There's ridiculous and there's unrealistic. There is no way in hell that map happens. Biden winning Texas or Georgia is realistic, even though it's ridiculous. Biden winning SC but losing Vermont is completely impossible.
They aren’t going to present outcomes they think are impossible or extremely unlikely front an center like that.
Yes they are. A varied graphic is more interesting. 50 variations of the same map with only 5 swing states flipping around is more likely outcome but not the best background art maybe
How? That map is basically impossible. Is there a map with Trump winning California too?
Probably. You should probably stop overthinking these maps that are just background art.
They are being presented as the most likely outcomes based on "math".
I'm trying to point out how fucking stupid Nate is.
No they're representing the full range of outcomes, including ridiculous Trump or Biden landslides
There's ridiculous and there's unrealistic. There is no way in hell that map happens. Biden winning Texas or Georgia is realistic, even though it's ridiculous. Biden winning SC but losing Vermont is completely impossible.
No they're not
Then where did that map come from? They aren't randomly generated or you'd have much crazier maps.
The background is obviously meant to be filled with realistic outcomes.
Where does it say that?
Just by being there. They aren't going to present outcomes they think are impossible or extremely unlikely front an center like that.
Why wouldn't they? It's a header image. It's purpose is to get your attention. And it succeeded.
Yes they are. A varied graphic is more interesting. 50 variations of the same map with only 5 swing states flipping around is more likely outcome but not the best background art maybe
Biden has an >99% chance of winning California. Since that isn't 100%, technically there exists a map where Trump wins
Not in the top 100...