Posted on 02/06/2017 7:07:29 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
By one measure, Wisconsin was the most important state in the nation in November. According to FiveThirtyEight’s tipping-point calculation, it was the state that put Donald Trump over the top to 270 electoral votes and the White House. (Or at least arguably it did: Pennsylvania has a competing tipping-point claim.1
) So here’s an interesting question: How many times did Hillary Clinton visit Wisconsin during the general election? The answer: Zip, zilch, nada. She didn’t set foot in the Badger State after losing the Democratic primary there to Sen. Bernie Sanders in April.2
So, case closed, right? Clinton had an incompetent Electoral College strategy and maybe even blew the election because of it? Well, yes and no. She probably should have campaigned in a broader range of states. In particular, she should have spent more time in states, such as Wisconsin, where she was narrowly leading in polls but that had the potential to flip to Trump if the election tightened, as it did during the final 10 days of the campaign.
This very probably didn’t cost Clinton the election, however — and the importance of Electoral College tactics is probably overstated in general. I’m going to save that discussion for the next article in this series, but in the meantime … I come in praise of Trump’s Electoral College approach and in criticism of Clinton’s. Indeed, Trump was pretty close to having an optimal Electoral College strategy as judged by our tipping-point calculation. Clinton made a couple of mistakes, meanwhile. So did campaign reporters, who usually lauded Clinton’s strategy while maligning Trump’s, making essentially the same errors that the Clinton campaign did.
Which states did the candidates consider to be most important? Perhaps the best gauge is simply where Clinton and Trump spent their time....
(Excerpt) Read more at fivethirtyeight.com ...
I hope we can; I think racial/gender identity politics played a role in her loss as well (where people enamored with what they believed Obama stood for simply didn’t see it in her, so without a person “of color” on the ticket they wouldn’t support it). Also, the Hispanics to whom Democrats have pandered often have a macho culture where few men would vote for a woman; no surprise Trump got about 30% of them...
They will work 24/7 to undermine Trump (and more importantly, what his hard-working, tax-paying base represents), but they’re going to have a hard time if people can see visible improvement. The 2016 race was as much a reflection of Obama as Hillary because for 8 years people saw no visible indication of economic improvement.
Men are the creators and innovators and developers. Men are problem solvers at the core. Always been our innate talent/ability.
Women may gestate a baby, but men make the world worth living in through our inherent natural problem solving abilities.
************************************************************
What Nature intended for women they do well. And while there are always exceptions, in the main women are too emotional in their approach to problem solving which costs them any sustained ability to be pragmatic (as you said).
Yes I agree to some extent. That is what that evidence points to but it is hard to know for sure what was in her head so to speak. She did state on the morning after that the loss was hard to take. I think she may have had an inkling but it was like knowing a loved one is about to die and when the death actually happens it is still a shock regardless of any foreknowledge.
They still won’t admit that the reason Hillary lost is....no one likes her!
She could’ve campaigned her heart out in those states and still lost.
According to Nate, Hillary still has a 52.7% chance of being elected President in 2016.
Notice those women magically disappeared when their false claims were going nowhere. Whatever happened to that one who claim Trump assaulted her at age 13? Also, while on the subject of frivolous accusations, what happened to the big, blockbusting video from Tom Arnold?
This is a great data piece to shove in the faces of those libs who still cling to the laughable idea of a Russian intrusion into the electoral process.
My question is:
Will the American public EVERY know the truth about just how ill Hillary was/is?
not what I said. not what anyone said. try to focus.
the post I took exception with contained the phrase “He (referring to all men in general) just got sick of this insolent woman crap”.
My post was directed at post #9 and I am quite focused, thanks anyway.
Predicted Nate Silver would be in a straightjacket by the end of the election.
To be clear, I didnt do any comparisons as to why women are not the big problem solvers. Everyone knows the unique main inherent ability/talent of women. Not everyone knows/recognizes the unique inherent natural ability/strength of men.
Both are needed for civilization.
Stating that it was “hard to take” is not the same as being surprised with the outcome. The media simply pretended it was normal for her to be shucking and jiving for black votes in what should have been 100% Hillary territory; it wasn’t. She was warned blacks weren’t fond of her, even stooping to pretending she carries hot sauce around in her pocketbook to show she was “down with them”...
It’s wonderful to read these. All through the campaign it was just assumed that the Trump campaign was unprofessional and haphazard, and Clinton campaign the height of competence and experience. It turns out very much the opposite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.