3 ms·

Since the beginning it was obvious the people would choose change and it actually looked like they would choose change for the better of you allowed them to (as

Since the beginning it was obvious the people would choose change and it actually looked like they would choose change for the better of you allowed them to (as the Bernie vs Trump polls showed). But Democrat party decided the people knew nothing and they would just make them choose between what looked like change for the worst or for everything to continue the same. And well, people really preferred change non the less. Democrat party should now do some soul searching, stop blaming others for Trump election, and figure out how they allowed Hilary to manipulate so much the DNC in order to push Bernie aside.

zimpenfish 10y ago
> (as the Bernie vs Trump polls showed) Those same polls also showed Clinton winning handily against Trump. You can't pick one side as proof of your argument when the other side has been proven wrong in reality.
- jbmorgado 10y ago
  No, that's incorrect. Those polls showed Clinton leading against Trump by 3 points, and Bernie leading against Trump by 10 points. That's a huge diference.
  - zimpenfish 10y ago
    Ok, I'll remove "handily" - my point still stands that you can't point to polls saying X when they also say Y which has been proven wrong since.
c0nfused 10y ago
I think its more a question of discovering how they lost ohio and michigan, which are reliably blue states. What strategic nd tactical choices did they make that cause them to lose in so many states that they thought they had won. Clinton was rated 80%+ to win by everyone at the start of the night. Is it an over reliance on polling? Likely to vote stat seems like a viable arguement A poorer ground game? In the city I live in Trump came, sold out the colliseum, and Clinton sent Kaine who who sold out a middle school gym. This is in a blue city in a blue state. Did they just get played by Trump and spend the entire campaign making it about him instead of about Clinton? I don't know, but at this point they have plenty of time to try to figure it out and they really ought to. After all, it doesn't look like the greens or the libertarians are going to be a viable opposition party in 2 years
- imron 10y ago
  > I think its more a question of discovering how they lost ohio and michigan, which are reliably blue states Michigan I'll grant, but in the last 10 elections, Ohio has been blue 5 times and red 5 times, with a fairly even spread.
  - lagadu 10y ago
    To further drive your point: Ohio is the one state that has always voted for the winner, not a single miss. That's as even spread as it gets.

zimpenfish 10y ago

> (as the Bernie vs Trump polls showed) Those same polls also showed Clinton winning handily against Trump. You can't pick one side as proof of your argument when the other side has been proven wrong in reality.

jbmorgado 10y ago
No, that's incorrect. Those polls showed Clinton leading against Trump by 3 points, and Bernie leading against Trump by 10 points. That's a huge diference.
- zimpenfish 10y ago
  Ok, I'll remove "handily" - my point still stands that you can't point to polls saying X when they also say Y which has been proven wrong since.

c0nfused 10y ago

I think its more a question of discovering how they lost ohio and michigan, which are reliably blue states. What strategic nd tactical choices did they make that cause them to lose in so many states that they thought they had won. Clinton was rated 80%+ to win by everyone at the start of the night. Is it an over reliance on polling? Likely to vote stat seems like a viable arguement A poorer ground game? In the city I live in Trump came, sold out the colliseum, and Clinton sent Kaine who who sold out a middle school gym. This is in a blue city in a blue state. Did they just get played by Trump and spend the entire campaign making it about him instead of about Clinton? I don't know, but at this point they have plenty of time to try to figure it out and they really ought to. After all, it doesn't look like the greens or the libertarians are going to be a viable opposition party in 2 years

imron 10y ago
> I think its more a question of discovering how they lost ohio and michigan, which are reliably blue states Michigan I'll grant, but in the last 10 elections, Ohio has been blue 5 times and red 5 times, with a fairly even spread.
- lagadu 10y ago
  To further drive your point: Ohio is the one state that has always voted for the winner, not a single miss. That's as even spread as it gets.