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)
Yeah, he really called it, and early too.
Oliver Craner and Michael Moore, bedfellows of a kind.
Hes the next Paul the Octopus.
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%).
Surprised by younger voters. Angry about Bernie?
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)
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?
final popular vote (as of 11:13 am ET).
clinton 59,390,851 (47.7%)
trump 59,215,097 (47.5%)
The polls were wrong in 2015
And everyone I knew was confidently predicting total victory for Labour.