info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Polls show that Obama has a 55% approval rating
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Rudy Canoza
Jan 16, 2017, 3:09:22 PM1/16/17
to
On 1/16/2017 12:05 PM, Fred Oinka wrote:
>
> Polls also showed that Hillary Clinton would be president.
No, they didn't. *National* polls showed that more people supported
Clinton than supported Trump. That was true and remains true: more
people *DO* support Clinton than Trump.
By rights, Clinton should be president-elect. There is not a single
*principled* defense of the electoral college.
>
> Polls also showed that Hillary Clinton would be president.
No, they didn't. *National* polls showed that more people supported
Clinton than supported Trump. That was true and remains true: more
people *DO* support Clinton than Trump.
By rights, Clinton should be president-elect. There is not a single
*principled* defense of the electoral college.
edhun...@gmail.com
Jan 16, 2017, 3:51:21 PM1/16/17
to
The polls got it right. The Republican pundits are dead wrong. So is anyone who believes them.
This is not a matter of opinion. What I said above is 100% documented.
--
Ed Huntress
Rudy Canoza
Jan 16, 2017, 3:51:58 PM1/16/17
to
On 1/16/2017 12:40 PM, Fred Oinka wrote:
> The polls were wrong.
The polls *weren't* wrong. They correctly showed Clinton winning more
votes than Trump. She did.
The people interpreting the polls were wrong. They looked at national
numbers when they needed to be looking at state numbers.
The polls *weren't* wrong. They correctly showed Clinton winning more
votes than Trump. She did.
The people interpreting the polls were wrong. They looked at national
numbers when they needed to be looking at state numbers.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 16, 2017, 4:26:01 PM1/16/17
to
On 1/16/2017 1:12 PM, First-Post wrote:
>> The polls were wrong. Trump's rallies were standing room only while Clinton could not get people to show up.
>>
>> Every single news outlet assured us that Trump had no chance. Turns out he won most of the counties by "popular vote".
>>
>> You only hate the electoral college because you are a little kid having a temper tantrum like all your fellow libtards.
>
> Prof. Canoza has made no bones about the fact that he
> believes California should decide for America.
No, that's a complete lie. I have proved, beyond rational dispute, that
"California" wouldn't be deciding anything. Not just "California", but
your entire "big states" / "population centers" argument is blasted to bits.
Here, cocksucker, read it again:
All of the support for the electoral college - 100% of it - comes from
right-wingers who know that, at present, the only way a Republican can
win the presidency is by winning enough of those swing states to offset
a likely popular vote defeat. All of their rationales for the electoral
college are nothing but smokescreen; totally rank bullshit. The real
reason is they know Republicans can't win the presidency without it.
One of their favorite nuggets of bullshit is that under popular vote
system, "population centers" / "the big states" / "California" will
determine the outcome of the election. This is the stupidest, most
easily dismissed bullshit of all.
Below are the 11 biggest states and some actual and hypothetical vote
numbers:
Total Clinton Winner
State _votes_ _80% votes_ _votes_ _votes_ _W_
CA 14181595 11345276 8753788 8753788 C
TX 8969226 7175381 3877868 4685047 T
FL 9420039 7536031 4504975 4617886 T
NY 7710126 6168101 4547218 4547218 C
IL 5536424 4429139 3090729 3090729 C
PA 6115402 4892322 2926441 2970733 T
OH 5496487 4397190 2394164 2841005 T
GA 4092373 3273898 1877963 2089104 T
MI 4799284 3839427 2268839 2279543 T
NC 4741564 3793251 2189316 2362631 T
NJ 3874046 3099237 2148278 2148278 C
Total 74936566 59949253 38579579 40385962
The total votes column is the total votes for president cast in the
state for all candidates in the 2016 election. The 80% votes column
shows the number of votes that a candidate who won an *impossible* 80%
of all votes cast in in the state would receive. The Clinton and Winner
votes columns are self explanatory (even for stupid clueless fuckwits
like "Nobody" (very apt) or "Just Wondering" or "Yak" and numerous
unnamed fuckwits in rec.crafts.metalworking; I don't yet want to include
"jane.playne" or Wayne in the fuckwits category, they're decent enough
folks but just wrong.) In another column of my spreadsheet that
wouldn't fit in the post, I took the highest winning percentage in any
of these 11 states - Clinton's remarkable 61.7% in California (highest
in the country except for DC and HI) - and applied it to the total
number of votes for each state. It totals to 46.2 million.
We see that even if one candidate won an *impossible* 80% of the votes
of all 11 states, it still wouldn't even reach Trump's total (63
million), let alone Clinton's (65.8 million). Clinton won a total of
38.6 million in these 11 largest states. Even if we were to take the
winning number of votes and assign them to just one candidate, it
*still* only reaches 40.4 million - not even two-thirds of the actual
votes Trump won.
Nearly all of the major "population centers" - 17 of the top 25 - are in
these 11 states. If we were to look separately at the 25 largest MSAs
and exclude the non-MSA parts of the states in which they occur, we'd
get something similar. I did this. I entered the 25 largest MSAs and
their populations, and then applied a generous - that is, too high -
percentage, 60%, to determine an estimated number of *eligible* voters.
Then, assuming that all eligible voters actually register *and* vote, I
applied Clinton's CA percentage of 61.7% to each MSA's number of
potential voters and calculated the sum. It is just under 50 million.
Obviously no candidate is going to get 60% or more of the vote in all 25
MSAs.
So, stupid clueless fuckwits (plus "jane.playne" and Wayne), exactly
*HOW* are the "population centers"/"the big states"/"California"
determinative of the popular vote?
The answer is, you're full of shit completely and unequivocally full of
shit. Out of a total of 136.6 million votes cast, someone winning an
impossible 80% of the votes of *all* 11 states would still need another
nine million votes to win a majority of the popular vote, and another
six million to reach Clinton's vote total. Someone winning Clinton's CA
61.7% of all 11 states would *still* need another 16 million vote to
reach Trump's total. If instead we somewhat more realistically assign
the actual winner's votes in these 11 states to just one candidate, that
candidate needs another 22 million votes just to reach Trump's total.
This phony concern about "population centers"/"big states" is complete
bullshit from start to finish, right along with every other bullshit
objection you make, e.g. "federalism", "wisdom of the founders", "mob
rule", etc. You need to start being honest and state your only real
reason: it's the only way a Republican can possibly win the presidency.
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 12:40:52 -0800 (PST), Fred Oinka
> <stardu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 3:09:21 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> <stardu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 3:09:21 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> Every single news outlet assured us that Trump had no chance. Turns out he won most of the counties by "popular vote".
>>
>> You only hate the electoral college because you are a little kid having a temper tantrum like all your fellow libtards.
>
> Prof. Canoza has made no bones about the fact that he
> believes California should decide for America.
No, that's a complete lie. I have proved, beyond rational dispute, that
"California" wouldn't be deciding anything. Not just "California", but
your entire "big states" / "population centers" argument is blasted to bits.
Here, cocksucker, read it again:
All of the support for the electoral college - 100% of it - comes from
right-wingers who know that, at present, the only way a Republican can
win the presidency is by winning enough of those swing states to offset
a likely popular vote defeat. All of their rationales for the electoral
college are nothing but smokescreen; totally rank bullshit. The real
reason is they know Republicans can't win the presidency without it.
One of their favorite nuggets of bullshit is that under popular vote
system, "population centers" / "the big states" / "California" will
determine the outcome of the election. This is the stupidest, most
easily dismissed bullshit of all.
Below are the 11 biggest states and some actual and hypothetical vote
numbers:
Total Clinton Winner
State _votes_ _80% votes_ _votes_ _votes_ _W_
CA 14181595 11345276 8753788 8753788 C
TX 8969226 7175381 3877868 4685047 T
FL 9420039 7536031 4504975 4617886 T
NY 7710126 6168101 4547218 4547218 C
IL 5536424 4429139 3090729 3090729 C
PA 6115402 4892322 2926441 2970733 T
OH 5496487 4397190 2394164 2841005 T
GA 4092373 3273898 1877963 2089104 T
MI 4799284 3839427 2268839 2279543 T
NC 4741564 3793251 2189316 2362631 T
NJ 3874046 3099237 2148278 2148278 C
Total 74936566 59949253 38579579 40385962
The total votes column is the total votes for president cast in the
state for all candidates in the 2016 election. The 80% votes column
shows the number of votes that a candidate who won an *impossible* 80%
of all votes cast in in the state would receive. The Clinton and Winner
votes columns are self explanatory (even for stupid clueless fuckwits
like "Nobody" (very apt) or "Just Wondering" or "Yak" and numerous
unnamed fuckwits in rec.crafts.metalworking; I don't yet want to include
"jane.playne" or Wayne in the fuckwits category, they're decent enough
folks but just wrong.) In another column of my spreadsheet that
wouldn't fit in the post, I took the highest winning percentage in any
of these 11 states - Clinton's remarkable 61.7% in California (highest
in the country except for DC and HI) - and applied it to the total
number of votes for each state. It totals to 46.2 million.
We see that even if one candidate won an *impossible* 80% of the votes
of all 11 states, it still wouldn't even reach Trump's total (63
million), let alone Clinton's (65.8 million). Clinton won a total of
38.6 million in these 11 largest states. Even if we were to take the
winning number of votes and assign them to just one candidate, it
*still* only reaches 40.4 million - not even two-thirds of the actual
votes Trump won.
Nearly all of the major "population centers" - 17 of the top 25 - are in
these 11 states. If we were to look separately at the 25 largest MSAs
and exclude the non-MSA parts of the states in which they occur, we'd
get something similar. I did this. I entered the 25 largest MSAs and
their populations, and then applied a generous - that is, too high -
percentage, 60%, to determine an estimated number of *eligible* voters.
Then, assuming that all eligible voters actually register *and* vote, I
applied Clinton's CA percentage of 61.7% to each MSA's number of
potential voters and calculated the sum. It is just under 50 million.
Obviously no candidate is going to get 60% or more of the vote in all 25
MSAs.
So, stupid clueless fuckwits (plus "jane.playne" and Wayne), exactly
*HOW* are the "population centers"/"the big states"/"California"
determinative of the popular vote?
The answer is, you're full of shit completely and unequivocally full of
shit. Out of a total of 136.6 million votes cast, someone winning an
impossible 80% of the votes of *all* 11 states would still need another
nine million votes to win a majority of the popular vote, and another
six million to reach Clinton's vote total. Someone winning Clinton's CA
61.7% of all 11 states would *still* need another 16 million vote to
reach Trump's total. If instead we somewhat more realistically assign
the actual winner's votes in these 11 states to just one candidate, that
candidate needs another 22 million votes just to reach Trump's total.
This phony concern about "population centers"/"big states" is complete
bullshit from start to finish, right along with every other bullshit
objection you make, e.g. "federalism", "wisdom of the founders", "mob
rule", etc. You need to start being honest and state your only real
reason: it's the only way a Republican can possibly win the presidency.
0 new messages