|
|
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
No it isn't.
Oh well, you got me there professor.
Originally Posted by BananaStand
False. The only value that matters is who has a higher count of individual votes. You use % data for common-size analysis. But that's really irrelevant if two entities are of vastly different sizes. Again...would you rather have 1% of a dollar, or 1% of a truckload of dollars?
In an election I'd rather have 60% of 10 votes than 40% of 100 votes, since even though 6 is less than 40, I'd prefer to win the election than have more votes in a larger district and lose.
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No, it's vote-count that matters.
Like arguing with a six-year-old again.
Originally Posted by BananaStand
And it's alot more compelling for some ass-hole pundit to say "60% of people believe X" rather than "600 random douchebags think X"
Oh is that why they report % rather than raw numbers. Thanks, didn't know that.
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Dude...Ted Kennedy was a senator FOREVER. He killed a person.....literally....and STILL WON. What more evidence do you need to be convinced that Democratic views are entrenched in Massachusetts?
Why do you assume Ted Kennedy's case represents the entire state of MA? Why assume the entrenchment was with Democrats rather than with TFK in particular?
Oh I know, 'cause it suits your argument.
Originally Posted by BananaStand
...
sorry I dont have the time for the rest of your garbage arguments.
Either provide some data or be ignored. Up to you.
|
Reply With Quote