>imagine basing medical research and development entirely on
>questionnaires on what doctors want to happen or think would
>happen in the near future.

Medical research \= presidential polling. Clearly, there is no way to definitively know how a hypothetical match-up would play out - that's why reputable polling becomes useful analytics (sort of how data analytics is used in sports to have some predictive sense of how a player/team might perform in the future in various scenarios).

Not an exact science - but to say it's absent of any utility is to ignore useful data at your own peril.

>the most objective data is actual results. which i keep
>stating but for some reason yall are trying to overrule it
>with wishes and theories.

Indeed. Like the results of Clinton actually losing an election to Donald Trump.

>and theres a big difference between variance from a low
>turnout district primary to the general...and a national
>general election following a robust nationwide primary carried
>out over several demographically diverse states with millions
>of people.

Indeed - and all of that was factored in by the polling data referenced above. Are you attempting to debunk that polling data? If so, based on what evidence? Just that Clinton beat Bernie in a primary? You watch boxing fam -- so you know that "styles make fights." But you're also discounting the now established fact (even according to DNC officials at the time) that the primary was skewed in Clinton's favor in a shameful manner. So, was it even a fair fight?

>in fact...when you look at trumps victory strictly through the
>prism of historical trends and traditional/orthodox rules of
>thumb...it was completely predictable. running against 3rd
>term party incumbent, running against candidate relatively
>unpopular with her own party, etc.

Trump's presidency defied a lot of conventional wisdom in politics (the conventional wisdom was that Jeb Bush & Clinton were to be the nominees based on historical trends) - but there are rumblings within both parties that create unpredictable electoral trends. For example, for the first time in history, more than 50% of the Democratic base now defines themselves as "progressive" - that's a direct reflection of the 2016 democratic primary, the influx of new energy in Congress; indicative of where the party will be trending moving forward.

>what claim do you want me to support with data? the results
>of the 2016 primary? you dont believe anything i said
>happened...happened?

I'd like something besides just your long-winded opinion.


-->