When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

Hillary was supposed to give her concession speech at 9:30 its now 10 a.m. no sign of Hillary... I wonder if she had another coughing fit LOL LOL hahahahaha

I look at this as a revolt from rural America and I do not believe that any of the pollsters ever bothered to poll them to any depth. Big cities were blue, but everything else was red last night.

I think the polls were obviously wrong. But, it is vert interesting that they were as wrong as they were. I think that going forward people will stop believing in polls until they actually prove themselves to be accurate again.

Actually Nate Silver predicted how the night could go bad for Hillary and turns out he was more right than any of the others. Just giving credit where it is due.

It is only 9:10 where I am. Does anyone know where she is at?

Personally I accepted the loss, it is the future I am worried about.

The last thing I saw from Nate Silver, and I was on his website last night, was "Final Election Update: There’s A Wide Range Of Outcomes, And Most Of Them Come Up Clinton"

I didn't think he was that accurate. His accuracy came as the polls closed and he based predictions based on the numbers rolling in. Pre-election though, he was just as wrong as most of the other pollers...

Well lucky for you the Republicans as a whole are more big tent oriented than the divisive intolerant left... So if you're for American exceptionalism you have nothing to worry about. Besides from where I sit things can only get much better.

We didn't want Hillary when she ran for president in 2008.

I think that was obvious.

The rich and powerful controllers of the Democratic political party, however, did want her. So, they made sure she was the only establishment Democrat running for president and falsely believed that would somehow guarantee her the presidency.

Some of us were honest and said we would never vote for her. I didn't vote for her. She's not a true progressive. She's a war monger and she caters to big money interests. She wouldn't accomplish anything other than moving the Democratic party further to the right. I didn't vote for Trump either, but he was the only other major party choice and the majority of voters cast their vote for Trump because THEY DIDN'T WANT HILLARY.

Hillary was destined to lose this election, but the bullies would not (or psychologically could not) understand that basic flaw in her candidacy. We didn't want her to be our president. She was not the lesser evil simply because she was a "Democrat". And I feel sorry for those people who crammed themselves on the Hillary bandwagon and tried to bully all the rest of us to vote for Hillary. The bully strategy didn't work. Taking off the blinders and supporting Bernie Sanders during the primaries was the only path to the White House, but the blinders remained steadfastly in place. Lesson learned? I don't know . . . .

true dat. We followed the population trends here in our town from the Pa census.
Of the 12.75 Million population in Pa, lesst than 25% of voters were from the safe Pittsburgh /Philly/State College/Allentown hubs. 75% of voters in Pa are from rural "hunting camp" towns and cities (York, Lancaster, Erie, Bradford Scranton/Wilkes Barre, Williamsport). Those cities alone almost equal numbers in the the biggies. Then , theres another thing with 67 counties mostly all GOP or GOP leaning.
I really think that Pa's dirty secret, (as a BLUE STATE) has its days numbered and the FBI directors news did affect the results because the news wasnt digestable out there in the hills.
I could count the Trump voters yesterday by all the camo ball caps .

No he was less wrong. He had Trump higher than any of the other major data journalist models and was being criticized by them for it.

The data was wrong and while he is going to take a huge reputation hit for it that is a bit unfair, his work is only as good as the input it is given. He isn't conducting polls himself, he makes a forecast model out of the data he gets and the data was wrong.

No need to be so snarky, dear. Maybe otherwise-influenced pollsters... There's BIG money in polling and we know polls can influence the public.

That seems logical.

The results strongly suggest there are far more Trump supporters out there than were detected in nearly all the polls. How did they all miss that? Probably several factors at work there, however it is fairly clear that large numbers of voters ignored the drumbeat of conventional "wisdom" and propaganda, perhaps silenced by it but unpersuaded by it, while the media and political elites ended up becoming the chief consumers of their own propaganda. There is a quite delicious irony in all that.


Now with the Presidency and control of both houses of Congress this is a setback for Democrats that goes far beyond anything that any of our political obseervers predicted. A great deal depends on how the key actors in these events handle the events ahead.

A poll being within it's own margin of error is not 'wrong'.

He gave Trump a 30-40% chance of winning IIRC....considering some sites had Clinton's odds at 90%+ he was more accurate than most.

Wait...your takeaway from this election and the last 8 years of Obama's presidency is that republicans are "more big tent oriented"????

I would LOVE to see some actual proof of this...not someone saying it but proof in the pudding so to speak.

These people and I disagree with you.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/how-did-everyone-get-2016-wrong-presidential-election-231036

Key words: polls wrong

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/11/economist-explains-3

I think that involved weighting the data (adjusting a poll’s data) has been wrong, here, as well as in several other polls worldwide during the last couple of years. Additionally, phone and internet polls seem to be more inaccurate than the personal polls of last century.

I don't think you're reading the results right.

Trump expanded voter turnout in the rural parts of the states. Clinton got mostly the same voters that Bernie would have got. Bernie or Busters weren't a factor.

LOL! INCORRECT!

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/third-party-candidates-having-outsize-impact-election-n680921

Maybe you don't understand what I said. Or maybe you don't understand what a "margin of error" is.

If a poll shows Clinton with a 3% lead over Trump (47%-44%) with a 4-5% margin of error and Trump wins 46%-43%...the poll is not wrong.