DOOM, or The Official 2016 US Election Thread

vimothy

vimothy

yurp
The polls were certainly biased towards the result that the establishment favoured, which was a landslide victory for Clinton.
 
droid

droid

Well-known member
baboon2004 said:
http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/ not a Michael Moore fan, but he correctly pinned the key to Trump's win on the rust belt.

Hasn't been as much talk as there might be in the media about the impact of basic misogyny upon the result (again Moore calls it). I agree that Sanders would probably have stood a better chance of winning for many reasons, but a vital one would have simply been his gender. (Another sign the media seemed to miss was that - I think - Bernie did very well in the rust belt states in the primaries, aside from Pennsylvania)
Click to expand...

Yeah, he really called it, and early too.

Oliver Craner and Michael Moore, bedfellows of a kind.
 
B

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
droid said:
Yeah, he really called it, and early too.

Oliver Craner and Michael Moore, bedfellows of a kind.
Click to expand...

true, hats off to Craner on that one too.

reading Moore's analysis, what leaps out most is how obvious and uncontroversial all the premises seem (just the conclusion startles).
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
Among the more startling data to emerge from the poll:

  • White voters, who make up 69% of the total, voted 58% for Trump and 37% for Clinton. Non-white voters, who make up 31% of the electorate, voted 74% for Clinton and 21% for Trump.
  • White men opted 63% for Trump and 31% for Clinton; white women voted 53% for Trump and 43% for Clinton.
  • Among non-college-educated whites, 67% voted for Trump – 72% of men and 62% of women.
  • Among college-educated whites, 45% voted for Clinton – 39% of men and 51% of women (the only white demographic represented in the poll where the former secretary of state came out on top). But 54% of male college graduates voted for Trump, as did 45% of female college graduates.
  • More 18- to 29-year-old whites voted for Trump (48%) than Clinton (43%).
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls
 
S

sadmanbarty

Well-known member
Surprised by younger voters. Angry about Bernie? Trump's anti-establishment rhetoric? More susceptible to online conspiracy theories? Isolationism?
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
baboon2004 said:
http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/ not a Michael Moore fan, but he correctly pinned the key to Trump's win on the rust belt.

Hasn't been as much talk as there might be in the media about the impact of basic misogyny upon the result (again Moore calls it). I agree that Sanders would probably have stood a better chance of winning for many reasons, but a vital one would have simply been his gender. (Another sign the media seemed to miss was that - I think - Bernie did very well in the rust belt states in the primaries, aside from Pennsylvania)
Click to expand...

still think bernie was too far left for middle america. joe biden might beaten trump, he relates well to the working class folks and doesn't have the email/foundation albatross around his neck (although there was that one little plagiarism thing...)
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
The polls were wrong. And because we are obsessed with predicting opinions rather than listening to them, we didn’t see it coming. So, the world woke up believing that Republican candidate Donald Trump had a 15% chance of winning based on polling predictions – roughly the same chance of rolling a total of six if you have two dice. Despite those odds, the next US president will be Donald Trump.

I have a few ideas about what went wrong. In the four years I’ve spent as a data journalist, I’ve been concerned by how much faith the public has placed in polling. Just like you’d check the weather before getting dressed, many people checked presidential polling numbers before heading out to vote. That’s understandable. Politics can feel as unpredictable as the weather, and who wouldn’t want to eliminate uncertainty? The world is a scary and confusing place right now.

But those are two very different kinds of forecasts. One is based on natural science, the other on social science. People are different to planets – they can change their minds, they can decide to not share their opinions or they can flat out lie. And that’s before you even get to some of the statistical issues that make polling inaccurate.

That’s not new information. Polling analysts like me knew the numbers were inaccurate before Brexit happened. Despite that, the polling predictions kept coming. Why?
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/polls-wrong-donald-trump-election
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
final popular vote (as of 11:13 am ET).

clinton 59,390,851 (47.7%)
trump 59,215,097 (47.5%)
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
the first two of four consequential global elections (brexit and presidencies in the US, france and germany) have gone similarly, a bit of an ominous sign.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Leo said:
final popular vote (as of 11:13 am ET).

clinton 59,390,851 (47.7%)
trump 59,215,097 (47.5%)
Click to expand...

How does this happen so often? Is it just the small-state bias in the electoral college system I mentioned earlier? It seems utterly perverse.
 
Last edited:
S

sadmanbarty

Well-known member
"the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top