There's a terminal case of Trump denial syndrome around here.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:41:20 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  There's a terminal case of Trump denial syndrome around here.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: There's a terminal case of Trump denial syndrome around here.  (Read 3526 times)
Deblano
EdgarAllenYOLO
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,680
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 07, 2017, 11:24:58 AM »

To be fair, Republicans were believing in so-called """"""unskewed polls""""""' that were saying that Romney was gonna beat Obama in a landslide back in 2012.

People are good at denying facts that hurt their party. And the fact was that this election was a toss-up with too many variables to predict accurately.
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 868


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2017, 12:50:31 PM »

. And the fact was that this election was a toss-up with too many variables to predict accurately.

> 71%/92%/98%/99% chance Hillary wins
> election was a "toss-up"

lol
Logged
Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner
Jalawest2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,481


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 08, 2017, 05:16:28 PM »

. And the fact was that this election was a toss-up with too many variables to predict accurately.

> 71%/92%/98%/99% chance Hillary wins
> election was a "toss-up"

lol
71% is not that certain.
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 868


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 09, 2017, 11:19:42 AM »

. And the fact was that this election was a toss-up with too many variables to predict accurately.

> 71%/92%/98%/99% chance Hillary wins
> election was a "toss-up"

lol
71% is not that certain.

High enough to be totally wrong.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,066


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 12, 2017, 09:09:46 PM »

. And the fact was that this election was a toss-up with too many variables to predict accurately.

> 71%/92%/98%/99% chance Hillary wins
> election was a "toss-up"

lol
71% is not that certain.

High enough to be totally wrong.

What's high enough and what isn't? And why should we let you decide?!
Logged
JonHawk
JHawk
Rookie
**
Posts: 213


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 15, 2017, 07:02:25 PM »

I love when you guys bump up these butthurt threads pre-election. I need a good laugh.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 16, 2017, 10:54:35 PM »

It is a unique political event in American history that in 2016, Donald Trump won in the face of so many Republicans who said they would not endorse him.  And my standard of an "endorsement" is pretty low.  It's the Bob Sikes test.  In 1968, Rep. Bob Sikes (D-FL) of the FL Panhandle, told a reporter, "I'm voting for the national ticket (Humphrey-Muskie) but I'm not asking anyone else to."  The Republicans I'm talking about are folks who wouldn't even admit that they would vote for Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016

That's a big group.  A Democrats for Nixon-sized group.  Yet Trump won.

Well yes, I know that.  Yes, it was a new thing that Trump won despite having so many of the party elite not supporting him.  My takeaway is that the opinion of the party elite doesn't really matter anymore (to the extent that it ever did...see below).  That's why I also think that a 2020 primary challenger who gets Buchanan '92-esque #s (more than 20% of the national popular vote, and more than a third of the vote in at least certain states) wouldn't really hurt Trump.  In fact, it might *help* both Trump and the GOP for them to keep their brands somewhat separate, by showing that they don't all agree on everything, and he's his own man.

But re: the party elite's opinions not mattering anymore, even looking back at McGovern's loss in 1972: Was it really the case that party figures not endorsing him contributed to his loss?  Or was it just a case of his existing unpopularity leading them to flee, rather than the latter causing the former?  In Trump's case, GOP politicians weren't endorsing him both for reasons of his unpopularity and for "respectability" reasons.  But the voters don't care about "respectability", and also many of them were willing to vote for him despite having an unfavorable opinion of him, so that was also unusual.


They had a less favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton.  At best, an equally unfavorable opinion.

On top of that, Hillary had the endorsement of just about EVERY media outlet, including newspapers who normally didn't make endorsements (most notably USA Today).
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 16, 2017, 11:01:35 PM »

It is a unique political event in American history that in 2016, Donald Trump won in the face of so many Republicans who said they would not endorse him.  And my standard of an "endorsement" is pretty low.  It's the Bob Sikes test.  In 1968, Rep. Bob Sikes (D-FL) of the FL Panhandle, told a reporter, "I'm voting for the national ticket (Humphrey-Muskie) but I'm not asking anyone else to."  The Republicans I'm talking about are folks who wouldn't even admit that they would vote for Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016

That's a big group.  A Democrats for Nixon-sized group.  Yet Trump won.

Well yes, I know that.  Yes, it was a new thing that Trump won despite having so many of the party elite not supporting him.  My takeaway is that the opinion of the party elite doesn't really matter anymore (to the extent that it ever did...see below).  That's why I also think that a 2020 primary challenger who gets Buchanan '92-esque #s (more than 20% of the national popular vote, and more than a third of the vote in at least certain states) wouldn't really hurt Trump.  In fact, it might *help* both Trump and the GOP for them to keep their brands somewhat separate, by showing that they don't all agree on everything, and he's his own man.

But re: the party elite's opinions not mattering anymore, even looking back at McGovern's loss in 1972: Was it really the case that party figures not endorsing him contributed to his loss?  Or was it just a case of his existing unpopularity leading them to flee, rather than the latter causing the former?  In Trump's case, GOP politicians weren't endorsing him both for reasons of his unpopularity and for "respectability" reasons.  But the voters don't care about "respectability", and also many of them were willing to vote for him despite having an unfavorable opinion of him, so that was also unusual.


They had a less favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton.  At best, an equally unfavorable opinion.

On top of that, Hillary had the endorsement of just about EVERY media outlet, including newspapers who normally didn't make endorsements (most notably USA Today).

True, all the media ignoring how terrible Hillary was made it clear that she was the greater evil.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 16, 2017, 11:08:03 PM »

It is a unique political event in American history that in 2016, Donald Trump won in the face of so many Republicans who said they would not endorse him.  And my standard of an "endorsement" is pretty low.  It's the Bob Sikes test.  In 1968, Rep. Bob Sikes (D-FL) of the FL Panhandle, told a reporter, "I'm voting for the national ticket (Humphrey-Muskie) but I'm not asking anyone else to."  The Republicans I'm talking about are folks who wouldn't even admit that they would vote for Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016

That's a big group.  A Democrats for Nixon-sized group.  Yet Trump won.

Well yes, I know that.  Yes, it was a new thing that Trump won despite having so many of the party elite not supporting him.  My takeaway is that the opinion of the party elite doesn't really matter anymore (to the extent that it ever did...see below).  That's why I also think that a 2020 primary challenger who gets Buchanan '92-esque #s (more than 20% of the national popular vote, and more than a third of the vote in at least certain states) wouldn't really hurt Trump.  In fact, it might *help* both Trump and the GOP for them to keep their brands somewhat separate, by showing that they don't all agree on everything, and he's his own man.

But re: the party elite's opinions not mattering anymore, even looking back at McGovern's loss in 1972: Was it really the case that party figures not endorsing him contributed to his loss?  Or was it just a case of his existing unpopularity leading them to flee, rather than the latter causing the former?  In Trump's case, GOP politicians weren't endorsing him both for reasons of his unpopularity and for "respectability" reasons.  But the voters don't care about "respectability", and also many of them were willing to vote for him despite having an unfavorable opinion of him, so that was also unusual.


They had a less favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton.  At best, an equally unfavorable opinion.

On top of that, Hillary had the endorsement of just about EVERY media outlet, including newspapers who normally didn't make endorsements (most notably USA Today).

But that's my point.  These things don't matter.  Voters don't care if a candidate has the support of the elite of their party and they don't care if they have the support of elites in general.  You wrote:

"It's a sign of a Presidential loser when his/her ticket runs away from him/her."

which, if I'm understanding your point correctly, made it sound like Trump's lack of elite support was some significant challenge that he managed to overcome.  (If that wasn't your point, then please explain what your point was.)  I'm saying no, I don't think it was a significant challenge for him to not have this elite support, because I don't think elite support matters to very many voters.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 17, 2017, 12:53:35 AM »

It is a unique political event in American history that in 2016, Donald Trump won in the face of so many Republicans who said they would not endorse him.  And my standard of an "endorsement" is pretty low.  It's the Bob Sikes test.  In 1968, Rep. Bob Sikes (D-FL) of the FL Panhandle, told a reporter, "I'm voting for the national ticket (Humphrey-Muskie) but I'm not asking anyone else to."  The Republicans I'm talking about are folks who wouldn't even admit that they would vote for Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016

That's a big group.  A Democrats for Nixon-sized group.  Yet Trump won.

Well yes, I know that.  Yes, it was a new thing that Trump won despite having so many of the party elite not supporting him.  My takeaway is that the opinion of the party elite doesn't really matter anymore (to the extent that it ever did...see below).  That's why I also think that a 2020 primary challenger who gets Buchanan '92-esque #s (more than 20% of the national popular vote, and more than a third of the vote in at least certain states) wouldn't really hurt Trump.  In fact, it might *help* both Trump and the GOP for them to keep their brands somewhat separate, by showing that they don't all agree on everything, and he's his own man.

But re: the party elite's opinions not mattering anymore, even looking back at McGovern's loss in 1972: Was it really the case that party figures not endorsing him contributed to his loss?  Or was it just a case of his existing unpopularity leading them to flee, rather than the latter causing the former?  In Trump's case, GOP politicians weren't endorsing him both for reasons of his unpopularity and for "respectability" reasons.  But the voters don't care about "respectability", and also many of them were willing to vote for him despite having an unfavorable opinion of him, so that was also unusual.


They had a less favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton.  At best, an equally unfavorable opinion.

On top of that, Hillary had the endorsement of just about EVERY media outlet, including newspapers who normally didn't make endorsements (most notably USA Today).

But that's my point.  These things don't matter.  Voters don't care if a candidate has the support of the elite of their party and they don't care if they have the support of elites in general.  You wrote:

"It's a sign of a Presidential loser when his/her ticket runs away from him/her."

which, if I'm understanding your point correctly, made it sound like Trump's lack of elite support was some significant challenge that he managed to overcome.  (If that wasn't your point, then please explain what your point was.)  I'm saying no, I don't think it was a significant challenge for him to not have this elite support, because I don't think elite support matters to very many voters.


Why did the Romneys and Rockefellers run away from Goldwater?  Because they thought he was too far out of the mainstream, and would take the GOP down with him in their states.

Why did the Talmadges and Eastlands not endorse McGovern?  Because they were poles apart from him, personally.

These are the two (2) reasons folks don't endorse their Presidential candidate.  They either have deep disagreements with the candidate, or they find the candidate too far out of the party's mainstream. 

These weren't the reasons Republicans weren't endorsing Trump.  It was personal.  Trump wasn't far away from where they were on issues.  More importantly, the 2016 election showed that Trump was in the mainstream of public opinion moreso than any other candidate. 

The Trump Deniers don't get that.  They STILL don't get that.  Trump's NOT an extremist; he's more mainstream than any major Democrat OR Republican in recent years. 
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 17, 2017, 01:33:10 AM »

. And the fact was that this election was a toss-up with too many variables to predict accurately.

> 71%/92%/98%/99% chance Hillary wins
> election was a "toss-up"

lol
71% is not that certain.

High enough to be totally wrong.

You realize that probabilistic predictions, by definition, cannot be "disproven" just because the (projected) less-likely event occurred?   3 times out of 10 on average, an event with which we accurately predict will happen with 30% probability will indeed occur. We can estimate whether or not their predictions are likely to over-predict or under-predict certain events if we have enough data, but there is no reason to draw this conclusion from one event (Trump's election).   

Of course, if someone predicts an event with 99.99% certainty and that event does not come to pass, one must take very seriously the idea that the prognostication was incorrect, but events with a 30% chance happen all the time (just check weather reports), so you'd need far more instances of over-prediction for the discrepancy to be statistically significant. 
I think 538 indeed gave a very reasonable prediction of Trump's chances of election at 29%.  The polls generally pointed toward an HRC victory, but with substantial variance and margin for error. 
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 17, 2017, 09:33:49 PM »

Why did the Romneys and Rockefellers run away from Goldwater?  Because they thought he was too far out of the mainstream, and would take the GOP down with him in their states.

Why did the Talmadges and Eastlands not endorse McGovern?  Because they were poles apart from him, personally.

These are the two (2) reasons folks don't endorse their Presidential candidate.  They either have deep disagreements with the candidate, or they find the candidate too far out of the party's mainstream. 

These weren't the reasons Republicans weren't endorsing Trump.  It was personal.  Trump wasn't far away from where they were on issues.  More importantly, the 2016 election showed that Trump was in the mainstream of public opinion moreso than any other candidate. 

The Trump Deniers don't get that.  They STILL don't get that.  Trump's NOT an extremist; he's more mainstream than any major Democrat OR Republican in recent years. 

If by “personal” you mean that they did for “character”-based reasons, then yes, I largely agree, though I’d say there were a number of different reasons mixed together.  E.g., some of them didn’t like the way he talked about immigration, Islam, killing terrorists’ families, etc.  Some of that stuff is kind of a mix of “character” and “issues”.  I’d call it “respectability”.  The combination of his character and his take on certain issues, and particularly the way he talked about those issues made him “not respectable” in the minds of many of those who didn’t endorse him.

But OK, so what?  That doesn’t prove that voters agree more with him on issues than they do with the folks who didn’t endorse him.  I mean, many of those Republican politicians who didn’t endorse Trump ran ahead of him in their home states, so….
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 12 queries.