Can we take a moment to appreciate just how fucking historic this election was

can we take a moment to appreciate just how fucking historic this election was.

Ive been watching the clips of news channels coming to grips with it, with even Joe fucking Scarborough admitting that the media became propagandists, and how everything and everyone was wrong, and how the demonization and ridicule of Trump's candidacy created a reverse Bradley Effect,

and it's just really fucking amazing how they missed such important shit. at least 3 states that haven't been Red since the 80's, went to Trump on Election night. Places like PA and WI. Dems thought they even had Florida in the bag.

This is really one of the most historic elections in recent history. Not just because of the outcome, but because of the way the entire media structure was against Trump and became so blinded by their personal choices that they became shills and became blind to the truth.

Why would it be reverse "Bradly effect..."

Isn't this kinda textbook. Clinton was the more "PC" option so that is why people lied and said they would vote for her.

>Mfw reading smug elitist articles in the week before election claiming that the silent Trump supporter doesn't exist

I loved reading Bill Mitchell's tweets about the stupidity of most polls' politically-motivated sample weighting while my liberal friends on FB circle-jerked over fivethirtyeight and the like.

This site many dumb liberals talking about how Trump was going to be destroyed so we should vote Green as a protest against both. My dumb Bernie friends saying Trump had 0 chance. Oh the joy I felt.

To be fair on Nate, everyone said that It'll be a Hillary landslide except him

He legitimately gave Trump a good shot and in the week before the election wrote a ton of articles saying that It's not over til It's over and that things look bad for Hillary.

If you looked in the comment sections, everyone was giving him shit for "writing click bait to make it seem closer than it actually is"

He's always said that Trump had a decent chance of winning the general election. If he hadn't been inundated with garbage polls in the days before the election his model probably would have put them at 50/50 on the day. His prediction is ultimately based on polls that he doesn't create - if they're garbage, his prediction is going to be garbage. I remember on the day before he even said that he's worried about the polls being wrong because there was literally like 6 or 7 different polls all showing Hillary at +4 or +5 nationally and that he thought that looked bad and was probably poll companies just trying to get the results they wanted

>being this retarded and clueless

59-60 million republicans voted in the last two elections, including this one

60-69 million democrats voted in the previous two except this one.

there was no republican wave. there was no history made. the problem was, democrats just didnt show up to vote because clinton is a shitty politician. thats all. had it been anyone else besides her, trump wouldve lost

Yeah, but he lost all credibility when a two-bit internet radio commentator had a more astute understanding of the failings of the polling techniques than Nate did.

2016 was his opportunity to once again stake his claim as the king of data analytics by ripping into the false assumptions of the sample weightings in most big-name polls, but instead he chose to tow the party line and accept the fundamentally bad data as gospel to base his calculations on.

I hope Mitchell gets a Fox News or WSJ gig out of this.

well yeah that goes without saying. But now we have our own Ronald Regan

Earlier in the year 100,000 democrats switch party to republican in Pittsburgh, PA alone. How many more do so in the nation?

The republican wave was in the fact that Trump had fired up his supporters where Hillary didn't. You could see it at the rallies on the news. Trump was filling up huge stadiums and Hillary was holding rallies in high school gyms so as to make them look full and make her look popular.

Didn't you see how empty her rally in Cleveland with Lebron James was? The media would crop the image so viewers couldn't see it was only half full. Where Trump filled it.

The media shilled for Hillary, and couldn't see the writing was on the wall.

>but because of the way the entire media structure was against Trump

So why did they put him on their networks all day every day?

If they were really against him they could have pretty much ignored him, not publicise him on their networks, which is what they pretty much did with Sanders.

The fact that this was a historic, game-changing election isn't lost on me and most of the folks on this board. If Trump can keep even half his promises during the first term, the Conservative majority in the United States will have been successfully rebuilt, and the paradigm will have shifted more immensely than I think anyone here or anywhere else, really, could've predicted.

>If they were really against him they could have pretty much ignored him, not publicise him on their networks, which is what they pretty much did with Sanders.
There are a couple issues with your reasoning.

The first is that you are assuming they are smart enough to do that and also smart enough to tell Hillary "Two bullets to the back of the head" Clinton that not only is she wrong in the way she wants to attack Trump, but that they know better. Colin Powell in his email leaks described her as having hubris and it was undoubtedly contagious.

Secondly, you also have to remember that the primary was rigged pretty hard against Sanders in many ways, not just under reporting. They skewed polls, they made agreements with him and then backstabbed, and eventually they subdued him and took advantage of his easily cuckable nature.

Lastly, Trump creates the media cycle through Twitter. If they didn't cover his stuff, people would still find out and then bitch about the media screwing him. He forced the media into a situation where they couldn't do much.

More people voted for Mitt Romney than Trump

Clinton told them to, this was in the leaks actually.

My favorite thing was when anyone said Clinton had a "silent majority".

>they could have pretty much ignored him, not publicise him on their networks, which is what they pretty much did with Sanders.

They did the same thing to Ron Paul in 2012, too. The reason Donald was so loud/controversial is that the only way to win the media's little game of "ignore the change candidate until he goes away" can't work when you're shaking things up, saying controversial shit left and right and basically drawing attention to yourself at all times. The MSM thrives on controversy, sensationalism and ratings, and Trump, the seasoned entertainer and reality TV star, understood this better than anyone. The media figured if they just assassinate his character and try to destroy him completely while covering him, it wouldn't affect Hillary's chances. Too bad most Americans (or at least enough Americans to get Trump elected) saw through their bullshit and voted for muh evil misogynist wayciss orange man.

I don't think the magnitude of the events is lost on almost anyone on Sup Forums. However a lot of us know that while this is momentous the election was the easy part. We are now going to have to work through the bullshit policies put in place over years that have colossal financial backing, corrupt politicians supporting them, and screaming lefties crying bloody murder the entire time.

Yes this victory was important, but was only the first step in a very long, arduous journey. That is why I think the celebrations have been mostly contained.

>They did the same thing to Ron Paul in 2012, too.
My nigga. I am glad there are still some Paulbots here. It was half the reason I was able to switch from Rand to Trump. They screwed Ron hard enough with the same tactics they attacked Trump on that I wanted to spite the media and show them they couldn't get away with it this time.

gtfo Nate. Your career is fucking done

I love how that random consultant who emailed the DNC or podesta, I forget, was totally right that making Trump out to be a bad boy was stupid because women like a bad boy. He was ignored, and the majority of women voted for Trump.

I love how toxic identity politics fucking failed.

I hope and pray the wall is built and illegal immigration is eliminated because if Trump merely enforces the law, guess what, after Trump leaves the White House shit will go back to the way it was.

It was part of the Clinton "Pied Piper" strategy -- her machine directed the media to give him press coverage because she thought he would be easy to beat.

Everytime someone on the left complains about Trump getting GUHRILLIONS of dollars in free media coverage, point that shit out. On top of that, point out how Hillary would never hold press conferences while Trump would talk to the press all day.

>mfw I watch Fox News's 2012 primary coverage with them not listing Ron despite him coming in a close third in several states as the "if only I'd voted for Ron Paul..." copypasta runs through my head

How the tables have turned since then.

Dude you weren't paying attention to the emails. See:

He was too good for this country, but now we can eliminate the corrupt cronies so someone like him can become president. To be fair, Ron Paul should've been more aggressive, but it is against his principles/nature so I won't blame him too much.

[spoiler];_;[/spoiler]

>The first is that you are assuming they are smart enough to do that and also smart enough to tell Hillary "Two bullets to the back of the head" Clinton that not only is she wrong in the way she wants to attack Trump, but that they know better.

This is where I implied that Clinton was telling the media to do that. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

I don't have to assume they are smart. If they were smart they wouldn't have put him on their network all the time. They didn't have to tell Hillary shit as well. Just don't give Trump all the free air he got that was more than everyone else combined and downplay any controversial stuff with Hillary, which they didn't either.

Trump could go off on Twitter as much as he wanted there is no reason the media had to cover it especially if they were against him they could have not given him all the air they did.

They could ignore it. Sanders was also the change candidate on the democratic side, he was shaking things up, saying controversial shit like saying he is a socialist. They practically ignored him. I think it would be fine to say they simply cared about rating and got Trump on because it got views. That cannot mean they are against him though as they are also giving him a free platform to the nation.

He pretty much had a direct line to get on the air live any time and they would broadcast his rallies. They would even broadcast his empty lecture live while waiting for his rally to start despite some news along the lines of Sanders had beat Hillary in some primary.

You would think that would be huge news, controversial, sensational. Some guy no one really knew anything about beating someone everyone knows about but no, lets wait for Trump to come out and start his rally.

The media practically sucked Trumps cock, even when it came to the pussy groping, the language they used downplayed the whole thing. They followed the "locker room talk" line. If they were against trump they could have used much much harsher language to describe what he said.

As happy as Sup Forums is with the result, it's easy to forget that this was basically an election over which candidate America hated less. At least Trump got some people excited about something other than breaking the glass ceiling.

Makes no sense to think giving him a free platform make him easier to beat than not.

>I don't have to assume they are smart. If they were smart they wouldn't have put him on their network all the time.
If they were against him and dumb or against him and listening to Hillary then that means they were against him, but too stupid to employ an effective means to work against him. Thus making air time+against him not mutually exclusive.
>They didn't have to tell Hillary shit as well
When they are already in communications with her since before everything started and they stop listening to her and deprive Trump of media coverage, Hillary is going to expect an explanation. Her hubris would probably cause her to bludgeon them into following her plan because SHE is right.

>Makes no sense to think giving him a free platform make him easier to beat than not.
Well these are people who have been isolated from competition they couldn't buy out for decades so it isn't a surprise that they were daft and unprepared.

The idea was to make sure the guy they could "easily beat" won the nomination instead of the candidates they thought would be more challenging.