Trump will win!

Discussions
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18945
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:48 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Paul Anthony wrote:
Monster wrote:I have to vent about something.

A lot of my liberal fb friends are posting anecdotes of Trump supporters doing naughty stuff. That's perfectly fine. They can point to all the naughty things that Trump supporters are doing. However, it's the liberals, Democrats, and leftists who are rioting right now. It is the liberals, Democrats, and leftists who are more violent, not the Trump supporters. The same was true during the presidential campaigns for the last year.
When conservatives hold a rally, they are terrorists. Liberals can burn buildings, but they are freedom fighters. So sayeth the almighty media.
Examples.
Paulie won't provide any examples.....you don't need them when posting talking points.

I recommend however you keep Paulies Post as a good example of Mindless Partisan Posting. We can only wonder how long Pukes will blame Obama for any and all of Trumps own statements, policies, and actions.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26246
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 9:53 pm

Tallboy wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: I have a bit of a different take on this. Presidential elections in the US aren't, as we know, decided on popular vote. Before the election, Dems were sure that the electoral college, with the blue wall, gave them a built-in advantage and were generally just fine with that - and Trump was excoriating the electoral college (e.g., in '12 when rumors flew on election night that Romney had won the popular vote, Trump tweeted, “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!” - all invented spelling Trump’s - and “More votes equals a loss….revolution!”) Both parties know the rules, and both built campaigns to win given the rules. Clinton managed to lose by shedding 6 million votes AND destroying the so-called blue wall in the process. These are really major accomplishments, not easily achieved. I've called her this before: she's like a cooler in Vegas.
reminds me of an old Knute Rockne story I heard (can't vouch for the authenticity):
Knute Rockne's Notre Dame football team beat Howard Jone's USC team and Jone's was quite upset afterwards. "they may have beaten us, but we outplayed them! we had more first downs!" Rockne replied, "if you want to play for first downs, let me know."
LOL kind of like "winning" the debates handily!
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11795
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:05 pm

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: 26246
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 10:10 pm

I agree with everyone whose best guess is that Obama would have won this election. Without enumerating the reasons, here are what I think are some implications of that: 1) the Clinton candidacy and campaign were profound problems, 2) the idea that "demographics are destiny" is bunk - ideas, campaigns, rallying cries matter, 3) the Great Racist Rising of '16 is less than meets the eye - 'cuz O would have won, 4) the musings about tectonic sociological shifts in the US wseemhyperbolic given that O's election would have meant political continuity.

My worry is that people are going to be slapped hard - the way reality slaps you in the face sometimes - with what they've done: it was done with open eyes, I have to admit, a "mazel tov cocktail" that will go off. I don't think most of Trump's vote, however, was truly a vote for what Trump's presidency is likely to bring: an executive branch staffed by the sleaziest lobbyists you can chase from under their rocks; the erosion of constitutional guarantees most voters approve of; evisceration of programs like Medicare and Social Security, which people depend on; the handing of ever more power to business and corporate interests; a massive shift of the tax burden to middle class Americans; cutbacks in educational programs; a government that's less able to do things as it is defunded and spending is diverted to the military and a {!#%@} wall; less freedom and opportunity. But this is some of what people will wind up getting as we Kansasify the nation under these rotten twats.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26246
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 10:12 pm

Exactly. The peaceful protesters in fact are the ones NOT acting on the battle cries of Walsh, Trump, Sheriff Clarke and others - it is rather the dumb-ass kids trashing cars and smashing windows who are following closely in the Orange Anus's footsteps.

Further, when Trump and his supporters have a) promised assaults on constitutional guarantees and baited and threatened a variety of groups of people, b) insulted and disrespected the political process (with rigged-system rhetoric, refusal to commit to results, voter intimidation projects), and c) threatened, provoked and engaged in violence against their opponents and groups they dislike, it is the height of hypocrisy for them now to expect and demand everyone respect them. They've pissed a lot of people off - and the genie won't go back in the bottle necessarily. That's the price, as the Trumpies have been saying for two years, of freedom - people get to protest, vent, speak up.

Or are we now going to have state media that Putin would envy, McCarthyite suppression of dissent, a police state?
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26246
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 10:21 pm

(sorry Jeffk - I added some after you hit thanks - you may disagree with what I added!)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11795
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:29 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:(sorry Jeffk - I added some after you hit thanks - you may disagree with what I added!)
No, I agree.

Trump is already lining his transition team with people I look at as absolute demagogues (except looks like Christie is taking a back seat due to "BridgeGate") so I have serious doubts about their good intentions.

Or their tolerance toward differing lifestyles or opinions.

Or any sort of commitment to the environment.
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
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:46 pm

Statmec:
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.

Actually, I feel the data you used were a bit premature. I still suspect the results of MI are not included. You mentioned less than 59 million votes when I asked:
Not sure Arizona, NH Mi and Alaska...are already counted or are they?
It now stands at 60.171.232 votes for Trump vs 60.633.539 for Hilary. But Michigan is still pending with 2.279.210 and 2.267.373 respectively. So the final total would probably be like
TRUMP: 62.450.442
HILARY : 62.900.912
If one adds up the votes for the small candidates , the turnout is actually really good, and if wiki is correct, with 56.9% the second best since…1968.
Actually, Donny is probably the best performing GOP candidate since Reagan :lol: :lol:

If that is correct, the 2008 election is more the exception than the rule. And then it had favorable circumstances with the first Afro-American candidate in History and after 8 years of Bush administration. Yep, people – and especially the minorities – did vote for change under “Yes, we can”.
I don’t think most Afro-Americans did see any real changes, as for the Latinos…well didn’t the Obama administration deported over 2.500.000 refugees? So most did stay home… Hilary is not Obama, she is white.

You have provided very valuable input on the result, and as I said, I broadly agree with most of you wrote.
But as a general matter, I consider that most of the analysis I have read – with the exception of the one Xcallibur posted earlier – kind of miss the point.
Of course, the Democrats just missed what was supposed to be the most easy election since Carter, and I have already expressed myself on their mistakes.

It is obvious that most analysts cannot get out of their classic “Key of understanding” things. Since July, their approach is a classic one on a battle between Democrats and Republicans. And a majority of the explanations given are still within this logic.
As crazy as it seems, it looks like everyone just forgot the primaries, and mean both of them!

Both Parties kind of lost during their primaries. The Democrat establishment did not see Bernie coming! Bernie did shake the tree, but he was a too nice man. The Democrats thought they could deal with it, and they kind of did, but in a way full of arrogance, despise that in fine, Hilary did not profit from the extraordinary energy the old man created among the youth, I guess that most of them are to be counted in the over 6.000.000 votes that goes to the small candidates.
But they did not worry because on the other side, the most grotesque political show was taking place. The GOP establishment was under the storm when the “Orange Clown” among their selected candidates emerged as “their” Candidate. When in history could we see such a campaign against a candidate WITHIN a Party? At that time, it looked like the GOP was at the edge of implosion, grotesquely in ruins.
Everyone thought the GOP would lose in the most ridiculous way if Trump was to be the candidate…Isn’t that what happens when a populist of that kind, apolitical and half crazy, comes to this stage? We know that Marine Le Pen will be at the final round for the French presidential campaign, but until Tuesday, she was expected to lose 64 to 36 or so…and indeed she will probably not win until 2022. At least that is what the Polls say, but then there was the Brexit which was not supposed to happen anytime soon, or so they told us… So when the Orange emerged, the Party fell into an astonishing state of self-confidence, in an arrogant way, and complacency on how they led their campaign ( point which Statmec, others and I noticed at that time), well because one just cannot lose against such an amateurish clown.
Even the most prominent Republicans took their distance, some openly bashing “their” nominee. When the republican voters elected Trump, the GOP lost its election too!
Granted they agreed to put their organization at disposal, but where were their personalities during the final campaign? Especially during the last week-end when President Obama was running like it was his re-election, Joe Biden following, Bill, and Chelsey without mentioning all those “celebs” who still think they have an impact?

Who was standing at rallies to support him? No one? Because up to Tuesday night, Donny was something dirty – actually he is – that could cost those personalities their respective election or reelection. Must have had the same data as the Democrats…

My point is that both traditional parties LOST this presidential election, The Democrats this last Tuesday, the GOP back in July.

Of course, only one today seems completely in ruins, while the GOP can pretend to have won…at least they have the Congress (but they would have anyway). But will they have the president? They surely sure of it right now, and maybe will Trump become their puppet in the White House. But Trump was clearly not in their agenda four or two years ago, or even until last summer.
But now the dirty thing is the president of the USA, and he was running under the GOP flag, almost comical.

Back to the data, what I would like to know is the impact of the “StopTrump” movement, who among the Registered Republicans voters chose to stay home or in some case voted for Hilary? And of course, who made this potential impact up?
If the 56.9% turnout number is correct, then it is obvious that something that has been missed by the screens did take place. The Turnout seems high while the Afro-Americans staid home…

For me there was an important “Everything but Hilary” that took place unexpectedly while everyone was focus on the “Everything but Trump”… Both coexisted, but only one could compensate. Some months ago, I expressed doubts about the Bernie’s voters reporting their votes on Hilary, especially among the youngsters – StatMec did, but I guess he is not a youngster anymore, i would not have – as well as among the independents. Those wanted a “political revolution”, and Hilary was promising anything (mostly things that have been promised many times for the last 30 years) but changes, it was obvious that they would not vote for someone like her. Again the Democrats did not really bother, because the whole thing was such a sure thing.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26246
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 11:04 pm

Balsamo wrote:Actually, I feel the data you used were a bit premature.
As I noted. I looked at past elections and it seemed as though another 700,000 to 1m each might still come in, when I posted, which is why I hedged with a range (and noted that there wasn't too much vote still outstanding).
Balsamo wrote:It now stands at 60.171.232 votes for Trump vs 60.633.539 for Hilary. But Michigan is still pending with 2.279.210 and 2.267.373 respectively. So the final total would probably be like
TRUMP: 62.450.442
HILARY : 62.900.912
If one adds up the votes for the small candidates , the turnout is actually really good, and if wiki is correct, with 56.9% the second best since…1968.
Actually, Donny is probably the best performing GOP candidate since Reagan :lol: :lol:
Michigan is included AFAIK. It is just that the count is too close to call in that state, not that its votes are excluded from tallies. Votes will trickle in. Romney received 60.9m I think. Trump is at 60.0m. Google updated 2 minutes ago - other sources from this afternoon concur. E.g, the NY Times. Every table I consult includes Michigan as have all lists/results since 9 November.

Where are you getting your data?

To call Trump the best performing Republican since Reagan is fatuous. Reagan, got 55m votes out of 90m and change. Nearly 59% of the votes cast. Trump will wind up with 47% and change - but he will lose the popular vote by almost half a million. {!#%@}, even W. received over 62m votes and nearly 51% in '04.

This dog ain't hunting, Balsamo.
Balsamo wrote:If that is correct,
I don't think it is right.

Also turnout looks like it will come in close to 2m under 2012, despite population growth - but I didn't mean to write about turnout in general, rather my argument was that Clinton failed to turn out Obama voters to vote for her.
. . . 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 » Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:25 pm

Well the Wiki page has a turnout of 56.9%...
The number changes from 59 to over 60 for both candidates when Arizona, NH and whatever were validated...So it is highly possible that this number can change again.
Michigan is still pending...some other Wiki pages has the final results regarding popular votes as "TBD" or To be determined...
I don't think that during the Reagan election there had been over 6.000.000 votes going to small candidates (except for Perrot, if i spell it right)...and even then the turnout was not great...

Of course, the 56.9% might be an error, otherwise, my PoV stands...

http://www.electproject.org/2016g

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ite_note-1

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26246
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 11:39 pm

Balsamo wrote:Well the Wiki page has a turnout of 56.9%...
The number changes from 59 to over 60 for both candidates when Arizona, NH and whatever were validated...So it is highly possible that this number can change again.
Michigan is still pending...some other Wiki pages has the final results regarding popular votes as "TBD" or To be determined...
I don't think that during the Reagan election there had been over 6.000.000 votes going to small candidates (except for Perrot, if i spell it right)...and even then the turnout was not great...

Of course, the 56.9% might be an error, otherwise, my PoV stands...

http://www.electproject.org/2016g

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ite_note-1
Again, my point was NOT about overall turnout but about turnout for Clinton. Going on about total turnout when I am focused on turnout for Clinton is a strawman. (AFAIK Perot first ran in '92?) Look, Trump received fewer popular votes than his opponent - in no way is this comparable, third party or not, to Reagan's performance. Sorry.

Michigan appears to be included in the totals on the Wiki page you linked to, unless I'm reading the table wrong. That page is a day or so out of phase. The votes trickling in are not totals for whole states.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
. . . 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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:01 am

Well sorry...i forgot to insert "since then"... the allusion about Reagan was a joke, although even then the turnout was less...

Now, the one site mentions 133 million ballots counted... a number that can be reached only if one adds the results of MI...Unless now 13.000.000 americans voted for the small candidates...

So wait and see...

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26246
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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:02 am

Ok, I finally found an "all-in" estimate, which surprises me (it contradicts what I took from my search on how vote comes in, which I made the day after the election).The all-in estimate shows less of a miss for Clinton than I've been thinking - but also a very bad situation in terms of Trump's victory.

Nate Cohn of The Upshot estimates when all votes are in the final tally is likely to be Clinton 63m+ and Trump 61m+. (That's 2x the votes coming in over what I concluded from searching on Wednesday . . . I assume that Cohn knows a lot more about this than I do!)

In that eventuality, Trump's vote total would be about what Romney's was. A loser's vote total.

Clinton's would be about 3m shy of Obama's '12 total, not 5-6m. Still a miss but not as big a miss for Clinton. But what stands out is Clinton having, if Cohn is right, 2m+ more popular votes than Trump! - vs Gore/Bush where Gore bested Bush by about 500,000 votes. Losing the electoral college on a 2m+ vote popular vote win is a bad deal all around.

So if Cohn is correct, I think the story is a) Clinton's shortfall vs Obama in '08 and '12 AND b) Trump's significant popular vote gap to Clinton and the narrowness of his support.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
. . . 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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:14 am

Hum...so i guess we will wait for more details... a 2 million gap between the two seems exaggerate to me...I am aware than NY and CA are important, but not that important. I am not to recount all the results tonight, that is for sure.
But even in this case, what i wrote still stands...including the number of votes going to the small candidates which is one way among others NOT to cast a vote for any of the two big parties.

And still my questions remains: what was the impact of the StopTrump movement? And if there was any, then when does this million votes (in my calculation) two millions ( or a bit less) over Romney come from ?

And as a matter of fact the 3 million votes lacking over Obama's score is easy to track from the Afro-Americans who chose to stay home and those who reported their vote to alternatives... That being said, i agree with you on your explanation of the Democrats' defeat.

Edit: tendency to forget words in sentences...

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26246
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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:18 am

Masha Gessen: "Autocracy: Rules for Survival" . . . rule #1 is: believe the autocrat.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26246
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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:23 am

Balsamo wrote:Hum...so i guess we will wait for more details... a 2 million gap between the two seems exaggerate to me
We finally agree on something! LOL, yeah it surprises me but let's see what happens . . .
Balsamo wrote:But even in this case, what i wrote still stands...including the number of votes going to the small candidates which is one way among others NOT to cast a vote for any of the two big parties.
In 1992 Perot received 20m votes and 19%. Third parties this time will receive, on a much larger electorate, about maybe 6.5m votes and about 6%. "Other" in '16 isn't really earth-shaking.
Balsamo wrote:And still my questions remains: what was the impact of the StopTrump movement? And if there was any, then when does this million votes (in my calculation) two millions ( or a bit less) over Romney come from ?
I don't understand the questions.
Balsamo wrote:And as a matter of fact the 3 million votes lacking over Obama's score is easy to track from the Afro-Americans who chose to stay home and those who reported their vote to alternatives... That being said, i agree with you on your explanation of the Democrats' defeat.
{!#%@}, we agree on two things! Yes, it appears that African American turnout in critical states was fatal to Clinton's chances. Again, more data to come . . .
. . . 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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:42 am

Why "{!#%@}" ?

Clinton and his staff and Party got deluded by their "small" vote during the primaries...As i said in those days, she won mostly in State she would not win in November, while Bernie won in State she really needed and did not get.
Obama was the exception - it is obvious that if the Black minority had to trust someone - it would be him. So they mobilized and voted, but this should be considered as a ONE-SHOT (well two)...But did he really delivered? Nope, not on what mattered to them...

Nevertheless, it is also obvious that she lost because of her and her party attitude...had she really leaned toward Bernie and his supporters, had the primaries been more fair, without Wikileaks showing how the game was rigged from the start, except a miracle that almost took place - and again, the lack of identification of the nature of the people anger, fear and anxiety... She took it for granted (as even the GOP did not believe in a Trump's win), and lost.

As for my question.
There is something wrong obviously with the data.
We were told that there was a disgust among historical Republican voters toward Trump, encouraged in that by a "StopTrump" movement within the GOP, right? So the question is what was the impact? Or in other words, how many republican registered voters did not vote for Trump? And depending on that answer, how did Trump end up wining between 1 and 2 million votes as Romney?

What i said was that if the Turnout is really close to 57% ( which would be a record high), and as the traditional minorities failed to show up in supporting Clinton, then there is some unidentified new voters at play.

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

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:56 am

As for Nate Cole, well...Just saw that he gave Hilary an insane chance to win...like the other...And the article mentioning this in the NY times was suggesting that the Democrats should start reconquering the Middlewest,,, LOL...why not start with Walnut grove or Moscow?
Seriously...WHY not just start retaking the 6 millions leaning democrats who felt just not voting for her?

That kind of experts will certainly make it all up in four years...Oh My!

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26246
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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:09 am

Balsamo wrote:Why "{!#%@}" ?

Clinton and his staff and Party got deluded by their "small" vote during the primaries...As i said in those days, she won mostly in State she would not win in November, while Bernie won in State she really needed and did not get.
Obama was the exception - it is obvious that if the Black minority had to trust someone - it would be him. So they mobilized and voted, but this should be considered as a ONE-SHOT (well two)...But did he really delivered? Nope, not on what mattered to them...

Nevertheless, it is also obvious that she lost because of her and her party attitude...had she really leaned toward Bernie and his supporters, had the primaries been more fair, without Wikileaks showing how the game was rigged from the start, except a miracle that almost took place - and again, the lack of identification of the nature of the people anger, fear and anxiety... She took it for granted (as even the GOP did not believe in a Trump's win), and lost.

As for my question.
There is something wrong obviously with the data.
We were told that there was a disgust among historical Republican voters toward Trump, encouraged in that by a "StopTrump" movement within the GOP, right? So the question is what was the impact? Or in other words, how many republican registered voters did not vote for Trump? And depending on that answer, how did Trump end up wining between 1 and 2 million votes as Romney?

What i said was that if the Turnout is really close to 57% ( which would be a record high), and as the traditional minorities failed to show up in supporting Clinton, then there is some unidentified new voters at play.
Sizable Democratic "defections" to Trump have to be factored in. I've read that Trump got 10 percent of voters who say they approve of Obama and almost a quarter of those who wanted the next president to be "more liberal."

I don't follow the "new voters" point. Of course, there were millions - young voters.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26246
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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:10 am

Balsamo wrote:As for Nate Cole, well...Just saw that he gave Hilary an insane chance to win...like the other...And the article mentioning this in the NY times was suggesting that the Democrats should start reconquering the Middlewest,,, LOL...why not start with Walnut grove or Moscow?
Seriously...WHY not just start retaking the 6 millions leaning democrats who felt just not voting for her?

That kind of experts will certainly make it all up in four years...Oh My!
Nate Cohn is a data guy - he is behind the NY Times' Upshot.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26246
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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:12 am

So Pew Research called me again, for a follow-up poll with people who'd participated in one of their pre-election polls. The first question was something to the effect that many previous participants report not voting in the general election, so did I vote? That was odd. I was asked to grade Trump, the Republicans, Clinton, the Democrats, the media, the pollsters, and the voters. The grades I gave were not high for anyone. I said I was sorry for giving an F to the pollsters but folks like Pew hadn't gotten things so straight. (I don't think Pew had a general election horse-race poll . . . ) I was also asked if I followed the election returns on TV, online, with family, with friends, alone. The interview took about 25 minutes, with far too many questions for me to recall. As always, as much as the wording of the questions, the allowable answers, when answers were provided, often were too binary or just not quite what I wanted to answer. One open-ended question was what I thought Trump should make the first act of his presidency: my answer was "resigning." The interviewer made sure that he spelled the answer correctly and read the spelling back to me.

Unfortunately, I made the interviewer laugh - and he apologized profusely, explaining that he cannot show any emotion during the call. I apologized to him for trying to get him to laugh and succeeding!
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26246
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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:22 am

NBC reported tonight that Trump won Michigan by just 13,000+ votes. Fully 88,000 ballots were completed without any choice for president. A blank for president. Neither. No confidence all around.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11757
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Trump will win!

Post by TJrandom » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:27 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:So Pew Research called me again, for a follow-up poll with people who'd participated in one of their pre-election polls. The first question was something to the effect that many previous participants report not voting in the general election, so did I vote? That was odd. I was asked to grade Trump, the Republicans, Clinton, the Democrats, the media, the pollsters, and the voters. The grades I gave were not high for anyone. I said I was sorry for giving an F to the pollsters but folks like Pew hadn't gotten things so straight. (I don't think Pew had a general election horse-race poll . . . ) I was also asked if I followed the election returns on TV, online, with family, with friends, alone. The interview took about 25 minutes, with far too many questions for me to recall. As always, as much as the wording of the questions, the allowable answers, when answers were provided, often were too binary or just not quite what I wanted to answer. One open-ended question was what I thought Trump should make the first act of his presidency: my answer was "resigning." The interviewer made sure that he spelled the answer correctly and read the spelling back to me.

Unfortunately, I made the interviewer laugh - and he apologized profusely, explaining that he cannot show any emotion during the call. I apologized to him for trying to get him to laugh and succeeding!
Resigning would not be my first choice for a Trump first act. Shooting Pence and Ryan, and then resigning would be a better option IMO. As bad as is Trump, Pence or Ryan would be worse IMO.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11795
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:28 am

Gawd, 88,000 votes.
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
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5011
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeff_36 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:43 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:NBC reported tonight that Trump won Michigan by just 13,000+ votes. Fully 88,000 ballots were completed without any choice for president. A blank for president. Neither. No confidence all around.
11,000 people nationwide voted for a dead monkey. I am floored. That`s twice the population of my hometown that got up, shaved, brushed their teeth, got dressed decently, applied colone, checked 538.com, ate breakfast, drove to the poling station under a clear, blue, American sky......... and voted for a {!#%@} dead {!#%@} monkey. What the absolute literal {!#%@} is up with that {!#%@} nonsense! A dead monkey!?!?!! a {!#%@} DEAD MONKEY?!?!?!?!?!?! You`ve gotta be kidding me....... Jimmy Dolittle is rolling in his grave. see here.

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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:49 am

Balsamo wrote: There is something wrong obviously with the data.

A post election editorial suggested the following. That in the 80's, pollsters predicted a black mayor would win an election as governor of California. The actual election results were quite different. The theory was that white voters embarrassed at saying to a pollster that they supported a white bloke gave false information to the pollster.

The Bradley Effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

The Bradley effect reduced in popularity as the pollsters data for the Obama campaigns generally matched election results. However, in the recent polling, it may be that, it was polite to say to pollsters that you liked Clinton, due to the obvious sexist and racist behavior of Trump, but they all went out and voted for Trump.

I don't know if this is true but I note that Statistical Mechanic was revisited by his pollster after the election, so that suggests the pollsters may think there is a bit of Bradley Effect going on.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26246
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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:50 am

Shocking, just shocking. Newt Gingrich said this about Trump and immigration today (quoted in WaPo):
He’ll spend a lot of time controlling the border. He may not spend very much time trying to get Mexico to pay for it, but it was a great campaign device.
Trump has been walking a very thin line - yes, he has rabid fans (that's what they are, fans of reality TV) who will accept any crap he pitches. But millions of Trump voters didn't like or trust him all that much. Obamacare, Social Security, mining and manufacturing jobs, huge tax cuts, massive infrastructure and military spending programs, the wall, locking Clinton away - there are a lot of promises and people will be watching to see what Trump delivers. How many campaign devices were employed in Trump's run for the president? More important, to what extent did voters know that the Orange Salesman was engaging with them with a wink and a nod?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27395
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Trump will win!

Post by scrmbldggs » Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:38 am

Did anyone tally the numbers of voting clowns who thought it would be funny to let the world witness a deflated gasbag begging to be released after a two to four weeks/months stay in a self-made prison, while throwing the country to the dogs?
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11757
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Trump will win!

Post by TJrandom » Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:45 am

Jeff_36 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:NBC reported tonight that Trump won Michigan by just 13,000+ votes. Fully 88,000 ballots were completed without any choice for president. A blank for president. Neither. No confidence all around.
11,000 people nationwide voted for a dead monkey. I am floored. That`s twice the population of my hometown that got up, shaved, brushed their teeth, got dressed decently, applied colone, checked 538.com, ate breakfast, drove to the poling station under a clear, blue, American sky......... and voted for a {!#%@} dead {!#%@} monkey. What the absolute literal {!#%@} is up with that {!#%@} nonsense! A dead monkey!?!?!! a {!#%@} DEAD MONKEY?!?!?!?!?!?! You`ve gotta be kidding me....... Jimmy Dolittle is rolling in his grave. see here.
They probably thought that was how `Trump` was spelled.... Rest easy now Jimmy, rest easy....

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18945
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:00 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:NBC reported tonight that Trump won Michigan by just 13,000+ votes. Fully 88,000 ballots were completed without any choice for president. A blank for president. Neither. No confidence all around.
I support going to the polls and not voting for any given position that does not present a qualified candidate in the voters mind. They showed up to vote---so they aren't lazy. They left the ballot blank so they did not in effect vote for the worse choice of the two....or threee....or four. They did not vote for a cartoon character or their dead uncle. NO ====THEY VOTED: YOU ALL SUCK====>DO BETTER NEXT TIME.

A valuable signaling to the powers that be, the wanna be's who are figuring out how to shape a message to appeal to the voters...... and so forth.

So much bumper sticker non-think floating around. in fact....we could start a list of how much BS is popularly accepted. One of my favorite MEANINGLESS but accepted statements is: "I want to be President for all the People." or even better: "The American People have spoken."

Ha, ha..........All BS.

How much do you take hook, line, and sinker?????
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5536
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by gorgeous » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:56 pm

this is why the pundits know nothing...Trump got large numbers of women and Hispanics... [ytube][/ytube]
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26246
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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:00 pm

Polls tell us that Trump won about 30% of the Latino vote. Polls. Er, exit polls, among the least reliable of the unreliable. Ahem. I've seen some quick, down and dirty analysis of vote in Hispanic precincts in FL suggesting that the polling is misleading. Latino groups - the Hispanic chamber of commerce for one - I already reproaching the Clinton campaign for taking Latino votes for granted. Analysts suspect, but don't yet know for sure, that the % of Latinos voting was not significantly higher in this election than previous presidential contests. I think we need time to sort all this out. Latino numbers increased but maybe commensurate with population increase. No, a video showing a one-off snapshot isn't very persuasive.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26246
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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:21 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:Did anyone tally the numbers of voting clowns who thought it would be funny to let the world witness a deflated gasbag begging to be released after a two to four weeks/months stay in a self-made prison, while throwing the country to the dogs?
No one knows the precise number but reports say it was yuuuuuge, believe me, a great number.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18945
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:24 pm

Heard one pundit say the turnout and voting for Trump Latinos was part of Trumps appeal to misogynists. didn't hear the same pundit opine on the larger than expected womens' vote. Could it have been Trumps anti-Mexican Rapist position secretly meant to get the Senorita Vote? Finely tuned, no doubt.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

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

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:27 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Balsamo wrote:Why "{!#%@}" ?

Clinton and his staff and Party got deluded by their "small" vote during the primaries...As i said in those days, she won mostly in State she would not win in November, while Bernie won in State she really needed and did not get.
Obama was the exception - it is obvious that if the Black minority had to trust someone - it would be him. So they mobilized and voted, but this should be considered as a ONE-SHOT (well two)...But did he really delivered? Nope, not on what mattered to them...

Nevertheless, it is also obvious that she lost because of her and her party attitude...had she really leaned toward Bernie and his supporters, had the primaries been more fair, without Wikileaks showing how the game was rigged from the start, except a miracle that almost took place - and again, the lack of identification of the nature of the people anger, fear and anxiety... She took it for granted (as even the GOP did not believe in a Trump's win), and lost.

As for my question.
There is something wrong obviously with the data.
We were told that there was a disgust among historical Republican voters toward Trump, encouraged in that by a "StopTrump" movement within the GOP, right? So the question is what was the impact? Or in other words, how many republican registered voters did not vote for Trump? And depending on that answer, how did Trump end up wining between 1 and 2 million votes as Romney?

What i said was that if the Turnout is really close to 57% ( which would be a record high), and as the traditional minorities failed to show up in supporting Clinton, then there is some unidentified new voters at play.
Sizable Democratic "defections" to Trump have to be factored in. I've read that Trump got 10 percent of voters who say they approve of Obama and almost a quarter of those who wanted the next president to be "more liberal."

I don't follow the "new voters" point. Of course, there were millions - young voters.
New voters might not be the right wording...
Ok, so, let's try this:

It seems that the turnout was historically high, contrary to what had been announced the new number being 57.6% of VEP...and 133.000.000 ballots or so. If we accept that the Afro- Americans stayed home, which partly explains the loss from Obama scores, what categories compensated?

I have made some verification, and one of the reason that global turnout may seem lower is basically due to 2 states...NY and CA...with no consequences on the results...As those a Democratland anyway. Still 61% of the VEP in California voted in 2008 vs 51.5% in 2016...Same trends in NY, with respectively 59.6 vs 52.4...
In numbers of voters, it translates into a deficit of 1.2-1.3 million votes...that is there were 1.3 million ballots more in 2008 than in 2016...or a whole 1% of the total.


Turnout in the States that made the difference last on tuesday shows a different picture, especially where surprise took place:

Florida which result changed the election night: Here are the VEP turnout for 2016-2008-2012:
FL 65.1 – 66.6 – 63.3
PA 61.1 – 64.2 – 59.5
NC 64.9 – 66.1 – 65.4
MI 64.6 -69.7 – 65.4
WIS 68.3 – 72.7 - 72.6

As those are the States that made the difference... The influence of a hypothetical low turnout on the results should therefore be tempered, in those states at least.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26246
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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:37 pm

Balsamo - no one here, least of all me, has suggested a low voter turnout as causing the results.

To remind you, right after the election I wrote "The Democrats' ground game simply could not turn enough people out to vote for an elitist, hawkish, uninspiring candidate who had no compelling message." And: "But Clinton is like a Vegas 'cooler' (which is where she may wind up). She depressed the Democratic vote, by all appearances. She could not even achieve the Democratic base. Democrats did not turn out for Clinton." And: "the Democrats failed to turn their voters out in support of the elitist wing of the party's leadership." The theme here is not low turnout per se but on the failure of Clinton to mobilize Democratic voters. That is, turnout for Clinton.

You're arguing against a figment. I am not sure why.

But even the data you show, if I am reading your turnout % vs years right, suggest that the Trump surge wasn't close to being equivalent to the Obama surge.

Anyway . . .

Image

And I'm off for a few days - and expect to be refocused on the Holocaust when I return!
. . . 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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:59 pm

It was directed to you...as i said many times... We have both identified HRC - along with others - as the worse possible choice...
But there is two sides on a coin. One thing is to show why HRC did poorly the others is why Trump did so well.

Just read a CNN analysis insisting that Turnout has been historically low... I just posted this to show that it has not been the case in the States that made the difference on election night.

Many articles insist on the popular vote, but given that 2 states out of the 50 are responsible for a advance of over 4.5 millions in popular votes, it should trigger the question of what took place in the other 48 states.

Here are a couple of example:
"Why did Trump win? Because Democrats stayed home - LA Times"
"Why did Trump win? In part because voter turnout plunged. - The ... (Washington Post) This last one is quite interesting as it is the example of bad anticipation. As it uses the same source that i do, by the time the article was written, turnout was at 56%...It now stands at 57.6, that is quite close to the 2012 and 1992 level, hence far from being a a plunge as described.
By the time the article was written, 120.000.000 ballots were counted, it now stands at 133.000.000...


Again, if we focus on those States that made the difference, it is not obvious than people stayed home and did not vote, they just vote in a strange ways.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26246
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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:09 pm

Balsamo - one more time - I didn't argue that turnout was historically low! I made completely different arguments. I don't think Trump did as well as you think. I know that doesn't fit how you want to frame this election. Lord have mercy.

I can report a conversation I just had. Two girls in their 20s clerking at Starbucks in rural Indiana talking about the election whilst waiting on me. They noticed I overheard them and the taller kid asked me who I'd voted for. I said not Trump. She said she was sad about the election and had really wanted "that cool grandpa" Bernie. Lol!
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
. . . 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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:19 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Balsamo - one more time - I didn't argue that turnout was historically low! I made completely different arguments. I don't think Trump did as well as you think. Lord have mercy.
:lol:

Hence the
It was directed to you
:lol:


As for Trump doing well... I think he did incredibly well in Florida and Pennsylvania just to take those twos...Not that i am happy about it.
Last edited by Balsamo on Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26246
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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:21 pm

I know. What I don't know is why you keep posting about overall turnout, which I didn't mention, and keep posting data that supports my inclinations!
. . . all right we are two nations . . .