"Brexit Times Five" - Trump, on U.S. Election Result

Trump still in your head?

He's driving you crazy. Don't even try to deny it. A fringe Alpha white man who openly fights back against liberal bullies and the establishment, how could he ever have gotten this far? How could he have re-legitimized nationalism and populism? Its got you shaken to the core.
 
Trump still in your head?

He's driving you crazy. Don't even try to deny it. A fringe Alpha white man who openly fights back against liberal bullies and the establishment, how could he ever have gotten this far? How could he have re-legitimized nationalism and populism? Its got you shaken to the core.

:confused:
 
Trump a populist? You're not too bright, are you? He's made a chump of you.
 

You do realize this is part of the establishment strategem, to dissuade voters from showing up, right? You do know that not only is NBC one of the many bought & paid for, but several anchors were coaching Hillary on how to appear human, and that was only for Bernie, right?
So you're bragging about a sociopath egomaniac's transparent media psyops to sway undecideds from even showing up.

How wrong does it feel, knowing you are the middling result of Orwellian predictions?
 
BTW I just had to quick check for a sec, how much money has NBC & it's parent corp given to Hillarity? I've only found $75Mil so far.

Oh yeah, and three talking heads having text message convo's with her.
 
BTW I just had to quick check for a sec, how much money has NBC & it's parent corp given to Hillarity? I've only found $75Mil so far.

Oh yeah, and three talking heads having text message convo's with her.

Rupert Murdoch has given her money too. Lots of it.
 
The polls for Brexit indicated that the result would be close and all the polls had disclaimers that because Brexit was a one-off event the margin of error was much larger than it would be for a repeating event such as a General Election.

They said they didn't really know, and had no historical trends to inform the results of the polls.

That wouldn't be true for a US Presidential Election. Those running the polls know that there is a historic pattern of voting state by state. Some states would vote for anyone with a Republican label; some for anyone with a Democrat label - even if the sky was falling.

The Brexit vote was essentially unpredictable. Those voting stay and those voting leave didn't fit into political party divisions. Those communities that received most money from Europe tended to vote to leave. Those who received least tended to vote to stay. It was a pollsters' nightmare.

The difference between the polls and the results was within the margins of error because those margins were so large. Essentially the pollsters for Brexit were saying "Fuck knows! Toss a coin - it'll be just as accurate".

They did get some things right. They predicted that Scotland would vote to remain.

But claiming the Brexit effect for a US Presidential Election is wishful thinking. There are far more known factors.
 
Let's see if I have this straight. The mainstream media that gave Tromp billions of bucks worth of free advertising are against him. The media owners who'll benefit from his tax 'plans' conspire against him. Of course, all the employees and contractors and investors he's screwed over the decades are against him. Everyone who disagrees with him is actively conspiring against him. The richest people in the world, like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Carlos Slim, are conspiring against him. All except fervent Trompsters are un-indicted co-conspirators. Is that about it?
 
You do realize this is part of the establishment strategem, to dissuade voters from showing up, right? You do know that not only is NBC one of the many bought & paid for, but several anchors were coaching Hillary on how to appear human, and that was only for Bernie, right?
So you're bragging about a sociopath egomaniac's transparent media psyops to sway undecideds from even showing up.

How wrong does it feel, knowing you are the middling result of Orwellian predictions?

You don't believe women should have the vote, you cunt, your opinions are meaningless.
 
This bait is getting WAY more effective.

Reality must be sinking in for the deplorables.

Let us pray for them. :rose:
 
This is the drum that AJ has been beating for weeks now -- that "all the polls" said that Leave was doomed; therefore Trump is going to win. The British polls said no such thing.
 
This is the drum that AJ has been beating for weeks now -- that "all the polls" said that Leave was doomed; therefore Trump is going to win. The British polls said no such thing.

Re-imagining facts is the signature philosophy of the deplorables. :)
 
Re-imagining facts is the signature philosophy of the deplorables. :)
Facts? FACTS?! We don't need no stinking FACTS!!!

We have Alex Jones, Breitbart, and Tromp. Ain't that enough?
 
This is the drum that AJ has been beating for weeks now -- that "all the polls" said that Leave was doomed; therefore Trump is going to win. The British polls said no such thing.

Exactly. Despite the media headlines for each poll on Brexit, the pollsters really said "We have no fucking clue" and were indulging in wailing and gnashing of teeth about the decline of their industry.

They couldn't predict the result except that it would be close, and which way it would go was within the realm of uncertainty.

Even British General Elections are getting difficult for the pollsters to predict. The people they interview sometimes lie - shock! horror! - and the influence of UKIP was unpredictable. The pollsters knew UKIP couldn't gain many Westminster MPs but votes for UKIP could wreck the contests between Conservatives and Labour.

Brexit was a one-off. It can't be used to predict a US Presidential Election. It can't be used to predict any normal contest. The reasons people voted to stay or to leave the EU were multiple and complex. They weren't as simple as the media suggested. The vote wasn't about leaving Europe. It was about whether to leave the flawed European project.

But:

Did we trust the EU institutions?
Did we want free movement of people within the EU with NO control at all?
Did we want NO immigration? (Whichever way we voted we wouldn't get that.)
Did we want to kick Mr Junker in the balls?
Did we trust Mr Junker to look out for UK interests?
Did we hate (insert European country of your choice)?

The answer for these two questions is the same:

Did we believe those campaigning to leave?
Did we believe those campaigning to remain?

The answer? They were all lying through their teeth. :D
 
This is the drum that AJ has been beating for weeks now -- that "all the polls" said that Leave was doomed; therefore Trump is going to win. The British polls said no such thing.

Prove it.

I've talked only about betting pools and the Luntz survey.
 
PS - See my last post in the second incarnation of the this is how Trump can win thread for my comments on Luntz.
 
The Walloons in Belgium appear to have scuttled the Canada Europe trade deal. If Europe cannot make a trade deal with a country like Canada with it's very European values and bending over backwards to get this deal done, how is it to get any deals done with Britain, a much larger trade partner?

This deal was supposed to be the blueprint for a US Europe deal. Doubt that will happen now. Protectionist Trump, capitalist free trader Republicans or wishy washy Democrats.
 
I read recently that the problem with the EU is getting anyone to agree on anything without a quid pro quo (and this was within the context of international security).
 
PS - See my last post in the second incarnation of the this is how Trump can win thread for my comments on Luntz.

Predicting the result of a US Presidential Election is based on known statistical science.

Unless the margin is close the polls should reflect what would actually happen on polling day.

BUT - things can go wrong at the last minute. An example:

Back in the 1930s my father was persuaded to stand for election to his local City Hall. He was standing in an area that his party had no chance of winning. The ruling party had recorded at least 65% of the vote in all previous contests. My father's party had reached 27% as their best a decade earlier. He was just standing so that seat wouldn't be uncontested. Neither he nor his party would campaign seriously - concentrating their efforts on seats that might possibly win.

But the sitting councillor was named as the co-respondent in a messy divorce case the week before the election. This was the 1930s in a 'respectable middle-class suburb'. The reaction against him was massive, so much so that there had to be three recounts before my father lost by four votes - to his relief. He didn't want to be a councillor. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top