Trump Camp Smells Defeat

[imawhosure]

What MATTERS is the state by state polls.

And they were accurate, as they were taken _before_ Comey deliberately threw the election to Trump.

By leaving out that fact, you're dishonestly cherrypicking. All of the Trumpflakes are dishonest in that way. But then, if they were honest, they'd be liberals.

So aren't you glad Trump fired him. He did it for Hillary you know-)

 

[imawhosure]

Naaaah. What it proves is you clowns will believe anything.

No smart pills in your stocking this Xmas, I see.

The polls of the popular vote were correctly interpreted to give Hillary Clinton a 90% chance of winning. If you don't know why that interpretation is correct, then you don't understand how odds work.

Wow. What dem talking point website gave you that idea? You don't know how polls work? They can be national or state by state. NATIONAL polls might find a pop vote lead. But you now have a HARD DEMONSTRATION of someone cherry picking an inconsequential factoid out of the air.

What MATTERS is the state by state polls. And -- if you WANTED TO -- you could do a meta study and COMBINE THOSE to get national numbers. UNFORTUNATELY --- most of the state by state polls were ALSO very whacked in the head. Here's the Cliff note. ANYONE forecasting winning percentage from a NATIONAL set of numbers is spinning you..

BECAUSE -- it was INDEPENDENTS that determined the election. And the OLD polling methods of weighting Dems and Reps predictably failed to produce accurate forecast. In FACT, the OLD method of polling is shot. Antiquated. Worn-Out. Useless anymore. Because the number of rabid partisans is rapidly falling.

The new methods use "extreme vetting".. Not joking. It's true. Polling companies collect PEOPLE. Get to actually know them. And pull representative samples from (as Romney says) binders full of voters. This MAY restore the accuracy. It's yet to mature..

You people don't understand odds.

1. The final polls said HRC would win by about 3 percentage points.

2. An oddsmaker would know that the final poll average has always been very close to the actual result in the popular vote, as it turned out was this one.

3. An oddsmaker would also know that in all of the history of presidential elections, the candidate that wins the popular vote wins the election about 95% of the time.

4. With that information, the oddsmaker could confidently make the odds 9 to 1 in favor of Hillary.

...so why did Trump win? Because that's what 9 to 1 longshots do. They win. They win consistently, one out of ten times.

I'm not the one with the learning disability or is the one who is quoting % of winning based on national poll numbers. Again -- "final polls" --- NATIONAL or state by state?

Two -- if the MEAN of the poll projection is CONSISTENTLY OFF on multiple polls by different orgs -- there is a SYSTEMIC issue in how the representative samples are acquired. A problem that WONT get fixed until they devalue the old methods of weighting Dems and Repubs.

THREE -- when the Pop vote margin for Hillary is LESS THAN the TOTAL number of votes CAST AGAINST Hillary by NON-TRUMP voters -- she did not really "win" the pop vote. Only bested the 1st place candidate. But did not receive MORE than the # that was cast AGAINST her.

FOUR -- NO pollster STOPS short of counting ACTUAL polling data and throws their hands up and says -- Well Gooollllllll - lly -- The pop vote is gonna DOMINATE the actual results. Because in REALITY -- only 2 states PRODUCED that "overkill" in the pop vote margin and that is MORE IMPORTANT than the MAGNITUDE of the predicted number.

When there are more than 2 candidates, you WIN by beating them all. It doesn't matter what percentage of the total you get unless that election has runoff rules.

Now listen to this person, lol!

So let me get this straight-------------->next Presidential election, 100 people run for President. 1 of them gets 4% of the vote, and the rest average less than 1%. That is how we get a President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In that case, George Soros is our next President, if he is legal to run. He can finance the other 99, and split the vote enough, he would probably win.

Oh wait, I forgot, that is the LEFTY side of the equation-)

Yep, yep, Lefties, run Forrest, run; as many as you can!

 

[NYcarbineer]

No smart pills in your stocking this Xmas, I see.

The polls of the popular vote were correctly interpreted to give Hillary Clinton a 90% chance of winning. If you don't know why that interpretation is correct, then you don't understand how odds work.

Wow. What dem talking point website gave you that idea? You don't know how polls work? They can be national or state by state. NATIONAL polls might find a pop vote lead. But you now have a HARD DEMONSTRATION of someone cherry picking an inconsequential factoid out of the air.

What MATTERS is the state by state polls. And -- if you WANTED TO -- you could do a meta study and COMBINE THOSE to get national numbers. UNFORTUNATELY --- most of the state by state polls were ALSO very whacked in the head. Here's the Cliff note. ANYONE forecasting winning percentage from a NATIONAL set of numbers is spinning you..

BECAUSE -- it was INDEPENDENTS that determined the election. And the OLD polling methods of weighting Dems and Reps predictably failed to produce accurate forecast. In FACT, the OLD method of polling is shot. Antiquated. Worn-Out. Useless anymore. Because the number of rabid partisans is rapidly falling.

The new methods use "extreme vetting".. Not joking. It's true. Polling companies collect PEOPLE. Get to actually know them. And pull representative samples from (as Romney says) binders full of voters. This MAY restore the accuracy. It's yet to mature..

You people don't understand odds.

1. The final polls said HRC would win by about 3 percentage points.

2. An oddsmaker would know that the final poll average has always been very close to the actual result in the popular vote, as it turned out was this one.

3. An oddsmaker would also know that in all of the history of presidential elections, the candidate that wins the popular vote wins the election about 95% of the time.

4. With that information, the oddsmaker could confidently make the odds 9 to 1 in favor of Hillary.

...so why did Trump win? Because that's what 9 to 1 longshots do. They win. They win consistently, one out of ten times.

I'm not the one with the learning disability or is the one who is quoting % of winning based on national poll numbers. Again -- "final polls" --- NATIONAL or state by state?

Two -- if the MEAN of the poll projection is CONSISTENTLY OFF on multiple polls by different orgs -- there is a SYSTEMIC issue in how the representative samples are acquired. A problem that WONT get fixed until they devalue the old methods of weighting Dems and Repubs.

THREE -- when the Pop vote margin for Hillary is LESS THAN the TOTAL number of votes CAST AGAINST Hillary by NON-TRUMP voters -- she did not really "win" the pop vote. Only bested the 1st place candidate. But did not receive MORE than the # that was cast AGAINST her.

FOUR -- NO pollster STOPS short of counting ACTUAL polling data and throws their hands up and says -- Well Gooollllllll - lly -- The pop vote is gonna DOMINATE the actual results. Because in REALITY -- only 2 states PRODUCED that "overkill" in the pop vote margin and that is MORE IMPORTANT than the MAGNITUDE of the predicted number.

When there are more than 2 candidates, you WIN by beating them all. It doesn't matter what percentage of the total you get unless that election has runoff rules.

But NOT by the "pop vote".. Makes no sense to claim "you won the pop vote" if more people VOTED AGAINST you than FOR you.. By a couple million votes actually..

In a Prez election, the pop vote is like getting "Miss Congeniality". But ONLY if more contestants like you than hated you..

Okay, so by your measure, Trump didn't win the popular vote in Pennsylvania, but he received 100% of the electoral votes. Why does that make sense?

 

[flacaltenn]

Wow. What dem talking point website gave you that idea? You don't know how polls work? They can be national or state by state. NATIONAL polls might find a pop vote lead. But you now have a HARD DEMONSTRATION of someone cherry picking an inconsequential factoid out of the air.

What MATTERS is the state by state polls. And -- if you WANTED TO -- you could do a meta study and COMBINE THOSE to get national numbers. UNFORTUNATELY --- most of the state by state polls were ALSO very whacked in the head. Here's the Cliff note. ANYONE forecasting winning percentage from a NATIONAL set of numbers is spinning you..

BECAUSE -- it was INDEPENDENTS that determined the election. And the OLD polling methods of weighting Dems and Reps predictably failed to produce accurate forecast. In FACT, the OLD method of polling is shot. Antiquated. Worn-Out. Useless anymore. Because the number of rabid partisans is rapidly falling.

The new methods use "extreme vetting".. Not joking. It's true. Polling companies collect PEOPLE. Get to actually know them. And pull representative samples from (as Romney says) binders full of voters. This MAY restore the accuracy. It's yet to mature..

You people don't understand odds.

1. The final polls said HRC would win by about 3 percentage points.

2. An oddsmaker would know that the final poll average has always been very close to the actual result in the popular vote, as it turned out was this one.

3. An oddsmaker would also know that in all of the history of presidential elections, the candidate that wins the popular vote wins the election about 95% of the time.

4. With that information, the oddsmaker could confidently make the odds 9 to 1 in favor of Hillary.

...so why did Trump win? Because that's what 9 to 1 longshots do. They win. They win consistently, one out of ten times.

I'm not the one with the learning disability or is the one who is quoting % of winning based on national poll numbers. Again -- "final polls" --- NATIONAL or state by state?

Two -- if the MEAN of the poll projection is CONSISTENTLY OFF on multiple polls by different orgs -- there is a SYSTEMIC issue in how the representative samples are acquired. A problem that WONT get fixed until they devalue the old methods of weighting Dems and Repubs.

THREE -- when the Pop vote margin for Hillary is LESS THAN the TOTAL number of votes CAST AGAINST Hillary by NON-TRUMP voters -- she did not really "win" the pop vote. Only bested the 1st place candidate. But did not receive MORE than the # that was cast AGAINST her.

FOUR -- NO pollster STOPS short of counting ACTUAL polling data and throws their hands up and says -- Well Gooollllllll - lly -- The pop vote is gonna DOMINATE the actual results. Because in REALITY -- only 2 states PRODUCED that "overkill" in the pop vote margin and that is MORE IMPORTANT than the MAGNITUDE of the predicted number.

When there are more than 2 candidates, you WIN by beating them all. It doesn't matter what percentage of the total you get unless that election has runoff rules.

But NOT by the "pop vote".. Makes no sense to claim "you won the pop vote" if more people VOTED AGAINST you than FOR you.. By a couple million votes actually..

In a Prez election, the pop vote is like getting "Miss Congeniality". But ONLY if more contestants like you than hated you..

Okay, so by your measure, Trump didn't win the popular vote in Pennsylvania, but he received 100% of the electoral votes. Why does that make sense?

Because the E-votes (CURRENTLY) go to the person with the MOST votes. At some point this could change. And MIGHT NEED TO CHANGE.. Like if you have 3 or 4 VIABLE parties competing. And with those longer slates, the state E-votes are going to folks with only 30 or 40% of the vote. At current trends towards Independent voting, this is about a decade away now. Millennials are NOT big "party animals"..

NOTHING in the Constitution determines which parties or how many. The MORE there are -- the better represented American voters are. After all -- Progs like you WANT to be more like Europe. So -- here's our chance to make elections subject to "coalitions" and minority representations in Congress.

More UNMUZZLED voices the better. Even if it's only a handful or a dozen.

 

[imawhosure]

Wow. What dem talking point website gave you that idea? You don't know how polls work? They can be national or state by state. NATIONAL polls might find a pop vote lead. But you now have a HARD DEMONSTRATION of someone cherry picking an inconsequential factoid out of the air.

What MATTERS is the state by state polls. And -- if you WANTED TO -- you could do a meta study and COMBINE THOSE to get national numbers. UNFORTUNATELY --- most of the state by state polls were ALSO very whacked in the head. Here's the Cliff note. ANYONE forecasting winning percentage from a NATIONAL set of numbers is spinning you..

BECAUSE -- it was INDEPENDENTS that determined the election. And the OLD polling methods of weighting Dems and Reps predictably failed to produce accurate forecast. In FACT, the OLD method of polling is shot. Antiquated. Worn-Out. Useless anymore. Because the number of rabid partisans is rapidly falling.

The new methods use "extreme vetting".. Not joking. It's true. Polling companies collect PEOPLE. Get to actually know them. And pull representative samples from (as Romney says) binders full of voters. This MAY restore the accuracy. It's yet to mature..

You people don't understand odds.

1. The final polls said HRC would win by about 3 percentage points.

2. An oddsmaker would know that the final poll average has always been very close to the actual result in the popular vote, as it turned out was this one.

3. An oddsmaker would also know that in all of the history of presidential elections, the candidate that wins the popular vote wins the election about 95% of the time.

4. With that information, the oddsmaker could confidently make the odds 9 to 1 in favor of Hillary.

...so why did Trump win? Because that's what 9 to 1 longshots do. They win. They win consistently, one out of ten times.

I'm not the one with the learning disability or is the one who is quoting % of winning based on national poll numbers. Again -- "final polls" --- NATIONAL or state by state?

Two -- if the MEAN of the poll projection is CONSISTENTLY OFF on multiple polls by different orgs -- there is a SYSTEMIC issue in how the representative samples are acquired. A problem that WONT get fixed until they devalue the old methods of weighting Dems and Repubs.

THREE -- when the Pop vote margin for Hillary is LESS THAN the TOTAL number of votes CAST AGAINST Hillary by NON-TRUMP voters -- she did not really "win" the pop vote. Only bested the 1st place candidate. But did not receive MORE than the # that was cast AGAINST her.

FOUR -- NO pollster STOPS short of counting ACTUAL polling data and throws their hands up and says -- Well Gooollllllll - lly -- The pop vote is gonna DOMINATE the actual results. Because in REALITY -- only 2 states PRODUCED that "overkill" in the pop vote margin and that is MORE IMPORTANT than the MAGNITUDE of the predicted number.

When there are more than 2 candidates, you WIN by beating them all. It doesn't matter what percentage of the total you get unless that election has runoff rules.

But NOT by the "pop vote".. Makes no sense to claim "you won the pop vote" if more people VOTED AGAINST you than FOR you.. By a couple million votes actually..

In a Prez election, the pop vote is like getting "Miss Congeniality". But ONLY if more contestants like you than hated you..

Okay, so by your measure, Trump didn't win the popular vote in Pennsylvania, but he received 100% of the electoral votes. Why does that make sense?

WAKE UP! The States are supposed to be the power, not the Federal Government. The states decide how to weigh elections that are federal. As long as all party's are treated equally, then the states are doing their job.

If for Senator, 5 Republicans and 1 Libertarian run against a Democrat, and the Democrat gets 33% of the vote and is declared the winner because the rest is split between the others, how can you NOT understand that?

Now in some states, you have to carry 50% + 1 to be declared the winner of any election, or there is a run off. I think that is better, even though I think if that was invoked, Hillary would have won. In essence, it meant that the 2 top vote getters would have gone head-to-head at a later date.

But fair, is fair!

 

[flacaltenn]

You people don't understand odds.

1. The final polls said HRC would win by about 3 percentage points.

2. An oddsmaker would know that the final poll average has always been very close to the actual result in the popular vote, as it turned out was this one.

3. An oddsmaker would also know that in all of the history of presidential elections, the candidate that wins the popular vote wins the election about 95% of the time.

4. With that information, the oddsmaker could confidently make the odds 9 to 1 in favor of Hillary.

...so why did Trump win? Because that's what 9 to 1 longshots do. They win. They win consistently, one out of ten times.

I'm not the one with the learning disability or is the one who is quoting % of winning based on national poll numbers. Again -- "final polls" --- NATIONAL or state by state?

Two -- if the MEAN of the poll projection is CONSISTENTLY OFF on multiple polls by different orgs -- there is a SYSTEMIC issue in how the representative samples are acquired. A problem that WONT get fixed until they devalue the old methods of weighting Dems and Repubs.

THREE -- when the Pop vote margin for Hillary is LESS THAN the TOTAL number of votes CAST AGAINST Hillary by NON-TRUMP voters -- she did not really "win" the pop vote. Only bested the 1st place candidate. But did not receive MORE than the # that was cast AGAINST her.

FOUR -- NO pollster STOPS short of counting ACTUAL polling data and throws their hands up and says -- Well Gooollllllll - lly -- The pop vote is gonna DOMINATE the actual results. Because in REALITY -- only 2 states PRODUCED that "overkill" in the pop vote margin and that is MORE IMPORTANT than the MAGNITUDE of the predicted number.

When there are more than 2 candidates, you WIN by beating them all. It doesn't matter what percentage of the total you get unless that election has runoff rules.

But NOT by the "pop vote".. Makes no sense to claim "you won the pop vote" if more people VOTED AGAINST you than FOR you.. By a couple million votes actually..

In a Prez election, the pop vote is like getting "Miss Congeniality". But ONLY if more contestants like you than hated you..

Okay, so by your measure, Trump didn't win the popular vote in Pennsylvania, but he received 100% of the electoral votes. Why does that make sense?

WAKE UP! The States are supposed to be the power, not the Federal Government. The states decide how to weigh elections that are federal. As long as all party's are treated equally, then the states are doing their job.

If for Senator, 5 Republicans and 1 Libertarian run against a Democrat, and the Democrat gets 33% of the vote and is declared the winner because the rest is split between the others, how can you NOT understand that?

Now in some states, you have to carry 50% + 1 to be declared the winner of any election, or there is a run off. I think that is better, even though I think if that was invoked, Hillary would have won. In essence, it meant that the 2 top vote getters would have gone head-to-head at a later date.

But fair, is fair!

EXCEPT -- out in California. Where they implemented the "Top 2" system in the primaries.. Yet another Dem invention to disenfranchise voters by PREVENTING a general Election Ballot with more than TWO names on it. Sounds almost Un-American don't it? But it's California.

Last Senate race -- TWO DEMOCRATS on the General Election Ballot. NOBODY ELSE !!! That's how one party states operate. Just like the old Soviet Union.

And it happened exactly the way ImaWhosure framed it. Repubs gave their voters MANY choices and Dems -- not so much. Repubs split their votes and lost access to the Nov ballot.

These folks are DANGEROUS when they have ALL the power..

 

[Dschrute3]

Trump lost the election when he abandoned Pennsylvania and Virginia; Clinton is ahead by 5 points in the former, 7 points in the latter.

Trump wastes time and resources in Florida and Ohio, ‘must win’ states where even if he wins both states, along with Nevada and Iowa,’ Clinton will be elected president.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Trump camp smells defeat in 2018 and 2020.

Let's just say it this way. If the democrats do NOT post gains in the mid terms, they're hopeless and deserve to be demolished.

The only way Democrats will win in 2018 and 2020 is if they tear out the moribund leadership which is STILL hanging around post Hillary, acting like they did everything right.
I could go on, and might just do so but first let's let all the trolls get the spew out of their system, then we grownups can talk.

Anyway, the current DNC leadership is incapable of winning an election to Dog Catcher unless they open up to more liberals/progressives.
That's just a stone cold fact.