-
-
Isnt Deadspin the sports arm of Buzzfeed? No surprise they acted like cocks.
-
@antipodean Thanks for that, it's very funny.
@Donsteppa said in US Politics:
The opinion polls weren't accurate enough to call a relatively close election. They also weren't out by 25% - 30% either. Perhaps chuck in the actual margin of error from the elections and they're at least somewhere in the ballpark. That's without getting into whether they were closer to the actual tally of votes rather than the Electoral College results too - I wonder whether they modelled for that.
Eventually the better pollsters will figure out how to model and when to apply a Shy Tory/Tom Bradley Effect accurately enough in the Western world, they've had two good looks at it in the last twelve months.
That's largely because many of the polls were being conducted with a Democratic bias. It might be that this was done out of caution, using previous models of voting. I prefer the thesis that it was part of a strategy to suppress voters for Trump, as well as denying his legitimacy, and helping facilitate further attempts to steal the election.
Anyway, the whole time they were adjusting the samples based on an assumption of Dem +5 to Dem +10. And many were swallowing it, hook line and sinker, without questioning them. Dumb.
It was very obvious that Trump had massive (historic) support throughout the country, and Clinton's support was tepid.
The starting point was that it was a very, very close election. -
@Wairau said in US Politics:
It was very obvious that Trump had massive (historic) support throughout the country, and Clinton's support was tepid.
A tepid 3m votes more...
Trump won the Electoral College, and his win there was 46th out of 58 elections - thats not "massive" thats one of the tightest wins in US history. And only 4 presidents have ever lost the popular vote & not by as big a margin since 1876
By all means talk about how he campaigned well & won, but this "massive" "historic" win stuff is a flat out lie. And not even a candidate for the alternate facts side.
-
@gollum said in US Politics:
@Wairau said in US Politics:
It was very obvious that Trump had massive (historic) support throughout the country, and Clinton's support was tepid.
A tepid 3m votes more...
Trump won the Electoral College, and his win there was 46th out of 58 elections - thats not "massive" thats one of the tightest wins in US history. And only 4 presidents have ever lost the popular vote & not by as big a margin since 1876
By all means talk about how he campaigned well & won, but this "massive" "historic" win stuff is a flat out lie. And not even a candidate for the alternate facts side.
So you are saying it was close?
lol
-
No, read what I said, Im saying this wasn't a massive historic win. Are you saying this was a massive win? Despite ranking 46th?
-
@gollum said in US Politics:
No, read what I said, Im saying this wasn't a massive historic win. Are you saying this was a massive win? Despite ranking 46th?
I feel sick backing up BSGs comment but he never said 'a massive win'. He said 'massive (historic) support throughout the country'.
I read that as being that Trump's support was massive and from areas historically not expected. -
BSG implied it wasn't close. It was stageringly close. One of the closest electrion in US history, by every possible viewpoint.
The original reply was to Wairu, BSG just jumped in because he's BSG.
And massive support = 2nd worst popular vote by any president ever & 46th all time college?
I don't buy he had massive support. They both had terrible support, his was just far better targeted in the swing states. She actually had more "massive" terrible support than him - by 3m votes.
This huge mandate & historic win, massive support bullshit is repeated over & over by Trump & his supporters to justify him pushing through anything he likes. Obama got heavily (rightly) critisised for ignoring the right in his policies & he had a far bigger mandate.
Its no different to the idea it was the biggest inaugeration, biggest TV audience etc. Its part of some sureal Orwellian idea to tell people your idea of the truth till they just go "OK, if you say so, it was a huge win, biggest ever, would have been bigger but for the rigging, and 2m turned up for the inaugeration".
-
You need to be just as careful with your claims though. Trump did, by alternate fact, have massive support. In true fact he got more votes than any Rep candidate has ever done before.
As for being close. Yes, not even alternate facts can be found that back up claims that the win wasn't close. Isn't it something like 100,000 votes out of 120,000,000 going in different directions that would have had a different outcome? That is close. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Isn't it something like 100,000 votes out of 120,000,000 going in different directions that would have had a different outcome? That is close.
Yeah three states wasn't it? A handful of votes in the big scheme but that's democracy.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Isn't it something like 100,000 votes out of 120,000,000 going in different directions that would have had a different outcome? That is close.
Yeah three states wasn't it? A handful of votes in the big scheme but that's democracy.
The closest state result went to Clinton but even if you took a swing to Trump into account for that one it's only around 100,000 voters changing their minds.
But, yes, it is the Democratic system that the US set up and sticks by.
No system is perfect though. We tried to change our electoral system in part to reduce the likelihood of a minority govt and i think we have had one ever since. -
A totally historic win because of the unprecedented level of entrenched opposition not only from almost all TV networks, but the majority of newspapers. And this opposition was not even mildly balanced. It was a hard-core campaign to stop Trump - around the world. Add to that most big money supporting Hillary.
What a colossal fuck-up by Hillary!! In that sense it was truly was an historic loss. Possibly the worst fuck up of all time. Amazing her supporters could not see how uninspiring she was.
I (almost)pity her supporters. They thought they had it in the bag. Clearly, many have not got over it yet and still harbor a lot of resentment over what has happened. Many in the utterly biased liberal media are willing Trump to fail and doubt him at every step. This retarded attitide is what led them to underestimate him in the first place. Meanwhile, Trump doesn't a tuppenny fuck about their griping and keeps moving forward with his agenda- ha ha
It is also a lot to do with Obama's tone deaf policies to the typical Trump supporter. Not only evidenced by Trump's win, but that the GOP now control the House and Senate. To make matters even worse - in November 2018, because the Democrats must defend 23 Seats seats while the GOP need only defend eight seats. Look at the state of the Democrat party right now. A bunch of SJW idiots and the corporate-shills (Clintonites). I think there best hope is......?????????????
The Democrats badly need Trump to fuck up the next few years, or they are toast. The worst fear (and the liberal media for that matter) is that his policies prove popular and effective.
-
Gollum. You're so unfailingly cute. You certainly win my vote for most paradoxical username. Perhaps you might read more carefully next time?
I note you mentioned the inauguration. It's pointless, but still: Certainly boots on the ground Obama 2009 had more. But, there were overwhelming numbers of liberals in DC who had the day off. This year, there were only 12 or 18 entry points into the mall area-tight security. Trump still filled up the whole area (the photo was taken much earlier-so that was fake news). And the combined TV and online audience was, well, HUGE.... It's pretty shaky to draw a negative opinion against Trump based on that.
And, I agree with Frank-IN THE END, in the face of all the blows (some self inflicted), amplified to the max, the RESULT is also HISTORIC. Thanks Crucial and BSG.
BTW, another inconvenient fact-excluding California, Trump also won the popular vote by 1.4m people. A significant* number of her California margin would have been illegals. And other Republicans in the state may not have voted due to it being in their jaded opinion, useless. That could apply in NY as well, as well as other states. Harping on about the popular vote tally after an election featuring a vote for the electoral college, is not very intelligent.
(*frankly, any number of illegals voting for HRC would be significant, considering there should be none. But in this case, it seems the number is significantly significant).
Every day with Trump it's just win, win, win. When will he stop? Well, with his wife and child in NY, control of House and Senate, and an amazing Cabinet coming into place, I don't expect him to slow down any time soon. It's a very enjoyable period to watch. Then, there's the schadenfreude. And relief.
-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
excluding California, Trump also won the popular vote by 1.4m people. A significant number of those would have been illegals.
Wrong thread, the conspiracy theory one is a couple down....
Ditto the idea the media were against Trump, he got (by some estimates) $5bn in free advertising from the media covering him, for almost his whole campaign he had the no. 1 cable news channel on his side, 4 of the top 10 newspapers etc.. like everything else about the win, this "against everyone" thing is bullshit
-
@gollum said in US Politics:
@Wairau said in US Politics:
excluding California, Trump also won the popular vote by 1.4m people. A significant number of those would have been illegals.
Wrong thread, the conspiracy theory one is a couple down....
Ditto the idea the media were against Trump, he got (by some estimates) $5bn in free advertising from the media covering him, for almost his whole campaign he had the no. 1 cable news channel on his side, 4 of the top 10 newspapers etc.. like everything else about the win, this "against everyone" thing is bullshit
please show a fair range of estimates of his and HRC's 'free' advertising during the presidential segment. Saying that, nothing is free-he certainly endured overwhelmingly negative coverage. And HRC had the direct opposite; additionally, most of her scandals were brushed away.
Your use of the word 'bullshit' is more applicable to your post, than it is to the point you are ineffectively flailing against.
-
so I went and saw a punk band I loved at uni. "Refused". Great gig however at the end before their big number the singer have a 5 minute diatribe on how as a man I am supposed to feel guilty for all of society's ills. way to suck the life out of a gig. The crowd cheered as drunk fucktards will. I left pretty despondant however happened upon a young group on the train on the way home discussing how the left has gone too far, being a bit drunk I made my introductions and am looking forward to a few discussions over some beers in the near future.
-
Sure -
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/donald-trump-free-tv-ad-217387
http://uk.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-media-coverage-chart-2016-3
And heres Trump actually saying exactly that -
“There’s no reason to raise that,” Trump said about raising $1 billion. “I just don’t think I need nearly as much money as other people need because I get so much publicity. I get so many invitations to be on television. I get so many interviews, if I want them.”
-
here it goes again. Win! Stop, Donald. So early in the morning. The poor little Democrats.
BTW, strengthen doesn't need up."I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and....even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time). Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!"
US Politics