Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 09 Nov 2016, 9:58 am

GMTom wrote:It also put polling on it's ear, RickyP must be having a mind implosion about now but it really didn't shock me that the polls were so off.


What was off, I think, was the assumption of voter turnout, or the weighting of likely voters in the polls. There were many people who rarely or never go to the polls who were motivated to vote for Trump.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 09 Nov 2016, 11:34 am

But the exit polls were also off
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 11 Nov 2016, 6:52 am

GMTom wrote:shocking for sure but no sham. Not only did Trump win, but he won the popular vote as well (less than 50% but more than Clinton) and the US just got it's version of Brexit. People wanted change and this was their opportunity for just that.

It also put polling on it's ear, RickyP must be having a mind implosion about now but it really didn't shock me that the polls were so off. I have said before the US is more Conservative than Liberals wish to think and the silent majority is in fact Conservative. These silent folks also tend to avoid taking part in polls. Throw in those who simply lied because they could not admit they actually voted for Trump and there you have it, a shocker that really wasn't if you knew the true feelings of Americans.

Well, seems that Clinton actually got a little more than Trump. No popular mandate for either of them, and no compromise possible.

The polls were not massively far out, there are several things to bear in mind:

1) The margin for error for most polls is at least 3%. Meaning a poll putting Clinton up by 48 to 45 could be within reach of a Trump lead of 48 to 45 (or a Clinton lead of 51 to 42).

2) The polls were moving away from Clinton for the week or so before the election. When the FBI announcement happened, it coincides with a slide in Hillary's support, which was seen over the next week in national polling. Several polls showed a Trump lead.

3) The state polls - at least in the places that swung it for Trump - were also worse for Clinton and while the narrowing at a national level seemed to slow, it was not reflected consistently in those states. Now some states are hard to accurately poll (Michegan is one, as voters are not party registered like in most states), and polling tends to be more sporadic - and with some smaller and less well known pollsters involved.

I agree that America, like the UK, is more conservative than many on the left hope. But it is not a massive difference, and things change over time. Also, Trump was not only backed by conservative voters. Some of those who consider themselves to be conservative voted for McMullen or Johnson. And there were a number of people who would have voted Sanders who went for Trump.

Just as it would be a mistake for the Democrats to assume that the country is more liberal than it is, it would be for Trump and the Republicans an error to assume this result reflects a mass unwavering support for conservative policies.

The reality seems to me to be more mixed, and exacerbated by the feeling I get that neither party really reflects those who vote for them all that well.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 11 Nov 2016, 8:15 am

I agree, Danivon. We are pretty well pissed off or just cynically turned off by the political parties, and politicians, in general. While the DNC pretty much steered the election process to Clinton and waived off other potential candidates, the GOP mismanaged their side of things all the way down the line and got usurped by somebody who would couldn't care less about them. At least, that is how Trump ran. And I think that is probably why he won. Neither candidate was likable, and Trump made no pretense to be likable. So Trump's political image came off as more realistic than Hillary's.

I was one of those who voted for somebody else, because I did not believe in either of their positions. Unfortunately, because our Two-Party system is so entrenched (and as tightly controlled as the NFL), it is very difficult for new parties to get anywhere. In fact, I would bet that many people believe the Two-Party system is a part of the Constitution or some federal law.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Nov 2016, 12:52 pm

Anyone who thinks Trump doesn't have a mandate isn't paying attention.

Republicans lost 2 Senate seats; Democrats were considered a lead pipe cinch to gain control.

Democrats gained a couple of House seats. This election was supposed to be such a wipeout that Democrats might gain control of the House.

GOP controls both Houses and the Presidency. That's a mandate.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 11 Nov 2016, 1:03 pm

It's only a mandate when it suits the Democrats, get with the program!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 11 Nov 2016, 4:06 pm

I am not sure what mandate means. Either you have the power to do something or you don't. If mandate means Democrats should not oppose things because they are afraid that voters will retaliate against them for obstructing the president...well, I don't think that Trump that has kind of mandate.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 14 Nov 2016, 12:48 pm

That's almost laugh out loud funny! A Liberal Democrat saying he's not sure what a mandate means.
I do not want to dig through forums from 8 years ago but when Obama won his first term, the Democrats universally exclaimed they won a "Mandate". i'm sure you recall those conversations and now to pretend you don't understand is a joke.

https://newrepublic.com/article/109818/ ... er-forward
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 Nov 2016, 12:56 pm

Perhaps you could define what mandate means.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 14 Nov 2016, 1:09 pm

perhaps I can ask you what the Liberals thought it meant when they mentioned that same term in every other sentence a few years back? Yep, means the same thing now as it did back then.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 Nov 2016, 1:17 pm

I'm just trying to get at what you think is meant by mandate. Defining mandate as being the same as the term used by liberals 8 years ago does not aid in the definition.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 14 Nov 2016, 1:28 pm

it sure does. What did the liberals mean 8 years ago? To determine how one interprets a word is based upon how it has been interpreted in the recent past, we can't ignore an eight year old definition.
Obama had a "Mandate" and nobody asked what was meant at that time did they? The liberal article linked didn't ask why did it? Whatever the liberals claimed then goes now.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 Nov 2016, 1:58 pm

So, give me the definition as liberals used it eight years ago. I just wanted to know what is meant if Trump has a mandate. You still have not been able to define it. You must have some interpretation; right now we're going in a circle and it's vicious not virtuous.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 15 Nov 2016, 9:22 am

As if you don't know...
Eight years ago the liberals were yelling "we have a mandate, the people have spoken and they want our way". (as per the linked article)

The people have once again spoken and they voted Liberals out, Conservatives in. Congress, Senate, Governors, President. They made it clear they had enough with Liberals (for now) and demand change ...just as was the case 8 years ago.

The "mandate" was not there 8 years ago despite the liberals claims, it's not here now despite the Conservatives claims. But, my "argument" is the Liberals who made this claim 8 years ago, and that was every single one of them! simply can not now say the current example is any different. Things come around that way, be careful what you say! Funny how so many forget so soon.
I keep hearing the Liberals crying how the Republicans were blocking everything they did ...and that was pretty true. But they seem to have forgotten the Bush years when they blocked everything the Republicans tried to do. Oh, this is NOT a Democrat vs republican problem! BOTH sides have short memories and your claims that you don't know what was meant eight years ago simply shows this to be true.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 15 Nov 2016, 9:54 am

Doctor Fate wrote:Anyone who thinks Trump doesn't have a mandate isn't paying attention.


If you win the election you have a mandate to govern as you will. Just because it was a "close" election does that mean you govern differently? I don't think so and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any president who changed his government just because the election was close.

One of the better things Obama said, "Elections have consequences."