It wasn't "The Economy Stupid"

[JohnStOnge]

JSO, stop with the friggin' exit poll data. It is inaccurate data. You are a data guy and I don't know why you accept that nonsense. And before you tell me that there is a historical margin of error, I will say that everything about this election was outside normal ranges. There was dishonesty in the data from voters and there was dishonesty in the data from the pollsters. Just stop.

No, it's not inaccurate data. It just shows you to be wrong so you don't like it. You have absolutely no basis for believing what you do about the economy as a factor except that you believe it. So when you see survey data that contradicts it you just dismiss the survey data.

See my last post on the polling data. It was not "wrong." It was a "too close to call" election.

With respect to Exit polls, Again: I don't know if someone used exit polling data before the votes were counted to say Clinton was going to win but if they did they misused the tool. Final calibrated exit polling data are not debunked by that sort of thing.

I guarantee you that political consultants are pouring over the exit polling data right now to get insight into why people voted the way they did. They consider it to be very credible. Accept reality. Trump did not win because of the economy. If you had to pick one thing that got him over the top other than just the desire for "change" it was the illegal immigration issue.

I mean, it doesn't matter anyway. You got the disastrous result you wanted. So what if it was because of things other than the economy?

[JohnStOnge]

Look, I have been forced by polling data during this election to accept that I was wrong about things. One BIG one is that early on I thought there was NO way White Evangelical Christians were going to support a vile person like Trump. I figured White Evangelical Christians are to the Republicans like Blacks are to the Democrats. It's a voting block that always votes overwhelmingly in their favor and they need to keep that to be competitive. I thought nominating a Son of Satan like Trump would be like the Democrats nominating a KKK Grand Wizard and thereby chasing off the Black vote.

Polling showed me to be wrong. REALLY wrong. And exit polling data estimates White Evangelical Christians supported Trump by a bigger margin than they supported G.W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. That horrifies me. I don't like it at all. But I'm not going to be in denial about it because it wasn't what I thought would happen.

[CAA Flagship]

Why do you keep bring up the national numbers? There were only a handful of states that decided this election.
And this thread is about "why" the people in those states voted the way they did. And the answer is "economy".





WhatsamattaU?

[CAA Flagship]

Look, I have been forced by polling data during this election to accept that I was wrong about things. One BIG one is that early on I thought there was NO way White Evangelical Christians were going to support a vile person like Trump. I figured White Evangelical Christians are to the Republicans like Blacks are to the Democrats. It's a voting block that always votes overwhelmingly in their favor and they need to keep that to be competitive. I thought nominating a Son of Satan like Trump would be like the Democrats nominating a KKK Grand Wizard and thereby chasing off the Black vote.

Polling showed me to be wrong. REALLY wrong. And exit polling data estimates White Evangelical Christians supported Trump by a bigger margin than they supported G.W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. That horrifies me. I don't like it at all. But I'm not going to be in denial about it because it wasn't what I thought would happen.

There is a chance that the Trump may nominate as many as 3 SC Justices. THAT is why they voted that way. The SC has more impact on WEC values than does a President. It's not hard to understand why they held their nose and voted for Trump.

[kalm]

Look, I have been forced by polling data during this election to accept that I was wrong about things. One BIG one is that early on I thought there was NO way White Evangelical Christians were going to support a vile person like Trump. I figured White Evangelical Christians are to the Republicans like Blacks are to the Democrats. It's a voting block that always votes overwhelmingly in their favor and they need to keep that to be competitive. I thought nominating a Son of Satan like Trump would be like the Democrats nominating a KKK Grand Wizard and thereby chasing off the Black vote.

Polling showed me to be wrong. REALLY wrong. And exit polling data estimates White Evangelical Christians supported Trump by a bigger margin than they supported G.W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. That horrifies me. I don't like it at all. But I'm not going to be in denial about it because it wasn't what I thought would happen.

Turns out, the Fundies dislike uppity women more than the Son of Satan.

[93henfan]

No guys. It wasn't the economy.

phpBB [video]

phpBB [video]

[HI54UNI]

Frank Luntz was one predicting Hilldog wins based on exit poll data.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/08/ ... olumn.html

[93henfan]

Frank Luntz was one predicting Hilldog wins based on exit poll data.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/08/ ... olumn.html

Aviators! Those are great sunglasses.

[JohnStOnge]

For those of you who do understand that exit polling provides the best insight we can get into why people voted the way they do:

Recall that, this year, the exit polling estimate was that the 52% of voters who believed the most important issue facing the country was the economy favored the Democratic candidate, Clinton, by 10 percentage points (52% to 42%).

In 2012, the exit polling estimate was that the 59% of voters who believed the most important issue facing the country was the economy favored the REPUBLICAN candidate, Romney, by 4 percentage points (51% to 47%).

In 2008, when there was economic panic and we were at the end of a Republican administration that was being blamed for it by a lot of people, the Democrat won among the 63% of voters who thought the economy was the most important issue by about the same margin as Clinton did this year. The exit polling estimate was Obama by 9 percentage points among that group.

Now, I will say that Clinton didn't do as well as Kerry did among voters who thought the economy was the most important issue in 2004. That year the exit polling estimate was that such voters favored the Democratic candidate, Kerry, by a whopping 80% to 18%. But only 20% of voters thought the economy was the biggest issue.

[JohnStOnge]

Frank Luntz was one predicting Hilldog wins based on exit poll data.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/08/ ... olumn.html

So he did. I'm guessing he learned his lesson.

I don't think he was trying to use the exit polling results in a direct way though. Looks to me like he was looking at what they said about turnout in certain areas and making assumptions about turnout in other areas. Like he was looking at indications of turnout around Philadelphia and assuming that would be sufficient to outweigh turnout in other areas of the State.

[CAA Flagship]

For the last time, NOOOOOOOOOOOO.

[JohnStOnge]

You know, in looking at this stuff I'm not seeing anything that makes it possible to get direct insight into how important "social issues" were. I don't see any questions on the abortion issue. Don't see any on homosexual marriage. Don't see any on things like forcing Christians to bake cakes and such for homosexual weddings.

The only thing that might provide any clue is the White Evangelical Christians thing. So they voted by an estimated 81% to 16% for Trump over Clinton. Extremely important to the election as the rest of the voting population voted by an estimated 59% to 35% for Clinton.

I do think they probably feel like they've been under attack. I don't think they like the way things have been going social issues wise. But there is nothing in the polling to allow one to look at those things directly.

And I agree with the idea that they care about the Supreme Court. Among the 21% who said the Supreme Court was the most important factor in their vote 56% favored Trump vs. 41% who favored Clinton. I'd bet White Evangelical Christians were a big part of that difference. But no way to directly assess that.

[SDHornet]

For the last time, NOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Settle down you, I won't be able to make an informed fap...er decision until 5er weighs in again.

[CAA Flagship]

For the last time, NOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Settle down you, I won't be able to make an informed fap...er decision until 5er weighs in again.

[HI54UNI]

[Gil Dobie]

JSO is the new Spandos

[ASUG8]

I normally wouldn't post this for a guy in his 50's whining, but it seems appropriate here. That taste in your mouth is called losing, and you don't get a trophy for it. Things don't always go your way, and you have to deal with it because it's called LIFE. Suck it up buttercup, your woman lost. See ya in 2020.

[Ibanez]

JSO, stop with the friggin' exit poll data. It is inaccurate data. You are a data guy and I don't know why you accept that nonsense. And before you tell me that there is a historical margin of error, I will say that everything about this election was outside normal ranges. There was dishonesty in the data from voters and there was dishonesty in the data from the pollsters. Just stop.

No, it's not inaccurate data. It just shows you to be wrong so you don't like it. You have absolutely no basis for believing what you do about the economy as a factor except that you believe it. So when you see survey data that contradicts it you just dismiss the survey data.

See my last post on the polling data. It was not "wrong." It was a "too close to call" election.

With respect to Exit polls, Again: I don't know if someone used exit polling data before the votes were counted to say Clinton was going to win but if they did they misused the tool. Final calibrated exit polling data are not debunked by that sort of thing.

I guarantee you that political consultants are pouring over the exit polling data right now to get insight into why people voted the way they did. They consider it to be very credible. Accept reality. Trump did not win because of the economy. If you had to pick one thing that got him over the top other than just the desire for "change" it was the illegal immigration issue.

I mean, it doesn't matter anyway. You got the disastrous result you wanted. So what if it was because of things other than the economy?

People vote with their wallets in mind. It is the economy and you are too stupid and stubborn to realize it.

[Ibanez]

For those of you who do understand that exit polling provides the best insight we can get into why people voted the way they do:

Recall that, this year, the exit polling estimate was that the 52% of voters who believed the most important issue facing the country was the economy favored the Democratic candidate, Clinton, by 10 percentage points (52% to 42%).

In 2012, the exit polling estimate was that the 59% of voters who believed the most important issue facing the country was the economy favored the REPUBLICAN candidate, Romney, by 4 percentage points (51% to 47%).

In 2008, when there was economic panic and we were at the end of a Republican administration that was being blamed for it by a lot of people, the Democrat won among the 63% of voters who thought the economy was the most important issue by about the same margin as Clinton did this year. The exit polling estimate was Obama by 9 percentage points among that group.

Now, I will say that Clinton didn't do as well as Kerry did among voters who thought the economy was the most important issue in 2004. That year the exit polling estimate was that such voters favored the Democratic candidate, Kerry, by a whopping 80% to 18%. But only 20% of voters thought the economy was the biggest issue.

If the pre-election polls were so wrong, why should we trust the post-election polss?

[Ivytalk]

I normally wouldn't post this for a guy in his 50's whining, but it seems appropriate here. That taste in your mouth is called losing, and you don't get a trophy for it. Things don't always go your way, and you have to deal with it because it's called LIFE. Suck it up buttercup, your woman lost. See ya in 2020.

This is the most awesomist, like, post, like ever. Rully!

[Ibanez]

Bank of America and US Today polled millennials back in July. Here are the results. https://www.bettermoneyhabits.com/mille ... ?bcen=8a6b

Pragmatism may be driving their approach to the presidential election, too. For young Americans
today, fnancial issues that afect them personally are top of mind: job growth, health care costs and
college afordability/student debt. While pocketbook issues carry weight, at the end of the day, they
will vote for the candidate who is best for the country over one who would improve their personal
fnancial situation.

Each generation of Americans is different – shaped by the economic, social and political realities of their time. For our 2016 Bank of America/USA TODAY Better Money Habits Report, we set out to understand the financial mindsets of Americans ages 18 to 26 – young people who were still in school during the Great Recession (2008), those just starting out in the job market and many of whom are voting for the first or second time.

Millennial Report
Our 2016 report, Young Americans & Money, found that:

For this age group, which includes younger millennials as well as older members of Generation Z, adulthood is less about age and more about their personal financial situations.

Most young people (62 percent) do not feel like adults when they turn 18. When asked to define adulthood in their own words, “financial independence” was their top response.

Though their education has set them up for success in other ways, young Americans are not necessarily feeling “life ready” upon graduating.

Only 31 percent said their high school education did a good job teaching them strong financial habits. Of those who attended college, only 41 percent said their college education did a good job imparting those lessons.
Job growth/unemployment (27 percent), health care costs (25 percent) and college affordability/student debt (24 percent) rose to the top as young voters’ top campaign issues in the 2016 presidential election.

Among those with student debt, nearly one in four say it will impact the way they vote “a great deal.”

With worries about finding jobs, uncertainty about the economy AND the stress of student debt, it’s no
wonder young Americans are voting with financial matters on their mind. When voting, the majority of frst
and second time voters in this age group said economic issues (65 percent) were more important to them
than social issues (34 percent) – contrary to popular belief.
When considering presidential candidates, job growth tops the list of the three most important issues
18 to 26 year olds would like to hear candidates’ positions on. Health care costs (25 percent) and
student debt/college affordability (24 percent) follow closely to round out the list of top three issues.

[93henfan]

I normally wouldn't post this for a guy in his 50's whining, but it seems appropriate here. That taste in your mouth is called losing, and you don't get a trophy for it. Things don't always go your way, and you have to deal with it because it's called LIFE. Suck it up buttercup, your woman lost. See ya in 2020.

This is the most awesomist, like, post, like ever. Rully!

Didn't the Valley Girls predate the Millenials, or are they still a thing?

[ASUG8]

This is the most awesomist, like, post, like ever. Rully!

Didn't the Valley Girls predate the Millenials, or are they still a thing?

That was a left coast thing, I wouldn't know.

[CAA Flagship]

This is the most awesomist, like, post, like ever. Rully!

Didn't the Valley Girls predate the Millenials, or are they still a thing?

I would melt with her.

[Ivytalk]

This is the most awesomist, like, post, like ever. Rully!

Didn't the Valley Girls predate the Millenials, or are they still a thing?

Valley girls came first, but their demon seed became the Millennials.