It has been said a gazillion times over the last few months, but is it getting through to those who need to hear it?

  • voiceofchris @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    You sound like you’re scared that you won’t be able to find any good data that supports you.

    you concluded that 3.5% of Americans were trump hating non democrats and that since 8.5% of Americans were trump hating republicans and that number is bigger, all the trump hating non democrats must be republicans and none of them could possibly be third party,

    This is a mischaracterization of the conclusions i made. I have made it clear that i only need to argue for it being possible that half or more of the 3% third partiers could be in favor of Trump over Harris. Of course many of them favor Harris. You find me where i said otherwise. I double dog date you. Im fact, it was the original article that made the preposterous unsupported claim that almost all third partiers are closet-aupportera of one side or the other. My argument this entire time has been that this claim is BS unless someone can provide support for it.

    Since you keep skipping over all of my points in order to get to the part where you criticize me as quickly as possible i am going to ask you exactly one question this time. Please answer.

    What exactly is the range of percentages for anti-Trump Republicans that you would accept to be in support of my conclusion?

    • davidagain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Well, I’m going to ask you a question that you have been ducking for over twelve hours: can one person be three, or were your reasoning, logic, and conclusions based on misuse of inconsistent and unreliable polling data?

      Your attempt to get me to take part in a rehash of the same logic with different data is futile. Your logic is nonsense.

      • voiceofchris @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        So you’re not willing to answer my question?

        I have answered all of yours and responded in good faith to each of your less than civil comments. In fact, i have already answered the very question you just re-asked.

        Are you willing to answer my question, or should we let it drop?

        • davidagain@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Are you willing to admit that polling data is unreliable and that it’s nonsense to do arithmetic on results from separate pools? If not, there’s no basis for engaging with you because you’ll just repeat the same nonsense with poll after poll until you luck out on one that is less obviously misleading.

          • voiceofchris @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            How on earth did you miss the part where i just explained in detail that making claims about what the polls show was something presented by someone on your side of the argument. I am literally here showing how the polls, whether you think they are wortheless or not, do not show what that person was claiming. If your complaint is with polls in general why are you huffing and puffing at me and not at that person. Could it be because that person just so happens to be arguing something that you’d like to be true and i am not?

            • davidagain@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Because the other person didn’t do insane arithmetic between polls in a way that counted some people as three people then defend it three times before backing down, and then refuse to admit for another 24 hours that their logic was flawed.

              • voiceofchris @lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                29 days ago

                Because the other person didn’t do insane arithmetic between polls

                The other person did no arithmetic at all. Nor did they provide any data at all. But you know what they did do? They claimed that the polling data supported the idea that third partiers support Harris over Trump. And they claimed that a couple very specific types of polling data supported this claim. You know which types? Yep, the exact ones i pulled polling data for. So, critisize the choice of those specific polls all you want, and go on about how i shouldn’t compare two polls of disparate groups of people (which was one of my own points before you latched onto it, you’re welcome), but in the end you’re only making my case for me that the commenter who said the polls support their claim is wrong.

                Since then you have: A) misinterpretted my original comment in which i linked the polls, B) repeated your “1 = 3 = magical math” argument, and most recently, C) cast aspersions on all polling data.

                We are past (A). I have addressed (B) multiple times and until you answer my question about the exact percentage range that you would accept as proof, i will consider your argument defeated. Now © i am in complete agreement on, but polling data being unreliable only helps my argument. I.e. if polls are unreliable then why was the other commenter stating that polling data would prove them right? If polling is unreliable then what basis does the article have for claiming that third partiers prefer Harris over Trump?

                before backing down,

                No, no, no. I have asked you a very specific question which you have refused to answer. This is not what me backing down looks like.