• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official Trump: Dems favorability down to 31%! All time low! Sad!

RJKarl said:
BBut he didn't win that many states.

The reality is he LOST the popular vote. This alone disqualifies your premise.

Also winners in a referendum aren't protested in over half a dozen states after the election.
Click to expand...

Christ RJ. I'm comparing the ratio of Dems vs Republicans in 2012 vs 2016. In 2016 the Republicans did better something like 45-47 states. You can say he lost the popular vote all you want, I agree with you. I'm simply providing you another way to look at things. There was a Trump movement in most every state but 3. That's a remarkable shift. Use whatever adjective to describe that as you want, a mandate, a referendum, an amazing feat.
 
palmab03 said:
Yes RJ, I am aware that if you take 3 million votes away from both sides, Hillary wins. My point is Trump closed the Dem-Rep gap in something like 46-47 states. Its not that complicated. I show CA +5% dem AZ +5% dem, GA +1.5%. I haven't looked at all states, but I've looked at around half. Feel free to find more. The first 2 are 2 of the biggest latino states in the country. I'd start looking at the others.
Click to expand...

Here are the percentage differences from two swing states:

North Carolina

Romney '12: 2,270,395 (50.39%)
Obama '12: 2,178,391 (48.35%)
Trump '16: 2,339,073 (50.5) (+0.11%)
Hillary '16: 2,162,074 (46.7) (-1.65%)

Florida
Romney '12: 4,163,447 (49.1%)
Obama '12: 4,237,756 (50%)
Trump '16: 4,607,146 (49.1%) (same)
Hillary '16: 4,487,657 (47.8%) (-2.2%)

Trump didn't get a larger percentage of the vote. Hillary got a smaller percentage of the vote. The percentages dont show a "trump movement", they show Obama voters not voting for Hillary.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Here are the percentage differences from two swing states:

North Carolina

Romney '12: 2,270,395 (50.39%)
Obama '12: 2,178,391 (48.35%)
Trump '16: 2,339,073 (50.5) (+0.11%)
Hillary '16: 2,162,074 (46.7) (-1.65%)

Florida
Romney '12: 4,163,447 (49.1%)
Obama '12: 4,237,756 (50%)
Trump '16: 4,607,146 (49.1%) (same)
Hillary '16: 4,487,657 (47.8%) (-2.2%)

Trump didn't get a larger percentage of the vote. Hillary got a smaller percentage of the vote. The percentages dont show a "trump movement", they show Obama voters not voting for Hillary.
Click to expand...


No they don't. There are 7 million more florida voters in 2016 than 2012. Obama voters didn't just up and not vote. There was a movement of new voters, most of which went for Trump

anyways, you agree to our bet?
 
Note if you back out you might be trolled into sharing your penis on the internet at some point in the future
 
Trump received the same percentage. I don't care if 100 million more people voted, he received the same percentage of the votes. Trump doesn't get credit for people voting 3rd party or writing in a candidate.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Trump received the same percentage. I don't care if 100 million more people voted, he received the same percentage of the votes. Trump doesn't get credit for people voting 3rd party or writing in a candidate.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So then you're right and it should be an easy $100, agreed?
 
If more people turned out specifically to vote for Trump, than Trumps percentage would have gone up.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Trump received the same percentage. I don't care if 100 million more people voted, he received the same percentage of the votes. Trump doesn't get credit for people voting 3rd party or writing in a candidate.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

except 3rd party candidates don't come from the democratic vote
 
For every new Trump voter there was also a non-Trump voter. Those cancel each other out, which is why his % stayed the same. 49% in 2012 means the exact same as 49% in 2016

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
If more people turned out specifically to vote for Trump, than Trumps percentage would have gone up.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Does that logic apply for the election Perot got 15% of the vote? Of course not.

Anyways, is it a bet? Just say yes or no, stop dancing around.
 
palmab03 said:
Does that logic apply for the election Perot got 15% of the vote? Of course not.

Anyways, is it a bet? Just say yes or no, stop dancing around.
Click to expand...

You aren't making a cogent argument. 3rd party candidates almost never have a neutral affect, they either split the conservative or liberal vote. Perot split the conservative vote, Nader split the liberal vote, Johnson/Stein split the liberal vote.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
You aren't making a cogent argument. 3rd party candidates almost never have a neutral affect, they either split the conservative or liberal vote. Perot split the conservative vote, Nader split the liberal vote, Johnson/Stein split the liberal vote.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I've asked you 5 times whether we have a bet or not, ignore the rest, just say yes or no. We will then see who is right when the votes are counted, whenever that is. My $100 is already in escrow with another poster.
 
palmab03 said:
I've asked you 5 times whether we have a bet or not, ignore the rest, just say yes or no. We will then see who is right when the votes are counted, whenever that is. My $100 is already in escrow with another poster.
Click to expand...
I don't have 100$ to gamble, i'm saving to take my mom on a trip to England

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
 
No? Ok. So let me explain to you how math works.

Obama won California by 23% points. Clinton is up by 28%. California is our largest state. So by simple logic, barring some record low turnout in California or some record high turnout everywhere but California (neither of which happened) California will be a larger proportion of Hillary's total votes compared to Obama's.

A simple google search shows that there are something like 4 million uncounted CA votes. Her total vote count was around 60 million. Those 4 million votes uncounted should split similarly something like 61% Clinton and 33% Trump. Take 4 million by 61% and that is around 2.5 million votes, and that is around 4% of her total votes. So here is your quote.

myDeaconmyhand said:
Here are the totals and percentages as they stand today

Romney '12 got 7.9% of his vote total from California
Obama '12 got 11.9% of his vote total from California

Trump '16 got 5.2% (-2.7%) of his vote total from California
Hillary '16 got 9.5% (-2.4%)of her vote total from California

The narrative that Hillary relied more heavily upon California for votes than the previous Democrat is false. The math disproves it. She received a lower vote total and a lower percentage of her total votes from California.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

To do the math correctly, you'd then add 4% to the 9.5% bolded above, and come up with the CA vote being 13.5% of her total votes, which is much higher than the 11.9% of the vote CA was for Obama, also bolded.

Now in middle school, I learned you also have to add 4 million to the denominator which will bring that 13.5% down to closer to 13.0%, but either way, your math and logic was wrong. If you want to learn more, I would suggest sitting through your 5th graders homework lessons if and when you have children.
 
This has been an interesting discussion, but I have a question:

The election was four days ago. Why are there still 4 million uncounted votes in California?
 
Elections officials across California have more than 4 million ballots that have yet to be checked or counted, a number that's almost half as large as all the ballots tallied so far from Tuesday's election.

The official total — 4,362,087 ballots — will undoubtedly change and possibly even grow over the next few days. Three counties, including vote-rich San Diego County, did not submit an estimate of unprocessed ballots for Thursday night's statewide report.

In addition, California law says that any ballot postmarked by election day can still be counted if it arrives as many as three business days late. State officials have extended this year's deadline to Monday, because that third day, Nov. 11, is a federal holiday.

More than 1 million of the pending ballots — almost one of every four — remain to be sorted and counted in Los Angeles County. Three-fourths of the ballots statewide were cast absentee, with the rest being provisional ballots cast on election day by voters whose registration information could not be quickly verified.
Click to expand...

http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...n-4-million-ballots-1478828215-htmlstory.html
 
palmab03 said:
No? Ok. So let me explain to you how math works.

Obama won California by 23% points. Clinton is up by 28%. California is our largest state. So by simple logic, barring some record low turnout in California or some record high turnout everywhere but California (neither of which happened) California will be a larger proportion of Hillary's total votes compared to Obama's.

A simple google search shows that there are something like 4 million uncounted CA votes. Her total vote count was around 60 million. Those 4 million votes uncounted should split similarly something like 61% Clinton and 33% Trump. Take 4 million by 61% and that is around 2.5 million votes, and that is around 4% of her total votes. So here is your quote.



To do the math correctly, you'd then add 4% to the 9.5% bolded above, and come up with the CA vote being 13.5% of her total votes, which is much higher than the 11.9% of the vote CA was for Obama, also bolded.

Now in middle school, I learned you also have to add 4 million to the denominator which will bring that 13.5% down to closer to 13.0%, but either way, your math and logic was wrong. If you want to learn more, I would suggest sitting through your 5th graders homework lessons if and when you have children.
Click to expand...
That would all be clever and good if your original statement hadn't been about the current popular vote difference. Maybe you'd like to go back to that statement and add a future tense, something like: "once Hillary's popular vote margin grows to 3 or 4 million, it will be inflated by California voters".

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
 
So as I've said 5 or 6 times now, Hillary's current popular vote margin is not inflated by California votes. I am quite confident however that once the finals votes have been counted, Trump will not have received a statistically relevant percentage increase over previous Republican candidates. I believe his total percentage will be in line of 48%, just like Romney and Bush

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top