So your blaming everyone and everything else but HRC? Go figure.

You realize that polls are very flawed right?
So these favorable and unfavorable ratings could be way off.

HRC did not do what she had to do. I am saying she didnt put in the work. Its obvious.

larry, you make my points exactly. She put in time in FL and NC and she lost both.
She believed polls that were severly flawed. A HUGE mistake.

HRC was disliked and lazy and counting on the fact that she was next in line and a woman.

She got crushed as a result.

Huh? I agree that she is a bad campaigner and made mistakes throughout the campaign. I was responding to the specific criticism of her decision to ignore Wisconsin.

My point is ALL the polls in Wisconsin were flawed. There wasn't a single one that showed her in danger. Even Trump didn't expect to win there, and he skipped over it on his final sprint through the midwest.

At some point you have to trust the polls. Otherwise, what are you supposed to do, just close your eyes and randomly pick a state to campaign in? She narrowly won states like Nevada, Colorado, and New Hampshire. She narrowly lost Florida, North Carolina, and the aforementioned midwest states.

You can say, after the campaign, that she should've campaigned in the states where she lost by the narrowest margins to get to 270, and should've ignored every other state, but that makes no sense during the campaign when picking states to focus on. Not a single person picked Wisconsin in my election contest - (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...ad.php?t=91971) and you were one of the participants.

That has been a problem for the candidates. They believe the polls. These polls are polling smaller samples. And the candidates are ignoring the margin of error. Which is where the election fell. In the margin of error.

Trump went out and campaigned the crap out of states.
Clinton expected women and hispanics to carry her. And it cost her.
Lazy and ineffective.

The polls were pretty close to right, except in the rust belt and notably, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The national polls which showed 3-4% Clinton edge the weekend before the election are going to be almost spot on. North Carolina and Florida had tightened considerably. I think what a lot of data is showing is that there was a shift in the last two weeks and undecideds broke hard for Trump. You can pick any number of factors that had an influence, including Comey, the Podesta e-mails, Clinton's weird state visit schedule and strategy and Trump momentum.

In any case, it probably is time for both sides to move past the election but even Trump can't, as he seems to still be campaigning for something with his rallies and tweets about how big of a landslide it was.

And E-MAILS.

What Larry said.

Sorry for the confusing wording.

Thank you both for the clarification, I understand.

I have been reading quite a bit more post-election analyses and partially coming to some conclusions that there were fatal assumptions being made. What I have been keying on are those counties (quite a few of them exurbs, not rural) that flipped from solid Obama to narrow Trump. That's huge, imo, and those added up significantly.

I doubt I'd agree with much of his policy agenda, but Evan McMullin's twitter feed is spot on regarding the need for left and right pro-democracy forces coming together to combat the international nationalist movement led by Putin.

digamma, I am not seeing that big of a shift in those weeks. What I think happened were the silent Trump voters that had been rumored for some time. They finally started to come out of the woodworks but were brushed off. It was a real thing, more than any breakings.

How did super delegates screw over anyone? Hillary would've won with or without them

The Dems will need to come up with a young, charismatic person. Male or Female. Black, white, yellow, whatever.
They have the potential to unseat Trump in 2020. But throwing Biden up there would be a mistake, I think.
They need another Obama. Thats their wheelhouse and they forgot that this election.

Cory Booker or Tulsi Gabbard. I honestly don't think Trump will run again in 2020 regardless though.

Polls weren't really off. Showed she'd win the popular vote by 3 and she won it by 2.

Hollande has like 4% approval rating. That's the reason France is looking toward right-wing parties. And Merkel would be a moderate Democrat if she was running in this country.

Here are a couple of pieces from 538 on the late breaking Trump voter.

There's more evidence, too: Late-deciding voters broke strongly against Clinton in swing states, enough to cost her MI/WI/PA. pic.twitter.com/8r801ahDQO

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) December 11, 2016

Voters Really Did Switch To Trump At The Last Minute | FiveThirtyEight

And also one that says the shy Trump voter probably wasn't a thing.

‘Shy’ Voters Probably Aren’t Why The Polls Missed Trump | FiveThirtyEight

I think it is hard to argue that if the election was held say October 20, pre-Comey, that Trump would have won. The last two weeks had a huge impact on the race.

I think its funny that everyone is blaming other things then the candidate. Maybe if she hadnt put those emails on a personal server she wouldnt have had the FBI sniffing around her.

When do the liberals realize that your candidate screwed up and its no ones fault but her own?

Exactly. Trump was solely responsible for the pickle he was in due to his words and actions. Hillary Clinton was in a pickle because of her words and actions.

They have no one to blame but themselves.

There's a difference between blame and stating things had an impact. In an election decided by a razor thin margin, many things had an impact that ultimately decided the outcome. Could Clinton have done things differently, particularly in the final two weeks? Absolutely. Did Trump do some things right in the final two weeks? Again, yes. Those answers can both be yes and there still be an acknowledgement that things beyond either candidates control had a measurable impact on the race.

Yesterday you didn't even fucking know what the e-mail scandal was even about.

This year had a much higher number of "undecideds" in the polling until late, indicating the general distaste for both candidates. Whoever mentioned the RCP average of Wisconsin where Hillary was NEVER BEHIND in the polling... go check that out. Yes, she was never behind, but there were still like 10% undecideds, which is much higher than usual. The Comey "reopening" of the investigation absolutely had an impact.

If the Dems had run a better candidate, would that have been a factor? No. But did Comey's statement sway enough voters to have an impact on the race? You bet. Fake news? Yes. How much of an impact? We'll probably never be able to get to that number, but one can make some common sense assumptions.

Even being a terrible candidate, Hillary probably wins if certain things don't break against her in the last 2 weeks. That's not "whining" or "blame". It's data analysis.

Everything's a con.

dola

Love this from Josh Barro.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-d...p-jobs-2016-12

Those are actually some really good ideas.

You realize that Fillon is a member of the CENTER-right party right?! One that was in power right before Hollande. This is not some far right candidate.

And just about EVERY center-right leader in Europe would be a moderate (at best) Democrat in this country. Cameron, Sarkozy, Merkel. All of them.

I hold skepticism that Republicans actually want to help workers. My impression has become that they want to help businesses, and then let businesses sort the rest out -- they can take care of workers as they see fit. Some do a good job of that. Many don't.

Dems don't need to sacrifice minorities to embrace a working class agenda. They should proudly run on the idea that anyone with a full time job should be able to support themselves and their family. In addition, in retirement you should be able to pay your bills and have medical care. Everything should revolve around that.

But that would require Dems to stand for something, so I don't expect it to happen and in four years they'll run as the party of not quite as bad as the GOP.

The last 2 posts are spot on.
I hope the businesses do the right thing.
And I agree with you, JP. But I also dont think a minimum wage job is one that a person should aspire to help them survive. Get an education. Be it college or trade school. Try and become a manager and not drop the fries in the grease all day.

I believe there is a bit of give me something for nothing with the whole $15 minimum wage thing.

"Get an education"

Only if it didn't leave you with crushing debt....

People need to be wiser with their education choices. It's fine to go to an expensive school, but be sure you're pursuing something that will return on that investments.

There's a lot of community colleges and trade schools that offer a great foundation for good paying jobs at a fraction of the price of some of the bigger schools.

The poor will always be with us.

That doesn't mean people can't make better choices, but a plan built on poor people shouldn't accept being poor isn't realistic. For any number of reasons, we will always have adults with families at the bottom of the income scale. The question is whether we say, fuck 'em or try to create policies that allow them basic human dignity and independence while recognizing that they aren't making the perfect choices.

Our President elect knows that better than anyone.

Trickle down economics don't work. It's not a rebublican/democrat thing it's an economic thing. When given freedom businesses do not have any history of looking out for anyone but themselves.

The point people are missing on the $15 minimum wage thing is that the goal is to provide a basic living to people and drive the stagnant middle class wages up as well. When middle class wages aren't moving the best way to get them moving upward is to raise the floor.

The problem with $15 is that businesses claim they cant afford it or they do something to not pay it. McDonalds is creating kiosks to take orders. There goes jobs.
In Seattle, the workers were asking for less hours because they were making too much money and it caused them to lose government benefits.

A minimum wage job is a job for a HS kid to learn how to work and make a little cash to spend. It is ot for a 25 year old mother of 3.

Unfortunately, middle class jobs have fled the country. And that is an issue. Maybe Trump fixes it. Maybe its too late for anyone to fix.

Minimum Wage was not created for teenagers and most people on it today are not teenagers.

Nothing is going to work overnight. What we can do is look at history and data and make the most informed decision we can based on that.

McDonald's and other places were going to shift to kiosks eventually anyway. At some point the technology was going to become cheap enough to do so and there's nothing that could be done about it. McDonald's is simply using the minimum wage thing as a scapegoat because it makes someone else look like the bad guy.

Relying more on technology also creates more jobs that use the education that some think solves all problems. It's sucks in the near term, but long term replacing minimum wage jobs with tech jobs is a good thing.

Question, tarcone. Who runs McDonald's at lunchtime on a school day?

I'd have to hike my prices at a minimum if I had to pay $15/hour for my employees. I've already explored the option of machines that dispense tasting/glasses of wine without having to use an employee. It would cost me thousands up front, but would save me quite a bit over the long run. I don't want to do that because nothing beats good customer service when you build a one-on-one relationship with a customer who comes to your place, but $15/hr would certainly adjust the balance of that equation.

Here's an example of the machines I'm talking about. These are home dispensing, but they have commercial options which have credit card integration, so it's basically a self-serve proposition.

Wineemotionâ„¢ | Commercial Wine Dispenser & Preservation

I'm sure the Germans really didn't want to admit that this guy slipped through the cracks.

Report: German police knew Berlin attack suspect would strike | Fox News

Bingo. Which is funny in a way, because they will become more like fancy Automats...

I've always felt $15/hour is a bit of an overreach. Start at $10 and move up from there.

This. I pay my staff $10/hr right now because I feel it's a fair wage and is around 20% higher than min. wage. Most businesses are going to pay people a fair wage if you let them. But the $15/hr idea would dump things on their head.

A manager, an asst manager and a few retired people, disabled people?

At least thats what it should be.

Citation, please.

Also, define fair.

Apparently $10/hr.

I'll leave that to the Democrats. They're generally the arbitor of what's "fair".

Fun map spin on the voting breakdown of this election.

I've always wondered what the objection was to indexing the minimum wage to inflation. If you think there should be a wage floor, not raising it while inflation happens means you are just eating away at the minimum wage. Anyway, I think I have read that if you index the min wage in 1968 for inflation it ends up at around $15 an hour.

If I didn't know better I'd say that cities have greater population density.

I'd be all for indexing it to inflation and agree if we'd have indexed it before we'd be at $15/hour. But I still think the best course would be getting it to $10/hour right now and then indexing it to inflation from there.

If cities where the cost of living is higher want to set their minimum wage at $15/hour, I'm fine with that.

The issue is that you simply can't get folks to agree to index it to inflation. Hence, for me $15 is fine because in inflation will wipe that down to 2006's $10 an hour in not all that long.

Now if you can agree to index it to inflation, I'd be more than fine with $10 an hour being the start... with the caveat that states can't tell local cities that they can't raise it higher (more of a suggestion than a law, because I'm not sure that can be enforced against the states anyways).

It's also important to remember that 15/hr folks will almost certainly settle for 10 or 12 and work from there. This is a beginning offer. If they start at 10/hr they'll have to settle for 8.50 or 9.