The 2016 U.S. Presidential election is a mirror image of UK Brexit referendum. This election is an epitome of struggle between the ordinary people against the establishment. Mainstream Media massively antagonized Brexit and almost all polls predicted that Brexit will lose during the referendum - they were all wrong. Hillary Clinton's big chunk of her campaign funds came from big donors or super PACs in contrast to Donald Trump grassroot contributions. Trump supporters are more enthusiastic, drawing massive crowds during his campaign rally compared to anaemic orchestrated Clinton rally. This US Presidential election is Brexit all over again.
Except it isn't. The US presidential election isn't a mirror of the UK Brexit referendum. As much as Republicans want it to be the case, it just isn't. The Brexit polling was split. That's not the case with the US presidential polling. Most polling, especially all the credible polling are showing Trump failing and failing big time. This is more similar to 2012 when again all the reputable polling showed the Republican candidate failing. So Republicans invented their own the Republican always wins polling. Since we don't have a President Romney, I think it safe to say that strategy didn't work for them, and there is no reason to expect it will work any better for Republicans this time around.
Certainly, this is the latest Republican Great White Hope. They have had many and each hope has failed. It will be no different this time.
As for small donations, Hilary has received 82 million dollars in small dollar grass roots donations. In contrast Trump has received 59 million dollars in small grass root donations. So, truthfully, Hilary has received more small dollar grass roots donations than Trump. And let's not forget, Trump has a number of billionaire donors and superpac friends including the hedge fund mogul Robert Mercer who have not only funded Trump to the tune of millions of dollars but also supplied him with his senior campaign staffers, e.g. Kellyanne Conway.
@zweinull Well here is the thing about that, Republicans offered that same excuse in 2012. How well did that work out for Republicans in 2012? :) It didn't, because it wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.
And it's foolish to believe any of the Wikileaks material given there is evidence Russia has falsified these documents and the documents haven't been vetted. If these Wiki documents were real and damaging, they would have been released long before the final days of the election cycle allowing time or a proper vetting, but they weren't.
I would say the "mirror image" will be the wrong indication. it is the anchoring effect.
there is no situation that is the same. especially it is non-linear.
If the Wikileaks documents were false, then Hillary's team would have pounded on those discrepancies. They haven't. They pretend the documents do not exist, much like they pretended that the e-mails she deleted were not relevant.
In terms of 2012, you had an incumbent president, who will always be difficult to beat. In terms of each candidate, Obama was very focused on his grassroots efforts and support, while Mitt Romney was seen as the candidate of Wall Street and big Corporations. This is relevant, because the sides have been switched. Trump is running as the candidate of the people and running his campaign similar to Obama in 2008. Both Obama and Trump use a significantly smaller network of paid campaign workers than Clinton does currently and did in 2008. Instead they focused on drawing large crowds at their speaking events. Clinton is running a campaign very similar to Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign. Her close relationship with Wall Street, big Corporations, and foreign governments makes her a very similar candidate to Mitt Romney. While 2012 is certainly relevant, a comparison to 2008 is more relevant, because there is not an incumbent President running for re-election.
@zweinull Well, here is the thing about that, Wikileaks is releasing tens of thousands of documents each day. As previously pointed out, there isn't enough time in the day to vet all of them or any significant portion of them. And without vetting, how can Hilary's team honestly deny or confirm them? They can't, and that's kind of the point. That's why Russia is releasing them at this late hour. But even so, Hilary's team was able to deny some of them and show they were altered by Russian sources.
Unfortunately for Republicans and Trumpians, Russia's document dump isn't credible. No one is saying the documents don't exist. What people are saying is the veracity of the documents is in doubt, because alterations have been found in some of those documents and because the documents were dumped at this late hour by a foreign power who is attempting to influence this election.
As for 2012, Obama's incumbency had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that all the credible polling showed Obama winning the election and Republicans denied the polling and instead created their own "Republicans always win" polling which always told Republicans exactly what they wanted to hear. It didn't work then and it won't work now. Nothing has switched in that regard. We are talking about polling results, not elections.
I don't know how you can honestly say Hilary is running a campaign "similar to Mitt Romney". There is nothing similar about Hilary's campaign and Romney's 2012 campaign. All campaigns are financed by close relationships with Wall Street. Trump's principal backers the Mercers are Wall Street insiders. Close relationships with foreign governments is generally a good thing. Being a vassal of a hostile power, e.g. Trump, is another story. But there is no evidence of that on either Hilary or Romney's part. And finally, incumbency just isn't relevant to a discussion on polling accuracy.
As previously pointed out the Brexit polling was divided. That's not the case here.
The 2016 U.S. Presidential election is a mirror image of UK Brexit referendum. This election is an epitome of struggle between the ordinary people against the establishment. Mainstream Media massively antagonized Brexit and almost all polls predicted that Brexit will lose during the referendum - they were all wrong. Hillary Clinton's big chunk of her campaign funds came from big donors or super PACs in contrast to Donald Trump grassroot contributions. Trump supporters are more enthusiastic, drawing massive crowds during his campaign rally compared to anaemic orchestrated Clinton rally. This US Presidential election is Brexit all over again.
Except it isn't. The US presidential election isn't a mirror of the UK Brexit referendum. As much as Republicans want it to be the case, it just isn't. The Brexit polling was split. That's not the case with the US presidential polling. Most polling, especially all the credible polling are showing Trump failing and failing big time. This is more similar to 2012 when again all the reputable polling showed the Republican candidate failing. So Republicans invented their own the Republican always wins polling. Since we don't have a President Romney, I think it safe to say that strategy didn't work for them, and there is no reason to expect it will work any better for Republicans this time around.
Certainly, this is the latest Republican Great White Hope. They have had many and each hope has failed. It will be no different this time.
As for small donations, Hilary has received 82 million dollars in small dollar grass roots donations. In contrast Trump has received 59 million dollars in small grass root donations. So, truthfully, Hilary has received more small dollar grass roots donations than Trump. And let's not forget, Trump has a number of billionaire donors and superpac friends including the hedge fund mogul Robert Mercer who have not only funded Trump to the tune of millions of dollars but also supplied him with his senior campaign staffers, e.g. Kellyanne Conway.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples
@zweinull Well here is the thing about that, Republicans offered that same excuse in 2012. How well did that work out for Republicans in 2012? :) It didn't, because it wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.
And it's foolish to believe any of the Wikileaks material given there is evidence Russia has falsified these documents and the documents haven't been vetted. If these Wiki documents were real and damaging, they would have been released long before the final days of the election cycle allowing time or a proper vetting, but they weren't.
I would say the "mirror image" will be the wrong indication. it is the anchoring effect.
there is no situation that is the same. especially it is non-linear.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/columns-blogs/wayne-allyn-root/us-election-about-see-brexit-moment
If the Wikileaks documents were false, then Hillary's team would have pounded on those discrepancies. They haven't. They pretend the documents do not exist, much like they pretended that the e-mails she deleted were not relevant.
In terms of 2012, you had an incumbent president, who will always be difficult to beat. In terms of each candidate, Obama was very focused on his grassroots efforts and support, while Mitt Romney was seen as the candidate of Wall Street and big Corporations. This is relevant, because the sides have been switched. Trump is running as the candidate of the people and running his campaign similar to Obama in 2008. Both Obama and Trump use a significantly smaller network of paid campaign workers than Clinton does currently and did in 2008. Instead they focused on drawing large crowds at their speaking events. Clinton is running a campaign very similar to Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign. Her close relationship with Wall Street, big Corporations, and foreign governments makes her a very similar candidate to Mitt Romney. While 2012 is certainly relevant, a comparison to 2008 is more relevant, because there is not an incumbent President running for re-election.
@zweinull Well, here is the thing about that, Wikileaks is releasing tens of thousands of documents each day. As previously pointed out, there isn't enough time in the day to vet all of them or any significant portion of them. And without vetting, how can Hilary's team honestly deny or confirm them? They can't, and that's kind of the point. That's why Russia is releasing them at this late hour. But even so, Hilary's team was able to deny some of them and show they were altered by Russian sources.
Unfortunately for Republicans and Trumpians, Russia's document dump isn't credible. No one is saying the documents don't exist. What people are saying is the veracity of the documents is in doubt, because alterations have been found in some of those documents and because the documents were dumped at this late hour by a foreign power who is attempting to influence this election.
As for 2012, Obama's incumbency had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that all the credible polling showed Obama winning the election and Republicans denied the polling and instead created their own "Republicans always win" polling which always told Republicans exactly what they wanted to hear. It didn't work then and it won't work now. Nothing has switched in that regard. We are talking about polling results, not elections.
I don't know how you can honestly say Hilary is running a campaign "similar to Mitt Romney". There is nothing similar about Hilary's campaign and Romney's 2012 campaign. All campaigns are financed by close relationships with Wall Street. Trump's principal backers the Mercers are Wall Street insiders. Close relationships with foreign governments is generally a good thing. Being a vassal of a hostile power, e.g. Trump, is another story. But there is no evidence of that on either Hilary or Romney's part. And finally, incumbency just isn't relevant to a discussion on polling accuracy.
As previously pointed out the Brexit polling was divided. That's not the case here.