One day remaining...make your predictions (or not)

[CBradSmith]

My map. Feel all assigned are pretty solid.
Not going to call it, though strong indicators that Trump has the advantage with what's outstanding.

Trump has 4 avenues here (269 to win).
1. MI
2. PA
3. CO
4. NV + NH

Hillary needs PA and MI (270 to win).
1. PA + MI + any

 

[CowboyJD]

I don't have a clue in the Presidential. I'm just gonna wear red white and blue everything tomorrow, watch the results like it's NFL Red Zone and see who announces they are moving out to Canada first.

 

[Ostate4life]

I am an eternal optimist. Gonna stay on the train until I run out of track!

 

[poke2001]

Trump comes

I am an eternal optimist. Gonna stay on the train until I run out of track!

I think this is Trump's ticket. It will be this, or he loses without Michigan, or Lise's worse without Michigan and Florida.

I do think he could surprise in Nevada and Colorado though as well.

 

[CBradSmith]

Turnout in Philadelphia tomorrow will determine what happens in Pennsylvania.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Turnout in Philadelphia tomorrow will determine what happens in Pennsylvania.

Is the transit strike still going on?

 

[CBradSmith]

Is the transit strike still going on?

Looks like it ended today.

 

[CowboyJD]

Is the transit strike still going on?

No. settled.

 

[shortbus]

America Loses

 

[imprimis]

Que sera sera.

 

[MajorMike_Ret]

My map. Feel all assigned are pretty solid.
Not going to call it, though strong indicators that Trump has the advantage with what's outstanding.

Trump has 4 avenues here (269 to win).
1. MI
2. PA
3. CO
4. NV + NH

Hillary needs PA and MI (270 to win).
1. PA + MI + any

The only problem is that 3 of the 5 you have gray are almost surely blue and have been all along. Even tho there have been some smoke about MI, it will likely be solid as will CO and PA. NV is a closer story but I expect hisp voters to carry her there and NH prob blue, too. In 2012 the race was tied/too close to call in NH and BO ended up winning by over 5 points. Also in NV, voters will get a day full of 'we expect HRC to win' on tv and undecideds will weasel to the 'winning' side.

Couple days ago I thought for sure NC and FL would be red, but I think they will squeak blue now. They were barely tipping red with the FBI news and the subsequent 'nothing to see here' announcement will quell the questions.

I think in most of the swing states, it wasn't red GAINING votes, it was blue LOSING them. I believe the oddly timed non-action of the oddly timed FBI action will bring many of those blue votes back and seal the fate, uh, deal.

Ohio doesn't vote for the victor for the first time in over 100 years.

 

[imprimis]

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Here is my actual prediction:

Senate: 52-48 in favor the GOP

 

[aix_xpert]

I think CB (at the top) has the right map, but I don't think Trump actually pulls any of his 4 listed possible scenarios, and thus Hillary wins with 278 to Trumps 260. I also think Hillary wins the popular vote by 2%. As this has pretty much been the expected conclusion, there's no major surprise here. The big surprise imo will be that the Dems will fail to pick up the Senate. In the summer, Dems were talking about the chance to flip 7-8 Senate seats. Now its much more likely they flip only 2 or 3, and they may lose one of those with a Tim Caine special election as he transitions to the VP role. Even more interesting is that 2018 is shaping up to be a potential blockbuster year for Repubs in the Senate. Of the 33 open seats, 25 Caucus with the Dems (23D +2I). Repubs can reliably expect Senate gains of +6 or more with likely wins in the Red states of Indiana, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, and West Virginia, as well as more possible pickups in battlegrounds of Wisconsin, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Florida. If the Dems don't get to 50 in the Senate this year, there is an outside chance that the Repubs could turn the Senate to a Republican super-majority in 2018. As Trump might say...that would be Yuuuge.

Justin

 

[CBradSmith]

My 2018 prediction:

Rs gain in Senate.
Rs retain House. Thin margin.
Cruz wins 5+ (no research, only going on history)

Revisiting 2016 prediction, I felt NV was likely a no go, but included it anyway to create s path for the NH + NV route to 269. NH turned out razor thin falling to Hillary. I looked at 3 or 4 highly regarded polls and early voting trends to feel secure with OH, FL, and NC. Polling data in WI was scarce at that point.

 

[Been Jammin]

My 2018 prediction:

Rs gain in Senate.
Rs retain House. Thin margin.
Cruz wins 5+ (no research, only going on history)

Revisiting 2016 prediction, I felt NV was likely a no go, but included it anyway to create s path for the NH + NV route to 269. NH turned out razor thin falling to Hillary. I looked at 3 or 4 highly regarded polls and early voting trends to feel secure with OH, FL, and NC. Polling data in WI was scarce at that point.

I think even Trump has given up on retaining the House. For the last week he has been focusing all of his attention on Senate and Governor races.

 

[CBradSmith]

I think even Trump has given up on retaining the House. For the last week he has been focusing all of his attention on Senate and Governor races.

Ok

 

[CowboyJD]

@NZ Poke

I don't have a clue in the Presidential. I'm just gonna wear red white and blue everything tomorrow, watch the results like it's NFL Red Zone and see who announces they are moving out to Canada first.

So I predicted a Hillary win according to you.

Wanna withdraw that lie now?

Note the date of that post before answering.

 

[NZ Poke]

@NZ Poke



So I predicted a Hillary win according to you.

Wanna withdraw that lie now?

Note the date of that post before answering.

Yes — I retract that you predicted a Hillary win.

 

[SMemmett]

Yes — I retract that you predicted a Hillary win.

You've misled me. I feel like all information you provide might now be false. You've been compromised.

 

[NZ Poke]

You've misled me. I feel like all information you provide might now be false. You've been compromised.

Anything I post that is factually incorrect — I will retract. Especially if you can provide the source.

I’ve retracted things before.

 

[CowboyJD]

Yes — I retract that you predicted a Hillary win.

So you lied when you contended that...said you could quote posts showing I did....and then...didn’t.

Check.

 

[CowboyJD]

Anything I post that is factually incorrect — I will retract. Especially if you can provide the source.

I’ve retracted things before.

This one....you made the direct allegation in question. Wasn’t one of your many parrot posts...it was you that made the assertion of fact. A false assertion, as now shown.

When called out as incorrect, you doubled down and asserted you could prove it.

So, a mere retraction as “incorrect” is insufficient.

An apology for the lie would be in order.

 

[CowboyJD]

Also, your factual assertion was even more incorrect than the MSM prediction of a Hillary win, so.....

Why should ANYONE give ANY credibility whatsoever to anything you say or endorse.

Let’s apply some similar standards here @NZ Poke.

 

[NZ Poke]

Also, your factual assertion was even more incorrect than the MSM prediction of a Hillary win, so.....

Why should ANYONE give ANY credibility whatsoever to anything you say or endorse.

Let’s apply some similar standards here @NZ Poke.

I will apologize to you for incorrectly stating that you predicted Hillary would win. That’s all.

I was not able to find your specific post above in search, and I even spent time searching through old posts and threads.

Re anything else, by all means, try to prove me factually incorrect.

I almost always provide sources.

 

[CowboyJD]

I will apologize to you for incorrectly stating that you predicted Hillary would win. That’s all.

I was not able to find your specific post above in search, and I even spent time searching through old posts and threads.

Re anything else, by all means, try to prove me factually incorrect.

I almost always provide sources.

No you don’t.

You made a statement that WASN’T TRUE.

You said you could prove that false statement when called out.

You even posted a quote which you tried to claim proved your false statement. It didn’t.

THAT was the point you might have gotten away with just being “incorrect”.

You, however, continued to assert the truth of your falsehood.

You lied....but okay.

You admit you were incorrect. The facts before you now reflect you were DEAD WRONG....wildly incorrect.

You continue to make much to do about the fact that the MSM missed their prediction on the election. Continue to use it repeatedly to dismiss the credibility of anything reported by them subsequent.

Can you give me any cogent, rational argument for you not receiving the same treatment and response to every single one of your future posts?

Why should I go through the effort of “proving you incorrect” in the future? I can now show this time for sure. We all agree. Doesn’t proving it definitively this time entitle me to treat any subsequent posts in the same manner you do when it comes to MSM?

Should we apply the same standard to you that you apply to them?

 

[Been Jammin]

No you don’t.

You made a statement that WASN’T TRUE.

You said you could prove that false statement when called out.

You even posted a quote which you tried to claim proved your false statement. It didn’t.

THAT was the point you might have gotten away with just being “incorrect”.

You, however, continued to assert the truth of your falsehood.

You lied....but okay.

You admit you were incorrect. The facts before you now reflect you were DEAD WRONG....wildly incorrect.

You continue to make much to do about the fact that the MSM missed their prediction on the election. Continue to use it repeatedly to dismiss the credibility of anything reported by them subsequent.

Can you give me any cogent, rational argument for you not receiving the same treatment and response to every single one of your future posts?

Why should I go through the effort of “proving you incorrect” in the future? I can now show this time for sure. We all agree. Doesn’t proving it definitively this time entitle me to treat any subsequent posts in the same manner you do when it comes to MSM?

Should we apply the same standard to you that you apply to them?

 

[my_2cents]

Rs retain House. Thin margin.

So a couple of weeks ago you offered a bet on this. I told you I would get back with you closer to the election. Well here I am.

Although you have changed your original prediction that Reps would gain in the house, here is the most recent bet you offered:

My position: Reps maintain control of the House. Stakes: 3 month posting ban.

I'll take it. You still in?

 

[Been Jammin]

So a couple of weeks ago you offered a bet on this. I told you I wouldwget back with you closer to the election. Well here I am.

Although you have changed your original prediction that Reps would gain in the house, here is the most recent bet you offered:



I'll take it. You still in?

 

[CBradSmith]

So a couple of weeks ago you offered a bet on this. I told you I would get back with you closer to the election. Well here I am.

Although you have changed your original prediction that Reps would gain in the house, here is the most recent bet you offered:



I'll take it. You still in?

We live in a different world than we did just 7 days ago.

You have the benefit of more up to date data. I also don't see you as a regular contributor, diminishing your stake in the game.

I have no interest in wagering anything with you.

 

[my_2cents]

We live in a different world than we did just 7 days ago.

You have the benefit of more up to date data. I also don't see you as a regular contributor, diminishing your stake in the game.

I have no interest in wagering anything with you.

haha, lame excuses just like I expected.

We both have access to the same date right now. And I may not post every day, but I post enough.

You just aren't confident at all anymore in your original claims about this election. At least be honest about it. You started off predicting a red wave and big gains for Republicans in the House. That then changed to Republicans would hold the House. Now, it has changed to Republicans barely holding the House. And you aren't willing to back that last prediction up with a bet anymore lol!

So what has changed? How have you gone from big gains for Republicans to what we see now from you? You still think the Democratic Party is destroying itself and this election will show it?

 

[Medic007]

I almost always provide sources.

And you always shit the bed.