Trump will win!

Discussions
User avatar
Aaron Richards
Poster
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:03 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Aaron Richards » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:11 am

The mistake you people made, is taking expert polls and media coverage more seriously than repeating digits conveying prophetic powers of a cartoon frog repeatedly posted on a mongolian basket weaving imageboard.
Pls subscribe to my YouTube channel "Holocaust Documents": www.youtube.com/channel/UCTBlSXrf0b0aeUn5jIhWm7g
I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: imgur.com/a/725A7
and here: imgur.com/a/wo09c

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26152
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:22 am

Apparently!
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:54 am

Hi everyone. I express my deep sympathy to my USA friends, for this bad news. I got it wrong. We all got it wrong, regarding our predictions.

I imagine it is reasonable to quietly self reflect for a while, but as there were entire groups of people who voted for Trump for the wrong reasons, and, as it seems probable that Trump will make future unpopular errors, then the best action is to think of alternative policies that gain these people back to the Democrat cause. The Democrats must have something ready to put on the table, when Trump trade tariffs takes away what these voters already have. ( I don't know what that is yet.)

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:08 am

Balsamo and I will disagree on this: IMO the racist nationalist vote, which is not a new phenomenon and is always there in US politics, prevailed because the Democrats failed to turn their voters out in support of the elitist wing of the party's leadership.
I disagree only partly, as it is undeniable that racist nationalists did vote for Trump. I disagree in that i don't believe there are 60.000.000 of them, the same way i do not agree with the assumption that 36% of the French Population are nostalgic of Marechal Petain...

It kind of remind me what one of the commentator was saying on CNN last night, at around 6 pm, when everyone was so certain of a Clinton's win, it was a lady proposing a "deep reflection" about how the GOP lost its chance to win a presidency because of the "choice they allegedly made to focus on the white voters. She concluded : " You just can't win insulting women, latinos, blacks, etc."
Given that we are now told that 52% of the white women voted for Trump as close to 30% of the those of Latinos who chose to vote...Oh and it also seem that some white WITH a college degree (as if those were the only ones given some form of intelligence) did chose Trump in some of the Blue States....

This is the reason - i think - the Polls were wrong. We - and i can say the Western societies - have pushed the concept of "Political correctness" so far, making it so absolute, that it completely blurred the picture. Reality is that we are all humans, with the goods and the bads. It is not permitted to laugh at a racist joke in public, but in private, well some are "funny". Laughing at some of them does not turn you into a white power fascist!
The fate in "the Political correctness dogma" gives the feeling that it is enough to tag someone a Racist, and to then considered that everything has been said. In another link posted by Statmec about one of Donny's add - the one about international finance including Sorros, the fed and Goldman Sachs...I think it was the Huffington post...anyway, in a couple of lines, the conclusion was imposed: Sorros is a Jew, as well as the chairmen of the Fed and of Course Goldman Sachs...so the add has to be Anti-Semitic...pure logic. We all feel better, no more discussion needed...
This believe that Tagging people is enough and tells it all... You suspect the government to do some bad things behind your back? "Well you are showing tendencies to be a Conspiracies believer, my friend"

This theory is now dead. Trump destroyed it in one night! Trump managed to break all the rules - and i mean everyone of them - of "political correctness" and be elected president of the USA. I think this is even one of the main reasons of his success. He dared to scream out what was forbidden to be told, and somehow it kind of brought some relieve to many.

Don't get me wrong. It can be a good thing to teach people not to have bad manners. Just like everyone agrees that it is a good think to teach their kids not to use "bad words", but everyone of us, feel sometime the need to scream a huge "FUUUUU&%&%&%&%&%K" once in a while, right?

Like everything, a good thing, a good idea, applied in excess turns it into bad things and bad idea.

Political correctness makes it impossible to really assess some important issues like Racism, especially when its definition is extend to some social natural "phenomenon" like xenophobia.
There is a difference between a skinheads screaming that "Blacks are Apes" and a citizen who is scared by gangs in his neighborhood at night and say "with all those Black gangs, the neighborhood has become {!#%@}". The fist is expressing a disgusting hatred, the second is expressing his fear". This is or used to be the fundamental difference between the two. Of course, Xenophobia might give birth to "racist acts", but while there is nothing much to do with a racist {!#%@}, acts of Xenophobia can and should be prevented.
The result is that people just don't dare to tell the truth to the Pollsters...
" Are you going to vote for trump?"
" Oh no, he is a bad guy" (thinking "the hell i'll vote for him")

This has become a blindness, the kind that prevent the Democrat Party to fully understand the "Bernie" phenomenon, a blindness that convinced those Super delegates that they could just impose their candidates as long as there was enough money to do it - a pretty half a billion in that case - that it would be easy to make the masses forget how corrupt she and her husband were, how unfaithful she was to the basic democrat ideals, provided her husband would be given an opportunity to make a 750.000 million, to speach...to forget that the Americans - since their betrayal of the good kind of England a couple of centuries ago - do not like Monarchy or Oligarchy...the prospect of seeing Bill "Have a Cigar" back in the white house...again...Well, to sum up, the hard belief that with money and the media, everything was possible... Even to turn the worst choice as candidate into a president...

Well Trump broke this belief too...

And finally, the idea that there can be Political Leaders outside a concrete structure of Nation-State.
Bernie called the youngsters and its partisans to vote for Hilary, of course, some did, most said they would, and in fine...Hilary lost in those very states Bernie won during the primaries.

I did mention that months ago...She won the primaries thanks to States she would never win in the final election. I get Bernie would have kept Michigan , Wisconsin and Ohio... Bernie would have won, i am certain of that.

StatMec:
But Balsamo and I will likely agree on this: it will be wonderful to see the backsides of the Clintons for the last time although it should have happened a long time ago.
Of course, it is an understatement. I wish this can become a huge WAKE UP CALL for everyone in charge. Bernie showed a way...No one but his supporters wanted to see it... The Democrats will now have 4 quiet years to look into it and think about it.
A dream that for once some people would have a deeper look into this amazing Clinton foundation, as well as in Bill's lucrative speech job.
I wonder how many will still contribute to them in the next four years, unless of course, all those contributors only recognized all the charitable merits of the CLF... We'll see...

More later... :mrgreen:

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27332
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Trump will win!

Post by scrmbldggs » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:11 am

Balsamo wrote:Trump managed to break all the rules - and i mean everyone of them...
I hear he's asking (still?, again?) for donations... :?
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Paul Anthony » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:37 am

Some Californians are making serious plans to get a referendum on the next ballot to secede from the Union. They can't. The Civil War made that pretty clear, but these are people who were educated in California schools so they don't know squat about history...or law...or much of anything else.

They think California IS the nation, and if they left the other 49 states would crumble. They don't realize that if they left, the US would remove all the military bases that provide much of their revenue. They also don't realize...THEY DON'T HAVE ANY WATER!

I say, let 'em go. Without California's 55 electoral votes, the Democrats will never win another national election. :twisted:
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26152
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:19 am

So tonight I left the tapas place, made a wrong turn and came upon a sea of blue lights and sirens. The main drag we have to take back to my neighborhood was completely shut down, the roadway black. Cop cars blocking all the entrances. My wife asked what the hell. I said probably a demonstration against Trump at Trump Tower. A lot of people aren't going to like this {!#%@}, I said. She laughed. Said it would be great though, wouldn't it? A couple of miles of highway going the opposite direction were part of the shut down. Cop cars, ambulances, sirens. My wife googled: "Thousands of protesters block Trump Tower, shut down traffic in angry demonstrations against Trump." A good chunk of downtown seems to be closed off. We kind of circled around - past a line of traffic going the opposite way, the cars not moving, horns honking loudly and happily, cheers coming from the cars - and just made it home.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26152
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:31 am

Balsamo wrote:
Balsamo and I will disagree on this: IMO the racist nationalist vote, which is not a new phenomenon and is always there in US politics, prevailed because the Democrats failed to turn their voters out in support of the elitist wing of the party's leadership.
I disagree only partly . . .
If I follow this, you miss the point. Trump got, again, fewer votes than Romney did. The racist-nationalist vote is imbedded in that vote. Trump didn't win because he turned out and energized an expanded base; he won because Clinton turned off and failed to turn out 6m Obama voters, so to speak. Any explanation of this election has to take this rather shocking performance failure into account.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26152
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:47 am

2016 President, vote winner by income:

Image
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:23 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Balsamo wrote:
Balsamo and I will disagree on this: IMO the racist nationalist vote, which is not a new phenomenon and is always there in US politics, prevailed because the Democrats failed to turn their voters out in support of the elitist wing of the party's leadership.
I disagree only partly . . .
If I follow this, you miss the point. Trump got, again, fewer votes than Romney did. The racist-nationalist vote is imbedded in that vote. Trump didn't win because he turned out and energized an expanded base; he won because Clinton turned off and failed to turn out 6m Obama voters, so to speak. Any explanation of this election has to take this rather shocking performance failure into account.

Well, you can see it that way.
I would guess that the racist-nationalist were already voting for Romney 4 years ago.

There is no use to personify the failure. Hilary was not alone, she was part of a system and a logic. A System, a logic and a perception that led them to strongly believe it was an easy win.
The minorities did not mobilize at the same level than for Obama - who was a real hope for change -but did they got the promised changes?
As far as i know, under Obama, Black lives did not matter much more than under Bush, the prison system is still a shithole that is now more and more privatized to a point where chinese noodles replaced cigarettes as the main jail currency. Obama did not deliver.
Latinos, i really wonder what White Americans really knows about them... I mean i live in Latin America ... Too late to extend this point.

But just one thing for thought...What about all those polls showing Republicans not voting for Trump? Another wrong interpretation of data? Or is it just possible that Trump made up the difference else where?

Xcalibur
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Xcalibur » Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:01 am

That feeling you get when the point you've been trying to get across for the last 18 months finally gets picked up on by the press... the {!#%@} day after the election:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-liberals :roll:

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26152
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 10, 2016 11:59 am

Balsamo wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Balsamo wrote:
Balsamo and I will disagree on this: IMO the racist nationalist vote, which is not a new phenomenon and is always there in US politics, prevailed because the Democrats failed to turn their voters out in support of the elitist wing of the party's leadership.
I disagree only partly . . .
If I follow this, you miss the point. Trump got, again, fewer votes than Romney did. The racist-nationalist vote is imbedded in that vote. Trump didn't win because he turned out and energized an expanded base; he won because Clinton turned off and failed to turn out 6m Obama voters, so to speak. Any explanation of this election has to take this rather shocking performance failure into account.

Well, you can see it that way.
I would guess that the racist-nationalist were already voting for Romney 4 years ago.

There is no use to personify the failure. Hilary was not alone, she was part of a system and a logic. A System, a logic and a perception that led them to strongly believe it was an easy win.
The minorities did not mobilize at the same level than for Obama - who was a real hope for change -but did they got the promised changes?
As far as i know, under Obama, Black lives did not matter much more than under Bush, the prison system is still a shithole that is now more and more privatized to a point where chinese noodles replaced cigarettes as the main jail currency. Obama did not deliver.
Latinos, i really wonder what White Americans really knows about them... I mean i live in Latin America ... Too late to extend this point.

But just one thing for thought...What about all those polls showing Republicans not voting for Trump? Another wrong interpretation of data? Or is it just possible that Trump made up the difference else where?
I can see it that way because that's what I saw when I looked at the data on the election. I didn't have a preconceived idea of what I would see and what it would tell me. When I looked at the data on voting, I expected to be taken to why Trump won, not why Clinton lost (I was looking for how big Trump's popular vote margin was LOL). But I was a bit stunned to see both candidates with popular vote under Romney. You can ignore that or make something else of it or whatever. But it is not a way of seeing the election to recognize that both candidates lacked Obama's reach and that the Democrats cannot win without that reach - it strikes me as a characteristic of the election and a significant one: both candidates received fewer popular votes than Romney in '12 (about 1m). The Democratic candidate received about 6m fewer votes than the Democrat in '12. Both candidates, btw, got about what McCain got in '08 - and 10m voters fewer than Obama in '08. I happen to think that this is important in assessing the nature of Trump's victory and the Democrats' loss.

This is important: McCain, Romney, Trump, Clinton all got about the same number of popular votes. Since '08, only Obama expanded the vote and created a broad coalition.

Clinton represented the narrow part of the Democratic party that cannot win. Under her leadership, the Democratic party shrunk to the size of the Republicans, which stayed the same throughout, remarkably.

In a perhaps ironic twist, these data suggest to me that it is the Democrats who face a come-to-Jesus moment. I know that many Democrats will resist this but the data suggest that the party will lose more often than not by nominating soulless, competent experts and technocrats - the moderate triangulators the Clintons have wanted the party to be - and directing its appeal to the very poor on the one hand (based on outdated but sticky perceptions of the party to some degree) and, on the other, these well-off "liberals" and "reasonable" folks. Clinton was a riskier nominee in this sense than Sanders, despite the condescending lectures Clinton supporters handed out in volume during the primaries about the adult in the room, electability, the McGovern debacle, etc.

The candidate the Democratic party ran, representing (and promising) what that candidate represented (and promised), is, with this in mind, crucial. Clintonistas, despite their rhetoric, don't know how to speak to the "middle." A vote for Clinton was a vote for the technology crowd that backed her, for the Goldman Sachs crowd, the upwardly mobile/successful crowd. Anecdotally the black vote was off more than people expected - that tells me something about how Clinton was taken and how Clinton took African Americans (for granted). Clinton is a hawkish elitist, was judged that way - or at least as out of touch, by many Obama voters; she had no reach beyond the Democratic voting core - a narrower appeal than her defenders imagined.

All this also suggests that some of the conclusions of Trump supporters are also facile. The "middle" has not' turned right-nationalist overnight. Much of the middle didn't apparently vote at all this election.

The appeal of Clinton is not the appeal of Sanders. To say that isn't to "personalize" the election. Nor do all candidates possess the same campaigning and "marketing" skills; Clinton, already unpopular, had dismal skills in that department. My wife kept saying that the nominee should have Biden - IMO Biden likely would have beaten Trump - by turning out a couple million more votes. Who knows? But the turnout data are stark. They don't fit easy answers. The data do show that "Republicans came home" to a significant degree. Polls did not show how many "defense moms" would vote for Trump - and that may have been where the hidden Trump vote lay. There was clearly some swapping - latter-day Reagan Democrats voting Trump and moderate Republicans voting Clinton or staying home. But Trump still got fewer votes than Romney.

PS - thanks @Xcalibur for the Frank piece. I think there's more racism and nationalism in the Trump vote than he does, but as always he is really good on this stuff.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Aaron Richards
Poster
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:03 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Aaron Richards » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:06 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:2016 President, vote winner by income:

Image
Does this bust the myth that Trump got the lower wage blue-collar working class vote? I doubt people in the rust belt are making more
Pls subscribe to my YouTube channel "Holocaust Documents": www.youtube.com/channel/UCTBlSXrf0b0aeUn5jIhWm7g
I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: imgur.com/a/725A7
and here: imgur.com/a/wo09c

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Trump will win!

Post by OutOfBreath » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:45 pm

Aaron Richards wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:2016 President, vote winner by income:

Image
Does this bust the myth that Trump got the lower wage blue-collar working class vote? I doubt people in the rust belt are making more
You might say he won those who are worried about ending up "down there" eventually even if they're good now... fear won.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5509
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by gorgeous » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:12 pm

Trump is honored with a water salute...usually only for war heroes or a retiring pilot's last flight....[ytube][/ytube]
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27332
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Trump will win!

Post by scrmbldggs » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:31 pm

georgie wrote:Trump is honored with a water salute...
He already got peed on?
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5128
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Trump will win!

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:54 pm

His voters are so proud of his connections to Russia:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mo ... ge%2Fstory

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Tallboy » Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:24 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote: "If you've been interviewed, you know that how the questions are phrased goes a long way toward determining what the answers will be. Change the wording, and you change the outcome. That's how polls are manipulated."

Yeah, that one asking which candidate I was going to vote for really determined my answer.
StatMech-- I know this was a few pages back... playing catch up. interesting contributions in this thread.

you bring up a good point here, that asking who you will vote for is pretty unambiguous. But to expand on this a bit...

In assessing where the polls went wrong, this question doesn't really answer what the question is really trying to get at, which is 'who will win the election?' as it doesn't take into account whether that person will actually go and vote. polls (USC/LA Times, IIRC) had questions about how enthusiastic the respondent was about their candidate. This could be thought of as an indicator of how likely the person is to actually go out and exercise that vote. Clinton was leading when the question was 'who will you vote for' but losing (often big) when the question of enthusiasm was asked. obviously, it doesn't matter who your preference is if you don't actually register your vote. I think this was a big part of why many polls led us astray.

Gord: This appears to be an example of 'Simpson's Paradox' which was brought up in the dice thread ;) i.e., that a result in the aggregate (Clinton leading Trump in voter preferences) can flip in the opposite direction when taking a confounding factor into account (enthusiasm, or likelihood that the respondent will actually vote).

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26152
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:14 pm

Agree. Your comment ties into the anemic Democratic turnout. Also, I answered the polling company honestly: I plan to vote, I will vote for X. I would not be surprised to find that white women did not answer the "who" question honestly across the board. Trump won white women in the end. I have to go back and look at polling on this. This isn't leading wording in this case but rather a combination of not asking all the right questions and the existence of the "ashamed" Trump vote pollsters said didn't exist.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26152
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:23 pm

Aaron Richards wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:2016 President, vote winner by income:

Image
Does this bust the myth that Trump got the lower wage blue-collar working class vote? I doubt people in the rust belt are making more
I posted this to provoke questions (and to have it here for me to think about).

I would say, first, that this is not the chart you'd create on the basis of much of the post-election commentary, including that from Trump supporters and right-wingers. Overall Trump's supporters were more affluent than Clinton's. The chart is dissonant and a bit surprising in that sense.

The 2nd point that struck me was the largest group - 31% 50k-100k - where the largest margin for Trump was. There will be a lot of blue collar voters in this group, not jobless, not ruined, probably not victimized by trade. I do think there are a lot of rust-belt working class people in this category. But Trump's edge with this large middle group - and if 50k-200k is the broad middle - then with the entire middle is clear. This makes me want to drill down into ethnicity, gender, location, etc compared to income. What motivated these voters? When we say economics, what about economics? What other factors? And so on?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Tallboy » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:56 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Agree. Your comment ties into the anemic Democratic turnout. Also, I answered the polling company honestly: I plan to vote, I will vote for X. I would not be surprised to find that white women did not answer the "who" question honestly across the board. Trump won white women in the end. I have to go back and look at polling on this. This isn't leading wording in this case but rather a combination of not asking all the right questions and the existence of the "ashamed" Trump vote pollsters said didn't exist.
yep. I'm sure a lot of people answered honestly as well, then got lazy and didn't turn out to vote. the goal is to design questions that give a more accurate answer. the enthusiasm question is probably a better gauge of whether someone will go out and vote than asking if they will. conjecture on my part of course.

In addition to white women, I also recall (I may be wrong... have to check) that the Black and Hispanic vote for Trump was underestimated as well.

this shows how hard you have to think when designing polling/suvery questions as I'm sure you know. it's obvious now that we've seen results. hind-sight is 20/20.

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Tallboy » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:59 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Aaron Richards wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:2016 President, vote winner by income:

Image
Does this bust the myth that Trump got the lower wage blue-collar working class vote? I doubt people in the rust belt are making more
I posted this to provoke questions (and to have it here for me to think about).

I would say, first, that this is not the chart you'd create on the basis of much of the post-election commentary, including that from Trump supporters and right-wingers. Overall Trump's supporters were more affluent than Clinton's. The chart is dissonant and a bit surprising in that sense.

The 2nd point that struck me was the largest group - 31% 50k-100k - where the largest margin for Trump was. There will be a lot of blue collar voters in this group, not jobless, not ruined, probably not victimized by trade. I do think there are a lot of rust-belt working class people in this category. But Trump's edge with this large middle group - and if 50k-200k is the broad middle - then with the entire middle is clear. This makes me want to drill down into ethnicity, gender, location, etc compared to income. What motivated these voters? When we say economics, what about economics? What other factors? And so on?
I would also suggest that Obamacare more adversely affected this demographic (50k-100k) group than others.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Trump will win!

Post by OutOfBreath » Thu Nov 10, 2016 8:05 pm

How much does tactics for voter suppression and general unconvenience of voting play into it all? I mean, if I had to take half a day off work, unpaid, to go vote, then Id had to be enthusiastic about it. Seems to me in america you need enthusiasm to get the vote out many places. The more mellow voters wont do ANYTHING to vote, but they might have voted if prevoting was easier etc. The current system with endless primaries and inconvenient voting will favour the rabid nuts overall and suppress the silent majority that doesnt vote.

And talking of free speech and citizen rights, shouldnt the ability and opportunity to vote in a timely manner be just as protected as endless money? The blatant talk of voter suppression as a sortof legitimate tactic frankly shocks me.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26152
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 10, 2016 8:26 pm

Tallboy wrote:In addition to white women, I also recall (I may be wrong... have to check) that the Black and Hispanic vote for Trump was underestimated as well.
My recollection, too. With Latino vote 2 pts or so better for Trump than Romney. Black turnout down.
Tallboy wrote:this shows how hard you have to think when designing polling/suvery questions as I'm sure you know. it's obvious now that we've seen results. hind-sight is 20/20.
Probably need to "project," insofar as we try to project outcomes, using a combination of polling and other information (e.g., economic situation). Crazy but true: whenever I trusted my gut feelings, I thought Trump could/might win; when I tried being reasonable and using polling data, I was led astray. Another bad miss for pollsters. (In my worklife, we were always careful not to "believe" in survey data in terms of projecting results; we used it more subjectively, to understand if messages were being communicated and so forth. Might not be bad to think more like that in politics too, at least for now . . . )
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26152
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 10, 2016 8:28 pm

Tallboy wrote:I would also suggest that Obamacare more adversely affected this demographic (50k-100k) group than others.
Maybe. I am not sure where subsidies kick in. The Dems in Congress said today that they plan to stand firm on the ACA, which I think is a grave error, akin to doubling down on what led them to lose. The ACA hasn't worked well and is not popular like Social Security or Medicare. Someone needs to accept that fact and move forward.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26152
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 10, 2016 8:30 pm

OutOfBreath wrote:How much does tactics for voter suppression and general unconvenience of voting play into it all? I mean, if I had to take half a day off work, unpaid, to go vote, then Id had to be enthusiastic about it. Seems to me in america you need enthusiasm to get the vote out many places. The more mellow voters wont do ANYTHING to vote, but they might have voted if prevoting was easier etc. The current system with endless primaries and inconvenient voting will favour the rabid nuts overall and suppress the silent majority that doesnt vote.

And talking of free speech and citizen rights, shouldnt the ability and opportunity to vote in a timely manner be just as protected as endless money? The blatant talk of voter suppression as a sortof legitimate tactic frankly shocks me.

Peace
Dan
I think that in NC and WI, in particular, voter suppression might have had some impact. But the story of this election is really that Democratic turnout was off by 6m. The Democrats' loss wasn't because of laws. It was because the campaign the Democrats ran, who they ran, what they offered. Hollywood celebrities, washed up rockers, Silicon Valley, Goldman Sachs and the Clintons basically lack appeal. Voters weren;t buying the Clinton, they didn't in the primaries, they didn't in '08 either - and then Hillary ran the same campaign in '16 that she lost with in '08 (competent expert who would tinker into success).

"Don't blame me, I voted for Bernie." The contemptuous, arrogant, complacent rejection of the Democratic party rank and file also hurt.

I agree with your general point - but in terms of this election, the Democrats lost because they screwed up. They ran a risky candidate in a complacent campaign without listening to voters. The Dems can't blame voter suppression for what they did to the country, they need to blame themselves and their leadership. The party needs to clean house - really get rid of the Clinton effect and their loyalists - and install a new, younger, more forceful and thoughtful leadership.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Tallboy » Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:59 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote: My recollection, too. With Latino vote 2 pts or so better for Trump than Romney. Black turnout down.
ok.
Statistical Mechanic wrote: Probably need to "project," insofar as we try to project outcomes, using a combination of polling and other information (e.g., economic situation). Crazy but true: whenever I trusted my gut feelings, I thought Trump could/might win; when I tried being reasonable and using polling data, I was led astray. Another bad miss for pollsters. (In my worklife, we were always careful not to "believe" in survey data in terms of projecting results; we used it more subjectively, to understand if messages were being communicated and so forth. Might not be bad to think more like that in politics too, at least for now . . . )
right, but that puts us back where we started. polls are supposed to be objective, but your subjective opinion turned out more accurate. and the crazier the situation (and this was crazy) the more complicated the analysis and the more likely polling will fail.
too many subtleties here

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Tallboy » Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:07 pm

OutOfBreath wrote:How much does tactics for voter suppression and general unconvenience of voting play into it all? I mean, if I had to take half a day off work, unpaid, to go vote, then Id had to be enthusiastic about it. Seems to me in america you need enthusiasm to get the vote out many places. The more mellow voters wont do ANYTHING to vote, but they might have voted if prevoting was easier etc. The current system with endless primaries and inconvenient voting will favour the rabid nuts overall and suppress the silent majority that doesnt vote.

And talking of free speech and citizen rights, shouldnt the ability and opportunity to vote in a timely manner be just as protected as endless money? The blatant talk of voter suppression as a sortof legitimate tactic frankly shocks me.

Peace
Dan
which is most likely why trumps tactic of whipping up his base worked for him. he fomented enthusiasm, and it appears to have been contagious. and enthusiasm gets people out of the house. Clinton couldn't do that. Bernie would have had a much better chance of beating trump.

for what it's worth, I voted late in the day (7pm or so) and was in and out in 15 mins. my polling place was only a block from my house. I'm not sure how it worked in other places. oh and the computers were down so I had to fill my ballot out like a college scantron :roll:

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Tallboy » Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:07 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Tallboy wrote:I would also suggest that Obamacare more adversely affected this demographic (50k-100k) group than others.
Maybe. I am not sure where subsidies kick in. The Dems in Congress said today that they plan to stand firm on the ACA, which I think is a grave error, akin to doubling down on what led them to lose. The ACA hasn't worked well and is not popular like Social Security or Medicare. Someone needs to accept that fact and move forward.
yikes!

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Tallboy » Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:17 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
OutOfBreath wrote:How much does tactics for voter suppression and general unconvenience of voting play into it all? I mean, if I had to take half a day off work, unpaid, to go vote, then Id had to be enthusiastic about it. Seems to me in america you need enthusiasm to get the vote out many places. The more mellow voters wont do ANYTHING to vote, but they might have voted if prevoting was easier etc. The current system with endless primaries and inconvenient voting will favour the rabid nuts overall and suppress the silent majority that doesnt vote.

And talking of free speech and citizen rights, shouldnt the ability and opportunity to vote in a timely manner be just as protected as endless money? The blatant talk of voter suppression as a sortof legitimate tactic frankly shocks me.

Peace
Dan
I think that in NC and WI, in particular, voter suppression might have had some impact. But the story of this election is really that Democratic turnout was off by 6m. The Democrats' loss wasn't because of laws. It was because the campaign the Democrats ran, who they ran, what they offered. Hollywood celebrities, washed up rockers, Silicon Valley, Goldman Sachs and the Clintons basically lack appeal. Voters weren;t buying the Clinton, they didn't in the primaries, they didn't in '08 either - and then Hillary ran the same campaign in '16 that she lost with in '08 (competent expert who would tinker into success).

"Don't blame me, I voted for Bernie." The contemptuous, arrogant, complacent rejection of the Democratic party rank and file also hurt.

I agree with your general point - but in terms of this election, the Democrats lost because they screwed up. They ran a risky candidate in a complacent campaign without listening to voters. The Dems can't blame voter suppression for what they did to the country, they need to blame themselves and their leadership. The party needs to clean house - really get rid of the Clinton effect and their loyalists - and install a new, younger, more forceful and thoughtful leadership.
exactly my assessment as well. dems were completely out of touch. when I saw the rallies with Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry my first thought was "how is this playing in the rust belt?" :shock:

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11725
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:24 pm

I agree on the ACA, it needs a serious overhaul or done away with. The problem is the pumpkin will be in charge and what we'll get will be worse for the people who really need it.
A sober appraisal would put Himmler himself in the racially average band, or to some extent even below it: his face was round rather than oval, his nose more broad than slim, his normal bearing more ‘sagging’ than erect...
Longerich: Himmler

Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11725
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:32 pm

One fascinating thing I've followed all day is the enormous amount of protest we are seeing.
I thought this is what we would get from Trump supporters the day after, the script flipped, of course.

I find it somewhat annoying with the Californians talking about secession and others talking about the electoral college changing their mind and putting Clinton in the White House. The Civil War settled the one 150 years ago and the other isn't going to happen.
A sober appraisal would put Himmler himself in the racially average band, or to some extent even below it: his face was round rather than oval, his nose more broad than slim, his normal bearing more ‘sagging’ than erect...
Longerich: Himmler

Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Tallboy » Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:38 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:One fascinating thing I've followed all day is the enormous amount of protest we are seeing.
I thought this is what we would get from Trump supporters the day after, the script flipped, of course.

I find it somewhat annoying with the Californians talking about secession and others talking about the electoral college changing their mind and putting Clinton in the White House. The Civil War settled the one 150 years ago and the other isn't going to happen.
really?!?! I'm in So Cal and I haven't heard of it. but I've been at, ugh, work all day. time to google...

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11725
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:52 pm

Tallboy wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:One fascinating thing I've followed all day is the enormous amount of protest we are seeing.
I thought this is what we would get from Trump supporters the day after, the script flipped, of course.

I find it somewhat annoying with the Californians talking about secession and others talking about the electoral college changing their mind and putting Clinton in the White House. The Civil War settled the one 150 years ago and the other isn't going to happen.
really?!?! I'm in So Cal and I haven't heard of it. but I've been at, ugh, work all day. time to google...
Work? What's that?

:D

I haven't gotten a thing done all week. I had Monday off and I have tomorrow off for Veteran's Day.

Needless to say I've been distracted since Tuesday.
A sober appraisal would put Himmler himself in the racially average band, or to some extent even below it: his face was round rather than oval, his nose more broad than slim, his normal bearing more ‘sagging’ than erect...
Longerich: Himmler

Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26152
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 10, 2016 11:31 pm

Tallboy wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: My recollection, too. With Latino vote 2 pts or so better for Trump than Romney. Black turnout down.
ok.
Statistical Mechanic wrote: Probably need to "project," insofar as we try to project outcomes, using a combination of polling and other information (e.g., economic situation). Crazy but true: whenever I trusted my gut feelings, I thought Trump could/might win; when I tried being reasonable and using polling data, I was led astray. Another bad miss for pollsters. (In my worklife, we were always careful not to "believe" in survey data in terms of projecting results; we used it more subjectively, to understand if messages were being communicated and so forth. Might not be bad to think more like that in politics too, at least for now . . . )
right, but that puts us back where we started. polls are supposed to be objective, but your subjective opinion turned out more accurate. and the crazier the situation (and this was crazy) the more complicated the analysis and the more likely polling will fail.
too many subtleties here
I read somewhere that political scientists, using methodologies I'm not aware of, were much more accurate in predicting this election. The HuffPo folks insist that their model was right (98%+ chance of Clinton's winning) but that bad data came in. I would suggest they look at data, models, reliance on polls, etc - everything they can think of. They were incredibly far off. It is ironic being misled by the supposedly scientific analysis!
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26152
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 10, 2016 11:39 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I agree on the ACA, it needs a serious overhaul or done away with. The problem is the pumpkin will be in charge and what we'll get will be worse for the people who really need it.
I think that the Dems need to basically become the opposition and in doing so to toughen up. Obama should not be giving dishonest speeches about our all being on the same team, meetings going well, and being "encouraged" by his time with Trump. He was part of the team that led the party into this disaster - under O, Wasserman Schultz, and the rest, the GOP has assumed control of about 2/3 of states, the Dems have a weak bench, and Trump has taken over nearly full control in Washington. I like O in certain ways but he is responsible, too.

I have to think about this more but I would almost let Trump repeal and replace, etc. The Dems can't win anyway; Trump will win in the end. The Dems should be preparing for two years from now, not fighting old and/or losing battles. Opening salvos: Today Sanders called for Keith Ellison to chair DNC (they should shitcan Brazile pronto and unceremoniously) and Warren issued a blistering excoriation of basically everyone in politics.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26152
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 10, 2016 11:41 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I agree on the ACA, it needs a serious overhaul or done away with. The problem is the pumpkin will be in charge and what we'll get will be worse for the people who really need it.
The idea - I read that Schumer is pushing this - of using the ACA as the rallying cry is so deaf to what is going on that it thought that at first I'd misread the headline about it.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11725
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 11:49 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote: The Dems should be preparing for two years from now, not fighting old and/or losing battles.
I absolutely agree with this. From what CNN said the Republicans started preparing for 2016 four years ago after Obama's reelection. The Democrats need to gear up for 2018 now and concentrate on winning back Congress and the Senate, plus repairing the relationships they damaged after their arrogant assumptions about Clinton this year.

They need to prepare for hitting back hard after Trump's first two years, which I predict will be a disaster.
A sober appraisal would put Himmler himself in the racially average band, or to some extent even below it: his face was round rather than oval, his nose more broad than slim, his normal bearing more ‘sagging’ than erect...
Longerich: Himmler

Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26152
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Nov 11, 2016 1:09 am

Tallboy wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: Probably need to "project," insofar as we try to project outcomes, using a combination of polling and other information (e.g., economic situation). Crazy but true: whenever I trusted my gut feelings, I thought Trump could/might win; when I tried being reasonable and using polling data, I was led astray. Another bad miss for pollsters. (In my worklife, we were always careful not to "believe" in survey data in terms of projecting results; we used it more subjectively, to understand if messages were being communicated and so forth. Might not be bad to think more like that in politics too, at least for now . . . )
right, but that puts us back where we started. polls are supposed to be objective, but your subjective opinion turned out more accurate. and the crazier the situation (and this was crazy) the more complicated the analysis and the more likely polling will fail.
too many subtleties here
Allan Lichtman's model for predicting elections
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26152
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Nov 11, 2016 1:19 am

Balsamo wrote:. . . There is no use to personify the failure. Hilary was not alone, she was part of a system and a logic. . . .
"Clinton aides blame loss on everything but themselves: ‘They are saying they did nothing wrong, which is ridiculous,’ one Democrat says."
. . . all right we are two nations . . .