Apparently you don’t do sarcasm?
ETA: Checked my math, and the person with the larger number of votes still “barely” lost.
Post snipped.
Yes, you do not understand.
See the thing is that the politicians, on both sides, have been telling these folks that their concerns matter. Yet when the pols get into office, they don’t do jack about the concerns.
Now, assuming the Trump voters are as stupid as the SDMB believes they are, then the Trump voters would have just gone along and voted for the standard Republican in the primaries and then it would have been Clinton vs. Cruz (or whomever).
So, the Trump voters, instead of being stooopid, voted for the guy who said ‘You’ve been ignored and turned on. I won’t do that. I am not a standard Republican. The Ds have been screwing you and so have the Rs. I will fix the problems you have’.
Throw in Clinton insulting those who were thinking of voting Trump, the whole deplorable thing. What do you get?
Trump as President.
I don’t like Trump but the reason he won is simple. It isn’t hard and I cannot figure out why so many on the SDMB cannot grasp it.
Slee
It’s easy to tell why Trump won.
He lied. And people believed the lies.
The thing that we have some trouble grasping is why they believed his lies.
And a not even barely relevant reply as a hand waiving.
You seem very fragile in your strange desparation to make denials.
It’s the opposite of what you’re claiming. Most of the voters who didn’t bother to show up in CA and NY are Democrats. Partly because the Dems typically have more turnout problems than the Pubs. Partly because a Democratic victory was assured in both states. A tight race would have shown higher Dem turnout.
Not really. The Republicans control the government now, and they despise democracy; they can and will simply have themselves declared the winners of any future elections. Democracy in the US died the moment the Republicans took office, so it no longer matters how much support the Democrats have.
No; the Democrats did try, but were stymied at every turn, and the successes they did have were ignored or demonized.
Of course His voters are deplorable; they wanted an evil man and voted for one. Her error was in assuming that they were only some of the Republicans, instead of pretty much all of them.
No, it doesn’t. You’re speaking ignorance about what happened. Polls are not just asking what people think, but weighting them by demographics and who is expected to turn up. There still is absolutely no evidence of the whole “shy Trump voter” effect.
When you think you’ve figured out something that everyone else in the world, including the experts in the field in question, haven’t figured out, chances are 99.9% that you are the one who is wrong.
As the actual experts pointed out, the polls were not off by any more than they were in 2012. This idea that polls are useless is like the bullshit that Trump is spinning.
Trump’s support is going down. It may not be as low as some people think it is, but it is lower. We have the numbers. It’s also common sense: all the people who say they hate Trump now, who didn’t before, along with pretty much no one switching sides the other way.
Trump started with the lowest approval ratings of an incoming president, and has gotten lower, not higher. Bringing up other polls that are not measuring his popularity is pointless when we can do it directly.
We think he’s less popular because he is less popular. It’s nowhere near as bad as it should be, but it’s still true.
People need to stop with this idea that both sides ignore the facts.
I also hate that this is in IMHO. It’s a political argument. Those will get contentious, and thus belong in Great Debates.
Because lying is normal for politicians.
Here is “538” pollster Nate Silver’s dissertation in 6 separate short articles (so far) on exactly what happened in the 2016 polling and election. The inside baseball perspective is quite interesting.
No, politicians usually try to keep their promises; and Hillary was more honest than average.
We saw what that got her. Americans want lies, and hate truth.
And believing them is?
Politicians tell you one thing, and they may feel a different way personally, and when they get to office, they may legislate somewhat differently, and they may end up doing something else that is more politically feasible. This is normal. You don’t get exactly what you vote for, but you usually have reason to expect them to at least try to maintain some level of appearance of integrity.
He just makes up pure bullshit, and his supporters wolf it down like ambrosia from the gods.
Apparently, I’m not responsible for what you meant to say, or how you say it.
I find it interesting that the term “barely” has now been tied to mathematics. Congratulations little Johnny. You barely got the answer wrong. :rolleyes:
There were many political races run in 2016. The U.S. Senate, U.S. House, WH, state, and local races. The trophy was the seat in government. Straw should have been made available for those who did not win. Since everyone who came in 2nd lost their race, the losers would then be able to grasp for those straws, if they so chose. But it doesn’t change their 2nd place/loser status.
Winning a race that no one, including the candidate herself, was running for certainly sounds a lot stronger if you add the term “barely” to the term “winning”, or to the term “losing”.
And personal IP servers they can hide in someone’s bathroom. And occasionally wipe clean with a cloth. 
Barely losing still means you lost.
Barely winning still means you won.
Adding the term “barely” may help soothe hurt feelings, but it doesn’t change the outcome of the race.
Trump does seem to be very hurt that he didn’t win in a landslide and that he didn’t win the popular vote which means he does not have a mandate.
What exactly is a “mandate”? Doesn’t a POTUS have a mandate when their political party has control of both houses of the U.S. Congress?
*mandate
noun [ C ] us /ˈmæn·deɪt/
authority to act in a particular way given to a government or a person, esp. as a result of a vote or ruling:
[ + to infinitive ] The president secured a congressional mandate to send troops to Bosnia.*
It is very nice you have mastered the simple dictionary definitions and can understand the basic meanings of words.
But that is not very useful for understanding the competitive analysis.
Adding irrelevant rambling about the feelings may soothe the fragile egos and the delicate fearful personalities fears, but it does not change a weak win is different than a strong win and this has a meaning for the positioning for the future competitions.
A contest where one team wins by the bare margin, the smart team leaderships, the loser and the winner examine the small margin of the difference in the performance for future play, and they do not go on and on in
Of course why you are so fragile in your feelings you need to go on and on about irrelevancies like “feelings” when a person not even American voter is making the mathematical observations about the margins and the competitive position it is difficult to know. It does look quite ridiculous and normally a person would know to be embarrassed for themself.
“Usually” in the sense that they make a real effort to keep an average of 2/3 of them. If I knew a guy who only made an effort to repay money 2/3 of the time he borrowed it and promised to pay it back, I’d consider him a bad risk to loan money to. If I dated someone who cheated on 1/3 of their partners, I would consider them very likely to cheat on me even though they ‘usually’ don’t cheat.
Hillary promised to vote against the TPP while on the campaign trail, but ardent Hillary supporters on this board sneer at the very idea she would have actually worked against it as president. So it appears that even her vocal supporters think that she will just say whatever works to get elected. The idea that people were wrong to mistrust Clinton is just at odds with reality. She was a career politician willing to say whatever gets her elected, as demonstrated by her position on gay marriage (opposed to it until exactly when she felt it would help, not hinder her popularity), the TPP, and a host of other issues.
Presidents don’t have mandates anyway. They have powers and responsibilities.