Knowing What You Know Now, Would You Still Support Trump for President?

1679111214

Comments

  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,107
    So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    It depended on who was interpreting the polling data as to who declared her a sure fire winner. 
  • So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    It depended on who was interpreting the polling data as to who declared her a sure fire winner. 
    Well take something like fivethirtyeight.com, which was literally created to predict the outcomes of elections by using various polling data. They said it was a shoo-in for Hillary. And now they have no credibility. 
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    Why wouldn’t they want to admit it? Because they didn’t want to be known as supporting a racist, misogynist for president? Or because they preferred to be a closet racist? Or maybe because they wanted to skew the poll results to suppress Hillary supporters. Either way, two independent studies got to the heart of the matter but you know, dismiss it as research looking for a predetermined outcome (not you but another poster). Anyway, why won’t Team Trump Treason supporters own their shit? Pride? Accomplishment? The economy?
     
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 17,238
    So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    It depended on who was interpreting the polling data as to who declared her a sure fire winner. 
    Well take something like fivethirtyeight.com, which was literally created to predict the outcomes of elections by using various polling data. They said it was a shoo-in for Hillary. And now they have no credibility. 
    it was either juggler or gern that actually explained it well, that the data was largely correct save for a few key regions that swung an unexpected way. 
    "It's so nice when toxic people stop talking to you.
    It's like the trash took itself out"
  • So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    Why wouldn’t they want to admit it? Because they didn’t want to be known as supporting a racist, misogynist for president? Or because they preferred to be a closet racist? Or maybe because they wanted to skew the poll results to suppress Hillary supporters. Either way, two independent studies got to the heart of the matter but you know, dismiss it as research looking for a predetermined outcome (not you but another poster). Anyway, why won’t Team Trump Treason supporters own their shit? Pride? Accomplishment? The economy?
     
    You always go right to racism but no, I think people didn't want to admit they were voting for Trump because he's a dumb, crooked casino-owner/reality TV star. 
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 1,489
    So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    Why wouldn’t they want to admit it? Because they didn’t want to be known as supporting a racist, misogynist for president? Or because they preferred to be a closet racist? Or maybe because they wanted to skew the poll results to suppress Hillary supporters. Either way, two independent studies got to the heart of the matter but you know, dismiss it as research looking for a predetermined outcome (not you but another poster). Anyway, why won’t Team Trump Treason supporters own their shit? Pride? Accomplishment? The economy?
     
    You always go right to racism but no, I think people didn't want to admit they were voting for Trump because he's a dumb, crooked casino-owner/reality TV star. 
    In any case, it's an amazing thing that we have someone that was able to win a presidential election (and will probably win one more) when there's apparently a critical mass of those that don't want to tell anyone outside of the curtain that they support him.  I've heard it suggested that there might be some correlation between his supporters and those who just generally distrust pollsters (which, given their feelings on media, may be valid).
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    Why wouldn’t they want to admit it? Because they didn’t want to be known as supporting a racist, misogynist for president? Or because they preferred to be a closet racist? Or maybe because they wanted to skew the poll results to suppress Hillary supporters. Either way, two independent studies got to the heart of the matter but you know, dismiss it as research looking for a predetermined outcome (not you but another poster). Anyway, why won’t Team Trump Treason supporters own their shit? Pride? Accomplishment? The economy?
     
    You always go right to racism but no, I think people didn't want to admit they were voting for Trump because he's a dumb, crooked casino-owner/reality TV star. 
    What does that say aboot them then, if that were the fact? But its not. You had three swing states turn on approximately 66,000 votes. You had Hillary win the popular by 3MM. You had an unprecedented social media/meme campaign financed and coordinated by a foreign power. Its unprecedented, hence why its studied. You had 6-7 million of 22 million previous Obama voters either vote Team Trump Treason, not vote or vote "not Hillary," because of their fear of the "other" and/or immigrants. But yea, I know, everyone is a racist. So, where are the Team Trump Treason supporters on here? Why can't they own their shit and list the reasons they voted for him and, particularly, continue to support him, especially knowing what we know now? Do you believe Team Trump Treason is racist and misgoynist? What about his unwavering base?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,107
    So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    It depended on who was interpreting the polling data as to who declared her a sure fire winner. 
    Well take something like fivethirtyeight.com, which was literally created to predict the outcomes of elections by using various polling data. They said it was a shoo-in for Hillary. And now they have no credibility. 
    I’m not sure where you’re getting that fivethirtyeight said it was a shoo-in for Clinton. What I’ve seen there is that they gave trump a 28% chance of winning. They also pretty much just nailed the recent election. 
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,107
    So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    It depended on who was interpreting the polling data as to who declared her a sure fire winner. 
    Well take something like fivethirtyeight.com, which was literally created to predict the outcomes of elections by using various polling data. They said it was a shoo-in for Hillary. And now they have no credibility. 
    I’m not sure where you’re getting that fivethirtyeight said it was a shoo-in for Clinton. What I’ve seen there is that they gave trump a 28% chance of winning. They also pretty much just nailed the recent election. 
    29%:

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 8,299
    edited November 2018
    So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    It depended on who was interpreting the polling data as to who declared her a sure fire winner. 
    Well take something like fivethirtyeight.com, which was literally created to predict the outcomes of elections by using various polling data. They said it was a shoo-in for Hillary. And now they have no credibility. 
    They DID NOT say it was a shoo-in.  They gave Hillary a 72% chance of winning....still a 28% chance she would not.  That's where it ended up.
    Post edited by Gern Blansten on
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
    2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 33,229
    So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    It depended on who was interpreting the polling data as to who declared her a sure fire winner. 
    Well take something like fivethirtyeight.com, which was literally created to predict the outcomes of elections by using various polling data. They said it was a shoo-in for Hillary. And now they have no credibility. 
    I’m not sure where you’re getting that fivethirtyeight said it was a shoo-in for Clinton. What I’ve seen there is that they gave trump a 28% chance of winning. They also pretty much just nailed the recent election. 
    29%:

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

    Pretty on point with their popular vote prediction too. They cannot help it if a few polls in a few swing states were not entirely accurate (for some strange reason).

    538's credibility is spot on.
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 8,299
    So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    It depended on who was interpreting the polling data as to who declared her a sure fire winner. 
    Well take something like fivethirtyeight.com, which was literally created to predict the outcomes of elections by using various polling data. They said it was a shoo-in for Hillary. And now they have no credibility. 
    it was either juggler or gern that actually explained it well, that the data was largely correct save for a few key regions that swung an unexpected way. 
    Might have been me.  The national polling was correct...it had Hillary by 2-3% which was spot on.

    It was MI, PA and WI that erred on tRump's side.  He won by 77,000 votes in those three states.
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
    2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 8,299
    And remember....if was that fucking Comey bullshit that likely lost it for her.  The polls didn't have time to react to that shit.
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
    2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 45,993
    edited November 2018
    And remember....if was that fucking Comey bullshit that likely lost it for her.  The polls didn't have time to react to that shit.
    I totally agree that Clinton may very well have just squeaked by if it weren't for Comey. I get the impression that Comey actually knows this, but keeps saying he doesn't think that's the case, or hopes it isn't, just to try and save face. I'd be shocked to hear that this doesn't actually keep him up at night though, lol.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    It depended on who was interpreting the polling data as to who declared her a sure fire winner. 
    Well take something like fivethirtyeight.com, which was literally created to predict the outcomes of elections by using various polling data. They said it was a shoo-in for Hillary. And now they have no credibility. 
    I’m not sure where you’re getting that fivethirtyeight said it was a shoo-in for Clinton. What I’ve seen there is that they gave trump a 28% chance of winning. They also pretty much just nailed the recent election. 
    Ok shoo-in might not be the best wording there. I guess I meant to say they didn't give him as good a chance as I thought he had. 
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,559
    edited November 2018
    So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    It depended on who was interpreting the polling data as to who declared her a sure fire winner. 
    Well take something like fivethirtyeight.com, which was literally created to predict the outcomes of elections by using various polling data. They said it was a shoo-in for Hillary. And now they have no credibility. 
    I’m not sure where you’re getting that fivethirtyeight said it was a shoo-in for Clinton. What I’ve seen there is that they gave trump a 28% chance of winning. They also pretty much just nailed the recent election. 
    Ok shoo-in might not be the best wording there. I guess I meant to say they didn't give him as good a chance as I thought he had. 
    But what does that even mean, “didn’t give him as good a chance as I thought he had”? They gave him an almost 30% chance of winning, based on a complex analysis of polling data. Maybe you gave him a 50% chance of winning, based on your gut. It’s irrelevant, though; the end result is binary, whether the chance was 28% or 50% or 90%. 

     
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    It depended on who was interpreting the polling data as to who declared her a sure fire winner. 
    Well take something like fivethirtyeight.com, which was literally created to predict the outcomes of elections by using various polling data. They said it was a shoo-in for Hillary. And now they have no credibility. 
    I’m not sure where you’re getting that fivethirtyeight said it was a shoo-in for Clinton. What I’ve seen there is that they gave trump a 28% chance of winning. They also pretty much just nailed the recent election. 
    Ok shoo-in might not be the best wording there. I guess I meant to say they didn't give him as good a chance as I thought he had. 
    But what does that even mean, “didn’t give him as good a chance as I thought he had”? They gave him an almost 30% chance of winning, based on a complex analysis of polling data. Maybe you gave him a 50% chance of winning, based on your gut. It’s irrelevant, though; the end result is binary, whether the chance was 28% or 50% or 90%. 

     
    I based it on the fact that, for work, I have to drive all over Pennsylvania. Everywhere I went there were Trump signs except for Philly and Pittsburgh. And I thought well, it seems like rural Pennsylvania is all about Trump. And that being the case, why wouldn't rural Ohio be for Trump? And hell, why not all other rural places? So that's what I based it on: everything between Philly and Pittsburgh being Trump country and having a feeling that this could be the case all over the country. 
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 1,489
    So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    It depended on who was interpreting the polling data as to who declared her a sure fire winner. 
    Well take something like fivethirtyeight.com, which was literally created to predict the outcomes of elections by using various polling data. They said it was a shoo-in for Hillary. And now they have no credibility. 
    I’m not sure where you’re getting that fivethirtyeight said it was a shoo-in for Clinton. What I’ve seen there is that they gave trump a 28% chance of winning. They also pretty much just nailed the recent election. 
    Ok shoo-in might not be the best wording there. I guess I meant to say they didn't give him as good a chance as I thought he had. 
    But what does that even mean, “didn’t give him as good a chance as I thought he had”? They gave him an almost 30% chance of winning, based on a complex analysis of polling data. Maybe you gave him a 50% chance of winning, based on your gut. It’s irrelevant, though; the end result is binary, whether the chance was 28% or 50% or 90%. 

     
    I based it on the fact that, for work, I have to drive all over Pennsylvania. Everywhere I went there were Trump signs except for Philly and Pittsburgh. And I thought well, it seems like rural Pennsylvania is all about Trump. And that being the case, why wouldn't rural Ohio be for Trump? And hell, why not all other rural places? So that's what I based it on: everything between Philly and Pittsburgh being Trump country and having a feeling that this could be the case all over the country. 
    It probably is...my last trip through Wisconsin did not tell me who was running against Scott Walker because his were the only gubernatorial signs I saw.  I also saw way more signs for incumbent Tammy Baldwin's (D) opponent (R; forgot name) than Baldwin.  Walker lost and Baldwin won easily.  When driving through the sticks, most signs are for GOP but these are very few people.  Once you get to even small towns, you'll see that even out some.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 8,299
    OnWis97 said:
    So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    It depended on who was interpreting the polling data as to who declared her a sure fire winner. 
    Well take something like fivethirtyeight.com, which was literally created to predict the outcomes of elections by using various polling data. They said it was a shoo-in for Hillary. And now they have no credibility. 
    I’m not sure where you’re getting that fivethirtyeight said it was a shoo-in for Clinton. What I’ve seen there is that they gave trump a 28% chance of winning. They also pretty much just nailed the recent election. 
    Ok shoo-in might not be the best wording there. I guess I meant to say they didn't give him as good a chance as I thought he had. 
    But what does that even mean, “didn’t give him as good a chance as I thought he had”? They gave him an almost 30% chance of winning, based on a complex analysis of polling data. Maybe you gave him a 50% chance of winning, based on your gut. It’s irrelevant, though; the end result is binary, whether the chance was 28% or 50% or 90%. 

     
    I based it on the fact that, for work, I have to drive all over Pennsylvania. Everywhere I went there were Trump signs except for Philly and Pittsburgh. And I thought well, it seems like rural Pennsylvania is all about Trump. And that being the case, why wouldn't rural Ohio be for Trump? And hell, why not all other rural places? So that's what I based it on: everything between Philly and Pittsburgh being Trump country and having a feeling that this could be the case all over the country. 
    It probably is...my last trip through Wisconsin did not tell me who was running against Scott Walker because his were the only gubernatorial signs I saw.  I also saw way more signs for incumbent Tammy Baldwin's (D) opponent (R; forgot name) than Baldwin.  Walker lost and Baldwin won easily.  When driving through the sticks, most signs are for GOP but these are very few people.  Once you get to even small towns, you'll see that even out some.
    I'm in red meat Indiana so signs don't tell me much.  My parents are GOP yet they hated tRump.  My mom actually wrote in "Mitch Daniels" for president when she voted.

    I was more surprised at the lefties that didn't vote for Clinton.  I'll never understand that.  I think they assumed Clinton would win so they voted for Johnson or Stein to make themselves feel better.  Then they couldn't believe tRump won.
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
    2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 1,489
    OnWis97 said:
    So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    It depended on who was interpreting the polling data as to who declared her a sure fire winner. 
    Well take something like fivethirtyeight.com, which was literally created to predict the outcomes of elections by using various polling data. They said it was a shoo-in for Hillary. And now they have no credibility. 
    I’m not sure where you’re getting that fivethirtyeight said it was a shoo-in for Clinton. What I’ve seen there is that they gave trump a 28% chance of winning. They also pretty much just nailed the recent election. 
    Ok shoo-in might not be the best wording there. I guess I meant to say they didn't give him as good a chance as I thought he had. 
    But what does that even mean, “didn’t give him as good a chance as I thought he had”? They gave him an almost 30% chance of winning, based on a complex analysis of polling data. Maybe you gave him a 50% chance of winning, based on your gut. It’s irrelevant, though; the end result is binary, whether the chance was 28% or 50% or 90%. 

     
    I based it on the fact that, for work, I have to drive all over Pennsylvania. Everywhere I went there were Trump signs except for Philly and Pittsburgh. And I thought well, it seems like rural Pennsylvania is all about Trump. And that being the case, why wouldn't rural Ohio be for Trump? And hell, why not all other rural places? So that's what I based it on: everything between Philly and Pittsburgh being Trump country and having a feeling that this could be the case all over the country. 
    It probably is...my last trip through Wisconsin did not tell me who was running against Scott Walker because his were the only gubernatorial signs I saw.  I also saw way more signs for incumbent Tammy Baldwin's (D) opponent (R; forgot name) than Baldwin.  Walker lost and Baldwin won easily.  When driving through the sticks, most signs are for GOP but these are very few people.  Once you get to even small towns, you'll see that even out some.
    I'm in red meat Indiana so signs don't tell me much.  My parents are GOP yet they hated tRump.  My mom actually wrote in "Mitch Daniels" for president when she voted.

    I was more surprised at the lefties that didn't vote for Clinton.  I'll never understand that.  I think they assumed Clinton would win so they voted for Johnson or Stein to make themselves feel better.  Then they couldn't believe tRump won.
    I actually even thought Johnson and Stein were subpar for their respective parties, which (particularly for Stein) should have been good for Hillary.

    Regarding lefties not voting for Clinton, one of the many, many pieces of the perfect shitstorm that got Trump elected (and one of the most preventable) was the party's lack of understanding of just how hated she has been for so long.  I think there were just enough people that value "my vote" over "who wins."  I understand that philosophy but with Trump on the otherside, lament it.  The party really was out of touch with the American People.  There probably is some of that "I'll vote third because this thing's over, anyway."  But I really think the dems simply nominated a dog of a candidate.  
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 45,993
    OnWis97 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    So, who here would? Don't be afraid. If you voted for Team Trump Treason and the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for him, regardless of the opposing candidate(s)?

    Lurking somewhere for sure, but don't hold your breath: the Trump supporters that have modern technology and know how to use modern technology are not going to expose themselves publically as a tool. Doing so would be tantamount to coming on here and passionately asserting Nickelback is way better than Pearl Jam.
    And this is why I didn't buy the polling data that had Hillary as the surefire winner. I felt there were a lot of Trump supporters that didn't want to admit it. 
    It depended on who was interpreting the polling data as to who declared her a sure fire winner. 
    Well take something like fivethirtyeight.com, which was literally created to predict the outcomes of elections by using various polling data. They said it was a shoo-in for Hillary. And now they have no credibility. 
    I’m not sure where you’re getting that fivethirtyeight said it was a shoo-in for Clinton. What I’ve seen there is that they gave trump a 28% chance of winning. They also pretty much just nailed the recent election. 
    Ok shoo-in might not be the best wording there. I guess I meant to say they didn't give him as good a chance as I thought he had. 
    But what does that even mean, “didn’t give him as good a chance as I thought he had”? They gave him an almost 30% chance of winning, based on a complex analysis of polling data. Maybe you gave him a 50% chance of winning, based on your gut. It’s irrelevant, though; the end result is binary, whether the chance was 28% or 50% or 90%. 

     
    I based it on the fact that, for work, I have to drive all over Pennsylvania. Everywhere I went there were Trump signs except for Philly and Pittsburgh. And I thought well, it seems like rural Pennsylvania is all about Trump. And that being the case, why wouldn't rural Ohio be for Trump? And hell, why not all other rural places? So that's what I based it on: everything between Philly and Pittsburgh being Trump country and having a feeling that this could be the case all over the country. 
    It probably is...my last trip through Wisconsin did not tell me who was running against Scott Walker because his were the only gubernatorial signs I saw.  I also saw way more signs for incumbent Tammy Baldwin's (D) opponent (R; forgot name) than Baldwin.  Walker lost and Baldwin won easily.  When driving through the sticks, most signs are for GOP but these are very few people.  Once you get to even small towns, you'll see that even out some.
    I'm in red meat Indiana so signs don't tell me much.  My parents are GOP yet they hated tRump.  My mom actually wrote in "Mitch Daniels" for president when she voted.

    I was more surprised at the lefties that didn't vote for Clinton.  I'll never understand that.  I think they assumed Clinton would win so they voted for Johnson or Stein to make themselves feel better.  Then they couldn't believe tRump won.
    I actually even thought Johnson and Stein were subpar for their respective parties, which (particularly for Stein) should have been good for Hillary.

    Regarding lefties not voting for Clinton, one of the many, many pieces of the perfect shitstorm that got Trump elected (and one of the most preventable) was the party's lack of understanding of just how hated she has been for so long.  I think there were just enough people that value "my vote" over "who wins."  I understand that philosophy but with Trump on the otherside, lament it.  The party really was out of touch with the American People.  There probably is some of that "I'll vote third because this thing's over, anyway."  But I really think the dems simply nominated a dog of a candidate.  
    My parents drove all the way across America in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, and when they came home, just a few days before election day, they said they were now 100% convinced that Trump would win the election simply because they saw SO much support for Trump across the country in the form of signs and posters, etc etc. None of that was about being anti-Clinton. That was all full on support for Trump that they saw as they made their way across the nation.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 9,720
    Im in a liberal state

    Tbh, i wouldnt dare put up any signs, stickers, etc in fear of badgering, harassment, or vandalism 
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 45,993
    MayDay10 said:
    Im in a liberal state

    Tbh, i wouldnt dare put up any signs, stickers, etc in fear of badgering, harassment, or vandalism 
    Apparently there are a LOT of places where it's hunky dory, lol. Of course they drove through practically every small town from Washington state to the Atlantic Ocean... and didn't even get close to the southern states. I don't think they went farther south than southern Illinois/Indiana on that trip.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,270
    PJ_Soul said:
    MayDay10 said:
    Im in a liberal state

    Tbh, i wouldnt dare put up any signs, stickers, etc in fear of badgering, harassment, or vandalism 
    Apparently there are a LOT of places where it's hunky dory, lol. Of course they drove through practically every small town from Washington state to the Atlantic Ocean... and didn't even get close to the southern states. I don't think they went farther south than southern Illinois/Indiana on that trip.
    You mention Washington State. Sure, many small, rural towns visibly and vocally supported Trump, but he didn't have a prayer here. The last time Washington State's votes went to a Republican was 1984 for Ronald Reagan. Hillary destroyed Trump here in 2016, 54.3% to 38.1%. So while there were plenty of Trump signs out, there wasn't any critical mass of support for him, despite the prevalence of yard signs. Obviously places like Idaho, the Dakotas, and the Rust Belt may have been Trump country, but those signs aren't always indicative of his level of support.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 45,993
    jeffbr said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    MayDay10 said:
    Im in a liberal state

    Tbh, i wouldnt dare put up any signs, stickers, etc in fear of badgering, harassment, or vandalism 
    Apparently there are a LOT of places where it's hunky dory, lol. Of course they drove through practically every small town from Washington state to the Atlantic Ocean... and didn't even get close to the southern states. I don't think they went farther south than southern Illinois/Indiana on that trip.
    You mention Washington State. Sure, many small, rural towns visibly and vocally supported Trump, but he didn't have a prayer here. The last time Washington State's votes went to a Republican was 1984 for Ronald Reagan. Hillary destroyed Trump here in 2016, 54.3% to 38.1%. So while there were plenty of Trump signs out, there wasn't any critical mass of support for him, despite the prevalence of yard signs. Obviously places like Idaho, the Dakotas, and the Rust Belt may have been Trump country, but those signs aren't always indicative of his level of support.
    Yeah, I know how Washington votes better than any other state - I know WA as well as I know BC. All I was saying is that my parents went across America right before the election, and when they left they thought that Trump didn't have a hope in hell of winning, and when they returned they would have bet money on him winning, all just because they observed so much specific Trump support on their journey - way, way more than they expected to see - and they didn't even visit the states that REALLY like him. My point is that specific support for Trump across the nation (as opposed to people simply being ridiculously (and illogically, IMO) anti-Clinton) was higher than some like to believe.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 16,573
    29% is a massive underdog folks

    I love you guys :)
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,270
    PJ_Soul said:
    jeffbr said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    MayDay10 said:
    Im in a liberal state

    Tbh, i wouldnt dare put up any signs, stickers, etc in fear of badgering, harassment, or vandalism 
    Apparently there are a LOT of places where it's hunky dory, lol. Of course they drove through practically every small town from Washington state to the Atlantic Ocean... and didn't even get close to the southern states. I don't think they went farther south than southern Illinois/Indiana on that trip.
    You mention Washington State. Sure, many small, rural towns visibly and vocally supported Trump, but he didn't have a prayer here. The last time Washington State's votes went to a Republican was 1984 for Ronald Reagan. Hillary destroyed Trump here in 2016, 54.3% to 38.1%. So while there were plenty of Trump signs out, there wasn't any critical mass of support for him, despite the prevalence of yard signs. Obviously places like Idaho, the Dakotas, and the Rust Belt may have been Trump country, but those signs aren't always indicative of his level of support.
    Yeah, I know how Washington votes better than any other state - I know WA as well as I know BC. All I was saying is that my parents went across America right before the election, and when they left they thought that Trump didn't have a hope in hell of winning, and when they returned they would have bet money on him winning, all just because they observed so much specific Trump support on their journey - way, way more than they expected to see - and they didn't even visit the states that REALLY like him. My point is that specific support for Trump across the nation (as opposed to people simply being ridiculously (and illogically, IMO) anti-Clinton) was higher than some like to believe.
    I agree with that. There were definitely very vocal and visible pockets of Trump supporters, even in very red states, who were motivated and engaged. I don't personally know any of them, and can't imagine the cognitive dissonance required by so-called Republicans to go all in for Trump. Protectionist economic policies, massive deficit spending, porn stars and prostitutes, and love affairs with ruthless dictators and sworn enemies of our country, yet those yokels continue to support him. God, guns & Trump! Praise the lord.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,107
    my2hands said:
    29% is a massive underdog folks

    I love you guys :)
    I want these people with this interesting take on probability ncaa tourney pool. Nice choice with Canisius in the final four! 
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 16,573
     you weren't shocked that night?

    Now we are saying this wasnt a massive, shocking, wtf just happened type of upset? C'mon

    In the weeks leading up she was an even bigger chalk
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,107
    my2hands said:
     you weren't shocked that night?

    Now we are saying this wasnt a massive, shocking, wtf just happened type of upset? C'mon

    In the weeks leading up she was an even bigger chalk
    I was totally shocked that night and for quite awhile after. I hadn’t fully internalized the 28.6% likelihood! 

    My beef if that since then, people have flat out denied every single poll saying they’re innacurate. 
Sign In or Register to comment.