The Albatross

[JohnStOnge]

Stop it, you're embarrassing yourself. Bush would've lost to Clinton - people didn't want the status quo and he didn't have the corrupt machine that Clinton had. Boobs would've lost to Clinton - Boobs is the anti-Christ, people tend to vote against the devil. Rubio was a lightweight and still is. Kasich is the only one who might have had a chance, the rest of the GOP field were a collection of buffoons. Unfortunately for Clinton, people decided they didn't like pay for play politics and corrupt political dynasties and the buffoon who did come out of the GOP happened to be the most social media savvy of them all and it worked for an electorate that wanted to give the middle finger to the status quo.

One might think you were right about any of that except that the polls consistently had all those guys polling better against Clinton than Trump did while they were still in the race. And, again, the idea that the polls were "wrong" about the election is a myth. They supported pretty high confidence that Clinton would win the popular vote and she did. She won it by pretty close to the margin suggested by the point estimates of most of the polls. And the difference between the average of those point estimates and her actual margin was very small.

You don't have any real basis for your assessments. You're just speculating. The polling data of the time supports my position.

I'm not going to do it but maybe one of you guys who is good at finding old posts can find some of the posts I was making in that regard as the primaries proceeded. Trump was never even close to the strongest Republican general election candidate. The effect of social media savvy or whatever else was reflected in the polls. Bottom line is that he did not poll as well against Clinton as any of those guys did. It's true that Kasich polled the strongest against her. But all of them polled better against her than Trump did.

I realize it's the electoral college. But Rubio was up in the overall polling average by something like 5 points while Trump was down to her by something like 3 most of the time. Going from memory but it was something like that. Very unlikely that Rubio would've lost to her while being that much stronger in the popular vote than Trump was.

Kasich, BTW, was the only one among the Republicans who polled as getting more of the popular vote than Sanders would have.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW I think it's important to remember there was no great popular surge for Trump overall. Again: He got a lower percentage of the overall vote than Romney did. It was WAY more a matter of people deciding they didn't want to vote for Hillary. In 2012 98.3 percent of the vote went to one of the two major party candidates. In 2016 it was only 94.3 percent did.

The Republicans nominated a horrible candidate but had the good fortune of having the Democrats also end up with a horrible candidate. She'd made the decision to have that private e mail system. That resulted in the whole FBI investigation thing; including the last minute Comey announcement about finding more e mails on Uma's computer.

Do any of you REALLY believe that if Hillary had never done the private server thing so there was no FBI investigation of that Trump would be President right now? Straight face now.

[JohnStOnge]

This conversation swerving into Trump made me think again about a Selzer & Company poll taken November 4 - 6, 2016. As a reminder: Selzer & Company is one of only 7 polls rated A+ by 538. The subject poll had Clinton up by 3 and she won by 2.1. And the results are consistent with the belief that it was much more people not wanting Clinton than Trump finding some magic strategy such as his social media use.

I used to be able to link the poll. Unfortunately I can't now because of some kind of subscriber thing. You can still see the headline of the story about the poll at https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... er-clinton and that gives you the basic idea. And I saved the pdf document describing the poll results to my computer so I can still reference the results.

Here are some things the poll says:

Clinton was up by 3 on Trump.
If Clinton were running against Romney, Romney would have been up by 10 on Clinton.
If Obama were running against Trump, Obama would have been up by 12 over Trump.

The poll had Clinton up on Trump 46 to 43. That's a little lower than either candidate got but there were 5 percent in the poll who answered "Don't want to tell." So not unusual.

When they changed the Democrat to Obama in stead of Clinton it went to Obama over Trump by 53 to 41. Do you see what happened there? The effect of changing the Democrat to Obama was much more a matter of the Democrat getting MORE votes than the Republican getting less. The Republican score only went down by 2. The Democrat score went up by 7.

It wasn't Trump and/or his campaign being brilliant at using social media or being brilliant at anything else. It was the Democrats having a really wounded, bad candidate by the time election day arrived. Amazingly, she was bad enough to lose to a really bad Republican candidate in the electoral college. But Romney, for example, would've beaten her much worse. And so would C r u z, Bush, or Rubio, or Kasich.

[Ibanez]

This conversation swerving into Trump made me think again about a Selzer & Company poll taken November 4 - 6, 2016. As a reminder: Selzer & Company is one of only 7 polls rated A+ by 538. The subject poll had Clinton up by 3 and she won by 2.1. And the results are consistent with the belief that it was much more people not wanting Clinton than Trump finding some magic strategy such as his social media use.

I used to be able to link the poll. Unfortunately I can't now because of some kind of subscriber thing. You can still see the headline of the story about the poll at https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... er-clinton and that gives you the basic idea. And I saved the pdf document describing the poll results to my computer so I can still reference the results.

Here are some things the poll says:

Clinton was up by 3 on Trump.
If Clinton were running against Romney, Romney would have been up by 10 on Clinton.
If Obama were running against Trump, Obama would have been up by 12 over Trump.

The poll had Clinton up on Trump 46 to 43. That's a little lower than either candidate got but there were 5 percent in the poll who answered "Don't want to tell." So not unusual.

When they changed the Democrat to Obama in stead of Clinton it went to Obama over Trump by 53 to 41. Do you see what happened there? The effect of changing the Democrat to Obama was much more a matter of the Democrat getting MORE votes than the Republican getting less. The Republican score only went down by 2. The Democrat score went up by 7.

It wasn't Trump and/or his campaign being brilliant at using social media or being brilliant at anything else. It was the Democrats having a really wounded, bad candidate by the time election day arrived. Amazingly, she was bad enough to lose to a really bad Republican candidate in the electoral college. But Romney, for example, would've beaten her much worse. And so would C r u z, Bush, or Rubio, or Kasich.

You gotta lay off
Also

Spoiler: show

[BDKJMU]

This conversation swerving into Trump made me think again about a Selzer & Company poll taken November 4 - 6, 2016. As a reminder: Selzer & Company is one of only 7 polls rated A+ by 538. The subject poll had Clinton up by 3 and she won by 2.1. And the results are consistent with the belief that it was much more people not wanting Clinton than Trump finding some magic strategy such as his social media use.

I used to be able to link the poll. Unfortunately I can't now because of some kind of subscriber thing. You can still see the headline of the story about the poll at https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... er-clinton and that gives you the basic idea. And I saved the pdf document describing the poll results to my computer so I can still reference the results.

Here are some things the poll says:

Clinton was up by 3 on Trump.
If Clinton were running against Romney, Romney would have been up by 10 on Clinton.
If Obama were running against Trump, Obama would have been up by 12 over Trump.

The poll had Clinton up on Trump 46 to 43. That's a little lower than either candidate got but there were 5 percent in the poll who answered "Don't want to tell." So not unusual.

When they changed the Democrat to Obama in stead of Clinton it went to Obama over Trump by 53 to 41. Do you see what happened there? The effect of changing the Democrat to Obama was much more a matter of the Democrat getting MORE votes than the Republican getting less. The Republican score only went down by 2. The Democrat score went up by 7.

It wasn't Trump and/or his campaign being brilliant at using social media or being brilliant at anything else. It was the Democrats having a really wounded, bad candidate by the time election day arrived. Amazingly, she was bad enough to lose to a really bad Republican candidate in the electoral college. But Romney, for example, would've beaten her much worse. And so would C r u z, Bush, or Rubio, or Kasich.

[houndawg]

There's some truth here. But SD also has a point in that the Dems have focused on ancillary/gotcha type issues and continue to avoid big issue populism. We're a less rapey, mean, and outwardly racist version of conks is not a winning strategy.

It doesn't matter what the Dems do in those terms in the final analysis. All of the underlying demographic and cultural trends are in their favor. Unless the Republicans do something to address that in an effective way, the handwriting is on the wall for them. As the cliche goes: "It's not a question of if..."

And the Republicans are now engaged in doing exactly the opposite of what they needed to do. They're validating the stereotype of Republicans being frothing at the mouth nut job xenophobic sexist racists.

If they could get past their virulent racism, Team Brown would keep them in the majority forever.

[SDHornet]

It doesn't matter what the Dems do in those terms in the final analysis. All of the underlying demographic and cultural trends are in their favor. Unless the Republicans do something to address that in an effective way, the handwriting is on the wall for them. As the cliche goes: "It's not a question of if..."

And the Republicans are now engaged in doing exactly the opposite of what they needed to do. They're validating the stereotype of Republicans being frothing at the mouth nut job xenophobic sexist racists.

If they could get past their virulent racism, Team Brown would keep them in the majority forever.

And yet conks still pulled 29% of Team Brown. Just think what they would pull if they were competent enough to pass common sense legislation on immigration...

[Ivytalk]

If they could get past their virulent racism, Team Brown would keep them in the majority forever.

And yet conks still pulled 29% of Team Brown. Just think what they would pull if they were competent enough to pass common sense legislation on immigration...

Team Brown is fundamentally conservative in many ways. If the GOP had half a brain...

[JohnStOnge]

If they could get past their virulent racism, Team Brown would keep them in the majority forever.

And yet conks still pulled 29% of Team Brown. Just think what they would pull if they were competent enough to pass common sense legislation on immigration...

You're STILL doing that? I mean acting like the "conks" did well with "Team Brown."

Let's look at how the Republican candidate has done in terms of the "Team Brown" vote in each election starting with 2000:

2000: 35%
2004: 44%
2008: 31%
2012: 27%
2016: 29%

Now, I'll admit that having 29% of Hispanics or any OTHER group vote for an obvious atrocity like Trump is kind of amazing. But there's no indication there of Republicans making progress with "Team Brown."

[SDHornet]

And yet conks still pulled 29% of Team Brown. Just think what they would pull if they were competent enough to pass common sense legislation on immigration...

You're STILL doing that? I mean acting like the "conks" did well with "Team Brown."

Let's look at how the Republican candidate has done in terms of the "Team Brown" vote in each election starting with 2000:

2000: 35%
2004: 44%
2008: 31%
2012: 27%
2016: 29%

Now, I'll admit that having 29% of Hispanics or any OTHER group vote for an obvious atrocity like Trump is kind of amazing. But there's no indication there of Republicans making progress with "Team Brown."

And yet 29% was enough to keep crooked hillary out of the WH. Mission accomplished.

[Ivytalk]

You're STILL doing that? I mean acting like the "conks" did well with "Team Brown."

Let's look at how the Republican candidate has done in terms of the "Team Brown" vote in each election starting with 2000:

2000: 35%
2004: 44%
2008: 31%
2012: 27%
2016: 29%

Now, I'll admit that having 29% of Hispanics or any OTHER group vote for an obvious atrocity like Trump is kind
of amazing. But there's no indication there of Republicans making progress with "Team Brown."

And yet 29% was enough to keep crooked hillary out of the WH. Mission accomplished.

Damn you, SD! You just extended this thread by 6 more JSO posts!

[Ibanez]

And yet conks still pulled 29% of Team Brown. Just think what they would pull if they were competent enough to pass common sense legislation on immigration...

You're STILL doing that? I mean acting like the "conks" did well with "Team Brown."

Let's look at how the Republican candidate has done in terms of the "Team Brown" vote in each election starting with 2000:

2000: 35%
2004: 44%
2008: 31%
2012: 27%
2016: 29%

Now, I'll admit that having 29% of Hispanics or any OTHER group vote for an obvious atrocity like Trump is kind of amazing. But there's no indication there of Republicans making progress with "Team Brown."

[houndawg]

You're STILL doing that? I mean acting like the "conks" did well with "Team Brown."

Let's look at how the Republican candidate has done in terms of the "Team Brown" vote in each election starting with 2000:

2000: 35%
2004: 44%
2008: 31%
2012: 27%
2016: 29%

Now, I'll admit that having 29% of Hispanics or any OTHER group vote for an obvious atrocity like Trump is kind of amazing. But there's no indication there of Republicans making progress with "Team Brown."

And yet 29% was enough to keep crooked hillary out of the WH. Mission accomplished.

I hope you have family south of the border or can pass for white.


Just remember who told you he was lying when he said he wouldn't come in your mouth.

[JohnStOnge]

Seriously, SD, I don't know if you really want to understand what happened or not. But if you do you should be interested in knowing that it wasn't about getting support from "team brown."

The underlying dynamic remains. "Team brown" is growing as a percentage of the population and "team brown," as a group, doesn't like Republicans. There was nothing about the 2016 election that suggested any change in the basic picture. And the basic picture does not look good for the future of the Republican Party.

[SDHornet]

And yet 29% was enough to keep crooked hillary out of the WH. Mission accomplished.

I hope you have family south of the border or can pass for white.


Just remember who told you he was lying when he said he wouldn't come in your mouth.

My family crosses legally...as should everyone else that isn't a citizen.

[SDHornet]

And yet 29% was enough to keep crooked hillary out of the WH. Mission accomplished.

Damn you, SD! You just extended this thread by 6 more JSO posts!

[SDHornet]

Seriously, SD, I don't know if you really want to understand what happened or not. But if you do you should be interested in knowing that it wasn't about getting support from "team brown."

The underlying dynamic remains. "Team brown" is growing as a percentage of the population and "team brown," as a group, doesn't like Republicans. There was nothing about the 2016 election that suggested any change in the basic picture. And the basic picture does not look good for the future of the Republican Party.

Link?

[houndawg]

I hope you have family south of the border or can pass for white.


Just remember who told you he was lying when he said he wouldn't come in your mouth.

My family crosses legally...as should everyone else that isn't a citizen.

Don't worry, they're going to fix that problem. Soon your friends will have to confine their raping and murdering to their own country.

[SDHornet]

My family crosses legally...as should everyone else that isn't a citizen.

Don't worry, they're going to fix that problem. Soon your friends will have to confine their raping and murdering to their own country.

Not likely, conks/business elite need our cheap labor to leverage against unions.

[houndawg]

Don't worry, they're going to fix that problem. Soon your friends will have to confine their raping and murdering to their own country.

Not likely, conks/business elite need our cheap labor to leverage against unions.

Its a tough balancing act for them to continue - calling them rapists and the worst of Mexico without whipping the frenzy so high that the guns come out. They'll inevitably take it too far and people will get hurt. Mostly your people.

[CID1990]

JSO moonlighting under an assumed identity

https://mobile.twitter.com/JayMalsky/st ... frame.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CAA Flagship]

JSO moonlighting under an assumed identity

https://mobile.twitter.com/JayMalsky/st ... frame.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"DIS is a publicly traded company"

[JohnStOnge]

Since you guys bumped this thread up I'll mention that Moore is really validating his rejection.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/p ... ction.html

[CID1990]

Since you guys bumped this thread up I'll mention that Moore is really validating his rejection.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/p ... ction.html

Nobody here supports Moore, JSO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Since you guys bumped this thread up I'll mention that Moore is really validating his rejection.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/p ... ction.html

Nobody here supports Moore, JSO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That may be true but there are clearly those here who support Trump and that's pretty close to just as bad.