Marc certainly would have .
Sarah and Harry may well have done as well.
Possibly Jade
Struggling after that
Sarah and Harry may well have done as well.
Possibly Jade
Struggling after that
Which evicted housemates might have beaten Chloe in a vote to win
1 of 2
I think only Jade or Marc could have won had they been in the final. I don't think any of the other housemates were good enough to win.
Originally Posted by DUNDEEBOY:
“Marc certainly would have .
Sarah and Harry may well have done as well.
Possibly Jade
Struggling after that”
“Marc certainly would have .
Sarah and Harry may well have done as well.
Possibly Jade
Struggling after that”
Harry was gaining momentum but I don't think the general public would have come out for her like they did Chloe... although Harry would have deserved it more.
Marc could have as I think his supporters would have come out in force.
Sarah and Jade could have been high placing finalists but I doubt they would have won.
Joel or Nick would probably have done better if one of them didn't make it to the final because I think they split the vote somewhat.
They were both my favourites
None.
Because Jack and Danny's voters moved their support over to Chloe once it was down to the final two.
Because Jack and Danny's voters moved their support over to Chloe once it was down to the final two.
Originally Posted by SneakyBoo:
“Marc could have as I think his supporters would have come out in force.”
“Marc could have as I think his supporters would have come out in force.”
His 'supporters' didn't save him from being evicted though!!
Originally Posted by inverness1967:
“His 'supporters' didn't save him from being evicted though!!”
“His 'supporters' didn't save him from being evicted though!!”
A negative vote is completely different to a positive vote. Especially since there was a split vote between Harry/Jack for Marc fans that day.
The fact they were evicted shows they were not as popular as you think, so in fact i dont think any would have beaten her
Originally Posted by Barracute:
“The fact they were evicted shows they were not as popular as you think, so in fact i dont think any would have beaten her”
“The fact they were evicted shows they were not as popular as you think, so in fact i dont think any would have beaten her”
And Marc got evicted because he listened to Helen, who never had to face an eviction vote because she had a free pass. I find it amusing how evicted HM's should have won when they got themselves evicted!
Originally Posted by Littlegreen42:
“None.
Because Jack and Danny's voters moved their support over to Chloe once it was down to the final two.”
“None.
Because Jack and Danny's voters moved their support over to Chloe once it was down to the final two.”
How do you make that out. For a start Jack supporters hated Chloe for they way she treated him. We spent money trying to get her OUT. I moved on to support Joel, even though I dont care much for him. I would even have voted for Danny. Any one but her, the most underserving winner ever.
How the public can reward such a liar and a nasty, vile cow saddens me.
The show has now degenerated past relevance now, no wonder they're losing viewing figures.
Originally Posted by Jennyloo:
“How do you make that out. For a start Jack supporters hated Chloe for they way she treated him. We spent money trying to get her OUT. I moved on to support Joel, even though I dont care much for him. I would even have voted for Danny. Any one but her, the most underserving winner ever.
How the public can reward such a liar and a nasty, vile cow saddens me.
The show has now degenerated past relevance now, no wonder they're losing viewing figures.”
“How do you make that out. For a start Jack supporters hated Chloe for they way she treated him. We spent money trying to get her OUT. I moved on to support Joel, even though I dont care much for him. I would even have voted for Danny. Any one but her, the most underserving winner ever.
How the public can reward such a liar and a nasty, vile cow saddens me.
The show has now degenerated past relevance now, no wonder they're losing viewing figures.”
Well, the producers liked her, she got good coverage,she fooled a lot of people with her little girl act and tears in the diary room..
Her history over the taxi driver was disgusting and she boasted about it.No accounting for taste, people voted for her maybe not knowing what had gone before.
Originally Posted by Barracute:
“The fact they were evicted shows they were not as popular as you think, so in fact i dont think any would have beaten her”
“The fact they were evicted shows they were not as popular as you think, so in fact i dont think any would have beaten her”
its a negative vote though... popularity means zilch .
Originally Posted by Aura101:
“ its a negative vote though... popularity means zilch .”
“
its a negative vote though... popularity means zilch .”
Of course it does! its the same thing but in reverse!
If the majority of viewers vote AGAINST someone in a negative vote, then clearly that same majority are not going to vote FOR them in a positive vote. and you cannot even assume that all who voted against someone ELSE would all vote for the same person in a positive vote.
Originally Posted by Barracute:
“Of course it does! its the same thing but in reverse!
If the majority of viewers vote AGAINST someone in a negative vote, then clearly that same majority are not going to vote FOR them in a positive vote. and you cannot even assume that all who voted against someone ELSE would all vote for the same person in a positive vote.”
“Of course it does! its the same thing but in reverse!
If the majority of viewers vote AGAINST someone in a negative vote, then clearly that same majority are not going to vote FOR them in a positive vote. and you cannot even assume that all who voted against someone ELSE would all vote for the same person in a positive vote.”
Helen wood disproved that theory, she would gone by a landslide in an eviction
Originally Posted by DUNDEEBOY:
“Helen wood disproved that theory, she would gone by a landslide in an eviction”
“Helen wood disproved that theory, she would gone by a landslide in an eviction”
How did she disprove it? She never faced a negative vote?
Originally Posted by Barracute:
“Of course it does! its the same thing but in reverse!
If the majority of viewers vote AGAINST someone in a negative vote, then clearly that same majority are not going to vote FOR them in a positive vote. and you cannot even assume that all who voted against someone ELSE would all vote for the same person in a positive vote.”
“Of course it does! its the same thing but in reverse!
If the majority of viewers vote AGAINST someone in a negative vote, then clearly that same majority are not going to vote FOR them in a positive vote. and you cannot even assume that all who voted against someone ELSE would all vote for the same person in a positive vote.”
Originally Posted by DUNDEEBOY:
“Helen wood disproved that theory, she would gone by a landslide in an eviction”
“Helen wood disproved that theory, she would gone by a landslide in an eviction”
Originally Posted by Barracute:
“How did she disprove it? She never faced a negative vote?”
“How did she disprove it? She never faced a negative vote?”
i think we all know she would have been evicted had she not got the pass!
it reminds me abit of your fave Nicki Grahame, she would have had a strong chance of winning had she made the final by conventional methods. but it would have meant her not being up for eviction or using vote to save for that series, neither of which happened.
also the ''majority'' of viewers do not vote anybody out, the ''majority'' of viewers do not vote!! and thats a vast majority. there are countless examples of characters who could for example be up for eviction in maybe a four way vote, and get the most votes to evict and the most votes to save! how do you not know this
Originally Posted by Barracute:
“Of course it does! its the same thing but in reverse!
If the majority of viewers vote AGAINST someone in a negative vote, then clearly that same majority are not going to vote FOR them in a positive vote. and you cannot even assume that all who voted against someone ELSE would all vote for the same person in a positive vote.”
“Of course it does! its the same thing but in reverse!
If the majority of viewers vote AGAINST someone in a negative vote, then clearly that same majority are not going to vote FOR them in a positive vote. and you cannot even assume that all who voted against someone ELSE would all vote for the same person in a positive vote.”
There is no logic in this. You can be a huge favourite to win and still get evicted on a negative vote.
Take the election for example, if we got to ''evict'' one government before the final election vote, then the Tories would be evicted by a landslide. Maybe I should put that idea to the Queen
1 of 2
