Race to 270 . . . 6/3/2020 . . .

[AuroraHawk]

PA is more toss up than Wisconsin at this point.

Saw something today that nearly 18 million people have already voted, as opposed to just over 1 million at this time in 2016.

At 270towin, the 13 polls that have Biden getting more than 270 at this point all have Wisconsin in the “blue” category andno longer a toss up.

 

[AuroraHawk]

At 270towin.com, reports on new polls - dated Sunday 10/18 - from two battleground states (WI and AZ):

In AZ, YouGov/CBS news polled 1,074 likely voters in Arizona. The margin of error in the polling data is measured to be +/- 4.1%. It has Biden at 50% and Barnum at 47%. That's a slight lead for Biden but it is within the margin of error and there are still 3% of voters who didn't commit to either.

In WI, YouGov/CBS news polled 1,112 likely voters in Wisconsin. The margin of error in the polling data is measured to be +/- 3.5%. It has Biden at 51% and Barnum at 46%. That's a decent lead for Biden that falls outside the margin of error but, again, there are still 3% of voters who didn't commit to either.

 

[artradley]

For me, no. It’s based on not being OK with the fate of the country being decided by several high-population urban areas. If it were decided by popular vote, you’d see candidates spend even more time in more limited places.

Five counties in New York City, covering 320-ish square miles, provided Hillary’s popular vote winning margin in 2016. Should anybody be OK with NYC alone picking our president?

That is silly. Why does the amount of dirt occupied by people mean more to you than the number of people themselves?

Rural states already are over-represented in the Senate. That should be enough.

 

[cigaretteman]

That is silly. Why does the amount of dirt occupied by people mean more to you than the number of people themselves?

Rural states already are over-represented in the Senate. That should be enough.

Not to mention that their votes count for more than the votes of people in more densely populated areas. It's clearly discriminatory.

 

[artradley]

The original post showed how razor thin the margin was in 2016. Everything fell exactly right for Trump. The chances of the stars aligning again are slim now that he has a both and legislative and personal record to defend.

They don’t have to change much. if he wins the “close” states he only needs to take two of the three Florida, PA, and Wisconsin.

Biden could win the popular vote by 7% and still lose.

 

[soybean]

They don’t have to change much. if he wins the “close” states he only needs to take two of the three Florida, PA, and Wisconsin.

Biden could win the popular vote by 7% and still lose.

I cringe to think of what a 7% Biden win in the popular vote, but a loss in the Electoral College vote would mean for our nation.

 

[StormHawk42]

They don’t have to change much. if he wins the “close” states he only needs to take two of the three Florida, PA, and Wisconsin.

Biden could win the popular vote by 7% and still lose.

I know you’re right but without doing the exact math, I think that’s something like 10 million votes. That’s pretty terrible if that happens.

 

[soybean]

For me, no. It’s based on not being OK with the fate of the country being decided by several high-population urban areas. If it were decided by popular vote, you’d see candidates spend even more time in more limited places.

Five counties in New York City, covering 320-ish square miles, provided Hillary’s popular vote winning margin in 2016. Should anybody be OK with NYC alone picking our president?

Are they not citizens too? Should their votes count less than someone from Timbukto?

 

[artradley]

Are they not citizens too? Should their votes count less than someone from Timbukto?

He, and many others, have already answered in the affirmative. Someone in Ottumwa Iowa should have a greater say than someone in Hackensack New Jersey.

Because equality is unfair.