How will Hillary handle losing the election?

@McGentrix,

Yeah that's almost always the case, the differences this year seem to be the "outsider" desire. Democrats went with the ultimate insider miscalculating this dynamic.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Nixon coined the phrase "Silent Majority". It seems there was indeed a silent majority and they have spoken.

I think the media had a lot to do with a lack of information on how things were going. They were more concerned with making Trump look bad then actually looking at what was taking place. For some people, admitting that they liked Trump was going to be trouble for them. The hatred from the left kept people from giving their honest opinions and the election had proven that to be true. The Dems can't claim fraud, Hillary quit the race before any of the major news channels had the electoral vote count completed.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

The word "majority" may turn out to be a little bit inappropriate. It looks like Hillary may win the popular vote. I am not contesting the results... I am just pointing out that the majority of people who voted (should the popular vote actually be won by Hillary) were against Trump.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Ahhhhh ha ha ha..

Gloating time yet or still too soon?

If you own any stock, you'll be pissing your pants off right now....and it won't end real soon...thanks to beer-belly Tump!

1 Reply

"How will Hillary handle losing the election?"

So far, pretty statesman like.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

She may win the popular vote, but the prediction from everyone on the left and the media was a Clinton blow-out. She was going to crush Trump and make him scurry back to his hole in the ground with the rest of his "deplorable" supporters. They were wrong by a huge margin and it wasn't anything like the "experts" predicted. You will notice how quiet the lefties are here in a2k? It looks like they got caught up in a little "shock and awe".

BTW, Hillary just took the stage, I wonder what she is going to say. She sure isn't wearing her womens lib white outfit.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

She may win the popular vote, but the prediction from everyone on the left and the media was a Clinton blow-out. She was going to crush Trump and make him scurry back to his hole in the ground with the rest of his "deplorable" supporters. They were wrong by a huge margin and it wasn't anything like the "experts" predicted. You will notice how quiet the lefties are here in a2k? It looks like they got caught up in a little "shock and awe".

BTW, Hillary just took the stage, I wonder what she is going to say. She sure isn't wearing her womens lib white outfit.

1) I don't recall seeing many people predicting a blow out. Nate Silver sure didn't and he's been my go-to for posting poll information this entire election.

2) Who's being quiet? Last night was pretty quiet, but really to be expected given the importance of election night (a2k takes a backseat).

0 Replies

@maporsche,

So was Trump's speech.

1 Reply

@Brand X,

Brand X wrote:

So was Trump's speech.

I couldn't watch it. I'll probably get around to it later this week.

2 Replies

Trump, Clinton, and Obama said all the right things. Hope people in DC got the message and start doing the work of the people.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

I know what you mean, I doubt I'll watch his inauguration. If that makes me a poor sport (or citizen), so be it. I didn't wait around for(did she do it yet?) Hillary's concession either.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

My point to you in our discussions about that is that your opinion wasn't based on any data, just wishful thinking.

But your point was incorrect. It wasn't wishful thinking. It was data.

Robert Gentel wrote:

It happens to be right but that's like a poker player making a bad call and turning out to be right. The result doesn't validate the ratiocination.

Let's compare notes 20 years from now and see if the Republicans have just won five presidential elections in a row.

Robert Gentel wrote:

For example, there is really no data showing that America cares nearly as much as you do about the gun politics you claimed would turn the election.

That wasn't what I claimed.

My claim was that after Obama wasted all of his political capital attacking the NRA, he was not going to get any legislation passed in his second term. And with his second term being a legislative wasteland, voters would have an overwhelming desire to change which party was in control of the White House in 2016.

Robert Gentel wrote:

There is plenty more pointing at wanting an outsider and feeling like strangers in their country due to shifting culture.

That was the overwhelming desire for change that was caused by Obama's second-term legislative wasteland.

Robert Gentel wrote:

I also didn't really want to goad you into betting (though that would have turned out well it would not have been based on reasonable assumptions) and my point there was that if you really did believe in it you were not taking advantage of it to make money.

I'm not really into betting and stuff. I've never even purchased a lottery ticket.

Putting $850 on 10-1 odds and getting back $8500 would have been nice, but it wouldn't really have changed my life.

If they had offered 100-1 odds so I could bet $850 and get $85,000, that would have been more attractive and I might have bothered.

Robert Gentel wrote:

Your prediction was based on desire more than data.

Desire had nothing to do with it. I have mixed feelings about Trump. I do very much like that the Second Amendment has been saved. OmSigDavid is looking down on us and smiling right now.

But I dislike the anti-trade policies and meeker foreign policy (not to mention the nuclear war dangers that I outline below). I actually came very close to splitting my ticket between Hillary and downballot Republicans.

Robert Gentel wrote:

it's not like there were conservative analysis of the data that concluded otherwise either, this surprised every sober analysis because all of the available data ended up being off.

I see something that the analysts have failed to notice.

Robert Gentel wrote:

In any case congratulations on your preferred candidate winning. It won't be as bad as people fear or as good as people hope.

I don't know about that. I did find the nuclear war ads to be pretty silly. Trump isn't going to go nuke someone for being rude to him.

But I do gravely fear a situation where Trump responds to provocations from another nuclear power and we end up in a conventional war that then escalates to a nuclear war.

This nuclear war won't kill me directly (I live out in farm country). But I could starve to death from the collapse of society (living in farm country doesn't mean I grow my own food). Or I could die of radioactivity. Or I could spend the rest of my life living in a wretched refugee camp because I had to abandon my home due to radioactivity.

None of those are outcomes that I would like to experience.

1 Reply

@Miller,

This just in as of a few minutes ago the stock market is 100 points away from an all-time record... So much for your expertise in the market

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Didn't catch it but he was conciliatory (saying Clinton deserves thanks for her service to the country etc). Hope the magnanimity continues.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

She may win the popular vote, but the prediction from everyone on the left and the media was a Clinton blow-out. She was going to crush Trump and make him scurry back to his hole in the ground with the rest of his "deplorable" supporters. They were wrong by a huge margin and it wasn't anything like the "experts" predicted. You will notice how quiet the lefties are here in a2k? It looks like they got caught up in a little "shock and awe".

BTW, Hillary just took the stage, I wonder what she is going to say. She sure isn't wearing her womens lib white outfit.

It was interesting, I think the only state that had a "blowout" for Hillary was DC. Trump only had 4% there. Thats crazy to me.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

But your point was incorrect. It wasn't wishful thinking. It was data.

Your gut take is not data though, I think that's the center of our disagreement. What quantifiable data did you use?

Quote:

Let's compare notes 20 years from now and see if the Republicans have just won five presidential elections in a row.

That's another outlandish prediction based on no data but wishful thinking.

Quote:

My claim was that after Obama wasted all of his political capital attacking the NRA, he was not going to get any legislation passed in his second term. And with his second term being a legislative wasteland, voters would have an overwhelming desire to change which party was in control of the White House in 2016.

This is not supported by data. Obama's approval rating is high. And not getting things done had little to do with guns and everything to do with hyper-partisanship. That hyper-partisan gridlock is certainly a factor in this election but there is no data you can point to that ties it to gun control. That's just your pet issue and when all you have is a hammer all you see is nails.

Quote:

That was the overwhelming desire for change that was caused by Obama's second-term legislative wasteland.

Both terms were, other than the initial push to get the ACA passed. There is no credible data making this a gun issue, you simply see all things through that lens.

Quote:

Robert Gentel wrote:
Your prediction was based on desire more than data.

Desire had nothing to do with it. I have mixed feelings about Trump. I do very much like that the Second Amendment has been saved. OmSigDavid is looking down on us and smiling right now.

Not desire for Trump, per-se. Desire to believe that enough Americans are so obsessed with guns that they would accept a candidate that they think would cause nuclear war just because of that single issue.

Quote:

I see something that the analysts have failed to notice.

So did plenty of models that used literal coin flips to predict things (there are thousands that have predicted the last 5 presidents, simply because there are enough attempts that some will succeed). My point is that even when your prediction is right that does not validate the reasoning behind it. Plenty of predictions are serendipitously right without the underlying reasoning making any sense.

Quote:

I don't know about that. I did find the nuclear war ads to be pretty silly. Trump isn't going to go nuke someone for being rude to him.

But I do gravely fear a situation where Trump responds to provocations from another nuclear power and we end up in a conventional war that then escalates to a nuclear war.

I don't. But I do find it fascinating that you vote for someone that you think might cause nuclear war but that you think is better on gun rights (even when gun rights are not in any kind of real threat).

Quote:

This nuclear war won't kill me directly (I live out in farm country). But I could starve to death from the collapse of society (living in farm country doesn't mean I grow my own food). Or I could die of radioactivity. Or I could spend the rest of my life living in a wretched refugee camp because I had to abandon my home due to radioactivity.

None of those are outcomes that I would like to experience.

They don't sound enjoyable. But hey, the fear of gun control must be pretty strong with you to prefer this fear (nuclear holocaust to maybe a more stringent background check). I find that nearly pathologically irrational. There are enough of you guys to ensure that gun rights are not going to be meaningfully threatened any time soon.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Will Democrats adopt the Republican strategy of blocking everything the new president does? Including keeping the Supreme Court from adding new justices?

That's a very interesting question. Sadly history suggests they will repat the mistakes of the past - most politicians, of both parties do. This would be a great opportuniuty for a President Trump and the Republican leadership in the house & Senate to set a counter example and restore some of the comity and respect for the interests of the minority in Congress. We can hope they will do that.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Not a Trump fan, but I think you are selling him short. He didn't win simply because everyone hates Clinton. There are millions of Americans who voted for him, not simply against her.

On one level I can understand why a lot of people were for him. I don't share their opinions but I understand their origins.

How will Hillary handle losing the election?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know