House Panel Approves $10B for the Wall.

piezoe said:
Unfortunately You are wrong on several counts. For one, I am not a "Hillary boot licker", I am not even a Democrat. I did not support Hillary in the election. I contributed to another candidate. But I did vote for Hillary. What else could any reasonably informed person do. But I am a scientist with formal training in statistics and I can correctly interpret the polling results from the professional polling organizations. If the chance of a Hillary victory is quoted as 98%, that means that there is a very high probability of her winning the popular vote and statistically it is likely she will also win the election. By logical extension of that prediction, if she does not win the election, her opponent, with high probability will squeak by in the electoral college, simply because a large popular vote victory would statistically reduce the probability of her opponent getting a substantial margin of victory in the electoral college. Ergo, had the predicted election results been wrong, for example had the popular vote gone to Trump, or even been close, the professional pollsters would have immediately began examining their methods, because the probability of them being off that much, if their polling is unbiased, is very small indeed.

All in all, it was yet another triumph for modern political polling. When you take the aggregate of the various professionally designed polls you get surprisingly reliable predictions of the popular vote, which is all that is polled for. Since the winner of the popular vote nearly always wins in the electoral college, very roughly 90% of the time, it is only natural that the media will interpret the popular vote prediction as a reliable predictor of the electoral college outcome. However the popular vote poll is not so reliable as most of us are inclined to believe.

There has been 43 Presidents, but since Cleveland was elected twice in non-consecutive terms , statistically he should be counted twice to make 44 first-term elections, but lets eliminate the first 4 Presidents, as I don't think there was a popular vote. There has been five minority Presidents including the present one. These are J.Q. Adams, R. Hayes, B. Harrison, G.W. Bush. and D. Trump. The G.W. Bush v. Gore election was essentially a tie. The media likes to point out that D. Trump lost the popular vote by the largest margin of any minority President, however this is not the correct way to compare the outcomes of the various minority President's elections. Because the total voting population has changed dramatically over the years since the J. Q. Adams election, one should consider relative margin of the opponents popular vote victory instead. On that basis John Quincy Adams lost the popular vote by 10.4%, and Rutherford Hayes by 3.0%, whereas Trump's popular vote loss is only third worst at 2.1% among the five minority Presidents.

If we divide five by 40 we estimate an 12% chance of a candidate losing the popular vote but carrying the vote in the electoral college when running for a first term in office. But this is a small sample size,* and so we should be cautious not to put much stock in the result. I haven't included second or third term re-elections, because these might evidence a bias toward the incumbent and might logically anyway, whether or not statistically, belong to a different population of observations.
_____________________
*And of course there are other difficulties, including the evolving nature of Presidential campaigns and electoral politics over the past two centuries, not to mention the 12th Amendment, a Civil War, and a three-way tie in 1824.
More...
When you vote for a candidate, you ARE supporting that candidate. You also admitted you are physically attracted to her.:vomit:
 
Last edited:
jem said:
you just refuse to learn.... so I will post this again...
in this thread you appealed to a parliamentary system to pretend you were correct rather than just admit you should have said Trump earned fewer than a plurality of the votes instead of being ignorant.


here was the thread...

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...nt-to-pardon-himself-and-others.311493/page-5


here is a definition explaining 19 presidents were elected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States'_presidential_plurality_victories

In the United States, Presidential plurality victories are those elections in which the winning candidate received less than 50% of the popular votes cast but the largest share of votes.

The popular vote in an American presidential election was first fully recorded and reported in the election of 1824.[1] Since then, 19 presidential elections have occurred in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.[1] The following is a list and description of those elections in which a candidate won the election with a plurality of the popular vote. The elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 are not on this list because in those elections the winning candidate actually received lessthan a plurality.[2]
More...
You know , jem, technically you are right. If we are going to be as accurate as possible we will use the term plurality because there is often more than two candidates on the ballot. Please feel free to change every where i said "minority" to "non-plurality". There now, is that better?

Now, would you like to tell us how many people became president without winning the popular vote? (By the way, "winning" means got more votes than anyone else.:sneaky:)

Do you know why I ignore the other candidates and treat the election as if there were only two candidates running? No, I suppose you don't. Well think of it this way suppose a third candidate got a significant number of votes so that the vote was split more or less evenly between the two parties and an independent. Lets even suppose that the Independent got the most votes! Who do you think would win the election then. Good guess! That's right! It would be either the Democrat or the Republican, depending on which party controlled the House. Jem, we are not a Democracy at the Federal level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...ons_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote
 
Last edited:
vanzandt said:
There could be worse penny stocks than Tony.
Where's Ninender?
More...

I believe you would be the Enron stock on this board. Let's just say I don't buy the Kool aid like some do on here when it comes to your judgement and integrity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top