Speculation Invited: What if Liberals had NOT believed, pre-Election, that it was In The Bag?

(vanity) | 11/26/2016 | self

[Melian]

I think you’re right that Clinton knew it was very close. Remember they cancelled their firework display the night before the election.

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

I heard they only canceled the fireworks after word leaked out about their plans, likely so as to not appear arrogant to unaffiliated voters, or to appear to their own campaign staff to be jinxing their certain win.

And speaking of the NYPD, did the claims from an unidentified inside source about major anti-HRC revelations found on Huma's Weiner Lap(dance)Top that were to be soon exposed, ever come to fruition?

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

And I should point out that they didn't cancel their post-election fireworks. Rather, they postponed them a coupla days and moved them inside to a DNC meeting chaired by Donna Brassiere.

:-)

[Melian]

Are you saying they did use the fireworks after she lost the election?

And thanks for clarifying that.

[Billthedrill]

Someone had to know. Political campaigns at that level pay ungodly amounts of money for private polling, and Trump's people were obviously convinced that he was going to win. On the Dems' side, their polls must have told someone the truth but whether it wound up in the hands of anyone who could do anything about it is problematic. Everything I've read about the behavior of her and her senior staffers on election night leads me to conclude either that they hadn't received accurate information or that they didn't believe it. Given the personalities involved it couldn't have been welcome information, but they'd been polling for months and somebody must have known.

The conclusion that suggests to me is that not much would have changed; that the nature of the campaign was largely a reflection of the nature of the candidate: arrogant, inflexible, and contemptuous of any opinion not fitting into the grand narrative. Would Hillary have spent less time in private meetings with elite wealthy donors, and more pressing the sweaty palms of the hoi polloi? I don't see it, it just isn't in her. She was running for Queen, not President, and bitterly resentful of being made to run at all.

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

No, I was jokingly referring to a "different type of fireworks" that the DNC triggered just two days afte the election. See this article - DNC Staffer Screams At Donna Brazile For Helping Elect Donald Trump.

Those are the kind of "fireworks" I would pay to see!

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

I was thinking more in terms of what the Leftists in the MSM and Hollywood and colleges might have done differently if they suspected early that HRH HRC might come up short.

If her campaign staff truly did know the truth about the polls, then yes, they would not have acted much differently if bad-news polls (bad for them) were coming out in public. And we can speculate back & forth as to whether her top people really did know the truth early on.

But I just can't believe from the Media Meltdowns I witnessed, that any of the Usual Suspects among the TV Talking Heads actually knew the truth. I firmly believe they really did accept the public polls as gospel truth. And if those polls had been reflecting the realities of the race, I think they would have acted very differently before 11/8. I think we would have seen a slow-building but ultimately greater meltdown from them if it had been extended over many weeks or months pre-Election, as opposed to all at once in the hours of election night.

And what would we have seen from Hollywood or the colleges as desperation set in early while they still (in their own minds) could do something about it, instead of only hearing the awful truth when the election was over and it was too late?

Those are the kinds of speculations I was trying to promote. What kinds of October Surprises and even November Surprises and September Surprises might we have seen? Perhaps there were some on the drawing boards that were axed because they were just too bizarre & outlandish & risky to the perps when weighed against their certainty of a victory regardless of what they did.

[Billthedrill]

Ah, I understand. As for the Hollywood opinion shapers, frankly with very few exceptions they're stupid people, not to be taken seriously. They fancy themselves Field Marshals in the great political wars, but they're barely foot soldiers with vivid imaginations and monstrous egos.

Typically the internal polls are very seldom shared with the media, the critical ones anyway, because it's data around which campaigns twist and turn strategically and the opposition would love to get their hands on it. Nothing is ever really off the record in these Internet-soaked days. The polls the media work with have already been weaponized, that is, the sample carefully shaped to yield the desired result. You can tell this easily by noting from the polls' own internals the degree of oversampling of one demographic or other - a D+18 sampling (yes, I did see one) in a district that if you look it up turns out to be historically only D+5. Are the media smart enough to pick this up? Tragically few, and those who do, know better than to publish it because they'll ruin its effect if they do.

So your question is essentially what they would do if in fact they had the data and could (even backhandedly) acknowledge it. Exposure, I think, and if the candidate were willing to put herself to the demands of large public gatherings. Not paid phony info-tainment campaign commercials on television, few watch them and nobody believes them anyway. Large, open rallies such as Trump ran, every day to show momentum. And at which Hillary was neither willing nor particularly good.

I'm not sure a campaign designed around resentment and hostility would have been flexible enough to suddenly try to include the specific demographic at which much of the hostility was aimed: white, working-class men. Accurate polling would have warned her and I think pretty much everyone was expecting that anyway. But nobody is really going to confuse a temporary cessation of the beatings with any newfound benevolence on Hillary's part.

In short, serious flaws in strategy, in structure, and especially in the candidate doomed them to the course set well before they pulled the rug out from under Bernie's feet. I don't think it was recoverable.

[varyouga]

I voted in Hillary central in NYC and

Her supporters were coming out all confident with the attitude “we already know who’s gonna win! Couldve relaxed at home”

I’ll bet a HUGE amount of the low-info types didn’t even bother to vote hahaha

[Gen.Blather]

Conservatives will vote regardless of how they think their candidate will do.* Liberals only like to vote for winners, so the MSM makes it appear the liberals are winning in the hopes of getting out the vote. However, so many liberals let things happen to them, as opposed to making them happen, that they tend to stay home if it is already in the bag. It’s a no-win for liberals either way. If not for their get-out-the-vote machine and their cheating they would rarely get elected.

There’s a famous photo of a young LBJ posing with his buddies. Between them is a famous “missing” ballot box on the hood of a car. That ballot box is how LBJ got his first political job.

* The reason we have expanded voting days is: A study revealed that if the weather was bad on voting day the conservative candidate would win. This is because conservatives will vote regardless of the weather and personal discomfort. Liberals will not get wet, cold or hot for their candidate.

[Hardastarboard]

Your comments on this thread have made it one of the best I’ve read on FR in a long time. Some very intelligent analysis here.

[LS]

You are closer than you think. I will have lots of details in my new book, e-version only, “How Trump Won” out very soon, perhaps 2 weeks.

[GOPJ]

The Anita Hill / Clarence Thomas fiasco was a low water mark... The press was at their hateful best - as usual - but our side hadn’t created language to counter them. We’re getting better...

[BradyLS]

I’ll bet a HUGE amount of the low-info types didn’t even bother to vote hahaha

That might explain the overall depressed turnout. Some that might have voted for Hillary saw it as a personal war between two rich people and Hillary wasn't offering any encouragement to working families about what they stood to gain. In fact, she told Pennsylvania families that coal mines would be shut down! Gaffe or not, she said that taxes on the middle class would be raised!

Also, Hillary was not a sitting incumbent, though that's the role she cast herself in throughout the campaign. "Secretary Clinton" was on everyone's lips and the sitting Secretary Kerry kept a very low profile the entire time. That's a bad role to be in if the political winds favor change.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“Photos of children all over the world hugging Hillary and playing up the Gramma Clinton angle, eh? Yeah…I can see how that could’ve helped her.”

It would have softened her personality. For those opposed to her it wouldn’t have mattered, but to the squish republicans who the jury was still out on whether Trump would get their vote it could have helped.

This is what happens when you count your chickens before they hatch. Clinton believed in her own press and decided to go all in with “Trump is a p**sy grabber.” She forgot that Trump was a piker compared to Bill.

[logi_cal869]

Based on my review of voter turnout, we can all thank the spineless centrists - who have no conviction - and Assange for swaying them to Trump’s win.

This was FAR from a landslide and should be a red flag for future elections for Conservatives. I’m not chest-thumping...im genuinely worried about who the left and spineless centrists will next elect...