And it’s speculation that Hillary would have won. And pollsters were embarrassing fly wrong last time.
How many flies did the pollsters embarrass?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And it’s speculation that Hillary would have won. And pollsters were embarrassing fly wrong last time.
IDK. Ask Trump. He said it, not anyone here.You mean before when the Democrats tried to impeach him they weren’t united?
Only the ones who predicted the EC. Those who predicted the popular vote were mostly accurate, pouring Hillary ahead by a slight margin. Not really the same "Dewey beats Truman" type of polling problem.And pollsters were embarrassing fly wrong last time.
Well, if the democrats don't unify against Trump, then it means that the democrats will be leaking out to empower third parties (and Trump wins,) right? LOL! Trump saves the Democratic party? LOL! Of course he would retweet that!It appears President Trump agrees with Fox commentator Brit Hume that Dems will unite against him:
Trump RT's Brit Hume Post Predicting Dems Unify Against Him
Does the President not want the job anymore? Is he clueless? Does he just carelessly RT anything he reads on Twitter from Fox employees?
And it’s speculation that Hillary would have won. And pollsters were embarrassing fly wrong last time.
For the third time, I never said Trump would win the popular vote. I said we do t know and anyone who claims they do is kidding themselves. Perhaps you don’t understand that had the election been played by “popular vote” the parties would have campaigned differently from start to finish, potentially resulting in very different numbers. For example, you mention Trump needing to swing 3 million votes. That’s not the case because of those 3 million some may have never voted in the first place. Some might still vote for Hillary, and some might vote for Trump. Money would have been spent differently. Speeches would have been different. Where the candidate spent his or her time would have been different. And so on.Untrue on both counts. She won the popular vote in actuality, so we know there is at least some realistic scenario where most voters pick her. If you want to claim that Trump would've won under a popular vote, you'd need to demonstrate that such a system would've swung the actual results by over 3 million votes.
As for polls, they predicted Hillary would win nationally by a couple percentage points, and she did. Sadly our system disproportionately weights the votes of smaller states.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein
If you read the OP you will see that President Trump was quoting someone else.IDK. Ask Trump. He said it, not anyone here.
Yes. Good doesn't always win (and many, many suffer far more than I).
For the third time, I never said Trump would win the popular vote. I said we do t know and anyone who claims they do is kidding themselves.
Perhaps you don’t understand that had the election been played by “popular vote” the parties would have campaigned differently from start to finish, potentially resulting in very different numbers. For example, you mention Trump needing to swing 3 million votes. That’s not the case because of those 3 million some may have never voted in the first place.
Some might still vote for Hillary, and some might vote for Trump. Money would have been spent differently. Speeches would have been different. Where the candidate spent his or her time would have been different. And so on.
Was it really that the polls were “wrong”? Most of them had a Trump victory within the margin of error. Nate Silver gave Trump a 1 in 4 chance right up to the end. We just happened to flip two heads in a row this time.And it’s speculation that Hillary would have won. And pollsters were embarrassing fly wrong last time.
The data would be different because the campaigning would have been different. So the data on which you’re basing your assumptions and speculation is flawed.This depends on the semantics of what it means to "know." We can make an educated, probabilistic guess based on the data we have. Scientists do this all the time. It's not a completely black box as you're trying to claim.
Yes, they may have, but would they? And if so, why? All hypotheticals aren't equally plausible. This is what you don't seem to be understanding.
Yes, but we're still dealing with the same voting population denominator. That's the point I'm making. The only way for Trump to get more votes than he did, particularly enough to win a popular vote, would be to get more votes than he did in blue, populous places. And no number of additional speeches from Trump or "money being spent differently" would plausibly get him millions more votes in places like California and New York. Which makes the notion that he'd win a popular vote very implausible.
The data would be different because the campaigning would have been different. So the data on which you’re basing your assumptions and speculation is flawed.
Seems to me that at best a different campaign strategy would have just led to less Trump votes in battleground states. He probably would have lost the popular vote by even more if he’d focused on it.Campaigning affects a finite portion of the electorate, to a finite degree. A portion pollsters can and do quantify. It's not like if we had a popular vote, everyone would completely rethink their political ideology. Let me ask you: would you have voted differently if you knew the president would be elected based on the popular vote? If Hillary or Trump had campaigned more or less in your state? If you want to claim that such a state of affairs would have changed the outcome so Trump would win, that needs to be demonstrated. And there's no plausible projection I've seen where the demographics for that work, based on what we know about voter's political ideology.
For the last time, I didn’t say Trump would win. Why do you keep trying to spin what I say? Do you disagree that the raw numbers would be different?Campaigning affects a finite portion of the electorate, to a finite degree. A portion pollsters can and do quantify. It's not like if we had a popular vote, everyone would completely rethink their political ideology. Let me ask you: would you have voted differently if you knew the president would be elected based on the popular vote? If Hillary or Trump had campaigned more or less in your state? If you want to claim that such a state of affairs would have changed the outcome so Trump would win, that needs to be demonstrated. And there's no plausible projection I've seen where the demographics for that work, based on what we know about voter's political ideology.
Pure speculation. How many people in blue states don’t vote at all because they know their candidate is almost certain to win or lose?Seems to me that at best a different campaign strategy would have just led to less Trump votes in battleground states. He probably would have lost the popular vote by even more if he’d focused on it.
counterfactuals are difficult though.
For the last time, I didn’t say Trump would win. Why do you keep trying to spin what I say? Do you disagree that the raw numbers would be different?
Of course it's speculation. I admitted such.Pure speculation. How many people in blue states don’t vote at all because they know their candidate is almost certain to win or lose?