I'm not saying the TRUMP campaign was some unstoppable juggernaut. Quite the opposite. They did the minimum required work to be judged "somewhat competent." They were beatable, but they put in some effort.

All I disagreed with is the organizational part of HRC being inferior. Every elections candidates spend little to no time in areas they think they can't win. That's bad strategy in this case, not bad organization.

exactly!

Ah, the old criminal nonsense. I like how Hilary is such an idiot who can't run a campaign, but yet she is a master criminal who has survived a million investigations. Makes sense.


I thought the country cared about racism more than it did. I was wrong. People wanted to rant about abstract "criminality" and "corruption" while ignoring the tangible corruption that trump embodied, the rage and prejudice that's keeping minority kids awake at night now that he's president. I wish people like you cared about that. But you don't. I was wrong to think you had anything that resembles a soul. Mea culpa.

Hil literally said POKEMON GO TO THE POLLS, yall.

Trump doesn't wants a bad relationship with any country.

She literally just rigged a primary. She's as corrupt as they come.

I doubt they're making up almost 10pts in Ohio that fast. They also went pretty hard in PA at the end and it wasn't enough.

JOZY AND WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD

OK? If you're going to get this nitty, I said the TRUMP campaign was a better organization (as in, a better team), not that the campaign HAD better "organization", which you're just using as some vague fuzzy concept here because then you can build some sort of narrative to argue... something.

It was most definitely a mandate against Hillary more than a mandate for Trump.

Remember when Trump wasn't resonating? What an innocent time that was.

This **** actually might piss me off even more than honest racists.
I grew up around mostly Hispanic people (I'm white.) Other than my own brother I had one white teammate in about 10 years of playing baseball from 6-16ish. In college is when I was finally around a lot of white people and it was disgusting to see some of them act nice around minorities but the second it was just a few white people in the room they'd start with the racist bs. I even had some shetered long island dbag try to explain to me that I don't know how "they " are because I grew up around them. wtf.

Ikes > Trump? Jake?

when will the votes from broward county come in? 6/10 shook here.

Not yet.

That part where we pretend Quick Ben can count to 3, let's skip it.

Absolute gold.

I don't get it either. There's a guy in my fb feed who kept going on and on about how important voting was. With a month to go he still hadn't decided. He eventually voted for HRC but was considering Stein and Trump. Now that Trump won he is utterly disgusted and said he had to go home from work the next day bc he was literally in tears about it.

I mean MAYBE i can understand being unsure but how do you go from unsure to in tears over who won in a month when you were considering the person who won.

snippity snap campaigning for romney in this hypothetical scenario, every time

RE: Trump campaign competence, he still feels like he just consistently failed up to me. Dude's the Lane Kiffin of politics.

The move to campaign in the Rust Belt was sort of trivial. He knew he needed white people and went to find them. We talked about it on this forum or at least I did about why he kept going back to New Hampshire. He didn't have a big map of choices.

The literal only story that I look back at now that gives me like even the smallest pause that Trump campaign were actually 3 sigma wizard mages is that WSJ article after the 2nd debate where his campaign crowed about engaging in 'voter suppression' but then actually described how they were simply planning to negative campaign against her but speficially mentioned her weaknesses in the midwest.

We all laughed and laughed but given the story are millions of missing midwestern Obama voters I suppose we're forced to reexamine.

I still think it's 95% likely Clinton did it at herself through being bad in a myriad of ways but I am at least interested in hearing the Conway/Bannon tell all someday about if they really did have some dark magic **** to sour specific voters in places on Clinton besides trite right wing nonsense ('viola! We'll call her crooked!'). I'm skeptical but curious.

If you're worrying about that, then your priorities are wrong.

We were way closer to nuclear war when JFK was President then we ever will be with Trump. Even if we strike a country without second-strike capabilities, our reputation would be completely decimated and we would almost certainly wipe out a foreign ally or trade partner along the way.

I am worried about foreign policy in general though. If he perceives it from an exclusively financial perspective where there is one winner and one loser, then we're ****ed. However, I expect him to have experts explain foreign policy to him and in 5 minutes he'll just start watching TV and tell them to do all the work for him.

I'm still confident that he is at least in part in this just to have people call him President Trump while he sits down and lets everybody else do all the work for him.

I tell ya. I didn't want Trump to win but I do enjoy seeing all these smug tv hosts eating crow

So took me a while to come back to this since I was eating dinner.

The problem with models like this is that sometimes people look for patterns that prove their hypothesis ahead of seeing all the data or considering all the variables.

I agree with you on question 2 and 3.

If you believe 2 and 3 to be the case, then why do you say most definitely yes for question one?

If you look at the numbers, 2016 is the only year that neither candidate had higher than 50% favorability.

Would it be crazy to conjecture that in cases in which this is true, the favorability margin is not very predictive ?

That as both candidate's favorability approaches 0, win probability truly becomes 50-50 because you reach a Kang vs kodos situation.

Post electionwith additional data, we can see another anomaly. Why is trump able to get 40 some percent of the vote with just 30 some percent favorability ?

And therein lies the crux of the problem and can be supported by the many many more Trump supporters that state "well I don't like either, but trump at least promises me some benefit but Hilary doesn't speak to me at all" as compared to the very few like HastenDan who dislikes both but votes Hilary.

The problem is Hilary focused too much on lowering trump's favorability when it was already in the gutters instead of raising her own. Of course Comey didn't help. But it's largely because she didn't realize 50 vs 45 Is much more preferable to 40 vs 30 even though gap is bigger in 40 vs 30.

Erroneously reading stuff like the above 538 article only puts things in to a positive feed back loop.

lol

THEY AREN'T

now, reformulate all your wishcasting with the assumption that they were exactly who you thought they were.