[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.

[Brackenspore]

 

[Archbob]

Obviously, hindsight is 2020. Most experts thought Trump was wasting time in the Great Lakes States. Wisconsin is the real head turner. A name little heard lately is important--Scott Walker. The Governor built a machine that was very efficient at turning out the GOP vote for Trump and Ron Johnson. It has been noted that for the first time in history there were no split tickets, ie states with President from one party and Senator from the other.

The flip side is that Trump did much better in states with a strong Republican Senate candidate. Where he was creamed, eg California and New York, there was no Senate race. Did he piggy-back on GOP TotV efforts more than most realize?

J

Probably. I think Wisconsin around the Green bay Area really hurt democrats but that area is always republican. I think that some people were just upset that Obama didn't make miracles happen. He actually did pretty well as president. The economy we have now is better than the one Romney promised 4 years ago. The GOP has just done a great job of spinning it to make things look bad. If you compare where we are now to where we were 8 years ago when Obama took over, its not even argueable that it's better.

Walker has been pretty disasterious for Wisconsin but he's built a pretty good machine.

The national polls weren't really off, it ended up being Clinton +2.5%.

 

[onejayhawk]

Probably. I think Wisconsin around the Green bay Area really hurt democrats but that area is always republican. I think that some people were just upset that Obama didn't make miracles happen. He actually did pretty well as president. The economy we have now is better than the one Romney promised 4 years ago. The GOP has just done a great job of spinning it to make things look bad. If you compare where we are now to where we were 8 years ago when Obama took over, its not even argueable that it's better.

Walker has been pretty disasterious for Wisconsin but he's built a pretty good machine.

The national polls weren't really off, it ended up being Clinton +2.5%.

Where do you get 2.5%? The final numbers is 1.63%.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2016&off=0&elect=0&f=0

The national polls had Clinton up more than 3%. RCP final average was 3.2% H2H and 3.3% 4-way. What you have is Clinton overperforming/Trump underperforming in California by around 3% each. The spread polled at 23.0% and voted at 29.3%. That was more than enough to swing the popular vote. Trump won the rest of the country by over 1%.

It looks like they will finally call Michigan.
http://leglobaliste.com/2016/11/25/clinton-trump-latest-2016-election-results-president-elect/

J

 

[Camikaze]

The national polls weren't 'really' off in the sense that they were within a very normal range of polling error. In 2012 the final RCP average had Obama up by 0.7, and he ended up winning by 3.9, which is about double the current national polling error this time around.

 

[onejayhawk]

The national polls weren't 'really' off in the sense that they were within a very normal range of polling error. In 2012 the final RCP average had Obama up by 0.7, and he ended up winning by 3.9, which is about double the current national polling error this time around.

The LA Times had Trump. Other than small concerns, they were pretty lonely. They also pulled the average down by 0.7%. Leave them out (justified because of a very different approach) and the error is about 2.2%. It's less than 3.1%, but it is 'really' off.

The impact of California adding an unexpected 800,000 Clinton votes is difficult to overstate. That discrepancy is 40% of the national total. It is more than Trump's margin in all six flip states combined.

J

 

[Camikaze]

You could play the same game to produce an even greater polling error in 2012. It's true that there was less consistency this time, save for the last day herding, and so the LA Times, being 4.5 points off in the other direction, drags the polling error down, even though it displayed one of the largest polling errors. But that's perhaps a reason not to use a polling average; not a reason to say that the polling average wasn't closer to the end result.

 

[onejayhawk]

There is some justice to that. The Times is different because they used a closed group and re-polled regularly. It is neither right nor wrong, just their methodology. However, it makes sense to treat it separately. That said, the state polls, particularly in the last two weeks, were also off. Clinton led by 5.1% in Wisconsin, losing by 1%, net of 6.1%. In NC is was a net of 4.3%, MI 4.1%, PA 4.9%. Other close states, not so much. FL was net of 1.8%, AZ was 1.9%, NV netted 1.2% toward Clinton. New York was quite close, net of 1.1 toward Clinton.

This looks like a regional thing. The midwest as one region, California as the other.

J

 

[Takhisis]

Of course, Drumpf just has to come out saying that people voted HRC illegally. He's getting quite close to stating outright that her voters shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

[Arakhor]

So much for "presidential" Trump, unless people somehow think that he'll have a personality transplant come January.

 

[onejayhawk]

So much for "presidential" Trump, unless people somehow think that he'll have a personality transplant come January.

You could be assured that Clinton would look more Presidential. It's a pretty superficial way of viewing the White House, but there it is.

J

 

[Arakhor]

Given that Trump's composure is also pretty superficial, it should suit him perfectly (if only he could pull it off for more than a few days at a time).

 

[Takhisis]

Is it sprayed on?

 

[Berzerker]

Trump railed against Hillary for the email scandal and now he's considering Petraeus?

The dude gave his GF classified info!

 

[onejayhawk]

Trump railed against Hillary for the email scandal and now he's considering Petraeus?

The dude gave his GF classified info!

What are you saying? Is Clinton's email a bigger deal or is Patreus' not so much?

J

 

[Berzerker]

they're both big deals...you (and I mean Trump) cant complain about Hillary if he's gonna hire a man who gave classified info to his GF/journalist

 

[Archbob]

There wasn't anything in Clinton's emails. It was a while lotta hoopla about nothing that the GOP invented.

 

[Commodore]

There wasn't anything in Clinton's emails. It was a while lotta hoopla about nothing that the GOP invented.

Nothing criminal against Clinton, sure. Those emails did end up exposing the ugly inner-workings of the DNC though, and I think that was ultimately a good thing even though it probably significantly contributed to Trump's win. I'm hoping being exposed like they were will force the DNC to change in positive ways.

 

[onejayhawk]

Nothing criminal against Clinton, sure. Those emails did end up exposing the ugly inner-workings of the DNC though, and I think that was ultimately a good thing even though it probably significantly contributed to Trump's win. I'm hoping being exposed like they were will force the DNC to change in positive ways.

There was criminal mishandling of classified data. I talked to a Marine in Signals Intelligence. He said that he would have been executed for what she did.

J

 

[Zkribbler]

Of course, Drumpf just has to come out saying that people voted HRC illegally. He's getting quite close to stating outright that her voters shouldn't be allowed to vote.

As the person who will soon be heading up the Executive Branch, the branch of government which enforces our laws, it is encumbrance upon Mr. Trump to contact ICE and specifically identify these millions of illegal voting aliens.

 

[Arakhor]

I talked to a Marine in Signals Intelligence. He said that he would have been executed for what she did.

Well, I guess that a random marine knows better than the FBI but seriously, capital punishment?? I think your 'contact' may have been indulging in a bit (a whole load) of hyperbole.