The outside plastic at least

She did lose because she moved a little bit left and the voters did not show up.

~~We're saying you don't understand cause and effect.~~

~~You are saying A (moving left) caused B (losing).~~

~~If A didn't happen, then B also would not have happened. Therefore, "if she had stayed to the right, she would have won."~~

Edit: I think I figured out what I've got wrong. If I rephrase what you said, then it makes more sense:

"She did lose because the voters did not show up, even though she moved a little left."

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/despite-in-spite-of/

I feel you are misinterpreting what I'm trying to say, this example would be more accurate:

"The far left wing wanted Hillary to move far left. But they protested anyway despite her moving a little bit left."

I still think this has been a useful conversion, because it has helped me understand what you actually meant to say.

What I think you're trying to say is that moving left failed to prevent voters from protesting, which I'm completely in agreement here.

If courting left wing voters fails to get them out to vote, then politicians are just going to pander to center/right voters.

Your phrasing was just really weird, because you keep arguing that moving left is what triggered the voters to protest, but they would have protested either way.

Are you saying that if Hillary had rejected the map room proposal, then left wing voters would have turned out to vote for her?

That's ridiculous to think that moving further right would have got more left voters to turn out to vote.

Meaning the map room proposal had no effect on left wing voters, because it wasn't enough. It did not cause them to protest.

Right, which is why people are confused. Fish likely meant 3.3 miles / kWh, but that comes out to 20 miles for one hour of charge. But the fact they said just under 2 miles of range actually correlates with their 3.3kWh/mile statement, but no one has ever heard of an EV with efficiency that terrible.

I'm still a little confused, wouldn't 6kwh provide roughly 12 to 24 miles of driving range?

Thanks, I had considered linking a reference, but I didn't think he was disputing the definition. He was disputing my analysis that this was a valid example of the fallacy.

Maybe I have the wrong fallacy, or I'm just really stretching on this one.

This was my line of thinking:

• premise = there are no valid reasons to dislike X
• conclusion = people who dislike X don't have any valid reasons

Of course antimatter falls down

Modified Newtonian Dynamics

Angela Collier actually goes a little more in depth in that video on why MOND is unlikely, even though she does admit it hasn't been fully ruled out. I didn't get the impression physicists don't talk about it because it causes debates, which she claimed seems to happen more often on the internet. I got the impression that most physicists just think it is unlikely to go anywhere, so they just aren't as interested in it.