Progressives are deluding themselves. Trump's support is as strong as ever among his voters

[doorhinge]

for historical reference -

@Ramira

the margins in the votre where he won in the middle states were extremely thin. some hundreds votes change, he loses.

that is indeed barely winning.

it is mathematics. not politics

I do not care otherwise about your strange election system, it is simply the facts.

(underline added)
for historical reference -

@Ramira

Nothing different was said at all, no matter your strange political reaction.

the simple mathematical observation is that Trump barely won in the key states which put him into the lead on your electoral college system, and with only some small changes in the vote totals by tiny percentage would have made his defeat.

This is the mathematics.

thus their defeatism is extremely strange.

As is the hyper sensitive complaining by the Trump supporters about the reaction as it is perfectly evident with the move of a few hundred votes here and there, they would be doing the complaining and the ranting.

the idea either side is ‘better’ in its reactions is very laughable to the outside observer.

(underline added)
for historical reference -

@Ramira

no they teach understanding of mathematics

And not to be distracted by very pitiful attempts to distract and make excuses like you are doing.

Trophies have not one thing to do with the observation, which I will repeat is very simple

Trump barely won, the change of only some hundreds of votes in the key states would have had him lose.

This is the simple mathematics, and has not a thing to do with “trophies” and is an analytical observation about the marginality of the win.

Continue on with your not effective silly partisan political replies, they are irrelevances.

(underline added)

@Ramira

…Adding irrelevant rambling about the feelings may soothe the fragile egos and the delicate fearful personalities fears, but it does not change a weak win is different than a strong win and this has a meaning for the positioning for the future competitions.

A contest where one team wins by the bare margin, the smart team leaderships, the loser and the winner examine the small margin of the difference in the performance for future play, and they do not go on and on in

Of course why you are so fragile in your feelings you need to go on and on about irrelevancies like “feelings” when a person not even American voter is making the mathematical observations about the margins and the competitive position it is difficult to know. It does look quite ridiculous and normally a person would know to be embarrassed for themself.

(post shortened)

You chose to post your statements on a public forum. It’s customary, in the U.S.A. anyway, that people will/may reply to your posts.

You chose to use the terms “barely won”, and claim it’s “mathematics”? You chose to say, “that is indeed barely winning”, followed by, “it is mathematics. not politics”.

AFAIK, “barely” is not a term normally associated with mathematics. Mathematics is a precise science. I consider “barely” to be a literary term.

For example - The rocket had barely left the launch pad when it exploded into a brilliant white, orange, and red light.

In order to discover the cause for the rocket failure, would you recommend that a mathematician search for the equation that contains the term “barely”?

[Ramira]

Yes?
Besides you wish to illustrate your bizarre pattern of incoherent and irrelevant responses motivated by the partisan political obsessions?

The bare victory of the very marginal numbers of votes within the margin is indeed barely winning and of the analytical interest if, as was the case of my original note, the analysis is being made of the potential for a contest to be changed in a next match-up by some modestly improved play of the losing team.

the tallying of the votes is always an imprecise thing as there are always count errors, but it is normal the percentage margins are relatively stable.

But I am amused to see you have dropped one ridiculous line of partisan incoherence about feelings for irrelevant and incoherent statements around definitions. It maybe helps a fragile and delicate confidence.

[msmith537]

@doorhinge

And personal IP servers they can hide in someone’s bathroom. And occasionally wipe clean with a cloth.

Kind of like what Trump’s people are doing.

[msmith537]

@doorhinge

What exactly is a “mandate”? Doesn’t a POTUS have a mandate when their political party has control of both houses of the U.S. Congress?

*mandate
noun [ C ] us ​ /ˈmæn·deɪt/

authority to act in a particular way given to a government or a person, esp. as a result of a vote or ruling:

[ + to infinitive ] The president secured a congressional mandate to send troops to Bosnia.*

As the term “mandate” is being used, it means that while Trump has the legal authority as POTUS, the fact that he lost the popular vote by around 3 million people means that there isn’t overwhelming support for his policies.

[doorhinge]

@msmith537

As the term “mandate” is being used, it means that while Trump has the legal authority as POTUS, the fact that he lost the popular vote by around 3 million people means that there isn’t overwhelming support for his policies.

So you’re saying that Trump won the race that all of the presidential candidates were participating in, and lost the race that none of the candidates were running for.

[doorhinge]

@Ramira

Yes?

…The bare victory of the very marginal numbers of votes within the margin is indeed barely winning and of the analytical interest if, as was the case of my original note, the analysis is being made of the potential for a contest to be changed in a next match-up by some modestly improved play of the losing team.

(post shortened)

Yes? Yes you would recommend that a mathematician search for the equation that contains the term “barely”?

Could you, in your spare time, of course, provide a mathematical equation that includes the term “barely”? Notes in the margin won’t be acceptable.

[Omar_Little]

@Bridget_Burke

Why can’t Trump & his supporters just ignore the popular vote. We know that’s not the one that “counts.” Or maybe it does mean something.

It’s not Trump and his supporters ignoring the popular vote that matters, it’s the US Constitution that ignores the popular vote…which matters the most.

[Omar_Little]

@Der_Trihs

and Hillary was more honest than average.

:dubious: As I recall, honest and trustworthy were not traits that most people during the election ascribed to her.

[Velocity]

@Der_Trihs

Americans want lies, and hate truth.

So how did Obama win twice?

[TimeWinder]

@Omar_Little

:dubious: As I recall, honest and trustworthy were not traits that most people during the election ascribed to her.

Correct, which indicates exactly the problem. By objective measures and external sources, she rated extremely highly on honesty. But by the news sources and constant “crooked Hillary” comments, an entirely fictitious picture was created that swayed the election. When people talk about “fake news,” this is what they mean.

[Der_Trihs]

@Velocity

So how did Obama win twice?

The Republicans failed to put up candidates that were sufficiently dishonest and hateful.

[Velocity]

@Der_Trihs

The Republicans failed to put up candidates that were sufficiently dishonest and hateful.

So by this logic, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were “sufficiently dishonest and hateful” but Dole, Bush Sr. (in 1992, the same person!), McCain and Romney were not? I’m not seeing any line of difference between them.

[TYphoonSignal8]

@astro

Let me help you. It’s interesting and somewhat amusing to an American like myself who actually mixes socially with doctor’s wives and evangelicals that you would assume these groups are “tolerant”. People from other countries can be gullible that way when confronted with friendly, outgoing Americans who are glad to see you.

Once you get past the polite social veneers American white evangelicals and country club Republicans are not tolerant at all. They will not use the N word in public, but you can be damn sure that their baseline interior worldview has blacks (in general) situated as potentially dangerous, violent, not quite evolved sub-humans they can interact with but have to be wary of. There may be “good” blacks they will be overtly respectful to, but they have no problem whatsoever with Trump upsetting the progressive apple cart and will give him as much leash as he wants for now.

Also, progressives across the board in the US are still not up to speed on how the majority of the US feels about illegals and Muslim immigration. Trump and non-Trump voters alike they don’t like it. You can quote all the stats you want about how more people die from X than Muslim terrorism but they still don’t like it.

How depressing. I’m not sure you are correct, but even the premise is depressing.