Random Politics & Religion #18

What was the margin of error for those? Those are a part of the predictions that get minimized in reporting.

If your not a proper liberal then your an ignorant, sexist, racist, homophobic, islamophobe who should be marginalized.

That is the default line every Progressive is running with, notice how none of them have stopped to explain or comment but still have that basic assumption. Their only criticism about Trump is how he talks, which is similar to how many rural folk speak. This was on purpose, he crafted a national image that would draw support from an area that nobody was bothering to draw from.

The only real "divisive" thing about Trump is that he doesn't want general amnesty for New Democrat Voters I mean illegal residents umm I mean "undocumented not-yet-Americans". Basically him and his supporters don't think the Democrats should be able to suddenly increase their voter base by disposing with Federal immigration laws, which is all they want to do. Otherwise he's ran on a very "us pulling together" platform and thus the whole slogan of "Make American Great Again". Clinton's campaign was pretty much nothing but character assassination and "we're better then you ignorant uneducated country folk". Lets be "more equal" by focusing exclusively on urbanites, LGBT and illegal aliens and just assume Women will vote for her because they share the same reproduction parts.

Yeah watching this whole thing was interesting, from the beginning I had a very strong indication on how this would turn out. Trumps biggest hurdle was winning the Republican primary, once that happened he had to just maintain his position, which he did masterfully. That night on the first Republican debate, I saw how he acted, talked and knew instantly he was going to win.

I'm not even a Trump supporter, I just see this ***from a mile away because I don't cloud my own perception with a ideological religion. Too many people worship their political ideology instead of taking a pragmatic approach.

Day 2: Cry about the media some more.

Mmm, I think that's a stretch. He did awful in the first "debate," and was practically incoherent except on a few points. He showed up for the second one with fire though, and he really only needed to meet with and level out the field against Clinton, since by that point, there really wasn't anything he could do that was going to scare away his base.

Which, honestly, I think the rural versus urban thing is being a little bit overplayed. A good chunk of his votes came from people who couldn't stomach Hillary and reluctantly voted for Trump to try and ensure her defeat. It was a surprise for everyone, really. I mean, maybe I presume too much, but I can sure as hell tell you that the vast majority of my friends were just as silent as I was about who they were voting for(except the Hillary ones, they were loud and out to shame), and had little or no knowledge as to just how many people intended on voting for him. It really felt like another election year where I was casting my vote into a furnace.

He smashed that debate.

These are political debates not academic ones. The objective isn't to score points on some scoreboard or rationally convince voters to vote one way or another, humans don't work that way emotionally. In political debates you want to demonstrate independence, strength of character and project an identity that will emotionally attract people to you. Trump ignored the debate material entirely and focused exclusively on attracting disenfranchised voters by demonstrating he wasn't a "Republican Politician". He deliberately discarded the typical playbook of identity politics "see I'm like you so vote for me". His clinching line was when he publicly acknowledged that he previously bought Hillary Clinton's support and that she did what he wanted when he wanted it done. That single moment is what attracted the majority of his support base because no political or party drone would be that honest.

There is a book everyone needs to read to understand politics and manipulating people, 48 Laws of Power. It's Machiavellian as *** and throws morality into the trash bin, it's also highly accurate and truthful on how things work. One of the lessons is not to attempt to win arguments with words and instead use actions. Demonstrate don't explicate. People will innately recognize and follow actions, words are secondary. There are other books, but that's the big one.


It's not, that is exactly what happened. Rural voters don't usually vote and the disparity is so large that Hillary didn't even bother campaigning for them. They weren't on anyone's radar, nobody asked them, and the few who did ask didn't get a reply. Thus everyone's sudden "shock" moment. Rural America has suffered greatly from the economic downturn and all the recovery has gone into the cities which were effected the least. The voters living in those area's are angry that politicians, on both sides, refuse to acknowledge them or give assistance. All the liberal economic assistance plans were exclusive to Urban area's, all the Republicans rhetoric was also towards urban area's, because "that's where the voters are".


Wasn't for me. I said this would happen last year during the primary and everyone was like "nah can't happen blah blah". Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate, Democrats will vote for the Democrat candidate, there are more Democrat voters in the USA then there are Republican due to population distribution. This means all Democrat candidates get a gigantic advantage in elections, Republican candidates need to run a near perfect campaign to win while Democrat candidates can afford to screw up left and right. Hillary could of murdered children on national TV and would of won if Trump didn't run a phenomenal campaign. Hillary, and most Democrats, were betting on that advantage and carefully monitoring how all those urban voters felt to plan their strategy. And then rural Americans turned out in numbers not seen in awhile and voted.

I posed the link earlier that broke down the distribution of voters based on size of area, pretty stark difference.

Trump ran the most offensive, negative campaign in history, offered no policy plans whatsoever, still waiting on that "health care for everyone" plan, got a huge lift from the FBI, and squeaked by. Dems could have ran the exact same campaign they did, with any candidate not under FBI investigation, and they run away with it. Trump did not run a "phenomenal" campaign. Its not gonna be hard to beat him in 2020, they don't even have to run a star out there.

It's worth noting that the largest Wisconsin lead for Clinton (+8) in the final week had the smallest margin of error, 1.8. Usually they're around 3-5.

One thing I should point out: There's a very common mistake people make regarding the margins of error. For example, let's say you had 10 polls with a 3 point margin of error all giving a single candidate +2. The average of the polls is +2 obviously, so the the candidates are within the margin of error of each other, right? Nope. That's not how the math works.

Wisconsin isn't the best example since almost all of the last polls were wrong, being outside of the margin. Same for Michigan, minus one poll. Pennsylvania was similar to Wisconsin until the very last week, and even then it still had an average of 1.9 in favor of Clinton.

There's no defending the accuracy of the state polls in these swing states, they were simply dead wrong.

Must be good timing for the Dems, because they don't have one anymore. Their "star" bench is older and whiter than even the Republicans'.

Oh, and you can now bend over, put your head between your knees, and kiss your net neutrality goodbye.

Trump said to elevate Ajit Pai to FCC chairman

Politico

I'm not defending the state polls. I'm just still trying to understand this mentality of not trusting national favorability polls when the national election polls were accurate.

If you're going by that Gallup article for your claims of accuracy, even they can't seem to figure out how a margin of error works for an averaged sample (there's a reason it's blank on RCP). Beyond that, they're quoting the RCP average, which is okay in some cases but with the national polls it isn't a great idea. Let me demonstrate why using an example:

Pollster 1 polls 100 people, shows Candidate #1 with a +10 lead.
Pollster 2 polls 1000000 people, shows a tie.
RCP Average? +5 to Candidate #1. This is misleading.

RCP uses a simple average. It doesn't rule out outliers and it doesn't factor in individual margins of error or sample sizes for weighting. In this case, using my own quick calculations the +3.2 Clinton RCP average should be at least a point higher, even more if you take out the outlier. It's not as accurate as it appears.

Newsflash: They both did.

Or are you going to say that calling out a quarter of the nation as deplorable is better than calling a small grouping of people rapists/murderers? Even if you go by ChantiMath™ and say it's only ~8% of the nation (26 million people), it's still greater than 11 million liberals/democrats stated that Trump said were rapists/murderers.

Either way, they were both guilty of running what is considered the most offensive, negative presidential campaign in known history.

WTF ... they aren't even close to accurate.

We don't trust these pools because they, like all the rest, are not an accurate measurement of what people in the US think or feel. They are only a measurement of a select demographic, registered voters who answer their phones and live near an urban center. That is the exact same mistake that was made in prediction Hillary would win by a large comfortable margin.

Hey guys, I know these folks were dead wrong about their predictions, but lets ignore that and totally believe their statement that American's really hate the President they just voted for...

It's an exercise in masturbation

I wouldn't know anything about that....

Sure, I will easily say that Clinton making one comment one time in a year long campaign is way, way better than Trump's daily assaults on an ever rotating target of the day. Whether it was Hispanics, Women, Men, Muslims, African Americans, somebody in the media, somebody in the audience, his own campaign staff, Democrats, Republicans, it was a daily occurrence. As in, every day Trump attacked someone. Clinton didn't even come close to the negativity that oozes out of Trump.

And he hasn't changed at all, first day of his Presidency he was on the attack in a highly aggressive speech. Second day, on the attack in a bizarre "speech" to the CIA, then sending his little attack dog of a press secretary out to attack the media in a really entertaining hissy fit.

Looking over it I don't see much negativity on Trumps side. What I see is a ***ton of Liberal media taking things he said and making them negative by blowing them out of proportion and twisting them out of context.

I mean are we really considering border control and immigration enforcement as "offensive"? That's kind of normal stuff that every other nation in the world does on a daily basis. I don't know of any European countries that permit illegal aliens to stay nor do any of them permit foreigners with a criminal record to stay. They also don't permit rampant unchecked crossing of their borders.

Yet somehow America is expected to just allow unchecked illegal immigration from South and Central America without any measure to control or stop it. In fact not only should we permit it but we should hand out citizenship to any that cross over along with a Democrat Registration card. That is about as stupid and nonsensical as it gets, but it's a "Progressive" ideal so it should be worshiped and anyone who disagrees is a sexist, racist, homophobic, ignorant bigot and should be shamed until their fired from their job.

Liberals ran a far more negative campaign, they actively attack trump supporters in public and created such a negative social stigma to be labeled a "trump supporter" that most just hid their support until voting day. The University campuses were the worst, being labeled a "Trump Supporter" was a death sentence for any social life and if the professors found out about it you might get harassed and graded harder.

So salty.

I think I can summarize it:

Seems the democrats are either in denial or anger depending on the day of the week.

Well the stages aren't always linear, someone suffering will frequently go back and forth before eventually moving on and accepting.

Well seeing this is a video game forum I don't think anyone here accepts reality...

Its more like laughing. Make sure to check out the temper tantrum from the press secretary.

Yfw you though all your rivals were 3 stages further into the 5 stages of grief than they really were.

I'm not saying Democrats are losers but they did lose the election...

Now like most people when we lose we always blame someone else be it Russians or white nationalists or KKK or somebody. But never take personal accountability for why you lose. Just keep doing what you are doing and maybe someday you can win !

Ok, hold onto that for 4 years, see where you end up.

After 4 years of comedy, I think I will be ok.

If we didn't have a sense of humor what sense would we have. It would be a bitchfest and that already happened today during the march...

I heard turnout was better than yesterday.