Trump vs Hillary 2016

Quote: kenarman

You use 2.5 million like it means something. Put it in perspective as a percentage, as a stand alone number it means nothing. But 2% doesn't sound as impressive or if I wanted to play that game Hillary received 1% more of the eligible voters. So if you gather 100 people and they split 50/50 for Trump thats okay? Now you have 1 person switch sides and either he becomes popular or unpopular depending which side they stand on? That makes no sense to me. When his approval rating drops to 40% in the polls you can call him unpopular, actually make that 35% since we know the polls will still be biased against him.

Rob Ford was elected with the most votes of any of the candidates but as in most mayorality races in Canada their are multiple candidates and seldom does any candidate receive more than 50%. The city councillors are even worse were you can usually get elected if you receive over 10% in a large city. Rob Ford was actually quite popular (in the Trump kind of way you discount) and likely would have gotten elected again if he hadn't had to drop out because of cancer.

You use the electoral system like it means something and it is a completely artificial construct.

Quote: rxwine

You use the electoral system like it means something and it is a completely artificial construct.

Wow talk about a slippery slope. You think that every Tom, Dick and Hillary politician should be able change the system when it suits them? Now we would truly have a banana republic and lot of people would have died for no reason.

Quote: kenarman

Wow talk about a slippery slope. You think that every Tom, Dick and Hillary politician should be able change the system when it suits them? Now we would truly have a banana republic and lot of people would have died for no reason.

Where did I say that?

Trump is much closer to a banana republic character than many. Larger than life, populist, starts breaking the rules,etc., At least if people didn't like Hillary's lies or corruption, they could have come up with a real alternative. If anything, he's going to be worse in the same areas, plus who knows, what else.

Quote: kenarman

You use 2.5 million like it means something. Put it in perspective as a percentage, as a stand alone number it means nothing. But 2% doesn't sound as impressive or if I wanted to play that game Hillary received 1% more of the eligible voters. So if you gather 100 people and they split 50/50 for Trump thats okay? Now you have 1 person switch sides and either he becomes popular or unpopular depending which side they stand on? That makes no sense to me. When his approval rating drops to 40% in the polls you can call him unpopular, actually make that 35% since we know the polls will still be biased against him.

You misunderstand percentages.

A percentage point is not the same as a percentage.

So while Clinton won 1.9 percentage points more than Trump, percentage-wise the difference is 4.1%.

Don't believe me? Take Trump's percentage of the vote, 46.3 according to CNN, and multiply it first by 1.019 and then by 1.041.

Here:

46.3 X 1.019 = 47.18
46.3 X 1.041 = 48.20

Clinton got 48.2% of the votes, therefore she won the popular vote by a difference of 4.10%, not 2%.

In addition, Johnson received 3.3% of the vote and Stein took 1%. So that's:

48.2+3.3+1= 52.50 which is the percentage of the nation who wanted anyone other than trump as president. That's 6.2 percentage points of difference, or 13.39%.

Proof: 46.3 X 1.1339 = 52.5

Now tell me when a majority of 52.50% rejected Trump, meaning 13.39% of voters cast votes against him, that these people don't matter.

And that's what's really wrong with the supporters of the Orange Man. You think a minority win on a complex system that allows for it, means you have the support of a majority of the population, when the popular vote clearly indicates your candidate has been rejected by a majority of the nation. You don't have a plurality of the vote, like Bill Clinton did in 92, or a very tiny percentage difference, like Bush had in 2000.

Any attempt to pass the Orange Man's agenda will be very unpopular, no matter if you have Congress also. You can pass whatever Draconian laws Thieving Donald needs to enrich himself, sure, but you won't make the majority of the people like it.

Quote: Nareed

You misunderstand percentages.

A percentage point is not the same as a percentage.

So while Clinton won 1.9 percentage points more than Trump, percentage-wise the difference is 4.1%.

Don't believe me? Take Trump's percentage of the vote, 46.3 according to CNN, and multiply it first by 1.019 and then by 1.041.

Here:

46.3 X 1.019 = 47.18
46.3 X 1.041 = 48.20

Clinton got 48.2% of the votes, therefore she won the popular vote by a difference of 4.10%, not 2%.

In addition, Johnson received 3.3% of the vote and Stein took 1%. So that's:

48.2+3.3+1= 52.50 which is the percentage of the nation who wanted anyone other than trump as president. That's 6.2 percentage points of difference, or 13.39%.

Proof: 46.3 X 1.1339 = 52.5

Now tell me when a majority of 52.50% rejected Trump, meaning 13.39% of voters cast votes against him, that these people don't matter.

And that's what's really wrong with the supporters of the Orange Man. You think a minority win on a complex system that allows for it, means you have the support of a majority of the population, when the popular vote clearly indicates your candidate has been rejected by a majority of the nation. You don't have a plurality of the vote, like Bill Clinton did in 92, or a very tiny percentage difference, like Bush had in 2000.

Any attempt to pass the Orange Man's agenda will be very unpopular, no matter if you have Congress also. You can pass whatever Draconian laws Thieving Donald needs to enrich himself, sure, but you won't make the majority of the people like it.

Although your numbers above are all correct they are not relative to my post. If 2% of the voters changed their votes to Trump he would have the most votes and neither would have the majority of the votes just as it is now. My point about the 2.5 million was that it needs context to mean anything. You want to use the 4% because it reinforces your point, you can say the same about me if you like. The best answer to that question is probably Diisraeli's quote "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.

Quote: kenarman

Although your numbers above are all correct they are not relative to my post. If 2% of the voters changed their votes to Trump he would have the most votes and neither would have the majority of the votes just as it is now.

And if an even smaller percentage of voter sin three states changed their vote to Clinton, she'd have won the EC and you'd be fuming about a rigged election.

Your point seems to change when you're proven wrong, so arguing with you is about as profitable as prayer. So I'll just tell you again what I've already said: trump has no popular support, no mandate and no popular appeal. Anything he does will be highly unpopular. And no amount of wishful thinking and rationalization and blaming the media will change that.

Quote: Nareed

And if an even smaller percentage of voter sin three states changed their vote to Clinton, she'd have won the EC and you'd be fuming about a rigged election.

Your point seems to change when you're proven wrong, so arguing with you is about as profitable as prayer. So I'll just tell you again what I've already said: trump has no popular support, no mandate and no popular appeal. Anything he does will be highly unpopular. And no amount of wishful thinking and rationalization and blaming the media will change that.

I do find your math interesting Nareed when 45% of the voters equates to "no" popular support. I guess minorities don't count for much with you.

Quote: kenarman

I do find your math interesting Nareed when 45% of the voters equates to "no" popular support. I guess minorities don't count for much with you.

There is more popular support against trump than for him. therefore he has no popular support the way you and his other supporters claims he does.

Quote: Nareed

There is more popular support against trump than for him. therefore he has no popular support the way you and his other supporters claims he does.

Yes he does.

Quote: Nareed

Any attempt to pass the Orange Man's agenda will be very unpopular.

You're just wrong, Nareed. In 1992 56%
of the country voted against Clinton,
56% wanted anybody but him. 12 million
votes compared to Hillary's 2.5 million.
And Clinton turned out to be very popular.
Numbers mean nothing, it's who the person
is. You just hope Trump fails, so you set up
straw men to make your point.