Yeah the 3 county thing is silliness. Can't stand arguments like that.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
- Status
But...you literally would. A vote in Kansas would be as pivotal to the result as a vote in New Hampshire.
Obviously, there would be ways of optimising ad spends and visits. You're correct in that they would focus on persuadable voters in general, rather than persuadable voters in states that are close to the balancing point. Which seems to me more intuitively democratic (small d)?
It's purely an academic point that those were key counties to the result and are presumably the only three counties you can say that about. It's an electoral statistics site, they like factoids like that.
It's not an argument! Not everything has to have an agenda, even in the age of Trump.
Well what is it? It's total nonsense.
That would be more in line with his disappointing (and un-scrutinised) record on environmental issues.
No, a popular vote system would make it relevant if you got 30 as opposed to 31% in that no-name state, as opposed to every vote there meaning absolutely nothing. It would increase the importance of all states that aren't OH/PA/FL. Including liberal Texans and conservative NYers.
How is something factual nonsense?! It's 1 thing from a list of 56 of interesting peculiarities, in this case that Trump's margins in 3 counties were enough to win the election. That's literally it. That if Clinton had managed to get the same number of votes as Trump in those three counties, out of the whole country, she could've won. It's a practical example of the closeness of the election. How it deserves to be called a lie and nonsense I have no idea.
It is the classic if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.
If the aunt having balls was subject to a vote that came down to a very fine margin across a very small geographical spread, yes, it would be exactly like that.
Just use the same illogical argument (sorry, can't think of a better word) saying Obama wouldn't have won without Miama, Cleveland and Philadelphia. What difference does it make? It's not like those counties are going away.
By the same logic, just three counties re-elected President Obama in 2012: Miami-Dade County, FL; Cuyahoga County, OH and Philadelphia, PA.
By the same logic, just three counties re-elected President Obama in 2012: Miami-Dade County, FL; Cuyahoga County, OH and Philadelphia, PA.
Obama won Dade by 200k, Cuyahoga by 250k, Philadelphia by almost 500k. So the geographical spread is the same in terms of number of countries (and to be expected of a Democrat who will always get most votes from densely packed areas), but about 10x greater in terms of the votes needed to swing it.
Pretty sure multiple people in this thread have felt it worth pointing out that the small margins in WI, MI and PA are what decided the election, so I still fail to see how someone pointing out you can fit the margins even more locally into 3 counties turns it into nonsense and lies.
Pretty sure multiple people in this thread have felt it worth pointing out that the small margins in WI, MI and PA are what decided the election, so I still fail to see how someone pointing out you can fit the margins even more locally into 3 counties turns it into nonsense and lies.
I think we are making a mountain out of a molehill here. But I'd just leave it at this bolded part which is simple and accurate. Excluding counties is not. If you want to detail it further, you'd simply describe the percent change required to flip the state. For example, in WI, I believe if 0.4% of the voters, or around 11,000, voted Clinton instead of Trump, Clinton would have won.
The small margins in WI, MI and PA are what decided the election.
What the feck is going on in here? Why would anyone take issue with is essentially a (not quite) fun fact?
Yeah, and there are single counties in those states that have a gap equal to or bigger than the winner got. What's the problem?
Best way to describe it.Because it is not always being presented as just a fun fact.
again. mountain molehill. but the original tweet...
Just three counties – Macomb County, MI; York County, PA and Waukesha County, WI – elected Donald Trump...
no they did not!
Just three counties – Macomb County, MI; York County, PA and Waukesha County, WI – elected Donald Trump...
no they did not!
Sounds more like sour grapes than a fun fact to me.
He does sound like a second hand car salesmanYeah, I saw that yesterday but it wasn't as reliable a source as that so I didn't post it. Depressing as hell really, setting an ominous tone for what's ahead.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What's this? A preemptive strike before the media slams him for it?
But I thought he didn't like him?
http://fortune.com/2016/10/14/donald-trump-carlos-slim-nyt-conspiracy/
I'd go with that.
Demonstrates how far up shit creek the political climate is now when people read political bias into innocuous stuff like that.
That's putting it VERY politely, mate.Something quite appropriate about usernames involving Dennis Irwin causing confusion between right and left wing opinions. Never known a player so comfortable on either flank.
Touche! Love it.
Remember when Jill Stein was going to get 5% by herself?
Its great that she got hammered in Nov 8th, then proceeded to disgrace herself with her faux-recount donation scams. I doubt we'll be seeing much of her again.Remember when Jill Stein was going to get 5% by herself?
It's a shame though because at heart, like the UK Green Party, they have some great ideas and their hearts are definitely in the right places and they definitely want the best for people and the planet. However, they keep putting up completely flawed or looney candidates, Stein was no different.
The Green Party does have some great ideas, especially on green issues. Trouble is Stein is a galactic drama queen who likes to protest outside events for attention and pull stunts like the WI, MI, PA recounts. She has basically defamed the moral leverage the Green movement has built. Hopefully they will find a new candidate for next time.
I agree completely. She really didn't help herself with her 9/11 comments either, or her anti-vaccination stance. That's never going to go down well with the masses. Like you, I hope they find a sane and credible candidate for 4 years time.
Dunno, she just got herself a large email database of people that are apparently willing to give up money for lost causes.
The protesting is fine by me, they're a minor political party and have very few ways of gaining attention.
2.1% final is going to piss off Trump.
Nearly as much as the ~3m number gets tossed around. The media and his critics will used it to wind him up to no end over the next few years.
Bloody 3m illegals Raoul! Your name sounds hispanic. Illegal yourself I bet. Me too!
My name is actually French. I am brown though so at least I can play the part.
There you goExactly!
The Democrats keep discussing meaningless bullshit.
They should better try to answer two questions:
1. Why so many middle and low class whites do not believe that the Democrats will help them.
2. Why their nomination process with super-delegates, caucuses etc is actually less democratic than what the republicans do.
Well that shatters my mental image of you as Saul from Homeland.
Is Stein any worse than Hillary or Trump?
- Status