Hacker News Reader

Comment by dylan604 | Hacker News Reader

What? Half of the country voted for this guy. That's a pretty large pool of people to pull from for future employees.

> Half of the country voted for this guy.

Significantly less than half of the significantly less than half of the the country that voted at all voted for this guy.

Or, an alternate phrasing, significantly less than half the slightly more than half of eligible voters that actually voted at all voted for this guy.

But, in any case, nowhere near half of the country voted for him.

I'm not sure half of them would want to _work_ for him, though. He doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation as an employer.

Seems like the type of person to do something just for the resume pad or the chance of working with rather than working for. Any sane person knows that what ever agreement you start with will 100% be renegotiated later, and paid in full never.

Only ~60% of eligible US voters voted in 2016 and 2020, Trump lost the popular vote both times, "half of the country" did not vote for him.

74+ million did which worked out to 46.9%. That's pretty close to 50% for discussion purposes. That's a large pool of potential employees.

That's about 22.5% of the country, not half.

Might I interest you in a course on statistics and how smaller samplings can be used to extrapolate larger sets?

Then the correct statement would be "half the country would've voted for this guy, based on the number of people who did vote".

> 74+ million did which worked out to 46.9%.

Not of the country it didn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com