Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Your post said:
"Oh, by the way, random number to you - Trump got 56% of Women vote in Connecticut as an example. Yet surely most of the republican women will not vote for him in general election"
I read as this "56% of the women in Connecticut voted for Bush, so you must be an idiot if you think Trump will not get women to vote for him".
What one demographic in the Republican party does in one (very small) state is not remotely connected to what will happen in the general election.
|
Fuck that, you are an idiot. I threw that number to show that women vote for Trump at only slighter rate than men. As a contradiction to his suggestion that republican women would not vote for trump.
That random number was more than enough to negate his suggestion that republican women would not vote for trump.
Get it or not? Or are you saying that it is possible that 56% of them voted in CT, but 0% would vote in other states?
And again - that 56% was with Cruz and Kasich to choose from. It will be WAY WAY WAY higher when Trump is the only one R candidate.
And no, I do not claim that CT number is the same that will be in other states, as you moronically managed to think that. Or actually I am not even sure what you managed to think of...
If that random number (note, I added another random 47% of MD) was not enough to negate the suggestion that "republican women will not vote for Trump" then you are a tool. Which you have been proven to be numerous times.
Sure, in theory you are correct - 56% in CT and 47% in MD (with 2 more republicans to choose from) does not mean anything. In theory it can be 56% in CT, 47% in MD and 0% in all the other states (before we check the actual stats), but if you have at least one brain cell you understand that even without looking at the stats - it won't be the case.
Again - it is really strange that there is a need to explain the most basic things... It is fascinating to see how your brain (does not) operates the information flow and (does not) makes conclusions.