6 ms·

This is seriously hilarious. Now that's he's won, against seemingly all odds, we have to find some other reason for why EVERYONE ELSE, was completely WRONG. Eve

This is seriously hilarious. Now that's he's won, against seemingly all odds, we have to find some other reason for why EVERYONE ELSE, was completely WRONG. Every media outlet, everyone in politics, all the polls, completely shit on Trump. Now look who is the most powerful person in the entire world. The Democrats, and the rest, did it to themselves. Overconfidence, smear campaigns, and all of the morons doing the polls. We are all sick of politicians, and the people have spoken, let's just see what happens. Get over it already.

lightbyte 10y ago
>we have to find some other reason for why EVERYONE ELSE, was completely WRONG >and the people have spoken Trump lost the popular vote, so this isn't true. He got about 25% of the total voting population overall.
- overcast 10y ago
  Irrelevant. This is a republic, not a democracy. If you want to cherry pick small percentages by comparing to the voting age population. Clinton got 25.5% and Trump got 25.4% Voting population 235,248,000 99% reporting per Google Polls. Trump 47% 59,821,874 Clinton 48% 60,122,876
- rawdoc 10y ago
  I agree that just because Trump won the election doesn't mean the people gave him a mandate, or have spoken, but looking at popular vote in a system that doesn't even focus on popular vote is incorrect IMO. If the rules were to get popular vote then campaigning would be done totally differently. The candidates are doing everything they can to win states, not win popular vote.
  - qb45 10y ago
    Regarding popular election, "mandate" and "only 25% voted for him", it seems that all people who are now dissatisfied have voted for Clinton. Which suggests that the 50% who didn't vote maybe don't oppose Trump that much. I observed that leftists have a tendency to systematically overestimate their numbers, influence and the amount of agreement or even familiarity with their ideas among the public.
- kgwgk 10y ago
  > He got about 25% of the total voting population overall. Clinton got about 24% of the total voting population in 1992 and 1996. What is your point?
- antocv 10y ago
  Trump didnt loose the popular vote yet, until the final vote is counted, it seems CNN and others are still shitting.
- laichzeit0 10y ago
  > Trump lost the popular vote, so this isn't true. He got about 25% of the total voting population overall. Since the "popular vote" doesn't elect the president but the Electoral College, each candidate must campaign to win the Electoral College. That is the strategy to win presidency. If you change it to "popular vote" you will see campaign strategy change to optimize towards that metric. It's not something you can look at "in retrospect". Trump would have played the game slightly differently if that was the case. So actually everyone crying about the fact that he didn't win "popular vote" are just displaying their own ignorance on campaign strategy every time they bring up this point.
tdb7893 10y ago
The polls weren't that off actually. They missed the mark overall by about 2%, which is actually pretty similar to the error in past elections. That's not very surprising because without being able to sample the actual distribution you need to make some assumptions for the statistics to work.
- return0 10y ago
  I presume that pollsters did their job well. There is a pattern here, they got it wrong both with Brexit and with Trump. I think bad polling was not the reason. The media, the government and academia have created an atmosphere of militant orhodox liberalism, where dissenting voices are not only silenced, but often ridiculed, doxxed, forced to resign etc. These people will choose to disappear from the polls. They will "Think as they want, but behave like others", until they are given the chance to fight back. Thankfully, in democracies we have elections to release those tensions. And setbacks in democracies are inevitable.
  - tdb7893 10y ago
    He is in charge of the EPA now but he tweeted that global warming is a conspiracy created by the Chinese. He is in charge of the State Department but he thinks that Mexico will pay for a border wall. He is charge of the FDA and he thinks that vaccines cause autism. Some of his views are deeply disturbing on a level much deeper than just "orhodox liberalism"
    - return0 10y ago
      The response to people who are wrong should be to engage and argue with them. By tossing them as deplorables they will keep to themselves until they can get back at you.
      - tdb7893 10y ago
        The use of "deplorables" is presumably a reference to Clinton's remarks and it's really interesting you reference that here because her point of that comment is similar to yours in that you can't just lump all Trump supporters into the racist and xenophobic basket that many people did. I agree with you and I will gladly argue politely with people who are willing but I don't think it's unfair to criticize such damaging views in a presidential candidate.
pnathan 10y ago
> the people have spoken many marketing and propaganda people would smile knowingly seeing this, knowing that the will of the people is very shapeable. It's been known for 90 years now...
- overcast 10y ago
  So because Trump was elected, it was shaped by marketing. If Hillary was elected, it was their will alone. Even though the Clinton campaign spent twice the amount of money.
steveplace 10y ago
This article would not have been written had the election outcome been different.
- revscat 10y ago
  There's no way to no for sure. We can suspect, and presume based upon our political leanings, but there is no way to know.

lightbyte 10y ago

>we have to find some other reason for why EVERYONE ELSE, was completely WRONG >and the people have spoken Trump lost the popular vote, so this isn't true. He got about 25% of the total voting population overall.

overcast 10y ago
Irrelevant. This is a republic, not a democracy. If you want to cherry pick small percentages by comparing to the voting age population. Clinton got 25.5% and Trump got 25.4% Voting population 235,248,000 99% reporting per Google Polls. Trump 47% 59,821,874 Clinton 48% 60,122,876
rawdoc 10y ago
I agree that just because Trump won the election doesn't mean the people gave him a mandate, or have spoken, but looking at popular vote in a system that doesn't even focus on popular vote is incorrect IMO. If the rules were to get popular vote then campaigning would be done totally differently. The candidates are doing everything they can to win states, not win popular vote.
- qb45 10y ago
  Regarding popular election, "mandate" and "only 25% voted for him", it seems that all people who are now dissatisfied have voted for Clinton. Which suggests that the 50% who didn't vote maybe don't oppose Trump that much. I observed that leftists have a tendency to systematically overestimate their numbers, influence and the amount of agreement or even familiarity with their ideas among the public.
kgwgk 10y ago
> He got about 25% of the total voting population overall. Clinton got about 24% of the total voting population in 1992 and 1996. What is your point?
antocv 10y ago
Trump didnt loose the popular vote yet, until the final vote is counted, it seems CNN and others are still shitting.
laichzeit0 10y ago
> Trump lost the popular vote, so this isn't true. He got about 25% of the total voting population overall. Since the "popular vote" doesn't elect the president but the Electoral College, each candidate must campaign to win the Electoral College. That is the strategy to win presidency. If you change it to "popular vote" you will see campaign strategy change to optimize towards that metric. It's not something you can look at "in retrospect". Trump would have played the game slightly differently if that was the case. So actually everyone crying about the fact that he didn't win "popular vote" are just displaying their own ignorance on campaign strategy every time they bring up this point.

tdb7893 10y ago

The polls weren't that off actually. They missed the mark overall by about 2%, which is actually pretty similar to the error in past elections. That's not very surprising because without being able to sample the actual distribution you need to make some assumptions for the statistics to work.

return0 10y ago
I presume that pollsters did their job well. There is a pattern here, they got it wrong both with Brexit and with Trump. I think bad polling was not the reason. The media, the government and academia have created an atmosphere of militant orhodox liberalism, where dissenting voices are not only silenced, but often ridiculed, doxxed, forced to resign etc. These people will choose to disappear from the polls. They will "Think as they want, but behave like others", until they are given the chance to fight back. Thankfully, in democracies we have elections to release those tensions. And setbacks in democracies are inevitable.
- tdb7893 10y ago
  He is in charge of the EPA now but he tweeted that global warming is a conspiracy created by the Chinese. He is in charge of the State Department but he thinks that Mexico will pay for a border wall. He is charge of the FDA and he thinks that vaccines cause autism. Some of his views are deeply disturbing on a level much deeper than just "orhodox liberalism"
  - return0 10y ago
    The response to people who are wrong should be to engage and argue with them. By tossing them as deplorables they will keep to themselves until they can get back at you.
    - tdb7893 10y ago
      The use of "deplorables" is presumably a reference to Clinton's remarks and it's really interesting you reference that here because her point of that comment is similar to yours in that you can't just lump all Trump supporters into the racist and xenophobic basket that many people did. I agree with you and I will gladly argue politely with people who are willing but I don't think it's unfair to criticize such damaging views in a presidential candidate.

pnathan 10y ago

> the people have spoken many marketing and propaganda people would smile knowingly seeing this, knowing that the will of the people is very shapeable. It's been known for 90 years now...

overcast 10y ago
So because Trump was elected, it was shaped by marketing. If Hillary was elected, it was their will alone. Even though the Clinton campaign spent twice the amount of money.

steveplace 10y ago

This article would not have been written had the election outcome been different.

revscat 10y ago
There's no way to no for sure. We can suspect, and presume based upon our political leanings, but there is no way to know.