Political Roundtable Part XII

[sfam]

Do you think the average Trump supporter believed they were voting for Trump and his cronies personally enriching themselves at the expense of the tax payer? "Running the government like a business" isn't the same thing. #DrainTheSwamp was intended to signal the removal of corrupt lobbyists and politicians from congress.

Yeah, I actually do. Keep in mind, I am NOT a Trump supporter, and very possibly would have been pursuing a political appointee job in a new Hillary administration, so I really am not the target audience.

That said, I think its pretty clear a lot of the reason people voted for Trump is because they wanted everyone in Washington to get a virtual punch in the face. There was no better way to do that then voting for Trump. He is literally giving the city a virtual punch in the face.

Draining the swamp to me was more about attacking everyone that Trump supporters saw as responsible for the problem - namely everyone with any connection to Washington. Trump made it pretty clear he was going to fill his cabinet with billionaires. Its possible Bernie Sanders and others might have mentioned this once or 300 times.

Again, if everything you read is that all those in Washington are corrupt slimes, punching them all in the face makes sense. Again, there is this minor issue with the world economy and stability at risk, but such is life. Everyone has different priorities.

[gtn130]

People in general are completely misguided in terms of how they interpret election forecasting and election outcomes. This election cycle featured an unprecedented level of uncertainty because of the nature of the two candidates, yet Nate attributes all of it to "leftists biases" or whatever - he's wrong.

This article does a good job elucidating why the election was insanely difficult to project, and y'all should read it:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-invisible-undecided-voter/

In 2012, President Obama’s advantage over Mitt Romney, although often paper-thin in national polls, was stronger than it appeared for two big reasons. One was that Obama, in stark contrast to Hillary Clinton, was outperforming his national polls in swing states, largely as a result of his popularity in the Midwest. The other is that 2012 featured remarkably few undecided voters: Only about 4 percent of voters went into Election Day not already committed to Obama or Romney. That reduced the chance of a potential last-minute swing. Even if most of the undecideds turned out for Romney, it probably wouldn’t have been enough to vault him past Obama in the swing states.

Just the opposite was true in 2016, and Clinton’s lead was considerably more fragile than it appeared from national polls. Not only was she underperforming in the Electoral College because of the way her demographic coalition was configured (see the first article in this series for more about that) but a much larger number of voters — about 13 percent on Election Day and as many as 20 percent at earlier stages of the campaign — were either undecided or said they planned to vote for third-party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Those undecided voters made Clinton’s lead much less safe and they broke strongly toward Donald Trump at the end of the race. Trump won voters who decided in the last week of the campaign by a 59-30 margin in Wisconsin, 55-38 in Florida, 54-37 in Pennsylvania and 50-39 in Michigan, according to exit polls, which was enough to flip the outcome of those four states and their 75 combined electoral votes.

Even more importantly:

The late shift toward Trump, like other periods of polling instability throughout the campaign, was consistent with a long-term pattern. Historically, the more undecided and third-party voters there are, the more volatile and less accurate the polling has tended to be.

The crux of what I'm saying is that people are completely ignoring the unique level of volatility in this past election. Everyone saying they masterfully predicted the outcome are likely just as biased or uninformed as the folks who still thought on Nov 7th that Hillary would win by a huge margin.

[bealwithit]

It's like you people weren't tuning in when the election happened.

All of you were so smugly confident that Trump couldn't possibly win. All of the smart people in the media told you that Trump wasn't serious, and you dutifully swallowed it hook line and sinker. Most of you condescendingly told me I was delusional throughout the campaign. I really should go back and dig up the posts. They're hysterical

And then the election happened. Trump won by the biggest electoral majority for a Republican since 1988.

And here we are, just 3 months later, and you are all again telling me I'm delusional. You are condescendingly telling me that the American people don't want a Republican who berates the media in a press conference. You are telling me that Trump is tanking in those ever so reliable polls; and that Republicans in Congress are going to get routed in the midterms.

I'll just say, I'm happy with my track record on Trump predictions. Are you?

I've said this a few times, but you can't roundly denounce all polls/media you don't like because some of them were wrong about the election. 538 gave Hillary very small lead by election night, and there was a high amount of uncertainty that was noted throughout the process.

There was a point when Trump was in fact way behind. He caught up because of Comey + Wikileaks, and 538 did factor those things into their models.

Your entire interpretation of the election is revisionist history.

BS. I agree that Nate Silver changed his tune on election night, but he was the only one, and he wasn't exactly vocal about it, and he included plenty of caveats. But I'm not referring solely to the 12 hours preceding the election. I'm referring to the 6 months leading up to the election. My point is that you and others that share your opinion are in a bubble. You are so convinced that Trump is universally loathed that you consider me to be delusional for thinking otherwise. And I'm telling you that you are wrong now just as you were wrong for the 6 months prior to the election.

I mean, I don't think I called you delusional. If I did, sorry. Just to clear up my personal experience, both of my parents are Trump supporters, my dad being the stronger one of the two. Basically my entire circle of friends was open to Trump and didn't really care that he was elected because they hated Hillary, a few even outright supporting him. I live in Montgomery County MD and go to school close to Baltimore. The liberal bubble is a real thing though, agreed.

[sfam]

BS. I agree that Nate Silver changed his tune on election night, but he was the only one, and he wasn't exactly vocal about it, and he included plenty of caveats. But I'm not referring solely to the 12 hours preceding the election. I'm referring to the 6 months leading up to the election. My point is that you and others that share your opinion are in a bubble. You are so convinced that Trump is universally loathed that you consider me to be delusional for thinking otherwise. And I'm telling you that you are wrong now just as you were wrong for the 6 months prior to the election.

Trump is clearly not universally loathed. Just as clearly he is loathed by more than 50% of the population of the US and most of the rest of the world. He also has dramatically increased the tensions in the US, especially ethnic tensions. This can actually be measured in tonal changes in social media data.

The problem is we aren't in a campaign any more. The job now is governing. Increasing hatred and tensions worldwide are just not helpful to governing.

[gtn130]

Do you think the average Trump supporter believed they were voting for Trump and his cronies personally enriching themselves at the expense of the tax payer? "Running the government like a business" isn't the same thing. #DrainTheSwamp was intended to signal the removal of corrupt lobbyists and politicians from congress.

Yeah, I actually do. Keep in mind, I am NOT a Trump supporter, and very possibly would have been pursuing a political appointee job in a new Hillary administration, so I really am not the target audience.

That said, I think its pretty clear a lot of the reason people voted for Trump is because they wanted everyone in Washington to get a virtual punch in the face. There was no better way to do that then voting for Trump. He is literally giving the city a virtual punch in the face.

Draining the swamp to me was more about attacking everyone that Trump supporters saw as responsible for the problem - namely everyone with any connection to Washington. Trump made it pretty clear he was going to fill his cabinet with billionaires. Its possible Bernie Sanders and others might have mentioned this once or 300 times.

Again, if everything you read is that all those in Washington are corrupt slimes, punching them all in the face makes sense. Again, there is this minor issue with the world economy and stability at risk, but such is life. Everyone has different priorities.

Hillary was excoriated for having her evil, corrupt pay-to-play foundation. Breitbart was running stories about it daily. They had some documentary or something called Clinton Cash.

I don't think what you're saying accounts for the fact that Trump is doing things he himself vehemently chastised Hillary for supposedly doing.

[sfam]

Do you think the average Trump supporter believed they were voting for Trump and his cronies personally enriching themselves at the expense of the tax payer? "Running the government like a business" isn't the same thing. #DrainTheSwamp was intended to signal the removal of corrupt lobbyists and politicians from congress.

Yeah, I actually do. Keep in mind, I am NOT a Trump supporter, and very possibly would have been pursuing a political appointee job in a new Hillary administration, so I really am not the target audience.

That said, I think its pretty clear a lot of the reason people voted for Trump is because they wanted everyone in Washington to get a virtual punch in the face. There was no better way to do that then voting for Trump. He is literally giving the city a virtual punch in the face.

Draining the swamp to me was more about attacking everyone that Trump supporters saw as responsible for the problem - namely everyone with any connection to Washington. Trump made it pretty clear he was going to fill his cabinet with billionaires. Its possible Bernie Sanders and others might have mentioned this once or 300 times.

Again, if everything you read is that all those in Washington are corrupt slimes, punching them all in the face makes sense. Again, there is this minor issue with the world economy and stability at risk, but such is life. Everyone has different priorities.

Hillary was excoriated for having her evil, corrupt pay-to-play foundation. Breitbart was running stories about it daily. They had some documentary or something called Clinton Cash.

I don't think what you're saying accounts for the fact that Trump is doing things he himself vehemently chastised Hillary for supposedly doing.

I don't think you're reading what I'm writing. I have no issues with the Clinton Foundation - in fact have a number of friends there. I'm talking more about the mood of the country which Trump exploited.

[gtn130]

It's like you people weren't tuning in when the election happened.

All of you were so smugly confident that Trump couldn't possibly win. All of the smart people in the media told you that Trump wasn't serious, and you dutifully swallowed it hook line and sinker. Most of you condescendingly told me I was delusional throughout the campaign. I really should go back and dig up the posts. They're hysterical

And then the election happened. Trump won by the biggest electoral majority for a Republican since 1988.

And here we are, just 3 months later, and you are all again telling me I'm delusional. You are condescendingly telling me that the American people don't want a Republican who berates the media in a press conference. You are telling me that Trump is tanking in those ever so reliable polls; and that Republicans in Congress are going to get routed in the midterms.

I'll just say, I'm happy with my track record on Trump predictions. Are you?

I've said this a few times, but you can't roundly denounce all polls/media you don't like because some of them were wrong about the election. 538 gave Hillary very small lead by election night, and there was a high amount of uncertainty that was noted throughout the process.

There was a point when Trump was in fact way behind. He caught up because of Comey + Wikileaks, and 538 did factor those things into their models.

Your entire interpretation of the election is revisionist history.

BS. I agree that Nate Silver changed his tune on election night, but he was the only one, and he wasn't exactly vocal about it, and he included plenty of caveats. But I'm not referring solely to the 12 hours preceding the election. I'm referring to the 6 months leading up to the election. My point is that you and others that share your opinion are in a bubble. You are so convinced that Trump is universally loathed that you consider me to be delusional for thinking otherwise. And I'm telling you that you are wrong now just as you were wrong for the 6 months prior to the election.

I don't believe he is universally loathed. I believe his base, which represents, I dunno, ~40% of the country is infatuated with him. I believe that because aggregate polling data seems to indicate that. How would you suggest I gain a better handle on the facts?

And yeah, after the Hollywood Access tape, I thought Trump was cooked - because GOP congressmen were withdrawing support and because, again, his poll numbers were tanking. I'm not sure where I went wrong in my process there.

[gtn130]

Yeah, I actually do. Keep in mind, I am NOT a Trump supporter, and very possibly would have been pursuing a political appointee job in a new Hillary administration, so I really am not the target audience.

That said, I think its pretty clear a lot of the reason people voted for Trump is because they wanted everyone in Washington to get a virtual punch in the face. There was no better way to do that then voting for Trump. He is literally giving the city a virtual punch in the face.

Draining the swamp to me was more about attacking everyone that Trump supporters saw as responsible for the problem - namely everyone with any connection to Washington. Trump made it pretty clear he was going to fill his cabinet with billionaires. Its possible Bernie Sanders and others might have mentioned this once or 300 times.

Again, if everything you read is that all those in Washington are corrupt slimes, punching them all in the face makes sense. Again, there is this minor issue with the world economy and stability at risk, but such is life. Everyone has different priorities.

Hillary was excoriated for having her evil, corrupt pay-to-play foundation. Breitbart was running stories about it daily. They had some documentary or something called Clinton Cash.

I don't think what you're saying accounts for the fact that Trump is doing things him himself vehemently chastised Hillary for supposedly doing.

I don't think you're reading what I'm writing. I have no issues with the Clinton Foundation - in fact have a number of friends there. I'm talking more about the mood of the country which Trump exploited.

You said you think Trump's supporters were deliberately voting for him and his cronies to personally enrich themselves at the expense of the tax payers, and I'm saying they weren't intentionally doing this evinced by the fact that they were outraged by all of Hillary's pay-to-play "scandals"

We are so outraged by Crooked Hillary's corrupt pay-to-play foundation, so let's vote for someone who will take kleptocracy to the highest level imaginable ????

[Kanyewest]

As far as an election recap goes, I thought Hillary was going to win although when it came to election time, I remember saying that Hillary had run a terrible campaign up to that point. Turns out the demographics didn't favor Hillary either as they favored Obama in the 2012 election and I was wrong in that assumption.

6 months leading up to the election, I thought Clinton was vulnerable. I thought Sanders would have fared much better against Trump than Clinton. I also thought she was running a poor campaign, and turns out it was even worse than I thought.

I did talk to my friend about betting on the election on the Sunday before the election, and I advised him to bet on Trump, not because I thought he was going to win, but because of the value of the return on investment.

As far as having a mandate, Trump does not have a strong one despite winning the electoral margin. He still had 3 million votes less votes than Clinton. And that doesn't even include the people who voted for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein who didn't like either candidate. There are certainly more people who dislike Trump than like him, although the same applies to Hillary Clinton.

[sfam]

You said you think Trump's supporters were deliberately voting for him and his cronies to personally enrich themselves at the expense of the tax payers, and I'm saying they weren't intentionally doing this evinced by the fact that they were outraged by all of Hillary's pay-to-play "scandals"

We are so outraged by Crooked Hillary's corrupt pay-to-play foundation, so let's vote for someone who will take kleptocracy to the highest level imaginable ????

Well again, I think I wrote pretty clearly. I said Trump supporters care about punching Washington in the face. That's what they are getting. In their view, everyone in Washington is always enriching themselves, so I doubt they worry about that stuff.

The caricature of Hillary is everything they hate about Washington. But again, Nate is better positioned than I am to answer this.

Nate, do you care about Trump punching Washington in the face more or that he gets rid of the process of people enriching themselves with Washington?

[dobrojim]

non-political point

polls are snapshots in time and they are clearly subject to change.

The popular vote polls on election eve were within their own stated margin of error
with what the actual result turned out to be, a slight HRC edge in the popular vote of about 3%
(she won by 2%).

I don't think a majority of people either understand that or appreciate it.
Many will point to a poll 3-4 weeks before the election that said HRC had
a 80% (or whatever) chance of winning as proof that polls can't be trusted.
They don't get that the poll is only reporting the results of its findings at
the time the polling was done. You can't prove that the early to mid Oct polls
were wrong. You can say that lots of people don't understand what the results
actually mean.

[montestewart]

It's like you people weren't tuning in when the election happened.

All of you were so smugly confident that Trump couldn't possibly win. All of the smart people in the media told you that Trump wasn't serious, and you dutifully swallowed it hook line and sinker. Most of you condescendingly told me I was delusional throughout the campaign. I really should go back and dig up the posts. They're hysterical

And then the election happened. Trump won by the biggest electoral majority for a Republican since 1988.

And here we are, just 3 months later, and you are all again telling me I'm delusional. You are condescendingly telling me that the American people don't want a Republican who berates the media in a press conference. You are telling me that Trump is tanking in those ever so reliable polls; and that Republicans in Congress are going to get routed in the midterms.

I'll just say, I'm happy with my track record on Trump predictions. Are you?

I agree with some of this, but where you use the word "all," you reflect Trump's inability to characterize opponents (whether they voted for him or not) as anything but an undifferentiated mass of enemies, losers if you will, all identically brainwashed into identically destructive views.

I know you're largely holding down the fort by yourself, so it must seem like swatting at a swarm of flies, but increasingly I find myself uninterested in responding to "facts" or opinions I don't agree with here, because increasingly I feel like the response to anything I say here is not responding to me, but to a broad and undifferentiated spectrum of views only tangentially related to anything I posted.

Election predictions vs. election results, popular vote vs. electoral vote, who will win the mid-terms, will Trump be re-elected or impeached, all that sounds like politics reduced to sports talk, with advanced analytics embraced or rejected. I'm more focused on whether any of this is good for the country, and whether it's good for me and mine. So far, I don't have any confidence that it is good for either one, but within my fatalistic perception, at least it is entertaining.

[DCZards]

As far as having a mandate, Trump does not have a strong one despite winning the electoral margin. He still had 3 million votes less votes than Clinton. And that doesn't even include the people who voted for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein who didn't like either candidate. There are certainly more people who dislike Trump than like him, although the same applies to Hillary Clinton.

This is the part that Nate refuses to acknowledge or see. Trump got crushed in the popular vote. Most Americans clearly voted AGAINST him, and more than 3 million people across the country took the streets on Jan. 21 to protest his presidency, policies and character.

And, despite what the inaccurate pre-election polls might have shown, poll after poll is currently showing that Trump is an historically unpopular president...at least at this point in his presidency. Those polls are not wrong.

Actually, I think Nate is the one living in a bubble.

[gtn130]

You said you think Trump's supporters were deliberately voting for him and his cronies to personally enrich themselves at the expense of the tax payers, and I'm saying they weren't intentionally doing this evinced by the fact that they were outraged by all of Hillary's pay-to-play "scandals"

We are so outraged by Crooked Hillary's corrupt pay-to-play foundation, so let's vote for someone who will take kleptocracy to the highest level imaginable ????

Well again, I think I wrote pretty clearly. I said Trump supporters care about punching Washington in the face. That's what they are getting. In their view, everyone in Washington is always enriching themselves, so I doubt they worry about that stuff.

The caricature of Hillary is everything they hate about Washington. But again, Nate is better positioned than I am to answer this.

Nate, do you care about Trump punching Washington in the face more or that he gets rid of the process of people enriching themselves with Washington?

I think Trump was basically a rorschach painting for lots of folks - they saw whatever they wanted in him and his messaging. Trump was even trying to appeal to BernieBros for a while.

Populism, DTS, protectionism, run gov like a business!, throw Hillary in jail, make liberals cry, build a wall, deport immigrants, blow up ISIS, repeal Obamacare, bring back coal mining jobs - people found something they wanted to hear in Trump's messaging. It's not possible he could live up to his election promises even if he wanted to.

I'm guessing the vast majority of Trump supporters will say they're absolutely THRILLED with Trump no matter what he does, and they will coalesce around the agenda du jour as long as the optics still work with them.

[gtn130]

As far as having a mandate, Trump does not have a strong one despite winning the electoral margin. He still had 3 million votes less votes than Clinton. And that doesn't even include the people who voted for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein who didn't like either candidate. There are certainly more people who dislike Trump than like him, although the same applies to Hillary Clinton.

This is the part that Nate refuses to acknowledge or see. Trump got crushed in the popular vote. Most Americans clearly voted AGAINST him, and more than 3 million people across the country took the streets on Jan. 21 to protest his presidency, policies and character.

And, despite what the inaccurate pre-election polls might have shown, poll after poll is currently showing that Trump is an historically unpopular president...at least at this point in his presidency. Those polls are not wrong.

Actually, I think Nate is the one living in a bubble.

Nah man I'm certain as nate retires each evening to his rural, single-demographic neighborhood he consults a broad cross-section of Americans to better inform his world views.

The coastal elites who live in racially and ethnically diverse centers of commerce are the ones who are out of touch

[AFM]

live:

Watch on YouTube

[dckingsfan]

The coastal elites who live in racially and ethnically diverse centers of commerce are the ones who are out of touch

Actually, we were in this last election cycle

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[DCZards]

The coastal elites who live in racially and ethnically diverse centers of commerce are the ones who are out of touch

Actually, we were in this last election cycle

We weren't out of touch...we had 3 million more votes on our side. We just didn't get out the vote like we needed to in Penn., Mich., Wisc. and other key states

The Dems and Hillary should not have taken these states for granted. It won't happen again.