Sign in to follow this  
deicer

Trump 2.0 Continues

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Fido said:

Now that Hilary has no influence to peddle, what will the Clintons do for money?

Worse than that  - is there going to be a line-up looking for refunds!  After all, most wouldn't have got the benefit they paid for.

 

Edited by seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, seeker said:

 

Seeker, I thought you'd see through bullsh!t from Ezra Levant. The "mainstream media" has not been saying what he says they're saying. Levant is a libeling a$$hole, and his video is a mixture of untruth and spun deception of percentage graphs. Unless you are interested enough to ask me specifically to argue it out, I'm not wasting the time, because its not a 140-character explanation, but Trump won the turnout battle (just enough to turn the EC, NOT the actual vote BTW). Those disappointing percentages (for the D's) have been covered and discussed pretty accurately and honestly. They are rightfully embarrassed at being caught flat-footed, and unpacking it all pretty openly to understand how. Why are people here accepting the truly biased, consciously deceptive output from these ideological websites? Oh yeah ... liberal media bias etc ... whatever ....

IFG :b:

Ed. to add - I ain't going to defend Saudi princelings (or Clinton greed), but again Levant chooses his truths. The Saudi Royal Family is even more scared of ISIS/Al Qaida/etc than the US is (if that's possible). Mid-East politics and money-flows are very complex (where did the word Byzantine come from?), but Ezra won't allow details to complicate his simplified narrative (get's in the Obama's-a-Muslim lick, tho'). No lie misleads as well as a half-truth, but if comforts you listen to him, carry on ... <_<

Edited by IFG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IFG said:

Seeker, I thought you'd see through bullsh!t from Ezra Levant. The "mainstream media" has not been saying what he says they're saying. Levant is a libeling a$$hole, and his video is a mixture of untruth and spun deception of percentage graphs. Unless you are interested enough to ask me specifically to argue it out, I'm not wasting the time, because its not a 140-character explanation, but Trump won the turnout battle (just enough to turn the EC, NOT the actual vote BTW). Those disappointing percentages (for the D's) have been covered and discussed pretty accurately and honestly. They are rightfully embarrassed at being caught flat-footed, and unpacking it all pretty openly to understand how. Why are people here accepting the truly biased, consciously deceptive output from these ideological websites? Oh yeah ... liberal media bias etc ... whatever ....

IFG :b:

Ed. to add - I ain't going to defend Saudi princelings (or Clinton greed), but again Levant chooses his truths. The Saudi Royal Family is even more scared of ISIS/Al Qaida/etc than the US is (if that's possible). Mid-East politics and money-flows are very complex (where did the word Byzantine come from?), but Ezra won't allow details to complicate his simplified narrative (get's in the Obama's-a-Muslim lick, tho'). No lie misleads as well as a half-truth, but if comforts you listen to him, carry on ... <_<

Really, 'cause I've heard the media saying those things.  I hope you aren't going to claim that there isn't a liberal bias to mainstream media because there certainly is.  I get my news from all sorts of sources; watch CBC and read the website, The National Post or the Globe and Mail, various bloggers or whatever newspaper the layover hotel has in the lobby.  I don't make a point of following Ezra but a small dose here and there balances a few Pinkos (as Archie would say).

Personally, in these two cases, I don't think he's far off the mark - I have definitely heard comments about Trump's win being attributed to his ability to energize the "angry, white guys."  Ezra's point, if I understand it, is that the true gains were made in other demographic groups.  As for the video regarding the Saudi Prince - pretty hard to disagree with the sentiment that you don't want a politician who is beholden to anyone, especially a foreign power.  It's obvious to everyone that the Clinton foundation was a front for pay-for-play or are you going to argue that too?

 

 

Edited by seeker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Trump that was chastized for saying that he would not accept the results if he lost, but it is the Hilary supporters having a cry-in.

Edited by Fido

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fido said:

It was Trump that was chastized for saying that he would not accept the results if he lost, but it is the Hilary supporters having a cry-in.

Fido, just try to imagine for a minute if Trump had won the popular vote and lost the EC. She, and POTUS, conceded, graciously and unequivocally! Sheesh!

Seeker - 

3 hours ago, seeker said:

Really, 'cause I've heard the media saying those things.

OK, "the media" says a lot of things, but that's just the sort of dishonest slithering that Levant excels at. I'm not bothering with what some individual hack simply blathered, that's not "the media" saying anything. I'm talking about the ongoing deeper analysis of the coverage and prognostication.

The coverage I've watched is dissecting it all pretty carefully, acknowledging the outcome did not match the projections, and trying to see why. I'm mostly on the US networks and papers, so I can't say about Globe' CBC etc. 

Briefly, it's obvious HRC failed to increase her favoured percentages as much as the D's thought she would (or Trump would ;)). But more crucially, her demographic didn't show up, and Trumps did. In several states that Trump flipped, he got about the same vote as Romney in 2012, and HRC got far less than Obama. It was a turnout loss, not a vote-shift loss, as Levant's graphs confirmed. But the same graphs are all over CNN et al as well, along with turn-out and vote totals. The analysis has been quite straightforward, unlike Levant's sleight-of-hand.

3 hours ago, seeker said:

I hope you aren't going to claim that there isn't a liberal bias to mainstream media ....

OK, a little disclosure here. I've got a lot of relatives who are/were distinguished journalists - Globe, Herald, Gazette, MacLean's, CBC (long ago) etc.  (hope you're not so jaundiced as to say there's no such thing, a lot of folks think all pilots are lazy and overpaid too, with about the same foundation:P). It's fair to say (& they'd agree) there is always a mind-set, in spite of any effort to set that aside. That is NOT the same thing as consciously framing everything to slant toward a party or ideology. One involves an imperfect effort to be objective, the other outright seeks to stack the deck. Levant's diatribe about voting percentages may reflect CBC etc., but it's not what the responsible analysts are saying south of the border. They're trying to get it right.

If you all keep giving oxygen to biased websites, our news will rely solely on a shouting match of liars. I'll take the efforts of journos trying to be objective, skeptically read, at least until the confirm-my-bias-please crowd has killed them all off. The liberal-media-bias line, which does have a kernel of objective truth to it, is a Trojan horse for the ideologues. However flawed the execution, I try to find sources that seek to inform, rather than convince or reinforce. There are still media, and journos out there trying to do that, but if people just cocoon with their echo-chamber junk-sites, they'll disappear.

3 hours ago, seeker said:

I have definitely heard comments about Trump's win being attributed to his ability to energize the "angry, white guys."  Ezra's point, if I understand it, is that the true gains were made in other demographic groups

Well, his graphs showed there was not that much percentage change at all. But to try to explain - if, say, 55% from block A with a 60-40 split show up, but only 50% of block B with a 40-60 split show up, the 60% from A beat the 60% from B. THAT's what happened here; my numbers are only illustrative, but block A here is proxy for the AWG's. Look, seeker, these are all over-simplifications, but the motivated voting of blue-collar, mostly white, mostly (not all) male voters gave trump the edge in some crucial states. It's that simple, but Levant can't resist concocting a more persuasive narrative for his crowd. If you're just keeping up with what's being said in the swamps, fine, I do that, but please do not be convinced by it.

& No, I'm not going to argue about The Prince  or the Clintons. They're both more complicated than suits the Levants of the world, and there are shades of grey. But my fingers are tired.

TTYL, IFG :b:

Edited by IFG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton's problem on election day was that a whole bunch of Democrats realized that she and Bill are crooked and so they did not bother to vote. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you hear a news anchor say "Trump made two more outlandish statements today...." I'm pretty sure there is a bias.

All I need them to do is present the statements, I will decide if they are outlandish or not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeker, IFG, perhaps this may help.

I don't know how this translates to Electoral Votes, but it appears the change occurred in counties that voted for Obama in 2008 & 2012 which flipped to Trump in 2016. 

MSNBC (All In, Chris Hayes, today's show) explains it this way:

i-ZDxrQD8-M.jpg

i-Fd53j9M-M.jpg

 

i-85vDcMX-M.jpg

i-czqXcWM-M.jpg

 

Also, I took a look backwards at Clinton's media history and ran across this:

From the Federalist, September 04, 2014

Quote

 

http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/04/history-is-not-on-the-democrats-side-in-2016/ 

These are all factors worthy of consideration. But any intelligent discussion of 2016 must begin with the fact that history is very strongly against the Democrats in 2016. In the modern two-party era (beginning with the first Republican Party presidential campaign in 1856), there have been 16 elections following the re-election of an incumbent president; in 11 of those races, there was no incumbent on the ballot. An analysis of those elections shows a startlingly uniform pattern over time: the incumbent party (i.e., the party that won the last election) consistently lost ground relative to the challenger party (the party out of power), especially when running without an incumbent on the ballot. And in nearly every such election, that loss of popular support was evident in closely-divided battleground states, rather than confined to uncompetitive states. The trend has persisted in winning and losing elections, in elections with and without third-party challengers, in times of war and peace, booms and depressions. It has become more, rather than less, pronounced in the years since World War II, and at all times has been more pronounced when the incumbent party is the Democrats.

Cont'd at link

 


and from March, 2015

Quote

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/upshot/hillary-clinton-is-more-vulnerable-in-2016-than-you-think.html

Hillary Clinton Is More Vulnerable in 2016 Than You Think
Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn MARCH 9, 2015

Since leaving her position as secretary of state in 2013, Hillary Clinton has seen her favorability ratings decline.

Source: Huffington Post’s Pollster.
Hillary Clinton is a primary candidate whose strength has little precedent, one who seems poised to sweep the primaries without facing any serious challenge.

The general election is a different story. Mrs. Clinton would not cruise to victory, and, yes, she could easily lose.

In the aftermath of President Obama’s re-election, it was common to suggest that Mrs. Clinton was an unusually formidable general election candidate, and the polls seemed to back it up. Her favorability ratings soared to the mid-60s during her tenure as secretary of state. In hypothetical head-to-head polling matchups, she even led in places such as Texas against home-state candidates like Rick Perry. Feeding the perception of her strength was the notion that Democrats had an advantage in presidential elections, given their sway among growing parts of the electorate, like young and nonwhite voters, and their apparent Electoral College advantage.

But Mrs. Clinton will not be a Democratic Eisenhower, a popular, senior statesperson who cruises to an easy victory. Her popularity has already faded considerably over the last two years. Her support could erode even further as the campaign unfolds, or as she comes under new scrutiny, be it for foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, her private email account as secretary of state or new issues.
As many analysts predicted, her high ratings were unsustainable — her popularity the product of serving as the country’s top diplomat, partly shielded from domestic political criticism. Her ratings have returned to earth since her exit from the position in early 2013 — and since she has emerged as the likely Democratic nominee in the 2016 presidential election.

The polls now show her favorability rating beneath 50 percent, making her a fairly typical candidate for the presidency. Her numbers are much more similar to Mr. Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s ratings in late 2012 than her own ratings from two years ago. She has, in other words, gone back to being what Mr. Obama’s supporters alleged in 2008: a polarizing figure, just as Mr. Obama is today.

Cont'd at link

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the pollsters got it wrong is because a lot of people were embarrassed to admit they were voting for Trump ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, J.O. said:

Maybe the pollsters got it wrong is because a lot of people were embarrassed to admit they were voting for Trump ...

That premise has been widely speculated. Unfortunately, "pollsters" are seen by a majority of voters as the "trend". When the "trend" showed HRC as a hands-down victor, FULLY 0NE HALF of the American electorate failed to cast a ballot.

My vote in future campaigns, be them Canadian municipal, provincial or federal, is to ban the publication of these things. Let people decide on what's right/wrong, not who the winning side is projected to be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get too involved in trying to guess where the millenials put there x

The thing that has come out of this election so far (and they have not finished counting in New Hampshire and Michigan) is that over 5 million people stayed at home and did not vote.

Trump garnered fewer votes than Romney in 2012 and Clinton failed even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, J.O. said:

Maybe the pollsters got it wrong is because a lot of people were embarrassed to admit they were voting for Trump ...

But by and large, J.O., they were not wrong. I read the following article before the election was out, and as it unfolded, was thinking Nate Silver had nailed it - in explaining the range of outcomes bracketed in the polling.

How to Read Polls - Fivethirtyeight.com

Excerts:

  • "Our forecast has Clinton winning the national popular vote by 3.6 percentage points, which is similar to her lead in recent national polls. Her chances of winning the popular vote are 81 percent, according to our forecast ....
  • "The track record of polling in American presidential elections is pretty good but a long way from perfect, and errors in the range of 3 percentage points have been somewhat common in the historical record ....
  • "In our national polling average, about 12 percent of voters are either undecided or say they’ll vote for a third-party candidate. While this figure has declined over the past few weeks, it’s still much higher than in recent elections. Just 3 percent of voters were undecided at the end of the 2012 race, for example, according to RealClearPolitics. Clinton’s share of the vote — about 46 percent in national polls — is low for a leading candidate, and Trump’s share of 42 percent is the lowest of any candidate since Bob Dole in 1996 ....
  • "As ought to be fairly intuitive, undecided voters make for a more uncertain outcome. If two-thirds of undecideds were to break for Trump, for instance, the candidates would tie in the popular vote at almost 50-50 ....
  • "By definition, if Trump or Clinton beat their polls by 3 points nationally, they’ll also do so by 3 points in the average state.2Or at least, the average state weighted by that state’s turnout. If anything, in fact, the gain might be larger than that in the average swing state because swing states tend to have more swing voters than non-swing states do. (In FiveThirtyEight parlance, they’re more elastic — more responsive to changes in national trends.) ....
  • "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." ....

Obviously the other end of the range was a BIG Clinton win. The point is that polls give a sense of the odds, not a declarative forecast. When they're close, relatively small swings really change things. There's nothing pollsters can do about that.

538 is where I found the field goal analogy I posted earlier in the week. Pollsters weren't "wrong". HRC missed the 40-yarder.

56 minutes ago, Moon The Loon said:

.... My vote in future campaigns, be them Canadian municipal, provincial or federal, is to ban the publication of these things. Let people decide on what's right/wrong, not who the winning side is projected to be...

 Unfortunately not practical, Moon', that would just keep important, possibly market-moving info in privileged hands. that genie should be out of the bottle. Voters have just gotta grow up and learn civic skills, or learn to like the government they deserve.

49 minutes ago, Don Hudson said:

In Australia, it is required by law that one must cast one's vote. I suppose that is against someone's rights, but I think it's an idea worth discussing.

The idea has its attractions, Don, but I remember an editorial by Jeff Greenfield prior to, I think it was maybe '92? He asked those disengaged 'citizens' who didn't care enough about the outcome to inform themselves, to stay the hell away.  There might be something to that idea too? :D

Cheers, IFG :b:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fido said:

Don't get too involved in trying to guess where the millenials put there x

The thing that has come out of this election so far (and they have not finished counting in New Hampshire and Michigan) is that over 5 million people stayed at home and did not vote.

Trump garnered fewer votes than Romney in 2012 and Clinton failed even worse.

Re putting their X, from the reports of the protests, including the most violent one in Portland, it appears a lot of the protesters are people who are too young to vote and perhaps unable to understand when they didn't get what they want.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

Re putting their X, from the reports of the protests, including the most violent one in Portland, it appears a lot of the protesters are people who are too young to vote and perhaps unable to understand when they didn't get what they want.  

And...it is alleged that they are "non-organic", paid and being bused in:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/10/trump-protests-intensify-as-doubts-swirl-about-spontaneity.html

Others claimed to have found ads posted on CraigsList in which a Seattle-based non-profit was soliciting “Full-Time Activists.”

“We are looking for motivated individuals who are seeking Full-Time, Part-Time, and Permanent positions,” reads a line from the ad from Washington CAN! posted on Wednesday.

Rumors have also been circulating that the new batch of anti-Trump protesters has been bankrolled by individuals like billionaire liberal activist George Soros and groups like Moveon.org.

“WTF, @georgesoros busing in & paying #protestors to destroy cities is domestic #terrorism. #fakeProtests #BlueLivesMatter have tough days,” read one tweet in response to the viral picture of buses in Austin.

Another theory floated on social media is that many of the signs that were distributed at rallies across the country appeared to be exactly the same, indicating they were printed and distributed by an organized group.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no embarrassment in the Trump camp JO; it's just that most people from the Right are smart enough to steer clear of the violent Lefties to avoid being molested by same.

Does anyone really believe some kind of magic is going to occur that'll result in Clinton assuming the Presidency?

And forceful opinions mean jack-sh!t too; who among you will be there to stand and be counted when the civil war you're effectively counselling actually erupts?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crowd actions after the election are very similar to what happens in other countries (mainly 3rd world) when a mob does not agree with the election results, so I guess the US has regressed further than we thought. Protesters claiming to be Democrats have forgotten "Democracy" after an election held following the Democratic rules for US Elections. Shame on them, let us hope this reaction is time limited.
 Would the Republicans have behaved as badly?  We will never know.

Will this type of mob response creep up to Canada, I surely hope not!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Innuendo said:


 

 

Nah, Canadians need to lose a Stanley Cup to get that riled up. :rolleyes:

First we need to get a team in the playoffs.:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this