Pardon me for my poor use of words. Here is where @American Brummie can formulate hypothesis and find ranges and degrees of confidence... Geez...
If there is a Silver lining for this defeat, is that the Mid-West is losing relevance: Now if only the Dems could find a way to actually flip AZ, NC and FL.... http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/c...gressional-seats-electoral-college-votes-next The political consulting firm predicts Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio will each lose one House seat once all 435 are redistributed by population after the next census. In all, nine U.S. states are projected to lose a seat after 2020 (the others are Alabama, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia). States gaining influence (both in the U.S. Congress and the Electoral College) are Texas (three additional seats and votes); Florida (+2); and Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina and Oregon (+1). If this comes to pass, the 2024 presidential election (first one following 2020’s reapportionment) will continue the Midwest’s long-term electoral muscle atrophy.
Polling 2 days before the election: Hillary 45%, Trump 44% Actual popular vote: Hillary 48%, Trump 47% meh
Yeah, that is going to take a while to play out. I mean if waiting for white folk to die off is the plan, then well, we will have to be patient and put up with a lot of shit the next decade or two.
I'd like to know more about these people. Do we really KNOW anything about them? Their numbers, their political views? PS, what makes you think I think the people in that picture are racists, specifically? I just think they're assholes who don't care about economic policy. That's my meta-point, that we until there's convincing evidence that the voters @Boloni86 is talking about are driven by economic policy, we shouldn't assume that they are.
On election day, yeah it seems it was 3-5 points. But a couple days before it was closer as can be seen in this graph: http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37450661
Well from February http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/08/politics/obama-trump-new-hampshire/index.html Note the Obama voter that switched because the Muslims were going to kill us. Then the independents that do not understand how government works and why Obama could not get stuff done against the party of no. ok, the next one is the guardian but... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...orters-rnc-worried-about-mortgage-not-melania The good thing about that quote, if it is true (in the sense that there are enough of those type of voters) they will also turn on Trump when he can't deliver on his promises. The problem is that politicians are making promises that we can't deliver, Obama could not do it, Trump won't do it, to who are they going to turn to next? I would love for the Democrats to be able to tell the truth, manufacturing is not coming back, so we need to think the way we tax and train/support people, a college education is necessary now, you can not live a good life in the USA with out a college degree anymore, we need to fund college education as it was High school education. Trade is good, here is why..., immigration is good here is why... I would love if the DNC could make that happen, but unfortunately I do not think that will work, these people want magic beans, Sanders and Trump were promising magic beans, Clinton had no chance with those former Obama voters. They may not be a lot, but in some of those Midwest states, they could have made the difference.
I wasn't talking about Obama or even facts in general. Just talking about campaigning. Most politicians treat campaigns as a fact free space anyways. The way I see it the Democratic Party has sort of gone off the charts in pandering to immigrant electorate. In the process they've swept inconvenient truths under the rug. Like the fact that Obama has deported so many and realistically some level of deportations would have continued under Clinton too. Also the inconvenient truth is that any immigration reform legislation is almost guaranteed to include strong enforcement language. That's just the reality of who makes up our legislative bodies. Democrats are often too busy selling empty platitudes on immigration and it creates a vacuum for the opposition to claim that Democrats just want open borders and path to citizenship
Seriously, what Kool-aid are you drinking today? Check the numbers for Clinton or Obama or Sanders, even f*cking Jeb! got the facts right most of the time. Yeah, Obama deported a ton of people but he also eased the enforcement on dreamers and on other at-risk populations. That is straight up #bothsidesdoit bullsh!t. Regarding the language, you are required to know English and you answer the citizenship test in English. There are some exceptions for certain conditions, mostly older or very poor immigrants. You cannot enforce language mandates in communities, maybe in some schools, but again, you are pulling factoids out of your behind. Finally, what do you mean by empty platitudes? This is a nation of immigrants, the Democrats just said we should welcome fellow travelers because that is who we are. Immigration reform usually includes a path for citizenship and that was true in the 1980s as it is today. If you think that there's a logical way to jump from "immigrants welcome" to "open borders for terrorists", you probably attended too many Trump rallies.
Not true at all, completely false, politicians have to keep their promises and tell the truth or they don't get re-elected. Donald Trump is the exception, not the rule. This was in Clinton's platform. Also not true
On NPR the other day I heard a political scientist say that basically what the election measured was whose base was less bummed out about their candidate. The hundreds of counties that flipped from Obama to Trump were more due to turn-out as opposed to the same voters flipping. That would be supported by the fact that the Senate candidates went right along with the POTUS candidate. There was precious little split-ticketing going on. Keep in mind that only 55% or so of voters showed up to the polls. That's a lot of wiggle room for apathy/modified excitement to set in.
Hopefully that is right, that is easier to correct by the DNC. I posted an article a few days ago, I believe it was the Huffington post, but I can't Google it now, they claimed a good percentage points of former Obama voters went for Trump, I believe it was specific to a State. Hopefully I find it and will post it.
If the people in this article are anything to go by, it wasn't the economy. I'm curious what promises Obama didn't deliver on? I mean, we got out of Iraq, we got a health care program, and the economy...well, the recovery was weird. It's been pretty weak but very long. But again, if you go by the people in the CNN article, it isn't the economy. That's the "Blame Comey" narrative. It'll be interesting if further research bears that out. Persuasion as a political technique is dead. So even if the Dems stage some great comeback and roar into power in 2020, what we will have? A bunch of uncompromising lefties. That's no panacea.
Not really. That's what experts have been saying for quite some time. The news cycle obviously can play a part in that excitement/malaise. In relation to this particular election, then the news cycle that directly affected the election most would probably be Comey letter #1 and again the "Oh, these emails? The not Hillary emails? Nothing here in these emails that we can find in this computer full of emails. Our investigation into these emails produced no significant evidence of any hidden emails. Nor did they have any bearing on the investigation into her email server. So Hillary's emails are once again on the back burner. If we find any more emails, we will send the press and the GOP an email with pertinent details. If that email is unclear, feel free to send us an email and we will attempt to clarify any email issues. Via email. #bcemail.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/why-did-trump-win-roundup-most-popular-theories Here's a blogger I like. He has a very statistical bent. (He's the guy who has made the "lead reduction=crime reduction" theory so popular.) He looks at a bunch of reasons why Hillary lost, and says a few of them are valid, and most aren't or aren't proven. Some of the valid reasons aren't about how the polls were wrong. A couple were. 1. James Comey. This cost her about 2 points. 2. The white working class in the upper Midwest. 3. Millennials. This cost her 1-2 points. I guess one thing we can be slightly thankful for...it looks like Hillary is going to win the PV by about 1 point. Can you imagine the chaos we'd be seeing if she won the PV by, let's say, 4 points, but lost the EC? 2000 was essentially a tie both ways. I don't consider that election a problem for democracy. And this year, it's not like Hillary beat Trump soundly in the PV. In my opinion it's not a problem for democracy either. But it COULD have gone a little differently with huge consequences for legitimacy. It's like congressional gerrymandering. Just as in 2012, the Dems got more votes this year. I don't think it's bad for democracy that the GOPs control the house. You have to have districts so people know who they're voting for, and the results aren't going to be perfect proportional. It IS bad that the Dems aren't even close, that it's not something like 220-215.
1 citizen, 1 vote. That's not what we have right now. It's ridiculous that a ND citizen's vote is so much more powerful than a Californian's. That's bullshit. California is getting f***ed left and right in our "democracy". Our votes simply don't count. FFS, even in the "representational" component of the House and the 53 EV we get for the 53 reps, we're still short-changed. California should have about 14% of the EV, which would be about 62 EV. So it's pathetic that 14% of the nation's populace gets 2% of the EV. **** that. That's a problem. Sorry. And yeah. I know that with the tiny states w/ 3 and 4 EV's, the Dems only "trail" by a bit, but when you throw in the states w/ 5-8 EVs plus CA and NY... the Dems are f***ed. Sorry. It's just not fair. You forgot 2014. So in 2006, 2008, 2012, 2014, and again in 2016, the Dems have earned more votes for their reps than the GOP. See a pattern? I'm sorry. This is bullshit. It's simply undemocratic. The GOP is working the system to disenfranchisement the voice of the ppl.
Really? Have you seen the GOP primary debates? Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee etc ... Truth was an endangered species ... Democrats are better, but still prone to spin and manipulation ... I know she had a plan if you're willing to research. But does the average viewer who tunes in casually? I just went on youtube and watched a bunch of videos from this past campaign regarding immigration. Watched the 'bad hombres' exchange from last debate among others. Without actually getting a clock and timing it, I would estimate that about 80-90% of her reply was about why Trump's plans are bad, breaking up families is bad, America is a country of immigrants etc ... All stuff I agree with, but if you're a moderate watching this who is concerned about illegal immigration, I'm not sure if her proposals were very clear. Kind of a moot point for this specific election since Trump's proposals were so insane. Clinton should have gotten the moderate vote just by default regardless of messaging. But this messaging problem shows up in other races ... especially the left in some European countries has had a tough time responding to migrant crisis.
And if the United States 2016 Presidential Primaries included all of the politicians in the USA, or the world, you would be correct. If you don't mind doing the math, there are over 3,500 state legislators, 535 members of Congress, and millions of local and national legislators in other countries. What's 18/1,000,000 again?
This piece is by definition a Conspiracy Theory, since the author admits that he cannot verify the exactness of the polls since he doesn't have access to the raw data of the elections themselves. However, from the perspective of polls getting it wrong, I think is a very interesting piece of information: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/something-stinks-when-exit-polls-and-official-counts-dont-match/ The red shift is a term that I coined back in 2004 after the Bush-Kerry election, because the familiar term the “red shift” when we mean astronomy, that’s what brought it to my mind. But the reason it’s called the red shift is that it was very directional in that election where you saw vote counts coming out more in favor of Bush, more in favor of Republican candidates. Since Republican by that time had been designated red as in red states and blue states, that’s how it got the moniker the red shift. What we found from that point forward is that it’s almost a singularity, very rare, that we find any significant blue shift anywhere. When we look at exit polls and vote counts, what we’re almost always seeing are vote counts that come out more in favor of the Republican candidate than the exit polls and in the case of intraparty nomination battles, more in favor of the candidate that is, I guess you’d have to say, to the right of their opponent. ---------------------------------------------- North Carolina was one of those. I believe it had the largest sample size in the country. It was almost 4,000 voters were sampled and the usual sample size in these state exit polls is somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 if they expect it to be competitive. That was basically a double sampling that reduces the mathematical margin of error, but it also improves in a less quantifiable way the accuracy of the poll. That 5.9% red shift from Clinton to Trump is way outside the margin of error for that poll and therefore very unlikely to occur by chance. What might have made it happen? People could’ve been lying to the exit pollster. The exit pollster could’ve been all young urban college kids and the Trump voters might have been reluctant to comply with their requests. There might have been refusals from Trump voters. Now Edison usually tries to get these things right and one of the ways they try to get it right is through some expensive training and they try to get a fairly represented sample of polling interviewers. The polls by the way are confidential. They’re not verbal interviews. You’re just handed a clipboard with a poll on it. It’s not as intimate as some people would believe. There’s less of an incentive to lie because it’s basically confidential. You fold your polling sheet up and you put it in the box or you hand it back to the interviewer to put it into a grab bag. There’s no name on it. There is nothing that associates you with it. The incentive to lie isn’t particularly high. We’ve always dealt with the—is there a reluctant [George W.] Bush responder going on here, is there a shy Trump voter? We don’t know. These are possibilities, but we’ve seen the same kind of exit poll pattern in intraparty contests, we’ve seen it year after year, we’ve seen it at the Senate races, at the House exit poll. It transcends an individual race like this where there was so much intensity. I don't think that there is pervasive election fraud. I do think that there is some inaccuracy at different points both in polling and vote counting. But what strikes me is that the discrepancies are so high. Is polling actually so inaccurate? Thoughts?
We are a federation, I mean come on look at the Senate, California gets the same numbers of Senators as the smallest state, that is the way we set it up. It is a protection so small states won't get bullied by bigger states too much. Yes it svcks if you are from a large state, shit UN voting is worse, 1 country 1 vote, the EU has some weighted voting, but still Germany gets less votes in the EU assembly than its population would indicate. Just think of the 3 EVs as a minimum salary.
I see what you are trying to do, but I am sure your equation is wrong. Way more than 18 politicians around the world lie. They have to.
The national polls weren't much wrong. The error of the polls will be the memory of 2016, but it's mostly bogus. Silver was at 3.5 for his final estimate, Wang was 2.6. Hillary is now at +1, and will be close to +2 when all the mail-in/absentee ballots are counted. The real story was the weirdness of the electoral system, which put a seemingly settled election within Trump's reach if he did just a little better than anticipated. Which he did, and you know how that played out.
In terms of national polls, what you say is largely correct. In terms of the models used by these pollsters to project the election results, you are wrong. The election was lost in the Rust Belt, and its electoral college votes. Not on the popular vote. When it came to projections on how the Rust Belt would go, I recall odds around 80%+ by these pollsters that some of the states Hillary in fact lost in the Rust Belt, were ones she was going to win. The reason Hillary's chances in some of these states was rated so highly wasn't just the state polls, which weren't as lopsided in her favor to justify the odds she was being given. It was rather models that looked at previous voting patterns, including how those votes had gone to Obama as opposed to Romney, and the assumption that in a race between Hillary and a pig, the so-called undecided would ultimately pick Hillary. It didn't turn out that way at all. Trump offered the blue collar workers in the Rust Belt a simple message, bringing together the underlying themes in his campaign in the ads he ran. That message was as follows: there are a bunch wealthy internationalists with no loyalty to any country but rather to certain 'large corporations' and the like. These people control the establishment in the US. They are after making bigger profits, which means that your blue collar job will in their scheme be either shipped to China or Mexico or somewhere or you will be laid off to make room for cheaper labor from Mexico etc. There are many who have said the message is anti-semitic. In truth, the blue collar workers who listened to the message couldn't care less if these 'rich people' and 'big corporations' were Jews or Martians. The message instead was tailored to give the protectionist narrative a conspiratorial punch line that would tie nicely into Trump's con game about running supposedly against the 'establishment'.