I was right: President Elect Trump

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I find it fascinating that we are getting down to the short strokes- they've fired everything they've got at Trump, and the race is, according to credible polling, a dead heat. Dead heats come down to turnout. And turnout comes down to momentum, enthusiasm, energy, determination, etc.  I think it's going to be much more than just GOP turnout, though. I still subscribe to the monster vote theory. Even if I did not, however, this race is going to Trump- and not in a small way.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The conventional wisdom that crowd size does not matter is absurd. I went to the Trump rally in Melbourne with my son. We left after school around 3 pm, grabbed sandwiches, and waited in line for close to four hours. Sure, my son won't vote- because he's not old enough. But people that think that individuals are subjecting themselves to day-long events, many of whom have traveled 100 miles or more to be there, and then not going to vote are kidding themselves. 

It's foolish on its face to say that it does not matter that Trump held something like four rallies in Florida in two days and the minimum attendance is 5,000 to 7,000 with many more outside-- and some have had upwards of 27,000-- and Tim Kaine can hold a rally in West Palm where 30 people show up, and Hillary can speak to "hundreds" in Tampa and that's no indicative of what's happening.

We'll find out in a few weeks, but my strong suspicion is: rally size matters.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 27, 2016 2:35:16 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The conventional wisdom that crowd size does not matter is absurd. .

the conventional wisdom is that it matters.  most people assume that it does.  that's natural.

it doesn't.

[Opti]

Oct 27, 2016 10:23:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 27, 2016 2:35:16 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The conventional wisdom that crowd size does not matter is absurd. .

the conventional wisdom is that it matters.  most people assume that it does.  that's natural.

it doesn't.

Trump and Paul are going on and on about rally size because its big. Not because Trump knows it matters, but because he hopes it does. I think Trump rallies have become somewhat like Springsteen concerts. Attendees often go to multiple ones. Paul, you've been to at least now, correct?

Trump holds his rallies in major metropolitan areas. He does that IMO for attendance not for strategic vote reasons. He didn't fare as well attendance wise in a less populated area.

www.salon.com/2016/10/23/fear-and-desperation-at-a-donald-trump-rally_partner/

[Opti]

“[R]allies couldn’t possibly be more indicative of vote preference than polls. In a 2012 survey from Pew Research, 10 percent of Americans reported having attended a political rally or speech. Compare that to 58.6 percent of eligible Americans who voted in that year’s presidential election.

Attending a rally is very different from voting - John Sides: “The benefits you might get from a rally — a chance to express your passion for a candidate, be inspired or entertained by their speech, enjoy the company of other supporters — depend on going to the rally. If you don’t go, at best you’ll hear a few soundbites from the speech on the news. You won’t feel the excitement. You won’t get to see the show, as it were. You’ll lose out. But voting is entirely different. Perhaps the key benefit you’ll get from an election — seeing your preferred candidate win — doesn’t really depend on whether you vote. Obviously your one vote is very unlikely to determine the outcome of the election. You won’t necessarily lose anything if you stay home on Election Day. You could stay at home and still be cheering after the returns come in. In other words, the free rider problem looms large when it comes to voting, but much less so when it comes to attending a rally.” [WashPost]

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/big-rallies-dont-mean-voter-turnout_us_57b6f12ee4b00d9c3a16e93b

[djAdvocate]

Oct 27, 2016 10:49:04 GMT -5 Opti said:

“[R]allies couldn’t possibly be more indicative of vote preference than polls. In a 2012 survey from Pew Research, 10 percent of Americans reported having attended a political rally or speech. Compare that to 58.6 percent of eligible Americans who voted in that year’s presidential election.

Attending a rally is very different from voting - John Sides: “The benefits you might get from a rally — a chance to express your passion for a candidate, be inspired or entertained by their speech, enjoy the company of other supporters — depend on going to the rally. If you don’t go, at best you’ll hear a few soundbites from the speech on the news. You won’t feel the excitement. You won’t get to see the show, as it were. You’ll lose out. But voting is entirely different. Perhaps the key benefit you’ll get from an election — seeing your preferred candidate win — doesn’t really depend on whether you vote. Obviously your one vote is very unlikely to determine the outcome of the election. You won’t necessarily lose anything if you stay home on Election Day. You could stay at home and still be cheering after the returns come in. In other words, the free rider problem looms large when it comes to voting, but much less so when it comes to attending a rally.” [WashPost]

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/big-rallies-dont-mean-voter-turnout_us_57b6f12ee4b00d9c3a16e93b

this is just it.  if you are a deplorable, the opportunity to hang out with other deplorables is irresistible.  i mean- how often can you run around yelling "fuck welfare queens" without risking getting the tar beaten out of you, or it ended up on a twitter feed, or it getting you fired?  so, yeah, these rallies have the same appeal that a Unification Church gathering has. 

[Opti]

Another article, also from HuffPo.

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-rally-poll_us_57bde06de4b085c1ff26ee5f

A June 2012 Gallup survey found that just 12 percent of Americans had volunteered for a political campaign, donated to a campaign or attended a political rally. The venerable General Social Survey reported in 2014 that just 28 percent of Americans said they’d ever gone to a political meeting or rally. In contrast, nearly 60 percent of all Americans eligible to vote turned out in 2012.

To put this year’s crowd photos into perspective, we asked Americans in a recent HuffPost/YouGov poll whether they’d been to any rallies in 2016. We found out two things: Only a small percentage had, and even by that metric, Trump wasn’t clearly ahead.

Just 8 percent said they’d been to an event for Clinton, only 6 percent said they’d been to an event for Trump, and 3 percent said they’d attended an event in support of another presidential candidate.

Its possible the above might be weighted towards Clinton because its HuffPo, but in any event, it shows the predictive power only cuts across a small swath of voters.

[happyhoix]

I'd have to say, if HRC and Trump both came to town and had rallies, that I would probably prefer to attend the Trump rally, just because it's such a circus act. Between the possibility that the candidate might say something really outrageous or one of his admirers getting into a shoving match, it's almost guaranteed to be interesting.

A HRC rally, though - pretty much the standard political stem winder speech. She's not that inspiring as a speaker, and she'll carefully stick to scripted comments, so not much chance of an accidental bombshell.

I have to think more than a few Trump rally attendees are probably like I would be - curious to see the show, but not intending to vote for the guy.

 

[Iggy aka IG]

Choosing to ignore the 169 pages of stereotyping, misinformation, and ignorance, I'm chiming in to say:

I attended a Trump rally two weeks ago.  The only circus was the paltry attempt of the very few protestors present.

Fellow deplorable folks in line near me weren't saying "fuck anything".  They were hard working or retired folks, and we discussed family, economy and other grown up topics.

However, a protestor inside the hanger seemed to like the f word, screaming, "Hey, Trump, fuck you!"  Before being taken out in handcuffs.

Among the 7,000+ attendees were Veterans, children, folks in wheelchairs, and proud, fellow Americans.  I held an American flag and waved at Trump's pilot as they passed us on the tarmac.




PS:  Waiving hi at the Trump supporters who read this forum, and are afraid to post.    Oh, and don't expect to engage me in arguments.  I'm very good at not responding to the incorrect rhetoric so prevalent on this board.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 27, 2016 15:31:57 GMT -5 Iggy aka IG said:

Choosing to ignore the 169 pages of stereotyping, misinformation, and ignorance, I'm chiming in to say:

I attended a Trump rally two weeks ago.  The only circus was the paltry attempt of the very few protestors present.

Fellow deplorable folks in line near me weren't saying "fuck anything".  They were hard working or retired folks, and we discussed family, economy and other grown up topics.

However, a protestor inside the hanger seemed to like the f word, screaming, "Hey, Trump, fuck you!"  Before being taken out in handcuffs.

Among the 7,000+ attendees were Veterans, children, folks in wheelchairs, and proud, fellow Americans.  I held an American flag and waved at Trump's pilot as they passed us on the tarmac.




PS:  Waiving hi at the Trump supporters who read this forum, and are afraid to post.    Oh, and don't expect to engage me in arguments.  I'm very good at not responding to the incorrect rhetoric so prevalent on this board.

glad you had such a nice time.

thanks for setting me straight.  this election has me very angry and frustrated.  if Trump gives you hope, then i am happy for you.  neither Clinton NOR Trump give me much hope at all, so i won't be voting for either.  but that is not at all unusual for me.  the last time i voted D or R in a presidential contest was 1996.

if you took offense to my posts, i accept that.  if i overgeneralized, i will accept that, too.  but just to let you know, i wasn't speaking for every Trump supporter when i said "deplorables".  i was speaking for the 1/3 or so that are there for the hate.

sorry i gave in to that.

[Icelandic Woman]

Oct 27, 2016 14:14:11 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I'd have to say, if HRC and Trump both came to town and had rallies, that I would probably prefer to attend the Trump rally, just because it's such a circus act. Between the possibility that the candidate might say something really outrageous or one of his admirers getting into a shoving match, it's almost guaranteed to be interesting.

A HRC rally, though - pretty much the standard political stem winder speech. She's not that inspiring as a speaker, and she'll carefully stick to scripted comments, so not much chance of an accidental bombshell.

I have to think more than a few Trump rally attendees are probably like I would be - curious to see the show, but not intending to vote for the guy.

 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

OK, my liberal Democrat friends, it's time for truth. Are you ready? We're going to exit the land of theory and predictions based on polls of likely voters- because at this point I have been proven correct. Polls of LV's defined as people who voted in the last election are useless. C'mon. Let is dive deep into the numbers...

Here is a comparison of the Early In-Person votes (absentee not included) cast in FLA thru November 2 compiled by Poly Sci Professor Dan Smith of the University of Florida.

It compares votes by ethnicity (the three major groups) for the years 2012 and 2016.

The solid line is 2016; the dotted line is 2012.

Purple = White

Yellow = Hispanic

Green = AA

All voting blocs have increased.

What's significant is the increase as a share of the total vote.

Draw your own conclusions

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The "Monster Vote" is VERY REAL. Basically, if Hillary got a sudden election day surge of Obama 2008 proportions, she'd still lose Florida by a point and a half. The election is over.

5 MILLION FLORIDIANS HAVE NOW VOTED in FLORIDA:

THIS IS THE F*** YOU! VOTE: ****** Of this, 1.1 MILLION either sat out the 2012 Election or are newly registered ******

Gee, I wonder if they've been aroused by Hillary Clinton's visionary leadership, energetic personality, and riveting campaign talking points?   (Democrats are so f***ed right now) 

1.1 million (so far) is a stunning number. And you might think that perhaps they'll break down like the rest of the electorate, and the race will still be close. Nope. Sorry:

Among these early voters, 26% are UNAs (UnAffiliated voters) -- where Trump is looking strong.

Among these early voters who did not vote in 2012, 63% are White, 9% are African-American, 19% are Hispanic.


As of now, 12,000 more registered GOP votes have been cast than registered Dem votes -- statistically insignificant at this stage, but it's worth noting that 6 days out in 2012, registered Democrats led early voting by 59,000 votes.

The big story is the 1.1 million brand new voters, 26% of whom are UNAs.


Among the 1.1 million new votes now in, a stunning 412,000 were registered to vote in Florida in 2012, but could not be bothered to vote for Obama or Mittens -- but for some reason are energized now.


And forget the guessing-- let me just be blunt and help you out: they're not voting for Hillary. Period. My guess is that the breakdown is such that Hillary is getting essentially NONE of these voters.

It's a pure math calculation now.


The Monster Vote is now 100% FDA Approved for use in every other state. So, for example-- if it's a dead heat like in New Hampshire and Maine's 2nd Congressional district- it's safe to say all close races are Trumpland. Exactly as I have foreseen. However, some races are impossible for the "Likely Voter" model pollsters to fudge anymore- Trump has surged to a massive 7% lead in North Carolina, he's opened up a lead in Virginia, and he's tied in Colorado, and Pennsylvania is in play as Clinton's lead there has collapsed to 4 points. I am working to get confirmation, but I have information that Clinton has collapsed (in the polls- you know, with Hillary you have to clarify this stuff) in Ohio- she's basically pulling out, but the thinking on Team Clinton right now is that she needs to shore up so-called "firewall" states-- so cute. Remember when Ted Cruz did that? 

The problem for Hillary now, other than the fact her health is failing and she's likely to be indicted by a Grand Jury for influence peddling and public corruption- to name a few of the roughly 16 federal crimes she is being investigated for by the FBI- is Trump is picking up steam-- independents are breaking Trump, Republicans are coming home, and Hillary, whose support has been documented to be quite soft, is losing what support she has in an election year where she needs Obama 2012 levels of support to be competitive. 

I really wanted this to happen in 2012, but we just had a lousy RomneyCare, amnesty for illegals, bumbling choke artist as a candidate. Donald Trump's carpet bombing of the Clinton camp day in and day out, the entire DC cesspool, and the media is working.

I could go on- but at this stage, polls are irrelevant. What matters now is who is voting-- and if Florida is a bell weather, it's not looking good for Hillary.

[Opti]

Nov 3, 2016 21:49:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

OK, my liberal Democrat friends, it's time for truth. Are you ready? We're going to exit the land of theory and predictions based on polls of likely voters- because at this point I have been proven correct. Polls of LV's defined as people who voted in the last election are useless. C'mon. Let is dive deep into the numbers...

Here is a comparison of the Early In-Person votes (absentee not included) cast in FLA thru November 2 compiled by Poly Sci Professor Dan Smith of the University of Florida.

It compares votes by ethnicity (the three major groups) for the years 2012 and 2016.

The solid line is 2016; the dotted line is 2012.

Purple = White

Yellow = Hispanic

Green = AA

All voting blocs have increased.

What's significant is the increase as a share of the total vote.

Draw your own conclusions

I'm confused. Is the early voting period in 2016 much longer than it was in 2012? Looking at the graphs only the black16 or white16 is greater than where its 2012 equivalent ended up. If the early voting period is longer, perhaps more people will vote early this election in Florida?

[dezailoooooo]

Nov 3, 2016 22:42:17 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The "Monster Vote" is VERY REAL. Basically, if Hillary got a sudden election day surge of Obama 2008 proportions, she'd still lose Florida by a point and a half. The election is over.

5 MILLION FLORIDIANS HAVE NOW VOTED in FLORIDA:

THIS IS THE F*** YOU! VOTE: ****** Of this, 1.1 MILLION either sat out the 2012 Election or are newly registered ******

Gee, I wonder if they've been aroused by Hillary Clinton's visionary leadership, energetic personality, and riveting campaign talking points?   (Democrats are so f***ed right now) 

1.1 million (so far) is a stunning number. And you might think that perhaps they'll break down like the rest of the electorate, and the race will still be close. Nope. Sorry:

Among these early voters, 26% are UNAs (UnAffiliated voters) -- where Trump is looking strong.

Among these early voters who did not vote in 2012, 63% are White, 9% are African-American, 19% are Hispanic.


As of now, 12,000 more registered GOP votes have been cast than registered Dem votes -- statistically insignificant at this stage, but it's worth noting that 6 days out in 2012, registered Democrats led early voting by 59,000 votes.

The big story is the 1.1 million brand new voters, 26% of whom are UNAs.


Among the 1.1 million new votes now in, a stunning 412,000 were registered to vote in Florida in 2012, but could not be bothered to vote for Obama or Mittens -- but for some reason are energized now.


And forget the guessing-- let me just be blunt and help you out: they're not voting for Hillary. Period. My guess is that the breakdown is such that Hillary is getting essentially NONE of these voters.

It's a pure math calculation now.


The Monster Vote is now 100% FDA Approved for use in every other state. So, for example-- if it's a dead heat like in New Hampshire and Maine's 2nd Congressional district- it's safe to say all close races are Trumpland. Exactly as I have foreseen. However, some races are impossible for the "Likely Voter" model pollsters to fudge anymore- Trump has surged to a massive 7% lead in North Carolina, he's opened up a lead in Virginia, and he's tied in Colorado, and Pennsylvania is in play as Clinton's lead there has collapsed to 4 points. I am working to get confirmation, but I have information that Clinton has collapsed (in the polls- you know, with Hillary you have to clarify this stuff) in Ohio- she's basically pulling out, but the thinking on Team Clinton right now is that she needs to shore up so-called "firewall" states-- so cute. Remember when Ted Cruz did that? 

The problem for Hillary now, other than the fact her health is failing and she's likely to be indicted by a Grand Jury for influence peddling and public corruption- to name a few of the roughly 16 federal crimes she is being investigated for by the FBI- is Trump is picking up steam-- independents are breaking Trump, Republicans are coming home, and Hillary, whose support has been documented to be quite soft, is losing what support she has in an election year where she needs Obama 2012 levels of support to be competitive. 

I really wanted this to happen in 2012, but we just had a lousy RomneyCare, amnesty for illegals, bumbling choke artist as a candidate. Donald Trump's carpet bombing of the Clinton camp day in and day out, the entire DC cesspool, and the media is working.

I could go on- but at this stage, polls are irrelevant. What matters now is who is voting-- and if Florida is a bell weather, it's not looking good for Hillary.

sounds interesting...lordy please make what u suggest not happen for the sake of the country...believe fervently , and not going to try and use or interpet your graphs..you will be wrong and electorial Hillery is the winner by more then 170 to and for the countries sake hopefully the populer vote too...but if I have to..will take electorial win...

[Deleted]

Nov 3, 2016 23:19:23 GMT -5 Opti said:

Nov 3, 2016 21:49:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

OK, my liberal Democrat friends, it's time for truth. Are you ready? We're going to exit the land of theory and predictions based on polls of likely voters- because at this point I have been proven correct. Polls of LV's defined as people who voted in the last election are useless. C'mon. Let is dive deep into the numbers...

Here is a comparison of the Early In-Person votes (absentee not included) cast in FLA thru November 2 compiled by Poly Sci Professor Dan Smith of the University of Florida.

It compares votes by ethnicity (the three major groups) for the years 2012 and 2016.

The solid line is 2016; the dotted line is 2012.

Purple = White

Yellow = Hispanic

Green = AA

All voting blocs have increased.

What's significant is the increase as a share of the total vote.

Draw your own conclusions

I'm confused. Is the early voting period in 2016 much longer than it was in 2012? Looking at the graphs only the black16 or white16 is greater than where its 2012 equivalent ended up. If the early voting period is longer, perhaps more people will vote early this election in Florida?

At least in Broward County it didn't start until 8 days before the election in 2012. Can't find links to other counties. Florida Law says "at least 10 days before" is the requirement so... not sure how Broward managed 8.

They must have started earlier this year (which statute would seem to allow, due to the "at least" inclusion)

[dondub]

I won't be doubting Paul...EVER!

[djAdvocate]

Nov 3, 2016 22:42:17 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The "Monster Vote" is VERY REAL. Basically, if Hillary got a sudden election day surge of Obama 2008 proportions, she'd still lose Florida by a point and a half. The election is over.

5 MILLION FLORIDIANS HAVE NOW VOTED in FLORIDA:

THIS IS THE F*** YOU! VOTE: ****** Of this, 1.1 MILLION either sat out the 2012 Election or are newly registered ******

Gee, I wonder if they've been aroused by Hillary Clinton's visionary leadership, energetic personality, and riveting campaign talking points?   (Democrats are so f***ed right now) 

1.1 million (so far) is a stunning number. And you might think that perhaps they'll break down like the rest of the electorate, and the race will still be close. Nope. Sorry:

Among these early voters, 26% are UNAs (UnAffiliated voters) -- where Trump is looking strong.

Among these early voters who did not vote in 2012, 63% are White, 9% are African-American, 19% are Hispanic.


As of now, 12,000 more registered GOP votes have been cast than registered Dem votes -- statistically insignificant at this stage, but it's worth noting that 6 days out in 2012, registered Democrats led early voting by 59,000 votes.

The big story is the 1.1 million brand new voters, 26% of whom are UNAs.


Among the 1.1 million new votes now in, a stunning 412,000 were registered to vote in Florida in 2012, but could not be bothered to vote for Obama or Mittens -- but for some reason are energized now.


And forget the guessing-- let me just be blunt and help you out: they're not voting for Hillary. Period. My guess is that the breakdown is such that Hillary is getting essentially NONE of these voters.

It's a pure math calculation now.


The Monster Vote is now 100% FDA Approved for use in every other state. So, for example-- if it's a dead heat like in New Hampshire and Maine's 2nd Congressional district- it's safe to say all close races are Trumpland. Exactly as I have foreseen. However, some races are impossible for the "Likely Voter" model pollsters to fudge anymore- Trump has surged to a massive 7% lead in North Carolina, he's opened up a lead in Virginia, and he's tied in Colorado, and Pennsylvania is in play as Clinton's lead there has collapsed to 4 points. I am working to get confirmation, but I have information that Clinton has collapsed (in the polls- you know, with Hillary you have to clarify this stuff) in Ohio- she's basically pulling out, but the thinking on Team Clinton right now is that she needs to shore up so-called "firewall" states-- so cute. Remember when Ted Cruz did that? 

The problem for Hillary now, other than the fact her health is failing and she's likely to be indicted by a Grand Jury for influence peddling and public corruption- to name a few of the roughly 16 federal crimes she is being investigated for by the FBI- is Trump is picking up steam-- independents are breaking Trump, Republicans are coming home, and Hillary, whose support has been documented to be quite soft, is losing what support she has in an election year where she needs Obama 2012 levels of support to be competitive. 

I really wanted this to happen in 2012, but we just had a lousy RomneyCare, amnesty for illegals, bumbling choke artist as a candidate. Donald Trump's carpet bombing of the Clinton camp day in and day out, the entire DC cesspool, and the media is working.

I could go on- but at this stage, polls are irrelevant. What matters now is who is voting-- and if Florida is a bell weather, it's not looking good for Hillary.

i feel like if it was real, you would not need 1000 words to tell me. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

1.1 million early voters in Florida...so far...that are NOT part of "Likely Voter" polls because they are brand new or they were registered in 2012, but they sat out (412,000) of them, where 26% are UNAs...that's Jimmy Carter f***ed right there if you're Hillary. You can say these people are all fired up by Hillary's super-compelling campaign, but that would be delusional.

If you makes you feel better, I will admit I've been wrong about the Monster Vote.

We can extrapolate now that it's not 7 to 10 million.

It's 30,000,000 +

This isn't a landslide, or a tsunami.

It's super nova.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

(Obama won Florida in 2012 by fewer than 75,000 votes)

Florida's now in the bag for Trump.

[Iggy aka IG]

Nov 4, 2016 10:39:35 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

(Obama won Florida in 2012 by fewer than 75,000 votes)

Florida's now in the bag for Trump.

You just made my day, Paul. 

#Trump2016

[djAdvocate]

Nov 4, 2016 10:42:10 GMT -5 Iggy aka IG said:

Nov 4, 2016 10:39:35 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

(Obama won Florida in 2012 by fewer than 75,000 votes)

Florida's now in the bag for Trump.

You just made my day, Paul. 

#Trump2016

you'd be less chipper if you reviewed Paul's predictive history on this subject.

[Iggy aka IG]

Nov 4, 2016 10:43:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 4, 2016 10:42:10 GMT -5 Iggy aka IG said:

You just made my day, Paul. 

#Trump2016

you'd be less chipper if you reviewed Paul's predictive history on this subject.

Chipper.  Me.  Tee hee.

Good morning, DJ! 

[Opti]

Nov 4, 2016 10:43:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 4, 2016 10:42:10 GMT -5 Iggy aka IG said:

you'd be less chipper if you reviewed Paul's predictive history on this subject.

One of the things I am counting on.

[Iggy aka IG]

Iggy:  I'm happy!  Trump might win a swing state!  Thank you, Paul!

DJ:  No happiness for you!

Opt:  No happiness for you!

Iggy:  I choose happy!

#Trump2016

[Opti]

FWIW, I was only commenting on DJ's post. I am happy that Paul's picks haven't won in the past. I tried to fix my post by editing, but didn't seem to be able to delete IG's post completely.

[Iggy aka IG]

AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP, is it true your predictions have been incorrect in the past?

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Clinton is up by 2 in Florida.

[Tennesseer]

Nov 4, 2016 11:20:18 GMT -5 Iggy aka IG said:

AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP, is it true your predictions have been incorrect in the past?

Fantastically.

Í Wás Wrong. No Mittmentum. Obama Re-elected.

[Iggy aka IG]

I found this, though it doesn't have a date on it...

Battleground 2016

And, people, please spare me the comments of oh, I don't trust that site!  Or, people are lazy when it comes to finding their news sources!  As mentioned on a different thread.  Believe it or not, not everyone follows the same.