|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 13 2017 01:57 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2017 13:46 LegalLord wrote:
Even Billy Clinton, with his substantial oratory prowess, couldn't make HRC look like a good candidate when campaigning for her.
With a passably good candidate, the support of both Bill and Obama will be a strong boost to the 2020 runner. Whereas Trump probably has half the Republican leadership hating him. The thing is, Bill's entire message felt so irrelevant the entire campaign. It was like they had every speech and talking point planned out 20 years ago and they never thought to update it. I would say this quality was seen throughout the campaign in many ways. I don't recall hearing that much from bill. iirc he had a couple gaffes early on this campaign, and they didn't use him too extensively, some, but not that much. To some degree I wonder if hillary wanted to win on her own without relying on her husband too much.
Her husband told her to campaign more even in red states, Trump just end up working harder than Hillary and therefore won.
|
On February 13 2017 01:07 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 00:46 ChristianS wrote:On February 13 2017 00:38 LegalLord wrote:
Anyone feel somewhat bothered by Trump referring to his other properties as "White House" as here:
I mean, there's probably worse things you can think of that Trump did, but for some reason this one stuck out to me. I mean, it's directly advertising his properties as President, which would normally be considered an ethics violation, but I thought you didn't care about those. Just feel like he's demeaning the office then? Ethics violations matter - but they're generally somewhere down the list of problems. Perhaps the problem is that it's not really just advertising - it's putting his properties on the public dime because they necessarily will require the security arrangements necessary for a president. NY complained about that with Trump Tower for example. Also, using personally owned private property for political visits, I'm not sure what the precedent is there.
Several of the ethics violations you were dismissive of involved him enriching himself with public monies. The DC post office leasing space in one of his buildings, for instance, was one I thought I specifically remember you dismissing, even though he's now the boss of whoever is negotiating the contract that decides how much money to pay Donald Trump for that space.
|
On February 13 2017 02:00 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 01:57 zlefin wrote:On February 13 2017 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2017 13:46 LegalLord wrote:
Even Billy Clinton, with his substantial oratory prowess, couldn't make HRC look like a good candidate when campaigning for her.
With a passably good candidate, the support of both Bill and Obama will be a strong boost to the 2020 runner. Whereas Trump probably has half the Republican leadership hating him. The thing is, Bill's entire message felt so irrelevant the entire campaign. It was like they had every speech and talking point planned out 20 years ago and they never thought to update it. I would say this quality was seen throughout the campaign in many ways. I don't recall hearing that much from bill. iirc he had a couple gaffes early on this campaign, and they didn't use him too extensively, some, but not that much. To some degree I wonder if hillary wanted to win on her own without relying on her husband too much. Her husband told her to campaign more even in red states, Trump just end up working harder than Hillary and therefore won.
working harder therefore winning does not seem substantiated. that seems more like an unfounded claim. you'd have to back it up more for it to be considered credible. especially considering the numerous other factors that exist.
|
On February 13 2017 02:01 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 02:00 RealityIsKing wrote:On February 13 2017 01:57 zlefin wrote:On February 13 2017 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2017 13:46 LegalLord wrote:
Even Billy Clinton, with his substantial oratory prowess, couldn't make HRC look like a good candidate when campaigning for her.
With a passably good candidate, the support of both Bill and Obama will be a strong boost to the 2020 runner. Whereas Trump probably has half the Republican leadership hating him. The thing is, Bill's entire message felt so irrelevant the entire campaign. It was like they had every speech and talking point planned out 20 years ago and they never thought to update it. I would say this quality was seen throughout the campaign in many ways. I don't recall hearing that much from bill. iirc he had a couple gaffes early on this campaign, and they didn't use him too extensively, some, but not that much. To some degree I wonder if hillary wanted to win on her own without relying on her husband too much. Her husband told her to campaign more even in red states, Trump just end up working harder than Hillary and therefore won. working harder therefore winning does not seem substantiated. that seems more like an unfounded claim. you'd have to back it up more for it to be considered credible. especially considering the numerous other factors that exist.
Well of course, there are also the Emails from Hillary that got Wikileaked.
|
On February 13 2017 02:03 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 02:01 zlefin wrote:On February 13 2017 02:00 RealityIsKing wrote:On February 13 2017 01:57 zlefin wrote:On February 13 2017 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2017 13:46 LegalLord wrote:
Even Billy Clinton, with his substantial oratory prowess, couldn't make HRC look like a good candidate when campaigning for her.
With a passably good candidate, the support of both Bill and Obama will be a strong boost to the 2020 runner. Whereas Trump probably has half the Republican leadership hating him. The thing is, Bill's entire message felt so irrelevant the entire campaign. It was like they had every speech and talking point planned out 20 years ago and they never thought to update it. I would say this quality was seen throughout the campaign in many ways. I don't recall hearing that much from bill. iirc he had a couple gaffes early on this campaign, and they didn't use him too extensively, some, but not that much. To some degree I wonder if hillary wanted to win on her own without relying on her husband too much. Her husband told her to campaign more even in red states, Trump just end up working harder than Hillary and therefore won. working harder therefore winning does not seem substantiated. that seems more like an unfounded claim. you'd have to back it up more for it to be considered credible. especially considering the numerous other factors that exist. Well of course, there are also the Emails from Hillary that got Wikileaked.
I also refer you to kwiz's post on the prior page listing numerous other factors.
|
On February 13 2017 02:05 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 02:03 RealityIsKing wrote:On February 13 2017 02:01 zlefin wrote:On February 13 2017 02:00 RealityIsKing wrote:On February 13 2017 01:57 zlefin wrote:On February 13 2017 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2017 13:46 LegalLord wrote:
Even Billy Clinton, with his substantial oratory prowess, couldn't make HRC look like a good candidate when campaigning for her.
With a passably good candidate, the support of both Bill and Obama will be a strong boost to the 2020 runner. Whereas Trump probably has half the Republican leadership hating him. The thing is, Bill's entire message felt so irrelevant the entire campaign. It was like they had every speech and talking point planned out 20 years ago and they never thought to update it. I would say this quality was seen throughout the campaign in many ways. I don't recall hearing that much from bill. iirc he had a couple gaffes early on this campaign, and they didn't use him too extensively, some, but not that much. To some degree I wonder if hillary wanted to win on her own without relying on her husband too much. Her husband told her to campaign more even in red states, Trump just end up working harder than Hillary and therefore won. working harder therefore winning does not seem substantiated. that seems more like an unfounded claim. you'd have to back it up more for it to be considered credible. especially considering the numerous other factors that exist. Well of course, there are also the Emails from Hillary that got Wikileaked. I also refer you to kwiz's post on the prior page listing numerous other factors.
Plus she was being extremely divisive by calling Trump supporters deplorable and was absolutely petty by not even complimenting Trump after the debate.
Trump took the high road and complimented her like how a true gentleman would.
|
Please don't bring "Trump won the debates" stuff in any fashion back into this thread, there's no evidence for that anywhere (I don't count clicker polls as evidence). The post-debate bumps she got would likely have been enough to win her the firewall if they hadn't worn off (like most bumps do) unless somehow the trends were hugely biased.
|
On February 13 2017 02:08 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 02:05 zlefin wrote:On February 13 2017 02:03 RealityIsKing wrote:On February 13 2017 02:01 zlefin wrote:On February 13 2017 02:00 RealityIsKing wrote:On February 13 2017 01:57 zlefin wrote:On February 13 2017 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2017 13:46 LegalLord wrote:
Even Billy Clinton, with his substantial oratory prowess, couldn't make HRC look like a good candidate when campaigning for her.
With a passably good candidate, the support of both Bill and Obama will be a strong boost to the 2020 runner. Whereas Trump probably has half the Republican leadership hating him. The thing is, Bill's entire message felt so irrelevant the entire campaign. It was like they had every speech and talking point planned out 20 years ago and they never thought to update it. I would say this quality was seen throughout the campaign in many ways. I don't recall hearing that much from bill. iirc he had a couple gaffes early on this campaign, and they didn't use him too extensively, some, but not that much. To some degree I wonder if hillary wanted to win on her own without relying on her husband too much. Her husband told her to campaign more even in red states, Trump just end up working harder than Hillary and therefore won. working harder therefore winning does not seem substantiated. that seems more like an unfounded claim. you'd have to back it up more for it to be considered credible. especially considering the numerous other factors that exist. Well of course, there are also the Emails from Hillary that got Wikileaked. I also refer you to kwiz's post on the prior page listing numerous other factors. Plus she was being extremely divisive by calling Trump supporters deplorable and was absolutely petty by not even complimenting Trump after the debate. Trump took the high road and complimented her like how a true gentleman would.
claiming trump behaved like a gentleman and hillary was not is just extreme partisan coloring.
and trump did numerous extremely divisive things. and I assume as many do, you ignored the second part of hillary's quote.
you're simply making claims that do not hold up to an objective look well.
|
On February 13 2017 02:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Please don't bring "Trump won the debates" stuff in any fashion back into this thread, there's no evidence for that anywhere (I don't count clicker polls as evidence). The post-debate bumps she got would likely have been enough to win her the firewall if they hadn't worn off (like most bumps do) unless somehow the trends were hugely biased.
Well the trends were hugely biased for sure.
On February 13 2017 02:14 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 02:08 RealityIsKing wrote:On February 13 2017 02:05 zlefin wrote:On February 13 2017 02:03 RealityIsKing wrote:On February 13 2017 02:01 zlefin wrote:On February 13 2017 02:00 RealityIsKing wrote:On February 13 2017 01:57 zlefin wrote:On February 13 2017 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2017 13:46 LegalLord wrote:
Even Billy Clinton, with his substantial oratory prowess, couldn't make HRC look like a good candidate when campaigning for her.
With a passably good candidate, the support of both Bill and Obama will be a strong boost to the 2020 runner. Whereas Trump probably has half the Republican leadership hating him. The thing is, Bill's entire message felt so irrelevant the entire campaign. It was like they had every speech and talking point planned out 20 years ago and they never thought to update it. I would say this quality was seen throughout the campaign in many ways. I don't recall hearing that much from bill. iirc he had a couple gaffes early on this campaign, and they didn't use him too extensively, some, but not that much. To some degree I wonder if hillary wanted to win on her own without relying on her husband too much. Her husband told her to campaign more even in red states, Trump just end up working harder than Hillary and therefore won. working harder therefore winning does not seem substantiated. that seems more like an unfounded claim. you'd have to back it up more for it to be considered credible. especially considering the numerous other factors that exist. Well of course, there are also the Emails from Hillary that got Wikileaked. I also refer you to kwiz's post on the prior page listing numerous other factors. Plus she was being extremely divisive by calling Trump supporters deplorable and was absolutely petty by not even complimenting Trump after the debate. Trump took the high road and complimented her like how a true gentleman would. claiming trump behaved like a gentleman and hillary was not is just extreme partisan coloring. and trump did numerous extremely divisive things. and I assume as many do, you ignored the second part of hillary's quote. you're simply making claims that do not hold up to an objective look well.
Still doesn't change the fact that Trump is a much better person in that moment than Hillary.
|
rik -> behavior in a single moment in time doesn't count for all that much typically, compared to overall behavior over a period of time, especially not for something as low scale as this. plus considering all bad things he undoubtedly did in that debate, and the fair chance your memory of the circumstances is inaccurate.
also, trump wasn't a better person there, at most it'd mean he acted better at a particular point in time.
|
No Trump was definitely the better person in that debate because in that debate, he talked about how he would deal with immigration, the building of infrastructure, how he would restructure the health care systems, etc.
All Hillary talked about was mischaracterizing Trump and then not even compliment Trump afterward like how a true gentlewoman would.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
When talking to RiK, please remember that he isn't an honest actor. If you talk to him about Trump and the Mexicans, he's going to tell you that Trump said some, not all, and that some are good people, therefore the attack is incorrect. Suddenly you're talking about Hillary and the deplorables and it's all the Trump supporters, even though she made it much clearer that she wasn't talking about all of them than Trump did for the Mexicans. Nobody honest is going to see the distinction in one case and not in the other.
|
On February 13 2017 02:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Please don't bring "Trump won the debates" stuff in any fashion back into this thread, there's no evidence for that anywhere (I don't count clicker polls as evidence). The post-debate bumps she got would likely have been enough to win her the firewall if they hadn't worn off (like most bumps do) unless somehow the trends were hugely biased.
Well, there was evidence that the trends were hugely biased. The polling organization that was most accurate with its election prediction said that Trump support was serially under-reported in the responses to pollster inquiries. The organization found that Trump's support went up by some large margin of like 5-10 points when the question was "who are your neighbors voting for" instead of "who are you voting for." The organization got its accurate result when it started incorporating this data into its polling analysis. I forget the exact the margin and I don't have the link anymore, but I posted it almost immediately after the election.
EDIT: It was the Trafalgar Group that picked up on the "shy Trump voter" error in polling:
I saw a lot of commentators refer to this say that they believe that the “shy voter” worked both ways [shy Trump and shy Hillary voters]. That is not what we experienced. In fact, what we experienced was a pattern that was so unnatural we knew there had to be something to it.
I grew up in the South and everybody is very polite down here, and if you want to find out the truth on a hot topic, you can’t just ask the question directly. So, the neighbor is part of the mechanism to get that real answer. In the 11 battle ground states, and 3 non-battleground, there was a significant drop-off between the ballot test question [which candidate you support] and the neighbors’ question [which candidate you believe most of your neighbors support]. The neighbors question result showed a similar result in each state: Hillary dropped [relative to the ballot test question] and Trump comes up across every demographic, every geography. Hillary's drop was between 3 and 11 percent while Trump's increase was between 3 and 7 percent. This pattern existed everywhere from Pennsylvania to Nevada to Utah to Georgia, and it was a constant.
And so, I don't accept that there were “shy Hillary voters.” And what we discovered is what he just said about a lot of minorities were shy voters and women were shy voters.
And just as he did most of his—he was saying to go on the Internet. That was one of the reasons we discovered in the primary that our live caller polls versus our automated push-button polls, a lot of callers weren’t even in the game [in the live caller polls]. Every single time we polled in the primary, the push-button said 4.5 points better for Trump. And obviously, we didn't know until the primary election that the push-button would always be right. The push-button had a much wider universe and it was right. In every single one of those situations, it was more accurate. I mean, it was the most accurate poll in South Carolina, most accurate poll in Georgia, second-most accurate in Florida, and we noticed the pattern. And so, we took what we learned in the primary and we put that information in the general election balloting.
And you know, if one of those elections—if you ask people that were in the field, that were out there visiting folks, they will tell you this was one of those elections where, yes, there were tons of Trump signs and Hillary signs in yards, but there were many, many millions of people who would have never put a Trump sticker on their car or a sign in their yard that literally could not wait to vote for them.
We were surprised at how many people thought it was not going to be a Trump win. It was shocking to us the ridicule we were getting. I mean, you look at our Twitter as the election night unfolded, people saying, “You guys weren't crazy,” just as much as they've been saying we were crazy for the three weeks before. There was one guy who simply tweeted us “bullocks” and that night he said, “May I withdraw my bullocks?”
Source.
|
My entire family except my dad voted for trump, he flipped a coin cause he thought they were so bad and ended up voting for Hillary. None of us advertised our support for trump, it has direct implications for work, and being outcasted in liberal areas. Better to just ignore politics in public and just vote as you wish.
|
On February 13 2017 03:25 biology]major wrote:
My entire family except my dad voted for trump, he flipped a coin cause he thought they were so bad and ended up voting for Hillary. None of us advertised our support for trump, it has direct implications for work, and being outcasted in liberal areas. Better to just ignore politics in public and just vote as you wish.
Are they regretting it? Do they like his course and ways, or did they expect something else?
|
I mean the hundred days arn't over yet I wouldn't trust anyone saying that they regret voting for someone. Its like those people after brexit saying they "wish they had another chance" when they full well knew what would happen.
|
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump had a Bradley effect going on.
|
On February 13 2017 03:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 02:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Please don't bring "Trump won the debates" stuff in any fashion back into this thread, there's no evidence for that anywhere (I don't count clicker polls as evidence). The post-debate bumps she got would likely have been enough to win her the firewall if they hadn't worn off (like most bumps do) unless somehow the trends were hugely biased. Well, there was evidence that the trends were hugely biased. The polling organization that was most accurate with its election prediction said that Trump support was serially under-reported in the responses to pollster inquiries. The organization found that Trump's support went up by some large margin of like 5-10 points when the question was "who are your neighbors voting for" instead of "who are you voting for." The organization got its accurate result when it started incorporating this data into its polling analysis. I forget the exact the margin and I don't have the link anymore, but I posted it almost immediately after the election. EDIT: It was the Trafalgar Group that picked up on the "shy Trump voter" error in polling: Show nested quote +I saw a lot of commentators refer to this say that they believe that the “shy voter” worked both ways [shy Trump and shy Hillary voters]. That is not what we experienced. In fact, what we experienced was a pattern that was so unnatural we knew there had to be something to it.
I grew up in the South and everybody is very polite down here, and if you want to find out the truth on a hot topic, you can’t just ask the question directly. So, the neighbor is part of the mechanism to get that real answer. In the 11 battle ground states, and 3 non-battleground, there was a significant drop-off between the ballot test question [which candidate you support] and the neighbors’ question [which candidate you believe most of your neighbors support]. The neighbors question result showed a similar result in each state: Hillary dropped [relative to the ballot test question] and Trump comes up across every demographic, every geography. Hillary's drop was between 3 and 11 percent while Trump's increase was between 3 and 7 percent. This pattern existed everywhere from Pennsylvania to Nevada to Utah to Georgia, and it was a constant.
And so, I don't accept that there were “shy Hillary voters.” And what we discovered is what he just said about a lot of minorities were shy voters and women were shy voters.
And just as he did most of his—he was saying to go on the Internet. That was one of the reasons we discovered in the primary that our live caller polls versus our automated push-button polls, a lot of callers weren’t even in the game [in the live caller polls]. Every single time we polled in the primary, the push-button said 4.5 points better for Trump. And obviously, we didn't know until the primary election that the push-button would always be right. The push-button had a much wider universe and it was right. In every single one of those situations, it was more accurate. I mean, it was the most accurate poll in South Carolina, most accurate poll in Georgia, second-most accurate in Florida, and we noticed the pattern. And so, we took what we learned in the primary and we put that information in the general election balloting.
And you know, if one of those elections—if you ask people that were in the field, that were out there visiting folks, they will tell you this was one of those elections where, yes, there were tons of Trump signs and Hillary signs in yards, but there were many, many millions of people who would have never put a Trump sticker on their car or a sign in their yard that literally could not wait to vote for them.
We were surprised at how many people thought it was not going to be a Trump win. It was shocking to us the ridicule we were getting. I mean, you look at our Twitter as the election night unfolded, people saying, “You guys weren't crazy,” just as much as they've been saying we were crazy for the three weeks before. There was one guy who simply tweeted us “bullocks” and that night he said, “May I withdraw my bullocks?” Source.
None of that reflects on the trends being biased, though. That's all about the point estimates being biased. If every single poll is 4 points off in favor of Clinton...the trends in polling will still be accurate (in fact, if they're all off by a constant margin, the trends will be FANTASTICALLY accurate). And pushing her up by 2% nationally would most likely have flipped the battleground states, which is what happened trend-wise after each debate more or less.
Biased trends would rely on something like the shy Trump effect increasing in power relative to Clinton's advantage, which as far as I know was discussed (and is in fact contradicted by what that group says about the shy Trump effect being constant).
Kind of like how I can tell how many inches a child grew over the course of a year even if my ruler underestimates their height by 4 inches each time.
|
On February 13 2017 03:25 biology]major wrote:
My entire family except my dad voted for trump, he flipped a coin cause he thought they were so bad and ended up voting for Hillary. None of us advertised our support for trump, it has direct implications for work, and being outcasted in liberal areas. Better to just ignore politics in public and just vote as you wish.
I've wondered if we should add political party affiliation/who you vote for to the list of non-discrimination things enforced by law. (i.e. just like how you're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender/race/religion, we could add party affiliation to that).
as i've heard about a number of statements like yours.
|
On February 13 2017 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 23:48 Aquanim wrote:On February 12 2017 21:40 Nebuchad wrote:
You need to go back to before the election when you were all smug and making ban bets because you thought she was going to win super easily. ...yeah, I'm pretty sure this doesn't describe me at all. Then you need to question how much these structural factors like the pendulum swings and whatever kwiz can throw at us really matter a whole lot. I guess that depends whether you're just coming here to score points, or to learn something. So what do you think we should learn?
Some respect for other people and their opinions, for starters...
(In other words, do you not realize that you're on the side of learning nothing from this?)
I'm on the side of learning the correct lesson, which involves not only acknowledging the mistakes made by the Clinton campaign but also not over-correcting based on a flawed perspective on events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
