- Nov 14, 2011
- Reaction score
LOL4% retarded parrot.Nah, you are. That's why you won't answer my question....You are an idiot who doesn't understand mathLOLOLLMAO....You cannot percents. You are an idiot.LOLOLDon't dodge.....how do you explain this?LOLYour margin of error is 50%? LMAOI also said 10% for 2016 but the actual number was half that at 5%. To that, I account for the margin of error among polls. Still see nothing unusual.Really? OK Retarded parrot.LOLCompare all 3rd party votes. How many voted 3rd party in 2016 vs. 2020, retarded parrot?Dumbfuck, again, you're counting all the 3rd party votes in 2016 and comparing them to one candidates vote in 2020. And again, there were 34 other candidates in 2020 besides the Democrat and Republican. And again, it was expected 3rd party candidates would do poorly in 2020.OK but 25mil more voted...so 5% of that is 1.25Mil already. Based on your math above, nearly 8mil should have gone to the 3rd party candidates. Libertarian barely got 2milPoor ShortBus, even before the election, it was predicted 3rd party candidates would do worse in 2020 than in 2016.Nope. You didn't. You gave a subjective response to what you believe it was. I can counter with a similar subjective response. Still don't know the difference between subjective and objective, eh retarded parrot?Already explained it, ShortBus. If you weren't such a moron, you'd understand it.Explain the "pattern" between 2016 and 2020. What specifically are you referring to, retarded parrot?"I am not discussing "patterns" retarded parrot."I am not discussing "patterns" retarded parrot. I am discussing mathematics. For example...of the total US population 6% are black males but the NBA is comprised of 85% of black males. There isn't anything nefarious there. The NBA is not racist. But to someone who doesn't live in the US or follow the NBA the mathematics would look odd. You once again don't understand the difference between subjective and objective. You are a very stupid retarded parrot.ShortBus, voting patterns are more than just numbers.Subjective. Mathematically speaking only if you just look at numbers it looks suspect. You need to learn the difference between objective and subjective, retarded parrot. Mathematics alone without context, it looks bizarre as my post stated. There are mathematical anomalies, I am not saying there was anything nefarious just that it looks odd simply from a statistical POV.There's nothing suspect about it. It reflects how important this election was that Americans didn't want to waste a vote on a candidate who had absolutely no chance.So statistically speaking that doesn't make sense. I am sure you have your subjective thoughts on it but mathematically speaking it is bizarre.So?And yet the Libertarian got ~3mil fewer votes.All elections are important. Some, more than others. For the sake of America's future, 2020 was so important, it inspired some 25 million additional Americans to vote.That’s subjective. So 2016 wasn’t important? I am speaking basic statistics, retarded parrot. How many more people voted in 2020 vs. 2016?The 2020 election was too important to throw away a vote on a 3rd party candidate.
So statistically speaking that doesn't make sense. I am sure you have your subjective thoughts on it but mathematically speaking it is bizarre.
View attachment 489080
I know, ShortBus, you're ignoring them.
Polls reflected this. Between Hillary and Trump, polls showed them getting about 90% of the vote; leaving almost 10% for other candidates. But in 2020, polls showed Biden and Trump getting 95% of the vote, leaving half of what other candidates were predicted to get in 2016.
I'm no fan of Vox, but they called this one...
A combination of incumbency and Trump has dampened the impact of third-party voting in 2020.www.vox.com
... they point out 3rd party candidates tend to do better in elections when there is no incumbent running. Yet another factor which eludes you.
That's your job to figure out, ShortBus -- you're the one complaining about it. It's my job to point out you're a retard for comparing ALL third party candidates in 2016 with ONE candidate in 2020.
I did my job, now you do yours.
Here you go....You said 5%....but only 2% voted 3rd party in 2020 when so many more voted overall. By your math it should have been a lot more or did you not say 5%? Retarded Parrot.
You lose again!
2016 DJT 65,853 48% HRC 62,985 46% 3rd 7,157 5% Total 135,995 100% 2020 Biden 81,269 51% DJT 74,217 47% 3rd 2,898 2% Total 158,384 100%
Retarded parrot. So 22.4mil more voted by 5mil fewer voted 3rd party and nothing to see here? The percentage of those voting 3rd party declined by 147%! But you don't see that as a statistical anomaly? Your polls predicted 8mil votes for 3rd party. Moron.
ShortBus ... how does something decrease by more than 100%??
And to answer your question it is basic math....the delta is 147% not the number of votes you moron. What % of decrease is it when you go from 7 to 5?
You really are a moron. WOW
If I hit 40 home runs one season and 15 the next, what is my % of decline in home runs? It is 167%!
You are an idiot.
I've already explained it. Among the reasons, it was too important an election to throw away a vote AND it's typical for 3rd party candidates to get fewer votes in a race with an incumbent.
Of course, I'm explaining this to a fucking moron who actually thinks something can decrease more than 100%.
And ShortBus, a drop from 7 to 5 is a 29% decrease, a drop from 40 to 15 is a 63% decrease, and a drop from 7,157 to 2,898 is 60%, not 147%.
And you claim to be in banking.
View attachment 489110
what is 5*1.4?
ShortBus, if something is worth 66.08 and drops 2.32 to 63.76, what percentage did that drop?
If something is worth 66.08 and drops 2.32 to 63.76, what percentage did that drop?
Answer that with two decimal places and I will expose what a flaming retard you are since nothing can decrease more than 100%.
I see you're either too retarded to understand what "two decimal places" means or you're too big of a pussy to answer the question.