OK i'll grant you that. She had problems, but Bernie did too - with the base. Neither candidate had much cross-aisle appeal. As I said to someone else just now, she had no aspirational message and neither really did Bernie - not one that would appeal to an opposing group. You need one to win, even if it is all talk and no action. The hopey changey thing worked for Obama, and painting Romney as a capitalist stooge worked in 2012. Trump was a more complex challenge and it needed a better approach than throwing money and mud at him and calling him a racist. In fact, I think that whole approach of trying to mobilize minority groups by tarring the opposing candidate as a racist has to be re-evaluated. It's still bringing the minority voters in but it completely alienated the white blue collar vote.
I don't speak German and the word for "autopilot" in German - which I am not going to try to guess - probably has a subtly different meaning than in English. So I don't even know how to judge this article or the issue, and anyone not natively familiar with Deutsch lingo would be in the same state.
She was going to lose anyway. Obama pissed in the soup - bad economy, "you didn't build that", the white privilege thing, the rioting and allowing it...the list goes on. Leftist overreach. Instead of a level playing field, she had an uphill battle the whole way. Not absolving her of blame for her own faults, of course, but that was baked in.
Watching poll swings is fun, but most US elections are decided around Labor Day. Trump had a small lead then and it was indicative that he would win. Grabbing pussies and Anthony Weiner notwithstanding. That was all just noise.
Now we will all get to find out that "elections matter", to quote Obama circa 2009. He took things to the Left, very far for America. Now we're heading to the Right.
I'll just say that if money was the solution to the problem, Clinton would have won. Trump spent a lot less because he focused with laser intensity on a blue collar white demo that was amenable to his restoring jobs message. While it wasn't going to win the popular vote, that wasn't his objective - he wanted the Midwest EVs so he could win. He got 306, more than Bush ever got, by doing just that on essentially a shoestring - rallies, lawn signs and limited TV airtime. He spent about half what Clinton did.
At a certain point, the TV ads and media attacks have diminishing returns and it goes back to fundamentals.
Bernie couldn't turn out minorities and could be easily caricatured as out of tune with the majority of America. It would be like nominating Ted Cruz as a Republican. He plays well with a certain demo that wears their underwear too tight, but nowhere else.
I'm not going to do your research for you, but there is lots to discover in the primary returns with Clinton. Bernie would have been trounced in the general which is why no one seriously considered him as a nominee.
Also, an attack on a primary opponent usually doesn't take on the viciousness of a general election attack. Bernie had an oppo file from his commie days that would have been hauled out if useful, and Clinton couldn't effectively use.
I'm not saying that Clinton was a good candidate - I voted for Trump, but I am also realistic about politics. I *really* don't think Bernie would have solved the problem this year, or any year. A few pictures of him from the 1960s coupled with past quotes would have alienated the Republicans and leaners in that direction. Bernie had a problem in the primaries in the southern states and the populous states amongst Democrats too. Why? He couldn't turn out the minorities that power Democratic victory in those places. Surrogates can't do it either, as people like John Kerry and Dukakis found out. You have to build a reputation and work the communities in the run-up to the election. Bernie didn't have time, and didn't have the credentials, and would have been in bad shape if he had been the nominee.
The Democratic Party solution this year was not simple and that's why Clinton survived various near-death experiences. There wasn't a plausible alternative.
Bernie wouldn't have done better than Hillary. Probably much worse, regardless of Trump's warts. Or, to put it differently, Bernie might have put some of the Midwest states out of reach, but would have made sure that Trump got a lot more votes in the South - west or east. He is easy to caricature as a useful idiot, a loon, and he would have been.
I can't believe i'm doing this because I have been a huge critic of Nate Silver this year, particularly what he did during the primaries. However, Nate does not do poll demographic adjustments. And the polls he has been getting have all (well, almost all) been essentially conditioned on a 2012+ electorate. Meaning a 2012 plus assumed demographic shifts based on census numbers. There are two problems here. One is that we don't do yearly censuses, so a lot of the drift that is assumed is just that...assumed based on the 2010 numbers. This is a recipe for error. Second, there is an assumption that the demoes that showed up for Obama vs Romney would continue at the same levels. This is wrong - we can see that now. Black vote is down, Hispanic up, old people way up, independents up, Republicans up, Democrats down.
So i'm saying that the topline numbers in the polls are shit. Therefore, Nate Silver is working with bad data. To his credit, he realizes that there is a problem and he is hedging strongly - not convinced at all Clinton is going to win. He is right. So, therefore, we shouldn't shit all over him until he does something wrong again.
Not 16 points ahead, +16 on those intending to vote on Election Day. HRC was about 0.3% ahead in the early vote last I checked. In Florida, the Republicans vote on Election Day mostly.
In Ohio, same deal but +8 Trump.
Check the CBS/Yougov poll from today for both states, you'll see the numbers there, buried in pages and pages of other stuff.
The CNN article in question about NC is on the front page of RCP.
Thinking AZ is a swing state is a tell tale that you are trusting polls with bad demo mixes. Out of the four you mention, precisely zero are going to Clinton. The election day mix in Florida is +16 Trump. The same in Ohio is +8 Trump. You should check out the CNN article about the North Carolina vote and how Trump is significantly ahead of Romney 2012 - who won the state, while Clinton is significantly behind.
Well, should be a pretty straightforward calculation of what 300 miles of juice cost in kwh by your local electric price. Where I live, it would be a little less than $10. So, therefore, Tesla can be competitive to a $25 tank of gas.
Also, remember, they called the election before the Panhandle closed its polls - most of the state is ET, but the Panhandle is CT. The number of voters deterred is debatable, but almost assuredly there was more than one.
Slashdot Mirror
OK i'll grant you that. She had problems, but Bernie did too - with the base. Neither candidate had much cross-aisle appeal. As I said to someone else just now, she had no aspirational message and neither really did Bernie - not one that would appeal to an opposing group. You need one to win, even if it is all talk and no action. The hopey changey thing worked for Obama, and painting Romney as a capitalist stooge worked in 2012. Trump was a more complex challenge and it needed a better approach than throwing money and mud at him and calling him a racist. In fact, I think that whole approach of trying to mobilize minority groups by tarring the opposing candidate as a racist has to be re-evaluated. It's still bringing the minority voters in but it completely alienated the white blue collar vote.
Well played.
I don't speak German and the word for "autopilot" in German - which I am not going to try to guess - probably has a subtly different meaning than in English. So I don't even know how to judge this article or the issue, and anyone not natively familiar with Deutsch lingo would be in the same state.
Now I can see ads for suckers like car title loans and payday cash advances. Thanks, Facebook.
Who exactly was sexually assaulted? Yep, you can't name one person.
You lost, get over it.
She was going to lose anyway. Obama pissed in the soup - bad economy, "you didn't build that", the white privilege thing, the rioting and allowing it...the list goes on. Leftist overreach. Instead of a level playing field, she had an uphill battle the whole way. Not absolving her of blame for her own faults, of course, but that was baked in.
Watching poll swings is fun, but most US elections are decided around Labor Day. Trump had a small lead then and it was indicative that he would win. Grabbing pussies and Anthony Weiner notwithstanding. That was all just noise.
Now we will all get to find out that "elections matter", to quote Obama circa 2009. He took things to the Left, very far for America. Now we're heading to the Right.
I'll just say that if money was the solution to the problem, Clinton would have won. Trump spent a lot less because he focused with laser intensity on a blue collar white demo that was amenable to his restoring jobs message. While it wasn't going to win the popular vote, that wasn't his objective - he wanted the Midwest EVs so he could win. He got 306, more than Bush ever got, by doing just that on essentially a shoestring - rallies, lawn signs and limited TV airtime. He spent about half what Clinton did.
At a certain point, the TV ads and media attacks have diminishing returns and it goes back to fundamentals.
Don't blame Clinton. The Democrats just lost.
Bernie couldn't turn out minorities and could be easily caricatured as out of tune with the majority of America. It would be like nominating Ted Cruz as a Republican. He plays well with a certain demo that wears their underwear too tight, but nowhere else.
I'm not going to do your research for you, but there is lots to discover in the primary returns with Clinton. Bernie would have been trounced in the general which is why no one seriously considered him as a nominee.
I'm a huge fan of your anti-RIAA work.
Also, an attack on a primary opponent usually doesn't take on the viciousness of a general election attack. Bernie had an oppo file from his commie days that would have been hauled out if useful, and Clinton couldn't effectively use.
I'm not saying that Clinton was a good candidate - I voted for Trump, but I am also realistic about politics. I *really* don't think Bernie would have solved the problem this year, or any year. A few pictures of him from the 1960s coupled with past quotes would have alienated the Republicans and leaners in that direction. Bernie had a problem in the primaries in the southern states and the populous states amongst Democrats too. Why? He couldn't turn out the minorities that power Democratic victory in those places. Surrogates can't do it either, as people like John Kerry and Dukakis found out. You have to build a reputation and work the communities in the run-up to the election. Bernie didn't have time, and didn't have the credentials, and would have been in bad shape if he had been the nominee.
The Democratic Party solution this year was not simple and that's why Clinton survived various near-death experiences. There wasn't a plausible alternative.
Bernie didn't get attacked much because Clinton thought it not worth doing, and Trump found him useful, so talked Bernie up.
In a general election campaign, things are different.
Couldn't have said it better. They lost control of the narrative and were defeated. Fuck the media.
Facts are facts, and our current pussified generation of beta males isn't putting on a good show.
You mean that boys would act like boys again? Heaven forbid!
Turning them into total pussies has worked so well for our society, after all.
Only because the Left insists on spreading that FUD.
There is nothing actually random about Trump. Scott Adams has written a lot about Trump - worth reading.
Bernie wouldn't have done better than Hillary. Probably much worse, regardless of Trump's warts. Or, to put it differently, Bernie might have put some of the Midwest states out of reach, but would have made sure that Trump got a lot more votes in the South - west or east. He is easy to caricature as a useful idiot, a loon, and he would have been.
I don't blame you for feeling this way, but...
I can't believe i'm doing this because I have been a huge critic of Nate Silver this year, particularly what he did during the primaries. However, Nate does not do poll demographic adjustments. And the polls he has been getting have all (well, almost all) been essentially conditioned on a 2012+ electorate. Meaning a 2012 plus assumed demographic shifts based on census numbers. There are two problems here. One is that we don't do yearly censuses, so a lot of the drift that is assumed is just that ...assumed based on the 2010 numbers. This is a recipe for error. Second, there is an assumption that the demoes that showed up for Obama vs Romney would continue at the same levels. This is wrong - we can see that now. Black vote is down, Hispanic up, old people way up, independents up, Republicans up, Democrats down.
So i'm saying that the topline numbers in the polls are shit. Therefore, Nate Silver is working with bad data. To his credit, he realizes that there is a problem and he is hedging strongly - not convinced at all Clinton is going to win. He is right. So, therefore, we shouldn't shit all over him until he does something wrong again.
The only polls worth anything at this point are the latest ones - the last few days. Everything older than a week is useless.
Not 16 points ahead, +16 on those intending to vote on Election Day. HRC was about 0.3% ahead in the early vote last I checked. In Florida, the Republicans vote on Election Day mostly.
In Ohio, same deal but +8 Trump.
Check the CBS/Yougov poll from today for both states, you'll see the numbers there, buried in pages and pages of other stuff.
The CNN article in question about NC is on the front page of RCP.
Thinking AZ is a swing state is a tell tale that you are trusting polls with bad demo mixes. Out of the four you mention, precisely zero are going to Clinton. The election day mix in Florida is +16 Trump. The same in Ohio is +8 Trump. You should check out the CNN article about the North Carolina vote and how Trump is significantly ahead of Romney 2012 - who won the state, while Clinton is significantly behind.
Well, should be a pretty straightforward calculation of what 300 miles of juice cost in kwh by your local electric price. Where I live, it would be a little less than $10. So, therefore, Tesla can be competitive to a $25 tank of gas.
Also, remember, they called the election before the Panhandle closed its polls - most of the state is ET, but the Panhandle is CT. The number of voters deterred is debatable, but almost assuredly there was more than one.