- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,907
- Reaction score
- 60,364
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
LOL! Yeah, and you are aware that people cast these things called "votes" for candidates, right? If maps decided the elections why would there even be a day to vote? And when the people (part of those demographic maps), especially independent voters 'break' one way or the other, that changes the model. Or when a third party candidate comes along, that too skews that map as well. And then of course there is always a margin of people who just may not vote for the candidate from the party they are registered with. Many, many variables that occur state by state and district by district that may keep a candidate in play. Like in 2004 when George W. Bush took a higher percentage of Hispanic votes than the model showed.
I don't have crystal ball and neither do you. But when it comes to Hispanic voters they are more interested in jobs and education than they are in immigration issues--- they are here for opportunity. So with that being said, and as I alluded to in my earlier post, the economy in 2016 may have more to do with the outcome than any red and blue map you are looking at in 2014. That is how it may work. To quote Clinton's adviser James Carvill, "it's the economy stupid!"
People do not directly vote for candidates. People vote for electors. WHen a candidate gets enough electors, they win. It is for example possible to win the election and not have the most popular votes, and this has in fact happened. You are welcome for the history lesson.
I was not aware that the results of the 2016 election are already a "founded claim".
You made guesses based on no evidence. I supplies guesses based on the best evidence available. There is a large, unsubtle difference between the two.