It may be time to cut ties with California

In teams stats, you don't just subtract the input from one the star players.

I haven't once claimed the outcome of the election should be different. Meanwhile, you're asking us to not count votes.

 

Go Vols.

 

if the margin of difference were, say, an amount of money a Trump "deal" was claimed to save, would you tout it as being huge?

Rhetorical question, of course.

 

Is the Trump margin in Texas and Tennessee relevant?

 

Rhetorical was probably the best you could have called it. You're acting like an independent Cal could be a country.

 

Not at all. I'm also not applauding the destruction of the union, unlike the OP.

 

Perhaps I am remembering incorrectly, but I thought you said the elections results supported that the rest of the country feels as California does. Looking at the rest of the country, they voted more heavily for Donald according to the link from VolDad. California voted more heavily for Hillary. Thus, I would say the election results do not support that conclusion.

 

Yeah, but you're just cherry picking the best results for Clinton off the top to make that statement. If you cherry pick the best results off the top for Trump, in turn, then the results swing back towards Clinton. If I can take 47 states and the results is in favor of Clinton, then it isn't so off to say that the rest of the country isn't too much different, right?

 

I'm not cherry picking anything. Someone else discussed California versus the rest of the US. Thus, I compared the results of California to the results of the other 49 states. How else would you propose to do it?

 

You're saying the rest of the country is out of line with California. However, I'm saying it's just a matter of manipulating the results and, if you do so, then I can take nearly all of the states, 47, to get a result more favorable to Clinton and less out of step with California.

Essentially, you're saying one state has skewed the results to favor Clinton that doesn't reflect the country. I'm saying, why can't I do the same with a smaller portion of decidedly Trump states than California (Texas and Tennessee) to get the same conclusion as you?

 

I didn't say the rest of the country is out of line with California. I'm saying the election results do not support the idea that they are in line. I'm not sure how it could be argued otherwise. Alternative facts, I guess.

 

Yes, you remember incorrectly. I said California's result was part of-- PART OF-- the majority. Any argument made for discounting 30 million Americans for one result, could be made the other way too since the margin was small. The election results are the conclusion, not the support of it.

What's being done here, as has been done about two or three times now, is to treat California like it is somehow a distinguishable, less American population. One could remove New York, or remove Massachusetts, and achieve the same effect. One could remove a state like texas and suddenly the popular vote is a laugher for Clinton and yet she still woulldn't win the electoral vote.

The argument of "without California..." is a way to deflect away from the truth: the majority of voters didn't vote for Trump. And I bet they never will.

 

No I am not. Trump got 304 Electoral Votes and Clinton got 227; I watched them being counted.

 

Ok. But the post you responded to was discussing California having different views than the rest of the country. And since you specifically referenced California versus the rest of the country in the first sentence of the post, I'd say the election results could be applied to that, and if so, the only pertinent information would be how California voted and how the other 49 voted. I think you can see where that train of thought might emanate from something other than a desire to manipulate data to imply someone won more bigly than he did.

 

I know it sounds like I'm arguing against you a lot, but in the end, it doesn't matter how many people voted for him, what matters is he got the most electoral college votes, and that is how you win an election.

 

you're playing a semantic game. You know I am talking about citizens voting, i.e. "people." I'll take you playing this game as acknowledgement that Trump lost the popular vote.

 

He won more states. He won less of the popular vote. I didn't imply anything or manipulate ANYTHING at all. I'm arguing with someone manipulating the popular vote by discounting the largest state in the union. One that had millions of votes for Trump as well.

What is being manipulated by stating the raw numbers?

 

Um. I was saying that my train of thought had nothing to do with trying to manipulate the data to make Trump's victory seem bigger.

 

He is not the first person to win the presidency with less popular votes, I know everyone knows this but I can't remember it being argued about so much before.

 

Big deal in 2000, with the recount and all. At least I remember talking about it. Of course this day and age we are privy to everyone thoughts all the time with social media.