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

Go Beavers · November 2018

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

Ledbetterman10 · November 2018

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

Halifax2TheMax · November 2018

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

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?

HughFreakingDillon · November 2018

Ledbetterman10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

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.

Ledbetterman10 · November 2018

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

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.

OnWis97 · November 2018

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

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).

Halifax2TheMax · November 2018

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

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?

Go Beavers · November 2018

Ledbetterman10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

Go Beavers · November 2018

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

29%:

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

Gern Blansten · November 2018

Ledbetterman10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

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.

The Juggler · November 2018

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

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.

Gern Blansten · November 2018

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

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.

Gern Blansten · 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.

PJ_Soul · November 2018

Gern Blansten said:

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.

Ledbetterman10 · November 2018

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

oftenreading · November 2018

Ledbetterman10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax 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%.

Ledbetterman10 · November 2018

oftenreading said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

OnWis97 · November 2018

Ledbetterman10 said:

oftenreading said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

Gern Blansten · November 2018

OnWis97 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

oftenreading said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

OnWis97 · November 2018

Gern Blansten said:

OnWis97 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

oftenreading said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

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

Comments

Categories