Debunking media bias on the election coverage

So it seems like mainstream media outlets, which, as we know from the DNC and Podesta leaks, are very much democratic supporting outlets, are embellishing the election data to fit their own agenda. I've watched the news at both lunch and dinner, and saw two different media stations put up about the same map, and then claim that Trump needs ALL THESE STATES JUST TO WIN. And it's a much longer list than it actually is, looking at the analysis I literally took hours doing today.

Let's look at the rough map they give and then explain everything wrong with it.

Oh hey, they start off giving Clinton 274 electoral votes...enough to win!

Now, I'm not sure if this is the EXACT map I've seen, but it looks extremely similar to it, and I explicitly remember Clinton being given 274 electoral votes from the get go. Except...in reality, Clinton probably only has 268 safe electoral votes, looking at my predictions earlier. So where did the extra 6 come from? For some reason, they gave her Nevada, just from the get go. Why? I don't know. Both the 2 way and the 3 way (since Stein got screwed out of being let on the ballot there) suggest Trump has a 1.5% lead there. I mean, even if you don't want to give it to Trump outright, not considering it at least a toss up is extremely intellectually dishonest to me.

Beyond that, it baffles me that Nebraska CD2, Georgia, and Arizona are considered toss ups. Georgia and Arizona are a good 4%+ in Trump's favor and my previous election analysis gave Trump a good 84%+ chance of winning those states. Toss ups my ***. And I didn't even include NE2 for good reason, it's Trump +9, which is so pro Trump that I just considered it a give me to him. I mean he does have a 98.8% chance of winning it after all. It also names Ohio a toss up, and while it normally is, it seems to be pretty strongly going to Trump. I will admit though the race is a little more competitive if we make it a two way, so maybe I'll throw them a bone here.

This map was clearly embellished in favor of Clinton. Clinton is likely going to win, but they're acting like it's a done deal for her when it is not. The race is as close as it has ever been, and while Clinton still holds an edge, I gave Trump a 44% chance of winning via one method of calculating, and a 12% chance of winning via another method (the second method has a 21% chance including ties, which automatically favor him).

The real toss ups

The map isn't totally inaccurate, some swing states are really swing states. If we want a good idea of what states to look for, we'll need to look at these.

True toss ups (<1% lead): Maine CD2, New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada

Still pretty competitive (<2% lead): North Carolina, Pennsylvania

Less chance of flipping (<3% lead): Colorado, MAYBE Ohio if you go by the 2 way projections

These are the real states you should be looking at. Take note how not one candidate automatically gets 270. It's anyone's game. While the data still does favor Clinton, and I'll point that out openly, I just can't help but cringe, facepalm, and rant, when I look at the electoral maps these democratic propaganda centers are pushing to make it look like Clinton has it in the bag. For most of the election, she has had it in the bag. I remember writing my analyses several months ago and watching how Trump was so beyond screwed he would need like a 3-4 point handicap just to get where he is right now. I fully expected Clinton to win with ease from the get go and I'm surprised to see it be this close, in actuality. Really, I thought she would at least get 2012 Obama numbers, if not a 2008-like landslide, but now it looks like she will win by the skin of her teeth.

I'm sorry, but barring a statistical fluke, rigging, or bad polling methods, Clinton isn't going to win in Nebraska CD2, Arizona, or Georgia. Nevada is a toss up for her at best, and Pennsylvania and Colorado are more likely to flip to Trump than Nebraska, Arizona, and Georgia are to Clinton.

The real race comes down to Florida, New Hampshire, and Maine CD2. North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Nevada should have an eye kept on them, and if we really want to look at further out projections, look at Colorad, and MAAAAYBE Ohio (and even then, only if you ignore 3rd party candidates). Those are the states that will really decide the election. Don't believe what the media tells you. Follow the evidence. Look at my analyses, click on the links where I sourced my data, and come to your own conclusions. I generally get 49/50 states right in a given election cycle, based on my analyses of 2008 and 2012. In those elections, I got North Carolina and Virginia wrong respectively. And you know what? If I recall it was because I stupidly ignored the evidence there too and figured that because they were so close the other guy would get them.For the record, if I get any state wrong this time around, I'm guessing it's Florida.

Or, if you don't want to come to your own conclusions, just watch what happens tomorrow. I will be correct outside of statistical flukes, vote rigging, or poor polling methodology. And even if I don't get all states right, I'll likely be on the right track. Calling it for Clinton right now, but I don't rule out the possibility of a Trump win.