Election Day Poll No. Whatever

Nailed it.

 

I think a lot of it was the campaign Clinton ran. She has assumed from Day 1 that she was entitled to be president, that she should be anointed, because it was her turn and she was a woman, by golly, and she ran her campaign that way from start to finish. She didn't work hard enough for it, presumed too much in too many states, and didn't fire up the marginal liberal-leaning votes in key metro areas. Plus, I suspect that there is more to the health issue than she or anyone else let on during the campaign. I don't think she's particularly well health-wise, and maybe that played into her lack of enthusiasm for the race.

Also, nobody has given Trump credit for the campaign he has run. Early on, he sensed the mood of the country and he played to that mood relentlessly. So what started out as a joke became a movement, and he and his people were right at every step along the way.

 

I cannot disagree with anything in this post.

The fact that she spent zero time campaigning in Wisconsin is being run into the ground by some of the analysts, but I do think such an error/omission is symbolic of the mediocre campaign she ran.

 

Yep. "Presumed too much" is the best way to describe it. A momumental campaign error that pushed Florida, North Carolina, Arizona and Georgia to smaller losing margins while pissing away solidly blue states.

 

I can't blame her for Florida, probably not even N.C. And I don't know how much a spending push in Big 10 country would have helped. You can develop the world's costliest dog food, but if the dogs don't like it ...

 

Any campaign is going to contest Florida. It's not as if it was a blowout there.

 

'64 Phillies.

Had a huge lead, blew it, kept relying on the top stars until they were worn out and suffered losses in Pennsylvania.

 

I don't know about this. There are other factors at play. She was very aggressive in raising money. She outspent Trump in ad buys and people were saying she was burning off campaign funds in the last week to pay for ads in 'solid' states. What else was she supposed to do?

I don't live in a contested state and I would never go to a campaign rally, so my opinion might be skewed. To me it is mostly buying ads and doing Sunday morning interviews, I don't see what her 'work' or 'enthusiasm' has to do with people voting for her. Create a message and attack Trump and she had a staff of a lot of people to do that. What were more rallies going to do? She probably is incapable of showing the level of enthusiasm or personality that people would react to, anyways. She is a poor campaigner because people don't react to her and got exposed by a socialist in the primaries.

From what I can tell, she outraised Trump, outspent him, and had a bigger, better field operation. People rejected her for a set of reasons, but I don't think a lack of hard work and a lack of enthusiasm are part of it.

 

Maybe people don't agree with her policy positions.

 

Well, about half did. Half didn't.

 

The "lead" was a mirage. Every bit as much as the 500+ market tumble at 3 a.m.

A poll is not a scoreboard. If it was, then she won the election, because she won every poll right up until the time that people stopped answering questions and started punching ballots.

 

The national polls were pretty much right