Did MAGA Rig the election?

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yes the covid election is an outlier. Glad we figured that out

Excellent. It took me what like 10 posts for you to answer honestly? See you’re a troll. An asshole and a dishonest debater.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Since the invention on the Internet.

Ok. I put the numbers in for the top two candidates in each year since 1984.

81 million is not an outlier.

 

[Blisterfinger]

Prove it. You can’t

I don't have to

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Ok. I put the numbers in for the top two candidates in each year since 1984.

81 million is not an outlier.

Show it

Talking absolute votes not %s

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Ok. I put the numbers in for the top two candidates in each year since 1984.

81 million is not an outlier.

Come on leftist. Do better

 

[XponentialChaos]

Show it

Talking absolute votes not %s

I put it into a calculator. Here are the summary statistics:

Mean = 55825073.9
Median = 56741759.5
Standard Deviation = 12348035.25
Q1 = 46156123
Q3 = 64419171

If you know how to calculate outliers, go for it. I ran the numbers and it doesn't qualify as an outlier. This isn't an opinion. This is a fact.

I think what you're failing to see is that Trump's 74.2 million vote total in the same year is "close enough" to Biden's 81.3 million that it doesn't get an outlier label.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Come on leftist. Do better
View attachment 1039675

?

You said you wanted votes. Your graph is regarding voter turnout.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I put it into a calculator. Here are the summary statistics:

Mean = 55825073.9
Median = 56741759.5
Standard Deviation = 12348035.25
Q1 = 46156123
Q3 = 64419171

If you know how to calculate outliers, go for it. I ran the numbers and it doesn't qualify as an outlier. This isn't an opinion. This is a fact.

I think what you're failing to see is that Trump's 74.2 million vote total in the same year is "close enough" to Biden's 81.3 million that it doesn't get an outlier label.

Except Trump duplicated it and the Democratic challenger did not. 81mil is most certainly an outlier.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

?

You said you wanted votes. Your graph is regarding voter turnout.

Turnout = votes. They didn’t turnout to fold clothes.

 

[The Duke]

Based on your feelings. Got it. Thanks for sharing, pussy.

Let me know when you have something intelligent to say.

We're done now, tard. Ye are of little substance.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Turnout = votes. They didn’t turnout to fold clothes.

Dumbass, the graph you posted says voter turnout. It's referring to the percentage of voters each election.

Do you want the percentage of voters or the total number of votes?

 

[The Duke]

I used baseball as a stat analogy. Again, I am not solving for the why. I am solving for the If. And we agree that the 81mil was indeed an outlier/anomaly.

If I look up "outlier/anomaly" in Roget's Thesaurus, is it gonna say "bullshit"? Because it most certainly is.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Dumbass, the graph you posted says voter turnout. It's referring to the percentage of voters each election.

Do you want the percentage of voters or the total number of votes?

Total

81 over 71 is 14%. That’s pretty significant would you not say? The 81 is a statistical anomaly for any Democratic presidential candidate. You agreed it was an outlier and now you’re back pedaling. Hilarious

 

[Blisterfinger]

Excellent. It took me what like 10 posts for you to answer honestly? See you’re a troll. An asshole and a dishonest debater.

Don't forget a liar and a gullible Democrat

 

[The Duke]

All other elections? Like as in every single other American election since Washington?

That's where The Democrats fucked up, Bubba.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Except Trump duplicated it and the Democratic challenger did not. 81mil is most certainly an outlier.

Oh I see. You want it by party.

I just ran it again with just Democrats since 1984. Still not an outlier.

And even if it was an outlier, I haven't factored in Kamala's numbers which are going to end up as the second highest Democrat popular vote total and would definitely be "close enough" to remove that label. The same way you're arguing that about Trump replicating his results.

Let me know if you want the summary statistics.

 

[XponentialChaos]

We're done now, tard. Ye are of little substance.

See ya, pussy.

 

[The Duke]

Oh I see. You want it by party.

I just ran it again with just Democrats since 1984. Still not an outlier.

And even if it was an outlier, I haven't factored in Kamala's numbers which are going to end up as the second highest Democrat popular vote total and would definitely be "close enough" to remove that label. The same way you're arguing that about Trump replicating his results.

Kamala's numbers is zero. She lost. America has rejected shitbirds like you wholeheartedly and then some.
Fuck off, you dishonest turdmuffin.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Total

81 over 71 is 14%. That’s pretty significant would you not say? The 81 is a statistical anomaly for any Democratic presidential candidate. You agreed it was an outlier and now you’re back pedaling. Hilarious

I didn't say 81 was an outlier. In fact, it's not an outlier with the data you asked me to calculate.

I said that the baseball example was an outlier. This isn't.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Kamala's numbers is zero. She lost. America has rejected shitbirds like you wholeheartedly and then some.
Fuck off, you dishonest turdmuffin.

Uh huh. Your emotional outbursts are a really compelling argument. Thanks for sharing, pussy.

Go buy yourself some coffee so you're not so cranky.