explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1002: Game AIs

2024-03-03T17:24:56Z

162.158.159.132: Game of Life missing?

Mornington Crescent would be impossible for a computer to play, let alone win... {{unsigned|188.29.119.251}}
It is unclear which side of the line jeopard fall upon. Why so close to the line I wonder. [[User:DruidDriver|DruidDriver]] ([[User talk:DruidDriver|talk]]) 01:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

: Because of {{w|Watson (computer)}}. (Anon) 13 August 2013{{unsigned ip|24.142.134.100}}

Could the "CounterStrike" be referring instead to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Strike computer game] which can have computer-controlled players? --[[Special:Contributions/131.187.75.20|131.187.75.20]] 15:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

:I agree, this is far more likely. [[Special:Contributions/100.40.49.22|100.40.49.22]] 10:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

On the old blog version of this article, a comment mentioned Ken tweeting his method right after this comic was posted. He joked that they would asphyxiate themselves to actually see heaven for seven minutes. I don't know how to search for tweets, or if they even save them after so much time, but I thought it should be noted. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 07:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree about the poker part. Reading someone's physical tells is just a small part of the game. Theoretically there is a Nash equilibrium for the game, the reason why it hasn't been found is that the amount of ways a deck can be shuffled is astronomical (even if you just count the cards that you use) and you also have to take into account the various betsizes. A near perfect solution for 2 player limit poker has been found by the Cepheus Poker Project: http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/.

~ Could the description of tic-tac-toe link to xkcd 832 which explains the strategy? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.173|162.158.152.173]] 13:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Saying that computers are very close to beating top humans as of January 2016 is misleading at best. There is not enough details in the BBC article, but it sounds like the Facebook program has about a 50% chance of beating 5-dan amateurs. In other words, it needs a 4-stone handicap (read: 4 free moves) to have a 50% chance to win against top-level amateurs, to say nothing about professionals. If a robotic team could have a 50% chance to beating Duke University at football (a skilled amateur team), would you say they were very close to being able to consistently beat the Patriots (a top-level professional)? If anything that underestimates the skill difference in Go, but the general point stands. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.38}}
: How about bearing one of the top players five times in a row and being scheduled to play against the world champion in March? http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/27/google-s-ai-is-the-first-to-defeat-a-go-champion/ [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 06:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
::However DeepMind ranked AlphaGo close to Fan Hui 2P and the distributed version has being at the upper tier of Fan's level. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7587/fig_tab/nature16961_F4.html
::The official games were 5-0 however the unofficial were 3-2. Averaging to 8-2 in favor of AlphaGo.
::Looking at http://www.goratings.org/ Fan Hui is ranked 631, while Lee Sedol 9P, whom is playing in March, is in the top 5.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]] 06:12 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Original poster here (sorry, not sure how to sign). Okay, you all are right. Go AI has advanced a lot more than I had understood. I'm still curious how the game against Lee Sedol will go, but that that is even an interesting question shows how much Go AI has improved. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.33}}

Google's Alpha Go won, 3 games to none! Mid March 2016[[User:Saspic45|Saspic45]] ([[User talk:Saspic45|talk]]) 03:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, for some reason they played all five games. Lee Sedol won game 4 as the computer triumphed 4-1.[[User:Saspic45|Saspic45]] ([[User talk:Saspic45|talk]]) 08:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Not shown in this comic: {{w|1000 Blank White Cards}}, and, even further down, {{w|Nomic}}. [[User:KangaroOS|Kangaro]][[User talk:KangaroOS|OS]] 01:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the transcript (currently in table format) accessible for blind users? Should it be? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.58.237|162.158.58.237]] 10:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

At the very least the transcript needs to be fixed so that it factually represents the comic. Jeopardy is in the wrong spot with just a quick glance which is all I have time for here at work. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.231|162.158.62.231]] 16:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

AlphaStar beat Mana pretty decisively, but it was cheating and Mana won the game where it wasn't, and it could only play on a certain map in Protoss vs Protoss. However, that was a while ago. Google dropped AlphaStar on ladder under barcode usernames, and it's been doing rather well... but Serral (one of the world's best players) recently beat it pretty decisively. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.244|172.68.211.244]] 01:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

:In case anyone is checking up on the AlphaStar thing: AlphaStar definitely plays at a high human level in Starcraft 2 now (2020), without doing much that seems 'humanly impossible' (ie, like cheating, as it did during the MaNa matchup), but it's in relatively limited maps, and it not only loses fairly regularly if not most of the time to top-ranked humans like Serral, it also loses to essentially random grab-bags of very good players like Lowko on occasion. Like, Lowko's much better than me but he's not tournament-level good and he beat it.
:Also, technically, AlphaStar isn't even *one* program. It's an ensemble of many programs, each one specific to a different SC2 race and specializing in different strategies. Maybe if there were a 'seamless' amalgam where it were 'choosing' a strategy it could be arguably one program, but it's literally a totally separately trained neural network for each 'agent'.
:Furthermore, when you watch it play sometimes it does extremely stupid things like trap its tanks in its own base. SC2 is, at least this year, still a human endeavor at high tiers. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.38.44|172.68.38.44]] 01:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Who is Ken Jennings?

I feel like it should be relatively easy to make a computer program that can learn the rules of Mao without knowing them to begin with. There has to be some feedback: a player gets penalties if he breaks the rules. This can be used to write a self-learning algorithm.
: The tricky part is that rules in Mao aren't limited to a function that states whether or not you can play a card based on the cards already played. Rules can be about how you play the card, how you sit, what you say, what you do if you play a certain card, etc. Rules can also apply out of turn. You could be required to do something in reaction to another player doing something (e.g. congratulate a player if they play a King), or penalised for e.g. speaking to the player whose turn it currently is. In order for a computer to compete successfully, it would need to ingest a lot of peripheral information and run some sophisticated learning that accounts for far more than simply the state of the cards. Particularly within a regular group of players, there are rules that will be reused a lot, e.g. certain cards acting as Uno special cards, but there is no guarantee these will appear and players can make up arbitrary rules. --Tom

Sorry, but I just undid a new editor's addition of the text (for Snakes And Ladders) of "except that as the game has to be played on software so that an AI can participate, a (pseudo)-random number generator takes the place of physical dice in dictating players' movement, making it no longer truly random. Also, while physical snakes-and-ladders boards are fixed in their design, the graphical representation of these boards can be altered at will." - Firstly because it was bullet-point-added, when it wasn't really supposed to be, but then I decided it needed much more editing than I thought worthwhile. To bullet my thoughts, though:
* See the Beer Pong example for "AI in reality",
* Even if there's not a robot arm shaking a physical dice (which is pseudorandom itself, at least in a Newtonian perspective, but tends to be Ok) as long as the supposed-PRNG is not controlled/filtered by the AI then it's perfectly valid for use,
* Machine-vision is a thing. I'm sure there's a trivial way to make a generalised board-image-decoder to get around the artistic differences (possibly even machine learning, to make actual use of the AI).
....The main issue is that solving all these 'problems' leaves little for the backend 'gameplay and strategy' AI to do, as it must just pursue the path to victory (or not) that the dice/whatever formulaically dictate. So I want to honour the edit by mentioning it, but ultimately decided it should be undone. Pending perhaps a different approach to it, if anyone decides I was not fair (or correct) in my decision to do it this way. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147|172.70.162.147]] 13:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If Snakes and Ladders and Seven Minutes in Heaven are mentioned, why not [[wikipedia:Game of Life|Game of Life]]? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.132|162.158.159.132]] 17:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2779: Exoplanet High-5

2023-05-24T18:57:44Z

162.158.159.132:

… too slow ;)

"I don't get it. What's updog?"[[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.35|172.71.151.35]] 03:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
:Not much, you? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 11:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

isn't it usually spelled "high-five" --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.2|172.70.114.2]] 03:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
: Yeah - I don't understand what any of this has to do with sports nutrition.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.32|172.70.86.32]] 08:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Izun tittus ually spelt hi-5 ? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.118.98|172.71.118.98]] 06:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Considering how fond Randall is of portmanteaus, I'm surprised he didn't use the term WiFive. [[User:Villemoes|Villemoes]] ([[User talk:Villemoes|talk]]) 06:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

No reference to Up-Goer 5? Sad :( [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Clearly the aliens were upset that Randall did it wrong by missing out the line 'On the side' between 'Down low' and 'Too slow!'[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.79|172.70.91.79]] 08:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The explanation states that “It is not known at which speed the Centaurians' invasion fleet travels and, therefore, when it will reach Earth.” It should be clarified that their speed is not known to earthlings (yet). The Centaurians most probably do know their own speed. [[User:Jacobus-nl|Jacobus-nl]] ([[User talk:Jacobus-nl|talk]]) 10:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
:Your own speed is always zero, of course. ;) Everything else outside your own current frame of reference will have a speed. Or, better, velocity! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.109|172.71.242.109]] 11:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

So sad that Tau Delta has ligma.
What's Tau Delta?
Ligma balls. [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 13:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Can someone clarify the title text? What’s updog? /j [[Special:Contributions/172.69.59.178|172.69.59.178]] 14:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
:It's explained in the last paragraph of the explanation. It sounds like "What's up, dawg?" [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
:: Not much, dawg, what up witchu? [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 05:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
: no fucking way [[Special:Contributions/172.70.127.140|172.70.127.140]] 13:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It will no doubt be the bloodiest battle since the Great Henway War. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.30.122|172.71.30.122]] 14:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This comic should have come out last month, around National High Five Day. Although this year it was on 4/20, and many people who might participate would have been too stoned. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

So I came here because I was baffled that the rhyme didn't start as I learned it, with "Gimme five!" and then proceeds with "Up high!" but then, I was on the receiving end of this prank, so I eventually launched my own attack force on the playground. But the first Henway I heard, around the same time (mid-1980s) from my sister: "I know a man with snew in his blood." "What's snew?"... etc. Except when I tried that on people, they would just go "Dracula, right?" [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 05:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

; When does a war start?

Doesn't the war start when the invasion fleet arrives on Earth, and not when it leaves Proxima Centauri B? [[User:Fatold|Fatold]] ([[User talk:Fatold|talk]]) 13:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
:I was thinking the same thing, but I think there is an argument that the ''war'' starts when it is declared, while the ''fighting'' or ''battle'' may start later. -FH [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.158|162.158.159.158]] 16:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
::It can be argued whether it's when news arrives of the declaration. Though that should be ahead of the fleet (or simultaneous with it, ''de facto'' if not ''de jure'').
::It's perhaps more message than action for {{w|Phoney War|WW2}} in 1939, or action than message for {{w|Japanese declaration of war on the United States and the British Empire|the US}}.
::(For those who consider that the conflicts starting in 1931/1935/1937/whatever, and seemlessly became WW2 at some point up to or including 1941, you can hold to your own ordering of the requisite events.)
::Though if the act of starting the war involves the assasination of some visiting figure who forms part of a line of succession (hereditary royalty or constitutional figurehead of any other kind) then the simultaneity of the role passing on to their successor is a question that might need addressing... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.80|172.70.91.80]] 17:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:261: Regarding Mussolini

2023-05-15T10:42:29Z

162.158.159.132: Godwin 2017 update

Hitler? I 'ardly KNOW 'er!
...Sorry. {{unsigned ip|‎162.158.72.191}}
Hey! Godwin's Law.

Note: in 2017, [https://gizmodo.com/godwin-of-godwins-law-by-all-means-compare-these-shi-1797807646 Mike Godwin said] it's not wrong to compare Trumpism to Nazism. -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.132|162.158.159.132]] 10:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2388: Viral Quiz Identity Theft

2020-11-21T01:01:59Z

162.158.159.132:

I was going to add in the old, old example of constructing your 'pornstar name' of first pet's name and (road you grew up on|mother's maiden name), but I see there's no real agreement which of the latter it is when I wanted to get it straight for editing in. MMN is probably better for "security question" purposes, but it predates The Eternal September anyway, before which it was more a party-thing rather than a security threat against BBS/Usenet/mailing-list users. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.132|162.158.159.132]] 00:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC) (a.k.a. Frazier Derwent)

Talk:2388: Viral Quiz Identity Theft

2020-11-21T00:57:05Z

162.158.159.132:

I was going to add in the old, old example of constructing your 'pornstar name' (first pet's name and (road you grew up on|mother's maiden name), but I see there's no real agreement which of the latter it is when I wanted to get it straight for editing in. MMN is probably better for "security question" purposes, but it predates The Eternal September anyway, before which it was more a party-thing. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.132|162.158.159.132]] 00:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC) (a.k.a. Frazier Derwent)

Talk:603: Idiocracy

2020-11-13T21:14:03Z

162.158.159.132:

This explanation seems to be incorrect. The key point was that White Hat actually was wrong! The average education has gone up, and the average IQ ''cannot'' sink! By allowing Cueball to agree with clearly false laments, he baits him into revealing his stupidity. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 19:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
:The title text pretty much spells out that, in Randall's mind, White Hat is correct. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.66|199.27.128.66]] 06:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I propose that the hatted figure is not in fact [[White_Hat|White Hat]], as neither the hat shape nor the personality are consistent with other appearances. ([[:Category:Comics featuring White Hat‏‎]]) The real White Hat, when he speaks, is generally a bit of a wet blanket or well-meaning buffoon. This one, whom I'll dub [[White_Derby|White Derby]], is speaking counter-buffoonery, what we may reasonably guess to be the actual thoughts of the author. Usually Cueball fills this role (eg [[258:_Conspiracy_Theories]]), and in fact if the roles here were reversed I'd tend to ignore the misshapen hat. But two and two, together, well... --[[Special:Contributions/66.114.70.139|66.114.70.139]] 18:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
:Eh. He hasn't appeared in any other strips, and it's not too harmful to put him under the umbrella of the real White Hat. I see your point; White Hat is no longer a generic character like [[Hairy]], but an actual recurring one.
:Also, have Black Hat and White Hat ever appeared in the same comic? (Click and Drag doesn't count.) [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 09:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
::White Hat is not this Safari Hat guy and this has been corrected recently. Also recently in [[1708: Dehydration]] White and Black Hat appears together and Black Hat actually reacts in a discussion White Hat has begun. See more under the explanation for [[:Category:Characters with Hats|Characters with Hats]]. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

So, does this page qualify for Complete now? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.66|199.27.128.66]] 05:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Randall. You're wrong here. IQ can change. Just because there is a mean for the IQ of the current population, doesn't mean that average can't shift over time. And if we used to be cavemen then either the IQ did shift, or we've always been this smart, which means we couldn't have evolved.

In this case, IQ is exactly the same as morality. Both shift ever so slightly over time, such that the mean is always the acceptable "norm". You can't feel this shift unless you study it. The difference is that morality exhibits locality, so morality shifts slower or faster depending on the subsection of society. Thus you have people who believe they are more right than others, but no one believes they are outright wrong (as a culture). Proof in the pudding is doing a poll on the population as to how smart they think they are. They always rate themselves such that the mean is shifted 1 or 2 deviations up. Same thing with morality. People all espouse a morality that they think is 1 or 2 deviations greater than the standard, whether they are a religious sect or secularists.

But the short of it, a population mean doesn't imply the mean never changes.[[User:Cflare|Cflare]] ([[User talk:Cflare|talk]]) 21:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

:While IQ can change, the way you're explaining it is not the way the Cueball or "White Hat" is explaining it. In fact, "White Hat" never explicitly states that IQ doesn't evolve at all; just not to the depressing trend Cueball here thinks it does. Anonymous 23:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact average IQ cannot change. The average IQ of humanity is always 100, because that is the definition of the IQ scale.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.129|108.162.216.129]] 01:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"IQ" per se is simply what IQ tests measure. There's no law that says any specific test that purports to be the best measure of IQ is the gold standard. In the US and many (perhaps most) other English-speaking countries, the Wechsler and Stanford-Binet scales are the most popular. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale is the IQ test most commonly used (for adults) by neuropsychologists. It's re-normed every few years (e.g., WAIS-III becomes WAIS-IV, then WAIS-V, etc.). In "re-norming" each question is studied and perhaps refined, some are dropped, and new questions--sometimes entirely new subtests--are added. The method of calculating the IQ is often tweaked as well. Re-norming involves administering versions of the test to thousands of people and using statistics to determine the one to keep. Obviously the same pool of test-takers is not used every time in a process that goes on decade after decade. It's not unusual for test questions to become more difficult and what's considered to be an average score to be a bit higher in the new edition than in the old. This has been interpreted to mean that people are getting more intelligent, but that's not the only possible explanation. (Also, the test is not normed on "humanity" but on a tiny subset of earth's humans.) Oh, and your IQ is not a number carved in stone, so to speak, but a best-guess that falls within the range of scores you'd be expected to earn if (theoretically) you took the same test multiple times.[[User:Npsych|Npsych]] ([[User talk:Npsych|talk]]) 10:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If there is reason for climate change it is almost certainly due to the destruction of trees. Any ridiculous assertions about carbon dioxide can not be confirmed or denied and the political machinations about carbon dioxide stem from Margaret Thatcher's war on the coal miners in Britain.

It would be a simple matter to replant forests. All we would have to do is pay for that in higher latitudes and send in drones to deal with illegal loggers in lower latitudes. 20 years or so should sort out most of the problems.

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 17:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

: I see what you did there... This is the bit where you go "Everything I just said was wrong" --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 17:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Elitism is an eminently more desirable trait than stupidity to breed into one's offspring. An elitist might be hated, but he will be *competent*; he will *accomplish things*, while a stupid person will harm themselves and others through their stupidity, often remaining well-liked in spite of being cancerous and toxic to everything nearby. Elitism is the bitter taste of medicine which will make you better; stupidity is the delicious candy to which you will become hopelessly addicted at a formative age, leading to a miserable lifetime of diabetes and an early death by heart failure. I only wish I intended to reproduce, so that I could practice what I preach on this regard. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.52|173.245.54.52]] 19:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Changed the text in the first paragraph because the movie never implied that people with lower IQ were more fertile, it clearly stated that they were more likely to reproduce due to lack of education, absence of planning, and general negligence with regards to the consequences of their actions. If you disagree with me on this, go watch the movie again. Or just the first few minutes which explains this in detail. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 05:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

So... what else does this explanation need to be considered complete? [[User:Edo|Edo]] ([[User talk:Edo|talk]]) 23:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The explanation of the Dunning-Kruger effect is incorrect, insofar as it tries to apply the effect to intelligence, and mention here may be off topic entirely. The Dunning-Kruger effect is refers to bias in self assessment relative to the norm of low-skilled people in a given field to high skilled people in the same field. Proficiency in a field is not intelligence, nor does the theory allow generalization to intelligent people generally versus those less intelligent generally, irrespective of field, and while there is probably evidence of a correlation between IQ and and proficiency within some collection of fields, the Dunning-Kruger effect would require much stronger evidence to generalize to intelligence for specific proficiency, specifically it would require evidence of a causal, not correlative, (from skill to IQ, and not the reverse) link, and evidence that such link exists not just in general or at average, but that such link occurs in any hypothetical, non-specified area if proficiency. The wiki article that is linked is technically correct but somewhat misleading in use of the term 'cognitive ability,' which is in some contexts used to refer to intelligence, but in context refers to the specific, non-IQ domained, mental practice of effective megacognition and self-assessment, as well as a type of social awareness regarding group standards of passable performance. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.100|162.158.142.100]] 22:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

https://www.newsweek.com/iq-scores-are-declining-and-researchers-point-school-media-973040[[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.28|172.69.69.28]] 15:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
:What's your point? I can link thousands articles as well. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
::The point, from the "Flynn effect" wikipedia article : "Research suggests that there is an ongoing reversed Flynn effect, i.e. a decline in IQ scores, in Norway, Denmark, Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, France and German-speaking countries,[4] a development which appears to have started in the 1990s". This kind of nullifies the comic's point.
:::One, sign your writing, two, format correctly, three, one study proves nothing, especially on Newsweek of all things. Seriously, Newsweek. Four, average IQ can’t decrease, or increase for that matter, five, IQ isn’t the best measure of intelligence anyways.

This is not a new form of elitism. Until WWII, there were many elitists who formed a theory based on their perception of Darwin's theories. (Notice that I am not suggesting that Darwin agreed with them.) They were commonly known as Social Darwinists and Eugenicists. Their philosophy fell into disrepute because of Hitler's views on racial superiority and the atrocities which he produced as a result of his form of elitism. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.173|108.162.212.173]] 18:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
:Nazis ruin everything.

Talk:2383: Electoral Precedent 2020

2020-11-12T00:16:24Z

162.158.159.132:

Can anyone identify the faded background text in the 2016 panel?

Is there some shadow text behind the main text in the 2016 square? I can barely make it out.
It looks like "No nominee whose first name contains a "k" has lost", which would be the same from the 1122 comic.
[[User:ChunyangD|ChunyangD]] ([[User talk:ChunyangD|talk]]) 00:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It's the alternative text from the 2016 one: "No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost." [[Special:Contributions/172.69.235.143|172.69.235.143]] 00:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

: I replaced the image in this article. It looks like Randall fixed the image on xkcd.com to get rid of the shadow text. [[User:Natg19|Natg19]] ([[User talk:Natg19|talk]]) 21:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that Obama did in fact have a campaign website in 2008 when he was a challenger. See http://www.4president.us/websites/2008/barackobama2008website.htm [[User:Bobjr|Bobjr]] ([[User talk:Bobjr|talk]]) 01:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:I think "challenger" means that they're going against the incumbent. Obama was up against McCain, who wasn't an incumbent. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 01:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Should be added to the original explanation. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.132|162.158.159.132]] 00:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

How much do we want the explanation for this one to repeat what is in that of 1122?--[[User:Troy0|Troy0]] ([[User talk:Troy0|talk]]) 01:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:We shouldn't. If the explanation of 1122 is missing something it should be added there. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
There is much to do on the original - like where some of the presidents were, how tall were the presidents beofre Lincoln etc. It is eight years old we hould have done this. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.132|162.158.159.132]] 00:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Didn't Clinton win after being impeached? [[User:Alcatraz ii|Alcatraz ii]] ([[User talk:Alcatraz ii|talk]]) 01:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:Yes, he was impeached during his first term. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 01:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:: No, this is not true, Clinton was impeached during his 2nd term, in 1998, and he was not eligible for a 3rd term. George W. Bush won the following presidential election in 2000. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.42|172.69.34.42]] 01:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

You could also say Joe was the first President with a rescue dog [[User:Squire80513|Squire80513]] ([[User talk:Squire80513|talk]]) 01:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Squire80513
:Does not Lyndon B Johnson's dog, Yuki, count? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.128|162.158.159.128]] 02:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::LBJ's Yuki was a "rescue" (found wandering aimlessly around a gas station) but not a "shelter" dog. Joe's dog is the first first canine from a shelter. It's subtle distinction that many repeating the statistic miss [[User:MAP|MAP]] ([[User talk:MAP|talk]]) 03:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Point of order, why is Biden being referred to as president elect? I was under the impression that the term shouldn't be used until the dispute is resolved. With several pending legal cases and the votes uncertified by the states. -172.69.170.142 3:45 11/10/20 {{template:unsigned IP|172.69.170.142|03:45, 10 November 2020}}
: All major media sources have called the race for Biden as of Saturday, November 8th. XKCD, and this wiki, will follow the lead of the Associated Press or New York Times, both of whom say the race has concluded and Joe Biden is the president elect. -162.158.62.93 4:38 11/10/20 {{template:unsigned IP|162.158.62.93|04:38, 10 November 2020}}
:: Except for one of the most trusted- RealClearPolitics.com still has Pennsylvania up for grabs due to lawsuits and is about to move Michigan back into play after a poll worker claimed that a delivery of Biden-only votes came into a Detroit counting room at 3:30 am on November 4.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::: Your assertion of trust without reason comes across as fake news; however, I checked the web.archive.org history for realclearpolitics.com, and it has over a decade of history. I also visited the site and at a cursor glance it might have rational articles from both political sides, which seems commendable. If it is actually trustworthy, why didn't you explain that it is and why it is, given the current news environment? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.77|162.158.62.77]] 14:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:::: My bad, I had assumed that the trio of sites covering the electoral college, 270toWin, RealClearPolitics, and 538 were all well known and respected sites by now, after having played a big role in the last 4 elections. [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:: Not only that, but A) while "the votes uncertified by the states" may influence the exact total, they can't make Trump win, B) a Trump victory would require that ALL legal cases are resolved in Trump's favor (depending on uncertified votes) and C) the Republican party asked to Trump to concede victory, meaning that nobody with political experience believes those legal cases have a chance of success. The only unknown point is the result of the EC election, but it is naturally assumed they will vote for the elected candidate.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.104|172.69.55.104]] 08:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
: "Presumptive president elect" would be more accurate (and I say this as someone that voted for Biden). --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.72|108.162.219.72]] 10:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how the statement for 1876 could have been true: if J.Q. Adams won in 1824 without a popular majority, then his opponent won the majority and still lost, so Tilden couldn't have been the first in 1876 to win the majority and lose?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.38|141.101.98.38]] 08:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
: Simple: there were more than two candidates. In 1824, there were four candidates who each got over 10% of the vote. That's how Adams could win without the majority, without one of his opponents then having the majority. (In fact, Jackson had the plurality of the votes, but not the majority, but Adams was elected by the House.) --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.74|141.101.98.74]] 11:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::Thanks![[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.96|162.158.159.96]] 16:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:::More details: {{w|1824 United States presidential election}}. Jackson only got about 41% of the popular vote (in states that had one -- not all did back then), and 99 out of 261 electoral votes (~38%). Nobody got enough votes in enough states for an electoral majority, so the election went to Congress. --[[User:Aaron of Mpls|Aaron of Mpls]] ([[User talk:Aaron of Mpls|talk]]) 00:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Bad with formatting here, but I updated the bit about precedent to include that Trump's raw vote total (approx 71.5 million, also not yet certified) is ''also'' breaking the precedent set by Obama in 2008. Love them or hate them, in this high-turnout election, both major party candidates had record numbers for their raw vote totals. Trump doesn't make it to first place above Obama because Biden makes it to first place above Trump. I didn't look into whether the percentage of eligible population numbers are different, but higher turnout combined with higher population makes breaking that barrier a little easier.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.5|108.162.238.5]] 13:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:Especially since poll workers were caught on camera in Wisconsin putting Trump Votes upside-down into the scanner, but scanning Biden votes correctly.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::How was this discovered? How can we hunt down more occurrences? Did the machine reject the ballots and the people fix the error? (and what are the ramifications of a camera recording vote ballots?) There is no reason to not suspect the opposite happens too: that anybody's votes could be put in upside down. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.77|162.158.62.77]] 14:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:::It's part of the lawsuit based on a complaint from an observer. But there is an easy way to track down and correct this problem on both sides- hold a recount.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::::I have not found a reference to any current Wisconsin lawsuit. Seems like you should either document the claims or delete them.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.126|172.68.174.126]] 23:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::The scanners read both sides of the ballot, and the ballot has markings so it knows which side is the front and which is the back. It doesn't matter which way you feed them into the scanner. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.164|162.158.78.164]] 17:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, the outcome's still not 100%, so, if, by some stroke of (bad?) luck, Trump becomes president again, then the precedents might change.- another user

Is it just me, or is Randall using this comic as an excuse to throw some shade on Trump? The two squares about Trump are "he has no military experience or political experience" and "he got impeached and then lost." He could've picked more neutral things (his age perhaps, or his appearance on WWE or something) so these choices seem pretty deliberate and, pointed, shall we say? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.183|172.69.63.183]] 00:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
:It's still in keeping with the other 'serious' precedents in prior elections, like not winning without a specific state, or having/not having certain experience. --[[User:Aaron of Mpls|Aaron of Mpls]] ([[User talk:Aaron of Mpls|talk]]) 00:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
::By Randall's standards, this "shade" is fairly mild. We already know that Randall is not a fan of Trump. The fact that Trump had no government or military experience, unlike all previous presidents, was well-known. And if Randall ever updates this strip after a future election, the item about Trump having been impeached wouldn't even be mentioned because that precedent ''wasn't'' broken. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.22|172.68.65.22]] 02:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
::If he wanted to throw shade at trump, it could've been something like "No candidate has been elected after admitting on tape to grabbing womens' crotches without consent", not something mild like not coming from a government or military background (which Trump bragged about). --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.164|162.158.78.164]] 17:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

== Table ==

If you really feel the need to explain every item in a table then please do so in comic 1122 as this is the original. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 18:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed the redundant options, sorry - user who made table (...Unsigned)
: When I changed the word from "Redundant" (I know what you meant, just that's not quite right) I was hoping to #anchor the link to the prior comic exactly upon the new(?) section someone set up with the previously-relevent lines of table. But it turns out there's only two href="#..."s on that page, and no section titles are given that honour (unlike, say, wikipedia's Table Of Contents entries) I don't want to try to mess with the expkcd wiki at that level of things, but I think it'd be slightly more useful to set that up than it would cost in effort (i.e. a slightly larger version of 'barely'). That's my suggestion, anyway. Just putting it out there. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.216|141.101.98.216]] 23:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

== Is there some joke to trump being impeached? ==

I thought he was acquitted, I checked wikipedia and they say he was acquitted. I'm not American if this is some in joke in America you guys may need to explain it.
Thank you :)
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.87|108.162.250.87]] 00:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
:He was impeached, which is an equivalent to being indicted (i.e. being formally charged with a crime, but in a way necessary to deal with statutory protections and obligations of elected officials), but at the next stage was (almost inevitably) acquitted. Because politics. (For some the impeachment was politics, for some the acquittal was politics. There'll be overlap, but also a very partisan split between those that definitely consider just the one of them to be politics, but not the same one.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.7|162.158.158.7]] 00:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
::Or to put it another way, "impeached" in U.S. law doesn't mean "removed from office". The House of Representatives impeached Trump, but he was not convicted by the Senate; had he been convicted, he would have been removed from office. In fact, none of the three presidents who were impeached (Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Trump) were convicted by the Senate. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.22|172.68.65.22]] 02:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

== What's up with the checkmark and X? ==

Shouldn't they be reversed? Biden won, so the panel about the website should be added to the comic. Doesn't that mean that panel should have the checkmark on it?

[[Special:Contributions/172.69.170.56|172.69.170.56]] 04:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

:That confused me too for a second, but then I realized what was meant - checkmark is on the claim that is still true after this election ("No president has won after being impeached"), while X is on the one that is no longer true ("No challenger with a website has won"). [[User:BytEfLUSh|BytEfLUSh]] ([[User talk:BytEfLUSh|talk]]) 04:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
::Could someone add this into the explanation? I didn't get this either. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.245|172.68.189.245]] 16:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:1122: Electoral Precedent

2020-11-12T00:10:56Z

162.158.159.132:

This illustrates how the future is unlike the past in countless ways. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.59}}

----
I don't understand what he means by Alternative Tickets in the last frame.
:It does not say 'Alternative', it says {{w|Alliterative}}, meaning that both names starts with the same sound/letter. '''R'''omney/'''R'''yan --[[User:Pmakholm|Pmakholm]] ([[User talk:Pmakholm|talk]]) 16:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
----
My research tells me that Jefferson won 1800. Error on Randall's part? [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 08:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by 1792 vs. 1804: The latter is "No incumbent has beaten a challenger", but didn't Washington face any challenger when he was re-elected in 1792? [[User:Jolindbe|Jolindbe]] ([[User talk:Jolindbe|talk]]) 14:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
: {{w|United_States_presidential_election,_1792|He ran unopposed}} --[[User:Buggz|Buggz]] ([[User talk:Buggz|talk]]) 14:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
:: As far as I understand it, he had four opponents, but got all the votes. Then, the electoral college voted on whom to be the vice president among the remaining candidates. But it seems unlikely to get 100% of the popular votes, do I misinterpret the wiki page? [[User:Jolindbe|Jolindbe]] ([[User talk:Jolindbe|talk]]) 17:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Well, back then, the electoral college didn't take their votes from the people. They just decided, so they decided to give Washington the presidency. [[Special:Contributions/140.247.0.79|140.247.0.79]] 18:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

----
"1904: No one under 45 has become president. ... Roosevelt did."

Sort of. {{w|Theodore Roosevelt}} (Oct 1858–1919) was under 45 when he ''became'' president, in 1901. But by the time of the ''1904'' election he was 46.
 [[Special:Contributions/75.36.234.236|75.36.234.236]] 18:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
:Correct. Theodore Roosevelt was the youngest President to date, but Kennedy was the youngest yet ''elected''. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 20:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The image needs to be updated. I'm not sure how to do that myself. [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 23:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Uploaded corrected image, changed tense on comments. Reload/refresh to check the 1800 frame should now show Jefferson... --[[User:Bpothier|B. P.]] ([[User talk:Bpothier|talk]]) 01:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

And how can people be from Virginia AND Massachusett? I think he meant OR.[[Special:Contributions/77.245.46.86|77.245.46.86]] 11:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I take it the entire comic will not go up under "Transcripts"? [[User:Bobidou23|Bobidou23]] ([[User talk:Bobidou23|talk]]) 22:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

:It will, but no one's been bothered the transcribe it all yet.[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 23:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

----
Although Buchanan/Breckinridge won in 1856, Stevenson/Sparkman were defeated by Eisenhower/Nixon in 1952.

He's wrong about the other 'precedent' for 2012 as well. Other first name with a K losers:
*1924, Frank T. Johns (Socialist Labor)
*1932, Frank S. Regan (Prohibition)
*1936, Frank Knox (Republican)
*1948, Tucker P. Smith (Socialist)
*1980, Patrick J. Lucey (Independent)
*1996, Patrick Choate (Reform)
*2004, Chuck Baldwin (Constitution)
*2008, Chuck Baldwin (Constitution)
--[[Special:Contributions/76.20.209.221|76.20.209.221]] 10:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
----

Good point about small party candidates, but Tucker P. Smith was the Socialist vice presidential candidate in 1948; the presidential candidate was Norman Thomas.
--[[Special:Contributions/174.59.119.154|174.59.119.154]] 13:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
----
You're technically wrong about Chuck Baldwin. He was born as Charles Baldwin. He only ran for vice president in '04 and president in '08. I'm too lazy to find the rest.[[User:Randomperson4000|Randomperson4000]] ([[User talk:Randomperson4000|talk]]) 19:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
----

;Errors
Should the errors be included in the article explanation, or should they just be discussed here in the chat box? I'm of the opinion that anything that doesn't go towards explaining the comic should go here in the discussion. I would lean towards keeping error nitpicking confined to the discussion page. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 13:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

:I think errors should be put down in a trivia/errors section. Or, if a flame war is starting, move it onto the talk page. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 23:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I put back my original comment on the 2012 streaks; some anonymous person had previously written 'whether he thinks "st" and "sp" sounds are different enough to count as alliteration', but first of all, an alliteration requires the (first) sound(s)/letter(s) of two words to be the same (not different), and second, if Randall would consider Stevenson/Sparkman not to be alliterative (as their second letters differ), he would undoubtedly think the same about Romney/Ryan.--[[User:Jay|Jay]] ([[User talk:Jay|talk]]) 14:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

:Yeah, I noticed that edit, but thought there was a "not" in there, which would have made it make sense. Ah well. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

:Not quite true, Jay - St/Sp is two different consonant ''blends'', which are much more intertwined than a consonant and its following vowel, as in Ro/Ry. The question is do they sound alike, not the literal letters used. [[User:Jerodast|- jerodast]] ([[User talk:Jerodast|talk]]) 17:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: 1996 - surely 'William' (12 pts not including 50 pts for using all seven letters) beats 'Robert' - (8 pts)? {{unsigned|163.1.166.255}}

----

2012: Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers.

Isn't Obama 6'1" and Romney is 6'2"? Certainly Obama won there. [[Special:Contributions/24.6.170.96|24.6.170.96]] 01:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

:The comic was written before the presidential election. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.223}}

;Transcript
Just finished the transcript. I didn't check for typos, since there was a lot of typing. It would be great if someone else would look over it. {{unsigned|207.242.93.10}}

:Looks great! I've removed a lot of the whitespace which (I think) makes it easier to read, and doesn't require quite as much scrolling. I haven't gone through and spell checked everything either, but if someone finds anything they can fix it. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 23:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

----

2012: No Republican has lost a November 6 presidential election...
2012: No one ever wins re-election after the previous two presidents - from different parties - won re-election...
2012: No Democrat was re-elected with very high unemployment and a Republican-controlled House...

...until Obama. [[Special:Contributions/50.74.2.12|50.74.2.12]] 02:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

----

Is it me or does the 1972 panel now say „Quakers can’t win twice“? What happened to „No wartime candidate has won without Massachusetts“?
1956–1964 seem to be wrong, too. Or am I missing something?
[[User:Quoti|Quoti]] ([[User talk:Quoti|talk]]) 23:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

----

2016: No white guy who's been mentioned on twitter has gone on to win... Until Trump did. [[User:Redninjakoopa|Redninjakoopa]] ([[User talk:Redninjakoopa|talk]]) 04:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

----

Funny how the alt text is now also false, considering Trump is now president-elect. ill change the comment on Jan. 20th {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.39}}
:It's really funny because Trump is basically the king of Twitter politics/mud-slinging, I'm presuming that Randall didn't go back and change that alt-tag, because it was a safe bet that anyone coming after Obama would be another white guy, and anyone elected would be mentioned on twitter, but because Trump is so prolific on Twitter it makes the alt-text seem almost prophetic. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.251|172.68.58.251]] 14:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Sam

----

1848
Democrats do not lose when they carry Pennsylvania.
But
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1848_United_States_presidential_election
Shows Taylor the Whig carrying Pennsylvania and winning.
I am confused.

1122: Electoral Precedent

2020-11-12T00:06:55Z

162.158.159.132: /* Table of Broken Precedents */ added clarifications

{{comic
| number = 1122
| date = October 17, 2012
| title = Electoral Precedent
| image = electoral_precedent.png
| titletext = No white guy who's been mentioned on twitter has gone on to win.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a TIME TRAVELER. Please explain each broken precedent. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

During election season in U.S. presidential elections — and especially in election night coverage — it is common for the media to make comments like the ones set out in the first panel of this comic. [[Randall Munroe|Randall]] is demonstrating the problem with making such statements, many of which simply come down to coincidence.

After the first panel the next 56 panels in this comic refer to each one of the {{w|United States presidential election#Electoral college results|56 presidential elections}} in U.S. history before {{w|Barack Obama|Obama's}} re-election in 2012. The panels depict a pre-election commentator noting a quality or condition that has never occurred to a candidate, until one of the candidates in that election broke the streak. In other words, one can always find at least one unique thing about a candidate who has gone on to win (or in some cases, lose) or the circumstances under which they won (or lost) that is unique from all previous winners (or losers). It's worth noting that some of these 'firsts' were truly precedent-setting (such as the first incumbent losing, the first president to win a third term, the first Catholic president, etc.), but the fact that they hadn't happened was no assurance that there wouldn't be a first time. As the years pass on, these 'streaks' become more and more nested and complicated, and then brought by Randall to the point of absurdity by pointing out very trivial things, such as "No Democratic {{w|incumbent}} without combat experience has ever beaten someone whose first name is worth more in {{w|Scrabble}}" (1996).

The flaw made by pundits while reporting such streaks is that there will always be ''something'' that has never happened before in an election, and they purport to suggest that these things are related to the candidate's win or loss. Randall considers this a logical flaw. A common one is, as noted in several panels, candidates can't win without winning certain states. The question, however, is one of {{w|Correlation does not imply causation|cause or effect}}.

Given that there have only been 56 elections, there are always going to be things that haven't happened before. If you go out looking for them, you're sure to find some. There is no magic about why these events haven't happened. In most cases, it is merely coincidence.

In the last two panels two more statements like the previous are given. They were both true before the {{w|United States presidential election, 2012|election in 2012}} on November the 6th. The comic came out in the middle of the campaign on October the 17th. The statements were constructed so that the first predicts that Obama can't win over {{w|Mitt Romney}}, and the second that he cannot lose. As Obama won the election he thus ended the streak ''Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers'' whereas the other streak is still valid.

The title text refers to the fact that {{w|Twitter}} was founded in 2006. Obama won in 2008, so at the time of the comic it was true that no white male person mentioned on Twitter had ever gone on to win the presidency; although certainly some former presidents, all of whom were white males, have subsequently been mentioned on Twitter. This streak was broken in the next election year, when Donald Trump won the 2016 election.

During these last four weeks before the election Randall posted no fewer than four comics related to this election. The others are: [[1127: Congress]], [[1130: Poll Watching]] and [[1131: Math]].

In 2020, Randall posted an update to this comic: [[2383: Electoral Precedent 2020]].

===Table of Broken Precedents===

{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"
|-
! Year !! Broken Precedent !! Validity || Explanation
|-
| 1788
| No one has been elected president before. ...But Washington was.
| True
| Discounting the Articles of Confederation and its {{w|President of the Continental Congress|president}}, Washington is the first president of the US.
|-
| 1792
| No incumbent has ever been reelected. ...Until Washington.
| True
| Washington is the first person who had a second term. He was unopposed so there is n challenger.
|-
| 1796
| No one without false teeth has become president. ...But Adams did.
| True
| Washington had false teeth, made of human teeth and other materials. His successor Adams, despite having tooth decay, refused to wear false teeth.
|-
| 1800
| No challenger has beaten an incumbent. ...But Jefferson did.
| True
| Adams is the first president not to have a second term, due to signing the unpopular {{w|Alien and Sedition acts}}.
|-
| 1804
| No incumbent has beaten an challenger. ...Until Jefferson.
| Washington was unopposed, Adams was defeated.
|
|-
| 1808
| No congressman has ever become president. ...Until Madison.
| Madison served as congressman for Virginia's 5th district from 1789 to 1793 and the 15th District from 1793 to 1797 before becoming Secretary of State
|
|-
| 1812
| No one can win without New York. ...But Madison did.
| Vermont votes for Clinton but Madison sweeps the Southern states to take victory.
|
|-
| 1816
| No candidate who doesn't wear a wig can get elected. ...Until Monroe was.
| False
| Despite popular misconception, Washington did not wear a wig, just false teeth.
|-
| 1820
| No one who wears pants instead of breeches can be reelected. ...But Monroe was.
|
|
|-
| 1824
| No one has ever won without a popular majority. ...J.Q. Adams did.
| Jackson takes the plurality of the popular vote and Electoral College. But as it was a four way election he does not achieve a majority - so the vote goes to congress.
|
|-
| 1828
| Only people from Massachusetts and Virginia can win. ...Until Jackson did.
| From Tennessee
|
|-
| 1832
| The only presidents who get reelected are Virginians. ...Until Jackson.
| Washington, Jefferson and Monroe
|
|-
| 1836
| New Yorkers always lose. ...Until Van Buren.
|
|
|-
|1840
| No one over 65 has won the presidency. ...Until Harrison did.
| He was 68, and died of pneumonia 31 days after inauguration.
|
|-
|1844
| No one who's lost his home state has won. ...But Polk did.
| Polk loses Tennessee to Clay but takes 15 of the 26 states including New York.
|
|-
|1848
| The Democrats don't lose when they win Pennsylvania. ...But they did in 1848.
|
|
|-
|1852
|New England Democrats can't win. ...Until Pierce did.
|
|
|-
|1856
|No one can become president without getting married. ...Until Buchanan did.
|
|
|-
|1860
| No one over 6'3" can get elected. ...Until Lincoln.
|
|
|-
|1864
|No one with a beard has been reelected. ...But Lincoln was.
|
|
|-
|1868
|No one can be president if their parent are alive. ...Until Grant.
|
|
|-
|1872
|No one with a beard has been reelected in peacetime. ...Until Grant was.
|
|
|-
|1876
|No one can win a majority of the popular vote and still lose. ...Tilden did.
|
|
|-
|1880
|As goes California, so goes the nation. ...Until it went Hancock.
|
|
|-
|1884
|Candidates named "James" can't lose. ...Until James Blaine.
|
|
|-
|1888
|No sitting president has been beaten since the Civil War. ...Cleveland was.
|
|
|-
|1892
|No former president has been elected. ...Until Cleveland.
|
|
|-
|1896
|Tall midwesterners are unbeatable. ...Bryan wasn't.
|
|
|-
|1900
|No Republican shorter than 5'8" has been reelected. ...Until McKinley was.
|
|
|-
|1904
|No one under 45 has become president. ...Roosevelt did.
|
|
|-
|1908
|No Republican who hasn't served in the military has won. ...Until Taft.
|
|
|-
|1912
|After Lincoln beat the Democrats while sporting a beard with no mustache, the only Democrats who can win have a mustache with no beard. ...Wilson had neither.
|
|
|-
|1916
|No Democrat has won without Indiana. ...Wilson did.
|
|
|-
|1920
|No incumbent senator has won. ...Until Harding.
|
|
|-
|1924
|No one with two Cs in their name has become president. ...Until Calvin Coolidge.
|
|
|-
|1928
|No one who got ten million votes has lost. ...Until Al Smith.
|
|
|-
|1932
|No Democrat has won since women secured the right to vote. ...Until FDR did.
|
|
|-
|1936
|No President's been reelected with double-digit unemployment. ...Until FDR was.
|
|
|-
|1940
|No one has won a third term. ...Until FDR did.
|
|
|-
|1944
|No Democrat has won during wartime. ...Until FDR did.
|
|
|-
|1948
|Democrats can't win without Alabama. ...Truman did.
|
|
|-
|1952
|No Republican has won without winning the House or Senate. ...Eisenhower did.
|
|
|-
|1956
|No Republican has won without Missouri. ...Until Eisenhower.
|
|
|-
|1960
|Republicans without facial hair are unbeatable. ...Kennedy beat Nixon.
|
|
|-
|1964
|No Democrat has won without Georgia. ...Johnson did.
|
|
|-
|1968
|No Republican vice president has risen to the Presidency through an election. ...Until Nixon.
|
|
|-
|1972
|No wartime candidate has won without Massachusetts. ...Until Nixon did.
|
|
|-
|1976
|No one who lost New Mexico has won. ...But Carter did.
|
|
|-
|1980
|No one has been elected President after a divorce. ...Until Reagan was.
|
|
|-
|1984
|No left-handed president has been reelected. ...Until Reagan was.
|
|
|-
|1988
|No Democrat who has won Wisconsin (without being from there) has lost. ...Until Dukakis did.
|
|
|-
|1992
|No Democrat has won without a majority of the Catholic vote. ...Until Clinton did.
|
|
|-
|1996
|No Dem. incumbent without combat experience has beaten someone whose first name is worth more in Scrabble. ...Until Bill beat Bob.
|
|
|-
|2000
|No Republican has won without Vermont. ...Until Bush did.
|
|
|-
|2004
|No Republican without combat experience has beaten someone two inches taller. ...Until Bush did.
|
|
|-
|2008
|No Democrat can win without Missouri. ...Until Obama did.
|
|
|-
|2012?
|Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers.
|
|
|-
|2012?
|No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost.
|
|
|-
|Title text
|No white guy who's been mentioned on twitter has gone on to win.
|
|
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript}}
:The problem with statements like
:"No <party> candidate has won the election without <state>"
:Or
:"No president has been reelected under <circumstances>"

:1788... No one has been elected president before. ...But Washington was.
:1792... No incumbent has ever been reelected. ...Until Washington.
:1796... No one without false teeth has become president. ...But Adams did.
:1800... No challenger has beaten an incumbent. ...But Jefferson did.
:1804... No incumbent has beaten a challenger. ...Until Jefferson.
:1808... No congressman has ever become president. ...Until Madison.
:1812... No one can win without New York. ...But Madison did.
:1816... No candidate who doesn't wear a wig can get elected. ...Until Monroe was.
:1820... No one who wears pants instead of breeches can be reelected. ...But Monroe was.
:1824... No one has ever won without a popular majority. ...J.Q. Adams did.
:1828... Only people from Massachusetts and Virginia can win. ...Until Jackson did.
:1832... The only presidents who get reelected are Virginians. ...Until Jackson.
:1836... New Yorkers always lose. ...Until Van Buren.
:1840... No one over 65 has won the presidency. ...Until Harrison did.
:1844... No one who's lost his home state has won. ...But Polk did.
:1848... The Democrats don't lose when they win Pennsylvania. ...But they did in 1848.
:1852... New England Democrats can't win. ...Until Pierce did.
:1856... No one can become president without getting married. ...Until Buchanan did.
:1860... No one over 6'3" can get elected. ...Until Lincoln.
:1864... No one with a beard has been reelected. ...But Lincoln was.
:1868... No one can be president if their parent are alive. ...Until Grant.
:1872... No one with a beard has been reelected in peacetime. ...Until Grant was.
:1876... No one can win a majority of the popular vote and still lose. ...Tilden did.
:1880... As goes California, so goes the nation. ...Until it went Hancock.
:1884... Candidates named "James" can't lose. ...Until James Blaine.
:1888... No sitting president has been beaten since the Civil War. ...Cleveland was.
:1892... No former president has been elected. ...Until Cleveland.
:1896... Tall midwesterners are unbeatable. ...Bryan wasn't.
:1900... No Republican shorter than 5'8" has been reelected. ...Until McKinley was.
:1904... No one under 45 has become president. ...Roosevelt did.
:1908... No Republican who hasn't served in the military has won. ...Until Taft.
:1912... After Lincoln beat the Democrats while sporting a beard with no mustache, the only Democrats who can win have a mustache with no beard. ...Wilson had neither.
:1916... No Democrat has won without Indiana. ...Wilson did.
:1920... No incumbent senator has won. ...Until Harding.
:1924... No one with two Cs in their name has become president. ...Until Calvin Coolidge.
:1928... No one who got ten million votes has lost. ...Until Al Smith.
:1932... No Democrat has won since women secured the right to vote. ...Until FDR did.
:1936... No President's been reelected with double-digit unemployment. ...Until FDR was.
:1940... No one has won a third term. ...Until FDR did.
:1944... No Democrat has won during wartime. ...Until FDR did.
:1948... Democrats can't win without Alabama. ...Truman did.
:1952... No Republican has won without winning the House or Senate. ...Eisenhower did.
:1956... No Republican has won without Missouri. ...Until Eisenhower.
:1960... Republicans without facial hair are unbeatable. ...Kennedy beat Nixon.
:1964... No Democrat has won without Georgia. ...Johnson did.
:1968... No Republican vice president has risen to the Presidency through an election. ...Until Nixon.
:1972... No wartime candidate has won without Massachusetts. ...Until Nixon did.
:1976... No one who lost New Mexico has won. ...But Carter did.
:1980... No one has been elected President after a divorce. ...Until Reagan was.
:1984... No left-handed president has been reelected. ...Until Reagan was.
:1988... No Democrat who has won Wisconsin (without being from there) has lost. ...Until Dukakis did.
:1992... No Democrat has won without a majority of the Catholic vote. ...Until Clinton did.
:1996... No Dem. incumbent without combat experience has beaten someone whose first name is worth more in Scrabble. ...Until Bill beat Bob.
:2000... No Republican has won without Vermont. ...Until Bush did.
:2004... No Republican without combat experience has beaten someone two inches taller. ...Until Bush did.
:2008... No Democrat can win without Missouri. ...Until Obama did.
:2012... Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers. No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost. Which streak will break?

==Trivia/Errors==
* There was an error in the original 1800 panel of the comic, as Jefferson (not Adams) was the first challenger to beat an incumbent, when Jefferson beat then-president Adams in 1800. This was later corrected.

* Also, one of the statements of a streak for the 2012 elections can be considered wrong: in 1952, the Republican candidate/running mate Eisenhower/Nixon defeated the Democratic alliterative ticket Stevenson/Sparkman (in what can only be described as a landslide). The comic has been changed, and now reads "Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers" as the streak which would have the Republican ticket as the winners.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Elections]]
[[Category:Comics featuring John F. Kennedy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring politicians]]

2383: Electoral Precedent 2020

2020-11-10T09:17:32Z

162.158.159.132:

{{comic
| number = 2383
| date = November 9, 2020
| title = Electoral Precedent 2020
| image = electoral_precedent_2020.png
| titletext = He also broke the streak that incumbents with websites are unbeatable and Delawareans can't win, creating a new precedent: Only someone from Delaware can defeat an incumbent with a website.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an UNBEATABLE DELAWAREAN WITH A WEBSITE. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is an update to [[1122: Electoral Precedent]], adding "broken precedents" for the US presidential elections in 2016 and 2020.

The final two panels again show how the 'precedent' have side conditions that influenced these precedents:
* No sitting president who was impeached was nominated for the office again... until Donald Trump. (Bill Clinton was the last president who was impeached, but he was not eligible for re-election due to term limits; before that, Nixon wasn't impeached but resigned from office; before that, Johnson was seeking re-election but lost in the primaries against Seymour) 
* The last time a challenger beat an incumbent was in 1992 when websites weren't nearly as predominant as now. There is no 'curse' on using websites. 

The 2020 election is also precedent-breaking in a few ways that Randall didn't mention:
* Biden received over 76 million votes, the highest ever. Turnout as a percentage of the eligible population was the highest in over a century.
* At 78, Joe Biden will be the oldest president ever on the day of his inauguration.
* Biden's running mate Kamala Harris will be the first-ever female vice president, first Black vice president, and first vice president of Indian descent. A Californian, she'll also be the first Democratic president or vice president from the West.

The title text continues the theme of websites, by stating that no incumbent with a website had ever lost. Also, Biden is the first president from the state of Delaware, thus he broke the "precedent" that Delawareans can't win. Randall then proceeds to combine these 2 facts to create a new precedent: Only Delawareans can defeat incumbents with a website.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:The problem with statements like
:"No <party> candidate has won the election without <state>"
:Or
:"No president has been reelected under <circumstances>"

:<nowiki>★</nowiki> Updated for 2020 ★

:1788... No one has been elected president before. ...But Washington was.
:1792... No incumbent has ever been reelected. ...Until Washington.
:1796... No one without false teeth has become president. ...But Adams did.
:1800... No challenger has beaten an incumbent. ...But Jefferson did.
:1804... No incumbent has beaten a challenger. ...Until Jefferson.
:1808... No congressman has ever become president. ...Until Madison.
:1812... No one can win without New York. ...But Madison did.
:1816... No candidate who doesn't wear a wig can get elected. ...Until Monroe was.
:1820... No one who wears pants instead of breeches can be reelected. ...But Monroe was.
:1824... No one has ever won without a popular majority. ...J.Q. Adams did.
:1828... Only people from Massachusetts and Virginia can win. ...Until Jackson did.
:1832... The only presidents who get reelected are Virginians. ...Until Jackson.
:1836... New Yorkers always lose. ...Until Van Buren.
:1840... No one over 65 has won the presidency. ...Until Harrison did.
:1844... No one who's lost his home state has won. ...But Polk did.
:1848... The Democrats don't lose when they win Pennsylvania. ...But they did in 1848.
:1852... New England Democrats can't win. ...Until Pierce did.
:1856... No one can become president without getting married. ...Until Buchanan did.
:1860... No one over 6'3" can get elected. ...Until Lincoln.
:1864... No one with a beard has been reelected. ...But Lincoln was.
:1868... No one can be president if their parent are alive. ...Until Grant.
:1872... No one with a beard has been reelected in peacetime. ...Until Grant was.
:1876... No one can win a majority of the popular vote and still lose. ...Tilden did.
:1880... As goes California, so goes the nation. ...Until it went Hancock.
:1884... Candidates named "James" can't lose. ...Until James Blaine.
:1888... No sitting president has been beaten since the Civil War. ...Cleveland was.
:1892... No former president has been elected. ...Until Cleveland.
:1896... Tall midwesterners are unbeatable. ...Bryan wasn't.
:1900... No Republican shorter than 5'8" has been reelected. ...Until McKinley was.
:1904... No one under 45 has become president. ...Roosevelt did.
:1908... No Republican who hasn't served in the military has won. ...Until Taft.
:1912... After Lincoln beat the Democrats while sporting a beard with no mustache, the only Democrats who can win have a mustache with no beard. ...Wilson had neither.
:1916... No Democrat has won without Indiana. ...Wilson did.
:1920... No incumbent senator has won. ...Until Harding.
:1924... No one with two Cs in their name has become president. ...Until Calvin Coolidge.
:1928... No one who got ten million votes has lost. ...Until Al Smith.
:1932... No Democrat has won since women secured the right to vote. ...Until FDR did.
:1936... No President's been reelected with double-digit unemployment. ...Until FDR was.
:1940... No one has won a third term. ...Until FDR did.
:1944... No Democrat has won during wartime. ...Until FDR did.
:1948... Democrats can't win without Alabama. ...Truman did.
:1952... No Republican has won without winning the House or Senate. ...Eisenhower did.
:1956... No Republican has won without Missouri. ...Until Eisenhower.
:1960... Republicans without facial hair are unbeatable. ...Kennedy beat Nixon.
:1964... No Democrat has won without Georgia. ...Johnson did.
:1968... No Republican vice president has risen to the Presidency through an election. ...Until Nixon.
:1972... No wartime candidate has won without Massachusetts. ...Until Nixon did.
:1976... No one who lost New Mexico has won. ...But Carter did.
:1980... No one has been elected President after a divorce. ...Until Reagan was.
:1984... No left-handed president has been reelected. ...Until Reagan was.
:1988... No Democrat who has won Wisconsin (without being from there) has lost. ...Until Dukakis did.
:1992... No Democrat has won without a majority of the Catholic vote. ...Until Clinton did.
:1996... No Dem. incumbent without combat experience has beaten someone whose first name is worth more in Scrabble. ...Until Bill beat Bob.
:2000... No Republican has won without Vermont. ...Until Bush did.
:2004... No Republican without combat experience has beaten someone two inches taller. ...Until Bush did.
:2008... No Democrat can win without Missouri. ...Until Obama did.
:2012... Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers. ... Until Obama did.
:2016... No one has become president without government or military experience. ... Until Trump did. (a second text faded in the background reads: "No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost.")
:2020? No one has won after being impeached. <big>✓</big>
:2020? No challenger with a website has won. <big>X</big>

:[Caption below the comic]
:Congratulations to President-Elect Joe Biden for breaking the website curse!

==Errors==
*This comic seems to have used the same image as [[1122: Electoral Precedent]], and so under the 2016 panel there is the ghost image of the original 2012 2nd "streak": "No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Elections]]
[[Category:Comics featuring politicians]]
[[Category:Comics featuring John F. Kennedy]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]