Was Hillary's loss result of campaigning in error?

Are you looking at the most recent one? The very latest one had her at only 272 when Florida flipped to Trump, and you are counting tossups but she only had 203 solid ones and 171 total were tossups.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...ral_college_map_no_toss_ups_race_changes.html

 

By election day, most observers were expecting Trump to win FL and NC.

The only surprises were PA, MI and WI.

 

I can think of one observer who disagreed with you: Ever heard of Andrew Jackson? Look at what he said the day before the election:

Seriously, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

I'm looking at the link I provided in my post that had a slew of EC predictions from all the major press outlets and suchlike.

 

Andrew Jackson...lolz at PA, MI, WI...what happened to "ZERO chance"?

 

PA was a complete tossup there was no way to know either way and the polls had no consensus winner. MI was also a tossup but less so. WI was a complete surprise but wasn't well polled and there were zero polls the week of the election and only two for the week before but it wasn't marked as a tossup.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...rump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5964.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...rump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6008.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...rump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5976.html

 

I'm not sure if you know Statistikhengst but he's a frequent poster who did a number of threads on polling and projected election results. And he's a liberal, so you should have no problems reading his posts. In any event, you can find his final EC prediction right HERE.

He even predicted Hilla would win based on the absolute worst-case scenario. And he had numbers and everything.

 

Those predictions didn't take into account the polls. In fact people were predicting Hillary would win states polling showed that she was probably going to lose.

 

Just because some guy draws out a map doesn't mean its realistic. Also this map doesn't take into account tossups which means 1/3 of these states are wild guesses. And in NC and FL Trump had a razor thin lead in the polls, and in PA and MI while Hillary did lead in the polling average, it wasn't much and the two latest polls had Trump ahead.

 

I could actually accept that conclusion, if only because in effect you're saying that both polling companies and the press as a whole don't have the slightest idea what the **** they're doing.

 

Well, Stat did a number of threads about this; you really should do a search on him and see what his methodology is/was. Click on the link in red; you'll see he did account for swing states. Yeah, he was still as wrong as everyone else but if you're wondering how in the world every polling company and press agency came to the wrong EC conclusion, no one leaves a better statistical trail than Stat in this regard. You can learn just as much from successful people as you can those who failed to get it right, if you see where I'm coming from.

EDIT TO ADD: I'm off to sleep now; I'll continue this tomorrow.

 

Look, polling organizations can't come to the right conclusion with any certainty when 171 voters were in states have leads of less than 5%. In close elections they are educated guesses but what was very clear was that 2016 was a tossup and you simply can't claim the polls said otherwise because they didn't.

 

Those are not the reasons people dislike Hillary. They dislike Hillary because Hillary represents everything that is wrong with American politics. She is the poster child for corrupt, crony, criminal government enterprise for personal gain. The people are tired of it... and it's gonna come to a halt, one way or the other. Trump is no accident. He represents the disdain that the American people have for the status-quo. Hillary, and what she represents, is the reason for Trump.

I will agree with your one point: Biden would have won if he had run. Fortunately for America, the democrats knew that if Biden was in, there would be no way for them to plausibly anoint Hillary the winner of the primary. Biden was convinced that he should sit this one out, because Hillary was already picked as the winner. The democrats needed there to be no competition for her highness, but they did not realize the depth of the hatred people had for the status-quo, which she represents. She was so hated that even Bernie, a self-described socialist, was getting uncomfortably close, and needed to be smacked down, which they colluded with their propaganda outlets to do. Bernie got the message, and bowed out to go luxuriate in his brand new mansion at the beach.

The democrats needed no competition for Hillary, because they knew she was just that bad. Literally anyone on the Republican card could beat her, and they knew it. So, they desperately wanted Trump to be her opponent in the general.... and that's exactly what they got. Hillary was so hated still, that a political nobody came from TV land and wiped the floor with her. She was THAT hated.

 

I agree with all that except for the Biden analysis. He said the death of his son Bo took the wind out of his sails and I believe him.

 

Well, I'm sure that had a lot to do with his decision, but I don't think that was it, at all. I think Biden is smart enough to read the political wind. He knew this was a change election, and that ANY democrat was going to have a really difficult run after 8 years of the Obamapocalypse. He knew that, if he was going to make a run for it as a democrat, 2020 or 2024 would be a much better time to do so. And, he knew that this was Hillary's time, anointed by the DNC ahead of time, and that chances are not good of her even being physically able to make a run in 2020 or beyond. I predict we will see Biden again pretty soon, but not before he thinks he can win big.

 

If Biden is healthy and hardy and up for 2020, I think he should definitely run.

 

I actually like Biden at times. I tend to do okay under any President so am not too worried about it. I'm just afraid that any Democrat will be unable to say "no," to increased illegal immigration, increased asylum for afghans, increased $ benefits.

No is a good word. It's what my parents said when I wanted candy before dinner.

 

Biden represents the status-quo, and the Obamaesque radical-left agenda, and therefore is wholly unacceptible to me. That he can do so in a likable way with a big bright-white smile on his face makes him ever the more dangerous to our liberty.

 

I agree with you, that almost all of the candidates on both sides had no original agenda, and stood for maintaining status quo. All they cared for was to win, they were not thinking of the good of the country. This included Hilary. Bernie was the only one with agenda addressing the well being of the nation and of the people. It was easy for me to discard most of them from my attention, because they lacked presidential substance. But Hillary had all of the required substance, and Bernie was close. But the flaw, the mind-over-powering ambition, in Hillary was too big and too deep for me to ignore.

Trump, like most of our tycoons, has the social attitude of a spider. But the middle and the poor classes, that has sunk deeper in economic pain in the last three decades were vehemently against the business as usual. During this era of greed the rich have become our roll models. And Trump fitted that image of greatness. Therefore, the educationally deprived downtrodden voted for Trump's big talk of making America great again.

High social skills is a prerequisite for any leadership. To be the top leader of a great country demands extreme social interfacing expertise. Having an American president with the social skills of a spider can only be described as an anomaly, a fluke. God works in mysterious ways. This is very likely to be the means he has devised to bring out the cultural revolution brewing in people's heart about curtailing the injustice of distribution of wealth. Actually the rest of the world is not far behind in this feeling, and therefore, once ignited, the fire of this cultural revolution will sweep all around the democratic world quickly.

 

I can because they all did. ALL of them did. You can see for yourself; anyone can, that they were ALL predicting the EC would go one way when in reality it went the other. If it were really as close as you say, you'd think someone would have assumed the EC going towards Trump; at least a third of the polls would have predicted a Trump win- but they ALL assumed a Hilla win based on a close poll? Not buying it. They were all - and I mean ALL - erring on the side of a Clinton win? There's only four possible conclusions that can be drawn from this: 1) These companies either have no clue what they're doing - or 2) they were engaging in magical/wishful thinking - or 3) there was collusion between them all - or 4) they were attempting to throw the election to Hilla by saying her election was inevitable, so vote for the winning team, guys.

I personally think in was a combination of 2 and 4. 3 is highly unlikely, but the possibility exists. I believe Stat's poll, as well as Andrew Jackson's statement is representative of the polling industry as a whole: That their attitude as they were concluding how the tight races would go was that the worst-case scenario for Hilla was that she would win - and then using that philosophy, concluded how the pieces would fall into place. Basically, they started with the conclusion that Hilla would win, THEN analyzed the polling data so that it matched their schema.

I believe that they had the same attitude Andrew Jackson has - that when it comes to polling data, that they believe, as Andrew did, that they are Nostradamus. They have that kind of pride. And we all know what pride goes before.

You know, I believe that to a point. But I also believe that Hilla - likely thru Debbie Wasserman-Schultz - told Joe in no uncertain terms to stay out or else. On a personal basis, what happened with Bo was the reason he didn't run, but on a professional basis I believe Hilla did everything they could to keep Biden out because he was a clear and credible threat to her getting the nom. And c'mon, as nutty as Biden is, he would have handily taken the nom and likely beaten Trump pretty soundly.

 

That'll leave a mark, ouch. Nostradamus was awash in vagueness and predictable generalities, kind of like weathermen years ago or maybe even ALGORE who said fish would be swimming in the streets of Miami. lol

 

I think the fact that Hillary's campaign didn't even go to swing states like Pennsylvania was a big mistake. It's like she assumed that states that voted for Obama would vote for her, and that's not okay. They are called swing states for a reason.

There's also the fact that her whole campaign strategy was basically "Trump is racist," or "Trump is a xenophobe," or "Trump is bad." Voters don't care about that. The only thing that matters to them are jobs and the economy. There are many in America that still feel the effects of the Great Recession, so they want a candidate with a strong, economic plan and message. Hillary's platform failed to do that when all they cared about was Trump.

I'm not a Trump supporter by any means, but
the truth is that Hillary was just not a good candidate.

 

Hillary acted as if she had the election in the bag. That's the moment she lost the election.

 

So you were ok withClinton being appointed, instead of the normal democratic process that's used to elect presidential nominees. And, It's Bernie voter's fault that the DNC got caught trying to rig the election. Wow, Got it.

The election is over. Even most of the insiders agree that Hillary ran one of the most incompetent campaigns in modern history, blaming Sanders, or the Russians is plain childish.

 

You are correct, my brother.

From the time she lost the nom to Obama in 2008, she felt "entitled" to the '16 nom.

Sadly, her sense of "entitlement" scared Biden away. (And Biden, as a popular sitting VP could've probably walked into the White House (ala GHWB in 1988.)).

The tragedy, of course, was that the egregious mistake that the Dems made in nominating a candidate with Hillary's "baggage" didn't become apparent until after 2 AM (EST).

Biden could've walked into the White House.

I really believe that Hillary should've picked Bernie for her VP. Given the razor-thin margin--Bernie as VP could've tipped it to Hillary.

Instead she picked a sad sack like Tim Kaine (who had all of the charisma of a wet blanket wallflower).

Hillary (and the Dem Party) Effed-Up (BIG Time).

And granted, I am merely stating the obvious (and it all goes without saying).