| RolStoppable said: Um, didn't Trump's victory come as a complete surprise to polling? If yes, wouldn't that mean that polls should not be seen as representative of reality? Didn't the stock market only stabilize under Obama because of countless band-aid measures, i.e. printing lots of money and the USA rising its debt at an alarming rate? Basically, doing just a little bit more than the most superficial of an analysis reveals a trajectory that isn't healthy. And of course the main reason for the Democrats' loss: Hillary Clinton. She sucked butt. That's the one fact that matters more than all others, but it gets ignored by the people who are screaming "post-factual world". People who do satire for a living got the gist of it a long time ago: The only candidate that Trump could possibly win against is Clinton. |
Well, first off, national polling had Clinton winning by ~3 point. With the near 3 million vote lead, she won by about 2.5 points. The total polling wasn't wrong. It was just off, slightly, geographically (Trump won because of a measly 80,000 votes in 3 states. And there were many swing voters that things such as the Comey letter could have influence at the last minute that wasn't reflected in the polls). So, the polls were representative like 97% of the way. But, by "going up in the polls", I meant in the primaries and his point spread decreasing against Hillary. He definitely kept sonning the rest of the Republican candidates in the primaries despite all the dumb things he said, and in the general, he kept creeping up against Hillary in the polls, and even overtaking her at one point, before the final exit polls showed him losing by about 3 points, which he did, roughly.
Also, the stock market didn't "stabilize". Did you see the link? It did nothing but go up, up, up. Again, it had "never been higher" earlier this year. If he was just putting bandaids on, the trend would be a flat line, not historic growth.
And Hillary did suck. I certainly accept that. Hell, I didn't even vote for her (I literally voted for myself. I would have put Harambe, but I didn't want to bother his peaceful soul with our trivial problems). But are you telling me that Trump is better? The guy who knows nothing about politics, has flip flopped on not only his campaign promises the moment he won on November 8th, but he's even flipped on Hillary? She "sucked butt", but the guy who kept saying "she's done nothing for 30 years" is the same guy who said, just a few years ago, that Hillary would, at minimum, be go down in history as a great senator. Last I checked, a few years ago was within the last 30 years, so how could she have done nothing for 3 decades but you still said she was a great senator? As much as she "sucked butt", Trump seemed to like her and her 30 years of work before this election.
Actually, lol at that video. He was talking about how much of a great president Bill Clinton was, then during his campaign he did nothing but rag on Bill. NAFTA, one of the things he hated the most this election year and a major talking point of said ragging of Bill Clinton, was still around when he made that comments, and he still said Bill was a great president. Then he flipped on it to get Republican voters. This pathological liar is better than Hillary?
