Trump

[kato13]

I do have to say I give Kudos to the New York Times for calling things accurately (once the votes were coming in). They called Florida literally the same minute my analysis solidified.

And their prediction webpage
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president

was both accurate and informative all election night.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by kato13

I do have to say I give Kudos to the New York Times for calling things accurately (once the votes were coming in). They called Florida literally the same minute my analysis solidified.

And their prediction webpage
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president

was both accurate and informative all election night.

I followed the results of the election on BBC internet service as I was outside of the US. The way the results changed during the evening was shocking. The vote for Trump just grew and overtook Clinton in all of the swing states at an alarming rate. Virginia I think was the only swing state in which Clinton retook the lead.

I have to say the performance and accuracy of the mainstream media and pollsters in all of this was very poor. I know many people chose not to vote or voted for an independent candidate, but how did they miss all of the support building for Trump. I'm not going to discuss the allegations made about Trump in the lead up to all of this, but no matter what was said and no matter how many turned their backs on him he defeated 16 other Republican candidates and all of his rallies were constantly sold out. Why did the media not bother to look at this?

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by RN7

but no matter what was said and no matter how many turned their backs on him he defeated 16 other Republican candidates and all of his rallies were constantly sold out. Why did the media not bother to look at this?

The Media is overwhelmingly in the Democratic camp. To do or say something that goes against the Party line would likely cause someone to lose their job.
Second, social capital in the form of expressing loudly to all your friends and colleagues of the same political bent makes them all feel good about one another.
Third, the extreme disconnect between white male / female people in Trades or Service sector jobs (Middle class 60K jobs) from those Professional job holders.
Fourth, middle class whites are really damned tired of being told their racists and sexists at every turn. Demonize someone enough and their likely to begin to resent it.
Fifth, job creation has been largely in urban projects or kept to the coasts with poor or no effect or effort felt in rural or small communities.... no one like paying their taxes and seeing nothing for it.
Sixth, job creation efforts have gone to big political contributors again and again on large wasted projects like ethanol or solar panel plants..... Voters resent the Trillions spent be Congress on their buddies in the "Stimulus package"...... Which amounted to $300,000 per taxpayer. Most would agree if you just gave everyone $300,000 dollars the stimulus would have cared for itself.
Seventh, white middle class America lost their homes, savings, and hope with the Great Recession......... and despite the stock market and everyone else the recovery has not happened for them.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Fifth, job creation has been largely in urban projects or kept to the coasts with poor or no effect or effort felt in rural or small communities.... no one like paying their taxes and seeing nothing for it.

For the last year I have spent about 10 hours a week following politics and I honestly never considered that factor. Chalk me up as another uninformed urbanite.

[.45cultist]

Voter turn out was amazing. I waited 2 hours in line to vote. As for T2k later timelines, Perhaps strengthening strained relations with allies leads to later pulling the U.S. into war. More weapons and other preps available for CONUS campaigns. It seems to have rocked the international world like the recent Brexit vote. Warmer Russian/U.S. relations and fractured EU leads a misguided future Russian leadership to war?

[dragoon500ly]

I was blown away by the sheer number of new voters. I've always voted early (no lines), but this time, voting three weeks early, and having to wait over an hour!?!?!? Not only the usual crowd of old folks, but a shocking number of 18-19 year olds, college students, and a large number of blue collar workers, lots of people showing their IDs and registering as voters for the first time.

It has certainly been a most...interesting election.

[Cdnwolf]

Thank god I am a Snow Mexican. Time to build our Northern Wall.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

I waited 2 hours in line to vote.

That would be utterly unheard of here. It almost seems like things are set up in the US to discourage people from voting.

[dragoon500ly]

It's do with the unexpectedly large numbers that turned out, those that forgot to bring their registration cards and their driver's license, simply because, while you have to show a license to do any thing else, how dare you be asked to prove you are a registered voter! Not to mention those who assumed that you can vote in any precinct, as many times as you want.

Then toss in voter rolls that have not been updated due to people moving or dying....it's amazing that it only took a week to get all of the state's validated.

And people wonder why the purchases of alcohol go through the roof!!!!!!

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Targan

That would be utterly unheard of here. It almost seems like things are set up in the US to discourage people from voting.

It's really not, if you're willing to be a little proactive. You can vote by mail here. I sent in my ballot two weeks or so before election day. I didn't even have to leave the comfort of my own home.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by Targan

That would be utterly unheard of here. It almost seems like things are set up in the US to discourage people from voting.

They are trying to teach the elderly election officials a computer verification system, they were much faster looking through the paper books. And the turnout was much larger as well.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

The Media is overwhelmingly in the Democratic camp. To do or say something that goes against the Party line would likely cause someone to lose their job.

To me the media was very biased against Trump from the outset. I think there was little of no positivity towards Trump or anything he said throughout his campaign. Like the Democratic Party they were also complacent and dismissive about his support.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Second, social capital in the form of expressing loudly to all your friends and colleagues of the same political bent makes them all feel good about one another.

This mindset seems to have taken hold.

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Third, the extreme disconnect between white male / female people in Trades or Service sector jobs (Middle class 60K jobs) from those Professional job holders.
Fourth, middle class whites are really damned tired of being told their racists and sexists at every turn. Demonize someone enough and their likely to begin to resent it.
Fifth, job creation has been largely in urban projects or kept to the coasts with poor or no effect or effort felt in rural or small communities.... no one like paying their taxes and seeing nothing for it.
Sixth, job creation efforts have gone to big political contributors again and again on large wasted projects like ethanol or solar panel plants..... Voters resent the Trillions spent be Congress on their buddies in the "Stimulus package"...... Which amounted to $300,000 per taxpayer. Most would agree if you just gave everyone $300,000 dollars the stimulus would have cared for itself.
Seventh, white middle class America lost their homes, savings, and hope with the Great Recession......... and despite the stock market and everyone else the recovery has not happened for them.

Its quite clear that the Democratic Party completely underestimated the groundswell of discontent against them. Clinton ran a very complacent and lazy campaign as she knew she had the media, corporate backers and the celebrities in her pocket.

From what I can see Clinton got the black vote, but not as many blacks turned out to vote as she is not black like Obama. She also got the Latin/Mexican vote in some states but it wasn't not big enough to carry her. But she did not get the rest of the Hispanic vote (Cubans in Florida), and some evidence to think that many middle class Hispanics and Asians now think like their white counterparts. Clinton failed abysmally with white voters excluding liberals. The loss of the white working class and much of the white middle class lost her the election.

ArmySGT's reasons are very valid. How can you expect to win an election if you ignore the largest demographic group and dominant cultural and wealth generating and tax paying bloc in your electorate.

[kato13]

Yeah the NYT was way off before the votes were counted, but as a data obsessed person AND a web designer that tool was awesome and accurate.

As to how the pollsters and media missed the final result so badly I am a firm believer in the SHY/OBSTINATE Trump voter and the concept of self reinforcement to support your own views.

First off, in some circles, if you even show an inkling of support of Trump you will be personally attacked. Heck even the Democratic candidate did it (half of you belong in basket of deplorable). Some supporters will NEVER admit to pollsters where there vote is going. That is why Trump did better in Rasmussen (done by computer rather than humans), and the LA Times poll which followed the same voters for 6 months.

The second effect was an echo chamber in the media. The facts they found seemed to reinforce their conclusions and led to people finding more facts to support what in many cases what they wanted to be true.

Nate Silver is a pretty strong liberal, and he is great with numbers. He was attacked for suggesting that Trump might have a 30% chance to win. The Huffington Post (who had Trumps chances at 2%) said he was being dishonest with the people following him, that he was "putting his thumb on the scale for Trump" and also accused Silver of "punditry" in this election cycle. Silver not unsurprisingly went ballistic.

So you have a man who I am sure did not want Trump to win, but he was being honest and was attacked (and not seriously defended by the media as far as I saw) for stating his analysis. Silver was the media's golden boy when he accurately predicted 99 out of 100 states during Obama's two elections, but turn against the prevailing wisdom and find yourself left out in the cold.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by kato13

As to how the pollsters and media missed the final result so badly I am a firm believer in the SHY/OBSTINATE Trump voter and the concept of self reinforcement to support your own views.

I think there was plenty of evidence to suggest that the SHY/OBSTINATE Trump voter was out there all along. The media just didn't bother going out to many of the suburbs, small towns and rural communities were its existed quite overtly.

Originally Posted by kato13

First off, in some circles, if you even show an inkling of support of Trump you will be personally attacked. Heck even the Democratic candidate did it (half of you belong in basket of deplorable). Some supporters will NEVER admit to pollsters where there vote is going. That is why Trump did better in Rasmussen (done by computer rather than humans), and the LA Times poll which followed the same voters for 6 months.

Yes there was some bullying going on. In areas which voted overwhelmingly for Clinton you could be called at worst a bigot for supporting Trump, or at least be considered ill informed.

Originally Posted by kato13

The second effect was an echo chamber in the media. The facts they found seemed to reinforce their conclusions and led to people finding more facts to support what in many cases what they wanted to be true.

Nate Silver is a pretty strong liberal, and he is great with numbers. He was attacked for suggesting that Trump might have a 30% chance to win. The Huffington Post (who had Trumps chances at 2%) said he was being dishonest with the people following him, that he was "putting his thumb on the scale for Trump" and also accused Silver of "punditry" in this election cycle. Silver not unsurprisingly went ballistic.

So you have a man who I am sure did not want Trump to win, but he was being honest and was attacked (and not seriously defended by the media as far as I saw) for stating his analysis. Silver was the media's golden boy when he accurately predicted 99 out of 100 states during Obama's two elections, but turn against the prevailing wisdom and find yourself left out in the cold.

It was all a bit biased and blinkered I think. The mainstream media was very pro-Clinton and did not want to hear any view but there own during all of this. Their behaviour was as poor as their standard of reporting. They claim to be a free media but their coverage of the election showed them to be anything but.

[swaghauler]

I cannot speak for the rest of the Union, but in PA, it was very clear what was going to happen. For the first time that I can remember, Rural PA turned out to vote in numbers equal to or greater than Urban PA (Pittsburgh and Philly). While the vast majority of PA is Democratic-leaning pro-union voters, a few of things happened that caused a "quantum shift" in PA politics. The blame lays SQUARELY at the feet of President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

The First Issue was President Obama's "War on Coal." Most of rural PA's jobs involve farming, logging, coal mining and drilling/fracking. Many communities (especially in the Wilds) began to suffer as the various industries who were affected by President Obama's sanctions (to reduce emissions) began to shut down. This didn't take just the best jobs in the region, it took ALL the jobs in the region. It's hard to run a grocery store or other "service related" industry when NO ONE has any money to buy your product. To add "insult to injury," many of the workers were denied Federal funding for job retraining. The feds ACTUALLY HAD THE NERVE TO SAY "you should have seen this coming and planned for it." Hillary vowed to continue with the "War on Coal." While I do believe in Global Warming, it's pretty hard to tell entire communities "You must starve for the good of the planet..." especially when China and India are NOT doing their part. In fact, my absence from the forum lately is due to the oilfield companies abandoning the Allegheny National Forest in force. They are moving out huge amounts of equipment due to the costs of extraction now.

The Second Issue was the debacle that is Obamacare. The Democrats INCORRECTLY assumed that most if not all businesses would simply pay for health care. NOTHING could be further from the truth in PA. The vast majority of affected businesses in my region just dropped ALL of their full-time employees to part-time rather than pay for healthcare. They also tried to "punish" workers for voting Democrat by requiring those workers to work FIVE hours a day for FIVE DAYS PER WEEK. This made it difficult to go get a second job to make up the lost income. To add "insult to injury," several of these workers made too much money to qualify for Medicaid but just enough money to have to pay the FINE FOR NOT HAVING INSURANCE. So not only did Rural PA residents LOSE THEIR FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT, BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FINED THEM FOR BEING TOO POOR TO BUY INSURANCE ON OUR "SO CALLED" HEALTHCARE EXCHANGE! Hillary vowed to continue with this program as well.

The last major Issue that really had rural PA residents "up in arms" was, in fact, ARMS. PA has an absolutely HUGE number of gun owners. It has been stated that there are more hunters in the woods of PA on the opening day of Buck Season than there are Law Enforcement Officer on duty in the ENTIRE US. HALF of all rural PA residents are Veterans. The 1994 Assault Weapons Bill was very poorly received in PA. Hillary wanted a reinstatement of "reasonable gun control measures." Most rural PA residents DID NOT SEE a new Assault Weapon's Bill as "reasonable."

Most PA residents DID NOT VOTE FOR Trump. They VOTED AGAINST Hillary. In fact, if you talk to most PA residents, they will tell you that they want a Convention Of States to make what they see as "much-needed changes" to the Constitution.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

I cannot speak for the rest of the Union, but in PA, it was very clear what was going to happen. For the first time that I can remember, Rural PA turned out to vote in numbers equal to or greater than Urban PA (Pittsburgh and Philly). While the vast majority of PA is Democratic-leaning pro-union voters, a few of things happened that caused a "quantum shift" in PA politics. The blame lays SQUARELY at the feet of President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

The First Issue was President Obama's "War on Coal." Most of rural PA's jobs involve farming, logging, coal mining and drilling/fracking. Many communities (especially in the Wilds) began to suffer as the various industries who were affected by President Obama's sanctions (to reduce emissions) began to shut down. This didn't take just the best jobs in the region, it took ALL the jobs in the region. It's hard to run a grocery store or other "service related" industry when NO ONE has any money to buy your product. To add "insult to injury," many of the workers were denied Federal funding for job retraining. The feds ACTUALLY HAD THE NERVE TO SAY "you should have seen this coming and planned for it." Hillary vowed to continue with the "War on Coal." While I do believe in Global Warming, it's pretty hard to tell entire communities "You must starve for the good of the planet..." especially when China and India are NOT doing their part. In fact, my absence from the forum lately is due to the oilfield companies abandoning the Allegheny National Forest in force. They are moving out huge amounts of equipment due to the costs of extraction now.

The Second Issue was the debacle that is Obamacare. The Democrats INCORRECTLY assumed that most if not all businesses would simply pay for health care. NOTHING could be further from the truth in PA. The vast majority of affected businesses in my region just dropped ALL of their full-time employees to part-time rather than pay for healthcare. They also tried to "punish" workers for voting Democrat by requiring those workers to work FIVE hours a day for FIVE DAYS PER WEEK. This made it difficult to go get a second job to make up the lost income. To add "insult to injury," several of these workers made too much money to qualify for Medicaid but just enough money to have to pay the FINE FOR NOT HAVING INSURANCE. So not only did Rural PA residents LOSE THEIR FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT, BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FINED THEM FOR BEING TOO POOR TO BUY INSURANCE ON OUR "SO CALLED" HEALTHCARE EXCHANGE! Hillary vowed to continue with this program as well.

The last major Issue that really had rural PA residents "up in arms" was, in fact, ARMS. PA has an absolutely HUGE number of gun owners. It has been stated that there are more hunters in the woods of PA on the opening day of Buck Season than there are Law Enforcement Officer on duty in the ENTIRE US. HALF of all rural PA residents are Veterans. The 1994 Assault Weapons Bill was very poorly received in PA. Hillary wanted a reinstatement of "reasonable gun control measures." Most rural PA residents DID NOT SEE a new Assault Weapon's Bill as "reasonable."

This seems to be the main reason why people turned against the Democrats. Obama/Clinton seem to have been oblivious to what many people actually though about the consequences of their policies. While they were off on a crusade to end global warming and gain applause for championing a number of social issues, they never gave a second thought to how their policies were effecting the income and lives of many Americans who don't live in a big city which was naïve and irresponsible in the extreme. Also while they were doing all of this they happily lobbied for corporate interests after receiving a nice donation, and as corporations saw their profits soar the industrial heart of most of America was shut down or transferred overseas. Even though I am not American I am married to an American and my son is American, and I do feel great sympathy for many Americans who have suffered during this period. The more I think about all of this the more I think that the Democrats don't deserve much sympathy for the predicament they now find themselves in.

Originally Posted by swaghauler

Most PA residents DID NOT VOTE FOR Trump. They VOTED AGAINST Hillary. In fact, if you talk to most PA residents, they will tell you that they want a Convention Of States to make what they see as "much-needed changes" to the Constitution.

I think you nailed it on the head. Many who voted Trump did not care for him as an individual but voted for him to stop Clinton from becoming president and causing more harm.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I will say this: I think the chance for a shooting war with Russia and all that it entails (nuclear exchanges) is significantly lessened. Look, one of the leaked documents from Hillary Clinton's server discussed how she would aim to put 10000 US troops on the ground in Syria (thus virtually guaranteeing contact with Assad's forces or Russian forces). She'd mask it in the form of goading McCain into asking for 100000 and then "propose" a "more reasonable" mere ten thousand.

So we're not going full T2k just yet.

Canada and Mexico both have now stated they want to renegotiate NAFTA which will hopefully work out well for US industry.

The Chinese gov't has reached out to Trump to start preliminary talks, but who knows what they get up to.

All in all I'm guardedly optimistic. Yes, the election itself was a shitshow but which one hasn't been?

The social justice crowd of <censored> who are now demanding the entire voting process be usurped and the presidency just given to Hillary Clinton crack me up. What does not amuse me is that George Soros is funding the entire affair and is out and out trying to foment an armed uprising in the United States to further his globalist aims. At some point I think US federal law enforcement needs to intervene against him.