|
sean10mm posted:Obama's approval rating is 56%, and has been on a steady upward trajectory since around this time last year. It has dwarfed either candidate's approval for the entire election I believe. That's the status quo at president, right there. The polls being so off, as well as the outcome of the election itself, should make you be a bit skeptical of what this number means and represents.
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
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. I'm not sure it's apples and oranges. There's no reason to look at Obama's approval rating and think it isn't true … except for the fact that America just elected a guy whose entire political life has consisted on hating Obama viscerally. We can at least consider that 1) maybe he isn't that popular, or 2) his job approval rating does not reflect America's desire to actually continue his policies and performance. The favorability numbers were also almost always better for Clinton than for Trump, and he won most swing states.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:Calling her evil is crap. I'm sorry but it is. She's a politician who spent 30 years giving a great deal of a poo poo about a lot of people. She's not evil when it comes to the environment, women's rights, the economy, or sensible ways of dealing with foreign policy and government corruption. She voted for the war in Iraq, which destroyed a nation. That's the opposite of sensible. Past a certain point, you have to be skeptical about giving politicians a pass because they've 'apologized' for their mistakes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
These are some articles from Vox about people who are covered by Obamacare who nonetheless voted for Trump. Here's the article: http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/13/13848794/kentucky-obamacare-trump Here's transcripts from the interviews in the article: http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13901874/obamacare-trump-voter-health-insurance-repeal I think these are pretty interesting. On the one hand, they show the pitfalls of a weak law. Many of the people interviewed complain about the cost and other issues associated with Obamacare; the flaws in coverage are naturally going to lead to people being less enthusiastic about supporting these policies. On the other hand, they show how people are going to do dumb poo poo no matter what. There is no deception here: Republicans have been loudly and openly running on repealing and dismantling Obamacare for years now. And Clinton said she'd protect/build on Obamacare. The people interviewed in the article say that they are aware of this (the repeal stuff, especially), but many of them simply chose to believe it couldn't/wouldn't happen for reasons they pulled entirely out of their rear end and that have nothing to do with being conned by anyone (reasons such as 'well i thought once it was law it couldn't be changed' or 'how are they going to repeal it there's so many people with it' or 'well trump lies a lot so i don't think he'd do it')
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:When was the data model proven wrong? I'm assuming you mean Michigan and Wisconsin? Why would those two states not being won by Clinton during the primaries be indicative of a faulty model, especially when Clinton won Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (not to mention Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona) but also lost those in the general? Because the model showed Clinton would win Michigan in the primaries, and then she didn't. The thing is that Clinton's defeat wasn't random. She didn't lose a bunch of random states. She underperformed really terribly in rust belt states, among certain types of people, which others had predicted could happen; which Trump had based his election strategy on; which apparently there was / could have been evidence for but the campaign was not interested in certain kinds of data collection. The Politico article suggests that the campaign made concrete decisions that prevented them from accurately understanding the state of the race. It didn't just happen to them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
The whole 'minorities voted for Hillary in the primary' is an argument that was decent back in the primaries, when the presumption was that it meant Clinton could hold the Democratic base, which partly consists of minority groups, and this made her a good candidate. She didn't, so shut the gently caress up about it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 19:28
|
|