What? Do you think election data varies (significantly) based on what news source you obtain the data from? Your Blue MAGA cognitive dissonance is showing lmao, you’re just saying things that don’t even make sense.
Sure thing: as a leftist, I value education. I can help you understand basic reading comprehension as well as basic math. We’re in this together!
Let’s review the conversation to help you grasp the language used here more effectively:
I state that Holocaust Harris would’ve lost even if she secured every single third-party vote.
You reply and accuse me of not having done the math.
I respond that, no, I have, and further, it’s not even difficult math to do.
You claim again that I have not done the math, and that I am just “listen[ing] to whatever my favorite news source was” - perhaps this is the source of your confusion. By implying that my mathematically-supported initial statement was somehow a consequence of news source bias, you necessarily imply that election data provided by news sources varies significantly. However, you are mistaken in this assertion; federal election vote counts are very public, very consistent information.
Indeed, FEC.gov confirms Holocaust Harris won 48.32% of the vote, while our current Pedophile-in-Chief won 49.8% of the vote. This leaves 1.88% remaining - however, 0.49% of that was for RFK Jr, so really only 1.39% remaining. 48.32% + 1.39% = 49.71%… still lower than Trump’s 49.8%. And that’s not even going into the Electoral College, where she got only 42% of delegates - even in a fantasy world where she was able to secure 100% of RFK Jr’s votes, it wouldn’t have been enough to save her failed campaign.
Based on the verifiable knowledge above, I question your basis for your claim that election data varies significantly by news sources, and suggest that the reason you are making illogical claims may be because your brain is facing the cognitive dissonance of realizing that your Blue-MAGA-reinforced “leftists cost my beloved Madam Genocidaire the presidency” narrative is not supported by even basic math.
Your cognitive dissonance continues to cloud your cognition to such a point that you’re unable to follow a basic conversation without a handholding walkthrough to review what was already said.
Hopefully this elucidates for you how this conversation was based neither in gas-lighting nor undiagnosed, unspecified pathologies, but indeed, your own stubborn refusal to accept basic math. Praxis be with you!
First off, let’s make a little correction to your accusations. I didn’t like Harris, but Harris vs Trump was no contest. First Past the Post isn’t a three-horse race. And I’d rather have seen her get and and get beat down in protests than motions to the entire US whatever the fuck we have going on here.
Based on the verifiable knowledge above, I question your basis for your claim that election data varies significantly by news sources,
I didn’t say that, you did. The popular vote difference after your math was 0.09% Which is far below your position that it was no where near enough. That tells me you just looked at the math instead of just following your echo chamber now. That .09% is an error bar for lost mail.
I state that Holocaust Harris would’ve lost even if she secured every single third-party vote.
That statement is at the very least misleading and at the most bait. The Election was won in purple (or blue-border, if you will) states due to a surge in red-area turnout and a dearth of blue-area turnout. Those red votes didn’t come from blue or independent; those blue votes didn’t go to or come from independent. The popular vote was exceedingly close as the ‘math’ you provided shows. And due to years of facism taking foot, quite a number of those electoral college seats are strongly biased.
“leftists cost my beloved Madam Genocidaire the presidency”
No, the truth of the matter is people like you ranting that an A/B race with no C option caused further disenfranchisement on the blue side, enough to let the right walk in and take it over, and I can’t quite decide if the far left were actually ignorant enough to help the right, or extra vocal people like yourself were outright purchased by the right to ensure their win.
The popular vote difference after your math was 0.09% Which is far below your position that it was no where near enough
Actually my position was that “it was not enough”. We weren’t playing “near” or “approximately” enough. Also, go ahead and do the electoral college now and get back to me.
Anyway, leftists are apparently such a powerful segment of the electorate that you blame us for Democrats losing. You know what that’s called in politics? Leverage. We can make you lose, according to your own narrative. Guess you better start listening to our demands unless you want to keep losing. We’re in charge, after all. You just said so.
What? Do you think election data varies (significantly) based on what news source you obtain the data from? Your Blue MAGA cognitive dissonance is showing lmao, you’re just saying things that don’t even make sense.
Removed by mod
Sure thing: as a leftist, I value education. I can help you understand basic reading comprehension as well as basic math. We’re in this together!
Let’s review the conversation to help you grasp the language used here more effectively:
Hopefully this elucidates for you how this conversation was based neither in gas-lighting nor undiagnosed, unspecified pathologies, but indeed, your own stubborn refusal to accept basic math. Praxis be with you!
First off, let’s make a little correction to your accusations. I didn’t like Harris, but Harris vs Trump was no contest. First Past the Post isn’t a three-horse race. And I’d rather have seen her get and and get beat down in protests than motions to the entire US whatever the fuck we have going on here.
I didn’t say that, you did. The popular vote difference after your math was 0.09% Which is far below your position that it was no where near enough. That tells me you just looked at the math instead of just following your echo chamber now. That .09% is an error bar for lost mail.
That statement is at the very least misleading and at the most bait. The Election was won in purple (or blue-border, if you will) states due to a surge in red-area turnout and a dearth of blue-area turnout. Those red votes didn’t come from blue or independent; those blue votes didn’t go to or come from independent. The popular vote was exceedingly close as the ‘math’ you provided shows. And due to years of facism taking foot, quite a number of those electoral college seats are strongly biased.
No, the truth of the matter is people like you ranting that an A/B race with no C option caused further disenfranchisement on the blue side, enough to let the right walk in and take it over, and I can’t quite decide if the far left were actually ignorant enough to help the right, or extra vocal people like yourself were outright purchased by the right to ensure their win.
Actually my position was that “it was not enough”. We weren’t playing “near” or “approximately” enough. Also, go ahead and do the electoral college now and get back to me.
Anyway, leftists are apparently such a powerful segment of the electorate that you blame us for Democrats losing. You know what that’s called in politics? Leverage. We can make you lose, according to your own narrative. Guess you better start listening to our demands unless you want to keep losing. We’re in charge, after all. You just said so.