust them more than websites like Breitbart.

 

[Abraxas]

Err, we trust things from huffpo?

It's a fucking map; what exactly don't you trust?

 

[schneiderguy]

I can't wait for delicious librul tears when the actual map turns out like this:

 

[Abraxas]

I can't wait for delicious librul tears when the actual map turns out like this:

Thank you for aptly demonstrating why precisely the government needs to regulate the levels of lead in paint chips.

 

[shortylickens]

Thank you for aptly demonstrating why precisely the government needs to regulate the levels of lead in paint chips.

SHUT UP!
TAKE YOUR BULLSHIT SOMEWHERE ELSE! THIS AINT THE FUCKING THREAD FOR THAT!

 

[Smoblikat]

I have a feeling colorado will vote dem this year. They gave bush a chance after his first flop as a president, and I bet theyll do the same with obamas first flop. After his second theyll either just stop voting or go independent

 

[Abraxas]

SHUT UP!
TAKE YOUR BULLSHIT SOMEWHERE ELSE! THIS AINT THE FUCKING THREAD FOR THAT!

Thank you for aptly demonstrating why precisely the government needs to regulate the levels of lead in paint chips. :awe:

 

[gevorg]

the question is, will the dumbfuckistan continue shrinking this time or go back up?

 

[schneiderguy]

Thank you for aptly demonstrating why precisely the government needs to regulate the levels of lead in paint chips.

Joke's on you, I don't eat paint chips. I do, however, snack on lead bullets while I'm loading ammo to prepare for the upcoming War of Librul Aggression Part II.

 

[soulcougher73]

ELOLectoral CoLOLege. "Winner takes all: Keeping 50% of America from having a voice since inception"

 

[diesbudt]

What is everyone's opinions on the electoral vote system though?

It irks me to a degree that if a candidate wins a state by a single vote, he gets all of the Electoral votes. (And the state electoral votes could even vote AGAINST the population if they ever so wish, they just dont")

 

[Smoblikat]

What is everyone's opinions on the electoral vote system though?

It irks me to a degree that if a candidate wins a state by a single vote, he gets all of the Electoral votes. (And the state electoral votes could even vote AGAINST the population if they ever so wish, they just dont")

Oh but they do, thats how bush won.

 

[Atreus21]

I can't wait for delicious librul tears when the actual map turns out like this:

Not, uh...not likely.

 

[mshan]

"There’s no need for Mr. Romney to panic yet, especially since he has gotten his share of decent state polls recently. But if Mr. Obama still holds a three-point lead in Ohio after the party conventions, it’s going to qualify as a negative for Mr. Romney every time that he fails to reduce the gap."

...

"A related point is that the states often revert to the mean over the course of an election cycle. If a candidate seems to be overperforming in a particular state — as Mr. Obama has been in Ohio — there can be downward pressure on his numbers as the state’s partisan gravity kicks in.

Our forecast model accounts for this property. It is designed to be a little skeptical that, for instance, Mr. Obama is actually leading by a larger margin in Ohio (by about three points in the polls) than in the national numbers (where he leads by about two points). However, the longer a candidate is able to defy gravity, the more confidence we might have that there is something different about the state this year."


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/aug-23-seven-ways-to-evaluate-a-poll/

"The reason that state polls and national polls are fairly easy to compare is that the relative order of the states is extremely consistent from year to year. We know more or less how Vermont, Iowa and Wyoming, along with the other 47 states, will line up relative to the national trend.

Let’s define a simple quantity called the relative popular vote. It measures the popular vote in a given state relative to the national popular vote.

For instance, in 2008, Mr. Obama won Ohio by 4.6 percentage points. But he won the national popular vote by a slightly wider margin, 7.3 points. Subtracting 7.3 points from 4.6 yields negative 2.7. That means that Ohio was slightly Republican-leaning — by 2.7 points — relative to the national trend."


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...tell-different-tales-about-state-of-campaign/

Ultimately, though, I guess any poll targeted for public consumption must be assumed to try and shape the news as much as accurately report it.

Where Obama campaign spends it's advertising dollars in October, and where both candidates and their surrogates spend their time stumping in person will probably reveal a lot more about actual state of race:

"So far, Obama's campaign has spent $130 million on advertising, compared to about $70 million for Romney. But a trio of Republican-leaning outside groups has spent about $100 million on ads supporting Romney. That's allowed the candidate to remain competitive in ad spending and even exceed the Obama campaign in recent weeks. And when Romney officially becomes his party's nominee next week, he'll be free to spend millions more in money designated specifically for the general election."

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-romney-pursue-divergent-ad-strategies-233135380.html

 

[shortylickens]

What is everyone's opinions on the electoral vote system though?

It irks me to a degree that if a candidate wins a state by a single vote, he gets all of the Electoral votes. (And the state electoral votes could even vote AGAINST the population if they ever so wish, they just dont")

They'd be lynched in the street if they ever tried.

 

[soulcougher73]

What is everyone's opinions on the electoral vote system though?

It irks me to a degree that if a candidate wins a state by a single vote, he gets all of the Electoral votes. (And the state electoral votes could even vote AGAINST the population if they ever so wish, they just dont")

It's an antiquated system for today. I can understand why it was implemented originally when we had Pony Express etc. But today its just outdated as well as making popular voting meaningless outside swing states.

I've touched on this subject many times in P&N. I dont vote because of it and also because KS always goes Red. Ive posted videos in the past showing how flawed the whole thing is and even why the whole "it helps the small states have a voice" is bogus talk.

 

[diesbudt]

It's an antiquated system for today. I can understand why it was implemented originally when we had Pony Express etc. But today its just outdated as well as making popular voting meaningless outside swing states.

I've touched on this subject many times in P&N. I dont vote because of it and also because KS always goes Red. Ive posted videos in the past showing how flawed the whole thing is and even why the whole "it helps the small states have a voice" is bogus talk.

Yea I have been wondering that for a while. Its almost on the border of the reason behind the revolutionary war.

Being taxed, but no real repesentation. Especially since political peopel seem to do whatever the hell they want now, reguardless how the populace feels.

 

[monovillage]

What is everyone's opinions on the electoral vote system though?

It irks me to a degree that if a candidate wins a state by a single vote, he gets all of the Electoral votes. (And the state electoral votes could even vote AGAINST the population if they ever so wish, they just dont")

2 States, Nebraska and Maine, use proportional electoral vote counting.

What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which states follow which rule?

The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state’s Electoral votes.

Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among candidates through the state’s system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four Electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one Electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, “at-large” vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one Electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one Electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large Electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually happened.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#wtapv

As a conservative in California I'd love to see us change to proportional representation.

 

[diesbudt]

Damn, now there is a reason to like Nebraska...

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm still absolutely shocked that even with the heavily left leaning media Romney is still in it. I thought by now the weight of the adoring media following their dear leader would have pretty much put everything out of reach for Mitt.