Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2016 23:37:11 GMT -5
I've got to break the jackboots in somehow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2016 23:46:17 GMT -5
So here's a couple of serious questions for discussion:
(1) how was the polling so off? Looking at the polls, I felt certain Clinton would win, and by a comfortable margin. So did most of us, I think.
Did people lie in the polls? Were Trump supporters under-counted? Did people change their mind at the last minute? Was it the Comey effect? Some combination thereof? I tend to think it was a combination of all of the above.
(2) who are the Trump voters? How is it that Romney (an infinitely better candidate by any measure, IMO) apparently captured fewer voters than Trump?
I admit this one puzzles me. I know a fair number of republicans and conservatives in real life. They pretty much all went for Romney last time -- I think one or two went for Johnson. But this time? Only my brother voted Trump. Every last one of my republican and conservative friends disliked and distrusted Trump. Most went third party or write-in, at least one went Clinton, and at least one left the presidential spot blank. And it looks like this wasn't just my acquaintances -- it sounds like many well-known republicans and conservatives rejected Trump.
I'm sure many republicans voted on party lines and hoped for the best. But surely there were fewer of these than there were in previous elections -- and yet McCain and Romney lost.
Is this due to some new group of voters that never bothered to vote before? That's the way I'm leaning.
ETA:
Perhaps in part we can chalk it up to Clinton being less popular than Obama. Indeed, I'm sure we can. But I can say this--people in Manhattan were out in full force today, overwhelmingly voting Clinton, even though they knew New York would go Clinton. I went to vote at 6 am--and I had to wait for an hour. The line already wrapped around the block.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Nov 10, 2016 2:08:49 GMT -5
Yeah, Angie - jackboots already. They also both have 5 stars already. And blue ones at that! FIVE! The rest of us plebes only have 1. Hmmm, if I wasn't so god damned happy I have a place with familiar folks to discuss politics, I might even complain about the star issue. I mean really - FIVE stars? BTW, thanks for having me. I'll get over the star issue. Even though I have only one. And it's yellow.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Nov 10, 2016 2:35:40 GMT -5
I had a feeling he would do much better than the AW board was predicting. Kicking myself for not saying so, but the climate there wasn't very conducive to someone spouting that Trump would not only not lose by a landslide, but actually could win. I think a couple of contributing factors that tricked the polls are
1) undecided voters who went along party lines at the last moment. That's what an undecided voter is most likely to do in the end. And there were certainly more undecided Republicans than Dems. 2) voters who wouldn't admit they were voting for Trump. Can you blame them? Who wants that abuse? 3) Initially anti-Trump folks who were swayed by some very prominent and respected Republicans who backed Trump late in the game (i.e. Cruz, Victor Davis Hanson, Dennis Prager,) 4) Clinton didn't ignite the same passion 5) Yeah, I agree with Cass there must be some population of voters who came out of the woodwork in this election 6) Michael Moore's theory that voting for Trump was a big "F**K You to the establishment, and a big F**K You gets people off the couch to vote
That's all I got right now. Tired.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Nov 10, 2016 5:59:44 GMT -5
So here's a couple of serious questions for discussion: (1) how was the polling so off? Looking at the polls, I felt certain Clinton would win, and by a comfortable margin. So did most of us, I think. Did people lie in the polls? Were Trump supporters under-counted? Did people change their mind at the last minute? Was it the Comey effect? Some combination thereof? I tend to think it was a combination of all of the above. (2) who are the Trump voters? How is it that Romney (an infinitely better candidate by any measure, IMO) apparently captured fewer voters than Trump? I admit this one puzzles me. I know a fair number of republicans and conservatives in real life. They pretty much all went for Romney last time -- I think one or two went for Johnson. But this time? Only my brother voted Trump. Every last one of my republican and conservative friends disliked and distrusted Trump. Most went third party or write-in, at least one went Clinton, and at least one left the presidential spot blank. And it looks like this wasn't just my acquaintances -- it sounds like many well-known republicans and conservatives rejected Trump. I'm sure many republicans voted on party lines and hoped for the best. But surely there were fewer of these than there were in previous elections -- and yet McCain and Romney lost. Is this due to some new group of voters that never bothered to vote before? That's the way I'm leaning. ETA: Perhaps in part we can chalk it up to Clinton being less popular than Obama. Indeed, I'm sure we can. But I can say this--people in Manhattan were out in full force today, overwhelmingly voting Clinton, even though they knew New York would go Clinton. I went to vote at 6 am--and I had to wait for an hour. The line already wrapped around the block. 1) Hubris. Pollsters are among the court jesters of the political class. No matter what the raw data was telling them, it couldn't possibly be right if it was showing Trump, an outsider, as the victor. So a little massaging of the formula, and voila, the results were suddenly more believable. 2) Normal people living normal lives who were sick to death of the game, considered it rigged, and never considered that the "outsider" is rich, well-known and "successful" because he's been an insider all his life, simply setting on the other side of the table where they divvy up the spoils. I know a lot of Trump voters: they all live in the heartland, not on the left coast(s). They all live productive lives and think government interferes too much in those lives. They all work, and see a bigger hunk of their paycheck going off to do things they don't think are as critical as the uses they have for it. ...and the vast majority of them are not racists, misogynists, gay-bashers, or any more bigoted than the typical Hillary voter. They just want to be left the hell alone to live their lives. I don't think it was new voters that led to Trump. It was Democrats who didn't show up to vote, or Dems who went Trump or third-party. There are roughly 6 million votes Obama got that stayed home for Hillary. There's a slogan for those folks: "I stayed home for Hillary." Except they did decide it was worth getting off the couch to go protest in hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 10, 2016 7:58:13 GMT -5
I said in AW on a few occasions that it was clear people were looking for an anti establishment person to be in charge. Trumps nomination, the rise of Carson and Fiorina. Even Bernie. It was the same thing that drove Brexit. People are tired of wanting things one way and the people in power doing it there way. Obamacare is a great example. It was never accepted by the masses, the people didn't want it. Scott Brown was elected in MA because he opposed it, yet they passed it anyway. And now it's imploding.
And yes, people weren't honest with how they intended to vote. If you said you were voting for Trump, you were defacto racist, homphobic and otherwise an asshole.
On Facebook, there was a trend to de-friend anyone who supported Trump. Now, if you voted for him, you should de-friend them.
So the divide grows deeper.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 10, 2016 10:33:39 GMT -5
I didn't vote for Trump. But I was tempted, with all the folks self-righteously declaring that anyone who even thought about voting for anyone other than Clinton was a sexist, racist, homophobe.
I even admitted that I felt a wee bit tempted to do that on AW, and of course got lectured.
I think there were probably a lot of people like me, who actually gave in to temptation after one too many lectures.
The "fuck you" vote of people who know being honest in public will get you dogpiled was vastly underestimated.
Sigh. A couple of the people closest to me are in the "Everyone who voted for Trump is an irredeemable POS and I hate them forever!" camp. Absolute meltdown.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Nov 10, 2016 11:03:40 GMT -5
My daughter has a friend who is mixed race, and she asked anyone who voted for Trump to defriend her. There are protests still going. Students at Ivy league colleges have asked professors to post-pone exams because they are so distraught. What the hell? The left's own fear-mongering has gotten the best of them. Honestly, if Trump's victory speech is any indication of how he will behave as POTUS, I think we're going to be ok. It was an extremely humble speech. Not the fake kind of humble. And the first thing he did was ask those who oppose him for help and guidance. I don't think anyone can take on the enormous responsibility of POTUS and not be changed in some meaningful way. I think he will rise to the occasion. Of course, it's not just Trump the flawed human that scares the left, it's the idea of GOP policy and SCOTUS appointments.
|
|
tanstaafl
Pundit
Retired 11/01/2016 and loving it!
Posts: 91
|
Post by tanstaafl on Nov 10, 2016 11:31:55 GMT -5
|
|
tanstaafl
Pundit
Retired 11/01/2016 and loving it!
Posts: 91
|
Post by tanstaafl on Nov 10, 2016 12:08:29 GMT -5
#6 above: Most of the country, as evidenced by the results of the election, wanted something other than career politicians for leadership. Simply put, the average American (people's definition of average will vary), are not as stupid as the media, celebrity, etc "elites" think they are. They just felt powerless to do anything about it. On my recent ballot, half the spots were incumbents running unopposed. Some may say, well run against them. It is not that easy. There is a system and it is heavily weighted in favor of established incumbents. Where we were previously, anyone saying anything good about Trump was instantly demonized. In fact, in a poll only 5 indicated that Trump would win the election. I guarantee you none of those five would say anything in "public," because it would change nothing. Trump took advantage of what he saw, while the polls, the media, etc had blinders on. They consistently thought their "view" of the world was the only rational one. They were and are wrong. I think of it as common sense. Some people love to put labels on others, because they honestly think that anyone who voted for Trump was racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, etc. Nope. Common sense tells you half the country cannot have those labels applied. Some, yes, but not half the country. Another factor resonated with "average people." Language. Most of the time, Trump said whatever popped into his head, came out his mouth, which infuriated the "political correctness" crowd. I myself do not like the PC concept. Say what you really mean and eliminate the circumlocution: the use of many words to say something that could be said more clearly and directly by using fewer words www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiMvM6G1J7QAhXFeSYKHfKLCvoQFggzMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.com%2Fdictionary%2Fcircumlocution&usg=AFQjCNGVTijNBX1BoobEelIZ0_zUh_ryVQ&sig2=JIeZhC2jJGiLG49FYT-ulwThink of it as verbal judo. He used the establishment's weaknesses against them. If he had campaigned as a "normal" politician, he would not have gotten close to the White House. He played by his rules and won. There are possible implications to this approach as far as future political campaigns go, but that is not my point. The point is, most people in the country were and are sick of professional politicians. Has anyone here actually went to Trump's webpage and read his proposals for his first 100 days if elected? (actually, I suspect everyone HERE has done so). They were in place before the election.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 23:19:41 GMT -5
Don't know where to put this and I'm not sure it deserves its own thread, so I'll stick it here. I've avoided looking at the stock market since election day, since (in keeping with the stock future swoon once the tide started turning strongly in Trump's direction), I expected to get sorely depressed and angsty. But I finally put on my big girl pants and... it's up. Way up. The Dow is at 18,807. I mean, I'm glad. I hope it lasts. But I'm not sure how to reconcile it with the drastic decline on election night or the decline when Comey announced he was re-opening the Clinton email investigation.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 11, 2016 1:52:32 GMT -5
If we're here in four years to talk about how it all went, I'll probably be good with that..
Also, to respond to Cassandra, I wonder if we're in the age of the echo chamber, and pollsters and campaign machines suffer the same effect? In, say Google or Facebook, you click one link, and the engine feeds you more that are like it. You're served what you already looked for, not the diverging view. So, confirmation bias on one side, and people with different viewpoints operate with vast sets of opposing - and mutually exclusive - information.
Similarly, maybe poll/campaign methods lag the technology of news information? Or it's like an eighties film -- a room full of MBA's, none of whome has been on a farm or a factory floor. I imagine not, but there's clearly something missing.
The last thing would be, as tanstaafl maybe that people discount what they see if it doesn't support their expected result. In the election's aftermath, I realised that as repugnant as Trump is to me as a person, I didn't really do my due diligence on Hillary Clinton, if I'm fearless about it.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 11, 2016 7:01:56 GMT -5
I mean, I'm glad. I hope it lasts. But I'm not sure how to reconcile it with the drastic decline on election night or the decline when Comey announced he was re-opening the Clinton email investigation. I think that on election night, futures tanked for two reasons: 1) Some people panicked over the idea of a Trump presidency, or assumed others would do this and shorted the market (and they got creamed) 2) Others saw a potential repeat of 2000, where the election would get dragged into the courts, and the market doesn't like that kind of uncertainty. But when it became clear that Trump would be President with a fully Repub congress, that went away. Because there's some certainty with regard to what's on the table, now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 20:31:53 GMT -5
Yes, I'm sure you're right. The market does hate uncertainty. Hell, so do I.
Heh. I have to note this is the first election where both my liberal and conservative real-life friends are feeling bummed out. (As I've said, none of my conservative friends liked Trump. They went Johnson or write-in, and in at least one case, Clinton.)
I just spoke with one of my conservative friends for the first time since the election. I asked him to say something optimistic. He said (paraphrasing) "Trump is old, he likes to win and move on, and he really enjoys the golf course. He probably won't want to stick around for eight years." That cracked me up.
|
|