The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
- Aug 4, 2018
- Reaction score
- Boston, MA
Error and it does work the other way. My formula was just fucked up. Mistakes happen retarded parrot. Can’t always be perfect. My HR example was correct. You can have more than a 100% increase. Character? A dude told you that he found your term of shortbus offensive as his kid took one and you told him to fuck off. He ended up leaving the site. That’s character. You’re a fucking mongoloid.No, it was your error. You're the one who put the figures into Excel wrong. What a sad moron you are for blaming Excel for your stupidity.It was an Excel error. I cant Do em in my head. Whooopti doo…you still can’t explain why so many didn’t vote 3rd party in 2020LOLOLI used the denominator not numerator. Ooops. Mistakes happen. For instance your birth.No, incorrect. Off? Yes. "way off," no.Biden +7.2 was way off. Correct?What? Show that pollActually, the difference is due to the question of the poll. The poll I referenced as who would you vote for between Trump and Biden. So that 5% includes not only people who voted third party but also people who chose not to vote at all. And again, it's a poll -- not an exact number.I never said that. You're just dodging the original question. You said 5% but it was 2%...nothing to see here....LOLOLOL4% i(3.64%)...I rounded up if you use decimals and 3.13% if you don't I answered it both ways. WTF do you want from me??!?!?!?!?!LOLOL3.13% Retarded Parrot. What the fuck does that have to do with you being a fucking idiot.LOLOLOLWhat the hell are you talking about?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.
You claim to be in banking but you don't know what "two decimal places" is??
Rounding Decimals – Methods & Example What is Rounding off Decimals? In mathematics rounding off decimal is a technique used to estimate or to find the approximate values and to limit the amount of decimal place. Rounding decimals off is an activity we encounter most of the time in our daily...www.storyofmathematics.comRounding off to the nearest hundredths is the same as rounding it to 2 decimal places. To round off a number to 2 decimal places, look at the digit in the thousandths place.If the digit in the thousandths place is greater or equal to 5, the hundredths digit is increased by one unit. And if the digit in the thousandths place is equal to or less than 4, the digit in the hundredths places will remain unchanged.To round off 2.9801 to the nearest hundredths:And so, the answer is 2.98.
Now do you know what 2 decimal places is, ShortBus?
So? What's the answer? Using 2 decimal places what is percentage of the decrease from 66.08 to 63.76......
No, not 3.13, ShortBus. As an aside, before rounding to 2 decimal places, you said 4%, which is correct when rounding to a whole number.
So what kind of retarded math did you employ to round 3.13% to 4%???
Care to try again or would you like me to use your retarded math to show what retarded answer you would come up with?
Now answer me. Why are you dodging. You said 5% would vote 3rd party but it was 2%? Were you just pulling numbers out of your ass?!?!
ShortBus, in what asylum do you reside where 3.13 rounds to 4???
But back to your idiocy.... So your answer is 3.64%. The actual figure is 3.51%
Your math is backwards. You're actually calculating the increase from 63.76 to 66.08 and idiotically calling it a decrease.
And you actually project it's others who are a retard.
Again, that was just a head-to-head matchup. Still, polls predicted on average a 7.2 point victory for Biden. Actual gap was 4.5 points.
A difference of 2.7. The average margin of error was 2.85. So the difference fell within margin of error.
But tell me more about how a drop from 66.08 to 63.76 is a 3.64% decrease....
Since even Yahoo finance says you're a fucking imbecile....
View attachment 489163
You did it over and over and over. Even worse for you, you claim to be a banker. You even continued making the mistake after I tried correcting you.
Looks like you need to add your own name to your signature line.
Shit, and to show what an abject imbecile you are, you actually claimed going from hitting 40 home runs in a season to 15 is a decrease of 167%.
Forget that you employed the wrong formula for that calculation ... the result you came up with alone should have clued you in that something was amiss as you can't have a drop of more than 100% in home runs.
I even tried to help you by pointing that out, but you persisted anyway. Even worse, projecting that I was the retard while you're posting retarded math. Had you even an ounce of character, you'd apologize for insulting others for your own mistakes.