I think for comparison it would be good to see what the Breakout is by republican and democrat for the final vote totals from 2016. I think in most of these states you will see more blue that red based on party affiliation.

74Ag1 said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

brd79 said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Athanasius said:

---

This thread is depressing.

---

Why? The day is 2 weeks old.

---

It is, but that is like 50% of the vote totals in for Georgia and Michigan either way. That's a lot of ground to make up on election day

---

But Georgia has in person early voting and these numbers do not account for probably 5-8 days of data.

---

Yep those numbers are up to 10/16 (don't know if it's through the 16th or 15th)
Early voting in GA started 10/12... so if included it's only 3-4 days worth
Today's 11/1.... so it does not include 2 weeks worth

---

See here is where "two weeks" actually works.

Good numbers from Minnesota. Read the whole thread.

Keegan99 said:

---

Good numbers from Minnesota. Read the whole thread.

---

That makes me want to believe!

Keegan99 said:

---

Good numbers from Minnesota. Read the whole thread.

---

#11!!!!

Remember, if he holds Florida /Ohio /NC al like he should..

And AZ like some number suggest he has...

He only needs 1 of Wisc, Mich, Minn or Penn. Just 1, and the rest become irrelevant.

FrioAg 00 said:

---

Remember, if he holds Florida /Ohio /NC al like he should..

And AZ like some number suggest he has...

He only needs 1 of Wisc, Mich and Minn. Just 1, and zone become irrelevant.

---

Why you not include Penn????

Edited.

Just mean to show that he only need 1 of those 4 contests

FrioAg 00 said:

---

Edited.

Just mean to show that he only need 1 of those 4 contests

---

But

JB99 said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

A lot of blue in the northeast.

---

Keep in mind these early voting models are taking into account registered party or primary voting. So recently converted Dems in the northeast, like the iron ranges, May show up as a democrat voting, but they actually voted for Trump. Same could be said for TDS republicans voting for Biden, but there aren't many of those

---

Good point. People generally don't bother changing their party registration very much

---

Especially if it is just temporary. Like, "next time don't run Marxist-lite out to eliminate my job, I will go back to usual party closer to my social issues.".

TChaney said:

---

I have a dumb question so instead of keeping my mouth shut I'm going to ask in this thread.


This data is compiled polling info that looks at what primary you voted in and uses that to predict your vote in the general election.

There have been major pushes by both parties to vote in the opposing primary to get someone out early from the opposite party (Local all the way to national) .

Do you all think that is what happened in 2016 and why the margins were so wide from this type of prediction model? Will this model or any polling even be viable going forward?

---

I don't think that is going on to the degree, that, say, people are definitely lying to posters for laughs or deception.

Probably the vast majority when push come to shove would not feel the slightest bit comfortable doing a false voting pretense run. Not talking about activists- -- talking about does Jane and John Doe go out to fake their election vote in a primary? Really thinking no, not enough to really skew anthing.

Doing that with pollsters bothering you on the phone? Absolutely.

Just a hunch.

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

Pennsylvania isn't even worth looking at. Very few Republicans indicated that they planned to vote early there.

---

Well that's one way to spin it...

TheCougarHunter said:

---

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

Pennsylvania isn't even worth looking at. Very few Republicans indicated that they planned to vote early there.

---

Well that's one way to spin it...

---

They don't have in person early voting in Pennsylvania. They have vote by mail and fill out your vote by mail and drop it off locations. In person voting typically always favors Republicans especially with Democrats afraid to leave their houses because of a virus that is 99.9% survivable for most people. But PA Doesn't have in person early voting, so unlike places like Texas the majority will be voting on election day.

TheCougarHunter said:

---

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

Pennsylvania isn't even worth looking at. Very few Republicans indicated that they planned to vote early there.

---

Well that's one way to spin it...

---

Maybe you should learn?

The real question is why are so many white voters voting D???

Keegan99 said:

---

Good numbers from Minnesota. Read the whole thread.

---

hey keegs look at today's update

70% chance? You think this guys legit?

I've been following him for a week but not sure how legit he is.

No idea, to be honest. I just came across the thread yesterday. He certainly presents a seemingly grounded view. I don't see a ton of spin. Just data analysis. There may be errors in his assumptions, but I don't know enough about Minnesota to say.

Verne Lundquist said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

Good numbers from Minnesota. Read the whole thread.

---

hey keegs look at today's update

70% chance? You think this guys legit?

I've been following him for a week but not sure how legit he is.

---

I think it's accurate.

I consider myself a fairly smart person and my work is based in numbers......

and I can't figure out wth that table in the graphic is showing me.

Are there cliff's notes available more than just "He says Trump is winning MN"?

Keegan99 said:

---

No idea, to be honest. I just came across the thread yesterday. He certainly presents a seemingly grounded view. I don't see a ton of spin. Just data analysis. There may be errors in his assumptions, but I don't know enough about Minnesota to say.

---

the only big timer that follows him is Nan Hayworth...hope he's right

Gyles Marrett said:

---

I consider myself a fairly smart person and my work is based in numbers......

and I can't figure out wth that table in the graphic is showing me.

Are there cliff's notes available more than just "He says Trump is winning MN"?

---

click the tweet is a 25 tweet thread

Yes, he's clearly an amateur, but he's also obviously bright, motivated, and knows the MN landscape. He's pretty dry in presentation. Not a hint of bluster. So he's not trying to sell anyone anything, and doesn't seem to be care about self-promotion.

Wisconsin looks promising, as it has the lowest turnout among the "enrolled in Marxist training while at college"; however, Michigan looks dreadful!

Ubitag said:

---

Boss

Georgia not an issue..

Mich maybe but if he replaces with Minn it is a wash.

---

Some of you post the dumbest stuff. Minnesota is 10 EV where Michigan is 16. Not a wash and there are ways Trump can win Minnesota but not get to 270. It is much easier for him if he wins Michigan.
With that said, if he wins Minnesota much better chance he wins Wisconsin too. But still very erroneous statement to say it is a wash when there is 6 EV difference.

The idea of Minn for Mich as a wash has some merit.

Many here believe the assumption that Trump has Florida, Ohio, Iowa, NC, TX all locked in and the only folks suggesting otherwise are media with a strong bias and agenda.

If that's indeed the case, Trump is sitting 247-249 depending on Maine and Nebraska. So he's looking for 19-21 more EC votes.

His options (from IMO most likely to least likely) are AZ (11), Nev (6), Wisc (10), Minn (11), Penn (20), and Mich (16)

In this case yes - Minn can substitute in well for Mich in most scenarios.


For giggles - take 538's interactive model which starts at Biden with a 90% probability. Leave all other things equal and just give Trump Minnesota... Trumps odds go to 76%

Ag in Tiger Country said:

---

Wisconsin looks promising, as it has the lowest turnout among the "enrolled in Marxist training while at college"; however, Michigan looks dreadful!

---

Not when auto workers are telling Congresswoman Debbie Dingell to her face that they are voting for Trump. Blue collar rank and file union members are breaking for Trump. Throw in the lack of a meaningful ground game for Biden and Trump can repeat or better his 2016 performance.

Ag in Tiger Country said:

---

Wisconsin looks promising, as it has the lowest turnout among the "enrolled in Marxist training while at college"; however, Michigan looks dreadful!

---

Re: Michigan. Based on what?