It's a good thing that you can't read either. Murox wants to discuss individual incomes when my statement was clearly about the economic strength of a state which is far, far different than per capita income.
This is gold
- Thread starter Marine03
- Start date
It's a good thing that you can't read either. Murox wants to discuss individual incomes when my statement was clearly about the economic strength of a state which is far, far different than per capita income.
Hey moron, I've made no attempt refute or promote anyone's argument here. I merely added a very detailed reference source and pointed out what appears to be statistically significant.
To something that was incorrectly posted in this thread. This thread is clearly now about mocking BC for being a liar and a moron. If you want to elaborate on Murox's information which had nothing to do with my post, start a thread for it.
Correction...this thread is clearly now about mocking rifle’s inability to do 5th grade math and his inability to accept defeat.
That's the reason why you keep running away from a very basic question and why you keep running away from your lies.
Again, answer this simple question: what was the swing of the election results in Texas?
Unlike you, I will answer direct questions. But before I do, let's make a few things clear. First, swing can mean a couple things, and, like I said before, I asked you specifically what you were referring to as a swing in order to form my argument. You said specifically that it if 4.5% of voters would swing their vote, Hillary would have won. I showed you, with exact numbers, why that simply wasn't true. You even argued back, using (and thereby acknowledging and accepting) that same premise, by pointing out that I forgot to deduct the vote count from Trump that was given to Hillary. Even after correcting the one minor error that I have made in this entire thread, I still showed you with specific numbers that Trump still won comfortably.
Fast forward to today, and after I've bloodied and beaten you into the ground, and only after you have no other leg to stand on, another poster throws you a lifeline so you pull an article from the U.K., attempting to exaplain a different definition of the word swing...which means you were trying to change the argument yet again in an attempt to get yourself off life support.
Now, below I have posted a link to Wikipedia, which shows the definition of the word swing, as defined in politics.
It says "A swing is calculated by comparing the percentage of the vote in a particular election to the percentage of the vote belonging to the same party or candidate at the previous election."
It then gives the calculation: "One-party swing (in percentage points) = Percentage of vote (current election) − percentage of vote (previous election)."
Key words here..."same party or candidate"..."one party swing"...
The Wikipedia page also says that the U.K. uses the average model, which is what you're now using (only after me proving you wrong on your first attempt at defining the word "swing"), and conveniently the U.K. is the country from which you pulled your article.
Now, for Hillary to have won, she would have needed 403,590 of Trump's votes, as Dorrej stated. That 403,590 is not 4.5% of Trump's votes. It's nearly double that. So a 4.5% swing in Trump's votes would have still resulted in a sizable Trump victory. That is consistent with Wikipedia's definition, which is the swing in one party's votes.
So, for the 658th time, you're still wrong no matter how you slice it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_(politics)
Wrong. I was showing you why your attempt was incorrect. I even mentioned multiple times in that thread how it was wrong, stated I would play along, and pointed out how it was still illogical.
Holy shit, you really still don't know what "swing" refers to in votes, do you? See, so you didn't know what it meant initially. This is classic.
Now, you're saying that the article which thoroughly discussed what "swing" meant and how it was calculated is some alternative version? Why do you keep digging your hole deeper?
How can me proving with a legitimate article explaining what it means and how it is calculated be construed as changing the argument? God damn, you're so desperate you are throwing just random, fruitless attempts out there.
The sad thing is that I truly think you're arguing this because you believe you're correct. And that just further proves my point.
Check out the second and third sentence of your source. Here, let me help:
"A multi-party swing is an indicator of a change in the electorate's preference between candidates or parties (mainly from conservative/centre-right to social democratic/centre-left or vice versa). A swing can be calculated for the electorate as a whole, for a given electoral district or for a particular demographic."
Does that need to be dumbed down for you? Your own source, right from the start, explains how it is a swing. How pathetically desperate must you be to claim that my article - one that explains what swing is and exactly how it is calculated - is some alternative version of the word. Christ.
Hell, look at what you just posted. Your source said "One-party swing (in percentage points) = Percentage of vote (current election) − percentage of vote (previous election)."
Why the fvck do you think they'd have to specify "one-party swing"? They had to mention that because they were simply looking at the swing within one party and not the swing which would allow the other candidate to win the election (which would be a two-party swing). When somebody clearly says it would take a certain swing for a candidate to win, it is clear that it is a two-party swing.
These lashes have to be leaving some scars by this point.
After all of that, you still didn’t answer the simple question, liar.
What do you think the swing is in the presidential election?
