News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff by overcast on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @07:26PM (#13487591)
Campaign trails are also designed with the electoral vote in mind. Saying Hillary would have won if the election was based on popular vote, is not necessarily true.
Re:EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff by Mikeb85 on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @07:33PM (#13487651)
This. Trump optimized to win the election, and Hillary ignored a bunch of states she thought she'd easily win (some of which she didn't).
Re:EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff by nerfhammer on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @08:47PM (#13488052)
Sort of hard for either of them when the polls turned out to be completely wrong
Re:EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff by Mikeb85 on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @08:50PM (#13488068)
Polls aren't meant to be predictive. They're meant to be influential.
Re:EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff by AaronFriel on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @08:52PM (#13488077)
The final national polls turned out to be quite accurate.
Re:EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff by enraged_camel on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @07:38PM (#13487690)
I'm not sure Trump optimized for anything. Rumors from his inner circle suggest he didn't expect to win, and was surprised when he did.
Re:EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff by cmdrfred on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @07:53PM (#13487794)
Doesn't that make Hillary's loss all the more embarssing then?
Re:EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff by kup0 on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @07:46PM (#13487757)
This is a good point. If it was known to be a popular vote from the beginning, the strategy of the campaigns would have been different, so it's difficult to tell what would have happened. It seems common sense, but thanks for this input because it pulled my brain out of a bubble for a moment.