Posted on Oct 22, 2024
2024 RCP Electoral College Map | RealClearPolling
306
18
27
1
1
0
Just for fun and bragging rights. What are your picks for the Electoral College come 6 Nov? I have posted a link to RPC's "pick your own map" if you need help adding up your numbers. I'm going to be bold enough to say 302 to Trump, but won't be surprised if it's more.
2024 RCP Electoral College Map | RealClearPolling
Posted from realclearpolling.comPosted in these groups: 
Political Opinions
Political Opinions
Posted 1 mo ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
I am calling 276-262 In favor of Harris. She takes MN (which no idea why this is even considered a toss-up, with Walz on the ticket), WI, NV. Those seem pretty clear at this point, even though polling is within margins. Trump takes AZ, GA, and NC. Pretty sure those will go to him. That leaves PA, which has been leaning Harris, and MI. Trump has recently gotten a few favorable polls there, but I suspect Whitmer, Duggan, and Tlaib will whip up some last minute support.
Not my preferred outcome, but my preferred outcome is not even a remote possibility.
Not my preferred outcome, but my preferred outcome is not even a remote possibility.
(1)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
I believe MN will likely go to Harris but the polling trends suggest she and Walz are not resonating well in that state, which does not serve well for them from a national perspective. Especially since this is Walz's home state. PA is NOT leaning Harris and it is in fact quite the opposite according to the average polls. More notably, Biden was up at this time in 2020 by 5.1%, with a resulting 50% to Trump's 48.8% in the end. Trump is currently at .8% above Harris now. WI also has Trump by .4% where in 2020 Biden was up at this time by 5.4%. NV has Trump at .9% up to Biden's 5.2% at this time in 2020. I am counting those as Trump wins.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Mine is something like this.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/my-map/4n4
Georgia is based on the early turnout. A high turn out usually favors Democrats and GA has surprised us and gone blue the last several elections.
PA? No idea.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/my-map/4n4
Georgia is based on the early turnout. A high turn out usually favors Democrats and GA has surprised us and gone blue the last several elections.
PA? No idea.
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin - Trump has a history of surviving when he was counted out. I for one will never underestimate him again. If he won, it wouldn't surprise me. I think there are things running against him, but it also wouldn't surprise me.
As for GA, the court blocked their changes from going into effect. So an argument on what is happening doesn't really change what they tried to do.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/georgias-top-court-wont-fast-track-appeal-blocked-election-rules-case-2024-10-22/
As for GA, the court blocked their changes from going into effect. So an argument on what is happening doesn't really change what they tried to do.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/georgias-top-court-wont-fast-track-appeal-blocked-election-rules-case-2024-10-22/
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
SPC Kevin Ford isn’t referring to that issue, but rather the so called “Jim Crow 2.0” laws. They were BS, and several elections have already proven this.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin - We have no way of knowing that. A motivated voting block is going to try hard to vote. Suppression laws make it a bit harder to vote. They are looking to make it so a couple thousand less people vote, in a close state that's all it takes. They can't be too obvious about it or the judiciary will call foul. It's the same way refs can make a few calls that favor one side over another. It likely won't help in a blow out, but in a close game?
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
There are no suppression laws and it has been proven that record level of voters have successfully voted since the new GA laws (all of which other blue states have in some part or another).
But I find it interesting you point to the close game factor when time and time again, GOP members are challenging voting rules, laws, and/or practices. Things like removing non-US citizens from voting rolls, which falls in the 1000s in some states, and can certainly turn an election result. But no, this is challenged in the name of removing a US citizen "by accident."
Vote by mail and drop off ballots are also great examples of something that can actually be abused in both ways with very little means to identify or control. For vote by mail you could have an activist postman who simply "loses" all ballot envelopes simply assuming they work in an area which likely favors one candidate over another. Drop off ballot stations already have reports of their destruction, which compromises those votes (which a good number of those voters would never know). Vote by mail could be abused by a spouse who has a spouse that doesn't vote, but is able to get them a ballot, fill it out for them, and never tell them it happened.
So for all the talk about suppression, the many "progressive" means to cast votes are making thing harder to control, verify, and manage the process. All because of anecdotes where someone was unable to vote, usually due to their own actions/inactions, and which invite more abuse than corrective actions for that individual.
The bottom line question should be, can we make voting as easy as possible without enabling those who cannot vote from doing so? Next, are those procedures causing more harm than corrective actions? We've had a presidential election decided by as little as 537 votes in the past. So believe me I am very concerned about any "accommodating" procedure implemented in any state (more so with the close ones) which have the potential to enable more abuse than they can potentially resolve. Especially when those anecdote we are trying to resolve can still use the system in place with minor difficulty or inconvenience. Inconvenience is a subjective thing. I recently voted in Texas (early voting, which is a convenience to be able to pick a day), but I had to wait an hour and a half in line. I have a job and while I am able to absorb this, others can't as easily. So should we stop doing ID verifications to speed up the lines? Just hand me a ballot, let me pick my candidates and hit enter? Of course not! Implementing new ideas to make thing easier must not introduce more ways to abuse the system.
But I find it interesting you point to the close game factor when time and time again, GOP members are challenging voting rules, laws, and/or practices. Things like removing non-US citizens from voting rolls, which falls in the 1000s in some states, and can certainly turn an election result. But no, this is challenged in the name of removing a US citizen "by accident."
Vote by mail and drop off ballots are also great examples of something that can actually be abused in both ways with very little means to identify or control. For vote by mail you could have an activist postman who simply "loses" all ballot envelopes simply assuming they work in an area which likely favors one candidate over another. Drop off ballot stations already have reports of their destruction, which compromises those votes (which a good number of those voters would never know). Vote by mail could be abused by a spouse who has a spouse that doesn't vote, but is able to get them a ballot, fill it out for them, and never tell them it happened.
So for all the talk about suppression, the many "progressive" means to cast votes are making thing harder to control, verify, and manage the process. All because of anecdotes where someone was unable to vote, usually due to their own actions/inactions, and which invite more abuse than corrective actions for that individual.
The bottom line question should be, can we make voting as easy as possible without enabling those who cannot vote from doing so? Next, are those procedures causing more harm than corrective actions? We've had a presidential election decided by as little as 537 votes in the past. So believe me I am very concerned about any "accommodating" procedure implemented in any state (more so with the close ones) which have the potential to enable more abuse than they can potentially resolve. Especially when those anecdote we are trying to resolve can still use the system in place with minor difficulty or inconvenience. Inconvenience is a subjective thing. I recently voted in Texas (early voting, which is a convenience to be able to pick a day), but I had to wait an hour and a half in line. I have a job and while I am able to absorb this, others can't as easily. So should we stop doing ID verifications to speed up the lines? Just hand me a ballot, let me pick my candidates and hit enter? Of course not! Implementing new ideas to make thing easier must not introduce more ways to abuse the system.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
SFC Casey O'Mally - That makes ZERO sense and I think you know this. I guess you need a little help...
In every single example I pointed out, Trump reduced each of the average leads of his opponents by significant amounts, which demonstrates that polls over the last two election cycles for battleground states has significantly favored the Democrat and underestimated Trump's numbers. Assuming this trend will continue even slightly, or the poll averages become more accurate, Trump wins all 7 of the battleground states below.
GA
2016 - Trump underestimated by 1.1% and won by 5.1%
2020 - Trump underestimated by .5% and lost by .3%
23 Oct 2024 - Trump was up 2.2% and is maintaining this or better today
NC
2016 - Trump underestimated by 5.1% and won by 3.5%
2020 - Trump underestimated by 2.8% and won by 1.3%
23 Oct 2024 - Trump was up .8% and is maintaining this or better today
AZ
2016 - Trump underestimated by 5% and won by 3.5%
2020 - Trump underestimated by 2.1% and lost by .3%
23 Oct 2024 - Trump was up 1.5% and is maintaining this or better today
NV
2016 - Trump underestimated by 2.6% and lost by 2.4%
2020 - Trump underestimated by 2.8% and lost by 2.4%
23 Oct 2024 - Trump was up .7% and is maintaining this or better today
WI
2016 - Trump underestimated by 5.5% and won by .7%
2020 - Trump underestimated by 4.7% and lost by .7%
23 Oct 2024 - Trump was up .2% and is maintaining this or better today
MI
2016 - Trump underestimated by 9.7% and won by .3%
2020 - Trump underestimated by 6.2% and lost by 2.8
23 Oct 2024 - Trump was up .2% and is maintaining this or better today
PA
2016 - Trump underestimated by 4.9% and won by .7%
2020 - Trump underestimated by 4.1% and lost by 1.2%
23 Oct 2024 - Trump was up .6% and is maintaining this or better today
Yeah, Jeff's prediction is likely not far from the mark. But I guess we will find out in a week and a half won't we?
In every single example I pointed out, Trump reduced each of the average leads of his opponents by significant amounts, which demonstrates that polls over the last two election cycles for battleground states has significantly favored the Democrat and underestimated Trump's numbers. Assuming this trend will continue even slightly, or the poll averages become more accurate, Trump wins all 7 of the battleground states below.
GA
2016 - Trump underestimated by 1.1% and won by 5.1%
2020 - Trump underestimated by .5% and lost by .3%
23 Oct 2024 - Trump was up 2.2% and is maintaining this or better today
NC
2016 - Trump underestimated by 5.1% and won by 3.5%
2020 - Trump underestimated by 2.8% and won by 1.3%
23 Oct 2024 - Trump was up .8% and is maintaining this or better today
AZ
2016 - Trump underestimated by 5% and won by 3.5%
2020 - Trump underestimated by 2.1% and lost by .3%
23 Oct 2024 - Trump was up 1.5% and is maintaining this or better today
NV
2016 - Trump underestimated by 2.6% and lost by 2.4%
2020 - Trump underestimated by 2.8% and lost by 2.4%
23 Oct 2024 - Trump was up .7% and is maintaining this or better today
WI
2016 - Trump underestimated by 5.5% and won by .7%
2020 - Trump underestimated by 4.7% and lost by .7%
23 Oct 2024 - Trump was up .2% and is maintaining this or better today
MI
2016 - Trump underestimated by 9.7% and won by .3%
2020 - Trump underestimated by 6.2% and lost by 2.8
23 Oct 2024 - Trump was up .2% and is maintaining this or better today
PA
2016 - Trump underestimated by 4.9% and won by .7%
2020 - Trump underestimated by 4.1% and lost by 1.2%
23 Oct 2024 - Trump was up .6% and is maintaining this or better today
Yeah, Jeff's prediction is likely not far from the mark. But I guess we will find out in a week and a half won't we?
(1)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
SPC Jeff Daley, PhD - Looks like you nailed it, assuming Trump takes NV and AZ.
(1)
(0)
SPC Jeff Daley, PhD
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin - Arizona and Nevada are razor thin with Trump in the lead by a whisker. I didn't believe it would be that narrow. I do not know the decision-making process for the people voting for Kamala. Everything I see, and with conversations with successful intelligent people who are adamant about their Kamala vote points to decision-making by way of emotion only. Sad!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google