Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Okay, thanks for conceding that I actually rounded down Obama's margin of victory in a way that was actually charitable to McCain.
Hey bro, I never hear any person in the real world talk about "swings". And if you were as vigilant at checking other people's math, the "swing" of Obama's victory was actually 3.6%. Rounding it down to 3% is something I would think you would have been all over given your vigilance about my math.
Why are y'all using "swings" anyway? I only hear normal people, in the real world talk about margins of victory, popular vote, or electoral college count. I suppose if I wanted to claim Carter wasn't blown out in 1980, I could claim the "swing" between him and Reagan was only 4.8%, since Reagan won the pop vote by 9.7%. But nobody tries to cite Carter's loss as a percent "swing" because it sounds like spin.
If somebody was trying to use percent "swings" to discount Obama's victory, then I stand corrected. It's not a term, a metric, or a measure most normal people use. And I have seen many republicans cite Obama's margin of victory as 3%. I'm almost positive you cited the margin of victory in a previous post as 3% but I'm too lazy to look.
As for now changing the metric to electoral college votes, yeah Poppy Bush won 79% of the electoral college votes. Obama won 68%. According to Wiki. If you want to change the metric to the electoral college, why exactly does that make Poppy's victory a crushing landslide, and yet Obama's victory a nail-biting close call that clearly demonstrated Democratic weakness? Is there a magical number between 79% and 68% that defines a crushing landslide versus a nail biter? Why was 79% a massive mandate for Poppy, and 68% a nail-biting sign of weakness for obama? I don't get it.
Here's what I think the deal is. I think the mathematically and geographically challenged are used to looking at those big maps of red and blue states, on election maps. And Poppy's victory has a sea of red. Obama's victory proportionally in a geographic sense had significantly less blue.
Here's a tip. The amount of red area or blue area on a map means hardly anything. It's a geographic artifact that neither reflects the popular will, nor is a robust measure of electoral votes. A lot of that "red" area in Poppy's victory was in large swaths of rural area, with hardly any people. There are more cows and chickens in many of those areas than there are people. Cow, chickens, and swaths of rural land don't vote. People vote.
This has been explained to you many times, yet you are either ignoring it or to ignorant to comprehend.
1) who is saying that Obama's victory was a nail biter? Also, you are adding adjectives to Bush as well. No one stated that Bush had a 'crushing' landslide. Yet again you try to insert one of your idiotic strawmen.
2) If you don't think 'people in the real world' talk about swing votes or swings in an election then you are indeed a moron.
3) The term landslide is almost always in reference to the electoral college, so no one is 'changing the metrics'. This is because even in the landslides, the popular vote tends to be close in terms of percentages.
4) No, no one stated that Obama's margin of victory was 3%. That is simply your attempt at a strawman and now you are trying to weasel your way out of it.
5) When Bush won, he won all but 10 states, Obama won all but 22. If you think that doesn't play a part in people's perception and willingness to proclaim a landslide, then you are an idiot. The electoral college votes was one of the things you got correct. Where is the magic number? Who knows... it is subjective. Obviously the further you get away from 50%, the higher the number of people you will find that will call it a landslide.
