Things Trump Is Doing Right

[Eric the Green]

At least his tweet today responding to Hillary's statement about why she lost is borderline-sane.

"President Donald Trump fired back at his general election foe Tuesday night, saying he didn't, as she asserted earlier in the day, win because Republicans conspired against her — but as a result of his superior campaign skills."
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Trump-tw...r=duv61hcx

Hillary was right, of course, that the Comey letter plus wikileaks cost her the election. I watched the Nate Silver site every day as her "chances" plunged relentlessly toward negative right after the letter came out. Comey's retraction then stopped the slide, at least for the moment. However, Trump was a better speaker and campaigner, and that made a big difference too. I don't know if Hillary admits this or not.

[pbrower2a]

The Comey letter, which added nothing to the story, could have hardly had worse timing for the Clinton campaign. The material should not have been touted, and in view of its contents (more of the same) could have been suppressed until after the election.

Most of us underestimated the talent of Donald Trump as a jungle fighter. Such a capability is typically rare in the upper class, and we Americans were simply unready for it. When did we last have so combative a fighter as a Presidential nominee? Maybe some big-city mayor or some segregationist pol in the South when it was normal to use a word that rhymes with trigger for people not voting. "I will fight for you" means simply that "I will champion your interests when such is difficult" and does not suggest an impending fist fight, knife fight, or literal duel.

Donald Trump played to the biggest demons in White Christian America and barely got enough votes in the right places to win the Presidency.

God help us, as if I haven't said that enough times in the last six months.

[David Horn]

(05-03-2017, 01:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ... Hillary was right, of course, that the Comey letter plus wikileaks cost her the election. I watched the Nate Silver site every day as her "chances" plunged relentlessly toward negative right after the letter came out. Comey's retraction then stopped the slide, at least for the moment. However, Trump was a better speaker and campaigner, and that made a big difference too. I don't know if Hillary admits this or not.

Hillary was already in a nose spin prior to the Comey letter.  The letter added to her troubles, but she would most probably have lost in any case.

[Eric the Green]

(05-03-2017, 03:22 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-03-2017, 01:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ... Hillary was right, of course, that the Comey letter plus wikileaks cost her the election. I watched the Nate Silver site every day as her "chances" plunged relentlessly toward negative right after the letter came out. Comey's retraction then stopped the slide, at least for the moment. However, Trump was a better speaker and campaigner, and that made a big difference too. I don't know if Hillary admits this or not.

Hillary was already in a nose spin prior to the Comey letter.  The letter added to her troubles, but she would most probably have lost in any case.

I followed the election closely, though, and although Hillary was in slight decline before the letter, it was the letter that created a nosedive, for sure. I commented on it here, on the forum, as it happened.

Would she have lost anyway? Who knows. My sense from following the trendlines up to the election, is no. She was still well enough ahead 10 days out.

The polls were off by about 2 points on election day. That difference could have made the difference. But I think the Comey affair created a larger drop than that.

[Eric the Green]

(05-03-2017, 02:43 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Most of us underestimated the talent of Donald Trump as a jungle fighter. Such a capability is typically rare in the upper class, and we Americans were simply unready for it. When did we last have so combative a fighter as a Presidential nominee? 

Richard Nixon comes to mind. He was actually quite a good speaker and campaigner.

[pbrower2a]

(05-03-2017, 11:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-03-2017, 02:43 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Most of us underestimated the talent of Donald Trump as a jungle fighter. Such a capability is typically rare in the upper class, and we Americans were simply unready for it. When did we last have so combative a fighter as a Presidential nominee? 

Richard Nixon comes to mind. He was actually quite a good speaker and campaigner.

Richard Nixon was not upper class. Donald Trump is.

We are not accustomed to jungle fighters within the upper class. During World War II, some of the most vicious fascists in Hungary  were members of the land-owning elite, often with old and distinguished noble titles. That includes the most vicious antisemites (as Holocaust perpetrators) and proponents of military aggression and diplomatic bullying. I'm not saying that Donald Trump is quite that bad. Of course his language shifts the Overton window. We need to reject this and not make compromises on it.

[Warren Dew]

(05-03-2017, 11:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-03-2017, 03:22 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-03-2017, 01:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ... Hillary was right, of course, that the Comey letter plus wikileaks cost her the election. I watched the Nate Silver site every day as her "chances" plunged relentlessly toward negative right after the letter came out. Comey's retraction then stopped the slide, at least for the moment. However, Trump was a better speaker and campaigner, and that made a big difference too. I don't know if Hillary admits this or not.

Hillary was already in a nose spin prior to the Comey letter.  The letter added to her troubles, but she would most probably have lost in any case.

I followed the election closely, though, and although Hillary was in slight decline before the letter, it was the letter that created a nosedive, for sure. I commented on it here, on the forum, as it happened.

Would she have lost anyway? Who knows. My sense from following the trendlines up to the election, is no. She was still well enough ahead 10 days out.

The polls were off by about 2 points on election day. That difference could have made the difference. But I think the Comey affair created a larger drop than that.

Keep in mind that the 538 average is delayed by a few days, since it takes some time for pollsters to publish their results.  David is right:  Clinton had peaked two weeks before and the pendulum was swinging back to Trump.  Clinton actually did better than she had in the previous few swings.

[Eric the Green]

(05-04-2017, 08:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-03-2017, 11:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-03-2017, 03:22 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-03-2017, 01:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ... Hillary was right, of course, that the Comey letter plus wikileaks cost her the election. I watched the Nate Silver site every day as her "chances" plunged relentlessly toward negative right after the letter came out. Comey's retraction then stopped the slide, at least for the moment. However, Trump was a better speaker and campaigner, and that made a big difference too. I don't know if Hillary admits this or not.

Hillary was already in a nose spin prior to the Comey letter.  The letter added to her troubles, but she would most probably have lost in any case.

I followed the election closely, though, and although Hillary was in slight decline before the letter, it was the letter that created a nosedive, for sure. I commented on it here, on the forum, as it happened.

Would she have lost anyway? Who knows. My sense from following the trendlines up to the election, is no. She was still well enough ahead 10 days out.

The polls were off by about 2 points on election day. That difference could have made the difference. But I think the Comey affair created a larger drop than that.

Keep in mind that the 538 average is delayed by a few days, since it takes some time for pollsters to publish their results.  David is right:  Clinton had peaked two weeks before and the pendulum was swinging back to Trump.  Clinton actually did better than she had in the previous few swings.

She had peaked, somewhat, a week or two earlier, but since then until after Comey's letter the slide was minor, and she didn't do better than in previous swings after Comeygate. I watched it happen; the plunge was deep and fast right after the Comey letter came out. I noted at the time, the trend lines were toward defeat in the 538 estimate, the whole time from the letter until she was cleared. Despite any delay, her poll numbers never even remotely recovered from this slide.

The Comey Letter Probably Cost Clinton The Election
So why won’t the media admit as much?
By Nate Silver
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the...-election/

Clinton’s standing in the polls fell sharply. She’d led Trump by 5.9 percentage points in FiveThirtyEight’s popular vote projection at 12:01 a.m. on Oct. 28. A week later — after polls had time to fully reflect the letter — her lead had declined to 2.9 percentage points. That is to say, there was a shift of about 3 percentage points against Clinton. And it was an especially pernicious shift for Clinton because (at least according to the FiveThirtyEight model) Clinton was underperforming in swing states as compared to the country overall. In the average swing state,3 Clinton’s lead declined from 4.5 percentage points at the start of Oct. 28 to just 1.7 percentage points on Nov. 4. If the polls were off even slightly, Trump could be headed to the White House.



According to the Real Clear Politics average, Trump reached a peak on Oct.31, and Hillary reached a low on Nov.3.
Oct.26: Clinton 47.8, Trump 42.2
Oct.31: Clinton 47.5, Trump 45.3
Nov.3: Clinton 46.4, Trump 44.8
Nov.7: Clinton 46.8, Trump 43.6
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...-5491.html

A week ago, Hillary Clinton was riding a seemingly unassailable lead in the national polls.

But her lead shrank dramatically - it could even be within the margin of error - after the FBI announced they were investigating more emails . But she received a late boost ahead of polling day when she was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing .

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/us-...er-8883803

[Eric the Green]

(05-05-2017, 10:28 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I suspect it was not the Comey letter alone. To truly understand that graph, one would also need to look at other causal factors involving Russian intel and knowing or duped recruits thereof.

Yes indeed; as I originally said, no one can know for sure what one factor caused Hillary's defeat. Hillary also mentioned Russian interference too. Her own many mistakes and many inadequacies compared to Trump's speaking and marketing talents, resentment over Bernie's defeat and ill-treatment by the DNC, defections to third parties, the conservative and racist trends among many Americans, their failure to know who was the status quo, the failures of Obama (not enough Lichtman keys), and more. I suspect Comey's letter was the decisive factor, but I don't know for sure, and there were other factors. 

And after all, Trump has a higher horoscope score. So somehow, it was in the stars anyway; even if I didn't predict correctly, despite my two main indicators both being correct. Candidates with the higher score, plus no Saturn Return coming first, almost always win. So, Hillary was going against the indications in her own horoscope, which indicates her character and personality and their appeal or lack thereof to Americans.

[Galen]

(05-05-2017, 12:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-05-2017, 10:28 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I suspect it was not the Comey letter alone. To truly understand that graph, one would also need to look at other causal factors involving Russian intel and knowing or duped recruits thereof.

And after all, Trump has a higher horoscope score. So somehow, it was in the stars anyway; even if I didn't predict correctly, despite my two main indicators both being correct. Candidates with the higher score, plus no Saturn Return coming first, almost always win. So, Hillary was going against the indications in her own horoscope, which indicates her character and personality and their appeal or lack thereof to Americans.

Amazing how you can predict the future after is has already occurred.  Score another triumph for the seventeenth century science of astrology!

[Odin]

Somebody who follows 17th century ideology attacking someone for 17th century science?

[Galen]

(05-06-2017, 08:55 AM)Odin Wrote: Somebody who follows 17th century ideology attacking someone for 17th century science?

Libertarian thought does start with John Locke in the seventeenth century but it has evolved and still is evolving.  Only you would have problems with people who base their political philosophy on the non-aggression principle.  Still given how the peaceful the left have shown themselves to be this is to be expected.

[pbrower2a]

Yeah, sure -- the Right is non-violent. Absolute monarchs, Klan, fascists, Nazis, Golden Dawn, National Bolsheviks, al-Qaeda, ISIS.... Marxism-Leninism is now a reactionary ideology.

[Galen]

(05-07-2017, 07:04 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Yeah, sure -- the Right is non-violent. Absolute monarchs, Klan, fascists, Nazis, Golden Dawn, National Bolsheviks, al-Qaeda, ISIS.... Marxism-Leninism is now a reactionary ideology.

I was speaking of libertarians which is not all inclusive of what you consider to be the right.  Try to grow a clue.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-07-2017, 06:27 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-07-2017, 07:04 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Yeah, sure -- the Right is non-violent. Absolute monarchs, Klan, fascists, Nazis, Golden Dawn, National Bolsheviks, al-Qaeda, ISIS.... Marxism-Leninism is now a reactionary ideology.

I was speaking of libertarians which is not all inclusive of what you consider to be the right.  Try to grow a clue.

A very typical example of the straw man farce.  Use a label and an extreme partisan opposite is apt to apply a whole bunch of other labels.  Indicates that somebody isn't paying attention to what the other guy is saying, and is more interested in scoring points than communicating.

Me, I find there are so many flavors of libertarian around here that if someone calls themselves a libertarian, I'm almost afraid to accuse him of being a libertarian. 

[Odin]

(05-06-2017, 11:50 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-06-2017, 08:55 AM)Odin Wrote: Somebody who follows 17th century ideology attacking someone for 17th century science?

Libertarian thought does start with John Locke in the seventeenth century but it has evolved and still is evolving.  Only you would have problems with people who base their political philosophy on the non-aggression principle.  Still given how the peaceful the left have shown themselves to be this is to be expected.

The Non-Aggression Principle can simply be dismissed as naive nonsense, it's basically throwing up ones hands and going "why can't we all be nice to each other and sing kumbaya and everyone will be happy???", it's the domestic equivalent of naive pacifists carrying cute signs like "what if they ordered a war and nobody came?".

[Eric the Green]

"Only you would have problems with people who base their political philosophy on the non-aggression principle."

I know Galen thinks I don't count, but it seems he has an exaggerated sense that only libertarians like him exist in the world. I'd say the voting returns would disprove his assertion. lol

[Cynic Hero '86]

France has Just been subjected to globalist tyranny and Human Rights tyranny. A sad day for civilization.

[pbrower2a]

(05-07-2017, 06:27 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-07-2017, 07:04 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Yeah, sure -- the Right is non-violent. Absolute monarchs, Klan, fascists, Nazis, Golden Dawn, National Bolsheviks, al-Qaeda, ISIS.... Marxism-Leninism is now a reactionary ideology.

I was speaking of libertarians which is not all inclusive of what you consider to be the right.  Try to grow a clue.

There needs to be some welfare state just to protect the most vulnerable.

[Eric the Green]

(05-08-2017, 11:45 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: France has Just been subjected to globalist tyranny and Human Rights tyranny. A sad day for civilization.

And a great day for us boomers who want to impose human rights and globalism on the world! Yaaa Hooooo!

Go "Boomers" like Macron! ha ha