We're winning in Florida. We're winning in Ohio.

[Ljube]

In the last week before the election, at his rallies, Trump kept saying the following:

"We're winning in Iowa. We're winning in Ohio. We're winning in North Carolina. We're winning in Florida. We're doing great in Pennsylvania. We're doing great in New Hampshire and we're gonna win the great state of Michigan."


Now, I wonder. Did Trump have a superior polling and/or data mining operation? It seems to me like he knew exactly where he stood and which states he was going to win.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Trump said something about his rallies in these states afterwards.

Something about how impressed he was with the turnout and the willingness of so many people to attend.

As a nationalist populist, he would have remained confident in the face of a very strong Hillary campaign.

And he felt he had a genuine chance in these states.

Amazing win.

[Ronnie]

You're reading too far into his comments.  He was just bloviating.

[Pericles]

Or, you know, Trump is just being boastful, as is in character for him.

[AmericanNation]

In all these Bannon articles, he claims that he "called" the win in all these states. 

You should look at a combination of:
1) Bannon's strategy
2) Trump's intuitive ability to communicate the message
3) Kellyane is a good pollster and kept saying that other pollsters were getting it wrong.

I was on this board a week before the election saying "Trump is up in Florida, NC, and Ohio... WI, MI and PA are tight...  everyone said I was wrong, but you could see it if you were looking.   The media and dems  were really messed up is the bottom line.       

[HagridOfTheDeep]

He was right. Kudos. But to say it was mostly based on things other than gut, hope, and faith would be silly. There is a reason most people did not share Trump's prediction.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Donald Trump knows a lot about politics that other people either don't know or reject.

Given all that's transpired, is that really an outlandish statement?  Is anyone as "lucky" as Trump?

He's not an idiot savant.  Not by a longshot.  Keep telling yourselves he is, red avatars, while he builds his re-election landslide right before your eyes.

[ApatheticAustrian]

there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom.

i am pretty sure, donald is quite intelligent (even while uneducated in some key areas - but he seems to be a fast learner IF interested) but imho not really wise.

in fact it needed imho several dozen advisors to make him realize, he needs to change his ways....one of the reasons it seemed so "unfair" to me in the first place that he won....seemed like his campaign restrained him like hannibal lecter and shoved a non-donald-phantasy-creature over the finish line.

but now i feel fine....his messaging was so strong that his endless problems couldn't kill him and the other side wasn't able so point that out so no need to whine.

let's find out how MOTIVATED donald is or how wise........seems to be a bigger problem than intelligence, imho.

[RaphaelDLG]

Actually, according to campaign sources in politico and other outlets, Trump reportedly expected to lose the election in the EC and PV, and was somewhat surprised by election night.

It's part of his lifelong marketing scheme to 1) exaggerate the sh*t out of the truth and 2) never admit that he's wrong/losing.

Though I think winning Ohio was a reasonable expectation.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom.

I will certainly agree to this.

I am a Spirit-Filled, Fire-Baptized, Tongue-Speaking Pentecostal, and, as such, believe that God gives Believers a prophetic word of wisdom or knowledge when they seek it.

I have always been careful to state that while I was voting for Trump, I wasn't asking anyone else to.  I do believe that some of the advocacy of religious folks on behalf of Trump was carried out in ways that compromise Christian witness.  Trump's policies offer Christians more of their "checklist" issues than Hillary's, and Trump's posture toward the Church is less hostile than Hillary's.  I believe Hillary would force churches and church schools to hire non-believers and openly gay folks, in opposition to their doctrines, and while I view this as proper in secular professions, the Church has a right to conduct its affairs in line with Scripture (at a minimum in its religious hires and practices), and this posture would be, in effect, an attempt to remake the Church in a secular image by outsiders.  There's a difference between saying that, and saying Trump's a Christian and Hillary isn't (which I never said, and won't say).  From a Christian perspective, there's a lot of the enemy of my enemy being my friend in this situation.

As to wisdom:  I believe that before the election, God gave me a Word of Wisdom, to the effect that NEITHER of our Presidential candidates had wisdom, or sought it.  This has Biblical significance.  King Solomon, given an option of asking for God for one thing, asked for wisdom, and, indeed, became wise.  Wisdom is a quality that Scripture says believers can ask for, and it will be given to them LIBERALLY.  I believe our leaders in the past have sought God's Wisdom in this manner, but I don't believe that this year's candidates do so.

I do believe in praying for our leaders.  My prayer for Donald Trump is that he would seek divine wisdom, and act accordingly.  Doing so would manifest itself in ways that some would find surprising and unpredictable, but it would also result in a better outcome for our nation.  I would pray for Hillary Clinton in like manner if she had been elected.  How she would have reacted, I don't know.  She claims some religiosity, but the test of a politicians faith is how they act when Scripture and the Example of Jesus conflict with one's own platform or the wishes of their supporters.  I'll keep praying.  We'll see what happens.  

[Adam Griffin]

I was on this board a week before the election saying "Trump is up in Florida, NC, and Ohio... WI, MI and PA are tight...  everyone said I was wrong, but you could see it if you were looking.   The media and dems  were really messed up is the bottom line.       

Yeah, but that's because you're an idiot.

Broken clocks, hacks, etc. You didn't have access to internals nor did anybody else on this board. Every campaign's public comments indicate they're winning. "You could see it if you were looking" meant "reading nutty right-wing blogs and Unskewed Polls 2.0 aggregators", which were likewise wrong based on any actual evidence, but merely ended up being right because that was just the nature of the situation. All of those claims and entities would have existed regardless of the situation, and do exist every cycle.

[Alcon]

Broken clocks, hacks, etc. You didn't have access to internals nor did anybody else on this board. Every campaign's public comments indicate they're winning. "You could see it if you were looking" meant "reading nutty right-wing blogs and Unskewed Polls 2.0 aggregators", which were likewise wrong based on any actual evidence, but merely ended up being right because that was just the nature of the situation. All of those claims and entities would have existed regardless of the situation, and do exist every cycle.

^^^

Not to mention that campaigns don't have the magic ability to generate objectively superior internals.  I don't understand why people think that political campaigns know a ton of things we don't, and drop secret tea leaves in their public communications.  This is some horoscope-level nonsense.

Sometimes the only reasonable position ends up being wrong, and totally unreasonable positions end up being right.  Lucky irrationality is not something to be proud of, and it doesn't make people who engaged in that behavior "right."

[Beet]

Broken clocks, hacks, etc. You didn't have access to internals nor did anybody else on this board. Every campaign's public comments indicate they're winning. "You could see it if you were looking" meant "reading nutty right-wing blogs and Unskewed Polls 2.0 aggregators", which were likewise wrong based on any actual evidence, but merely ended up being right because that was just the nature of the situation. All of those claims and entities would have existed regardless of the situation, and do exist every cycle.

^^^

Not to mention that campaigns don't have the magic ability to generate objectively superior internals.  I don't understand why people think that political campaigns know a ton of things we don't, and drop secret tea leaves in their public communications.  This is some horoscope-level nonsense.

1. Campaigns have internal polling

2. Campaigns have thousands of canvassers and phone bankers effectively conducting polls throughout the campaign

[Ljube]

Broken clocks, hacks, etc. You didn't have access to internals nor did anybody else on this board. Every campaign's public comments indicate they're winning. "You could see it if you were looking" meant "reading nutty right-wing blogs and Unskewed Polls 2.0 aggregators", which were likewise wrong based on any actual evidence, but merely ended up being right because that was just the nature of the situation. All of those claims and entities would have existed regardless of the situation, and do exist every cycle.

^^^

Not to mention that campaigns don't have the magic ability to generate objectively superior internals.  I don't understand why people think that political campaigns know a ton of things we don't, and drop secret tea leaves in their public communications.  This is some horoscope-level nonsense.

Sometimes the only reasonable position ends up being wrong, and totally unreasonable positions end up being right.  Lucky irrationality is not something to be proud of, and it doesn't make people who engaged in that behavior "right."

Really? So, to you, anything you don't understand is nonsense, or unreasonable position at the very least.
Well, flat-earthers thought in the same way. The idea that the Earth is round was alien to them to the point of being irrational at best or nonsensical at worst.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Broken clocks, hacks, etc. You didn't have access to internals nor did anybody else on this board. Every campaign's public comments indicate they're winning. "You could see it if you were looking" meant "reading nutty right-wing blogs and Unskewed Polls 2.0 aggregators", which were likewise wrong based on any actual evidence, but merely ended up being right because that was just the nature of the situation. All of those claims and entities would have existed regardless of the situation, and do exist every cycle.

^^^

Not to mention that campaigns don't have the magic ability to generate objectively superior internals.  I don't understand why people think that political campaigns know a ton of things we don't, and drop secret tea leaves in their public communications.  This is some horoscope-level nonsense.

1. Campaigns have internal polling

2. Campaigns have thousands of canvassers and phone bankers effectively conducting polls throughout the campaign

Beet, the simpler answer is "they do." I have had the opportunity to know a lot of people with a variety of political backgrounds within the GOP. The Trump campaign was nothing close to the traditional campaigns they experienced (I knew some Pawlenty folks four years ago), but it still operated as a literal campaign. 

[Alcon]

Broken clocks, hacks, etc. You didn't have access to internals nor did anybody else on this board. Every campaign's public comments indicate they're winning. "You could see it if you were looking" meant "reading nutty right-wing blogs and Unskewed Polls 2.0 aggregators", which were likewise wrong based on any actual evidence, but merely ended up being right because that was just the nature of the situation. All of those claims and entities would have existed regardless of the situation, and do exist every cycle.

^^^

Not to mention that campaigns don't have the magic ability to generate objectively superior internals.  I don't understand why people think that political campaigns know a ton of things we don't, and drop secret tea leaves in their public communications.  This is some horoscope-level nonsense.

1. Campaigns have internal polling

2. Campaigns have thousands of canvassers and phone bankers effectively conducting polls throughout the campaign

1. Did you miss the part of my post where I said that campaigns don't have the magic ability to generate objectively superior internals?  Campaign internals are subject to the same statistical limitations and challenges (like modeling the voter universe) that other professional polling companies are subject to.  Internal pollsters may spend more time and attention modeling the voter universe than a public-facing pollster would, but only so much of that is knowable, no matter how much time you spend modeling it.

Campaigns retain pollsters so they can get proprietary data and ask proprietary questions.  Campaigns do not retain them because they are drastically better at getting accurate horserace numbers, because there's no logical reason they would be.

2. Volunteer canvassing and phonebanking can generate useful information in the same way focus groups can, but they are definitely not "effectively" polls.  Canvassing results look nothing like poll results, because they take all the problems of polling (social desirability bias, self-selection, etc.) and amplify them.  You also do not do field contacts on a random, representative sample of voters.  Field contacts are drastically inferior to polls as a source of data about the horserace.  They're a finger in the wind at best.

Beet, the simpler answer is "they do." I have had the opportunity to know a lot of people with a variety of political backgrounds within the GOP. The Trump campaign was nothing close to the traditional campaigns they experienced (I knew some Pawlenty folks four years ago), but it still operated as a literal campaign.  

Please explain to me why I should believe that the Trump and Clinton campaigns had drastically greater information on the status of the horserace in swing states than we do.  (Obviously, I wasn't saying that campaigns don't have drastically more information about other things.  They certainly have way more information about upcoming endorsements, media coverage, what Mike Pence had for breakfast, etc.)

[P123]

CANT STOP WINNING!

But really, it was only a matter of time before the polling industry exploded. If it ever was accurate, more just heading towards a consensus (see 2012)...

[SirMuxALot]

Actually, according to campaign sources in politico and other outlets, Trump reportedly expected to lose the election in the EC and PV, and was somewhat surprised by election night.

It's worth noting that this comes from the same reporters who claimed Trump stopped all polling weeks before election day.