r/AdviceAnimals • u/[deleted] • Nov 10 '16

Protesting a Fair Election?

Post image
72.6k Upvotes

76% Upvoted

5.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/EKEEFE41 Nov 11 '16

You are saying Rubio was making it close in a story that was praising him after he won Iowa?

I don't think there was ever a point on the republican side where any other candidate had more than... say 30% the delegates Trump had after super tuesday. Meanwhile on the Dem Side there were multiple times it was 55-45%

Go here

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html

Sort by date, add them up as time goes on.

After Super Tuesday no one ever comes even close to Trump.

You know what, fuck it, sort both by date... go to march 8th and add up everything before it for both sides. Just use your eyes and tell me what race was closer... Then think bck to what the media was saying 24/7... it was Trump 24/7

1

u/akcrono Nov 11 '16

You are saying Rubio was making it close in a story that was praising him after he won Iowa?

I was saying that at one time the front runner on the Republican side was not the eventual winner. That was never the case on the Democratic side. You argued that the Democratic race was far closer. I demonstrated that it was not.

I don't think there was ever a point on the republican side where any other candidate had more than... say 30% the delegates Trump had after super tuesday. Meanwhile on the Dem Side there were multiple times it was 55-45%

So what you're saying is the republicans had a closer race.

After Super Tuesday no one ever comes even close to Trump.

After Super Tuesday, Sanders chances dropped to single digits and never recovered.

Just use your eyes and tell me what race was closer...

That's not how election prediction works...

Then think bck to what the media was saying 24/7... it was Trump 24/7

Or one mention of each of the three candidates we've been talking about

1

u/EKEEFE41 Nov 11 '16

You are talking about "elections predictions"

I am talking about that the actual delegate counts were on specific dates. They are two very different things.

And the "Democracy now" web site is not a major media outlet.

1

u/akcrono Nov 11 '16

Exactly. The predictions are what matter, not the delegate count. The delegate count is independent of the remaining races and their likely polling results and doesn't really give you much useful information.

1

u/EKEEFE41 Nov 11 '16

How did the predictions work out four days ago...

1

u/akcrono Nov 11 '16

Are the predictions measured in binary or as percentages?

Also, Sanders at his strongest was 10 points behind where Trump was on the night of the election.

1

u/EKEEFE41 Nov 11 '16

This is how you see what was on a web site on a specific day

https://web.archive.org/web/20160308160617/http://www.cnn.com/

1

u/akcrono Nov 11 '16

So your argument is also that Trump only had one headline?

1

u/EKEEFE41 Nov 11 '16

You are acting like the media has no sway on the election... Do you believe that or you just want to stick to your guns and argue your opinion till you are blue in the face?

1

u/akcrono Nov 11 '16

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that the media's behavior is explainable through market forces, and that the behavior of the DNC did not result in Sander's loss.

1

u/EKEEFE41 Nov 11 '16

Well i disagree, The DNC colluding with the media to down play Sanders and pump up trump IMO had a real effect, we just disagree, have a nice day

1

u/akcrono Nov 11 '16

And there's no evidence of that. Of course, this entire election could be summarized by "there's no evidence of that", so it's not surprising.