|
sean10mm posted:This is kind of apples and oranges though, the favorability numbers always showed Clinton being really bad, which was in fact true to the election outcome. The state polls being so off also meant that Clinton, the ultimate pragmatist, didn't realize she was missing a key voter block in rust belt whites. Had weaknesses there shown up in August, she would have heavily targeted them. Had the election not been so obviously "already over", more people would have been motivated to vote and make sure Trump didn't win. I think without the polling errors, there's a very good chance this wouldn't have happened.
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Yeah I agree. She was flying blind and therefore had no opportunity to adjust. It's really a whirlwind of things that had to go wrong. We have to remember that BILL MITCHELL WAS RIGHT, outside of polls there was no evidence she was winning! The only person who seemed to take "maybe the polls are wrong" seriously was Nate Silver, and days before the election we were all literally mocking him as "Shook Nate" when he was basically exactly correct.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:You're all kinda making it sound like the result was some kind of unpredictable fluke. It was difficult to predict, and I saw literally nobody but Michael Moore (lol) expecting it to go down like this. Without the influence of polls, Clinton might have not avoided important groups. It's hard to say what the right tactic is in regards to polling data because Romney ignored polls and went with his gut and got owned, Clinton went strictly by the polls and got owned.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:People made judgments based on methods that were demonstrably correct in 2004, 2008 and 2012 that spontaneously turned into poo poo in 2016 for reasons nobody has even explained yet. If Clinton looks like she's cruising to a win based on the best evidence available, you aren't being willfully ignorant, your bowing to the (apparent) facts. 1. Bad LV screens assumed Trump voters wouldn't vote for various reasons 2. Embarrassed Trump voters literally lied to pollsters 3. A large number of Trump voters, being innately distrustful of polls, hung up before taking the poll. Again, Clinton is the most "will of the whole electorate" candidate we've seen in a long, long time. If she knew that rural whites were a key demo against her, she would have spoken directly to them much, much more often.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I think sean10mm is right that it was so close that one or two days could have turned the entire thing around - but why was it so close in the first place? National elections are chaotic systems, but they're not arbitrary.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:They were so close because she was doing all the wrong poo poo because she was flying blind. She had no idea what she was doing was wrong and no idea what she should be doing to correct it. Don't overstate things - her unfavorability was a huge problem, and that's a major part of what made things close. She lost for a bunch of reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:The campaign problems maybe explain tens of thousands of votes going one way or the other in key areas. Like maybe a better campaign gets more votes in key counties in swings states by not wasting time in states or counties that are in the bag or are unwinnable. You can also choose policy positions based on polling data, and Clinton was exceedingly likely to do so. She tried to be in the middle and attract voters from across the aisle. She should have run further to the left (where I think her real positions are on a number of things, BTW) because the other side was already lost in this election. But she had no reason to think that her platform was being rejected, in large part because of the polling data. Lt. Danger posted:I think I'm just a bit wary of that phrase "perfect storm". A Clinton loss wasn't unforeseeable. We knew Clinton had baggage, we knew she wasn't charismatic, we knew people were suffering under neoliberalism, we knew Wall Street was unpopular, etc. etc... we just assumed it wouldn't matter. It's not an assumption if it's backed up by the data! The only assumption was that the data was good. theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:it was her time. what else could possibly matter? This isn't an accurate description of how Clinton treated the campaign at all.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Ah I'm sorry. The candidate notorious for taking positions based entirely on what polls said was doomed by those very polls failing her. They were her One Ring. Again, no. There's numerous things that were problems for her. I was just discussing one of them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Dmitri-9 posted:Beg Howard Dean to come back. That is my strategy https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/796838538641833990
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...6ddc27?ka603sor 25 is bad, but I'm pretty sure GOTV operations wouldn't find the 5% to be very unusual
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Maybe Clinton wasn't that qualified after all, unlike Trump, who managed to find the best people who correctly identified the fact that he was gonna win based off hidden voters. They thought he was gonna lose
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Bernie is not the presumptive candidate
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Xae posted:Until he rules out running he is. I am really skeptical of putting forward a candidate who will need to survive to the age of 87.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:you don't seem to grasp that sanders would have won. and pretty easily. that's why these moves are occurring. Well, except for Bloomberg maybe ruining everything. The real mistake was that Sanders wasn't VP. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Honestly anyone other than a blue dog like Kaine would have been a smarter choice, his selection screamed of a "lets pull from the right" and hope to steal R voters who we have been calling racists for months, instead of say picking a minority candidate to completely lock up those voters, or a progressive candidate (not necessarily Bernie) who would shore up here "progressive" rhetoric which at least here in the PNW no one was actually buying. Well, he helped secure Virginia, which has value. But yeah, if i could go back in time and change one thing about the Clinton campaign, it's Sanders as VP
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:You do realize that in two months the sitting president will be someone who has not only confessed to sexual assault on tape but that is also possibly a rapist? That matters a lot more to liberals than conservatives
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:So in your alternate universe the liberal women would then have turned around and voted for Trump...? Or abstained the polls altogether with an actual rapist heading the republican nomination? I dunno, they turned away from Clinton for some reason
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:I'm saying that because it's what I keep hearing, somehow. I don't know, I'm just scared that we'll never actually manage to get along. You have the least appropriate username
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
So, I've been thinking about a bit of conventional wisdom. We've said multiple times in this forum - "Being ahead helps you on election day because people want to vote for a winner". Normally, reports that you "can't lose" motivates turnout EVEN MORE. However, we've never had an election where the two candidates had worse favorability than this one - normally, candidates have mild positive favorables. I'm wondering if Low Enthusiasm combined with Inevitability actually depressed Democratic turnout because people weren't that excited for Clinton. It's possible that all the "rules" are off the table with candidates that aren't liked.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Clever attempt, but you're not tricking me into watching The Young Turks. I'm too smart for that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
incoherent posted:kurt IT guy must have never worked an actual day of IT in his life, 650k is well within (and quite low in my experence) the realm of possibility to be stored on a laptop. Kurt probably just asked the question poorly
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I suspect part of it is that Trump was seen as the non-establishment candidate, so him being bashed by the establishment media constantly may well have helped play into that rhetoric. What do you do when criticism is evidence of bias? There's no way to break that cycle. Either you withhold criticism and legitimize what he says, or you criticize and legitimize what he says.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:There are about ten million more eligible voters today compared to 2012. Not to mention that third party candidates received way more votes than previous elections. And the fact that 2012 was seen as a poor year for turnout for Democrats. ...the Democrats made gains in both the Senate and house, what are you on about?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:This is a fallacy, people do not actually become noticeably more conservative as they age. I thought that they did but the starting point has moved with time
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
override367 posted:Why focus on fixing the economy, social issues, or global warming, jesus is coming back soon - tens of millions of actual voters "End times" philosophy is given way more credit for its influence on politics than it is due. Only a percentage of even Evangelicals believe that the world's end is imminent, Evangelicals are only a percentage of Republicans, and Republicans are 40% or less of the country. They're not nonexistent but the bigger sources are racism and the desire to believe that they deserve their own success.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:They didn't spend in key states, the states Clinton lost. They spent a lot in Florida, though! Because the DNC is stupid and keeps thinking they'll win Florida, forever. Idiots. ...Florida was a competitive race and the polling had her winning there. The rust belt weakness wasn't detected until the last two weeks. Don't act like things that are obvious now were obvious then.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:To, who, Internet randos who only have professional third-party analysis from guys with teams of polllsters and the Facebook wall of their one redneck uncle to go by? Or the professionals with teams of pollsters whose entire job is to perform that analysis? The rumors out of the campaigns were that they were seeing very similar results to the external polling. There were dozens of high quality polls being released right up until the last few weeks. I'm not sure what you think was different between the internal and external polling. Hillary thought she was going to win the day of. Trump* thought he was going to lose. *well, Trump's team, at least. theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:* I say "mostly" because the whole "getting paid huge sums of money to give speeches at investment banks" thing was a legitimate issue that I never saw any good excuses for, and for many people it basically cemented Hillary as a candidate that was not aligned with the interests of the poor/working class. While it's not technically bribery, there's also a tacit expectation that you'll at least maintain a positive relationship with the organization in question if you agree to something like that. I don't believe that Clinton was chatting with bankers about how to gently caress over the working class or anything, but I think that many politicians just listen to these people talk and think "wow this person seems really intelligent and reasonable" and genuinely become convinced that they know what is best (and I imagine this is how most lobbying works). Her speaking fees were not unusual, the Clintons have given thousands of speeches. It looks bad but it's hardly the "she's completely in the pocket of the banks" that people pretend it is.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:This doubling down on her 200 million dollars' worth of bank speeches is exactly Ytlaya's point. very few of those speeches were to banks, dude
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:I'm saying that the passive-voice 'wasn't detected' wasn't just a thing that happened to the people whose jobs it was to detect it. It's not like in the last few weeks of the election millions of people abruptly changed their minds completely, the information was out there their sampling methodology just didn't accurately reflect it. It may have actually been shy Trump supporters, as well. We don't know if it was LV problems or Trump supporters lying. We'll have to see in the post election analysis. enraged_camel posted:And the reason she was perceived to be insincere is that the Democratic voters looked at the things she said she would do if elected and compared them with things like her voting record and the sources of her income and they saw someone who didn't practice what she preached, unlike Bernie.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
So, uh https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-election-really-was-rigged/2016/11/29/c2ed58d8-b666-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html I don't know about Pennsylvania, but Wisconsin very likely would have flipped the other way if not for voter suppression efforts. 41,000 less African Americans voted just in Milwaukee, and black voters typically voted 90%+ towards Hillary. The article doesn't mention Michigan, but that race was much closer. Not discussing voter suppression means you're not properly analyzing the results.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Like 80% of all blacks in Wisconsin live in Milwaukee. Looks like roughly 60 if I'm doing my math right. And that number is still enough to swing Wisconsin without anyone outside of Milwaukee.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I actually meant what I said. Pretty much every leak revealed more and more that she was even more establishment than ever, that she rigged it against Bernie, and that she was full of poo poo. Turnout was really bad for her and she did nothing to dispel the cloud of impropriety around her and her whole campaign. After all votes counted, her turnout really wasn't all that bad. It wasn't Obama good, but it's not awful. She lost the election because of the Democrats who flipped in the Rust Belt (and came out in Florida). That's the story.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:No it was bad. There were 10 million more potential voters compared to 2012. Trump was a joke, so him taking any votes from her is embarrassing (the least liked president-elect going into office). And 2012 was seen as a disappointment. She did bad. Obama was an exceptional candidate. Those new people are the young, who consistently vote at low levels. You're greatly simplifying the narrative. Trumps awfulness barely mattered to Republicans.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Uh, trump got more votes than Romney. Update your info
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:I think Hillary's emails really hurt her image after all the information that came out, like how she said there was no classified info on the server, and then oops, there was classified info on the server after all. The E-mails were supposed to be deleted BEFORE she was being investigated, but the people who managed her server had forgotten to do it. When the investigation started, they said "oh crap" and went and did the deletion that they were supposed to have done months earlier. It looked bad, but it was nothing. The whole E-mail scandal was the biggest pile of nothing imaginable. Every CEO at every company in the country does dumber IT Security things every day.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
N. Senada posted:The good news is that private industries have a way of purging itself of such incompetence, unlike the public which we literally put into power. The frustrating thing is that you KNOW that Trump is going to be an absolute nightmare for any of the White House security people and they'll probably have to fight him tooth and nail to get him to follow even the most basic Security protocols. There's no way he'll be willing to remember a single password.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The password will be either ME or Ivanka. HandsActuallyVeryBig6969
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
override367 posted:Hillary would have been way better off being honest with us from the start and just apologizing for her bad judgement and being bad at computer. Hell maybe even suggest that the federal government get a department of IT that has the power to put their foot down on internet security since the government is full of olds She should have done it earlier, but I doubt she expected it to become literally the #1 discussed issue of the campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 16:04
|
|