A early Electoral, winning vote.
A majority vote.
     IS NOT
A "baboon flipping a coin"

 I agree which is why I wouldn't say that.

 However if we use the actual words I did:  The chance is the same since there were only two outcomes specific and exclusive to a Trump vs Harris pool of candidates.

 A baboon flipping a coin has the same percentage chance to choose a winner as all other beings, human or otherwise taking the same chance.  This was a 50/50 no matter what.

 Also Harris supporters Observed Reality is she had larger rallies.  Objective truth and empirical evidence does not align with their Observed Realities.

Correct, because those few rallies she had that were larger were Only larger because she Created a Draw, a free concert, etc,,
Astroturf

 Agreed.  So Harris supporters were fooled - does this mean it is not their Observed Reality?  I think it is still their Observed Reality.  Harris supporters Observed Reality, that Harris had larger rallies, is not supported by objective truth and empirical evidence.


Trump didn't work to Draw people, other than for Trump to show up.

Organic


 Harris supporters did not Observe this.  They chose internet information that told them that their candidate, Harris, had larger rallies.  How Trump ran his rallies has no bearing on Harris supporters Observed Reality - since they never Observed it.  



The difference between Fake and Real.
Lefties fail at Nuance

 That only means they chose inaccurate information to create their Observed Reality.

 Harris supporters Observed Reality, that Harris had larger rallies, is not supported by objective truth and empirical evidence.  This is why Observed Reality is a poor qualifier - it depends on what a human chooses to Observe.



The difference between the results of the election and a coin flip is
Trump could have lost the popular vote, won the Electoral college, and lost the house and senate, and it wouldn't have been a National declaration by the People, telling the left, piss off.
So, your assessment fails to consider a Great deal.

 I disagree.  My assessment is the percentage chance of choosing one out of two things is 50%.  Is this incorrect?  I'm not assessing emotional nonsense, I am assessing the percentage chance of predicting a winner between two and only two humans.

 A baboon flipping a coin has a 50% chance of getting one out of two outcomes.  So does an election assessment with two humans.  
 

Eegore wrote on Today at 04:26:09:


So, "...A baboon flipping a coin has a 50% chance..."
Sounds like a fact, unless it was a Baboon trained to vote one way or the other, depending on how it was trained.

Question: "...So does an election assessment with two humans.  ..."
Why did you not post the, "OPINION" Caveat ?

So, "...A baboon flipping a coin has a 50% chance..."
Sounds like a fact, unless it was a Baboon trained to vote one way or the other, depending on how it was trained.


 Except my statement is about the probability of choosing one thing out of a maximum of two things.  That probability is 50%.  If you want to add psychology to it go ahead, but that is not what I stated.   You are conflating the prediction of who a baboon will vote for (which I did not state) with the mathematical percentage chance that each candidate out of two have a 50% chance.
 


Question: "...So does an election assessment with two humans.  ..."
Why did you not post the, "OPINION" Caveat ?

 The software is not running.  

 Question:  Why aren't you clarifying in my other posts which sentences are opinion and which ones aren't?

What changed your mind?
You've been arguing against me since I said
Who needs polls?
Look at rally attendance.

Ohh,too small of a sample.

What changed your mind?

 Nothing.  It is too small of a sample size.  You just can't seem to grasp that humans looking at the internet is a different action than calculating sample sizes.

 You are conflating rally attendance reasons with the mathematical assessment of rally attendance numbers to over a hundred million other humans.  One subject is the psychology of "why" humans went to a rally (astroturf)  and the other is the how many went in comparison to how many did not.  Or in other words - The math.

 I am saying Harris supporters Observed that Harris rallies were larger than Trump rallies.  Are you suggesting Harris supporters did not Observe this?


You've been arguing against me since I said
Who needs polls?
Look at rally attendance.

 It is too small of a sample.  I can think that rally sample sizes are too small of a sample size to predict the actions of over a hundred million other humans, AND ALSO think Harris supporters Observed larger rally sizes.  There is no reason for those two things to be mutually exclusive.

 Harris supporters Observed Reality is that Harris had larger rallies.  Do you disagree?  Or will this be another question you refuse to answer while I continue to answer your questions.

DaFuq's wrong with you?
Answered, read what I said. Did she HAVE any rally bigger than One of his? I doubt it.

 That's not my question.  Stop trying to say I am asking IF she had larger rallies - we already agreed she did not.  We agreed she did not have larger rallies.  Stop changing the subject and trying to make this a "who had larger rallies" conversation.

 I am asking if Harris supporters used the internet or "the news" to Observe, inaccurately, that Harris had larger rallies?  Did they log into MSNBC/Youtube/CNN and watch some pro-Harris rally footage for instance?

 Yes they did.  Humans on this very forum did that and you commented on it.  They chose to Observe only the information that told them Harris had larger rallies.  What is so hard to understand about humans using the internet to Observe things?

 Harris supporters Observed Reality about rally numbers is not supported in objective truth or empirical evidence.