|
"Vote Hillary Clinton 2016" is dead. Long live "Vote Hillary Clinton 2016"! (pg. 13)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ RANN |
Nah, she has ahd a secret service escort since the 90's and for the rest of her life due to bill being an Ex-pres :p
But honestly, credit where credit is due. He beat her straight up. Trump is POTUS elect.
I was hoping he wouldn't accept the result though due to it being rigged lol. |
|
|
| Serial Killer |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
But honestly, credit where credit is due. He beat her straight up. Trump is POTUS elect.
I was hoping he wouldn't accept the result though due to it being rigged lol. |
that's what she thought when it was time to concede..
she prob was like wtf just happened. ? lmao |
|
|
| Paradox Lost |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
I was hoping he wouldn't accept the result though due to it being rigged lol. |
I was actually looking forward to him phoning Clinton with his concession, which I imagine was just calling and hanging up. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| Little experiment for everybody. Read the Huff Post comment sections and then read the Breitbart comment sections. Just to get a feel. |
|
|
| Swamper |
The only genius thing about Trump's campaign was the 'Make America Great Again' slogan -- it both speaks to everyone and says nothing at the same time. His divisive rhetoric only put a magnifying glass on America's decades long trend of stagnant wages and rising anti-intellectualism. He didn't win so much as Hillary lost - where even with all the media heavyweights and tools at her disposal she was not able to shake her soulless demeanour and "So what?" attitude towards her email (and many other) debacles. I'm not a fan of either of them but we should at least be happy that we have the Internet/Wikileaks to help shed some light on what has been passed off as mere conspiracy theory for so long.
In terms of hypocrisy, both Trump and Clinton are experts at both -- the former, vilifying Muslims/Mexicans/LGTBQ and the latter labelling her opponents supports as solely being comprised of "deplorables". Now, in today's speeches, each is calling for unity and treating all as equals. Right. Clowns, both of them. Using the metaphor of an old car that burns too much oil for its own good, Hillary is that car that needs top ups every week. People are sick of the same 'ol, even if it still gets them from A -> B. They're willing to drive another car, even without test driving it themselves, and even when Consumer Reports says it is the biggest lemon to ever be manufactured.
America's tentacles reach into many places and now there will be someone at the top that likes to speak first and think later -- the consequence of that, is unknown; and that's what has people scared the most.
"People vote for hope and change when they’re in pain. When I watched the election last night, I didn’t see a bunch of s voting to be hateful, I saw a bunch of people going through a lot of suffering hoping for something better."
^^
Good read here : http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/11/its-going-to-be-okay.html
"America has changed fundamentally over the last 35 years, and I saw and heard the impact of those changes. America had finally started upending a longstanding and ugly racial hierarchy, removing legal barriers that had made the playing field anything but level. For this, minorities overwhelmingly supported the new system, despite still suffering economically and socially more than white Americans.
Yet we replaced that system with one based on schooling, building a playing field that was tilted dramatically towards anyone with the “right” education. The jobs requiring muscle decreased (many going overseas) while the jobs requiring school increased. Compounding the pain from this, we started giving the winners a much larger share of the profits.
The early Trump voters I met were the losers from these changes. Their once superior status – based only on being white – was being dismantled, while their lack of education was also being punished. They lived in towns and communities devastated by economic upheaval. They were born in them and stayed in them, despite their fall. For many, who had focused on their community over career, it felt like their entire world was collapsing."
^^ https://www.theguardian.com/society...MP=share_btn_fb |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Well it's probably because he was deliberately massaging his statistics away from the truth to make them more entertaining... Oh wait.
And Alex is starting to sound very much like a complete bell end. |
Because I said liberals need to re-think how they do stuff and how conservatives need to re-think how they do stuff?
System-J you always stay on the sidelines making "clever" comments and tossing out the odd insult, but I rarely see you take a side on anything. Offer an actual opinion, take stance or a suggestion as to what you actually believe instead of being a spineless **** that endlessly trolls. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Well given that Nate spent thousands of hours using data for predictions that turned out to completely and utterly wrong, doesn't mean he wasn't fudging them. |
He gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance of winning, and Trump won. That isn't "completely and utterly wrong". If he'd given Trump a 1.5% chance of winning and Trump won, we'd be talking a 1 in 66 event happening, and then you could say he was probably completely wrong with his methodology. But a 1 in 3 shot is pretty likely, and he was one of the only ones to give Trump a realistic chance.
The people who got their methodology "completely wrong" were the guys you backed, when you claimed Silver's methodology didn't match theirs because he was trying to create artificial drama by weighting things towards Trump. Turns out he had a better weighting for Trump because he read the data better.
If you read that 538 article, his description of what might happen if a 3 point margin of error went in Trump's favour is actually remarkably close to what happened:
| quote: | | But if there’s a 3-point error against Clinton? That would still leave her with a narrow lead over Trump in the popular vote — by about the margin by which Gore beat Bush in 2000. But New Hampshire, which is currently the tipping-point state, would be exactly tied. Meanwhile, Clinton’s projected margin in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Colorado would shrink to about 1 percentage point, while Trump would be about 2 points ahead in Florida and North Carolina. It’s certainly not impossible that Clinton could win under those circumstances — her turnout operation might come in really handy — but she doesn’t have the Electoral College advantage that Obama did in 2012, when he led in states such as Ohio and Iowa and had larger leads than Clinton does in Michigan and Pennsylvania. In particular, Clinton could be vulnerable to a slump in African-American turnout. |
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ome-up-clinton/
Clinton did actually win the popular vote by a slender margin, Trump did win Florida and North Carolina, and Clinton was ultimately let down by a slump in African-American turnout. |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
Del: I agree that many of these heartland and battle ground states voted for Trump because they have been left behind do to manufacturing moving overseas.
My issue is that those jobs are never coming back and that Trump has no viable plan to change it. People would rather blame immigrants than the companies who have pulled out. Raising tariffs and anti free trade sounds good to the common person but they don't want to consider that even if the President could force them to be manufactured in the USA the prices would skyrocket. They want the jobs and those low Walmart prices but you can't have both. These blue collar workers are often short sighted, hypocritical, and illogical. Conservatives praise capitalism and don't want the government interfering but then want someone to step in and protect their jobs. Contrary to what was said during the election, consumers and the majority of US companies have benefited from free trade.
Up until now Trump has the luxury of criticizing what went before and giving unspecific solutions "to make America great". Let's see him actually try to do something constructive to difficult real world problems. This isn't going to work like an episode of the Apprentice.
In the end I don't think Hillary could have done anything to win the election. She was a member of the previous administration and people wanted something different. Much in the same way the Brexit voter's want change. The details or the candidate didn't matter.
I've seen enough elections to know that the incumbent party don't last any more than two terms. And just like after Brexit people are looking for someone to blame when it's really a number of factors that lead to the end result.
Alex: Jack is right you are a bellend and he often takes position and backs it up. It's you who is being rude and idiotic. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
Because I said liberals need to re-think how they do stuff and how conservatives need to re-think how they do stuff?
System-J you always stay on the sidelines making "clever" comments and tossing out the odd insult, but I rarely see you take a side on anything. Offer an actual opinion, take stance or a suggestion as to what you actually believe instead of being a spineless **** that endlessly trolls. |
How did I stay on the sidelines here? Throughout the whole thread I repeatedly said I wanted Clinton to win over Trump. I made some pretty detailed posts explaining why. In the last few days before the election, particularly the night before, I had a bad feeling about it and I tried to play down the premature predictions that Clinton was going to win easily.
I also resented the smug tone of Woony and RANN when they opined that "smart people" always suspected that Clinton would win by 4% and the poll uncertainty was just a media circus, so I'm taking what grim satisfaction I can out of this -show by pointing out that my fears were bang on the money, and that sticking up for Nate Silver over the bull Huffington Post was also bang on the money.
Do you mean I "stayed on the sidelines" because I didn't fall into the parameters of your angry little strawman of the "smug liberal elite" posting in this thread, and instead remained fairly realistic despite my partisan stake in the outcome?
You sound like a bell end because your little rant is just a mess of clumsily stuck-together clichés about liberal elite SJWs on their smartphones, etc. etc. You sound like someone's angry grandparent. What are you seriously suggesting? That it wasn't deep rooted economic and sociological problems in American society shaped by enormous historical currents that lead to white working class alienation and anger? That Trump really won because we made some posts in this thread you found too hi'falutin? Perhaps if we'd just gone out to the rust belt and explained that Trump's policies were utter and obvious nonsense that couldn't be implemented and didn't solve any of the real problems, these people would go "Gee, thanks for being so humble and pointing that out! You've totally changed my world view"?
The funny thing is the guy who comes closest to fitting the SJW political profile is wotyzoid, who was giving it the whole "struggles of the working class nigga" shtick back in the primaries. In other words, the SJWs would actually stick up for the working class guys over the elite. You'd know that if you actually had a ing clue about the left-wing political discourse, rather than just letting it all blur into one ing stupid haze of stereotypical guff. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| Social Justice Warrior should be one of my aliases. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| In lighter news, NJ wasn't even close but Lews would be happy to know I voted for her anyways. Lol |
|
|
|
|
