Over/Under 210.5
-
wrote on 14 Nov 2020, 19:26 last edited by
Just checked out the details, votes can trickle in until the 17th as long as they're postmarked by Election Day.
-
The official canvas is Tuesday. On the off chance you wish to be consistent in your decision making process as to when to call elections.
wrote on 14 Nov 2020, 19:27 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Over/Under 210.5:
The official canvas is Tuesday. On the off chance you wish to be consistent in your decision making process as to when to call elections.
Sorry, must have been channeling a Democrat.
-
wrote on 14 Nov 2020, 23:52 last edited by
The Republicans will add CA-21, CA-39, LA-5, NY-2, NY-11, NY-22, and UT-4. That puts them up to 211 by my count, and they are 50-50 (with slight leads) in CA-25 and Iowa 2. There are several more still uncalled in NY that I think goes Dem. 213 is a real possibility, though 212 is more likely.
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 01:04 last edited by
So, predictions for Mid-terms?
-
wrote on 24 Nov 2020, 16:51 last edited by
Looks like it will be 213-214...
-
Looks like it will be 213-214...
wrote on 24 Nov 2020, 18:17 last edited by George K@LuFins-Dad said in Over/Under 210.5:
Looks like it will be 213-214...
Where are you getting those numbers, LF'sD?
You're saying the remains seats will all go GOP?
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Over/Under 210.5:
Looks like it will be 213-214...
Where are you getting those numbers, LF'sD?
You're saying the remains seats will all go GOP?
wrote on 24 Nov 2020, 18:58 last edited by@George-K I don’t know which seats Drcision Desk has called and which they haven’t, but CNN has it currently at 222-207, but the Republicans are ahead in CA-21, CA-25, LA-5 is a runoff between Republicans, NY-2, NY-11, and NY-22. Iowa is a dead heat...
-
wrote on 1 Dec 2020, 08:11 last edited by
213 and NY-22 is going through a Judicial Review after 2 lead changes in subsequent recounts. That would make 214.
-
213 and NY-22 is going through a Judicial Review after 2 lead changes in subsequent recounts. That would make 214.
wrote on 1 Dec 2020, 12:34 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Over/Under 210.5:
213 and NY-22 is going through a Judicial Review after 2 lead changes in subsequent recounts. That would make 214.
See @jolly sig line, LOL.
-
wrote on 16 Dec 2020, 02:03 last edited by
Officially 213 - 222 with NY22 still in recount (Republican up by 12) BUT even though Iowa 2 had been certified by the state (Republican won), the Democrat loser is contesting the results directly to the House and Nancy Pelosi.
The Brad
-
Officially 213 - 222 with NY22 still in recount (Republican up by 12) BUT even though Iowa 2 had been certified by the state (Republican won), the Democrat loser is contesting the results directly to the House and Nancy Pelosi.
wrote on 16 Dec 2020, 02:05 last edited by@lufins-dad said in Over/Under 210.5:
Officially 213 - 222 with NY22 still in recount (Republican up by 12) BUT even though Iowa 2 had been certified by the state (Republican won), the Democrat loser is contesting the results directly to the House and Nancy Pelosi.
So pathetic. I have no respect for anybody who holds with the side of any politician who contests election results. Democrats, you are LOSERS!
-
Officially 213 - 222 with NY22 still in recount (Republican up by 12) BUT even though Iowa 2 had been certified by the state (Republican won), the Democrat loser is contesting the results directly to the House and Nancy Pelosi.
wrote on 16 Dec 2020, 03:40 last edited by Loki@lufins-dad said in Over/Under 210.5:
Officially 213 - 222 with NY22 still in recount (Republican up by 12) BUT even though Iowa 2 had been certified by the state (Republican won), the Democrat loser is contesting the results directly to the House and Nancy Pelosi.
That’s still a shocking result. Four years of blitzkreig and look at what almost happened and they still drink their own bath water.
2022 has to be very very frightening.
-
@lufins-dad said in Over/Under 210.5:
Officially 213 - 222 with NY22 still in recount (Republican up by 12) BUT even though Iowa 2 had been certified by the state (Republican won), the Democrat loser is contesting the results directly to the House and Nancy Pelosi.
That’s still a shocking result. Four years of blitzkreig and look at what almost happened and they still drink their own bath water.
2022 has to be very very frightening.
wrote on 16 Dec 2020, 03:58 last edited by@loki said in Over/Under 210.5:
@lufins-dad said in Over/Under 210.5:
2022 has to be very very frightening.
Especially considering Republicans control the majority of redistricting...
-
@lufins-dad said in Over/Under 210.5:
Officially 213 - 222 with NY22 still in recount (Republican up by 12) BUT even though Iowa 2 had been certified by the state (Republican won), the Democrat loser is contesting the results directly to the House and Nancy Pelosi.
That’s still a shocking result. Four years of blitzkreig and look at what almost happened and they still drink their own bath water.
2022 has to be very very frightening.
wrote on 16 Dec 2020, 04:20 last edited by@loki said in Over/Under 210.5:
@lufins-dad said in Over/Under 210.5:
Officially 213 - 222 with NY22 still in recount (Republican up by 12) BUT even though Iowa 2 had been certified by the state (Republican won), the Democrat loser is contesting the results directly to the House and Nancy Pelosi.
That’s still a shocking result. Four years of blitzkreig and look at what almost happened and they still drink their own bath water.
2022 has to be very very frightening.
Not sure it is so shocking. I think that the election was President Trumps to lose. The election was not so much people voting against the Republic party, but people voting against President Trump.
He really has no one to blame but himself. If he was less acting like “Trump” and more “presidential”, I think he would have won.
-
@loki said in Over/Under 210.5:
@lufins-dad said in Over/Under 210.5:
Officially 213 - 222 with NY22 still in recount (Republican up by 12) BUT even though Iowa 2 had been certified by the state (Republican won), the Democrat loser is contesting the results directly to the House and Nancy Pelosi.
That’s still a shocking result. Four years of blitzkreig and look at what almost happened and they still drink their own bath water.
2022 has to be very very frightening.
Not sure it is so shocking. I think that the election was President Trumps to lose. The election was not so much people voting against the Republic party, but people voting against President Trump.
He really has no one to blame but himself. If he was less acting like “Trump” and more “presidential”, I think he would have won.
wrote on 16 Dec 2020, 04:28 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Over/Under 210.5:
@loki said in Over/Under 210.5:
@lufins-dad said in Over/Under 210.5:
Officially 213 - 222 with NY22 still in recount (Republican up by 12) BUT even though Iowa 2 had been certified by the state (Republican won), the Democrat loser is contesting the results directly to the House and Nancy Pelosi.
That’s still a shocking result. Four years of blitzkreig and look at what almost happened and they still drink their own bath water.
2022 has to be very very frightening.
Not sure it is so shocking. I think that the election was President Trumps to lose. The election was not so much people voting against the Republic party, but people voting against President Trump.
He really has no one to blame but himself. If he was less acting like “Trump” and more “presidential”, I think he would have won.
So the entire mainstream media for four years, the investigations and impeachment that the democrats ran, the threat to democracy, the implications of Russian agent, Kompromat and influence were all just Background noise and didn’t mean a thing?
-
@taiwan_girl said in Over/Under 210.5:
@loki said in Over/Under 210.5:
@lufins-dad said in Over/Under 210.5:
Officially 213 - 222 with NY22 still in recount (Republican up by 12) BUT even though Iowa 2 had been certified by the state (Republican won), the Democrat loser is contesting the results directly to the House and Nancy Pelosi.
That’s still a shocking result. Four years of blitzkreig and look at what almost happened and they still drink their own bath water.
2022 has to be very very frightening.
Not sure it is so shocking. I think that the election was President Trumps to lose. The election was not so much people voting against the Republic party, but people voting against President Trump.
He really has no one to blame but himself. If he was less acting like “Trump” and more “presidential”, I think he would have won.
So the entire mainstream media for four years, the investigations and impeachment that the democrats ran, the threat to democracy, the implications of Russian agent, Kompromat and influence were all just Background noise and didn’t mean a thing?
wrote on 16 Dec 2020, 04:41 last edited by@loki said in Over/Under 210.5:
@taiwan_girl said in Over/Under 210.5:
@loki said in Over/Under 210.5:
@lufins-dad said in Over/Under 210.5:
Officially 213 - 222 with NY22 still in recount (Republican up by 12) BUT even though Iowa 2 had been certified by the state (Republican won), the Democrat loser is contesting the results directly to the House and Nancy Pelosi.
That’s still a shocking result. Four years of blitzkreig and look at what almost happened and they still drink their own bath water.
2022 has to be very very frightening.
Not sure it is so shocking. I think that the election was President Trumps to lose. The election was not so much people voting against the Republic party, but people voting against President Trump.
He really has no one to blame but himself. If he was less acting like “Trump” and more “presidential”, I think he would have won.
So the entire mainstream media for four years, the investigations and impeachment that the democrats ran, the threat to democracy, the implications of Russian agent, Kompromat and influence were all just Background noise and didn’t mean a thing?
You forgot burying the Hunter Biden story (anybody still think Rudy was wrong on that one?) and totally ignoring Joe's cognitive decline or past voting record.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Over/Under 210.5:
@loki said in Over/Under 210.5:
@lufins-dad said in Over/Under 210.5:
Officially 213 - 222 with NY22 still in recount (Republican up by 12) BUT even though Iowa 2 had been certified by the state (Republican won), the Democrat loser is contesting the results directly to the House and Nancy Pelosi.
That’s still a shocking result. Four years of blitzkreig and look at what almost happened and they still drink their own bath water.
2022 has to be very very frightening.
Not sure it is so shocking. I think that the election was President Trumps to lose. The election was not so much people voting against the Republic party, but people voting against President Trump.
He really has no one to blame but himself. If he was less acting like “Trump” and more “presidential”, I think he would have won.
So the entire mainstream media for four years, the investigations and impeachment that the democrats ran, the threat to democracy, the implications of Russian agent, Kompromat and influence were all just Background noise and didn’t mean a thing?
wrote on 16 Dec 2020, 04:43 last edited by@loki oh they did have some effect, but don’t you think that president Trump made enough mistakes that even with all that, he could have won?
In my mind, very few people based their vote (for example) on the impeachment hearing. I don’t think that had much of an effect on the “middle voters”.
For those on the far sides of each party, that just made them stronger to vote either for/against President Trump. Those in the middle, not too much effect.
For example, me. I am probably a little bit on the left side of center, but not too far. For the impeachment thing, I stated that President Trump probably offered something in return for something, but that is always done. I certainly didn’t think it was an impeachment. I’m guessing that a lot of people in the middle thought the same way.
-
@loki oh they did have some effect, but don’t you think that president Trump made enough mistakes that even with all that, he could have won?
In my mind, very few people based their vote (for example) on the impeachment hearing. I don’t think that had much of an effect on the “middle voters”.
For those on the far sides of each party, that just made them stronger to vote either for/against President Trump. Those in the middle, not too much effect.
For example, me. I am probably a little bit on the left side of center, but not too far. For the impeachment thing, I stated that President Trump probably offered something in return for something, but that is always done. I certainly didn’t think it was an impeachment. I’m guessing that a lot of people in the middle thought the same way.
wrote on 16 Dec 2020, 04:44 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Over/Under 210.5:
@loki oh they did have some effect, but don’t you think that president Trump made enough mistakes that even with all that, he could have won?
In my mind, very few people based their vote (for example) on the impeachment hearing. I don’t think that had much of an effect on the “middle voters”.
For those on the far sides of each party, that just made them stronger to vote either for/against President Trump. Those in the middle, not too much effect.
For example, me. I am probably a little bit on the left side of center, but not too far. For the impeachment thing, I stated that President Trump probably offered something in return for something, but that is always done. I certainly didn’t think it was an impeachment. I’m guessing that a lot of people in the middle thought the same way.
Some effect?
Massive understatement, don't you think?
-
@taiwan_girl said in Over/Under 210.5:
@loki oh they did have some effect, but don’t you think that president Trump made enough mistakes that even with all that, he could have won?
In my mind, very few people based their vote (for example) on the impeachment hearing. I don’t think that had much of an effect on the “middle voters”.
For those on the far sides of each party, that just made them stronger to vote either for/against President Trump. Those in the middle, not too much effect.
For example, me. I am probably a little bit on the left side of center, but not too far. For the impeachment thing, I stated that President Trump probably offered something in return for something, but that is always done. I certainly didn’t think it was an impeachment. I’m guessing that a lot of people in the middle thought the same way.
Some effect?
Massive understatement, don't you think?
wrote on 16 Dec 2020, 04:51 last edited by@jolly I don’t think so.
I don’t believe that your giving that middle 20 or 30 or 40% of the voters enough credit.
-
@jolly I don’t think so.
I don’t believe that your giving that middle 20 or 30 or 40% of the voters enough credit.
wrote on 16 Dec 2020, 04:56 last edited by Jolly@taiwan_girl said in Over/Under 210.5:
@jolly I don’t think so.
I don’t believe that your giving that middle 20 or 30 or 40% of the voters enough credit.
Ever talk to everyday people? Not the political junkies that hang around here, or the fringe 20% of either side, but average Americans that pay minimal attention to politics, except until within a month of the election?
Those guys get their info from the MSM and they don't generally fact check anything. A constant barrage of negative, biased reporting has a huge effect.
