Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That trump only got a little over 1/3 of the votes in a three-way split says that only a little over 1/3 of the folks actually wanted to vote for him instead of one of the other options. That is not strong support, no matter how you do the math.
It wasn't any overwhelming support for trump. If he had won by over 50% consistently, with other options available, you would have a slightly better case, but he didn't.
And, he still had 25% voting for someone other than him, even when he was the only candidate who hadn't suspended his campaign.
The Republican process was rigged so that the winner of the winner take all states would get the nomination. And that is how it worked. The guy who barely polled 1/3 of the votes is going to the convention with more than 1/2 of the delegates, delegates who do not even support him politically, bound to vote for him on the first ballot.
That trump only got a little over 1/3 of the votes in a three-way split says that only a little over 1/3 of the folks actually wanted to vote for him instead of one of the other options. That is not strong support, no matter how you do the math.
It wasn't any overwhelming support for trump. If he had won by over 50% consistently, with other options available, you would have a slightly better case, but he didn't.
And, he still had 25% voting for someone other than him, even when he was the only candidate who hadn't suspended his campaign.
There you go again. Trying to prove that
N/16 > N/2
No matter how many ways you try to wordsmith it, it's basic math. Can't be denied.
That trump only got a little over 1/3 of the votes in a three-way split says that only a little over 1/3 of the folks actually wanted to vote for him instead of one of the other options. That is not strong support, no matter how you do the math.
It wasn't any overwhelming support for trump. If he had won by over 50% consistently, with other options available, you would have a slightly better case, but he didn't.
And, he still had 25% voting for someone other than him, even when he was the only candidate who hadn't suspended his campaign.
Quit trying to make the Trumpies think. If they were thinking in the first place, they wouldn't be on the TRUMP train.
(I heard something like that earlier in the thread )
Why do people keep bringing this up in regards to defending his historically weak primary performance?
By the time the Iowa caucus was done, 8 people dropped out, after New Hampshire 3 more did, then bush dropped out after South Carolina.
During the vast majority of the actual voting period he was only competing against 2-3 people(Rubio/Kasich/Cruz) and his actually voting percentage was consistently around 35-38 percent which is terrible.
It was only till the east coast primaries and after Cruz/Kasich dropped out(after Indiana) till he started dominating percentage wise.
Those 16 people were all weak candidates.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 06-22-2016 at 05:47 PM..
Reason: hotlinking/signatures are not allowed
I'm curious why people avoid simple math to make failed point.
Divide a number by 16, you will get smaller amount than if you divide it by 2.
Pick any number > 2 and you still get same answer. This was once taught in first grade.
Case closed.
[thread fail]
And the reality is when the voting actually starting there wasn't 16 people. During the vast majority of the actual voting process he was competing against a very small field(2-3 candidates)
And the reality is when the voting actually starting there wasn't 16 people. During the vast majority of the actual voting process he was competing against a very small field(2-3 candidates)
To whom he still lost 25% of the vote to in the last primary. Think about that, a quarter of Republicans who made the effort to go out to vote in California voted for people who were no longer even running. That speaks volumes.
Trump has got a big problem with lack of support within his own party. Only the blindly partisan fail to see it.
Why do people keep bringing this up in regards to defending his historically weak primary performance?
By the time the Iowa caucus was done, 8 people dropped out, after New Hampshire 3 more did, then bush dropped out after South Carolina.
During the vast majority of the actual voting period he was only competing against 2-3 people(Rubio/Kasich/Cruz) and his actually voting percentage was consistently around 35-38 percent which is terrible.
It was only till the east coast primaries and after Cruz/Kasich dropped out(after Indiana) till he started dominating percentage wise.
There appears to be no explaining to some people that 25% of the republican voters on Tuesday simply did the equivalent of writing MICKEY MOUSE on their ballots because, even though they made the effort to go out and vote, he couldn't bring themselves to vote for trump.
Quit trying to make the Trumpies think. If they were thinking in the first place, they wouldn't be on the TRUMP train.
(I heard something like that earlier in the thread )
Copycat! Reminds me of how old Hillary "borrowed" Bernie's ideas to use for awhile to try to get her over the hump!
Quote:
Originally Posted by tillman7
Those 16 people were all weak candidates.
No, one of the 17 was the only one interested in addressing the issues facing our country. Keep in mind that Bernie continued to poll showing he could beat Trump while Trump knocked out 16 competitors on the GOP side and Bernie is being pushed aside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradPiff
And the reality is when the voting actually starting there wasn't 16 people. During the vast majority of the actual voting process he was competing against a very small field(2-3 candidates)
The reality is that he got 1238 delegates and none of the others did which made him the presumptive nominee. No one cares about the losers, just the winners!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14
To whom he still lost 25% of the vote to in the last primary. Think about that, a quarter of Republicans who made the effort to go out to vote in California voted for people who were no longer even running. That speaks volumes.
Trump has got a big problem with lack of support within his own party. Only the blindly partisan fail to see it.
Doesn't make them look very smart does it? Like I said, Cruz supporters, the diehard, don't engage with the media and of course, probably some couldn't understand the ballot.......... So what, all that matters is he won! Hillary versus Bernie, did she get 75%? Oh, 55.8%, boy, she almost got her pantsuit beat off by Bernie!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kat in aiken
There appears to be no explaining to some people that 25% of the republican voters on Tuesday simply did the equivalent of writing MICKEY MOUSE on their ballots because, even though they made the effort to go out and vote, he couldn't bring themselves to vote for trump.
Hillary got 55.8% and Trump got 75%. Trump wasn't going to lose and Hillary was holding her breath, well, except for inappropriate laughing and coughing spells.
Yeah, this is going nowhere. Trump will still be the nominee to face off against, well, no one really is sure yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
Reminds me of how old Hillary "borrowed" Bernie's ideas to use for awhile to try to get her over the hump!
