- If you are inclined to think Trump stole the election. (original) (raw)

Mickey Mouse Democracy: Explaining Trump´s Triumph

Through his whole electoral campaign Donald Trump proved to be a compulsive liar, a misogynous bad hombre, a nasty racist, a hard-core xenophobic, a cynical bigot, and an open enemy of freedom of press, and freedom of speech. He showed he has no idea of U.S. and world politics, climate change, trade, economics, and the military. He spent a good time whining, bad-behaving, and doing tantrums, instead of leading a serious political presidential campaign. He won the election. What happened? How do you explain Trump´s triumph? In this piece, after summing up who voted for whom, I will expose some arguments that will address, from an analytical perspective, Trump´s triumph. At the end I will address also the overall questions that can be happily solved in alternative universes, but hardly in this one.

Reflections on 2016 US presidential election: An Empirical Analysis

On September 26, 2016, Hillary Clinton was regarded by post-debate polls to have defeated Donald Trump in the first Presidential debate, and her odds of election in the Bet fair prediction market increased from 63 to 69 percent. Given that most financial markets are typically quiet during that time, movements in asset prices likely reflect market participants' collective view of the impact of the 2016 election. During the debate event window, U.S., UK and Asian stock markets rose, crude oil rose, the currencies of trading partners such as Mexico, South Korea, and Canada rose against the dollar, and expected future U.S. stock market volatility dropped sharply. Given the magnitude of the price movements, we estimate that market participants believe that a Trump victory would reduce the value of the S&P 500, the UK, and Asian stock markets by 10-15%, would reduce the oil price by $4, would lead to a 25% decline in the Mexican Peso, and would significantly increase expected future stock market volatility. Market movements over the October 7-9 weekend, during which a tape was released that prompted many Republicans to unendorse Trump, tell a largely consistent story. Clinton's probability of election. This analysis will be based on the reflections of the 2016 United States elections. However, this paper tries to give in depth analysis or the reflections of United States of America elections thus its impact on the global markets. The outcome of the elections were based on the factors or variables such as gender, educational level, race and age margin.it also includes theoretical frame work, research hypothesis, and references.

AN EVALUATION OF THE 2016 ELECTION POLLS IN THE UNITED STATES

The 2016 presidential election was a jarring event for polling in the United States. Preelection polls fueled high-profile predictions that Hillary Clinton’s likelihood of winning the presidency was about 90 percent, with estimates ranging from 71 to over 99 percent. When Donald Trump was declared the winner of the presidency, there was a widespread perception that the polls failed. But did the polls fail? And if so, why? Those are among the central questions addressed by an American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) ad hoc committee. This paper presents the committee’s analysis of the performance of preelection polls in 2016, how that performance compares to polling in prior elections, and the extent to which performance varied by poll design. In addition, the committee examined several theories as to why many polls, particularly in the Upper Midwest, underestimated support for Trump. The explanations for which the most evidence exists are a late swing in vote preference toward Trump and a pervasive failure to adjust for overrepresentation of college graduates (who favored Clinton). In addition, there is clear evidence that voter turnout changed from 2012 to 2016 in ways that favored Trump, though there is only mixed evidence that misspecified likely voter models were a major cause of the systematic polling error. Finally, there is little evidence that socially desirable (Shy Trump) responding was an important contributor to poll error.