Sri Lanka

Golden Sand & Misty Hills

Sri Lanka Appointment Recode: The new maps and maps for the 2016 election

Recode: The new maps and maps for the 2016 election



The new map of the U.S. is a big deal.

It shows which states are most reliably Republican and which are reliably Democratic.

It also shows where voters will be most likely to vote for Donald Trump, based on their party.

The map’s creators say they were inspired by maps from the 1970s, which showed who was most likely and least likely to show up at the polls.

“It was a way to figure out what voters would like to see in their districts,” David Wasserman, the project’s lead designer, told Recode in an interview.

In many places, the map would make the difference in a tight race.

That was particularly true in Nevada, where Trump won narrowly.

Wasserman’s team decided to focus on the states that are the most reliably Democratic and the most likely Democratic-leaning, including California, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.

In addition to showing the most reliable Republican-leaning states, the new map also includes maps of states that lean Democratic.

In some of those states, like Colorado, New York and Wisconsin, the maps have a high likelihood of showing up.

But for the rest, it’s hard to predict who will show up.

That’s because the new maps are built on information from a 2016 presidential election, when the Democrats had a massive advantage.

And because the maps are based on the assumption that voters will show, at most, three different candidates at the ballot box, Wasserman says it’s not enough to give voters a clear idea of which party is winning in their district.

The new mapping, however, is still a big-picture look at who the electorate is, and where the race stands.

The data was gathered by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Cook’s team looked at polling data from March to May, when Trump won the presidency and was in the midst of a deep, deep dive into the issues facing the country.

It then looked at voter behavior over the next five months, and calculated what happened in the five days between polling day and the election.

Cook used a model to see how voters would respond to a set of five scenarios: The election were close.

Democrats were ahead.

Trump had a slight lead.

Trump won.

Neither candidate won.

The models were able to determine that a small number of voters who would normally be most skeptical of the outcome were more likely to switch their vote to the other candidate if they were confident that Trump would win.

And the data shows that when voters are most likely not to vote at all, they tend to go with the second- or third-party candidates.

And those who did switch their votes tended to vote in very close races.

For instance, in the presidential election of 2000, just over 40 percent of Republicans switched their votes to George W. Bush, but only 24 percent of Democrats did.

“That was the most surprising election of the 20th century,” Wasserman said.

“A lot of people predicted a Republican landslide.”

Wasserman said the new mapping is important because it shows how much voters are willing to pay attention to political information.

“There’s a lot of information out there,” he said.

The maps also give voters some insight into how the candidates themselves are shaping up in the polls — or, at least, how much the campaigns are working to boost their own standing.

A lot of voters are less interested in who’s going to win than in which party they’ll vote for.

So we want to show who’s really doing well and who’s not.

So that’s where we’re focusing.

And that’s really important.

There’s also a lot more information out in the media than we’ve had before about who the candidates are, and how they’re making their case.

The Trump campaign is spending millions of dollars to try to make its case that its candidate is a better bet.

That effort includes hiring television personalities, field offices, field staff, volunteers and pollsters to focus voters on the candidate they like.

The team has also been doing its best to keep voters on its side.

When they were testing the new Maps for the first time, Wasserman said, the Trump team tried to convince the team to do a survey that asked them if they agreed with the statement that “Hillary Clinton is a lying liar.”

The Trump team did this so it could use the information it had collected to make the maps.

That test was ultimately rejected by the team, and Wasserman said it’s still not clear whether it’ll happen again.

The results of the new Trump maps, however — and what they tell us about who’s actually ahead and who is actually behind — are quite clear.

The fact that they’re more accurate than previous maps, the fact that the map makers were able not only to make it look like the race was close, but that it was closer than it actually was, is telling.

“They’ve got a pretty good idea of where the states are,” Wasserman told Recoding.

“I think that’s going, at this point,

TopBack to Top