"Accept the Election" Says Same Supporters Who Cried "Voter Fraud" in 2016

[Dextroden]

Do. You. Have. An. Actual. Point. About. What. I. Originally. Posted?

That crying the election is "unfair" doesn't actually make it so.

Not Trump and co's expecting to lose crying. And not Clinton and co's cry how voting is unfair when you don't win like you were vainly expecting.

- - - Updated - - -

Erm...it wasn't an electoral blowout by any measure. Unless you are talking about actual results vs expected. But he didn't win by some overwhelming EC margin.

Judging by the post election tantrums and calling the EC unfair, it was massive in that way.

[Zomis]

One of the reasons polls were off, they found is that once Trump began screaming that polls were rigged, participation in polling dropped a couple percent - and it was something they didn't account for in their results. People accepting to be polled is only about 10% in the first place, and it dropping 2% is a pretty precipitous decline, 20% of their polling.

So when Trump declared that all polls were biased because they showed Clinton eeking out ahead but still very close, Clinton suddenly gained tremendous leads in the polls.......... because Trumpkins stopped taking the polls, because they felt polling agencies were being dishonest. And thus, since they chose to stop taking those polls, they created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Trump declaring that polls were biased suddenly made the polls biased when they were not in the first place.

It's just that Trump has a tiny ego and hates losing, and his followers listen to everything he says without question.

Do you sleep in a tinfoil hat?

[Lenonis]

That crying the election is "unfair" doesn't actually make it so.

Not Trump and co's expecting to lose crying. And not Clinton and co's cry how voting is unfair when you don't win like you were vainly expecting.

I seriously think at this point you have some argument in your head you are arguing with that doesn't resemble what I actually posted. Because what you are posting and what I posted have almost no connection.

So...unless you want to try one last time I'm just going to smile and nod and move on to posts I can actually see the connection to.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Do you sleep in a tinfoil hat?

There's nothing tinfoil about that theory. Admittedly, we can't be sure that's what happened or if that was the only reason, but it fits the facts we know and help explains the discrepancy.

[Lenonis]

I am speaking of observed vs expected results, yes. That said, I would say 304 is decisive.

Ah, yes. What's interesting about it is there are a few ways to cut the election results which can be used to push a different narrative:

304 EC Trump vs 227 EC Clinton
65,853,16 votes cast for Clinton vs 62,984,825 votes cast for Trump
Or, 107,000 votes ultimately decided the win for Trump (if you look at the margin in the swing states that ultimately pushed Trump over 270)

And, honestly, if people looked at the poling right up to election, Clinton wasn't running with some blowout lead. The whole deal with Comey and the Wikileaks really ate into her numbers. I think a lot of folks are thinking about earlier on when Clinton was just dominating the polls.

I mean this shows the tightening of the race before the election:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5491.html

[Nadiru]

Ah, yes. What's interesting about it is there are a few ways to cut the election results which can be used to push a different narrative:

304 EC Trump vs 227 EC Clinton
65,853,16 votes cast for Clinton vs 62,984,825 votes cast for Trump
Or, 107,000 votes ultimately decided the win for Trump (if you look at the margin in the swing states that ultimately pushed Trump over 270)

And, honestly, if people looked at the poling right up to election, Clinton wasn't running with some blowout lead. The whole deal with Comey and the Wikileaks really ate into her numbers. I think a lot of folks are thinking about earlier on when Clinton was just dominating the polls.

I mean this shows the tightening of the race before the election:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5491.html

Assuming you're talking about the actual swing states that went Trump, the Dem narrative makes sense. It falls apart a bit when you include states like Pennsylvania. The polling showed a tightening of the race, but not to the point where you could extrapolate the observed outcome. Unless, of course, you assume the pollsters are using bad models or are fraudulent, one or the other of these being widely held positions amongst Trump voters. I dunno if the polls were fraudulently conducted or not, but the short of the matter is that states that hadn't voted (R) in a Presidential election for years, in some cases decades, picked up Trump's cause as their own. Strategically, Clinton got spanked.

[Lenonis]

Assuming you're talking about the actual swing states that went Trump, the Dem narrative makes sense. It falls apart a bit when you include states like Pennsylvania. The polling showed a tightening of the race, but not to the point where you could extrapolate the observed outcome. Unless, of course, you assume the pollsters are using bad models or are fraudulent, one or the other of these being widely held positions amongst Trump voters. I dunno if the polls were fraudulently conducted or not, but the short of the matter is that states that hadn't voted (R) in a Presidential election for years, in some cases decades, picked up Trump's cause as their own. Strategically, Clinton got spanked.

I don't think the polls were fraudulent at all. I think there were a number of factors.

First, I think there was a segment of voters who voted for Trump but weren't willing to publicly admit it. I don't know if we'll ever know if this was a sizeable demographic or not, but if definitely exists.

Second, the constant attacks on the legitimacy of polling led some Trump supporters to refuse to participate -- skewing the results. This, again, will not be a measurable quantity.

But probably the most important is polling doesn't predict turnout. And turnout in the last election resulted in Democrats turning out slightly less than usual, but Republicans, especially rural Republicans, turning out more than usual.

Probably the biggest fundamental flaw in this is that somewhere along the way people went from using polling as a piece of information to process as predictions for elections to THE piece of information to process as predictions for elections. Since we have such embarrassing turnout for elections the factor that will always be key is which side can turnout their base more.

I never once said Trump could never win -- between the democratic infighting and the rhetoric used to stir up Trump's base, I never felt comfortable with a Dem victory. And although I thought Clinton would win, I wasn't shocked when Trump did.

But, I feel this needs to be stated again -- although Trump won the GOP lost seats in both the house and the senate. So this was not in any way shape or for a decisive victory for the GOP -- even though they did win the top prize.

[Glorious Leader]

Assuming you're talking about the actual swing states that went Trump, the Dem narrative makes sense. It falls apart a bit when you include states like Pennsylvania. The polling showed a tightening of the race, but not to the point where you could extrapolate the observed outcome. Unless, of course, you assume the pollsters are using bad models or are fraudulent, one or the other of these being widely held positions amongst Trump voters. I dunno if the polls were fraudulently conducted or not, but the short of the matter is that states that hadn't voted (R) in a Presidential election for years, in some cases decades, picked up Trump's cause as their own. Strategically, Clinton got spanked.

She lost 3 key states by less than a 1%. Only in trumps ego is that a blow out.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Do you sleep in a tinfoil hat?

Rofl, it sounds silly, but then you place it beside the actual conspiracy - that polling sites were rigging their results to make Clinton look better, and it doesn't seem so silly after all.

It was a piece on NPR, reported by Ramussen, Gallup, 538, etc. They all went back into their data and noticed a steep decline in poll participation after Trump started declaring that all polls that didn't show him winning were fake and biased. The Trump voters removed themselves from the pool, making the "Polls are biased!" a reality, since it had under participation from the Trumpkins.

Let me ask you this, knowing you're an avid, zealous, drooling Trump fan that believes everything he says. If one of those companies called you up, would you take their poll, or would you assume your answer was going to be warped and not recorded accurately to try and boost Hillary Clinton and sway votes?

[callipygoustp]

Why does the Right keep talking about an election they won ~7 months ago?

(No need to answer, its rhetorical)

[Nadiru]

But, I feel this needs to be stated again -- although Trump won the GOP lost seats in both the house and the senate. So this was not in any way shape or for a decisive victory for the GOP -- even though they did win the top prize.

The GOP isn't Trump, and conflating the two is dangerous; the GOP might work with him in a way they wouldn't with Obama, but in my opinion nobody in Congress is Trump's friend until actions prove otherwise. Regardless of losses in '16, there aren't enough seats up for election in '18 that the Dems have a viable chance of providing a counterbalance to the GOP, and that's a best-case scenario. If the Democrats lose seats in the House and Senate in the midterms, then they're going to be locked out of power for two decades because 2018 is the last Congressional shift before a census year. Dems are going to have to put up a (D) candidate in deep red districts and have them win, just to avoid being locked out of power on a systemic level, which I don't wanna see even as someone who leans right because one-party countries are un-American.

[Runenwächter]

If alchemy was a real thing I'd come here to harvest condensed pettyness for my potions. But its not real, so it is kind of pointless, isnt it?

The questions posed in the op are not helpfull to shed light on the matter. A vote can be skewed in favour of someone, while not being completely rigged. And you can even lose such a vote. Primarily by carelessness and excessive hubris. While some saw something they hated in trump, others saw a wildcard or even a slim chance for a change towards good. Some would rather believe a clownisch oaf of a man, than a woman who was the poster child for moral and ethical flexibility.

Trump and his campaigners were professionals. Hillary should have led her campaign like a professional, but she didnt. Infighting was prevalent, her support network suffered breakdowns and delays at critical times and no amout of experience and demonstrated knowledge in politics on Hillaries part could make up for that.
Her system was wreaked by her own distrust for her people and burdend by the chain of command that led to more than one unfortunate incident. She herself was her own support networks autoimmunse disease.

It was a sad affair but can we look forward now and let it go some time soon please?

[Lenonis]

The GOP isn't Trump, and conflating the two is dangerous

At the same time you can't entirely separate them either. Trump won as the GOP nominee. No matter how much the GOP may wish otherwise, Trump is the leader of the GOP right now.

there aren't enough seats up for election in '18 that the Dems have a viable chance of providing a counterbalance to the GOP

2018 is a longshot for the dems for sure, especially in the Senate. But as the recent special elections have shown the pendulum is swinging back and hard. It's incredibly likely the GOP will continue to lose seats (which makes it that much harder to pass anything) but will the dems get the house or senate back? Unlikely, but not impossible.

If the Democrats lose seats in the House and Senate in the midterms, then they're going to be locked out of power for two decades because 2018 is the last Congressional shift before a census year.

That's not quite right. If the Democrats lose governors and sets in state congresses they will be locked out. The House and the Senate don't draw districts, states do. The Democrats could lose every seat in the house but if they win power in the individual states they'll be able to gerrymander in their favor.

Dems are going to have to put up a (D) candidate in deep red districts and have them win, just to avoid being locked out of power on a systemic level, which I don't wanna see even as someone who leans right because one-party countries are un-American.

Democrats concentrating in urban areas in a problem for them, especially in the house. However let's not forget that it wasn't so long ago that the Dems controlled the house. It's not like it's impossible for them to regain control.

[Nadiru]

At the same time you can't entirely separate them either. Trump won as the GOP nominee. No matter how much the GOP may wish otherwise, Trump is the leader of the GOP right now.

2018 is a longshot for the dems for sure, especially in the Senate. But as the recent special elections have shown the pendulum is swinging back and hard. It's incredibly likely the GOP will continue to lose seats (which makes it that much harder to pass anything) but will the dems get the house or senate back? Unlikely, but not impossible.

That's not quite right. If the Democrats lose governors and sets in state congresses they will be locked out. The House and the Senate don't draw districts, states do. The Democrats could lose every seat in the house but if they win power in the individual states they'll be able to gerrymander in their favor.

Democrats concentrating in urban areas in a problem for them, especially in the house. However let's not forget that it wasn't so long ago that the Dems controlled the house. It's not like it's impossible for them to regain control.

(R) Governors outnumber (D)s by over 2:1. Redistricting will be a bloodbath if the Supreme Court doesn't rule against partisan redistricting in 2017. State legislatures are even more heavily skewed:


I really can't overstate how badly the Democrats have fucked themselves.

[Slant]

It makes you look silly to talk about ego soothing like it's an activity that's beneath you when you behaved like the exact same kind of small child Trump did.

Trying to prosecute someone 8 times without success only to keep saying she's guilty regardless of 8 acquittances, that is being silly. :P

[LaserSharkDFB]

(R) Governors outnumber (D)s by over 2:1. Redistricting will be a bloodbath if the Supreme Court doesn't rule against partisan redistricting in 2017. State legislatures are even more heavily skewed:


I really can't overstate how badly the Democrats have fucked themselves.

I love how you're outright stating 'Republicans will win because they get to game the system and not because their policies are better'. And somehow that's the Dems' fault.

S'okay, though. Trump's doing an amazing job unfucking things for them.

[Kiri]

What if I told you that I'm a Trump supporter who would've accepted the outcome of the election regardless?

And since I'm cool like that I'll even give my take on the opponent question: anti-Trumpers never thought in a million years that it would be the electoral blowout that the election turned out to be. From that position where victory is assured, why not push the position that the elections are free and fair? I'm glad it blew up in everybody's pompous faces, honestly. Any candidate who banks on a captive voterbase as hard as Clinton did deserves the spite vote against them.

I actually think that the GOP is much better at holding voters captive with the whole Gerrymandering stuff (not that Dems don't do it, it is just mostly Reps the last few years). Taking a voterbase for granted is stupid, yeah. Gaming the system to make people's voice against you irrelevant is more sinister.

[Glorious Leader]

I love how you're outright stating 'Republicans will win because they get to game the system and not because their policies are better'. And somehow that's the Dems' fault.

S'okay, though. Trump's doing an amazing job unfucking things for them.

Theirs an excellent documentary about republican agent provacteur (his self description) roger stone on netflix. I recommend people watch it to get an idea about the overall republican mentality and that is do whatever it takes to win.

That map shows you what you get when you have a party committedto winning, backed by the wealthiest and richest people with no scrupples or morals. It would be admirable if they werent so despicable.

[Daelak]

Assuming you're talking about the actual swing states that went Trump, the Dem narrative makes sense. It falls apart a bit when you include states like Pennsylvania. The polling showed a tightening of the race, but not to the point where you could extrapolate the observed outcome. Unless, of course, you assume the pollsters are using bad models or are fraudulent, one or the other of these being widely held positions amongst Trump voters. I dunno if the polls were fraudulently conducted or not, but the short of the matter is that states that hadn't voted (R) in a Presidential election for years, in some cases decades, picked up Trump's cause as their own. Strategically, Clinton got spanked.

It wasn't because of "fraudulently conducted" polls, it was due to the specificity of the targeting by Russian misinformation in Pennsylvania, etc. that no poll could account for.

[Darkeon]

People get upset and cry foul when "their team" loses. More news at 11.