12-05-2016, 03:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-05-2016, 03:44 PM by Eric the Green.)
(12-05-2016, 08:58 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:(12-04-2016, 10:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Perhaps the Democrats have some issues that would appeal to some of them, like to Rust Belt voters who didn't get the message of what the Democrats can do to improve their lives and their income.
I love it when you guys think your problem is the "messaging", rather than the policies.
I know you'd say that. Of course, the Democratic policies are WAY, WAY better by astronomical levels. But is it the messaging? Or is it that Americans don't get the message? As I said, Americans are responsible for how they vote. If people are hooked on libertarian economics (as you are) or Christian fundamentalism, then that is their problem, not the problem of the Democrats.
The other point is that it COULD very well be a messaging problem, when the margin is 70,000 votes in 3 rust-best states. The message from Hillary did not get through to people having hard times in those states. Many of them were also social conservative, anti-big government, etc. But with a margin that close, there would have been plenty who would have voted Democratic had Hillary been more convincing than Trump on the economic issues, and in general a better candidate.
Not addressed to non-believers like you Warren, but for whoever may be interested:
I did another new tally to add to my data base last week, and as well I had made the mistake before the election of figuring Clinton winning and Trump losing into the data base. My revised horoscope scores are, as of now, Trump 9-3 and Hillary 9-11. Hillary could not have won with that negative score. My prediction was also based on other positions in her chart that had a good track record as far as empirical data is concerned, although the sample sizes were small with these indicators. But her chart was never considered definitive; questions about her birth time remain.
Also, I assumed that the New Moon before the election indicated the party in power would win, because it almost always indicates the popular vote winner. It did in 2000, but I didn't assume that such a fluke would occur this year. But it did, again, in the same way. The new moon method indeed predicted the popular vote winner: the party in power.
So I got the election prediction wrong, but it was a tough one to call.
If Trump's score holds, and Andrew Jacksons's score remains the same, it is interesting now that they have the same score. They are quite a bit alike.