Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

11 states needed to win the Presidecy

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 3:29:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The 11 states needed to win the Presidency in any election are;
Calif. = 55 electors
Texas = 38 electors
Fla. = 29 electors
N.Y. = 29 electors
Pa. = 20 electors
Ill. = 20 electors
Ohio = 18 electors
Mich. = 16 electors
Ga. = 16 electors
N.C. = 15 electors
N.J. = 14 electors
total = 270 electors
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 3:36:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What?/??

I don't think you understand how it works. There is no single state, and no fixed combination of states, needed to win.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 3:38:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 3:36:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What?/??

I don't think you understand how it works. There is no single state, and no fixed combination of states, needed to win.

I understand how it works. If someone carries all 11 of the states I mentioned they win, no matter how the other states vote.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 3:42:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 3:38:09 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:36:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What?/??

I don't think you understand how it works. There is no single state, and no fixed combination of states, needed to win.

I understand how it works. If someone carries all 11 of the states I mentioned they win, no matter how the other states vote.

True. But you posted that ALL of those states are NEEDED in ANY election, which simply isn't true.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 3:51:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 3:42:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:38:09 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:36:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What?/??

I don't think you understand how it works. There is no single state, and no fixed combination of states, needed to win.

I understand how it works. If someone carries all 11 of the states I mentioned they win, no matter how the other states vote.

True. But you posted that ALL of those states are NEEDED in ANY election, which simply isn't true.

Yeah they are all that is needed, and if you don't have at-least one of those states you will lose.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 3:53:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 3:51:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:42:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:38:09 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:36:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What?/??

I don't think you understand how it works. There is no single state, and no fixed combination of states, needed to win.

I understand how it works. If someone carries all 11 of the states I mentioned they win, no matter how the other states vote.

True. But you posted that ALL of those states are NEEDED in ANY election, which simply isn't true.

Yeah they are all that is needed, and if you don't have at-least one of those states you will lose.

Yes, that is one winning combination. But, THEY ARE NOT ALL NEEDED TO WIN.

You CAN ABSOLUTELY WIN without winning all those states. I'll illustrate.

http://www.270towin.com...

Look, you can win without CA.

All you did was make a list of one example of a winning combination of states.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 4:06:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 3:53:52 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:51:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:42:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:38:09 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:36:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What?/??

I don't think you understand how it works. There is no single state, and no fixed combination of states, needed to win.

I understand how it works. If someone carries all 11 of the states I mentioned they win, no matter how the other states vote.

True. But you posted that ALL of those states are NEEDED in ANY election, which simply isn't true.

Yeah they are all that is needed, and if you don't have at-least one of those states you will lose.

Yes, that is one winning combination. But, THEY ARE NOT ALL NEEDED TO WIN.

You CAN ABSOLUTELY WIN without winning all those states. I'll illustrate.

http://www.270towin.com...

Look, you can win without CA.

All you did was make a list of one example of a winning combination of states.

Stop fighting you two; it's an obvious misunderstanding.
DanT is simply saying that you need to win one on those 11 states, otherwise you can't win. You do not need to win them all, but you must win one (unless there are three viable parties).
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 4:16:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 3:29:19 PM, DanT wrote:
The 11 states needed to win the Presidency in any election are;
Calif. = 55 electors
Texas = 38 electors
Fla. = 29 electors
N.Y. = 29 electors
Pa. = 20 electors
Ill. = 20 electors
Ohio = 18 electors
Mich. = 16 electors
Ga. = 16 electors
N.C. = 15 electors
N.J. = 14 electors
total = 270 electors

Dan, I see your point, and let me counter with this:
Assuming % of qualified voters is even throughout each state, and assuming each state 100% goes to one candidate, and assuming 50% is 150 million votes, you only need to carry the top EIGHT states. So, electoral may be bad, but straight popular is worse, given the population density.

Top nine states would give 160 million.
http://www.bizjournals.com...=
My work here is, finally, done.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 5:22:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 3:53:52 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:51:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:42:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:38:09 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:36:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What?/??

I don't think you understand how it works. There is no single state, and no fixed combination of states, needed to win.

I understand how it works. If someone carries all 11 of the states I mentioned they win, no matter how the other states vote.

True. But you posted that ALL of those states are NEEDED in ANY election, which simply isn't true.

Yeah they are all that is needed, and if you don't have at-least one of those states you will lose.

Yes, that is one winning combination. But, THEY ARE NOT ALL NEEDED TO WIN.

You CAN ABSOLUTELY WIN without winning all those states. I'll illustrate.

http://www.270towin.com...

Look, you can win without CA.

All you did was make a list of one example of a winning combination of states.

>.< Stop straw manning me. I never said you must have all 11 states to win, I said you must have at-least 1 of those states, because those are the 11 states with the highest electoral count, and their total electoral vote is equal to the minimum number of electors needed to win.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 5:24:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 4:16:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:29:19 PM, DanT wrote:
The 11 states needed to win the Presidency in any election are;
Calif. = 55 electors
Texas = 38 electors
Fla. = 29 electors
N.Y. = 29 electors
Pa. = 20 electors
Ill. = 20 electors
Ohio = 18 electors
Mich. = 16 electors
Ga. = 16 electors
N.C. = 15 electors
N.J. = 14 electors
total = 270 electors

Dan, I see your point, and let me counter with this:
Assuming % of qualified voters is even throughout each state, and assuming each state 100% goes to one candidate, and assuming 50% is 150 million votes, you only need to carry the top EIGHT states. So, electoral may be bad, but straight popular is worse, given the population density.

Top nine states would give 160 million.
http://www.bizjournals.com...=

Never said the electoral college was a bad thing. I was simply pointing out that these were important states to look at.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 5:28:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 5:22:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:53:52 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:51:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:42:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:38:09 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:36:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What?/??

I don't think you understand how it works. There is no single state, and no fixed combination of states, needed to win.

I understand how it works. If someone carries all 11 of the states I mentioned they win, no matter how the other states vote.

True. But you posted that ALL of those states are NEEDED in ANY election, which simply isn't true.

Yeah they are all that is needed, and if you don't have at-least one of those states you will lose.

Yes, that is one winning combination. But, THEY ARE NOT ALL NEEDED TO WIN.

You CAN ABSOLUTELY WIN without winning all those states. I'll illustrate.

http://www.270towin.com...

Look, you can win without CA.

All you did was make a list of one example of a winning combination of states.

>.< Stop straw manning me. I never said you must have all 11 states to win, I said you must have at-least 1 of those states, because those are the 11 states with the highest electoral count, and their total electoral vote is equal to the minimum number of electors needed to win.

Ok, I understand. However, that isn't what you said in the OP. We're good.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 5:38:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 5:28:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/6/2012 5:22:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:53:52 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:51:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:42:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:38:09 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:36:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What?/??

I don't think you understand how it works. There is no single state, and no fixed combination of states, needed to win.

I understand how it works. If someone carries all 11 of the states I mentioned they win, no matter how the other states vote.

True. But you posted that ALL of those states are NEEDED in ANY election, which simply isn't true.

Yeah they are all that is needed, and if you don't have at-least one of those states you will lose.

Yes, that is one winning combination. But, THEY ARE NOT ALL NEEDED TO WIN.

You CAN ABSOLUTELY WIN without winning all those states. I'll illustrate.

http://www.270towin.com...

Look, you can win without CA.

All you did was make a list of one example of a winning combination of states.

>.< Stop straw manning me. I never said you must have all 11 states to win, I said you must have at-least 1 of those states, because those are the 11 states with the highest electoral count, and their total electoral vote is equal to the minimum number of electors needed to win.

Ok, I understand. However, that isn't what you said in the OP. We're good.

Yes it was; I was just vague because I figured people on this site would be able to put 2 and 2 together. I assumed I didn't need to go into great detail, due to the simplicity of the subject.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 5:40:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 5:38:32 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 5:28:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/6/2012 5:22:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:53:52 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:51:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:42:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:38:09 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:36:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What?/??

I don't think you understand how it works. There is no single state, and no fixed combination of states, needed to win.

I understand how it works. If someone carries all 11 of the states I mentioned they win, no matter how the other states vote.

True. But you posted that ALL of those states are NEEDED in ANY election, which simply isn't true.

Yeah they are all that is needed, and if you don't have at-least one of those states you will lose.

Yes, that is one winning combination. But, THEY ARE NOT ALL NEEDED TO WIN.

You CAN ABSOLUTELY WIN without winning all those states. I'll illustrate.

http://www.270towin.com...

Look, you can win without CA.

All you did was make a list of one example of a winning combination of states.

>.< Stop straw manning me. I never said you must have all 11 states to win, I said you must have at-least 1 of those states, because those are the 11 states with the highest electoral count, and their total electoral vote is equal to the minimum number of electors needed to win.

Ok, I understand. However, that isn't what you said in the OP. We're good.

Yes it was; I was just vague because I figured people on this site would be able to put 2 and 2 together. I assumed I didn't need to go into great detail, due to the simplicity of the subject.

If you're going to keep going on it.

You said 'The 11 states needed to win'.

The subject is plural. The verb applies to the subject. That means 'needed' applies to all 11 states.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 6:15:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 5:40:31 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/6/2012 5:38:32 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 5:28:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/6/2012 5:22:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:53:52 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:51:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:42:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:38:09 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/6/2012 3:36:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What?/??

I don't think you understand how it works. There is no single state, and no fixed combination of states, needed to win.

I understand how it works. If someone carries all 11 of the states I mentioned they win, no matter how the other states vote.

True. But you posted that ALL of those states are NEEDED in ANY election, which simply isn't true.

Yeah they are all that is needed, and if you don't have at-least one of those states you will lose.

Yes, that is one winning combination. But, THEY ARE NOT ALL NEEDED TO WIN.

You CAN ABSOLUTELY WIN without winning all those states. I'll illustrate.

http://www.270towin.com...

Look, you can win without CA.

All you did was make a list of one example of a winning combination of states.

>.< Stop straw manning me. I never said you must have all 11 states to win, I said you must have at-least 1 of those states, because those are the 11 states with the highest electoral count, and their total electoral vote is equal to the minimum number of electors needed to win.

Ok, I understand. However, that isn't what you said in the OP. We're good.

Yes it was; I was just vague because I figured people on this site would be able to put 2 and 2 together. I assumed I didn't need to go into great detail, due to the simplicity of the subject.

If you're going to keep going on it.

You said 'The 11 states needed to win'.

The subject is plural. The verb applies to the subject. That means 'needed' applies to all 11 states.

actually what I said was "The 11 states needed to win the Presidency in any election are"

"the 11 states needed"
(v) need (require as useful)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Therefore "the 11 states required as useful"

Than "to win the Presidency in any election are"
(adj) any (one or some or every or all without specification)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Therefore "to win the Presidency in one or some or every or all elections without specification are"

So the extended OP is "the 11 states required as useful to win the Presidency in one or some or every or all elections without specification are"

So regardless of combination if you have those 11 states you win. If you don't have any of them you lose.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle