**** Elections thread *****

[BananaStand]

I am analyzing the data objectively, you are explaining them subjectively. In other words, I am saying what happened, and you are trying to explain why it happened.

WRONG

You started this whole conversation by asserting that the 26% swing was ascribable, specifically, to distaste for Trump.

You started with a "why". Now that its debunked, you've retreated to a very narrow island of "what"

Lame

[Poopadoop]

WRONG

You started this whole conversation by asserting that the 26% swing was ascribable, specifically, to distaste for Trump.

You started with a "why". Now that its debunked, you've retreated to a very narrow island of "what"

Lame

Nope, I gave a figure and offered an explanation. You started out by trying to dispute the figure, and got spanked. Now you've given up on that and want to argue the explanation has been 'debunked'. My argument is the figure is what the figure is; you can explain it a different way than I do but that doesn't prove anything, nor does it change the figure itself.