But anyway, Imaginary President Hillary Clinton isn't doing too well these days:
The Washington Post-ABC News poll asked respondents how they'd vote in a redo of the 2016 election, and, if anything, Clinton seems to have lost more ground than Trump. Among those who voted, 46 percent say they picked Clinton last year and 43 percent picked Trump — a slightly more favorable sample than the 2016 election, in which Clinton won the popular vote by two percentage points. But in a head-to-head rematch, Clinton's support drops even more than Trump's does, and they wind up in a 40-40 tie. Given that Trump overperformed in key, blue-leaning swing states, that means he'd probably have won again....I think this poll makes more sense than the standard day-to-day favorability rating, where Trump seems to be languishing in the 30s, because it's relatively easy to say we're not happy enough with what's going on than it is to point to somebody else who you think would make you happier.
[J]ust 72 percent of Democrats said they would vote for Clinton in a rematch — vs. the 84 percent who said they did vote for Clinton last year.
It should be noted that the Democrats in that poll who dropped their support for Clinton did not say they'd vote for Trump. They'd vote for a third party candidate or nobody. And thinking about Clinton is distorted by the knowledge that she, in fact, lost. They might be dropping her because she's a loser.
पोस्ट्स
८५ टिप्पण्या:
I suspect he would win by an even greater margin.
I believe also he would win by a larger margin. And just to repeat, Hillary is indeed a loser, and a very sore loser ( along with the rest of the democrat-media party ) as well.
The entire democrat party is looking terrible right now. The more they bleat about open borders and gun control the worse they will do.
Well, while we're at it, let's redo the primaries and see if Trump would still win the nomination. I wonder if voters would respond differently to the Republican clown car, I mean slate of candidates, differently now.
mockturtle said...
I suspect he would win by an even greater margin."
Yep. Despite the relentless media attacks, people can see the economy has gotten better. Anybody with a three-digit IQ can also see Trump is not "literally Hitler."
And the left's year long temper tantrum has only convinced those of us who reluctantly voted for Trump that we made the correct decision.
Also the democrats look bad on the issues. They look worse running amok on social media. They are constantly calling for violence and carrying it out against political opponents. You just can't win elections in a free country that way which is why they turn to violence.
I suspect Trump would add New Hampshire and Minnesota to his win column, maybe even Virginia. Hillary has not helped her case with What Happened, nor does Brazile’s book help, and Shattered is pretty shattering.
Maybe this will finally be the hint for her to go away that she takes... Ha ha ha ha ha!
Hillary's ice flow drifts further from shore.
What happened is still happnin'
He spelled 2020 wrong.
Maybe this will finally be the hint for her to go away that she takes... Ha ha ha ha ha!
It doesn't matter how unappealing people find Hillary, she'll keep returning. It's not unlike how those who've been infected with the chicken pox virus never really fully get rid of it, and it resurfaces as shingles later in life. Hillary is the herpesviruses of the US body politic.
"It doesn't matter how unappealing people find Hillary, she'll keep returning."
I hope she does. At this point she's far more damaging to the Dems than the Republicans, but her lust for power and control prevents her from seeing it.
If the election were rerun, all signs are that Hillary would do nothing different, because according to her she did nothing wrong.
Would she campaign in WI *now* -- or would she just send charmless Chelsea in her place?
How many more tell-all books will be necessary before Hillary takes the hint and bows out. One from Bill?
But she persisted! Hillary/Weinstein 2020.
Weird. Now that we know the Russians tricked us with "fake news" about her private server, wound't it be true that she would really win this time, because the Russian jig is up?
Would she campaign in WI *now* -- or would she just send charmless Chelsea in her place?
Because we all know how charming Herself is.
"They might be dropping her because she's a loser"
An evergreen statement. As applicable in 2008 and 2016 as it is today, as it shall be tomorrow.
I almost forgot it's Nov 7th - election day.
One year ago I was filled with unbearable dread for I believed the fake polls that said Hillary would win easily. I went to bed early and attempted to sleep and miss the state by state blood bath. I felt sick. Free speech under Hillary would be decimated. Clinton-Podesta corruption, institutionalized. I woke at midnight and wandered over to the computer and I was in shock. I had no idea what pure delight and euphoria felt like after such dismal depression. Until that moment. No - I was not big fan of Trump, but watching Hillary lose was one of the best moments EVER.
I too was shocked that Trump won. My birthday is on January 20 - not having to endure Hillary's inauguration and all the hoopla and BS about it being a big day for the advancement of women made for a pretty happy birthday.
The relentless negative news may have influenced some but it has definitely told some people to shut up lest some Bernie voter take a shot at them.
I also went to sleep thinking Hillary would win.
Nice surprise in the morning.
And because the whole Democrat establishment immediately embraced the ridiculous Russian hacking story, it's a sure thing that no real lessons will be learned.
I have this vision of a Walker ad where a diverse group of earnest workers are gathered after dark round a fire outside a large building. You can only see one lit window high up. The workers say:"Still negotiating, The power is out so they brought in a generator. They're really fighting for us. We'll all get an identity share. Fuck capitalism." Inside a conference room where nasty-looking suits and brawny reliable-looking union negotiators are wrapping up. (Packers artifacts in evidence) The nastiest suit says: "OK, $15.00 hour minimum, hire 10% minorities, build the new facility near old, ban shipping from Lake Michigan port, ban truck depot, ban increased railroad traffic until environmental study is complete. Done. Effective when we rebuild." Suits leave with strange little smiles on their faces. Snippet of conversation "charade because otherwise the bureaucrats ..." Cheering from earnest workers. "We've each got an identity share. Down with the bosses." On the large screen TV inside you hear the announcer talking about "Today's opening of the Foxconn factory." Walker is shaking hands with the workers going to the first shift. The factory is gleaming glass which reflects the dawn. The union leaders turn to look at the screen and scream out insults at it. Camera pans back from screen and table. You see the room is filthy with peeling paint except for the table. Wires are ripped from the wall. The camera goes back through the window. You see the whole factory slowly fill the screen. The factory is boarded up and covered with ivy. Grass sprouts in the pavement where the earnest workers are cheering. Snow is falling. CLOSED sign. Snow falling faster. Workers cheering, "We've got our identity share!!! Down with bosses." slowly dies away. More snow blurs the workers. One man says to another: "How far is Racine anyway?" WALKER FOR GOVERNOR.
Don't forget the assumption that people are likely to respond honestly to polls. I think that's increasingly less likely.
It's a world where you can lose your job for contributing to the wrong cause. Why would people respond truthfully to polls? Who wants to risk their job?
I also went to bed assuming Hillary had it in the bag. I woke up, didn't watch or listen to the news or check online, and drove to work where people where of course talking about it. I was surprised and pretty relieved.
Have there been any sky screamers yet today?
Is that sky screaming thing today? I should head over to the Common.
This should be ENORMOUSLY consequential. After a full year of demonizing Trump in every conceivable way, and some that weren't conceivable before they were done, Trump has basically held his own against Clinton, who remains a media darling.
The media owners, editors, so-called journalists, celebrities, and pundits who have made it their mission to trash Trump and deny him any humanity or normality, should consider how fruitless this has been, as they destroy their own credibility to accomplish essentially nothing. The Trump Admin has been enough of a shit-show that they could have just reported it straight, maintained or even enhanced their cred after 2016, and had the same political outcome.
But, they aren't that bright and certainly aren't that introspective, so they will just figure they have to try even harder--whatever that might mean.
But, would we have a year long investigation into Koi Gate instead of the Steele Dossier if the election were today?
It didn't help she ran Martha Coakley's campaign but the black guys from the barber shop were never coming out in numbers for a sour old white woman.
Polls are nothing more to the media than instrumentation to their narrative. This is worse than a stall warning, this grab the parachutes and get out.
"One year ago I was filled with unbearable dread for I believed the fake polls that said Hillary would win easily."
I voted early, surrounded by cheerful Democrats who assumed (as did I ) that Hillary was going to walk away with it. I walked around mourning all day - mourning the death of what was left of America.
I kept the TV off that evening - I couldn't bear to look at the gloating media people celebrating their victory - and tried to read a novel. Around 9:30 my sister called and said, "Turn on the TV. You won't believe this."
Pure joy - and relief- followed.
"Polls are nothing more to the media than instrumentation to their narrative."
-- Eh, Romney's people said the same thing, but didn't come through then. I think that there may be some bias/inaccuracies in polling, but Trump was a black enough swan to totally screw the system.
@tim in vermont, matthew sablan:Polls are nothing more to the media than instrumentation to their narrative... I think that there may be some bias/inaccuracies in polling
The polls were generally within their margins of error. Journalists were not accounting for the Electoral College.
Michael K said...
I also went to sleep thinking Hillary would win.
Nice surprise in the morning.
I was in the living room with my laptop and we still had cable starting late evening on the west coast. I was switching around the channels watching the news shows talk while I was watching precincts report numbers.
I remember looking at the numbers while they were talking about Wisconsin still being for Hillary. I had the 2012 results up for most states in another window and I couldn't figure out what they were talking about. Wisconsin was obviously going to Trump if you looked at the numbers and compared the 2016 to 2012 results. I remember concluding Ohio was a win right off as that was the first state I compared. Then I looked at Pennsylvania and told my wife Trump was going to win. Florida was harder to predict than Pennsylvania was.
I actually stayed up because I wanted to see Hillary concede. Knowing she was in a drunken rage and seeing Podesta with assault marks was a close second.
This poll is close enough for jazz.
@Gahrie: "The polls were generally within their margins of error. Journalists were not accounting for the Electoral College."
I've watched the Young Turks YouTube video a number of times, and it's clear that these guys WERE thinking about that. They spent a fair amount of pre-results coverage talking about what the final EC tally would be, which states Clinton *should* win, etc. They didn't spend any time talking about total vote counts; that didn't happen until after it was all over, and they needed something to blame Clinton's loss on.
I agree with you about "margin of error" -- it's always a factor. But I wonder what kind of a factor fear plays with regard to responding to poll requests.
If someone called my house and asked my opinion about something, I'd refuse to answer. Who knows what would happen in California if I dared to venture the "wrong opinions"? That wouldn't have been true 20 years ago. So yeah, I might be projecting my own FUD onto the poll results, but I definitely think that there's a certain % of people who are afraid to respond to polls at all.
"If someone called my house and asked my opinion about something, I'd refuse to answer."
-- I've told plenty of people, "God Bless the Secret Ballot."
Sadly, I think phrasing it that way is a tell.
I actually stayed up because I wanted to see Hillary concede.
She hasn't, actually.
Gabriel wrote:
"The polls were generally within their margins of error. Journalists were not accounting for the Electoral College."
Well, if we are being honest, the pollsters weren't accounting for it either. One point I have made over and over since last November 8th is this- if the national polls were actually accurate, then most of them should have picked up the fact that Hillary's estimated margin was dangerously concentrated California. Not a single one of them did,though.
The polls were generally within their margins of error.
True this, and yet there were outrageous 99% confidence calls the morning of the election from some previously respected outlets.
I was constantly questioning the use of those wild turnout assumptions. Their poll skewed +7 Democrat for chrissake!!! I've yet to hear a credible explanation why it wasn't just a case of bad assumptions and GIGO.
... the black guys from the barber shop were never coming out in numbers for a sour old white woman.
@rehajm, I wonder whether word filter d out to the larger black community how Hillary treated the black staff at the White House back in the day? Her reputation was not good.
Don't forget the assumption that people are likely to respond honestly to polls. I think that's increasingly less likely.
True, Pianoman, and also those of us who don't participate. I would be happy to participate in a single-question poll but refuse to answer a long list of intrusive ones.
@rehajm:yet there were outrageous 99% confidence calls the morning of the election from some previously respected outlets.
538 conspicuously absent from these. They had projected a 28.6% chance for Trump. Assuming they were right on the money, well 1 out of 3 or 4 is a pretty probable result, and Trump's election is not a Black Swan event at all.
I followed the election on-line until FoxNews first reported that Wisconsin was in Trump's column.
Unlike many of the commenters, I didn't go into that evening convinced Trump would lose. For me, the low point of the cycle was the day after the Access Hollywood tape was released, but when Trump stopped the bleeding a few days later during the debate, my guarded optimism returned. On the morning of November 8th, I thought Trump had about a 40% chance of winning- much, much better than I had thought for Romney the day of his defeat.
During the night of the returns, however, I did reach a low point- when I realized that Clinton was going to win Virginia. My biggest mistake in judging the election possibilities was that I believed Trump had win all the Romney states and add to that VA, FL, OH, and IA/NV/NH. When I looked at the state level returns in VA, I knew almost immediately that Clinton was going to win VA as easily as Obama had 4 years earlier, and I was still assuming that Trump couldn't break the blue wall in the midwest. However, not more than few minutes later, I saw a comment by someone on this very site that mentioned the NYTimes meter that gave probabilities for individual states and the national race- at that point I think the meter gave Trump a 45% chance to win. When I look at the states under the graph, I was shocked to see how close he was in WI and PA. I thought it had to be some sort of mistake, and told the other commenters that the data might be bad. However, when I opened up PA's actual returns and compared them to those from 2012, I was literally floored by how much better Trump was doing than Romney in the northeast of the state, and how much more badly Clinton was doing to Obama in the southeast/Philly region. Indeed, that one look at the precinct level return convinced me that Trump could very easily win PA and the election if he hung on in FL, which he did.
Relying on a national poll to predict the outcome of fifty separate albeit simultaneous elections is an iffy thing. Even now with these national what if polls it's an iffy piece of nonsense. A more reliable and accurate poll would be a poll of each state that voted for Trump to see if the election were held today if he would still win those states. Does anyone believe that Hillary is rotten and scummier today than a year ago? Trump is lucky in that no matter how low he polls, the Democrat's stink even worse.
Exiles recounts:
I kept the TV off that evening - I couldn't bear to look at the gloating media people celebrating their victory - and tried to read a novel. Around 9:30 my sister called and said, "Turn on the TV. You won't believe this."
Pure joy - and relief- followed.
I stayed up and watched the whole amazing, joy-inspiring, media-crushing event. Truly one of the happiest moments of my life.
Pianoman said:
"I've watched the Young Turks YouTube video a number of times, and it's clear that these guys WERE thinking about that."
A great comedy classic, up there with "Duck Soup."
They were talking about Texas and Georgia possibly flipping, if I remember correctly. I'll have to watch the highlights again tonight.
The highlights include a bitter Ben Mankiewitz ripping on the Founding Fathers because, he said, they were all slave owners who were dead by age 40. Adams and Franklin would be surprised to learn that.
Here is the comment I wrote on November 8th after I had done the precinct by precinct comparison in PA at 9:46 p.m. that evening:
"Well, I can believe I am writing it, but I do think Trump is actually going to win Pennsylvania. I look at what is left to report, and it is better than an even shot for him to overtake Clinton's lead. She didn't do nearly well enough in Philadelphia and the surrounding suburbs- she underperformed Obama in 2012 by quite a lot."
It was at this point I began to really believe Trump was going to win. My main worry at that point was that AZ might tip Clinton back to a winning position, but I didn't think it probable by that point.
@exiled: "They were talking about Texas and Georgia possibly flipping, if I remember correctly."
Just Texas, I think. Some nonsense about Texas being a "purple state".
I had to stop watching that video so much. My Gloat-O-Meter explodes every time I see that stupid smirk getting wiped off Cenk's face.
Truly one of the happiest moments of my life.
11/7/17, 12:18 PM
Yes! I remember feeling some trepidation when they trotted Podesta out and the sleazebag said they weren't giving up, because I was afraid the harridan wouldn't concede. But then she did and - oh man, I couldn't stop laughing. Really. I just stretched out on my sofa and laughed.
I really had to work on my poker face for the next few days when I saw downcast liberals. My liberal boss: "It's so terrible!!" Me, fighting to keep from grinning: "Yes, it was a quite a shock."
I wasn't lying. It was quite a shock - just as winning Publisher's Clearing House must be quite a shock as well.
I had to stop watching that video so much. My Gloat-O-Meter explodes every time I see that stupid smirk getting wiped off Cenk's face.
11/7/17, 12:37 PM
It's political porn for Trump voters.
There were people at my office who went full hyperbolic:
"IT'S THE END OF THE REPUBLIC!!!!"
"WHAT WILL I TELL MY 8-YEAR OLD CHILD?"
It was just pathetic.
The last time I felt so much delight watching live TV that was not related to sports was the night of the Walker recall election. Ah, weeping "Democracy is Dead" boy and Thistle. Good times, good times.
BTW, Ace has a flaming skull now that we know what we've always suspected: the Russian who met with Kushner and gang in the NY hotel met with the Fusion GPS founder just before and just after that meeting.
As Ace says, this was an active operation run against Trump by the combined elements of the Clinton campaign, democrat hit firms and members of our very own intelligence agencies.
We have reached Peak Banana Republic, and not is a Mall/Clothes Store way.
Exiled recalls: The highlights include a bitter Ben Mankiewitz ripping on the Founding Fathers because, he said, they were all slave owners who were dead by age 40. Adams and Franklin would be surprised to learn that.
And Jefferson, who died at 83.
Mick said repeatedly one year ago....
Trump Landslide. What are you smokin?
Ah, Mick. He stopped making comments a few weeks after the election.
538 conspicuously absent from these.
Yes, very true. They also did an excellent good job at framing the uncertainties and discussing the weaknesses of probabilistic prediction models (like they mean you never have to say you were wrong!).
Unfortunately they were also huge Hillary rooters and quite often buried the lede in the tenth paragraph.
She IS a loser.
Most of us who aren't Californians realized this before the election, not after.
But Democrats have a bit of a steep learning curve. They still don't realize that Marxism is counter productive and horrible for poor people. And they show no signs of getting it.
Which really puts a coda on Hillary. Most of her followers still don't get a philosophy which killed 100 million is bad...but she is so bad even a Democrat can realize this.
That is TOXIC.
Isn't it funny that Cersei Lannister and Hillary Clinton seem to share the same hairstylist...
"Ah, Mick. He stopped making comments a few weeks after the election."
-- Did he ever get his well-earned epic "I told you so" post?
Hmm...it IS Election day!
So...what is different in the nation?
Immigration is down 40%.
The Dow is up 4,700 points and still pointed skyward and has been ever since the Marxist/Leftists were booted out of power.
We are now EXPORTING energy instead of buying it from misogynist terrorist supporters.
ISIS is mostly defeated.
Europe has found the last of their testosterone and are starting to elect people who don't want to invite rapists et. al. refugees into their nations. Sweden hasn't but...blondes are notoriously stupid, so you can't blame them too much.
Consumer confidence also is the highest it's been since 2004.
Yeah...how horrible Trump has been for the nation...
I played this on the piano and sang:
Come gather 'round people wherever you roam
And admit that the waters around you have grown..
Before Ding Ding, The Witch is Dead, a surprisingly fun piano song.
The Democrats have a political strategy to flip the under-employed blue-collar voters in the Rust Belt back to voting Democrat. The strategy has the following main elements:
* Advocate the establishment of sanctuary cities for illegal aliens
* Make racism accusations against anyone who questions Democrats' policies
* Disrespect our country's founders and our National Anthem
* Try to turn our economy into socialism
* Argue that the US President is a secret agent of Russia
I haven't had this good a time since listening to Rush the day after the '94 mid-terms.
Following up my comment at 1:52
More elements of the Democrats' strategy:
* Raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour
* Import tens of thousands of uneducated, unskilled peasants from Central America
Tim in Vermont says: I haven't had this good a time since listening to Rush the day after the '94 mid-terms.
What I remember--and enjoyed most--about the 1994 mid-terms was the look on Brokaw's face. Priceless!
Poll: Views of Democratic Party hit lowest mark in 25 years - CNN headline
You guys have to lance the boil, stick the knife in Hillary, and start re-building your party. I might even vote for a Democratic Party that was serious about representing the working class above all. Let the rich white left form their own party. They can join the GOPe, maybe, since they have a lot in common.
"I might even vote for a Democratic Party that was serious about representing the working class above all."
-- It is hard to believe, but in high school, I was considered fairly liberal. I was fine for safe, legal and rare. I was fine with the government getting out of the marriage business, etc., etc. I was comfortable either as a Rockefeller Republican or Blue Dog Democrat, for the most part, or close enough that I could vote either way.
Both parties have done their darndest to give me no home.
Hillary's margin in the popular vote is accounted for entirely by her overwhelming margin in California--I think she was plus 3 million nationally but plus 4 million in California.
Take a look at what we have in Sacramento---an 80 year old Jesuit priest/cum hippy as governor; both houses of the legislature with a super majority of Dims.
Then ask yourself; do you really want to be ruled by the decision of the Granola State? Once you get past the flakes, all that is left is fruits and nuts. And they gave the Hildebeest her "national" "win".
I was in Rancho Cucamonga, I’ve mentioned this, but I watched the results from the Cask and Cleaver and when Wisconsin was called, the awesome Mexican-American kids (One of them...”I’m alt right!” Me: “What the hell is that?” Him...”Stopping illegal immigration and legalization (Marijuana)!) ran that place shut it down and we had a par-tay!
Then I went to Joshua Tree the next day and did room #8.
Don't forget the assumption that people are likely to respond honestly to polls. I think that's increasingly less likely.
I’ll put it more bluntly: The polls are shit and not to be trusted. Haven’t we learned that lesson yet?
The pollsters compete for attribution and face-time on the cables. If the pollsters want to be quoted or to be a guest on a segment of the MSM the pollsters know they must feed the MSM what it wants to hear. The free advertising is worth millions. Such a situation is ripe for subterfuge and corruption.
My suspicion is that a head to head between Hillary and Trump in reality reads as a landslide for Trump but woe unto any pollster that honestly presents that scenario. Never another call from CNN! During the general campaign that elected Trump I suspect that Trump was probably ahead of Hillary almost from the start but that did not fit the narrative the MSM wanted to hear.
The polls were generally within their margins of error.
If the polls are shit, and they most assuredly are, then their phony “margins of error” are also shit.
Ah, Mick. He stopped making comments a few weeks after the election.
And his whereabouts is “unknown.” Get it?
#NotTiredOfWinning, #GiveTheFishAllTheyCanEat!
Matthew Sablan said...
"Ah, Mick. He stopped making comments a few weeks after the election."
Are the Stones touring again?
Grackle: "And his whereabouts is “unknown.” Get it?"
A "So, I Married An Axe-Murderer" paraphrased subreference?
"... the black guys from the barber shop were never coming out in numbers for a sour old white woman."
They weren't coming out for transgender bathrooms, either. A fact I think Obama knew perfectly well.
I posted this a lot over the last year - lets give it one more go. Because, laughter!
CA - jackhammer the fault line and sail to NoKo. They be' right at home with lil' Kim.
I posted this a lot over the last year - lets give it one more go. Because, laughter!
Yes, the NYT always has its finger on the pulse of America.
-- It is hard to believe, but in high school, I was considered fairly liberal.
Not hard for me to believe, Matthew. ;-)
Hillary's margin in the popular vote is accounted for entirely by her overwhelming margin in California--I think she was plus 3 million nationally but plus 4 million in California.
It was 5 million in CA and 3 million nationally. Hillary is president of California. She lost the rest of the country by 2 million.
Drago at 4:11PM. Nope
Mick did come back around for a -- well deserved -- victory lap. There were several of us here who predicted a Trump victory, but none so boldly and early in the season as Mick.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा