It does kinda amaze me just how much the butthurt squad combs over my posts for details they can throw out there in lieu of being intelligent enough to actually argue tbh.

Posts: 107,477 (35.4 per day)
it requires no effort to find some part of your existence you cried about yesterday, unlike your daily epic quest to make down the stairs each morning.

e: obligatory - thanks for all the fucking laughs today!!!!!!!

This post was edited by excellence on Nov 15 2016 07:51pm

That's a lot for the fans to sift through tbh, but you keep up the hard work.

There's no confusion on the financial dynamic of the Senate elections this year: the NRSC depleted their funds by attacking ("defining") Democratic candidates early, and then the GOP relied almost exclusively on billionaire-funded Super PACs down the stretch when the NRSC was tapped out.

It's an advantage the GOP has had dating back to the 2010 elections and the Dems still haven't found a way to navigate it. The one-time spending advantage that Clinton had over Trump didn't extend down the ballot; the Senate Leadership Fund and One Nation (and their state-specific offshoots like "Granite State Solutions") outspent Senate Majority PAC considerably, just like the other conservative Super PACs and 501c4s did to comparable Democratic-supporting groups.



HfA had the race for 270 "close" for practically the entire course of the election from Apr-Nov; that's one of the reasons I continuously tried to impart on people that "real" polls don't move up and down (or back and forth, whichever you prefer) in the way that people were seeing the public polls move. HfA was consistently ahead in the campaign by about 2-5 points, and I think by the time the West Coast is counting she's likely to end up with a popular vote win of ~2% for whatever that's worth, almost identical to what they would have expected when you factor in Trump's overperformance in rural areas. (HfA didn't do a national tracking poll for the entirety of the campaign).

They always had PA close, that's one reason that the campaign never cut its ad buy there in the way that they stopped advertising in CO/VA in mid-July. They even ended up getting the numbers they were hoping for from the 4 big Philadelphia suburbs counties; HfA's problem was that Trump did better in the rural counties than they or he expected, and that made up just enough for 100k difference. WI was a product of the states' GOP voter suppression law hitting their supporters in Milwaukee County harder. It was HfA's worst polling state and the Trump rural/Clinton urban performance only magnified the problem, and that combined with the law restricting 60k of their likely voters was just enough to flip the state by ~30k votes. MI was the other state where their polling was spottier. The campaign had put a lot of resources there expecting Trump to make it a battleground but they only visited in the final week to make sure AA turnout would hit the expected share. It was ~10k votes too small. HfA's polling was much stronger in the southwest and southeast.

its worth nothing
Hillary->! (C)linton always wins the popular vote cuz it doesnt matter - see the 2008 primaries
President Obama has already heavily criticized (C)linton for being too fucking lazy to campaign in the areas that voted for him twice and now voted for Trump. keep blaming others for her ineptitude like a good little partisan hack!!!!!!!

obligatory: thanks for the another howler - and a fucking laugh!!!!

The "financial dynamic" does not change the fact that Democrat vote totals fell in 2016, or that you're blaming the losses on Republican spending when in fact it was driven by low enthusiasm at the top of the ticket.

This is completely true and there are other problems with polling such as a husband not wanting to answer "Trump" with his wife in the room when they call

he spent most of the cycle bragging about Hillary->!'s fundraising ability anyway
maybe he has a point (for once in his pathetic post history) - Democrats don't know how to spend properly since their :only: strategy (other than call the other side a racist sexist misogynist xenophobe deplorable) is to throw money at problems like a lotto winner in a strip club.

or people telling the pollster to shove it and hanging up, that usually counts as a solid vote for (C)linton

Wb, I remember you saying awhile ago Trump had at least a 33% chance to win.

What do you think the Clinton campaign could have done differently to avoid the current outcome.

This post was edited by obisent on Nov 17 2016 11:00am

Abandon being corporate shills.