Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

Re:Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army by eej71 on Wednesday February 19, 2020 @04:20PM (#22370201)

Why dwell on an irrelevant number? It's not material to the presidential election. At all. There is no reason the mass media should even report it. It's not germane to the outcome. It only serves to confuse everyone.

The rules for winning a presidential election are well known and well established. You have to win a majority of the electors spread over many states. This means composing a message that broadly resonates with the country. Trump did that. HRC did not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army by iron0013 on Wednesday February 19, 2020 @04:24PM (#22370246)

You said Clinton’s message “...just didn't click with a lot of people. Trump's did.” That’s a numerical comparison. Are you saying that X > X+3000000? It’s an incoherent claim, so find another argument.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army by eej71 on Wednesday February 19, 2020 @04:35PM (#22370342)

Can we agree that the popular vote is irrelevant to the presidential election? And if so - why impute my words with that interpretation?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army by arrosenberg on Wednesday February 19, 2020 @04:56PM (#22370511)

It's only irrelevant for deciding who wins the office. You are making the argument that Trump won because his arguments were more popular among the electorate, which is provably false using the popular vote total.

Hillary Clinton's message resonated with over 3,000,000 more voters, however unfortunate their distribution was.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army by malandrew on Thursday February 20, 2020 @12:23AM (#22372896)

Insofar as the presidential election is concerned, the electorate is the 538 people in the electoral college. Trump was more popular among the electorate not HRC.

[ Parent | on HN ]