• iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Their point isn’t valid when you cannot guarantee every non voter was actually a lost vote for Harris. You don’t know who they were going to vote for.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              History can very much let you infer how the future will go. That’s literally how we determine what might happen.

              • reddit_sux@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                Well history did tell that convicted felon wouldn’t become the president but that didn’t come true.

                So yes history can give an inkling about the future but it is just that, nothing more, not an absolute.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  That does not involve statistical predictions based on previous elections. As far as I know, only one other convicted felon ran for president- Eugene V. Debs. Considering he was a socialist, his chances were slim.

                  I’m sure you know that the sample size of two is not really something you can base election predictions on. You can base them on voting patterns every four years. Really, every two.

                  If predictions based on previous history didn’t work, neither would weather reports.

                  The big issue here is that you seem to think making predictions based on historical statistics has to always be right or always be wrong, rather than right far more often than wrong.