[DHPersonal]

> Half the country voted for Trump. Half. And many academics think they are racists and fascists.

That is an inaccurate statement: half of the people who voted did so for Trump. Only about 64% of the people who were eligible to vote showed up to the polls.[1] That is not half the country.

1. https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers

[ThrowawayR2]

Yes, you are technically correct and yet, from the HN guidelines:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."

It's not particularly interesting or informative that the author made a rhetorical mistake.

[DHPersonal]

> It's not particularly interesting or informative that the author made a rhetorical mistake.

I disagree. The article scolds academics based on pitting themselves against half the country. I showed that statement was not true. Taking something in good faith does not mean criticism is unacceptable.

[josefritzishere]

The presence of this and other generally non-factual statements somewhat indicts the article.

[palmotea]

>> Half the country voted for Trump. Half. And many academics think they are racists and fascists.

> That is an inaccurate statement: half of the people who voted did so for Trump. Only about 64% of the people who were eligible to vote showed up to the polls.[1] That is not half the country.

That's a quibble. Half the people that mattered (voters) voted for Trump. And who knows how the rest would have voted. Maybe if they did, Trump would have won with bigger margins (IIRC, he did better with less engaged voters).

[DHPersonal]

The statement misrepresents the data and introduces confusion; it relies on hyperbole and vague terms to push forward a point that lacks evidence.

The U.S. population was about 340 million people in November 2024.[1] Most people shouldn't think the term "half the country" originates from that number, because then they will presume that 170 million people voted for Trump, greater than the total amount that voted in 2024. Not everyone in that count is permitted to vote, so it's not an accurate number to use as a reference. However, when claiming "half the country voted for Trump" it is calling upon this number in people's minds to give weight to an inaccurate statement.

If one then uses the more accurate term "Half the voting population voted for Trump," we cull that total census number down to about 244 million people eligible to vote.[2] The total voter count in 2024 was about 156 million.[3] The total number of voters who voted for Trump was about 77 million.[3] Even with this more precise statement we can see that half the possible number did not vote for Trump. If we're trying to be fair to the writer and use the definition "half the eligible voters voted for Trump" we can see that this claim is false.

All we can end with is the very obvious "A little over half the votes went to Trump" which lacks the significance of the hyperbolic statement used in the article, perhaps even to the level of insignificance to not be included in the article. So then why was it included?

1. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2... 2. https://election.lab.ufl.edu/2024-general-election-turnout/ 3. https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers

[palmotea]

Stop and listen to yourself for a minute. You're missing the point to dive head-first into pedanticism.

Does your objection invalidate the point that was made?

> So then why was it included?

Because real people are not Lt. Cmdr. Data, and do not always speak and write with the maximum possible precision.

[saulpw]

Yeah that's when I stopped reading.