You're getting confused with your arguments. Don't recall saying Trump was drawing democrats. Said he was drawing V.O.T.E.R.S. And he was. You may have shit the bed with somebody else regarding him pulling in demos. Not me.
My only point in regard to the voter bloc has always been that he has a chance to energize the disenfranchised middle America vote in a way Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Kasich, etc. could not. Therefore he has the best chance of beating that raggedly despicable democrat whore.
This entire rant of yours is misguided. But carry on if it makes you feel better.
How many times do I have to post our exact conversation before you see that you CLEARLY said that "The republican race is over. Prior to it being locked down, the opposite was true." in response to me saying "Democrats aren't out-registering Republicans?"
I've posted it like 6 times now and you continue to deny it. You were wrong about that. Say it. Yes, you've intentionally obfuscated the discussion and pulled it in 10 different directions while I just simply am trying to stay on the original topic, which was this fact. You can keep tugging and I will keep laughing and post the original discussion as many times as it takes for you to accept reality on reality's terms.
Nope. Not denying anything. But that "fact" makes about as much impact as a drop of goose shit in the Atlantic ocean. It's not relevant.
You said she supported Kasich BEFORE she endorsed Trump and he endorsed her, and somehow that makes her more of a force against Trump than really being "on his coattails". That is a joke of a conclusion. Relevance is apparently yet another simple concept you struggle with.
PROVE it. Everything leading up to that election said she'd likely finish third. That Holding had an enormous lead.
Did you read your own link? You proved it for me.
When the poll was done it showed that, in the 63% of the District George had represented for four years, he led Ellmers by over 20 points. Conversely, in the 13% of the District Ellmers had represented she led by a similar margin.
In the new part of the district neither George or Renee were well-known.
He had about 20% more of 63% of the electorate. She had about 20% more of 13% of the electorate. The other 24% of the electorate was not reported or speculated on.
So assuming it was about 60-40 of 63% for him (37.8% of the total for him, 25.2% of the total for her), and 60-40 of the 13% for her (7.8% of the total for her, 5.2% of the total for him), it can be inferred that he had about 42.8% of the total votes, and she had about 30.4% of the total votes of those two districts, with another 26.8% of the total electorate not accounted for.
A difference of 12.4%. Not 20%.
Even if he had the same 60/40 lead in the "unknown" part of the district as he had in the one that was previously his district (which nothing says this, but giving the benefit of the doubt to your argument), that's still 16.08% more for him and 10.72% more for her. Final (generous) tally of 58.88% for him, 41.12% for her.). A 17.76% lead for him, in the BEST CASE for your argument. 41.12% of the vote is still much more than the 24% she ended up with.
By your own statistics that YOU provided, her poll results AFTER Trump's endorsement declined from where they were before it. Unequivocally. And by a lot.
GOD DAMMIT, SON....
He endorsed her three days before an election she was going to lose no matter what. You cannot say with any certainty that his endorsement helped or hurt. She got 24% of the vote. Maybe she only gets 20 before.
Proven false with numbers and statistics. She was getting AT LEAST 40% by your own numbers that YOU provided.
Prove it didn't happen.
She got 24% of the vote. What would she have gotten if Trump hadn't recorded a 30 second phone call that dialed up a few thousand people three days before the election?
How fucking many people in that locally contentious race do you think really were undecided at that stage of the game?
He probably shouldn't have done it because MORONS will try to make it seem as if his endorsement means nothing, but she asked, she had endorsed him and he reciprocated.
Did it help? Prove it didn't. Prove she wasn't going to get 18% of the vote prior.
I did. You didn't. I used YOUR numbers from YOUR articles to do it. The only thing you provided to prove it DID improve her numbers was that data that you apparently misunderstood, and a "gut feeling" you have that it must be true.
But it's not true. It's not. True.
Idiotic. Complete balderdash. A fine example of new math gone wrong. A fine example of taking "facts" and twisting them into a false narrative. The things you tried to mash together don't compute. Not even close.
His lead was 10% by your calculation? 
Numbers iz idiotic. Cuz they don't match up to your supposition, even though you're the one that provided them.
Show me any statisic that said he lead the ENTIRE electorate by 20%. It doesn't exist. What you cited simply does not say that. It didn't say exactly, but it is certainly closer to 10% than 20%, as I just demonstrated.
Sorry if you don't follow.
We have different approaches. You have to work to change my mind on things. But it's possible.
Not in this case. But it is.
Oh, so just THIS case that we're talking about. Gotcha.
I am presenting fact after fact, and you are spinning them, twisting them, and flat out ignoring them to pretend they support your argument, when they do just the opposite.
So yeah, I know you won't change your mind. Because you refuse to allow new information that could possibly change it into your skull. And that was my point.
1481 Replies
275106 Views