...faux progressives.
"During elections, most public opinion surveys try to identify likely voters and use them to predict the winner. Working with our students at Cornell University, we took a different approach by focusing on respondents who said they did not intend to vote for Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump. In our survey, this was a sizable group — more than 20 percent of the public — and our analysis indicated that they leaned toward Mr. Trump. Whether undecided or unwilling to openly express their support, this group was hidden to pollsters focusing on likely voters."
We had found hidden Trump supporters, but we did not expect them to swing the election. After all, these respondents were unwilling to directly express their support for Mr. Trump and were the most likely to indicate that if both candidates had flaws, it was better not to vote. But vote they did. This seems the most plausible explanation for why the near unanimous predictions of a Clinton victory proved wrong.
Many Democrats are stunned that despite his campaign’s divisiveness, false statements and disregard for civil discourse, Mr. Trump will be in the White House. In the coming days and weeks, there will continue to be much discussion regarding how the forecasts got public sentiment so wrong. While it is tempting to assume that voters with extreme views made the difference, such voters have been vocally supporting Mr. Trump all along. Rather than holding extreme views, hidden Trump supporters consistently fell between committed Trump and Clinton voters on the ideological spectrum, our data suggests.
The tide turned on election night because Americans with middle-of-the-road positions who leaned toward Trump turned out to vote in larger numbers than we — or perhaps the Clinton campaign — anticipated...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/opinion/did-moderates-help-elect-trump.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
