WhyEssEff [she/her]M to main • edit-23 years ago*Permanently Deleted*trashexternal-linkmessage-square48 fedilinkarrow-up1147file-text
arrow-up1146external-link*Permanently Deleted*trashWhyEssEff [she/her]M to main • edit-23 years agomessage-square48 Commentsfedilinkfile-text
minus-squareHamManBad [he/him]hexbear14arrow-down1·4 years agoNo they're representing the full range of outcomes, including ridiculous Trump or Biden landslides link
minus-squareeduardog3000 [he/him]hexbear5arrow-down3·4 years agoThere'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. link
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.