Look at the number of eligible voters that didn’t vote. Their point is 100% valid, just like it has been for pretty much every election. This time is just extra inexcusable because of what we’ve collectively lost.
That does not involve statistical predictions based on previous elections. As far as I know, only one other convicted felon ran for president- Eugene V. Debs. Considering he was a socialist, his chances were slim.
I’m sure you know that the sample size of two is not really something you can base election predictions on. You can base them on voting patterns every four years. Really, every two.
If predictions based on previous history didn’t work, neither would weather reports.
The big issue here is that you seem to think making predictions based on historical statistics has to always be right or always be wrong, rather than right far more often than wrong.
Look at the number of eligible voters that didn’t vote. Their point is 100% valid, just like it has been for pretty much every election. This time is just extra inexcusable because of what we’ve collectively lost.
Their point isn’t valid when you cannot guarantee every non voter was actually a lost vote for Harris. You don’t know who they were going to vote for.
Democrats historically do better in years with higher turnout.
Cool. Historically, convicted felons don’t get elected to the presidency but here we are.
That has nothing to do with the voter turnout issue, so I’m not sure why you brought it up.
History doesn’t predict future, that was his point.
History can very much let you infer how the future will go. That’s literally how we determine what might happen.
Well history did tell that convicted felon wouldn’t become the president but that didn’t come true.
So yes history can give an inkling about the future but it is just that, nothing more, not an absolute.
That does not involve statistical predictions based on previous elections. As far as I know, only one other convicted felon ran for president- Eugene V. Debs. Considering he was a socialist, his chances were slim.
I’m sure you know that the sample size of two is not really something you can base election predictions on. You can base them on voting patterns every four years. Really, every two.
If predictions based on previous history didn’t work, neither would weather reports.
The big issue here is that you seem to think making predictions based on historical statistics has to always be right or always be wrong, rather than right far more often than wrong.