2020 US General Election Thread XII: The End

[Senkaku]

If that's the case they're being silly then. Personally I think they're worried that shit's gonna kick off the moment a major news outlet announces the outcome, and they don't want to be the ones to do it.

Decision Desk already did! CNN said on air that "other outlets" have already called the race for Biden! They've said multiple times today that Trump should concede!

This is literally ridiculous

you're telling me CNN, that paragon of virtue and integrity on cable news, wants to have something both ways? I'm shocked and horrified

[Cisairse]

Decision Desk already did! CNN said on air that "other outlets" have already called the race for Biden! They've said multiple times today that Trump should concede!

This is literally ridiculous

you're telling me CNN, that paragon of virtue and integrity on cable news, wants to have something both ways? I'm shocked and horrified

I mean yeah but it's not like CNN is dragging their feet alone
ABC, Fox News, AP, NYT, Politico, Reuters, NBC…they're all guilty here

[Galloism]

Clearly, if you work as a stenographer for someone people hate, you deserve to be black listed for life. Because a stenographer is a place of political power and empowered everything that happened.

who is being "BLACKLISTED FOR LIFE!!!!!" lmfao, literally this is the biggest exaggeration I have seen in this entire thread, including the Trump people's claims of voter fraud

they're not blacklisting them they are literally just MAKING THEIR PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT RECORD PUBLICLY AVAILABLE (to the few people who might know to check this one group's records!)

I'm sure you're against doing the same for police misconduct records, eh? after all, some crazy person could look at their names and go murder them! or other police departments might not want to hire them, and that's the same as fascism, right?

Your reflexive screaming when told about the historical impact of blacklists in the real world just proves you know this is action is wrong.

This isn’t “exposing an employment record”. This is telling employers these people are black balled, and if you hire them you will face consequences to your business - and targets everyone even those on the periphery. Even low level apolitical desk job workers.

We should welcome in our fellow Americans with whom we differ politically.

But those who took a paycheck from the Trump Administration should not profit from their efforts to tear our democracy apart. The world should never forget those who, when faced with a decision, chose to put their money, their time, and their reputations behind separating children from their families, encouraging racism and anti-Semitism, and negligently causing the unnecessary loss of life and economic devastation from our country's failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The stenographer.

And you know it’s wrong.

[RiderSyl]

Give the media networks whatever time they need to call the election

They'll get there eventually

[Shofercia]

Actually, it does. If you lead a state by 50% with all counties reporting at least 10% of the vote counting completed, you are very likely to win the state. If you lead a state by 0.5%, then it's too early to call.

Yeah, no. Let me quote you explaining why:

You do realize that you're essentially arguing that different teams produce different tallies in the fourth quarter than they do in the first quarter, right? If you're going to compare state to state, you have to do so while matching each state's voting phase. If you're going to compare Team A to Team B, you should probably compare them during the same period or quarter of the game, rather than attempting to compare different teams during different quarters.

When you look at a map, different states are going to be in different places relative to each other at the same point in time. What you're writing is utterly irrelevant... in practice and in REALITY. No-one does this.

Your quote was comparing Georgia in the past to Texas and Florida at the time of your post. Georgia counted slower than Texas and Florida. What you said makes no sense, and practice is REALITY, but I guess you don't need to know that for theoretical statistics.

Are there parts of the post that are actually vital to the argument and unrelated to statistics? Just curious, because the argument in parenthesis was the one that you made, not the one that I made.

I'm aware. That's the point. That you're trying to act like parenthetical information is what I'm actually saying.

So when you put a post in paranthesis, the post that you, Forsher, made, is actually not the post that you, Forsher, made. Apparently parenthesis can teleport posts between realities. Is that a part of theoretical statistics?

If there is a 0.5% margin of victory and there are 0.6% of ballots that are thrown out, then the state would be flipped. I know that you're going to throw statistics and say how incredibly unlikely that is

Nope. Once again I am going to say... as ever you assume all the mistakes will be in one direction. Which is about as smart as standing knee deep in kerosene and lighting a match covered in grease.

Considering that certain precincts reported near perfect Biden tallies, there's a very real possibility that 0.6% possibility would nullify a 0.5% lead if it's 90% for Biden and 10% for Trump in the erroneous precinct. Let's do basic math: 0.6% * 0.9 = 0.54% which is actually bigger than 0.5%. Again, I'm not saying it's likely; I'm saying that it's plausible. Even if it is extremely unlikely, it is still plausible.

Now... what was the reason why the Governor was irrelevant again? Ah "That's how many votes would have to be wrong." (Actually, it's not... if half that lead was wrong in a specific direction and plus one more, that'd be sufficient... for example, 70 vs 30 is a lead of 40... take off 20 and you've got 50 vs 50, take off 21 and then it's 49 vs 51. But that's THEORY. In REALITY, and as I have said several times, not all the mistakes will be in one direction. And there's a world of difference between 40/21 and 15,793/7,897... and, of course, the much bigger subsequent margins.)

and

Recounts hardly ever over turn election outcomes is all you need to think about. It's possible, but the scale of the task is so enormous and reliant on unlikely systematic errors (i.e. in a particular direction) that it hardly ever happens (as, indeed, one would expect).

So you admit that it hardly ever happens, which means there's a chance. Again, you're missing my point. I'm arguing that it is plausible, that since there's a chance, however small, we should recount. I'm not saying that recount's chance of success is high; I'm not even saying that it's 10%. Probably less. But since there's a chance, and since quite a few people want clarity, why not do it? We have the time.

and, most frustratingly since this is from my SECOND comment, here:

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=493905&p=37882860#p37882860*%20Miscounts%20would%20probably%20go%20both%20directions%20and%20also%20I%20wasn't%20sure%20how%20many%20votes%20were%20counted%20at%202,524,385%20/.494%20=>%205,112,123.4817813765182186234817814%20/%20.95%20=>%2015,793%20/%205,381,182.6124014489665459194545067

Yes, you said that miscounts go both ways, and that's not something I challenged, because they do. And again, I'm not saying that there's a huge chance. Or a good chance. It could even be a piss poor chance, so what? Let's consider Georgia - the difference there is 0.1%. Dekalb County was 83% for Biden and 16% for Trump. That's a margin favoring Biden of 67%. So if just 0.2% of Georgia's votes had those margins, Georgia goes back to President Trump.

I could point out that these systematic errors are extremely unlikely (and are particularly unlikely if you have an extremely incompetent Governor) but the point is you have made a very, very basic mathematical error. Again. Plus many of the same errors you always make... [snipped due to irrelevance]

...I really don't understand why you're so convinced you're right when your positions rest on very basic arithmetical (not statistical!) errors.

Ok, let me explain it to you this way: the odds that I would be hurt or ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt while driving are 0.2%. Not 2%. 0.2%. Should I put on my seatbelt? In this case, the recount serves as the seatbelt. It doesn't matter that the odds are tiny, because the alternative is millions of people thinking that the election was stolen. And that's a very, very, very big crash Forsher, and that would be very, very, very bad. What's the worse thing that can happen in a recount? We'll have to wait a few weeks? Big whoop.

The analogy here is that you're so focused, Forsher, on statistics, on providing that the chance is very tiny, whereas I never said otherwise. But your narrow focus prevents you from seeing the bigger picture, although now I'm understanding how the bankers missed the 2008 crash, they were so focused on their narrow algorithms, that they missed the big picture. It's the seatbelt analogy. The cost to recount is a joke, compared to what letting millions of Americans think the election was stolen will lead to.

Do you know what a typo is?

Since you chose to bait, I choose to ignore your next point. Actions have consequences.

You are once again, obfuscating the truth. Yes, those statements are opposite, but you then went on to argue that using different color pallets for different margins is bad. That means that using the same color pallet for different margins is good, because a lead is a lead.

This is indeed what I am saying... "or colour in all leads exactly the same (a six colour system... R Called, R Lead, D Called, D Lead, O Called, O Lead)".

You've used a negative point to argue that a lead is a lead, and a positive point to argue that a lead is a lead. But you're arguing the same thing. And I'm guessing that you didn't expect me to catch this either, since your next point will be about how bad my English is...

I've got no idea what the fuck this is supposed to mean. Yes, "a lead is a lead". If, as you appear to suggest, two different arguments reach the same conclusion, I don't know why you think that is a problem.

The problem is that you claimed that you claimed that statements making the same point, are making the opposite point, and then proceeded to accuse me of bad English.

I didn't realize that you knew my favorite site, are you trying to imply that a website that I've linked a few times is now my favorite, (when it's actually not) in order to buttress the point that you're about to miss?

Holy fuck you can be pedantic. Can't say shit to you without your trying to turn it into something else. This is called riffing or writing with humour. Don't be so serious.

Me: Hey, it doesn't matter what the odds are, because if there's even a chance, we should do it
Forsher: Here are the odds!
Me: So there's a chance, however unlikely, that it could flip, ergo we should investigate it
Forsher: I'll make a joke to buttress my point about the odds
Me: Your joke makes no sense either
Forsher: Stop being so pedantic!

Yes, I recognize that map,

You're not being asked to recognise the map, Shof. You're being asked to notice...

You don't get to ask me anything. Oh, and I still find it hilarious that you used the 269-269 map.

Actually, the map you quoted has "other" because it's going to use that for the Senate Map. How do I know this? Because it also has a color code for "no election" which wouldn't make much sense, considering that the entire country elects the president, although maybe it makes sense for you...

Shof, in the US Senate, Maine and Nebraska do not have Congressional Districts that assign, or rather can assign, different parties electoral college votes. Nor do either of those states presently have two elections for the Senate. Indeed, you might notice that every US state that did not have a senate election this year has been coloured with one of "counting results", "win" or "gain" (the latter two options in appropriate party shades).

Forsher, if they use similar coding for the Presidency and the Senate, you do realize that means that the coding is similar, rather than being like totally, 100%, completely, the same, right? Didn't you just accuse me of bad English? As for the Senate, that map only shows two elections for Georgia, the only state having two elections.

Since you've accused me of failing basic English earlier in the thread, I should point out that a discussion is the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas. Considering that you wanted to exchange ideas about theoretical statistics, but was rebuffed at almost every turn, I wouldn't really call that a discussion. It's actually closer to a comment, or set of comments, rather than a discussion. You don't automatically jump from rant to discussion, Forsher, as there are stages in between; I learned that in basic English.

Once again, Shof, you don't have to reply if you don't want to. Everyone else knows this.

And if you don't want things to be called rants, don't call things rants. I try to do this thing where I use the terminology the people I'm communicating with use. You call everything a rant, therefore what you say must be a rant because everything is a rant... according to you.

I haven't used the term "rant" once in the new thread, and in the old thread, I've used it sparingly. So to claim that I call everything a "rant" means that you're flat out lying. Again.

When I was talking about a map of the states, I was actually talking about a map of the states, as displayed by Google, rather than the different color coding variations that could've been used in the 1960s. As you can actually see on the map of the states, there's no third party color. Furthermore, my point was not that you cannot use "other" but rather than using "other" would be incredibly pointless, since "other" hasn't won a state since the 1960s.

Forsher: have a third colour for other parties!
Shof: that's fucking isnane
Forsher: yeah, people use third colours
Shof: actually, my point was that it was pointless

First, my point was that the "other" fourth color was pointless. Second, I didn't say that it was fucking insane. I said that it was utter nonsense, aka pointless. If only there was a quote:

There's no such things as "other" in a modern American presidential race. A state either goes to a Democrat or a Republican, or is up for grabs, between a Democrat and a Republican. So having a category of "other" is utter nonsense.

If you're saying stuff you know is irrelevant... don't say it. You already made this conversation FAR longer than it needs to be. I'm going to cut every single other section about third party colours out because it's irrelevant. You've just said it's irrelevant. That it was something you were trying to make a meal out of, you got caught with your pants around your ankles and now you're backtracking.

Person A: "Hey, we should jump from this building!"
Person B: "Why? That'd be pointless?"
Forsher: "If you're saying stuff you know is irrelevant... don't say it."

Apparently, according to Forsher's rule, I'm not allowed to point out that using a pointless color code for something that's not happening would be pointless, or utter nonsense. And somehow pants were involved.

A color coded map provides a basis to claim that the election is illegitimate? Hey, that's just like posting a Map of Hilarity in order to prove me wrong, you sure showed everyone! Yep, 269-269 vote, totally legit!

It's very obvious that's not why that map was posted, Shofercia. No-one is going to believe you. And because of how long you make these posts (due to all the irrelevant shit you put into them), no-one does believe you since I'm the only one who cares.

It's rather hilarious how Forsher claims that no one believes me, and then proceeds to write long posts, (that he actually recognizes are long posts,) to point out that no one believes me. If no one believes my posts, wouldn't they, and your response, be irrelevant? What was that quote earlier, by Forsher?

"If you're saying stuff you know is irrelevant... don't say it."

Speaking of things that don't provide clarity, Google's map claims that Arizona is "won" even

Google's map uses the Associated Press' data. As you should know, AP and Fox have called it. If you actually paid attention to this thread, you'd know I don't think they should have. It has nothing to do with anything we've discussing.

So a misleading part of an electoral map shouldn't be a part of a discussion on how electoral maps can be misleading. Got it. Anything else, Forsher? And unlike you when it comes to reading all of my posts, I don't read all of yours; I might skim some responses to mine, but they don't inspire me to read the rest of your posts.

My solution is to color code based on the margins, rather than arbitrary calls by the Associated Press.

Right, back on the foe's list you go.

Stellar rebuttal! Reminds me of another one you've recently made:
Me: AP called it, partially because Fox News called it and when you do something because Fox News did it...
Forsher: As you should know, AP and Fox have called it.

Like I said, stellar rebuttal!

This is exactly where we started and you have failed to engage with anything I've said. You want to talk about all this idiotic shit that has nothing to do with any of the issues that have been raised. Fine. Do that with whatever poor sods aren't tired of your shit and are perfectly happy to let you misrepresent every single little thing they say.

Considering that you've attempted to misrepresent what I've said numerous times, and you've yet to provide a single example of me misrepresenting what you've said, I think that you're projecting.

As for claiming whether or not the election is legitimate, that's up to SCOTUS to decide.

Which has what to do with the perceptions of an election's legitimacy? Ah, nothing.

I recognize that I'm not the only person in the US, and that the country doesn't revolve around me, although the tax policy should. That last part was a joke. My whole point was that, because of how intense this election, and how sensitive people are, on both sides, we should try to do our best to legitimize it, and if that leads to a recount, followed by a SCOTUS ruling, let's do that. It's scary here, in California. Businesses that I've never seen boarded up before, are boarded up. People are leaving the state in record numbers. If the public feels that the legitimacy of the Federal Government isn't there, it'll get even uglier... I don't want that. So let's legitimize it any way we can.

[Albrenia]

Bringing Trump and his inner circle to justice should be done the right way. Blacklists are not the right way to do that.

Recounts are fine, but I don't see the need for a SCOTUS ruling. Go for it though, if the Trumpists will put away their pitchforks when they are ruled against.

[Senkaku]

who is being "BLACKLISTED FOR LIFE!!!!!" lmfao, literally this is the biggest exaggeration I have seen in this entire thread, including the Trump people's claims of voter fraud

they're not blacklisting them they are literally just MAKING THEIR PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT RECORD PUBLICLY AVAILABLE (to the few people who might know to check this one group's records!)

I'm sure you're against doing the same for police misconduct records, eh? after all, some crazy person could look at their names and go murder them! or other police departments might not want to hire them, and that's the same as fascism, right?

Your reflexive screaming when told about the historical impact of blacklists in the real world just proves you know this is action is wrong.

it really does no such thing and you didn't answer my question

This isn’t “exposing an employment record”.

it in fact literally is that

This is telling employers these people are black balled, and if you hire them you will face consequences to your business -

really? they're saying "we will use the state to punish your business if you hire these people"? they're saying this is being done for any reason than "we wouldn't hire these people and don't think you should either"? these logical and moral leaps are going from surreal to death-defying, Gallo

and targets everyone even those on the periphery. Even low level apolitical desk job workers.

and god knows the job market for stenographers has been so tough that they basically have no choice but to work for the WH these days right

We should welcome in our fellow Americans with whom we differ politically.

But those who took a paycheck from the Trump Administration should not profit from their efforts to tear our democracy apart. The world should never forget those who, when faced with a decision, chose to put their money, their time, and their reputations behind separating children from their families, encouraging racism and anti-Semitism, and negligently causing the unnecessary loss of life and economic devastation from our country's failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The stenographer.[/quote]
yes.

And you know it’s wrong.

I in fact think it is a good and correct thing to do!

[Picairn]

Bringing Trump and his inner circle to justice should be done the right way. Blacklists are not the right way to do that.

Recounts are fine, but I don't see the need for a SCOTUS ruling. Go for it though, if the Trumpists will put away their pitchforks when they are ruled against.

TAP as a whole is a stupid concept. A more intelligent and malicious person would have just used Wikipedia.

As for the court rulings, Trump's shenanigans seem to be failing everywhere.

[Cisairse]

Ftr this is why this race is over and why it's so stupid that networks haven't called it

PA is going to end at around 3-4 points (ie, the polls were right!)

[Nobel Hobos 2]

if she were compiling a list of people to have executed or imprisoned or rusticated I might agree with you lmao but in this case "accountability" will probably at most mean there'll be some roadblocks in their path to cushy thinktank jobs, so the "it's the red scare all over again!!11" shit comes across as completely hysterical to the point of being comedic

Dude, it probably would have been used that way. Maybe not by the creators, but people publish lists of abortion doctors and, surprise surprise, some of them wind up dead as a result.

Shit, I’m told they even had the White House stenographer on the list. Seriously. The stenographer.

You're probably thinking of a meek and modestly dressed middle-aged woman with reading glasses, who never says a word.

But that's how they get you, see? Think about it. Lurking unnoticed in the most important meetings, recording something in a code that only other stenographers can read. Then later a perfectly typeset government record is produced but is it a true record of what happened in the room? Only the stenographers know.

Probably Trump never noticed these shady Deep State operatives, even when he thought he was alone in the Oval Office. But we know of their menace now! Biden should get out the old reel-to-reel tape recorders from the WH basement, and use them instead.

[Xanthal]

Paranoia is becoming a national pastime.

[Telconi]

Paranoia is becoming a national pastime.

It's not paranoia if people are actually out to get you.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Secondary thought:

(Image)

Now that you've drawn attention to their posture, I'm noticing that Jr.'s hips are wider than his shoulders. Which is an odd look on a male.

An even more pronounced form is visible in Don Jr. He's positively a tele-tubby.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Paranoia is becoming a national pastime.

It's not paranoia if people are actually out to get you.

It IS paranoia if people are actually out to get you, and you know it.

Normal is people being out to get you and you don't know.

[Albrenia]

Anyone know if any more numbers are going to move in the election soon? I feel like the process is getting slower by the day.

[Cannot think of a name]

Anyone know if any more numbers are going to move in the election soon? I feel like the process is getting slower by the day.

A bunch of crap in the morning. No one is going to call shit though. This game of chicken is going to go all the way to certification. Some have indicated they won't call shit until after recounts. I think people are just skipping ahead and calling it for the networks. But Biden won't call himself president elect until someone else does. Decision Desk HQ and Vox don't count.

But as he said, he's already starting as much of the transition as he can.

[Albrenia]

Anyone know if any more numbers are going to move in the election soon? I feel like the process is getting slower by the day.

A bunch of crap in the morning. No one is going to call shit though. This game of chicken is going to go all the way to certification. Some have indicated they won't call shit until after recounts. I think people are just skipping ahead and calling it for the networks. But Biden won't call himself president elect until someone else does. Decision Desk HQ and Vox don't count.

But as he said, he's already starting as much of the transition as he can.

How boring.

I wonder when Trump's tantrum SCOTUS case will be heard.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Anti Trump statements and calls to give up from Democrat mayors and other politicians is to be expected, for obvious reasons, they are Democrats. GMS.

[Cannot think of a name]

A bunch of crap in the morning. No one is going to call shit though. This game of chicken is going to go all the way to certification. Some have indicated they won't call shit until after recounts. I think people are just skipping ahead and calling it for the networks. But Biden won't call himself president elect until someone else does. Decision Desk HQ and Vox don't count.

But as he said, he's already starting as much of the transition as he can.

How boring.

I wonder when Trump's tantrum SCOTUS case will be heard.

He has to get a case a court will take. It turns out 'they're being mean to me" isn't court worthy.


Also, I'm delighted to find I'm not the only one who has picked up on this:

[Jedi Council]

Anti Trump statements and calls to give up from Democrat mayors and other politicians is to be expected, for obvious reasons, they are Democrats. GMS.

And because Trump losing is essentially a mathematical certainty at this point.

The networks should have called it today, Trump should have conceded this evening.

[Corrian]

Literally unexcusable that DDHQ called this race 16 hours ago and every other news outlet & agency has not called a single state since then

This race should have been 100% called today (yesterday?), and it hasn't been.

[Corrian]

Ftr this is why this race is over and why it's so stupid that networks haven't called it

PA is going to end at around 3-4 points (ie, the polls were right!)

Wait, if they end that high, that means PA polls were more right than Michigan or Wisconsin polls.

[Forsher]

Your quote was comparing Georgia in the past to Texas and Florida at the time of your post. Georgia counted slower than Texas and Florida. What you said makes no sense, and practice is REALITY, but I guess you don't need to know that for theoretical statistics.

None of this is true.

My post was comparing a particular margin that was true of Texas, Georgia and Florida in the past that is still true of Texas and Florida but not Georgia.

Case in point... when we started writing, Georgia was something like a 5 percentage point state... which was the same (ish) as Texas or Florida are now. What is Georgia now? 0 percentage points at 1 decimal place. It is expected by everyone to flip.

The margin of a lead at one point in time gives you absolutely no guidance as to what is going to happen to that state in the future. That is the point. That is true for several reasons... including that some states count faster and slower than others. You can have five point leads that dissipate (or even flip, as in Georgia's case) or which stay the same (as in the case of Florida and Texas). And here's the thing... if you look at a map that's colour coded... they don't show (as a normal practice) how much is counted. Some of these uncalled states have vastly more of the vote counted than others.

So when you put a post in paranthesis, the post that you, Forsher, made, is actually not the post that you, Forsher, made. Apparently parenthesis can teleport posts between realities. Is that a part of theoretical statistics?

Literally bears absolutely no resemblance to what I just wrote.

Considering that certain precincts reported near perfect Biden tallies, there's a very real possibility that 0.6% possibility would nullify a 0.5% lead if it's 90% for Biden and 10% for Trump in the erroneous precinct. Let's do basic math: 0.6% * 0.9 = 0.54% which is actually bigger than 0.5%. Again, I'm not saying it's likely; I'm saying that it's plausible. Even if it is extremely unlikely, it is still plausible.

Is that what you said before? No. Here's what you said:

If there is a 0.5% margin of victory and there are 0.6% of ballots that are thrown out, then the state would be flipped.

There is no uncertainty whatsoever involved here, It is a "if X then Y" statement and it is JUST WRONG. I don't care about situations where it can happen. I was doing nothing more than pointing out an innumerate statement.

As we have both said, repeatedly, it's possible for recounts to succeed. It is not a "point of clash". It is not even relevant to either of our arguments. So... let's delete all the bullshit where you act like it is...

Yes, you said that miscounts go both ways, and that's not something I challenged, because they do.

It's not something you challenged because acknowledging it would require acknowledging that you've acted like this is not the case and because it would required acknowledging that you were caught making objectively wrong statements.

And again, I'm not saying that there's a huge chance. Or a good chance. It could even be a piss poor chance, so what?

Now connect it to the point of the conversation, i.e. whether or not Google is justified in treating every lead as being equal.

Let's consider Georgia - the difference there is 0.1%.

Once again... what the fuck do you mean? You cannot say shit like this, Shof. I don't know if you're saying 0.1% difference, which is NOT true or a 0.1% percentage point difference... which has a completely different meaning. You have been told this, time and time again.

Dekalb County was 83% for Biden and 16% for Trump. That's a margin favoring Biden of 67%. So if just 0.2% of Georgia's votes had those margins, Georgia goes back to President Trump.

Here's the thing, Shof... when you make repeated mathematical errors, I'm not going to believe any of your mathematical claims. And I'm not going to check things which don't matter to our conversation at all. As you might recall, my position is that the scale of the lead is not merely irrelevant information but actively unhelpful information that serves to cast into question the legitimacy of the electoral process. Georgia should be coloured, according to me, exactly the same way if the leader has a margin of 1 vote, 1000 votes or 100,000 votes. What you're saying is... pointless.

And, no, that is not a margin of 67%.

In this case, the recount serves as the seatbelt. It doesn't matter that the odds are tiny,

Again... my argument is this: Google shouldn't colour states in differently based on the scale of the margin. Insofar as it relates to recounts the point is this: scaling colours based on small percentage point margins is unhelpful because the chance a recount will succeed is tiny, therefore incorporating information on the idea of a recount's possibly succeeding merely serves to make people doubt the electoral process' integrity. Something you have repeatedly said is your personal opinion.

So, yes, it doesn't matter that the odds are tiny. My whole point is that these maps shouldn't consider recounts at all... even if the odds were huge... unless that has been factored in when the state was called.

on providing that the chance is very tiny, whereas I never said otherwise.

Focus on Google. That's all the conversation is about.

The problem is that you claimed that you claimed that statements making the same point, are making the opposite point, and then proceeded to accuse me of bad English.

This didn't happen.

Treat all leads the same.
Colour in every lead, regardless of magnitude, the same way.

A lead is a lead is a lead.
If you colour in some leads differently, you claim that some leads are different to others, which only serves to cast into doubt the legitimacy of the election if a lead flips.

Somehow you corrupted these four consistent statements into:

"why not use another form of Blue for states with less than one percent of a margin of error? As you said, a lead is a lead is a lead..."

which has a totally opposite meaning, whilst claiming to use my logic. If you think a lead is a lead is a lead, there is no rational justification for using another shade of blue for states with tiny margins.

There is no inconsistency on my end. Only your misrepresentations and inability to keep track of them.

Me: Hey, it doesn't matter what the odds are, because if there's even a chance, we should do it

I have, not once, suggested recounts should not happen. I have repeatedly told you that this line of thinking is irrelevant to my criticism of your critique of Google's colouring choices, sure, but that's not the same thing. AT ALL.

You don't get to ask me anything.

How tall are you Shof?

See, look, just asked you something. Any reply to "how tall are you Shof?" that doesn't list your height is irrelevant. That's what happened here. You were asked to notice something. Your reply was irrelevant.

As for the Senate, that map only shows two elections for Georgia, the only state having two elections.

No, it doesn't. Pay attention to the way Nebraska and Maine have multi-colour streaks... Also, notice how Georgia is a solid "still counting" block... even though both Senate races in Georgia have been called and one was called long before I took the screenshot.

But this is not germane to our discussion, Shof, it is just my pointing out yet another factual error on your part.

First, my point was that the "other" fourth color was pointless. Second, I didn't say that it was fucking insane. I said that it was utter nonsense, aka pointless. If only there was a quote:

A distinction with no difference.

And, also, no relevance to the conversation.

I'm not allowed to point out

If you're going to turn around and go "hey I didn't mean anything by this", yeah, you shouldn't do this. Notice how I tell you if something is beside the point at the first instance.

If no one believes my posts, wouldn't they, and your response, be irrelevant?

Or, maybe, a statement directed peculiarly at yourself is intended wholly as a communication just for you? And that the whole exercise is predicated on trying to get you to stop making these errors you insist on making?

So a misleading part of an electoral map shouldn't be a part of a discussion on how electoral maps can be misleading. Got it

If you want to make a map based on AP's view of the election... you cannot just ignore that AP has called Arizona... even if you disagree with it.

Google's map is not at all misleading about AP's views. It represents, fairly, AP's view of the US presidential election.

Stellar rebuttal! Reminds me of another one you've recently made:
Me: AP called it, partially because Fox News called it and when you do something because Fox News did it...
Forsher: As you should know, AP and Fox have called it.

Like I said, stellar rebuttal!

AP and Fox are independent, Shof. This is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

It also has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how Google should colour its map, once it has chosen to use AP's election material (as opposed to, say, ABC's or Fox's or CNN's or DecisionDeskHQ's or whoever else runs a decision desk). And that is all I'm interested in. My argument would be the same if Google did use ABC's or DecisionDeskHQ's interpretations. That's why I didn't comment on this before. It quite simply has nothing to do with my point.

As does my having not added you to my foe's list. It's going to happen, albeit you have added a reply in before I got round to it... hence this response. It's not rebuttal. It's pointing out something I'm going to do so you know not to reply if you want a response. And, yet, you responded. Clearly, whatever you're doing here it's not trying to have a conversation,... but, realistically, I knew that already.

Considering that you've attempted to misrepresent what I've said numerous times, and you've yet to provide a single example of me misrepresenting what you've said, I think that you're projecting.

Literally everything you've said in this post and your previous two is a misrepresentation of something I've said.

I recognize that I'm not the only person in the US, and that the country doesn't revolve around me

Now recognise this... if you are not the only person, it is possible for people to argue that an election is not being conducted fairly because they've watched a blue or red shift.

we should try to do our best to legitimize it

Yes. And one of those measure is by not having election maps which scale colour shades based on non-final vote tallies. A point I've been making since the beginning.

[Kowani]

[Jedi Council]

Literally unexcusable that DDHQ called this race 16 hours ago and every other news outlet & agency has not called a single state since then

This race should have been 100% called today (yesterday?), and it hasn't been.

Theres only three reasons I can see

1. They dont want to get it wrong and have egg on their faces. (We are way past the point of being wrong however)

2. No one wants to be the first to call it given the amount of anger it would create among the Trump supporters, who are prone to violence and intimidation when in large numbers.

3. They are waiting to make it look like every single damn vote has been cast before the result is called, to fight Trumps message of a rigged election.

4. They all want FOX to do it after the last five years fo FOX being a literal cesspool.