As much as you might prefer it, we can't make none of the above president.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
As much as you might prefer it, we can't make none of the above president.
I think I just got whiplash from that spin. You do realize that only means that even less people than that voted for Trump? You just proved his/her point.
benjipwns
Banned
Every post benji makes is trolling. Sometimes it's cuter than other times.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
He can have a participation trophy
And again, such a poll is based on certain things to guarantee that you aren't sampling Hillary voters in MS (who would likely be hardcore for her) and Hillary voters in VT (who probably weren't). I was very much in favor of these polls before the election (I teach statistics at a university), but after the terrible misses this year, I'm going to table polling in favor of actual results. The results are correct to the tune of 99.99999% accuracy. I would've said the polls were highly accurate before, but they clearly aren't now.
If you're into evidence-based studies, and you get a result that you 100% know isn't a calculating error or problem with your experiment but severely disagrees with your predictive model, then you have to hit the drawing board again before you'll be taken very seriously. That hasn't happened yet in the stats world, and until it does, I'm going to stick to the actual results of the election.
Bernie Sanders was less appealing to minorities than Hillary Clinton, but more appealing to young voters.
Donald Trump was more appealing to white working class voters, specifically in rural parts of Mid-Western states, while also less appealing to traditional Republican voters in typical red states.
If you're all in for Sanders-type candidates, you have to process those results specifically. If you're all in for Hillary-type candidates, then you have to process those results specifically. And the second case, I'd argue that an over-reliance on polling led to this electoral loss (since her strategy 100% counted on places like WI, MI, and PA being safe while states like GA, AZ, and OH were close. All of the polls pointed to this, and none of them were particularly close.)
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Sounds like something may happen with the white house press conference happening today?
Because this was posted
Because this was posted
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I no longer expect anything to happen, or anyone in any position of power to do anything about Trump ever
Vote counts in the 2016 Democratic primary are only accurate for the 2016 Democratic primary. But you're right, for the 2016 Democratic primary, the results were very close to the results....He can have a participation trophy
And again, such a poll is based on certain things to guarantee that you aren't sampling Hillary voters in MS (who would likely be hardcore for her) and Hillary voters in VT (who probably weren't). I was very much in favor of these polls before the election (I teach statistics at a university), but after the terrible misses this year, I'm going to table polling in favor of actual results. The results are correct to the tune of 99.99999% accuracy. I would've said the polls were highly accurate before, but they clearly aren't now.
If you're into evidence-based studies, and you get a result that you 100% know isn't a calculating error or problem with your experiment but severely disagrees with your predictive model, then you have to hit the drawing board again before you'll be taken very seriously. That hasn't happened yet in the stats world, and until it does, I'm going to stick to the actual results of the election.
Bernie Sanders was less appealing to minorities than Hillary Clinton, but more appealing to young voters.
Donald Trump was more appealing to white working class voters, specifically in rural parts of Mid-Western states, while also less appealing to traditional Republican voters in typical red states.
If you're all in for Sanders-type candidates, you have to process those results specifically. If you're all in for Hillary-type candidates, then you have to process those results specifically. And the second case, I'd argue that an over-reliance on polling led to this electoral loss (since her strategy 100% counted on places like WI, MI, and PA being safe while states like GA, AZ, and OH were close. All of the polls pointed to this, and none of them were particularly close.)
Edit: side note, but the polls weren't off by that much. For the most part the results fell within the margin of error. People basically read them wrong, even the campaigns. The lesson to take away is that 30% chance to win is not that unlikely -- it's actually 30%. We treated it like 0%.
Nate silver 4 days before election (before FBI letter could percolate polls):
Edit2: and here's what he was saying 2 days before: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...the-polls-clinton-leads-but-its-a-close-race/
Traditionally communication is designed to be easily understood.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
I don't expect anything other then the usual but who knows anymore with this crazy year
Edit:and now I fully expect nothing but sleep
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
and Obama would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling kids
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
all he's saying is that the Obama admin has come to the conclusion that the transition won't be orderly.
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
(this isn't news or analysis, this is obvious.)
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
(this isn't news or analysis, this is obvious.)
Randolph Freelander
Member
Obama is announcing he's finally dropping Tony Romo from his fantasy football roster.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Not all that crazy an idea, hmm...
radios shipping overview
Member
G.O.P. Plans to Replace Health Care Law With Universal Access
So basically, go back to pre ACA healthcare conditions. Welp, it's what we expected but it's good that they've now made their intentions clear about it.
Well of course they won't end on January 20th, 2017. I'd say give it a year before 20 million people are kicked to the curb and another year after that for it to finally settle into the tiny little minds of the Trump supporters who get fucked over or lose a loved one because they lost their insurance coverage.
So basically, go back to pre ACA healthcare conditions. Welp, it's what we expected but it's good that they've now made their intentions clear about it.
Well of course they won't end on January 20th, 2017. I'd say give it a year before 20 million people are kicked to the curb and another year after that for it to finally settle into the tiny little minds of the Trump supporters who get fucked over or lose a loved one because they lost their insurance coverage.
ImpracticalPassword
Member
Some local acquaintances and I have decided to start meeting regularly to discuss action plans. We plan to give this guide a test drive very soon.
I live in one of those red states, but still...
Republicans should get the economy they voted for.
Dominican Power
Member
Michael Steele is always defending Trump and his shit. Tried of him.
Sirpopopop
Member
Actually, you, and his friends are wrong. The abolish electoral college movement has been a thing for Democrats since the year 2000. Many left states have in fact signed a pact to sign on to awarding their electoral votes to the popular vote winner. Once the amount of states that agree to this pact reaches 270, it will take effect.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
You know, since the last time they lost like this.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Red state voters never fucking learn though. Endless tax cuts make too much sense for bumper sticker politics, and they're all too eager to just scapegoat welfare queens or immigrants when times is tough.
Or they're too caught up caring about unborn fetuses to ever want to vote for a Democrat. That's why progressive ballot measures usually pass in states that will always vote down those baby-killing DemocRATs.
(I don't THINK most people would admit to being one-issue voters and could probably express opinions on several, but I think what happens is they latch onto one seemingly obvious pet issue, go to whichever party supports their view and hock the party line on everything else. I mean if you're already against abortion and gay marriage, who are you going to trust on the economy? Those baby-killing homosexuals? Becomes sort of an issue of blind faith)
I've always gone with an alternative line of thinking about Red State voters - that they prioritise a single issue (or maybe two issues) more than any other, and genuinely don't care about the rest. It would explain why "Christians" overwhelmingly backed an administration that is the modern equivalent of merchants and money-changers in the "temple" of the White House. As long as women can't get abortions, who cares about anything else? Sexual assault, racism, unpaid contractors, nepotism, corruption - all these are worth less than an anti-abortion policy, and the Religious Right don't give a damn about any of them.
Realistically, though, I think Red State voters are a combination of my view, your view, and a third group of the politically naive.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I mean I'll agree most people don't care about most issues (I think this goes well beyond Republican voters), but they won't admit it. So they just parrot whatever Trump or Sanders or Clinton say and pretend they're informed.
Tommorrow is going to be really interesting.
Fair.
Interesting piece this, though preaching to the converted posting it here?
Charlie Sykes on Where the Right Went Wrong
Sirpopopop
Member
It was the first time it happened in more than a century, so it kind of y'know highlighted a potential problem with our system that we didn't realize was a big deal until then?
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
They spent $3 million on consultants for the slogan and this was the rest of the list they got:
"For America.
For Families.
For You."
Better than the crap on that list. Where is my $3 million?
benjipwns
Banned
Needs "stronger" in there, she needs to look tough. Also, "fairness" because you don't specify which families. And what is this "for" how about working progress in there somewhere? And we need to punch up the importance of this election in particular.
Stronger For America, Progress For Families, Fairness For You, This Time, It Begins Together
Aaron Strife
Banned
Looking back, the problem with "I'm With Her" is it tried to make a personality cult out of someone who frankly isn't that personable on the trail. She's supposedly far more charismatic in private, but voters are never going to see that.
benji, go back to bed.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
I don't think it will be but who knows anymore
Aaron Strife
Banned
Probably what the Rust Belt voters perceived her slogan as. Go back to bed. Do your homework. Stop picking your nose.
It's like America is the child of a broken family where your mom is well-meaning but stern, so Weekend Dad looks better by comparison, even though he doesn't have a real job, does a lot of cocaine, blows all his money and makes frequent passes at your older sister.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Those are more or less in the list already. But also, pretty bad, since you suggested it as one slogan with three sentences.
RustyNails
Member
I always liked Next Begins With You. It sounds like a rejected PS3 slogan from sony.They spent $3 million on consultants for the slogan and this was the rest of the list they got:
benjipwns
Banned
i don't think that's illegal
excelsiorlef
Member
Not really, it wasn't illegal lol.
But his emails
The ironic part about this is trump also fucking received questions ahead of the debate. He got Megan Kelly's question.
- Status