General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Survey finds Hillary Clinton has 'more than 99% chance' of winning election over Donald Trump"
From November 5, 2016
Always remember this was what we knew as fact going into the last election.
Don't let your guard down.
He still has 80-90% popularity among Republicans and is widely considered honest and reliable by them.
for reference:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-princeton-election-consortium-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-victory-a7399671.html
IcyPeas
(21,904 posts)I wish they'd stop using them.
Amishman
(5,559 posts)PA's last set of polls averaged to only a 2% lead, within the margin of error.
The polls were normalized using projections based on prior recent elections, and were surprised by rural turnout well in excess of prior results. Pollsters have adjusted their models accordingly.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,110 posts)DSandra
(999 posts)And thats if we survive the full onslaught of the pandemic...
Literally, if we dont win in November, hundreds of thousands if not millions will die.
triron
(22,020 posts)SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)They literally changed the votes by hacking the machines.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)stopdiggin
(11,361 posts)beyond , "Well, statistically just doesn't make sense." or "Well, my BIL in MI said .." or "Could have happened, so why wouldn't they?"
Like .. real forensic evidence of changed vote tallies?
Then, be my guest ... Otherwise -- it's just one more FB conspiracy game.
(Clinton won the popular vote -- that much is correct.)
lostnfound
(16,189 posts)SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)I believe the tallies or boring machines in certain counties in Penn, Mich, and Wiscy were manually changed by Russians.
The margin was close enough to be believable.
But Hillary won. Just by not enough to avoid the ratFucking.
We will wipe the republicans off the map by such a massive tsunami no amount of cheating will help them this time.
planetc
(7,833 posts)ProfessorGAC
(65,168 posts)Also, PINO was an unknown political commodity.
He is now fully known. His incompetence is manifest to average Americans.
I understand the "don't count your chickens" sentiment, but I don't think comparing 2016 to 2020 is valid.
Besides, quite obviously opinions varied. This is a snip from Newsweek, November 1, 2016.
What about Tuesday's forecasts? FiveThirtyEight says Trump now has more than a 25 percent chance of winning the election, while Clinton's chances have dropped to 74.1 percent. For Clinton, it's a more than 10 percent dip since last Tuesday, when she had an 85 percent chance of victory. It's also a four point decrease from Monday, when she had a 78.9 percent chance of winning.
Per this, it was NOT a 99% chance of HRC winning, and she only had a 2.2% poll lead. She won the popular vote by around 2.5%. (3 million votes more than PINO)
Hence, I don't think the comparison works!
stopdiggin
(11,361 posts)and Clinton was hemorrhaging support. Election was still a surprise (on several different fronts) -- but not nearly as much as the popular narrative would have had it.
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)I think that poll changing was independents frightened away bc of Comeys October surprise bullshit.
stopdiggin
(11,361 posts)ran a pretty good social media campaign -- that allowed a lot of Americans to rediscover (and express!) their inner assh*le.
(and incidentally -- that was done by 99% US citizens vs 1% Russian shit stirring)
CanonRay
(14,113 posts)Telling people that Trump had no chance.
BannonsLiver
(16,448 posts)So was I. Over 2 weeks got asked about the election by everyone from taxi drivers to museum guides. I told them the same thing, and it never seemed like they believed what I was telling them. Maybe they knew something I didnt.