I didn't see him mention Romney in that post so I must have missed a previous reply of his where he brought it up.
Legendkiller meant more than Romney not Clinton. I misread your reply.
I didn't see him mention Romney in that post so I must have missed a previous reply of his where he brought it up.
Bill Maher should probably go back to comedy. He was reasonably good at that.
Actually he did. Turns out the spanish hispanics hate the indigenous ones more than they like themselves, too.
LOL, so trump won by losing 6% of that demo. This is the funniest part:
2012
Obama got 28% whites without a college degree
Romney got 67% whites without a college degree
When the page literary puts 28 on the blue Clinton bar, and 67 on the red Trump one. I'll be looking forward to why your math professor thinks you're right.
Worth noting these are the people who think they deserve high paying jobs.
I'm being charitable and giving him the benefit of the doubt. Regardless it's a noteworthy observation whether he meant it or not.
...just like Einstein was "reasonably good" at physics....
If you have trouble reading what a 1 and a 4 means, ask your math professor for help. It implies 10 and 4 together, not 1 plus 4 a la 2+2=22.
I recognize that people are self-interested, and that's why the privileged feel entitled to keep it that way. That's why they choose to conflate being black and supporting klan ideals as part of its rationalization, because otherwise the reality of it looks pretty grim.
I think you're smart enough to understand what I'm saying, that people looking to keep Miguel and Mohammed on the other side of a wall think of themselves as the better class. The only question here is why you choose to attempt obfuscating this instead of addressing it.
I actually did a correction before you finished posting, but again, you do not realize what you are seeing and you are not reading the explanation.
Heck if I know how to get people to accept each other in an environment where we are more divided daily, at least on a large scale. I just treat people pretty much as I'd want to be treated and don't shy away from people who are different. Maybe real life behaviors, but again that's small scale. Curing blindness is difficult when it was fought for as something wanted. Wish I had a quick easy solution.
It's pretty obvious there's no way to mathematically reconcile the magnitude of difference between their number with yours, and suffice to say they have a better record in matters of sourcing and arithmetic.
Lol, your number is my number dummy.
The percentages on the graph represent the candidates share of the votes for that demographic. To say that Trump flipped 14% would require Clinton losing 14% of the people that voted for Obama, and 14% going to Trump. Mathematically that is not what happened as exampled by the numbers in your own link. I have seen people be wrong here before, but this is by far the saddest example I have seen. You literally provided your own counter.
Again, the 14% comes from the shift in the delta, not the shift in votes. Its amazingly simple.
I can't believe I actually thought you had acceptable reading comprehension given your history.
"Trump simply managed to engage with/bring out that resentment, which flipped uneducated whites an unprecedented +14% to his side, which turned out rather important in key states."
does not mean 14% of them now vote for one side instead of the other.
So all this time you were arguing against a simple sentence you couldn't read right, aka pulling a realibrad.
Nice back pedaling there. To flip means to turn over. The use when being illustrative it to conjure up the idea that the subject has two sides. So when you say that it was flipped you are saying it was went from one side to the other. This is always the hardest part of language because it requires understanding words beyond their typical use.
You look like an idiot trying to argue that flipped does not mean that the votes went from the left to the right. You could have clarified what you had wanted to say, but you never admit you are wrong. I only speak English so kudos to you for speaking more than one as fluently as you do, but you are wrong.
Explaining a dummy's reading comprehension process makes for a pretty convincing argument.
Worth noting this sort of thing doesn't happen much with others who read my comments, even incl some pretty stupid people, but a lot to you in particular. Too bad it's not in character for you to figure why that is.
Pretty easy for me to get the implication of your statement.
Even still, your use of flipped is wrong if you meant the change in Delta is what you were trying to talk about. Saying the voters flipped when talking about the Delta does not make sense. You are saying the gap from the previous is now flipped, even though Trump only managed to gain 6 points.
Of all the things to disagree on, this is the weakest. Again, English as your 2nd language means this is likely to happen. I have seen larger mistakes from English only speakers.
The main point is that if you truly believe that Trump won because he got out the racist vote, then you are getting something very different from the numbers. Clinton lost more votes than Trump gained. Why did Clinton lose so many votes? Surely the racist that did not vote for Clintons would have voted Trump if Trump was tapping into the racist vote.
Funny you understood the comment all along just like everything else you've ever had trouble figuring, but chose to make numerous trite posts to illustrate to the world just how confused & pedantic you were.
Btw, it was already mentioned why someone without charisma loses out in a popularity contest, but of course you'll have known that all along too after another dozen posts detailing your confusion over those words.
Still though, topping your self-professed command over the english language is Zaap's hilariously oblivious belief that you're some kind of scholar.
He simply agreed with my conclusion. He made no claim to anything else.
Still does not change the numbers. Clinton lost more votes than Trump gained. So unless your premise is that the racist hated Trump and Clinton then you are wrong that it was the racist that were the deciding factor.
No, he's just really impressed someone "on his side" can put together a string of grammatically correct sentences, with numbers in them even.
This isn't rocket science. Clinton couldn't drive turnout due to lack of political charisma, and of the votes she got (recall she still got >1mil more) too many were in the wrong places due to Trump trading educated votes for unedu ones.
Clinton could add another bazillion leftist school attenders in CA and they would've mattered infinitely less than the ~10k deciding rednecks in MI and so on.
Then lets go back to your numbers. Lets see if there are other large changes in the differences.
Black, gained 7 relative
Hispanic/Latino, gained 8 relative
Asian, gained 11 relative
Huh. so he actually got a larger share of minority voters. Well, those were the people that were supposed to be hurt most by his policies, so why would so many vote for Trump. Couple that with the fact that turnout from minorities was down and its very confusing. Those minorities must have internalized racism, yeah, that is the answer.
Even now, you are insulting the rednecks in MI as if you have any numbers to back that up. You hate people, so you simply assume they are the problem. But, that is okay when you do it, because you hate the right people. When the racist do it, they hate the wrong people. You are a lost cause, but I hope people understand that you are the type of person that drove people away from the Left. The left has far more self identified moderates and from what I saw, they were turned off by people like you.
So, continue to think that it was the racist vote that got out and won this for Trump, but the numbers don't back you.
Those are in line with 2008 ratios for obama and significantly better than elections before, except for black vote for obvious reasons.
Must be all those minorities in the rust belt. I'll let your math prof explain how ratios work to you.
Except they are not.
First, you cannot tell the ratios by the change in delta dummy.
But, lets look at the numbers.
Obama 2008 vs Clinton
White 43% vs 37% Lost 6%
Black 95% vs 88% Lost 7%
Hispanic/Latino 67% vs 65% Lost 2%
Asian 62% vs 65% Gained 3%,
Other 66% vs 56% Lost 10%
McCain vs Trump
White 55% vs 58% Gained 3%
Black 4% vs 8% Gained 4%
Hispanic/Latino 31% vs 29% Lost 2%
Asian 35% vs 29% Lost 6%
Other 31% vs 37% Gained 6%
You will notice that Clinton lost far more than Trump gained. Now, if you look at the change in delta, its almost pointless. Take the Hispanic/Latino group. The difference is 36 both times, which would mean a change in the difference of 0 because both lost an equal amount.
What you should be looking at is the capture % of the group. Once you look at that, you realize that Clinton lost more than Trump gained. So why do you think Clinton lost so many votes but Trump did not gain as many?
My argument would make more sense if you could read good, eg "except for black vote for obvious reasons" or "why someone without charisma loses out in a popularity contest".
I do wonder if you're like this in school. You're taught some obvious reality, to which the reaction is always first "of course I'm right and that's wrong", and after you get marked down, "the teacher is the dumb one", and finally after getting told in office hour: "I knew that all along, his english was bad".
Pretty clear you cant or wont acknowledge the data and the fact that it does not conform to your belief that it was racism that got Trump the victory. Also ironic is that you misuse a word and then you blame me for my ability to read well. It looks now like you are trying to shift to saying Trump won because of charisma and not talking about racism. Nice Trump move there, good show.
Honestly, your syntax errors have been very apparent, but, I have never felt the need to call it out because it was not relevant. Then, when you say that Trump flipped votes it has specific meanings. The fact that you do not have full understanding of all the words in multiple languages is not that big of a deal. You simply try to clarify what you want to say, and move on. You could have done that, but instead decided to double down and try to argue why it was not wrong. I'm not trying to insult you on this point. Not only can you speak another language, but you use English better than many native speakers. I will admit that when I read "flipped" I took that as what you wanted to say. When it became clear you did not realize the meaning, I let you know, and then started to address what you meant to say.
All that said, your point that racism was the main factor here is wrong and the data does not back your view.
Yeah, no. The anti-PC crowd simply want to voice their opinions without criticism from others. They want to speak their bigoted views without being called out on it. The anti PC movement is simply a bunch of pussies that can't handle criticism which is exactly why they latched onto trump, he represents then because he is one of them. A thin skinned, bigoted, douchebag, who wishes he was an alpha.
You can find plenty of right wingers who post here that fit that profile to a tee. They will give you their opinion on any subject but if they are challenged they either ignore it, never visit the thread again, resort to personal attacks and then claim people only offer insults.
Thats why pro PC people need safe spaces right?