• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

General Election Thread: Two Weeks Out

RJKarl said:
Of the very red states, only TX is big.

I'll be very, very surprised if Hillary doesn't get nearly 320 EVs...and if Trump keeps going Trump, that number could be higher.
Click to expand...

This was on the heels of discussion about Trump and immigration and how that was going to turn many states purple/blue. How much immigration vs. free trade / anti-global played into Trump's roll in the Midwest is a fair debate to have. Because that is the story of the election. He turned blue states purple and won them.
 
True. I've never seen a politician in my lifetime whine as much as Trump.
 
DeacWatcher said:
Although Trump badly needs PA, I can't see it happening. MI & WI will never go red again but HRC does need to tighten up support in those places and not take them for granted. Like Rube and RJ have said, HRC ground operation isn't fantastic but far superior to Trumps. I am sure Trump thinks he can win this thing just by tweeting and throwing out red meat for the masses at rallies, but there are more folks that are against him (many still on the red team) than for him.
Click to expand...

He did need PA and somehow won it. And WI and MI both did go red this time - surprisingly.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Only 700+ pages left to read! Don't do it to yourself.
Click to expand...

I'll stop shortly. But it is interesting to see some of the insights people were bringing and what actually did play out. It's obvious people saw some of the key issues that Trump was pushing on trade and, especially, immigration and some saw that these could put states in play in ways that were not expected. Also interesting, although I've not flagged many of these posts, that people noted Trump would rally and tweet his way through the campaign without as much regard to location - Ph and others seemed right on this point.
 
DeacMan said:
I'll stop shortly. But it is interesting to see some of the insights people were bringing and what actually did play out. It's obvious people saw some of the key issues that Trump was pushing on trade and, especially, immigration and some saw that these could put states in play in ways that were not expected. Also interesting, although I've not flagged many of these posts, that people noted Trump would rally and tweet his way through the campaign without as much regard to location - Ph and others seemed right on this point.
Click to expand...

To be fair, a lot of those "insights" were based on or bolstered by flawed polling data and projection models (also potentially flawed) based on those flawed polling data. Looking back through the thread and evaluating who was right and wrong is super fun but you should do in the context of something like Silver's model projections or other polling data. Lots of Hillary supporters / anti-Trumpers (like my self) had a significantly false sense of confidence based on flawed polling data.
 
The election ebbed and flowed between a big Hillary win and a narrow Trump victory. It ended at the narrow Trump victory stage and the victory was bigger because polls overestimated Dem turnout.
 
PhDeac said:
The election ebbed and flowed between a big Hillary win and a narrow Trump victory. It ended at the narrow Trump victory stage and the victory was bigger because polls overestimated Dem turnout.
Click to expand...

overestimated the dem turnout or who was dems?
 
PhDeac said:
The election ebbed and flowed between a big Hillary win and a narrow Trump victory. It ended at the narrow Trump victory stage and the victory was bigger because polls overestimated Dem turnout.
Click to expand...

The spatial distribution of the turn was what was flawed. Clinton won the popular vote (so far) by 1.3 %. She is currently up to 63.5 million votes, only about 1.5 million behind Obama in 2012, she just didn't win votes the right locations. And really, the only really bad states were the predictions for Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
 
People had no way of knowing the Russian/FBI influence either.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
 
Deacs89 said:
I saw 30 percent hispanics for Trump - 51 % white woman for Trump. I think these were not estimated in the polling
Click to expand...

And that's a turnout issue.
 
birdman said:
The spatial distribution of the turn was what was flawed. Clinton won the popular vote (so far) by 1.3 %. She is currently up to 63.5 million votes, only about 1.5 million behind Obama in 2012, she just didn't win votes the right locations. And really, the only really bad states were the predictions for Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

I don't think those were the only "bad" states. Those were states that turned. But she had other "bad" outcomes relative to polling. Minnesota, Iowa, Ohio, among others, were all "bad" relative to expectations.

And the larger point of this exercise is not the polling but in watching how people here thought issues were being perceived by the populace. There were an awful lot of predictions that Trump was going to get trounced because of his positions. I know you personally aren't pointing at this per se, but others pointing at Trump winning 30% of Hispanics and blaming it on "low turnout" is really silly IMO, or should I say not interesting. Even if I presume it was "low turnout" it just begs the next question - why was that voter group's turnout low? Wasn't there a ton at stake for Hispanics? Because that was the very conventional wisdom on these Boards going back and reading the thread. Pontificating on what happened (there was low turnout for that voting block) but not getting at the root cause isn't interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top