I can't believe you are so stubborn.
What I wrote still stands.
I said that the percentages value the chance of winning based on electoral votes.
That means the "odds of winning" or whatever other synonym you choose to use.
I have made it clear and Samwell has made it clear.
I did not misunderstand anything.
I was talking about the chance of winning which was the subject matter from the get go.
We weren't talking about electoral votes, the damn THREAD name is about the CHANCE/ODDS of Obama winning the election.
I can't see how you can honestly sit here and type your bullshit when you are being so ignorant you can't even look at the threads name (AND THEREFORE SUBJECT MATTER).
Is that spelled out for you well enough?
The SUBJECT MATTER of this thread is Obamas CHANCE/ODDS of winning.
You are fucking delusional man.
Your assertion is so shit.
When I said "Rmoney has 8.4%" I was speaking the previous sentence structure in which I was talking about CHANCE.
The "Rmoney has 8.4%" could also have been structured as: "Rmoney has 8.4% chance".
It is implied in the damn sentence. Are you completely inept at reading or what is the problem here?
You are showing yourself to be a massive arse. You are making a fucking fool of yourself.
You are trying to say that I was talking about HAVING electoral votes when I was actually talking about CHANCE of winning in a fucking thread named: Obama 91.4% win - About Obamas chance of winning measured in percentages.
I mean wtf man. What the hell are you on about?!
I don't know why you are talking about an oddsmaker either.
These are predictions made by Nate Silver, a leading statistician who was near perfectly correct on his predictions last election.
He is not a bookie.
heres a nifty option to prevent miscommunication.
Use complete sentences.
a shorter sentence is also helpful in avoiding failure to communicate.
your lengthy dissertations defending a statement which WAS crafted, either through ignorance or malevolence, in such a manner as to convince the slow-witted that "obama is dominating the election, so your romney vote is a waste of time" does nothing more than show your agenda.
but then youre the one with the expertise in "immediate history".
your pretense that i do not understand the cited statistician's job description is laughable. statisticians ARE bookmakers. Bookmakers ARE statisticians, or at least the successful ones are. they both calculate the odds and try to sell their projections to the suckers.
declaring he was "near perfectly correct on his predictions last election" is what we call damning with faint praise. the "last election" to which you refer is obviously NOT the 2010 election, you clearly mean 2008. only a dolt would have been surprised by the O-man's victory in the 2008 election/rapture. i dont care if he (the cited bookie) successfully called the last 10 presidential elections 3 months before the vote each time. he would still be an odds-maker. you may not know this but here in the english speaking world, odds-makers are called Bookies.
