This is gold
- Thread starter Marine03
- Start date
I can't keep teaching you things and dumbing things down for you only to have you have to make more concessions and then come back and try to continue the argument . . . only for me to do the same thing, resulting in the same thing, then for you to make more concessions . . .
The problem with that is the Democrats usually poll higher during this time only to then not turn out as strong in November. Beto would have to energize voters to get off of their couch - especially in border towns where he took a beating against other Democrats.
I met the guy last month. He seems to be putting in the necessary effort, but I worry about his campaign being led by a bunch of rookies. You can't drive through a neighborhood in Austin, San Marcos, or San Antonio without seeing multiple Beto yard signs.
Oh, glad you stopped in.
Yes, states with better economies and and residents with higher academic degrees tend to almost always be blue. Here, let me help you:
Business Insider took six top economic measures and tabulated them to come up with a ranking of state economies. Seven of the ten best state economies voted Clinton. 70% to 30% is a steep difference, but it is even more damning when you consider Clinton only won 20 states.
http://www.businessinsider.com/state-economy-ranking-q1-2018-2
U.S. News did their own ranking. They had 7 of the top 11 states that went Clinton. Again, even more damning considering she only won 20 states.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/economy
Other rankings had the same results, including Wallet Hub's which looked at 23 different economic factors in their rankings.
There is a direct correlation between the strength of a state's economy and who they vote for. The residents of more successful economies vote Democrat.
https://qz.com/679589/trump-voters-earn-more-and-are-better-educated-than-the-typical-american/
"Of the one in three Americans who earn less than $50,000 a year, a majority voted for Clinton. A majority of those who earn more backed Trump."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls
"Financially, Republicans fare better than either Democrats or Independents, and tend to identify themselves as such. Republican candidates gain a significantly higher percentage of votes from individuals with incomes over $50,000 per year, and the advantage increases along with the income level, to a height of 63 percent of individuals earning $200,000 or more a year supporting Republicans. This level is the direct inverse of individuals earning less than $15,000 a year, who support Democrats at 63 percent and Republicans at only 36 percent.
Republicans also express a much higher level of satisfaction with their personal financial situation than either Democrats or Independents. Before the U.S. economy’s downturn, an all-time high of 81 percent of Republicans expressed satisfaction with their personal financial situation. That number dropped to 61 percent in 2009, but it is still significantly higher than the corresponding 52 percent of Independents and 49 percent of Democrats. A much larger proportion of Republicans than Democrats also identify themselves as 'haves' versus 'have-nots.'"
https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-republicans/
Somebody has a wvu education and doesn't know how to comprehend what they read.
Go back to what my claim was and what you quoted me on. As you'll see, my claim was that as state economies do better, they turn more blue (or "bluer," according to GK, because he counts syllables to determine his grammar). The entire argument you just posted is based solely on individual voter incomes and had nothing to do with a state's economy which are two entirely separate things.
I'd suggest asking BC for help with reading comprehension, but I know how that would turn out.
Your argument was that a "rising economy" would produce more democrats and turn states blue. I refuted your retarded claim with data that shows wealthier people vote republican by a very large margin. Making people richer will make more republicans.
It's fascinating how poorly you understand human nature, and how people tend to support their own self-interest. Poor people tend to vote for more handouts; rich people tend to vote to keep more of their earnings. There's a reason the democrats support bringing more poor, uneducated illegal immigrants into the country: they need more voters.
Rather than continuing to talk in circles, why not be specific and show your math like I did. Otherwise, admit defeat and move on.
Rox: I was just hoping you might give me some insight into the evolution of the market economy in the southern colonies. My contention is that prior to the Revolutionary War, the economic modalities, especially in the southern colonies, could be most aptly described as agrarian pre-capitalist.
Rifle: Of course that's your contention. You're a first-year grad student; you just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'till next month when you get to James Lemon. Then you're going to be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year; you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
Rox: Well, as a matter of fact, I won't, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social...
Rifle: "Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth"? You got that from Vickers' "Work in Essex County," page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you, is that your thing, you come into a bar, read some obscure passage and then pretend - you pawn it off as your own, as your own idea just to impress some girls, embarrass my friend?
Rifle: See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped 150 grand on a ****in' education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library!
Rifle: Of course that's your contention. You're a first-year grad student; you just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'till next month when you get to James Lemon. Then you're going to be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year; you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
Rox: Well, as a matter of fact, I won't, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social...
Rifle: "Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth"? You got that from Vickers' "Work in Essex County," page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you, is that your thing, you come into a bar, read some obscure passage and then pretend - you pawn it off as your own, as your own idea just to impress some girls, embarrass my friend?
Rifle: See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped 150 grand on a ****in' education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library!
So do we. You'd spend 30 minutes typing a 14 paragraph diatribe where you do nothing but talk in circles and call people stupid, only to be proven wrong in the end.
That pretty much cover it?
Wrong. My claim was that a rising economy and higher educated populace would turn the state more blue. A rising economy does not necessarily mean that each individual is becoming "wealthier." Proof? Hawaii has one of the top two or three median household incomes, but nobody will put them as having one of the top 10 state economies. Alaska has one of the top three or four per household incomes in the country, but nobody will put them as having one of the top 10 state economies. Texas has a very average household income, but it has one of the best economies in the country. The same holds true for per capita income.
Your premise that individual wealth is indicative of a state's economy is inaccurate which is why I said your entire previous post was bogus since it was solely about individual wealth.
Need proof of my argument? Check out who won the states with the best economies.
Debt.org, a famous center for political studies.
What is far more interesting is the lower threshold of your income claims that are white and not college educated. These would be the voters who flocked to Trump, and they also tended to call terrorism and immigration more important than the economy and foreign policy. I'm not sure their gears mesh, because I am pretty sure my hometown is more likely to be destroyed by a tornado than by terrorism, and I'm pretty sure these people love Mexican food (white people love Mexican food). They just have decent jobs for having no degree (which probably helps explain their irrational concerns).
Rifle is correct than higher economy states tended to vote for Clinton. The same goes for highly educated counties. Think there might be a correlation there between information tech and STEM economies?
Here's a couple sources for thought. The second source is absolutely correct that from a scholarly view we don't find income quite as important as how one earns their income, which tends to be more insightful as to social class.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/exit-polls/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g-class/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b0cbd6fe715c
There is nothing wrong about anything I have posted in this thread. My argument is entirely correct. I am sick of having to correct you on things, explain why you're wrong, having you either acknowledge the mistakes or ignore them, then come back with another attempt, me having to correct, rinse-wash-repeat.
Murox's argument against my comment is bogus. He can't seem to understand that the economy of a state is not necessarily indicative of wealth of each citizen. That is easily shown by looking at the state economies, per capita income of each, and household income of each.
Hell, all you have to do is look at the voting map from the election and compare it to the economies of each state.
In my top 3. The above quote and the quote where he turns down the NSA job are amazing pieces of writing.
You're full of it, and you're almost as impossible to talk to as extragreed. Your argument is not correct. It is completely false. If 4.5% of voters had swung from Trump to Hillary, Trump still would have won by a sizable margin. I proved that to you by breaking down the ACTUAL vote count. You have yet to show any specific numbers to back up your claim because you thought you could make your idiotic statement and not get called out on it.
So, again, show your math or admit defeat and move on. You knew you lost the second I called you out because you made a ridiculous claim that is impossible to back up.
Oh, jesus, BC. How is it that you never learn?
These are approximate numbers, which is why I frequently used "about" with my earlier comments:
9 million votes in Texas
The problem is that you can't fvcking read. What you quoted was not my original comment as you claim. What I originally claimed was "The presidential election in Texas only had a swing of about 4.5%."
Do you not know what "about" means or is it that you just can't read? About means it's an estimate. You're a banker who doesn't even understand that you have to deduct those numbers from the vote total. It's mind boggling.
LOL...good lord, you're pathetic. Now you're arguing by using the word 'about?' Even with 'about' 9 million votes (well over half of which went to Trump) and 'about' 4.5%, the numbers still don't work. Not even close. And after being asked several times to show your math, like I did, in order to back up your claim, you still cannot do it.
For the third time...show your math and prove me wrong. Use rough estimates...I don't care. It still won't add up for you. I'll keep this thread going as long as you want to keeping looking stupid.
Of course he’s afraid because he knows the math isn’t there. He made a ridiculous claim and didn’t think he would be called out on it. And you see that absolutely nobody is coming to his defense either because everybody on this thread knows I’m right and he’s wrong.
Math by your numbers from earlier:
Trump 4,685,047 votes (52.2%)
Clinton 3,877,868 votes (43.2%)
Other 406,311 votes (4.5%)
Total 8,969,226 votes
Trump beat Clinton by 807,179 votes. 403,590 Trump voters would need to change their vote to Clinton for her to win (ignoring other). That would give Clinton a 4,281,458 to 4,281,457 victory.
403,590 is 8.6% of Trump votes and 4.5% of total votes cast.
This shows just how clueless you are. Nobody is weighing in because they haven't taken the time to do the math. They saw that you - a banker at that - didn't even know the correct process in how to reach the conclusion you are trying to get to. That's telling enough. They saw that you don't understand what the word "about" means. They saw that you fabricated a quote, attributed it to me, and conveniently skipped the key word of "about" in the quote.
You see, people understand that "about" is an estimate. My original point remains the same; with an improving state economy, an increasingly educated population, and an Hispanic turnout that increases by about 200,000 each election (the vast majority of whom vote Democrat), the state will continue to turn more blue every election. In about 4-5 more election cycles, it will be blue. But make sure you focus in on the "abouts" when looking at those numbers just provided. And if you need help with the math process in how to do them, just let me know, as I know you struggled immensely with that.
Damn. I was trying to see how long this moron would go pushing this issue without him understanding how swing votes work between two candidates.
Don't worry. He will accept defeat on this part, but he will come back with another attempt and then claim I am hiding from him because I don't want to spend the additional time continuing to teach him.
I see that you're still upset that you received exactly what you asked for in the other thread, then had to change your request to fit what you were attempting to say.
And you’re just as wrong as rifle and the people who “liked” this comment. He has been arguing that if 4.5% of the people who voted for Trump swing their vote that it would be enough to elect Hillary. And it’s not even close.
And you cannot use “total votes cast” because in order to count those who may “swing” their vote, you cannot count the vote count that Hillary already received.
Again...flat out wrong.
Sure you did rifle. You waited until someone could come and attempt to bail you out, and he failed as miserably as you’re failing right now.
That's simply a lie and it proves once again that you don't know what "swing" refers to. You can't understand the difference between swing and margin.
I didn't argue that "if 4.5% of the people who voted for cheeto swing their vote . . . " In one post, I played along with your attempt at math to show how you were fvcking up the logic with it. In that same post I even pointed out how you had multiple errors in logic with your attempt.
Yes, that's exactly what happened. It was just some small miracle that my number matched his exactly.
I can't believe I wasted this much effort on this even though I said I wasn't going to with people who don't have the capability any longer. At this stage in your life, you just don't have the ability to understand certain levels of thinking. And that's fine. It doesn't make you a bad person. Perhaps, at some point in your life, you will, but that is unlikely to ever happen because you already have three strikes against you: you have a wvu degree, your favorite entertainment is WWE, and you live in West Virginia.
Now, in saying that, for the purpose of not dragging this out any longer and embarrassing you further, I will hit you with the hein and end this without any question:
Nothing in my post was “flat out wrong” and I wasn’t making an attempt to bail anyone out. All I did was provide the math needed for Hillary to win.
Here is a generic definition of "swing" in the election world:
An electoral swing analysis (or swing) shows the extent of change in voter support, typically from one election to another, expressed as a positive or negative percentage. ... A swing can be calculated for the electorate as a whole, for a given electoral district or for a particular demographic.
BC, make sure you pay particular attention to the part that says "a swing can be calculated for the electorate as a whole."
Now, to see it applied in actual elections in an article that actually dumbs this down for you and explains how it is calculated . . . this article is entitled "What is Swing, How is it Calculated . . . "
“The statistical measure by which the switch of voters from one party to another on a national or constituency basis can be judged. It is calculated by adding the rise in one party’s vote to the fall of the other, and dividing by two.”
But if that wasn't clear enough for you, BC, they give you multiple examples of how to calculate it:
"Most national opinion polls deal in complete figures (no decimal points). So, when we are looking at individual opinion polls in a general election we need to know the rounded-up percentage figures for the main parties in the previous general election. On that basis, in 2015’s election there was 38 per cent support for the Conservatives and 31 per cent for Labour (GB not UK figures). If a poll is published giving 46 per cent support for the Conservatives and 27 per cent for Labour we can see that, compared with 2015’s election, that represents +8 for the Conservatives and -4 for Labour. You add these two figures together and that makes 12 and then divide by two which makes 6 which means a 6 per cent swing from Labour to Conservative since 2015."
Now, lets apply that to the Texas presidential election results:
cheeto: 4.685 million 52%
Clinton: 3.877 million 43%
Now, the formula that was dumbed down for you above shows exactly how to determine the swing. For my statement to be true (Clinton winning), what would need to happen? Well, Clinton would have to increase to about 47.5%, right? That means she had a positive 4.5% increase. Then, we would need cheeto to have about a 4.5% decrease which would put him at about 47.5%. Look at the example the article used in showing morons how to determine a swing. You add the two numbers together (4.5 + 4.5) and then divide by 2. That number is called your fvcking "swing," you god damned, annoying fvcking shit who constantly wastes my time having to explain shit the average moron knows because you continue trying to claim I am wrong.
As I said many posts ago, learn to take your lashes and go home.
This article could not be any more clear on how to calculate what the swing in an election is. They give you very easy to understand examples which can easily be applied to the Texas election results.
This should be bad enough to embarrass you to never post again, but I will take an apology from you to all of us and a promise to never do it again.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ral-expert-conservatives-labour-a7707321.html
An electoral swing analysis (or swing) shows the extent of change in voter support, typically from one election to another, expressed as a positive or negative percentage. ... A swing can be calculated for the electorate as a whole, for a given electoral district or for a particular demographic.
BC, make sure you pay particular attention to the part that says "a swing can be calculated for the electorate as a whole."
Now, to see it applied in actual elections in an article that actually dumbs this down for you and explains how it is calculated . . . this article is entitled "What is Swing, How is it Calculated . . . "
“The statistical measure by which the switch of voters from one party to another on a national or constituency basis can be judged. It is calculated by adding the rise in one party’s vote to the fall of the other, and dividing by two.”
But if that wasn't clear enough for you, BC, they give you multiple examples of how to calculate it:
"Most national opinion polls deal in complete figures (no decimal points). So, when we are looking at individual opinion polls in a general election we need to know the rounded-up percentage figures for the main parties in the previous general election. On that basis, in 2015’s election there was 38 per cent support for the Conservatives and 31 per cent for Labour (GB not UK figures). If a poll is published giving 46 per cent support for the Conservatives and 27 per cent for Labour we can see that, compared with 2015’s election, that represents +8 for the Conservatives and -4 for Labour. You add these two figures together and that makes 12 and then divide by two which makes 6 which means a 6 per cent swing from Labour to Conservative since 2015."
Now, lets apply that to the Texas presidential election results:
cheeto: 4.685 million 52%
Clinton: 3.877 million 43%
Now, the formula that was dumbed down for you above shows exactly how to determine the swing. For my statement to be true (Clinton winning), what would need to happen? Well, Clinton would have to increase to about 47.5%, right? That means she had a positive 4.5% increase. Then, we would need cheeto to have about a 4.5% decrease which would put him at about 47.5%. Look at the example the article used in showing morons how to determine a swing. You add the two numbers together (4.5 + 4.5) and then divide by 2. That number is called your fvcking "swing," you god damned, annoying fvcking shit who constantly wastes my time having to explain shit the average moron knows because you continue trying to claim I am wrong.
As I said many posts ago, learn to take your lashes and go home.
This article could not be any more clear on how to calculate what the swing in an election is. They give you very easy to understand examples which can easily be applied to the Texas election results.
This should be bad enough to embarrass you to never post again, but I will take an apology from you to all of us and a promise to never do it again.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ral-expert-conservatives-labour-a7707321.html
Rifle...this comment is the basis for this entire argument. You can’t change the argument no matter how hard you try, and you can’t defend this comment because it’s so terribly wrong. If 4.5% of voters swing their vote, Trump would still win by a wide margin.
If 4.5% of Trump voters swing, Trump still wins.
If 4.5% of every voter swings, Trump still wins.
But go ahead and “wait” until someone else can put me in my place, since you’re incapable of doing basic math and incapable of telling the truth.
Score Rox 42
Yagi 14
Combine Rox and big country and the score is 63 to 17 over Yagi.
Their arguments are more concise and on point. Yagi goes in circles and really says nothing much of content.
I am suggesting throwing in the towel again. I can't let my fighter take this kind of abuse. It was 28 to zip before you knew it.
Hell, I gave him 3 points for GK's Good Will Hunting Reference.
Yagi 14
Combine Rox and big country and the score is 63 to 17 over Yagi.
Their arguments are more concise and on point. Yagi goes in circles and really says nothing much of content.
I am suggesting throwing in the towel again. I can't let my fighter take this kind of abuse. It was 28 to zip before you knew it.
Hell, I gave him 3 points for GK's Good Will Hunting Reference.
No, the basis for the entire argument was me saying that the swing was only about 4.5%. You questioned what I meant by "swing." You wouldn't have questioned it if 1) you either didn't know what it meant or 2) you thought my number was wrong.
I then had to dumb everything down for you, to the level that a moron could understand, and try to articulate it to that level.
My comment was perfectly correct. My math was perfectly correct. My explanation was perfectly correct. You just don't know what "swing" means. It isn't margin. Swing is different; once again, you fail to comprehend that.
Let me ask you: what would be the swing for Clinton to win?
You're looking dumber than usual considering I just shut this thread down with an article which clearly expresses how to calculate the swing. It absolutely - no doubt about it - proves that the swing would be about 4.5% for Clinton to win Texas.
BC either didn't know what "swing" meant or thought my number was wrong, so he asked what I meant by it. He now is chasing more ghosts instead of admitting he was a complete fvcking, annoying moron who tried challenging me once again by claiming I was wrong on something I, like always, was entirely correct on.
It took me urging you several times before you even attempted math, and you’re just as wrong now as you were yesterday. You made a stupid comment and waited an entire day for someone else to provide numbers (that were still incorrect) in hopes that you would get bailed out. I asked you what you meant by “swing” because I wanted to know how to form my argument. You’re the one who said that if 4.5% of voters swing their vote, that Hillary would win. That’s 100% false no matter how you slice it. It’s just simply false and you can’t accept that.
Math doesn’t lie. You do.
That's a fvcking lie, and you know it. Go read the thread. This was my ONLY statement about swing before you started questioning it:
The presidential election in Texas only had a swing of about 4.5%. That isn't much. That state will continue to turn blue in the future as the state's economy and educational level continues to rise.
At that point, you questioned the comment, and I had to begin to dumb it down. If you either knew what swing meant or thought my number was accurate, you wouldn't have questioned it. The fact that you questioned it showed one (or both) of those things.
You wanted to know how to form your argument? How stupid and how much of a liar can you be? You thought my comment was wrong. It was completely right, as has been my explanation. You simply cannot understand that "swing" doesn't mean "margin." When swing is introduced, it is doubled. Tell us all, what argument would you have to form. My comment was right. My numbers were right. You just thought they weren't. If you knew what swing was, why would you need an explanation to form your argument? You make no sense, you're continuing to be dishonest, and my original comment and explanation was entirely true. The link showing how to calculate the swing proves that.
Again, coward, what is the swing for Clinton to win?
Wrong and you just threw another interception. You were driving and threw a pick 6. 70 to 17.
http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-identification-detailed-tables/
This data is from research conducted in 2016 and very detailed in nature. Looks like the most statistically significant differences between Rep and Dem exist in those with a household income of less than $30K/yr (over twice the amount identify as democrat).
Similar threads
