Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hillary lost because she was a crappy candidate that ran on the same ol same ol Democrat handbook and Obama platform.
She promised us more migrants from dangerous places in the world. Open borders. A crack down on legal gun owners if not a dismantling of the second amendment. Nominating a Liberal judge to the Supreme Court. The end of the Republican party in high office due to her amnesty plans for millions of wanna be Democrat illegal aliens. Turning her back on the military when she left our guys out there to die in Benghazi then went on to lie about it. And not to mention her decades of lies and scandals that have landed lesser people without the last name Clinton in prison.
She should have been running from the Police not running for office.
Trump. Love him, Loathe him or Lump him. He won due to the ground swell of regular people (deplorables) that saw a chance to send a message to DC that they were not happy with the status quo and the direction the country was taking off a cliff.
The people who "Lumped" Trump voted for him because they could not stand the thought of another Clinton in the WH.
No matter how wonderful and qualified they told us she was.
It was Trump's race to win and Hillary's to lose and she did so in grand style.
This.
And you, CapeCodTodd, have just saved everyone reading this thread, the unnecessary expense of buying that book!
Repeat, he ran as a virtual third party candidate. He ran as a populist. He ran as a pragmatist. He turned out to be a regular Republican right wing fanatic.
Repeat, he ran as a virtual third party candidate. He ran as a populist. He ran as a pragmatist. He turned out to be a regular Republican right wing fanatic.
There are always some populists who run every election.
Trump was more than just a dark horse. He was a black swan.
I voted for Hillary in 2008, and O'Bama in 2012. I was a democratic and previously had a bad view of republicans. The thing that turned me was Hillary's Honesty and past scandals. Leading me to a Trump - yes he has his issues, he is a business man who has proven experience to handle money. Since he has taken office - impressed that he is sticking to his campaign promises.
I am sick and tried about hearing Russia this, or Hacking that!!!!! Why isn't anything being done with the information that was discovered about Hillary and Democratic crimes!!!
My $00.02
You also seem to have a a bad view of English class.
The Russian hacks into the DNC e-mails.
Director Comey re-opening the e-mail investigation of Hillary Clinton over Pizzagate.
And foolish voters who thought that Trump was different than a politician but he was. In fact, he is worse because he's a total ******* hypocrite.
HRC got what she deserved. She ignored the working class base which built the Democratic party when it ran sane folks many decades ago. That class, finally, spoke up, loud and clear.
... and she lost because FBI Director Comey issued his investigation letter just prior to the election, while choosing NOT to mention an on-going investigation into Trump. His letter cost her about 2 points in the polls and she never recovered from that.
Clinton was a weak candidate who did not inspire. That, plus outside foreign interference and Comey's interference, was just enough to sink her in a remarkably close election. Trump barely squeaked out a win by 100,000 spread over just three states, Penn., Wisc. and Minn. Trump's election was a huge fluke and is not the sweeping mandate for change that his supporters think it is.
Comey didn't violate section F of the Espionage Act.
Hillary did that because she had to hide the communications associated with her pay for play schemes.
Comey didn't violate section F of the Espionage Act.
Hillary did that because she had to hide the communications associated with her pay for play schemes.
And yet Trump did that with his appointees...
Quote:
Pay to play, sometimes pay for play, is a phrase used for a variety of situations in which money is exchanged for services or the privilege to engage in certain activities. The common denominator of all forms of pay to play is that one must pay to "get in the game," with the sports analogy frequently arising.
Tell me how donors like DeVos and McMahon getting cabinet posts isn't pay for play. Trump is worse than Clinton for deriding her for doing it when he knew he was going to do it.
I will look out for this book on my next trip to a book store. I read the Halperin and Hileman (sp) books on 2008 and 2012 and thought they gave great insight. I hope they do a 2016 follow up.
Did the book go into data mining/the online campaigns into much depth. A firm originally out of the UK- Cambridge Analytics I believe- really helped boost Cruz then honed in on possible Trump messages/voters.
Aside from my personal politics I think getting into the different layers of elections is very interesting. SO often we see 2 or 3 big topics and miss out on the minor dealings that can swing an election. For 2000 it was the Cuban vote in Florida pissed about Elian Gonzalez, Governor Bush tidying up voter rolls by kicking off folks with the same names as felons even when it was already one of the nations biggest states with huge numbers of similarly name folks and Team Gore's pick of Lieberman for a morality play when then Senator Graham could have delivered at least another 25-100k votes in his home state. Just wondering if they ID'd similar issues in a couple of the swing states.
This is a perfect book for political junkies in this forum. C'mon, we had a sticky on polling. This book is not for the ideologue because the positions of the candidates are only mentioned in terms of strategy. It's for people interested in the campaign itself. You might be surprised that the internal polling for Trump wasn't done by any heavy hitters in the polling industry.
State polling was off more than national polling.
Speaking of polling, Real Clear Politics takes a hit. I don't want to say "I told you so" but averaging polls is crappola. For Wisconsin, for example, Trump won by 1%. RCP had Clinton ahead by 6.5%.
The book asks the question of whether the polling was wrong due to bias or the hope of dampening turnout for Trump but the authors say they misinformed the Clinton campaign.
Clear polling bias which I highly assume was age related. Non-responses by Trump voters. An adjustment for this would be to count demographics on non-responses and make an adjustment.
For example, if the non-response rate for people >50 is 30% and for people under 30 it's 10% you're clearly going to get a big bias towards the democrats.
The other issue and I actually have warned people here about it for several elections are the idiots crowing about their candidate being "so far ahead" which in this election may have impacted turnout since Hillary "had it in the bag".
My clinical view of things, coming from a moderate that couldn't stand either of them and voted neither.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
