Jump to content
270soft Forum
admin_270

Will Trump win regardless of who the Dems nominate?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Average height from here

https://www.potus.com/presidential-facts/presidential-heights/

Trump is about 6'3", so that increases it further.

He’s not 6’3”. He might have been  6’3” in his youth. Jared Kushner and Eric Trump tower over him. As did Bill O’Reilly and Jeb Bush. He’s the same height as Obama in pictures that have both of them. He’s 6’1” now  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

Could the author not find any evidence stronger and more convincing than height? To me, it ruined the credibility of her entire article.

Ya, because you erroneously think that height doesn't matter. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Ya, because you erroneously think that height doesn't matter. 😉

It doesn’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

He’s not 6’3”.

That's what his height is listed at on the POTUS web-site. It doesn't matter - he's obviously above average height, whether 6'1", 6'2" or 6'3".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

It doesn’t.

What do you think explains the large difference in the ave. height of a President versus the general population? Just nutrition?

Here's a study that found a correlation between income and genes for height in men in the U.K.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/health/short-men-heavy-women-genes/

"the men with the genes that will likely lead them to be tall, have about £2,940 (about $4,175) higher annual household income"

More from that article

"Taller men get hired or promoted more into business leadership roles, some studies have shown. For example, the average height of a Fortune 500 CEO is 6 feet tall."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar I don't know why this ridiculous conversation has carried on as long as it has. He won't see reason or rationality. He's on this superstitious thinking, because it's yet another beacon of hope his idol may win re-election or have another perceived other his opponents. Do the mature thing - which you've advised me to do on many similar, ridiculous, go nowhere debates, and leave the thread and stop giving this ludicrous any dignity or credence. We both know it's utter bunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

What do you think explains the large difference in the ave. height of a President versus the general population? Just nutrition?

Here's a study that found a correlation between income and genes for height in men in the U.K.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/health/short-men-heavy-women-genes/

"the men with the genes that will likely lead them to be tall, have about £2,940 (about $4,175) higher annual household income"

More from that article

"Taller men get hired or promoted more into business leadership roles, some studies have shown. For example, the average height of a Fortune 500 CEO is 6 feet tall."

You are changing the argument from tallest nominee to any nominee that is above average height. These are two different statements. The poorly written article was arguing tallest candidate as strong evidence for re-election (a weak argument). You have now shifted the discussion to above average height, which would encompass almost every winner and loser if you adjust to height over time. This also has to be applied by gender now. The male candidates, except Bloomberg and Buttigieg, are also above average height. This would make the height argument unusable for that author’s purpose. I’m not denying that candidates have generally been above average height, which means presidents are likely to also be above average height. I’m arguing that “tallest” candidate is no compelling evidence to present for election chances. It’s secondary or tertiary to record, approval, economy, military affairs, etc. 

the average height might be taller now, btw. It had been 5’10” for an American male when I was in undergrad. It might be 6 feet now, the average height of a CEO. 

It also would be surprising that candidates are taller than average if higher income earners are often taller than most. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Patine said:

@vcczar I don't know why this ridiculous conversation has carried on as long as it has. He won't see reason or rationality. He's on this superstitious thinking, because it's yet another beacon of hope his idol may win re-election or have another perceived other his opponents. Do the mature thing - which you've advised me to do on many similar, ridiculous, go nowhere debates, and leave the thread and stop giving this ludicrous any dignity or credence. We both know it's utter bunk.

It’s sort of how you get looped into stupid arguments that really don’t warrant the time for a response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, vcczar said:

You are changing the argument from tallest nominee to any nominee that is above average height

You want to dismiss 58% of winners and 67% of popular vote winners out of hand as 'ridiculous', but give no reason.

OK, so let's back up. There's a very strong correlation between above-average height and being President. This supports there being a causal relationship between above average height and being President. There are evolutionary reasons for thinking height matters in selecting leaders. There is corroborating evidence in terms of managerial roles, genes that tend towards greater height and income, and other high profile leadership roles such as Fortune 500 CEOs.

So now we have a context for the 58% and 67% numbers. They fit into a larger picture which all points towards height mattering for selecting male leaders.

You might not *like it*, but that's not an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

You want to dismiss 58% of winners and 67% of popular vote winners out of hand as 'ridiculous', but give no reason.

OK, so let's back up. There's a very strong correlation between above-average height and being President. This supports there being a causal relationship between above average height and being President. There are evolutionary reasons for thinking height matters in selecting leaders. There is corroborating evidence in terms of managerial roles, genes that tend towards greater height and income, and other high profile leadership roles such as Fortune 500 CEOs.

So now we have a context for the 58% and 67% numbers. They fit into a larger picture which all points towards height mattering for selecting male leaders.

You might not *like it*, but that's not an argument.

I'm saying that her use of using "tallest president" as evidence for likelihood of reelection is weak, unconvincing evidence compared to much stronger things to use as evidence. I dislike it because it's weak. I don't dislike it because I dislike it. I think presidential height is interesting as a "fun fact" but not as evidence. It is weak evidence. 

Going back to your strange shift to "above average height," which is different from the original argument on "tallest president", and following your line of argument, I will say this: There is a very strong correlation with above-average height and being a CANDIDATE and a NOMINEE., and not JUST PRESIDENT. As such, most presidents will be above average height by a matter of probability. But this is not the topic I am arguing against. 

If you go back to the beginning of my argument, I am arguing that the poorly-written article shouldn't use the "taller nominee argument" as one of her seven pieces of evidence, especially when stronger, more compelling, and less superficial evidence can be found.

You seem to be shifting the argument from tallest to an argument about above average height because you can't defend her choice regarding "tallest candidate." The shift wrecks her arguments, since it takes away Trump's advantage because Bernie Sanders and a few others running for the Democratic nomination are also above-average height. Imagine if a pundit or a quality writer had argued in 2016 that, "Donald Trump will win the popular vote because he's taller than Hillary Clinton." They'd likely be ridiculed before, during, and after election day.  

I'm going to go watch the debate now. I pray arguments are a little more constructive, valid, and compelling than the "taller nominee argument." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm going to go watch the debate now. I pray arguments are a little more constructive, valid, and compelling than the "taller nominee argument."

Who's the tallest candidate on the Dem side? 🧐

Answer: Sanders.

🤪🤯😍

Enjoy the debate. To be clear, I think Attkisson was having fun with her height reason, although there's something to it. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the Dems shitting on Iowa and NH helps them. Add to the fact it looks like Wisconsin and Ohio are going more red plus the Castro stuff all but gives Trump FL it's going to be an uphill battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders and Biden are the only two candidates I see beating Trump at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...