Hillary Clinton Rips 'Bankrupt' DNC Data Operation (axios.com)

An anonymous reader shares an article: Hillary Clinton slammed the DNC's 2016 campaign data operation Wednesday, saying she had "nothing" to work from once she won the nomination. She lamented that Donald Trump was able to walk into a well-funded and thoroughly-tested data operation, while she was forced to build hers largely from scratch. Axios conducted over two dozen interviews with experts associated with the Trump and Clinton data and advertising operations earlier this year, and while many sources agreed with this sentiment off the record, no campaign or DNC staffers used language as strong as Clinton did Wednesday to publicly to condemn the DNC's data enterprise. Further reading: "I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that's not why I lost," says Clinton.

Comments

Wipes her server with a cloth

[Crashmarik]

Now she is a data scientist ?

The laughs never stop with this woman. I'm with her 2020.

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[cayenne8]

Wow....I"m just amazed that she can't come to grips with the base fact that she was NOT a good politician, doesn't have a good public personality, and the charisma of a small soap dish.

Her husband, was one of the best politicians ever....for some reason she cannot fathom that she is the polar opposite of that.

I grew up in AR with her as first lady of the state, and she was just as dislikeable (sp?) then as now. This is nothing new for her.

But I guess...ego won't allow for true self exploration, and she's having to try to blame everything and everyone external to herself to get through this.....

She can't deal with the fact that she is not a beloved person like her husband was (to a very broad swatch of the US), and even to an extent Obama was to her party.

After this loss, she should really fade away and allow the youth of the Democratic party to start coming up through the ranks to help try to get themselves back on target.

I'm not a Democrat, but even I can see that she and many in power are holding them back at this point, and that getting someone that *is* likable, charismatic, younger and can connect with the millennials out there would make them a very formidable party.

Hell, I really fear that as that they might really make successful pushes to get pretty far left progressive legislation through....so, I make these thoughts at my own detriment as that I don't agree with the extreme progressive agenda, but if that's what you want, then you most likely need Hillary to get off the damned public stage and bring in "new talent".

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[Anonymous Coward]

Now she is a data scientist ?

The laughs never stop with this woman. I'm with her 2020.

According to her, she's not responsible for anything. I bet she's already got excuses for 2020.

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[David_Hart]

Let's say all of that is true. Why does this negate the fact that the DNC needs to review their Data Analytical operation? After all, practically everyone who spoke about election predictions from the DNC had Clinton winning the Electoral College easily.

You can say that she lost because of various negative issues but the DNC and her campaign should have been able to identify this a lot earlier. There was no shift in her campaigning to focus on traditional democratic states that she lost. There was no information coming out of the DNC saying that she was in trouble. All of this points to her comment being true and something that needs to be fixed for future elections.

On a side note, based on the article, it appears that the system that Obama's team developed was never turned over to or embraced by the DNC. It sounds like it was a stand-alone system.

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[cayenne8]

Why does this negate the fact that the DNC needs to review their Data Analytical operation? After all, practically everyone who spoke about election predictions from the DNC had Clinton winning the Electoral College easily.

Well, I'd think any smart political party, would conduct a Data Analytical operation review each year, to learn from previous year, as that things are in constant change.

And it wasn't just the DNC that predicted her easy EC win...look at most all of the talking heads on TV, and most all polling companies....they had it wrong too.

What they didn't see and didn't take into account, were the folks that had been somewhat silent in past election years, those that aren't out shouting loudly about this social justice or this inequality....but lower-middle and lower income workers, that have seen and continue to see their jobs and way of life being ripped away from them. Yes, they may often be heterosexual caucasian too (hey, not that there's anything wrong with that)....and they see all the whoopla about every other minority, or possible category of sexual preference being elevated constantly in the discussions, and they were basically tired of being not only ignored, but in many ways persecuted for being what would previously been termed as "normal white American working families".

I also think that the liberal hive mind that is centered primarily in the northeast and far west of the country, somehow assumed that pretty much everyone in the US saw the country and path to the future exactly as they did, with little if any meaningful numbers of people disagreeing with them. I think this may also be due, somewhat, to what we see with the progressive side constantly shouting down more conservative speech....and this has been going on in a more subtle manner on the national news scene for decades now, so that you never really saw much conservative speech or opposing conservative thoughts on mainstream media, and hence...when you don't see it, you assume it isn't there at all.

I think many of these general thoughts were large contributing factors for many of the polling elite missing a hidden undercurrent of scorn for the more liberal progressive agenda being pushed.

And also...perhaps no one wanted to admit, that Hillary is just NOT a likable person, much less a charismatic candidate. Many assumed her coronation would be just that...that it was manifest destiny for her to be president.

This also kinda blinded them that not everyone thought that way.

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[Train0987]

The data was there, they were just in denial that she could possibly lose. Because it was her turn, or something. It didn't help that anyone who dared challenge her and dared to suggest she might be in trouble was quickly shown the door. They're still in denial - that's why we're bombarded with the ludicrous "The Russian's did it!" narrative now.

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[Archangel Michael]

practically everyone who spoke about election predictions from the DNC had Clinton winning the Electoral College easily.

It wasn't just the DNC, it was just about every poll out there. Trump didn't have a chance. There is a video montage of all the people saying "Trump will never be president". All of them MSM, and DC inbreds, not just the DNC and Hillary campaigns.

The stunned pundits from NBC to CNN and heck, even FOX was surprised. The data people everywhere failed. Except Trumps, who spent time and money on states he was pretty much "wasting" his time and effort on, states he won.

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[elrous0]

Her new campaign slogan will be "Hillary 2020: It's Everyone Else's Fault"

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[Anonymous Coward]

The data was all there for anyone to see.
They see polls like H vs T 53 to 47. Guess that means Hillary has a 99% chance to win that state right?
What it really means is that the margins are so tiny that it might as well be a coin toss.

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[king neckbeard]

The results were within the margins of error.

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

"likable, charismatic, younger and can connect with the millennials"; they HAD three out of four with Sanders. Many people just "gave up" when he was pushed out, especially the Millennials; who actually now outnumber the boomers in numbers of voting-age people. Sanders would have been a radical change as well, but in the opposite direction of Trump / Clinton. Unfortunately, much of the US electorate aren't educated enough to comprehend "socialist democrat" != "communist" and would be completely bewildered by a European-style system that has dozens of different parties, platforms, etc. We in the US have been conditioned to only work with two parties...so it's "us" vs "them" with nothing possible in-between. The parties often switch sides, absorb any break-aways, etc. With a winner-take-all system, the math just ends up with only two parties.

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[HornWumpus]

There is a % of voters that want to have voted for the 'winner'. Yes I know, they're stupid.

By oversampling democrats the pollsters pushed those voters (2 or 3 %) to vote Hillary. She lost anyhow.

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[Anonymous Coward]

After this loss, she should really fade away and allow the youth of the Democratic party to start coming up through the ranks to help try to get themselves back on target.

I'm not a Democrat, but even I can see that she and many in power are holding them back at this point, and that getting someone that *is* likable, charismatic, younger and can connect with the millennials out there would make them a very formidable party.

Hell, I really fear that as that they might really make successful pushes to get pretty far left progressive legislation through....so, I make these thoughts at my own detriment as that I don't agree with the extreme progressive agenda, but if that's what you want, then you most likely need Hillary to get off the damned public stage and bring in "new talent".

There was something similar to what you mentioned back in the 2004 Kerry vs Bush election. During the DNC convention, a fairly unknown but young, charismatic politician gave a speech to help rouse the base. He attracted a lot of positive attention, which eventually helped to propel his career.

His name is Barack Obama.

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[Anonymous Coward]

can connect with the millennials out there would make them a very formidable party

And yet, connecting with the millennials like the ones rioting at Evergreen State College would kill the party dead.

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[Anonymous Coward]

It didn't help that the mainstream media, as well as many others, were and still are treating "Trump supporter" as a pejorative. Regardless of any opinion on the man himself, this attitude towards people who agree in any capacity or degree with Trump's talking points made people incredibly hesitant to be transparent about their opinions during this past election season. This was a big contributor to the high degree of error in the polling and predictions.

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[Anonymous Coward]

The DNC had private polls showing she would lose. Read the leaked emails. They were giving the press the positive ones showing her winning, but in private that were panicking because of how close it was. And in the general election, go watch the debate where Trump says he is polling well in Michigan or some other blueish state. Hillary can't hide the pain on her face knowing full well she is getting smoked in the polls that they aren't sharing with the credulous bums at the NY Times.

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[Solandri]

It was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Or in this case, a self-negating prophecy - the media coverage itself influenced the poll the media was relying on to predict the election. All the negative press reporting about Trump drove his supporters underground, and they began concealing the fact that they were voting for Trump. The one poll which attempted to account for this correctly predicted Trump would win.

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[david_thornley]

The fact is that Clinton didn't lose by much, and her poll numbers were hit by Comey's talk about emails at the last minute. This was a loss, not a landslide.

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened was Obama - who with the help of Chris North in 2008 - built one of the greatest voter analysis databases ever created by man - augmented with full Facebook profile demographics. When the 2016 cycle rolled around he took all that data and gave it to OFA not the DNC.

This is how these people ACT which is, of course, completely different than the fantasy public perception they sell to foolish young ideologues Obama's lust for power makes Trump look like a kindly old dog catcher by comparison.

Re:Wipes her server with a cloth

[Magius_AR]

The fact is that Clinton didn't lose by much, and her poll numbers were hit by Comey's talk about emails at the last minute. This was a loss, not a landslide.

One could argue losing to Donald Trump by any margin of votes is a landslide. Had the Republicans actually run even a marginally decent candidate, it would have been a landslide.

Delusional

[Train0987]

She inherited the most advanced political data operation in history from Obama. Is there anything she won't blame besides herself? P.S. They're going to run her again in 2020, just watch.

Re:Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

WIlly

Re:Delusional

[__aaclcg7560]

Biden should run in 2020. The Onion articles would be epic. This country needs to laugh again.

Re:Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

P.S. They're going to run her again in 2020, just watch.

If the Democratic Party is populated by congential idiots then yes they will field her again in 2020.

Re:Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

Biden? I miss Dan Quayle!

Re:Delusional

[rickb928]

No she didn't. She inherited what Obama would give the campaign. And I'll bet he gave little.

After all this (Obama) is the man whose campaign claimed it couldn't report to the FEC on small donors because there was too much data.

Re:Delusional

[taiwanjohn]

Here's my quick, off-the-cuff list of things she could have done to win:
1. Show up in Wisconsin during the campaign at least once.
2. Show up in a union hall in Michigan at least once.
3. Make yard signs available to her supporters. (Apparently Robby Mook thought them "old fashioned".)
4. Select an even mildly inspiring running mate, instead of Mr. Boring, Tim Kaine.
5. Tell Obama to stop lobbying for TPP while she's ostensibly running against it.
6. Have a clear message about why she wants to be president, not just that she's "the most qualified candidate in history".
7. Run on a core set of important issues, instead of being for a laundry list of vague "good things".
8. Don't spend 75% of your ad money on anti-Trump "he's a bad man" spots (spend it on #7, above).
9. Tell Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to stop rigging the primaries, so that when Podesta's emails get leaked, there's no "shenanigans" to get exposed.
10. Don't have a private email server in your closet, so there's nothing for James Comey to investigate in the first place.
11. Don't give speeches to Goldman Sachs for $225k a pop just a few years after the financial crisis, and just a couple of years before the election.

I could go on, but my fingers are getting tired...

Re:Delusional

[XxtraLarGe]

Biden should run in 2020. The Onion articles would be epic. This country needs to laugh again.

Wait, I thought Trump was going to be comedy gold for comedians and late night TV hosts? The Onion articles on Uncle Joe were pretty epic though. :-D

Re:Delusional

[__aaclcg7560]

Wait, I thought Trump was going to be comedy gold for comedians and late night TV hosts?

Laughing in sheer horror isn't the same as laughing in sheer fun.

Re:Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming she'll still be alive by then. cough cough cough

Re:Delusional

[Triklyn]

you can't fix 'triggered' son.

Re:Delusional

[king neckbeard]

You're assuming the Dems won't run Hillary's corpse over someone people actually like.

Re:Delusional

[kenh]

She didn't inherit "the most advanced political data operation in history", Obama took it and kept it as "Organizing For America" - an absolutely non-political organization that has never had it's 501C(3) status questioned, despite it being his entire "Obama For America" re-election committee...

Re:Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

P.S. They're going to run her again in 2020, just watch.

I doubt it.

she tried in 2008 and if it wasn't for Obama she had a good chance of winning but between her and Obama, Obama was the stronger candidate. She almost went rogue and was going to run as an independent candidate but a backroom deal was probably made where she would be given a position in Obama's cabinet and in 2016 the DNC would put all of their weight behind her.

When the 2016 election started up she was the lead democrat and all the others running were just token canidates, except for Sanders, he was a rogue element that wasn't planned for. The problem with Sanders is he was the better candidate but the DNC promised Hillary the nomination. In the end we saw the DNC do everything possible to stop Sanders from getting the nomination, because of this they damaged their voter base.

Taking the fact that the DNC wasn't being faithful to the members of its party, Hilary's email server and the fact that she wasn't a strong, charismatic candidate. Despite what people think about Trump he is a political outsider and he is the first presidential candidate from a major party that isn't a career politician. Even Obama served on local and state positions before getting elected to the senate. When Trump did his speeches, there was energy and power, he had passion, you didn't see that with Hillary. In fact she passed out during the 9/11 ceremony, which granted Trump is not a model of health but he had no problem traveling across the country talking to different groups multiple times a day.

Taking all of this into account, Hillary isn't going to get a third try. She isn't a strong candidate and after loosing to Trump I doubt that the DNC wants to run again. Instead it makes more sense to build up numerous existing democrats that appeal to voters and have the DNC allow its members decide who should be their candidate in 2020.

Re:Delusional

[myowntrueself]

If ?

Look around for rainbow haired gender fluid twits, that's today's Democrats. Congenital idiots are likely offended at being lumped in with them.

The LBGTQI crowd earnestly believe that they can bully enough people into liking them that they can get a majority support for one of their own as a presidential candidate.

Re:Delusional

[js3]

Meanwhile Trump does everything 10 times worse, breaks all the rules, a hypocrite and lies all the time (even about the things he accused Hillary of), is into nepotism, taken more vacations in 150 days than Obama did in 4 years.. I mean should I go on?

but no doesn't matter. it's all Hillary's fault.

Re:Delusional

[Train0987]

What existing Democrats? They have no bench. The corrupt DNC has locked out anyone who doesn't toe the Globalist line and they've been decimated locally the past several years. There isn't anyone under 70 in a position to win the nomination.

Re:Delusional

[Archangel Michael]

Kathy Griffin, is that you?

Comedy Gold right there, not the severed head, the hypocritical "apology" and all the people saying "I forgive her" who won't forgive anybody with an (R) after their name for anything.

Re:Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and no. There is difference between Obama's OFA and the DNC. Back when it was Obama vs. Clinton, Obama's team had to create OFA to counter the support from the DNC for Clinton. In the general elections, OFA pretty much took over the campaigning. Since then, there has been tension between OFA and the DNC. Obama did fairly little for the DNC, and never combined OFA with the DNC. When Clinton "won" the Primary, none of OFA's brilliance was there for her to use. Though, it wasn't the only reason she didn't win.

Re: Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

(R) is the mark of the beast.

Re:Delusional

[taiwanjohn]

but no doesn't matter. it's all Hillary's fault.

Yeah, exactly. This election should not have been close. Any decent candidate should have whupped Trump's ass by a comfortable margin. Hell, polls showed Bernie Sanders beating him by double digits in the week before the election -- at a time when HRC was only a couple of points ahead.

And in fact she did beat him by a couple of points, just not in the states where it mattered! So yeah... it WAS her fault.

By the way, don't blame me. I voted for her. (Much fucking good it did me...)

Re:Delusional

[taiwanjohn]

+1 Informative

Re:Delusional

[Shatrat]

Nothing person A does wrong excuses any actions of person B. No matter how many people Stalin killed, Hitler is still Hitler. No matter how incompetent and sleazy Trump is, Clinton is still who she is and has done what she has done, and that's why she'll never be President.

Re:Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not enjoying the Trump Show, you have no sense of covfefe

Re: Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

If Trump did things that were worse... what were they? We can supply you with something demonstrably worse that Clinton did for every non-debunked transgression of President Trump's.

Re:Delusional

[king neckbeard]

You're missing the point. in order to get voters out, you need to actually give them something to vote for instead of something to vote against.

Re:Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile Trump does everything 10 times worse, breaks all the rules, a hypocrite and lies all the time
 
You know, you're right about this except the "10 times worse" hyperbole. Just going back to the elections (the voters aren't soothsayers, FFS) Hillary was coming off as a straight-up troll with health problems. She brought hate, Trump brought some marginal form of hope. It was Hillary's undoing. A few months out it was her race to lose and she went out of her way to lose it.
 
But it seems like you're going to be a denier for the next 3.5 years. If the party continues on with people like you as spokesmen then I'm guessing Trump will take a second term. Joe Sixpack has had enough of the Dems pushing people around like this and all the "We're doomed!" types. They don't get to sit back and cry on election night, they need to get up for work the next morning. That stuff plays out fast with the public and kicking and screaming won't get your next candidate any closer to the Whitehouse than Clinton did this past election.
 
Lay your blame where ever you like, the proof of concept has been run.

Re:Delusional

[31415926535897]

I came here to say the same thing. I remember reading about Obama's data operations in an article like this one: https://www.technologyreview.c...

The DNC moped the floor with the RNC in terms of data analytics and social media use during Obama's campaign. Did they suddenly dismantle that when Hilary ran? I have a hard time believing that they didn't even make progress on it. At the same time, I was skeptical that the RNC had improved their data analytics over the last 4 years, and while I'm sure they did, I have to imagine the comparative advantage went to the DNC.

Hilary's cognitive dissonance is really astounding. I hope this pisses off the DNC and causes them to go for someone else in 2020.

Re:Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

Full power of the NSA data collection behind them as well. You don't really think they are using all that data to fail at catching terrorists do you?

She lost because everyone hates her. If the DNC ran a real primary vs. a farce for Clinton they would have won. She is responsible for Trump being our president. If you take away his personality and look at Trump on paper, he was the most moderate candidate they ever sent to the big stage. They put aside conservatives just to have what they thought would be the best chance of beating Clinton.

Re:Delusional

[ncc74656]

Do you want more Trump? Spreading lies about Trump is how you get more Trump.

Re: Delusional

[SScorpio]

Too bad Slashdot doesn't support Unicode to avoid using that.

Just look at that -> ®

Re:Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

4. Select an even mildly inspiring running mate, instead of Mr. Boring, Tim Kaine.

Given the support behind him in the primaries, I'll bet if she had chosen Sanders as her running mate, she would have won the election by a landslide.

Re:Delusional

[Prien715]

When people with an (R) by their name start apologizing, I'll start forgiving. I've heard no apology for Iraq to date and we have now an entire generation of young that have never known the US in peace.

Re:Delusional

[sexconker]

Hillary is too old and too tainted to run in 2020.
They're probably already grooming Chelsea for her eventual run.

Re:Delusional

[HornWumpus]

I hope so. She has all the charisma of her mom and biological dad, Web.

Re:Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

4. Select an even mildly inspiring running mate, instead of Mr. Boring, Tim Kaine. ...
9. Tell Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to stop rigging the primaries, so that when Podesta's emails get leaked, there's no "shenanigans" to get exposed.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was a Hillary insider. She took control of the DNC to ensure Hillary would win the primaries and not have a repeat of her losing to Obama. But why would the head of the DNC step down and let Debbie Wasserman-Schultz take their place? What's in it for them? Guess who the previous head of the DNC was? Tim Kaine. Now you understand why he was her running mate.

Re:Delusional

[phantomfive]

3. Make yard signs available to her supporters. (Apparently Robby Mook thought them "old fashioned".)

I was wondering why I saw so few Hillary bumper stickers in the last year or two. I saw more Obama stickers.

Re:Delusional

[phantomfive]

The ones I'm looking at are Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris. There's a heavy contingent of competent women in congress right now.

As an outsider, Oprah has a decent chance if she chooses to.

Re:Delusional

[breeze95]

You're assuming the Dems won't run Hillary's corpse over someone people actually like.

The Democrats have a history of shooting their wounded, so, Hillary 2020 is not going to happen.

Re:Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 insightful

Re:Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

I want Al Franken to skip the senate campaign and run in 2020; especially if Trump is still running. (I suspect that's the purpose of his book tour.)

Re:Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's my quick, off-the-cuff list of things she could have done to win:
1. Show up in Wisconsin during the campaign at least once.
2. Show up in a union hall in Michigan at least once.
3. Make yard signs available to her supporters. (Apparently Robby Mook thought them "old fashioned".)
4. Select an even mildly inspiring running mate, instead of Mr. Boring, Tim Kaine.
5. Tell Obama to stop lobbying for TPP while she's ostensibly running against it.
6. Have a clear message about why she wants to be president, not just that she's "the most qualified candidate in history".
7. Run on a core set of important issues, instead of being for a laundry list of vague "good things".
8. Don't spend 75% of your ad money on anti-Trump "he's a bad man" spots (spend it on #7, above).
9. Tell Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to stop rigging the primaries, so that when Podesta's emails get leaked, there's no "shenanigans" to get exposed.
10. Don't have a private email server in your closet, so there's nothing for James Comey to investigate in the first place.
11. Don't give speeches to Goldman Sachs for $225k a pop just a few years after the financial crisis, and just a couple of years before the election.

I could go on, but my fingers are getting tired...

you forget don't rig the primary.

Re:Delusional

[MooseMiester]

Truth. A rare thing. Bravo!

Re: Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

LMAO. Trump took more vacation in 150 days than old Bama my muslim brother, but has accomplished more for our country in that time span than Baracka Bye Baby.

Hillary never set foot in Wisconsin either

[CajunArson]

Hillary Clinton never set foot in Wisconsin during the general election and curiously enough she lost the state.

Obviously this is not due to her actions because she is perfect. The question has to be: Who let Jared Kushner lead 3 divisions of the Russian Army into Wisconsin to prevent her from campaigning there!
Keith Olbermann wants to know!

Re:Hillary never set foot in Wisconsin either

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG like did you know that Drumpf literally lost by 48 MILLION votes. like come on, he only got elected because of some antiquated system invented by white slave owners to suppress and disenfranchise people like transgender muslims. Blumpf is literally HITLER reincarnated and will shortly begin killing everyone who opposes him, most likely because he has tiny hands and needs to overcompensate due to his MAJOR deficiencies. Did you hear on CNN that cheetos face only won because a team of Russian spies, personally led by Vladimir Putin, let all the air out of the tires of Hillary voters so they literally couldn't vote in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. These Russians are pure evil. Like there was a report that someone who worked for Trump had a deal with someone in Russia at some point in the past, so I know that literally means Putin hacked the election and personally changed the outcome. We are literally at war with Russia right now. We need to find out who in the government is sympathetic to or literally working with the Russians right now. We need hearings and investigations to root out all these people, and we need loyalty tests for everyone. Hell there could be MILLIONS of Russian sympathizers or spies in the government right, at least that's what Buzzfeed told me this morning. Why this small handed orange Hitler wasn't impeached 5 minutes after he took office is baffling to say the least. I'm LITERALLY shaking right now at the thought of him destroying the planet. It's hilarious watching him crash and burn, but in all seriousness, we can't let this monster get the nuclear codes. Michael Moore said it would be the end of all life on earth, and he's always right.

Re:Hillary never set foot in Wisconsin either

[Anonymous Coward]

She had a lot of resources allocated for Wisconsin but obviously, the Russians hacked her server and re-routed her resources and travel plans to other states where she already had big leads. It is an OUTRAGE that we allow the Russians to run our country now. We should definitely WW3 them like right now.

Re:Hillary never set foot in Wisconsin either

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW. What a mope!

Re:Hillary never set foot in Wisconsin either

[Anonymous Coward]

That reads a lot like sarcasm. It sounds a lot like the crap I hear everyday in my cushy higher education job. It's really hard to work at a University right now.

Re:Hillary never set foot in Wisconsin either

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, someone has been watching too much CNN. You are just some crazy conspiracy nut job...

It was China who hacked her, they just went through Russia to make it seem like it was the Russians. By using a WAN DDIC mRAM conversion system they were able to partition the secondary firewall using the MS-DOS sub compiler to fake the internet FED-EX control package system to make it seem like the hacking was from Russia.

Seriously, how could you be so dumb not to realize this.

Re: Hillary never set foot in Wisconsin either

[Anonymous Coward]

The plot of red dawn 5 has just written itself.

Re:Hillary never set foot in Wisconsin either

[HornWumpus]

It would be hard not to LOL around the crybabies.

And if ANYONE could recognize a bankrupt op...

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's anyone on the planet that could recognize a bankrupt organization, it's Hillary

She lost because she was and is corrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

She lost because she was and still is corrupt to the bone.

Bless

[Anonymous Coward]

her little heart. She only outspent The Donald by a factor of 2 to 1, and still lost.

Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that word means what she thinks it means.

Data == Servers

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't she just roll her own. Servers are not hard to setup, especially email ones.

That's what we expect of the FLOTUS or a FORMER POTUS who get indicted by the SCROTUES sitting on the SCOTUS interpreting the COTUS for the POTUS.

Re:Data == Servers

[Anonymous Coward]

I get your point, but no, setting up an email server today is not a trivial task. Ars did a great piece on it here. The problem (compared to just throwing Postfix on a BSD box) is convincing all the "big boys" to talk to you. While essential these days, the anti-spam restrictions are a major pain in the ass.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/how-to-run-your-own-e-mail-server-with-your-own-domain-part-1/

Blamethrower for President in 2020

[mschaffer]

So, do you think she will run roughshod over the DNC to run again in 2020?

Re:Blamethrower for President in 2020

[aardvarkjoe]

So, do you think she will run roughshod over the DNC to run again in 2020?

I would say that Democrats couldn't possibly be stupid enough to nominate her again ... but on the other hand, they knew exactly how bad a candidate she was and nominated her anyway in 2016. So I wouldn't count her out.

Re:Blamethrower for President in 2020

[XxtraLarGe]

So, do you think she will run roughshod over the DNC to run again in 2020?

Not going to happen. She's been throwing everyone that helped her on her campaign under the bus, and I doubt she'll be healthier in 2020 either. Plus, even if she sought the nomination, she'd probably have to contend with Lezzy Warren, Corey Booker & Uncle Joe Biden. Nobody's going to clear the way for her, now that the Clinton Crime Family Foundation money laundering operation has gone belly up.

Re:Blamethrower for President in 2020

[will_die]

There has never been a candidate who made it to the primaries, lost then made it much further in an other election. No one really trusts them that they cannot build up voter support.

Re:Blamethrower for President in 2020

[Anonymous Coward]

So, do you think she will run roughshod over the DNC to run again in 2020?

Why do you think she will need to run roughshod over them? The DNC ran roughshod over all her competitors to make sure she got the nomination even knowing what a weak candidate she was in 2008. They'll probably do it again - it's *really* her turn this time, after all.

I would say that Democrats couldn't possibly be stupid enough to nominate her again ... but on the other hand, they knew exactly how bad a candidate she was and nominated her anyway in 2016. So I wouldn't count her out.

The Democrats didn't nominate her; the democrats never got that chance. The fix was in from the beginning, and nothing has changed since them to prevent them from fixing it again in 2020. Anybody that participates in the "Democratic" party primary until these problems are fixed is a chump and a fool.

Re:Blamethrower for President in 2020

[Train0987]

The DNC is stacked with Clinton loyalists and they've done everything possible to remain in control after failing so miserably and being exposed as corrupt. That's what "The Russians!" narrative is all about: an excuse for the commoners not to replace their own leadership. Does anyone really believe that a single Trump voter is now saying to themselves "Wow, Russia tricked me!". Hell no, it's meant for the dopes to have something else to blame instead of the corruption of their leadership.

Re:Blamethrower for President in 2020

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

So, do you think she will run roughshod over the DNC to run again in 2020?

No way, for a variety of reasons.

1) I can't imagine the superdelegates actually believe she remains the best option for 2020.
2) The DNC seems hell bent right now on making sure that people, mostly women, as divisive as Hillary remain the main decision makers going forward. If another presidential primary was coming up this year, Elizabeth Warren would be the front runner. And she has a great chance to be another Mondale and McGovern in a general election.
3) The email server stuff would start up all over again by somebody and overshadow everything - again.
4) The last time the Democrats tried the "nominate the same person who lost last time" trick, it didn't work so well. See 1956.
5) Hard to believe the majority of people who voted for Hillary wouldn't strongly prefer another candidate in the 2020 primaries if for no other reason than she lost to a truly terrible opposing candidate.
6) Her health is not great and I had doubts that even if she won that she'd be able to run for re-election. It's not getting better. She is on really powerful blood thinners with huge drawbacks that to me indicate that she has very large underlying health issues, much much more serious than is generally realized by the public. Let's just say that Donald Trump has a much higher chance of having the health needed to be president in 2020 than Hillary does.

Re:Blamethrower for President in 2020

[Cro Magnon]

I see two scenarios. Trump f**ks things up, and they nominate Clinton because they think anyone could win (that worked so well with Kerry).

Or Trump doesn't f**k things up too much, they nominate Clinton in 2020 to save their good people for 2024.

#2 might actually be a decent strategy.

Re:Blamethrower for President in 2020

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Clinton did have more votes than Trump. So the voter support was somewhat good.

Re:Blamethrower for President in 2020

[0123456]

"Well, Clinton did have more votes than Trump."

Yes, but millions of them were illegal or dead.

As polls consistently show, 99% of corpses vote Democrat.

Re:Blamethrower for President in 2020

[meta-monkey]

But all those "voters" will have been deported by 2020, so she'd need new ones.

Re:Blamethrower for President in 2020

[Train0987]

"Clinton did have more votes than Trump" Wrong. Trump had more votes: 304 to 227.

Re:Blamethrower for President in 2020

[jeff4747]

She will try.

Whether or not she succeeds depends on what happens in 2018.

Re:Blamethrower for President in 2020

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so ready for 8 years of Trump.
Right now, the only way I see him not being president for 8 years is if he himself decides not to run again, or he dies from stress.

Re:Blamethrower for President in 2020

[wyHunter]

Hear, hear.

Re: Blamethrower for President in 2020

[sound vision]

No doubt the Dems are trying to leverage the situation. But if you are denying that Russia ran a psy-ops campaign to influence the election, you are the one with your head in the sand. That has been their (and our) modus operandi ever since WW2. All that's different now are the tools. The information superhighway can truck propaganda as efficiently as it trucks other information... Which is very. Not to suggest that Russian interference was the only factor, far from it. By and large, the failings are internal to our governmental system. The Democratic party failed hard, as hard as the Republicans, in giving us a good candidate. People were so desperate for an outsider, it almost didn't matter who. Whoever could claim a major party's nomination while still keeping an air of independence was going to be on good footing. Of course, now that he is in power, we see he is mostly enacting the Republican corporatist wish list, barring a few attempts to save face on dumb shit like the Muslim ban. Politics is about perception even more than it is about governance. There is this perception, accurate perception, that Hillary is corrupt. And yet we had almost half the votes go to Trump, who is a poster boy for corruption if I've ever seen one. The difference is his corruption, until now, had all been private-sector - no public scrutiny. That is where "perception" comes in. He was perceived as the guy on The Apprentice making people rich, she was perceived as the corrupt politician.

Re: Blamethrower for President in 2020

[Train0987]

Of course they ran a psy-ops campaign just as all nation-states do to every other nation-state, but to say that this time it worked on 60+ million American people is delusional. In contrast, we DO know that the HRC campaign spent millions on online trolls under the Correct the Record guise. Millions! But that psy-ops campaign had no effect? Or did it backfire?

Re:Blamethrower for President in 2020

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's the money, stupid."

The Clintons are the most successful fundraising team in Democratic party history, period. The DNC looked at how much money she'd bring in, vs how much Bernie would, and that was what decided them. (No, it's an entertaining thought, but the calculation in 2019 won't be anything like the same.)

All this because running for office is just so goshdarn expensive. Who knew "free speech" could cost so much?

They don't have this problem in any European country. (They have whole different problems instead. But the one where "you need to be a millionaire before you can run for national public office", that's uniquely American.)

Re: Blamethrower for President in 2020

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just happy that the so called illegals that voted and the minorities like myself who Trump "doesn't like" #FakeNews, still voted for Trump. Because I'm sure that some of us had to have scratch out X for Trump to help seal a victory. And thank God for that.

Pathetically enough, as much as the media was at least 95% for crooked Hilary and as much as the celebrities were behind her it didn't help. Having private meeting with media to get the debate questions in advance didn't help her. If all that didn't help secure a victory it's gotta be something else. Anything but her own fault.

Dear democrats, please run her again in 4 yrs. She's gotta be out of excuses by then. But then again this is crooked Hilary. She'll just blame it on North Korea.

Utterly insane

[Brett Buck]

Everything is to blame, except for her own manifold failings.

Translation:

[sciengin]

"Its not my fault I lost"

After failing both 2008 and 2016 for the exact same reasons, namely that people really really hate her character and dishonesty, she still does not get it.
I guess there really is no cure for stupidity.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess there really is no cure for stupidity.

She's the smartest woman on the planet. If you don't believe it, just ask her.

Re:Translation:

[__aaclcg7560]

Hillary lost the 2008 election because Obama played a better numbers game than she did. She should have won the 2016 election but didn't do enough to keep Trump from winning the three states he needed to get into the electoral college. If she runs for 2020, then there is no cure for stupidity.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you hear? It was the Russians! They did all this!

And also those pesky deplorables in flyover states, it's completely their fault too ... how dare them try to think for themselves instead of leaving all the thinking to holier than thou coastal limousine liberals like they're supposed to.

Re:Translation:

[ooloorie]

Hillary lost the 2008 election because Obama played a better numbers game than she did.

Translation: Obama's message and personality appealed to more voters.

She should have won the 2016 election but didn't do enough to keep Trump from winning the three states he needed to get into the electoral college.

Translation: Voters hated Hillary even more than Trump. The only reason she won the popular vote was her cynical appeal to Latinos in California.

If she runs for 2020, then there is no cure for stupidity.

Whether she can get the Democratic nomination in 2020 depends on the same factors as before: can she get enough support from Wall Street, billionaires, and foreign dictators to install herself as the nominee; does she still have enough money, power, and influence? Given that the Clinton foundation has been dismantled, that is less likely. But she's still very wealthy and very well connected, and so is her husband. The fact that she is even more hated now than before the election needs to be weighed against the fact that her arrogance, vanity, and selfishness seem undiminished.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary lost the 2008 election because Obama played a better numbers game than she did. She should have won the 2016 election but didn't do enough to keep Trump from winning the three states he needed to get into the electoral college. If she runs for 2020, then there is no cure for stupidity.

Wrong.

Democrats didn't get blindsided by Wisconsin and Michigan going for Trump.

Remember Obama was in Michigan campaigning for Hillary the day before the election. So Hillary losing those states was not a surprise to Democrats - they knew they were in play.

And they deliberately kept Hillary out of them.

Hillary didn't campaign in Wisconsin or Michigan because every time she went there she lost votes - she's that horrible a candidate.

Re:Translation:

[meta-monkey]

Actually in 2008 I thought Hillary got more votes than Obama, but lost in the delegate count.

Re:Translation:

[__aaclcg7560]

Wrong.

You're the one who is wrong. Trump needed to win Ohio, North Carolina and Florida to get into the electoral college. If Trump had lost any one of those states, Hillary would be POTUS today.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/01/donald-trump-now-leads-in-two-of-his-three-must-win-states-but-the-path-forward-is-grim/

Re:Translation:

[__aaclcg7560]

Actually in 2008 I thought Hillary got more votes than Obama, but lost in the delegate count.

Hillary focused on the primary elections. Obama focused on the caucus elections. By the time the Hillary campaign realized what the Obama campaign was doing, Obama had enough delegates to secure the nomination. Never heard anything about the popular vote favoring one or the other during the nomination races.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

to get into the electoral college

Bro, you realize that the Electoral College is not a school, right...? You don't "get into" the electoral college, you "win electors" in the electoral college.

"Donald Trump, Electoral College, Class of 2020, BS in Political Science."

Fuck, you're stupid.

Re:Translation:

[ooloorie]

Actually in 2008 I thought Hillary got more votes than Obama, but lost in the delegate count.

Apparently the story of her life.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

To quote Barry Dylan: The definition of insanity is ***suppressing fire!!!***

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the one who is wrong. Trump needed to win Ohio, North Carolina and Florida to get into the electoral college. If Trump had lost any one of those states, Hillary would be POTUS today.

No, you are wrong. Trump won by 76 electoral votes. Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida have 18, 15, and 29 electoral votes, so he could have lost any one of them and still won. Hell, he could have lost Ohio and North Carolina and he would still be president.

The article you link is from before the election, and like most of those they assume that a bunch of states like Michigan are safely in Clinton's camp when in reality they were very much in play.

You are clearly an idiot.

Re:Translation:

[__aaclcg7560]

You are clearly an idiot.

I'm not the idiot who voted to put a moron into office who makes George W. look brilliant in comparison.

Here, let me tell you why you lost...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Hillary,

Please shut the fuck up.

I am a liberal democrat. I have been for 40 years. I have always voted for the Democrat, but not this time. I could not in good conscience pull the lever for you, and it was not because of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders (I am not a socialist).

Here, let me tell you why this liberal democrat, who has never abstained from pulling the (D) lever in a presidential election, did so for the first time in 2016.

It is because you are quite possibly the WORST person ever to walk the face of the Earth. You are self-serving, corrupt, and bought and paid for by dark special interests that you don't want us to know anything about. You are closed. You are opaque. You refuse to be transparent or even part way honest about anything. You are the OPPOSITE of what a liberal democrat is supposed to be. You are, for all intents an purposes, a totalitarian statist, not a liberal democrat who works for the people. Your husband is a saint next to you (and I had no problem voting twice for him, and would do it again today).

Plus, I am fairly certain you are going to die soon. Your iron-fisted secrecy around your obvious medical conditions could only lead someone to this conclusion.

So, in summary. You are corrupt. You are a bald-faced liar. You do not work for the American People. You are the worst possible choice for President.

Sincerely,
An American Liberal Democrat

Re:Here, let me tell you why you lost...

[plopez]

I've often said, "Trump is the Iron Fist, Hillary is the Iron Fist in a velvet glove."

Re:Here, let me tell you why you lost...

[PortHaven]

n, anti-war Republicans who were pulling for Bernie. And the DNC cheated him....

Re: Here, let me tell you why you lost...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to ask, was trump a better choice? (from not a usa citizen)

Re:Here, let me tell you why you lost...

[Brett Buck]

Hate to break it to you AC, but liberals democrats have been totalitarian statists since liberalism began. It is part and parcel with liberalism that it descend into totalitarianism, it is an utterly inevitable result of trying to force some people to act against their own interests for the alleged purpose of helping others.

Re:Here, let me tell you why you lost...

[CrashPoint]

Trump would like to believe that he's the Iron Fist, but he's really more one of those big plastic Hulk gloves.

Re:Here, let me tell you why you lost...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Hillary is the Iron Fist in a velvet glove.

We always knew she was a lesbian and was just married to "BJ" out of political convenience.

Re:Here, let me tell you why you lost...

[Anonymous Coward]

What is she complaining about lack of money for? The "foundation" has over 1 BILLION tucked away overseas. If it was really that dire, you'd think she would dip into that stash.

Re: Here, let me tell you why you lost...

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I think he may have been. Even if just by a very small margin.

I know that you non-Americans really love Clinton, for who-knows-why reasons, but she was a very very terrible choice. Rolling the dice with Trump was the more rational choice.

Re:Here, let me tell you why you lost...

[s.petry]

I believe you are confusing Liberalism with Leftist Progressivism. Liberalism in history was about personal Liberty (human rights). The Progressive leftist movement coopted Liberalism in the US and consumed the Democratic Party (and much of the Republican party as well).

Re:Here, let me tell you why you lost...

[ooloorie]

I believe you are confusing Liberalism with Leftist Progressivism

The left borrows nice sounding names every few decades, runs them into the ground, and then discards them.

What could be better than having a "community", being "social", being "bound together" as a society, being "totally" taken care of, or being for "progress"? Hence "communism", "socialism", "fascism", "totalitarianism", and "progressivism". All of those started out with positive connotations.

These people spent the last half century running "liberal" into the ground, by redefining the meaning of "liberty" from negative rights to positive rights. Any word these people touch is permanently corrupted and destroyed. Don't bother trying to reclaim "liberalism"; at best, you might talk about "classical liberalism".

So thats why she thought she would win

[Anonymous Coward]

It was all just her imagination.

It's all in a slogan

[PackMan97]

"I'm with Her" is what lost her this race. It highlights a self centered, corrupt, egoist. It was basically all about Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. "She's with me" would have been a far better slogan. Push a narrative that she is with the people and understand what the common person is going through. Instead of Hillary and her campaign shouting "Me, Me, Me", they should have been shouting "You, You, You"...and that's why Trump won the union states and beat Hillary. One would think that Bill Clinton's spouse would have gotten better advice. His "I understand your pain" approach in 1992 was as brilliant as Hillary's 2016 campaign was stupid.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[XxtraLarGe]

"I'm with Her" is what lost her this race. It highlights a self centered, corrupt, egoist. It was basically all about Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. "She's with me" would have been a far better slogan. Push a narrative that she is with the people and understand what the common person is going through. Instead of Hillary and her campaign shouting "Me, Me, Me", they should have been shouting "You, You, You"...and that's why Trump won the union states and beat Hillary.

To be fair, Trump was pretty "Me, Me, Me" as well. In his acceptance speech, he said "Only I can do this, only I can do that, only I blah, blah, blah." Hillary's slogan "I'm with Her" was really just a euphemism for "I want a female president, it's our turn!"

Re: It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you remember? The dems hate the common people. Oh wait, just the white common people.

If you're ignorant, dumb and white, bad.

If you're ignorant, dumb and dark, that's not your fault !

Re:It's all in a slogan

[avandesande]

Also I thought they way she announced she was running while sitting on the couch in a TV commercial was very odd. Seemed very lazy and entitled and it definitely set the tone for her campaign.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Triklyn]

'make america great again', vs 'i'm with her'

do you actually doubt that that's what they want to do? you might disagree with what defines great, you might disagree with how to get there... but i don't think anyone could actually reasonably argue that anyone in a 'maga' hat at one of those rallies didn't want the best for america.

i'm with her... yes? no? i don't really know because i don't know where that woman stands... and i should because I should have access, as an american, to every unclassified email she sent as secretary of state :)

Re:It's all in a slogan

[anegg]

In fact, if some folks in the US want anyone to blame for Trump being President, they should blame Hillary Clinton...

I know people who voted for Trump specifically as an "anyone but Hillary" vote. They might well have voted for Sanders if he had been offered up.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Train0987]

The vast majority of Trump voters were in reality voting against Clinton, not for him.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[kenh]

She "launched" her campaign twice, the first one didn't result in the media feeding-frenzy she hoped for, apparently.

And her multiple "listening tours" to find out what her platform should be was an underwhelming endeavor.

But yeah, but the (as yet un-named as such) "Vast Russian Conspiracy" is what cost her the position she was entitled to...

Re: It's all in a slogan

[mtmiller100]

pretty much. Unless you're LGBT, then you are also a member of the Grand Coalition of Self-Identified Victims, aka The Democratic Party.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[0100010001010011]

To be fair, Trump was pretty "Me, Me, Me" as well.

The difference is the "Me, Me, Me" message resonated with Trump supporters.

The "I'm with Her" message lost the people that believed more in "Stronger Together".

Trump did not win the election, Clinton lost it. Specifically Clinton lost Wisconsin and Michigan. Both states went to Sanders in the Primary and in the General saw a massive dive in DNC votes and a massive uptick in 3rd party votes. Johnson went from 8k to 172k between 2012 and 2016 in Michigan, That's not anything other than people going "Fuck Clinton".

State | Year | Green | Libertarian | Democratic | Republican |
Michigan | 2008 | 8,892 | 23,716 | 2,872,579 | 2,048,639 |
Michigan | 2012 | 21,897 | 7,774 | 2,564,569 | 2,115,256 |
Michigan | 2016 | 51,463 | 172,136 | 2,268,839 | 2,279,543 |
Wisconsin | 2008 | 4,216 | 8,858 | 1,677,211 | 1,262,393 |
Wisconsin | 2012 | 7,665 | 20,439 | 1,620,985 | 1,407,966 |
Wisconsin | 2016 | 31,072 | 106,674 | 1,382,536 | 1,405,284 |

I broke down which states would have flipped based on what percentage of additional 3rd votes would have gone to a candidate other than Clinton:

100% | 75% | 50%
  Arizona | Florida | Michigan
  Florida | Michigan | Pennsylvania
  Michigan | Pennsylvania | Wisconsin
  Pennsylvania | Wisconsin
  Wisconsin

So if you assume half of the votes 3rd party candidates picked up between 2012 & 2016 would have gone to anyone but Clinton the democrats would have picked up PA in addition to MI and WI. If they were 75% they would have added Florida.

[I tried with the formatting but Slashdot doesn't like 'junk' characters, even in code blocks]

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Brett Buck]

Trump never claimed anything else. What was so blatantly fraudulent about Hillary was that she would always pay lip service to fighting for the little guys, but it was perfectly clear that she was an international oligarch, taking money from each and every obscenely rich donor after another, and clearly lying about it, over and over again. She has exactly zero charisma and avoided anything but the most softball venues where she could be assured of cloying praise. All the while, using a completely corrupt organization to crush another candidate like a bug, despite his large following. Bernie is a bumbling communist imbecile, but he at least believes what he says.

   

Re:It's all in a slogan

[0123456]

Every Trump voter I know was voting for him. They might have held their nose to vote for Jeb Bush if the Republican Establishment had managed to get him the nomination, but many would just have stayed at home if Trump wasn't the nominee.

That's not to say they wouldn't have preferred a different candidate, but he was the only one standing who they could get enthusiastic about.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, that might have been fun to see. the divide healed in congress.

if there's one thing that could bring together republicans and democrats... it would be in stopping the agenda of a fucking socialist.

Stronger together.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[meta-monkey]

One would think that Bill Clinton's spouse would have gotten better advice.

I think she did, she just ignored it. In the article I read on...I want to say Politico...dissecting the loss shortly after the election, they were saying that Bill was telling her to make more stops in Michigan, Ohio, etc to talk to the white working class and they laughed Bill off. The blue wall was on lock and the data said they didn't need white men anymore. Whoops.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Archangel Michael]

The vast majority of voters voted for Hillary. She won the popular vote.

But that isn't exactly how the Presidential Elections are counted, and Hillary didn't campaign except in states that she was winning, securing the ... popular vote. Trump dumped a ton of money, and spent time in rust belt talking their language, and Hillary was avoiding the public like the plague it was with her health issues.

In the end, a lot people felt less uncomfortable with Trump than with Clinton, especially in key states, and that led to the stunned media / DC complex on Election night. Watching Wolf Blitzer try and find "votes" on the big board for Hillary was comedic gold.

But yeah, it was the Russians hacking the elections and Trump Collusion and DNC data people and* ...

Notice, it was never Hillary being a terribly flawed candidate, caught cheating with the DNC, MSM against Bernie, and hiding out trying to coast in for the win.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[meta-monkey]

"Ready For Hillary" was worse, still. The best interpretation is "gee, I guess I'm...resigned to the fact that Hillary's getting rammed through" and at worst it's something like "okay doctor I'm ready for my colonoscopy."

Re:It's all in a slogan

[XxtraLarGe]

Every Trump voter I know was voting for him.

I know several Trump voters who were voting against Clinton because they saw her being president an intolerable situation. Out of my 200 or so friends & family on Facebook, there were maybe a dozen Clinton supporters (mostly female or gay), and none of them were enthusiastic about it. They saw Trump as an existential threat to feminist causes, so they were motivated by fear.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Dutchmaan]

So you knew, what, 1 or 2 Trump voters then?

Re:It's all in a slogan

[MightyYar]

Both candidates were unbelievable egotists... it's hard to even compare them because I think we reached peak, saturated ego. With that said, what I heard from the Hillary Camp was roughly: "ME ME ME NOT TRUMP ME ME ME ME NOT TRUMP" and almost no other messaging. Trump did not have anything approaching a coherent message. I'm not sure he had a coherent thought. But his message was roughly: "ME ME ME EVIL HILLARY JOBS JOBS SAFETY SAFETY ME ME ME EVIL HILLARY". Notice that, even while yelling about himself and his opponent, he was throwing stuff out there about jobs and safety. His solutions (in so much as they exist) for jobs and safety are deeply flawed, but at least it was a main thrust of his campaign. Don't get me wrong... it was an extremely close election and Hillary may be technically correct that her behavior did not cost her the election. But it was a factor, and the same can be said of all the other causes. This thing should not have been close at all, and she and the DNC really blew it on multiple fronts.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

hey were saying that Bill was telling her to make more stops in Michigan, Ohio, etc to talk to the white working class and they laughed Bill off.

Yeah, she was too busy hanging out with her celebrity SJW friends and agreeing with them that white males are evil. I don't think she even realized that there is a whole country that exists between New York and California.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[sl3xd]

The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Vast Russian Conspiracy" is like the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that started the Iraq invasion.
Both were constructs of the intelligence community designed to influence the executive branch. Both will ultimately be damaging to the U.S.A

Re:It's all in a slogan

[XxtraLarGe]

The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.

It's something a lot of Tea Partiers, etc., believed due to Obama being President.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[JWW]

Ding, ding, fucking ding. We have a winner.

I didn't LIKE voting for Trump, but there was no fucking way in hell I was going to vote for Hillary....

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Every Trump voter that I know, were voting against Hillary. Unfortunately, they were effectively throwing their vote away. We live in a solidly-blue state, so Trump was never gonna win our state. All they were doing was voting for who the runner-up would be.

I tried to convince them that, in our case, voting for a candidate they actually like would be more likely to make a difference than voting against the candidate they dislike, but they wouldn't hear any of it.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[thevirtualcat]

I feel like most of the votes cast in 2016 for the two main candidates were against the other candidate rather than for the one they voted for.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong. Completely. I know several of these Trump supporters, and it's selfish. Nothing to do with making America great, it's about #1 (themselves).

Re:It's all in a slogan

[DNS-and-BIND]

Once again, most Americans claim they are exceptional, and live on the greatest nation in the world, yet most have never travelled outside the US, so their uneducated opinion counts for nothing. But that's a common flaw among the American people, they believe that if they say it, is it true. They don't ever let facts get in the way of a good opinion.

• The U.S. is Number 1 in defense spending
• The U.S. is Number 1 in the cost of health care
• The U.S. is Number 1 in abortions of all the developed countries
• The U.S. is Number 1 in medical bankruptcies
• The U.S. is Number 1 in prison populations per capita
• The U.S. is Number 1 in small arms ownership

[What makes America the greatest country in the world?] It's not the greatest country in the world! We're seventh in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, No. 4 in labor force, and No. 4 in exports. So when you ask what makes us the greatest country in the world, I don't know what the f*** you're talking about.

-- Aaron Sorkin

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/03/21-maps-and-charts-that-prove-america-is-number-one/

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

That all looks like the kind of thing that might have gone better if the DNC had a better data operation.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[bongey]

Trump won , beating Hillary. Falsely assuming that 50% had to be democrats breaking libertarian. While forgetting libertarian in the US is far right wing, with many libertarian politicians being former Republicans.Pulling the libertarian column out because they weren't democrats breaking, it was NeverTrump Republicans breaking. Then there were far more Democrats breaking Trump, than Democrats breaking libertarian. Your entire argument is bogus.

Finally the DNC and the Democrats picked Hillary even though she was under an active FBI investigation and she didn't bother to drop out because of it. Hillary was cleared a few weeks before the DNC convention, anyone else would have dropped out.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never looked for this data and am glad you took the time to dig it up. I find it fascinating, especially the Michigan numbers. Between 2012 and 2016 the Democrats lost 300000 votes. To me it is interesting that essentially half of them went to Libertarian, but the other half went to Trump. Sure, you can think of all of those Libertarian votes as fuck Clinton, but the switch to Republican (if in fact they represent the same voters - it may be more likely that 150000 Democrats voted Libertarian and half stayed home, and 150000 more Republicans showed up to vote) would indicate some resonance with his message.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.

I guess you missed all the carping about how horrible America became when Donald Trump was elected.

And when George W. Bush was elected.

And when George H. W. Bush was elected.

And when Ronald Reagan was elected.

And when Richard Nixon was elected.

Notice a pattern?

Re:It's all in a slogan

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

This election was Nyarlathotep vs. Cthulhu; neither choice was a good one. It amazes me that out of 330 million people these two are the "best" we could come up with.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[squiggleslash]

Sure you did. Clinton was awful, but she was no worse than any of the Presidents we've had since before her husband took office. She was the victim of a 25 year old smear campaign, but unless you were asleep you wouldn't have missed that, and you would have taken into account the fact the recent talking points against her, about emails and Benghazi, were so shaky they'd been rejected even by Republican congressional committees.

Meanwhile, Trump was clearly a fraud. You knew about Trump U. You knew about the spate of bankruptcies. You knew about his ripping off suppliers. And at the same time, for all Clinton's post-Bush-I New World Orderish/Neo-conservatism, Trump was actually acting like an actual fascist - he was scapegoating vulnerable minorities for America's problems, and he was actually, directly, encouraging violence against protestors and claiming he'd abuse the law to lock up his political opponents.

And he was doing so completely openly.

You're saying that Trump vs Clinton was some difficult vote where Trump wasn't ideal, but Clinton was just so bad? Bullshit. You voted for Trump because you wanted Trump. Maybe you wanted to watch the world burn, I don't know, but you had enough information at the time to know that Clinton, while bad, wasn't anything like as terrible as her detractors pretended, and that Trump was one of the worst candidates ever to run a democratic nation that tries, for all of its faults, to be a beacon for freedom and democracy across the world. You voted for a low rent Mussolini to prevent a low rent still-better-than-Dubya from taking office.

Don't pretend otherwise. Nobody voted for Trump reluctantly. If you're voting for lesser of two evils, you're not voting for Trump.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[king neckbeard]

No, America is a shitshow, and we know it, despite deeply ingrained jingoism. Congress is lucky to have double digit approval ratings.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, Trump was pretty "Me, Me, Me" as well.
 
Really? I seen a lot of Trump taking about America and making it great by bringing back jobs and putting main street to work again. While it may have been anywhere between naive and one big lie it was a message of hope versus the candidate who was running 80% "Hate Trump!" ads in a swing state. Very literally the majority of her ads in the state of Pennsylvania, a swing state that she lost, never mentioned her until the last seconds where she endorsed the ad. It was all about how we should hate someone else. When Trump won it was like Emmanuel Goldstein winning the election. After months of being smacked in the face with her two-minute hate at every turn I was just happy that it was over. Maybe she didn't run the same strategy elsewhere but it was obscene how hellbent she was to get people to vote for her simply because she wasn't Trump. The other handful of ads were "I like children" styled commercials.
 
  he said "Only I can do this, only I can do that, only I blah, blah, blah."
 
Yeah, he's an ass. I'll give you that but Hillary wasn't bringing anything to the table to offset that.
 
  Hillary's slogan "I'm with Her" was really just a euphemism for "I want a female president, it's our turn!"
 
Nothing against female leadership but if her qualification for office was simply that she was female then she had already alienated half her potential voting base. We've seen the crap storm from both the right and left about sandbagging anyone outside their circle and frankly it was crap itself. But still we see the left pulling this Resist thing to the point that we know we're in for another 4-8 years of it. Do you really think we're going to get back to being One Nation like this? What it seems to me is that neither party really has anything they're willing to do that will really address the main street crowd so they're offering up two turd sandwiches and seeing who eats which one lest they starve.
 
If that doesn't fill you with contempt for the two party system then nothing will short of actual starvation in this country.
 
And just for the record, I didn't vote for Trump. I haven't voted for a major party candidate for president since Clinton's first time around. I actually voted for Clinton but then I dropped support of him like a hot potato once I saw him in action. I'm not registered to either party nor have I ever been.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from Pennsylvania and I saw a lot more Hillary in the media and more Trump on the streets. While Trump physically came around the state a lot I was very skeptical going into the election that he'd take the state. So as far as overall effort I'd say it was about a tie but the methods of outreach were notable.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[xSauronx]

re: Push a narrative that she is with the people and understand what the common person is going through.

yeah, it would have to be a narrative, because its a load of crap.

but thats the issue with the Dems anyways -- they are just so awestruck at trump and the GOP that they can do nothing but stare. good job, dems, good job. keep standing there.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[0100010001010011]

Falsely assuming that 50% had to be democrats breaking libertarian. While forgetting libertarian in the US is far right wing, with many libertarian politicians being former Republicans.

Which means you didn't look at the other 3rd party in the election. In Wisconsin the Green Party went from 7.6k to 31k. They picked up 659 more votes between 2012 and 2016 than Trump won by.

In Michigan the Green party picked up 30,000 votes and Clinton lost by 10,000. So completely ignoring the Libertarians the additional votes the Green party got in MI and WI were more than enough to put the Democrats over the top in those states.

Additionally you really can't characterize the nuances between each of the parties in each state by looking how they behave at a national level.

In rural Wisconsin and Michigan a Sanders Democrat and Libertarian have more in common than say a Michigan Democrat and NYC Democrat. Not understanding how people think or even taking the time to come talk to them and understand their motivations has proven to be a bad course of action.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump dumped a ton of money,

And yet spent considerably less than Hillary did with better results.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[rayzat]

I'm watching some pre-election TV shows I recorded, when the campaign ads come on I can totally understand why Hillary lost, her ads fall into that really bad spot from a production quality standpoint where it's better then the sort of cheesy and comfortable videos and worse then a top notch production. Her messages are all over the place and change almost week to week, except they all tend to focus on the negative. Trumps ads all seem to be very cheesy or masterful productions, and he stays pretty much on his MAGA point. When you watch the Trump videos you actually feel kind of good, even if you do like him. When you watch the Hillary videos you feel bad even if you like her.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[dasgoober]

No, oddly enough they voted for Obama's campaign slogan: "Change".
People feeling the squeeze of falling jobs, falling incomes, immigration pressures saw Clinton as a continuation of policies that had given them the shaft for the last 20+ years.

The same way that people came to the conclusion that any change in the healthcare system was worth a shot, so they viewed Trump.

Re: It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL "-1, Punching Up will Continue until Morale Improves"

Re: It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

I tend to think of them as "The Coalition of the Useless".

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/ cites Hillary as 48.03% of the US national popular vote.

That she won the popular vote is primarily indisputable.

That: "The vast majority of voters voted for Hillary" is forgive me -- clearly a falsehood, if not a lie.

Any definition you find indicating it is merely a 'larger' number is at best antiquated. And this once again is why items defending Hillary's 'win' get laughed at in non-Hillary (not necessarily pro trump) circles.

She _didn't_ get a majority, but some communities persist in manufacturing that lie. It was a plurality. When we can't even discuss the numbers after the fact accurately, it leads to even more misconceptions. We're divided -- divided enough that she won a plurality of the popular vote, but certainly not the supposed 'manifest' or the majority.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Wycliffe]

No, oddly enough they voted for Obama's campaign slogan: "Change".
People feeling the squeeze of falling jobs, falling incomes, immigration pressures saw Clinton as a continuation of policies that had given them the shaft for the last 20+ years.

The same way that people came to the conclusion that any change in the healthcare system was worth a shot, so they viewed Trump.

Exactly this. The reason Trump won a lot of the same counties that Obama did is because they both ran on basically the same platform. Trump and Obama both campaigned on change while Clinton campaigned on "more of the same". Clinton should have seen this in the primaries when all the "more of the same" candidates on both side quickly fell. The only candidates that survived for any length of time were Bernie (change) and republicans that were also outsiders offering change. Granted Clinton was an exceptionally bad candidate with a lot of people who REALLY disliked her but in her defence, that's not what lost her the election. What lost her the election was that she chose to campaign on the "status quo" while both sides were looking for an outsider to upset the fruit basket.

One of the main reasons that liberals in the big city still have a hard time seeing this is that the last decade has been relatively good to them and they don't see the stagnation that the people in the rust belt see.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[DarkOx]

The vast majority of voters voted for Hillary. She won the popular vote.

Where the 'vast majority' describes a 2.1% margin. Seriously #fakenews

It was virtually a dead heat, and the "Vast majority" to lift your language of Clinton's votes over Trump came from a couple of bicoastal metropolises that have drastically different political make up and narrow interests than the rest of the nation.

Lets not get into where the "vast majority" of likely illegal alien votes were cast either.

Yes Trump's claim to have won the popular vote, but for the illegals and rigging in silly. However if you do remove those things than her already very small popular vote margin is even smaller. I would argue that allowing NY and CA to effectively dictate presidential outcomes would be very bad for the country as they don't represent same interests. Its why the electoral college exists. Its a good design, and statistically benefits democrats most of the time, to boot.

Take a look a Brexit, the most opposition was in a couple big cities that are heavily tied to international finance. Same thing with CA and NY here. If the rest of us had and real sense we'd find a way to not let them vote at all.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really not understand the difference between a campaign platform and an acceptance speech after an election?

The only way to make 'merika great again would be to rebuild the education system from scratch. And maybe knock California into the ocean to get rid of the hollywood propaganda against having a brain or an independent thought.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Wycliffe]

In rural Wisconsin and Michigan a Sanders Democrat and Libertarian have more in common than say a Michigan Democrat and NYC Democrat. Not understanding how people think or even taking the time to come talk to them and understand their motivations has proven to be a bad course of action.

I disagree. I think most of the Sanders democrats voted for Trump not libertarian. The libertarian votes were likely mostly republicans that just couldn't stomach Trump or Clinton. I know several diehard Obama supporters in the rust belt that were fanatical about Bernie in the primaries and then turned and became fanatical about Trump in the general. Yes, they would have rather have Sanders but when Sanders dropped out, they moved over to Trump with hardly a blink. Exit polls backed this up with a large percentage of people voting for Trump wanting "more liberal" policies.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Hafnia]

Bernie might be a bumbling imbecile, but communist?

What he seems to aim for is something like scandinavia, and I can tell you it's really not bad.
I'm from Denmark, and we have free healthcare and education, we strive for a just soceity and to keep the planet habitable.... at least most of us do, I think.
We still have filthy rich people with yachts and helicopters, if you work hard you can get what you want.
Except guns - we believe law inforcement should have an advantage ... stupid, I know.

Why does so many Americans reject the thought of soceity keeping the population healthy and educated?
Is it because most Americans are religious, and believe if God gave you poor parents you must deserve it?

Anyway .... Your new president does not represent you well, he is incompetent, ignorant and a fool.
And his sidekick Pence is a raving lunatic.
I hope you do better next time, the world won't be the same without you.
Bye now, take care ......

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

..and most europeans haven't traveled to the US, so their uneducated opinions count for nothing. Doesn't stop them from expressing them.

1. Yes, a lot of which was to defend Europe's sorry ass after WWII.
2. Advanced medical care is expensive. It's just that more of ours is itemized since it's not covered by high income and sales taxes.
3. You can thank progressivism for that one. Today, thanks to propaganda, girls grow up with chips on their shoulders about men and being decent mothers and wives.
4. Yes, advanced medical care is expensive and it is also inflated by insurance companies and governments' socialist healthcare. Providers wouldn't be able to charge what they do if they had to work directly with patients that have typical working class incomes. Price is what the market will bear after all.
5. This is a legit problem mainly because there are a lot of stupid laws on the books.
6. This is not a problem.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[wyHunter]

Actually it started under Bush, though not as organized. The 'libertarian wing' hates the 'business as usual' Republicans as much as Democrats.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Wycliffe]

I've never looked for this data and am glad you took the time to dig it up. I find it fascinating, especially the Michigan numbers. Between 2012 and 2016 the Democrats lost 300000 votes. To me it is interesting that essentially half of them went to Libertarian, but the other half went to Trump. Sure, you can think of all of those Libertarian votes as fuck Clinton, but the switch to Republican (if in fact they represent the same voters - it may be more likely that 150000 Democrats voted Libertarian and half stayed home, and 150000 more Republicans showed up to vote) would indicate some resonance with his message.

From what I've seen, I think it is much more likely that the vast majority of those 300k democrats voted for Trump and the only reason that Trump didn't win in a complete landslide is because 150k republicans defected to the libertarian party. I have yet to meet a single democrat that says they voted libertarian while I've met a lot of democrats that voted for Trump and a lot of republicans that voted libertarian. It makes more sense to have a double shuffle like this than a complete jump. A defecting democrat has a lot more in common with Trump or the green party than with the libertarian party.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

selfish relative to what? the 'infinite selflessness' ideal pushed by socialists?

Re:It's all in a slogan

[larryjoe]

The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.

Most Americans view the greatness of America in the context of the current quality of their own standard of living. Unfortunately over the last several years, many Americans have struggled to maintain their standard of living and for them, America (i.e., their perception of the part of America that they most clearly see) stopped being great. This economic struggle has been particularly challenging for many Americans who don't read slashdot and haven't necessarily benefited from the uptick in the tech industry.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I am not sure that 'most' agreed. I can definitely say an electoral college division of voters sure didn't. Even today many people who were 'with her' have a few complaints.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.

You couldn't be more wrong.

You don't know a goddamned thing about what "most Americans" believe.

Most Americans are frustrated to the point of being on the edge every single day. They are tired of seeing scum living off the taxes they pay, tired of seeing aliens taking their jobs, and tired of seeing a federal government that seems to care about everyone BUT them.

If you think you can possibly speak for "most Americans", you ought to be slapped in the head hard enough to make your fucking ears bleed, you clueless fuck.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[ObiWanKenblowme]

The problem with your line of thinking is that you're saying she should have blatantly lied about policy choices in order to win. "Change" is/was not what the US needs, despite a vocal minority shouting at the top of their lungs. We've seen the projections for "change" over the last 8 months - 24 million Americans losing health insurance, regulations lowered or removed altogether on financial institutions and environmental pollution, weakened security due to willful ignorance and insults aimed at our allies.

The so-called "liberals in the big city" are doing well because they're adapting to, not fighting against, economic reality. The stagnation you mention in the rust belt has nothing to do with Obama, or "elitist liberals", or the ACA. It has to do with the economic realities of a 21st century global economy. I'm truly sorry if coal mining is no longer a viable means of supporting your community, but economic and political isolationism isn't the answer. Investments in education and subsidies for emerging markets (like clean energy) are the only real way to avoid the collapse of the rust belt. Unfortunately the GOP is doing its best to undermine both, while making entirely unrealistic promises to their base, like "we'll bring back coal".

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Grishnakh]

Why does so many Americans reject the thought of soceity keeping the population healthy and educated?
Is it because most Americans are religious, and believe if God gave you poor parents you must deserve it?

As an American, basically, yes. We really do believe that kind of thing here. We have tons of mega-churches telling us that rich people are loved more by God and that's why they're rich. I wish I were kidding.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[TsuruchiBrian]

The electoral college is a horrible design. I fail to see how the electoral college prevents CA and NY from deciding the election. It actually causes 100% of their votes to go to a single candidate. A popular vote would reduce the effect that California has on the election. It would give a voice to the republicans living in new york and california, just as it would give a voice to democrats living in texas.

In 2024 when Texas flips to being a blue state, we will see CA, NY and TX deciding every election for the democrats, by ensuring that every republican in those states is disenfranchised. I'm not a dermocrat, so I don't see this as a good thing, other than it's potential to convince people of the weakness in this election system.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[dgatwood]

The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.

Once again, most Americans claim they are exceptional, and live on the greatest nation in the world, yet most have never travelled outside the US, so their uneducated opinion counts for nothing. But that's a common flaw among the American people, they believe that if they say it, is it true. They don't ever let facts get in the way of a good opinion.

[Long list of areas in which America is not the best redacted]

That's a composition fallacy. To use a car analogy, a Ferrari's gas mileage is much worse than a Prius, but that doesn't make the Ferrari a not-great car.

America doesn't have to be best at everything to be a great country. It just has to not be below a certain badness threshold in any area.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

While forgetting libertarian in the US is far right wing
 
While I will say that libertarians do lean right by modern political standards you're really pushing it to claim that we're the far right. Most libertarians today are what would have been considered fiscally minded republicans and civil rights minded democrats 40 years ago.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[dgatwood]

And yet, ask any American, and you'll hear that his or her congresspeople are all good. As long as that continues to be true—as long as people believe that Congress is awful except for their Senators and Reps—we'll continue to get the same results. Instead of starting from the assumption that our individual congresspeople are good, we need to each start from the assumption that they are incompetent and try to find proof to the contrary, and if we can't, vote them out and hope that the next person is better; repeat until competent.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[poity]

In 2015, we saw the main stream press incessantly report on the shrinking of the American middle class, muckrake every white-on-black police shooting like it was 1950's Alabama nation-wide, and breathlessly warn us of the racism/sexism/rape "EPIDEMICS" in our schools, our government, our industries.

In 2016, right after Trump began talking about the decline of America, we saw the same main stream press nearly crack their collective spines bending over backwards so abruptly to now convince us that today's America is the greatest that has ever been.

Re: It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Dey tewkk errrrr jobbzzzzzz!!!!

Re: It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

A 2 percent margin does not a 'vast majority' make. But keep on with that narrative, it'll loose you the next election as well.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Tomato3]

The vast majority of voters voted for Hillary. She won the popular vote.

Well, that's just wrong. She didn't win the majority of anything. Even if you did away with the Electoral College (which would be a difficult thing to do) she still didn't win a majority of the popular vote. No one got 50% + 1 of the vote. And with no majority (and no Electoral College) the Presidency is decided by the incoming House of Representatives using one vote per state. And I can almost guarantee she would've lost that without even looking it up.

That's just one more reason she was a terrible candidate. Not only did the Democrats and Independents not vote for her they also stayed home in regards to the House and Senate races. And I say all that as a Democrat.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[sexconker]

Shitty reference. Kang vs. Kodos.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump won the popular vote in 37 of 50 states.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Cite?

I think Americans are generous but we hate being told to hand our money over to a government who'll decide who's worthy to receive it.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[liquid_schwartz]

Hillary's slogan "I'm with Her" was really just a euphemism for "I want a female president, it's our turn!"

More women than men have voted in every election for over 20 years. If you all got together behind a person, like the black vote did with Obama, you would have had a string of female presidents by now. Hopefully they do better than the high profile female CEOs who as a group have been a disaster.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[0123456]

Your post is a great example of exactly why Trump won.

Liberal 'elites' showing contempt for the majority of the country--and, particularly for the people who use to be the core of Democrat voters--was never going to get Clinton into the White House.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

A tale of half truths and outright falsehoods, told by a fictional character in a political story by a TV writer is the best you can come up with?

That particular fable is one of the best examples of cherry-picking and redefining to produce the desired outcome you will ever find.
#1 defense spending? Of course they are, America is the world's police! When Korea was a problem, when Russia was a threat, when Yugoslavia had problems, or Haiti, or Somalia, or Sudan, who gets called on? When Rwandans are slaughtering each other, who gets told to "do something"?
#1 cost of health care? Yup. Also #1 in medical R&D - the US supplies 50%+ of the world's medical R&D budget, which the rest of the world leeches off of. Don't forget that the US leads in medical outcomes for most major threats - including cancer, where the US 5-year survival rate is 50% or more better than the rest of the world.
#1 in abortions? Well, yeah, of developed nations. If only Christian Republicans had succeeded in making abortion illegal or much more restricted like all of Europe, right?
#1 in medical bankruptcies? Do you know that this stat is ONLY true if you count all bankruptcies in which the person owes at least $1 in medical expenses? That's right, owe $1 for asprin and $1 million for you house, and you too can be a "medical bankruptcy"!
#1 in prison population - A mixed result. It'd be better if Americans didn't commit so much crime (especially specific ethnic groups). On the other hand, it's better than places like the UK where criminals with 70+ convictions are put back out on the street the day they are convicted.
#1 is small arms ownership? HELL YEAH! That's a good thing. Only cowards and would-be tyrants think it isn't. Glad to see people recognizing one of the many things that makes the US #1.

I could go on, but I'll specifically tough just this one more:
#178 in infant mortality.
This is the BEST example of how to lie with statistics in the list.
In the US, a "live birth" is any birth in which the infant showed any signs of life, even if it was doomed to die. A single heartbeat, twitch of a finger, ANYTHING - live birth. 16 week old malformed child missing half its organs, but takes one breath? Live birth.
In comparison, you have wildly different and more conservative states in Europe. Some nations don't measure births before a certain date, like 24 weeks. Or births below a certain weight, like 500 grams. Or requires that the child live for a certain amount of time (hours, sometimes even days) before being counted as a live birth.

Of course the US looks like more children die, when the others have carefully eliminated all the dead children from their totals.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Grishnakh]

Huh? This has nothing to do with governments or taxation, it's entirely about religion. Americans are happy to hand over their money to their church, especially when their church tells them that God will make them rich if they do.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

His acceptance speech was also a lot of, "I need/want your help to make things better."

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Hafnia]

Isn't that the point of a civilized soceity?

You don't seem to have a problem with the government handing your money to big fat corporations.
I don't think there is any doubt that American education and healthcare is great, if you can afford the good stuff
But it's also very expensive when private company's get to charge whatever they want.

Educating and caring for poor people, will make it more likely that they will be able to care for themselves one day.
Is that a far out point of view?

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

He was seen waving rainbow flags and talking about protecting gay rights during his speeches. I did not find this out until after he was elected. I realized we were only watching spliced speeches on most news outlets, which shouldn't have been surprising.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[HornWumpus]

My congress people, particularly my senators, suck big wet festering donkey balls. I live in CA.

You point...disproved...'ask any American.'

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Something to also consider, many people vote Dem for 2 terms, then switch to Rep for 2 terms. Repeating this pattern because they think it balances out somehow.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[HornWumpus]

Yes communist bumbling imbecile.

He's on record supporting Castro. Also he went to the god damn USSR for his honeymoon (visiting Lenin's tomb is a post wedding ritual for reds). I bet he paid the official exchange rate while their, fucking red.

Once he started triangulating on national politics he started to hide how much of a nut he is.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets not get into where the "vast majority" of likely illegal alien votes were cast either.

Don't forget that the handful of counties where the most votes for Hillary were cast, to a tune of several million, were and still are sanctuary-cities with a policy of intentionally not enforcing immigration or citizenship laws.

Obama himself called for people to not worry about being investigated for valid citizenship status and when accusations of non-citizens voting came up the DNC party line was that no one knows for certain thus there is no evidence of illegal-immigrants voting. All the while many news outlets saying this, intentionally left out the fact that, in sanctuary-cities by policy those voting records were not kept. If nothing else, they left the door conveniently open and looked the other way.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

The votes disagree with you. There is a huge block of Americans who work their asses off yet fall further and further behind both economically and socially. To these people America stopped being great decades ago.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're voting for lesser of two evils, you're not voting for Trump.

Why vote for the lesser evil? I voted for Cthulhu.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[amicusNYCL]

The U.S. is Number 1 in abortions of all the developed countries

Out of all of the stats you posted, that one stands out as being obvious. Of course we have the most abortions, we're the most populous developed country. It would be ridiculous if Switzerland had more abortions than the US. That's like saying we eat the most food or drink the most water of any developed country.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[painandgreed]

The electoral college is a horrible design. I fail to see how the electoral college prevents CA and NY from deciding the election. It actually causes 100% of their votes to go to a single candidate.

That really doesn't have anything to do with the electoral college. How the votes are divided depends on each individual state. Some states do have proportional representation.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Labeling Clinton as a victim is almost hilarious.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Hafnia]

Well .... maybe he was studying something he thought might work and got wiser, maybe not, I really don't know enough about American politics.
But nevermind Bernie, I still don't get the general american opposition to public healthcare and education, no matter how rich you are it still makes sense.
And it's fair, if you believe people are born equal and free that is.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[jcr]

you can think of all of those Libertarian votes as fuck Clinton,

Libertarian here. It's not so much "fuck Clinton", as "fuck the whole Ruling Party".

-jcr

Re:It's all in a slogan

[amicusNYCL]

The vast majority of Trump voters were in reality voting against Clinton, not for him.

I don't know how "vast" the majority was (I think it was actually a pretty small difference), but that was true for both candidates. Both candidates had more people voting against their opponent then in favor of them, at least according to polls a couple months before the election. There was a ridiculous level of apathy or disapproval with both candidates which I think caused a lot of people to not vote at all, which is what allowed the single most-disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling to defeat the second most-disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling. People just didn't really like either of them enough to come out and vote, which is why that election had the lowest voter turnout in 20 years despite the intense non-stop media coverage. And for some reason, back on topic to this article, Hillary just doesn't want to admit that the reason she lost is because people really just don't like her. She'll blame everything except the fact that she colluded with the DNC to force her into place over a more-liked (or at least considerably less-disliked) candidate in Sanders.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[judoguy]

It's something a lot of Tea Partiers, etc., believed due to Obama being President.

No, it's something a lot of Americans believe by just looking up from the tv once in a while.

No one I know who despised Obama gave a rats ass that he was black. They hated his politics and arrogance. The most rabid tea party people I know would leap at the chance to vote for a black transgender lesbian (to invoke a stereotype) if they believed s/he would work to reduce, not eliminate, just reduce the massive role of government in their lives and the lives of their children.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[jcr]

That she won the popular vote is primarily indisputable.

And entirely irrelevant. There is no "popular vote" in American election law. To win the presidency, you have to come up with enough electors to win the presidency, and electors aren't allocated strictly by population. If Hillary were as smart as she believes she is, then she would have put the work in to win the states that her husband did.

-jcr

Re: It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

No 178 in infant mortality... No 1 in abortions.

Checks out.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[amicusNYCL]

The vast majority of voters voted for Hillary.

For certain definitions of "vast majority" which include a difference of 2.1%.

Re: It's all in a slogan

[dilvish_the_damned]

It's never someones "turn" and nobody "deserves to be POTUS". Trumps ego isn't a reason she lost, her ego is. I think one could argue that enough of the other articulable reasons she stem from this one weakness that her ego might be considered the major reason she is not president.
Going back to this "it's her turn" thing, she seemed to firmly beleive it and her speech and manner oozed this self perception as she seems to maintain to this day. A notion that is very provably false. It really isn't her turn, is it?
A bit more exposition of her understanding of the honor and responsibility of the position she was asking us to elect her to, presented with a bit more humility, just might have swayed voters.
At this point she is turning on everyone in a hopeless effort to preserve her self image. She is spending what credibility she has left leaving nothing to pass to Chelsea but millions of dollars. I don't think we will hear much from the Clintons once she is done burning down their infrastructure.
I suspect a case could be made that her ego is costing her everything. Except a fortune in politics money I mean.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[judoguy]

And yet, people from all over the world immigrate here as hard as they can.

About half the friends I spend time with are legal immigrants from England, France, Iran, Mexico, Russia, Ukraine, Canada, Azerbaijan, Nigeria, Cuba, etc., etc.

Gosh, what a bunch of dumb asses not to be able see this country as clearly as you!

Re:It's all in a slogan

[amicusNYCL]

Lets not get into where the "vast majority" of likely illegal alien votes were cast either.

Right, all 3 of those votes. I bet 2 of them came from the same place. That's two thirds!

Re:It's all in a slogan

[amicusNYCL]

South Park already nailed that years ago with Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich. They didn't even have to change that for this election because it fits so perfectly. You can even immediately tell which is which.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Lost2Home]

From what I've seen, I think it is much more likely that the vast majority of those 300k democrats voted for Trump and the only reason that Trump didn't win in a complete landslide is because 150k republicans defected to the libertarian party.

Not even close. Compare the Wisconsin 2012/2016 numbers. Trump slightly under performed Romney, who lost Wisconsin (1.405m vs 1.407m). Clinton on the other hand, under performed Obama by 240k votes (1.382m vs 1.620m). Also note that Wisconsin had the lowest statewide presidential vote turnout in 20 years.

Clinton's problem was that a sizable chunk of the Democratic vote either stayed home or voted third party. Michigan and Pennsylvania had similar problems. I highlighted Wisconsin as that is where I live.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[kenh]

No, the "Vast Russian Conspiracy" == "Vast Right-wing Conspiracy" == Something Hillary claims to deflect from her (or her husband's) actions.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people committing violence against voters were Democrats trying to breach the Republican Convention, blocking roads, attacking police officers. The 'D' in Democrat now stands for Despicable. It will take Democrats running Jesus himself in the next election to have any chance of winning. Don't even think for a second that Pelosi has any chance in Hell. She's got skeletons in her closet from her time in California government.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't have put it any better myself. My top 3 reasons for voting for Trump were (in order): Jobs, Obamacare removal, Illegal Immigration getting out of control.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[sl3xd]

?!? That is a false equivalence if there ever was one.

There's a world of difference between saying "America has problems" an "America isn't a great country anymore"

There will always be problems; that doesn't mean America isn't a great country.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[painandgreed]

The problem with your line of thinking is that you're saying she should have blatantly lied about policy choices in order to win.

Why not? It seems to work for the Republicans.

"Red my lips, 'No new taxes!.'"

Re:It's all in a slogan

[sl3xd]

Voting for a particular candidate has never meant an endorsement of everything they say...

Even if it were, there were more ballots cast for Hillary than Trump; it's definitely not the first time the electoral college voted differently than the popular vote and it won't be the last.

A very simple google search shows that percentage of Americans who feel American is a great country ranges from 60-80% as of 2017. There's no standard by which it doesn't qualify as "most".

Re:It's all in a slogan

[HornWumpus]

He was a grown man. I can't hold it against a middle schooler if they are socialist. But beyond that a person should know better.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[dgatwood]

Okay, fine, but statistically, you're an outlier. :-)

Re:It's all in a slogan

[sexconker]

The Simpsons nailed it 20 fucking years ago, child. Also for a presidential election involving Clinton.

To quote South Park: "Simpsons did it.".

Re:It's all in a slogan

[phantomfive]

Hillary has charisma, or at least did at one time. Here's an example of an early speech. If she had been able to keep that energy or even optimism, she would be president right now.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[TsuruchiBrian]

Yes that is correct. I guess a clearer way to say it is that the election method outlined in the constitution allows states to award their electors undemocratically, in a way that a national popular vote would not. There is however a strong incentive not to award electors proprotionally (which is no doubt why so few states do it). If you are the majority party in a state (and therefore the party in the best position to change how your state awards electors), doing anything but winner take all would harm your party.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

That's only because you don't have a very good understanding of Nyarlathotep's ways of operation. He is a master manipulator, spreading chaos and madness. Cthulhu's true goals are beyond mere human comprehension. They both serve Azathoth, which I suppose in this case would be the non-human corporate entities that fund both positions. My example is far deeper than Kang or Kodos could dream of, although they MIGHT be a distant pre-human offworld spawn of Cthulhu before He began His long Dreaming. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Either Clinton or Trump could both easily start WWIII; neither are really the type of people we need as POTUS.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[s.petry]

No, they are not. You may have better luck saying "in certain States" or something. I also live in CA and find all of my representatives to be about the same as an oozing boil. I'd much rather see them lanced and removed than sit around and fester longer. I know plenty of people in other States who feel the same way.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Digital Avatar]

The vast majority of voters voted for Hillary. She won the popular vote.

No, the vast majority of voters voted for someone other than Hillary Clinton. She didn't carry the majority but, at best, a plurality of the popular vote.

Re: It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Wyoming resident here: the only people I know of who are happy with our congress people are real red-shirt republicans. I would say the average voter is displeased, but there's a lack of quality candidates.

I don't know if you can find a more polar opposite state from CA, so this clearly isn't unusual.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[nasch]

He didn't say your reps are outliers, but rather you are, by believing your reps are incompetent. Most Americans don't believe that about their own reps (or that's the claim, and I've heard the same thing).

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

On top of that that was what her 5th or 6th slogan during the election. When they literally handed out 'woman cards' and Bill Maher's look of horror upon seeing it for the first time I knew it was possible for her to totally wiff it. Bill Clinton has that aw shucks hometown boy appeal. She does not. She has the naggy bitch wife appeal. That works for some...

*many* people hate Trump because he is not a democrat. Thats it. Just as many hate Hillary because she is not a republican. What sold me was her literally barking like a dog on how she would treat republicans. That sealed the deal. I held my nose and voted Trump. Trump can bargain with others. Hillary can not. Watch Trump. He is playing 'art of the deal'. Bad deal = walk out. The EU needs the US to be on board with that accord or it falls apart like Kyoto before it. Trump saw blood and said 'I can get a better deal out of them lets find out what it is worth to them'. Always be willing to walk. People will say 'we got the better of him' when he walked on them and they got zip.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[s.petry]

The US Congress and Senate can't make double digit approval numbers. I don't believe we are outliers, just that more people have not been out in mobs trying to clean the scum out of the system.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[nasch]

I would argue that allowing NY and CA to effectively dictate presidential outcomes would be very bad for the country as they don't represent same interests.

Who decides which interests should be represented? Shouldn't everyone just get one vote? Why should their votes count less just because they live close together and tend to vote the same way? Do groups of people who live farther apart and tend to vote the same way deserve more representation?

Re:It's all in a slogan

[david_thornley]

Why blame Clinton? Why not blame the Republicans who got him a majority of the delegates, and got him the nomination? Clinton had a good shot at the election, and she's eminently qualified. Why shouldn't she try? Blame the Trump voters, who apparently want to blame anyone else for their decisions.

Sanders was probably less electable, being a self-described socialist. His ratings were higher because the Republicans hadn't started attacking him yet.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point, I think its possible that even Jeb Bush could have beaten Hillary Clinton. She obviously cannot learn from her failures.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Koby77]

Throughout the history of civilization, mankind has almost always lived under a ruler. A monarch, a dictator, a despot, a military general; it doesn't matter the title of the ruler, it was all the same: the average person has no say in how the national shall operate, and the nation shall operate for the benefit of its rulers only, not those being ruled. Freedom and democracy were very rare occurrences. But America was different. Ordinary people got to vote, and the nation was operated in a fashion such that advancement of the rich and powerful did not come at the expense of the ordinary citizens. AMERICA BECAME THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF HUMAN HISTORY. Maximum freedom was achieved. Maximum prosperity was achieved. America because so successful that large segments of the population across the world (even today) are willing to leave their family and friends in their home country to get to the United States, while others considered overthrowing their monarchs and dictators to become like the United States.

So that's what American Exceptionalism means. It means that we have a winning formula, and not just an approximation that partly delivers for some people for part of the time. We know how to get the most freedom, and the most prosperity, for the most people, all at the same time. And it comes from a system of moral beliefs, not in a technocrat, not in a central planning committee, not in a bureaucratic union, not in a central bank. As long as Americans know and believe the principles upon which the nation was founded, we will continue to be that exception to human history where everyone wants to be like us.

Re: It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not great on almost any statistic.

Everyone knows it once led everything. Now it's just another empire with an oversized army in financial decline.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[nasch]

Maybe you missed the other half of it. People generally are very disapproving of Congress in general, but believe their reps, whoever they are, are doing a good job. Thus most people hate Congress but keep voting the same people into office.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162...

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, you can think of all of those Libertarian votes as fuck Clinton,

To be fair to Clinton, it was closer to "Fuck Clinton and Trump!" in sentiment.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[king neckbeard]

From what I can gather, it seems that about the average level of approval for one's own representatives is around 47%. So, it's more like they think he's okay or tolerable.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, "I'm with Hillary" is just as bad.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

wow.

You really should reevaluate your impressions of your own country then.

things've stunk there for more than 30 years now.

realized it was going into the shitter when civilisation practically ended in L.A for about a week during 1992.

that fact that you got collectively rekt by mahmoud on a plane about 16 years ago and your own int orgs had their heads too far up their asses to do anything to prevent it is also telling.

only other place that's as bad for mediocrity is australia.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[TsuruchiBrian]

There is not one single thing that lost her the race. When a race is close, lots of things can affect the outcome. That dumb pokemon joke she told could have cost her the election too.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[TsuruchiBrian]

California is a solid blue state. 32% of Californian voters voter for Donald Trump. I guarantee those people are not happy with Dianne Feinstein Barabara Boxer, and Kamala Harris.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

100% Hillary lost the election because she was un-electable, due to her own behaviour, her own slogans and her own criminality. Hillary will blame everyone else but herself for the defeat. This is why she was not the right person to be president, let alone even a candidate. The DNC has some soul searching to do.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[bongey]

No her campaign managers told Bill Clinton to fly a kite.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[guises]

In an election as close as that one, you can pick any factor and say, "This is why I lost." And it's true every time you say it, because changing one little thing would have flipped the results.

So: yes to Russian interference, yes to voter suppression, yes to the email thing, yes to pizzagate, yes to Comey's stunt, yes to the fact that she got pneumonia at an inopportune time. All of them are each individually the reason why she lost.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[hai_Priesty]

So I think that ties back to the GP poster and some opinions I saw :- Many American vote in ways that would imply supporting tax cuts for the well-off, as even though their income are in lower-middle class bracket and they're up to the eyeballs with debt...... they think they're upper middle class or rich man material that has hit a temporary rough patch. And they're for the tax cuts because in their life plan they see themselves getting back to that upper-middle-class status just one opportunity away. In that extension, many also believe in America being/was the greatest country, and when what they saw in their eyes obvious do not coincide with what he believe was the truth and taught as a child 3,4 decades ago, they felt wronged by the system felt utter injustice. And that's why the MAGA resonates so well, and they shall get America to what it was and should be.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Wycliffe]

The problem with your line of thinking is that you're saying she should have blatantly lied about policy choices in order to win. "Change" is/was not what the US needs, despite a vocal minority shouting at the top of their lungs. We've seen the projections for "change" over the last 8 months - 24 million Americans losing health insurance, regulations lowered or removed altogether on financial institutions and environmental pollution, weakened security due to willful ignorance and insults aimed at our allies.

The so-called "liberals in the big city" are doing well because they're adapting to, not fighting against, economic reality. The stagnation you mention in the rust belt has nothing to do with Obama, or "elitist liberals", or the ACA. It has to do with the economic realities of a 21st century global economy. I'm truly sorry if coal mining is no longer a viable means of supporting your community, but economic and political isolationism isn't the answer. Investments in education and subsidies for emerging markets (like clean energy) are the only real way to avoid the collapse of the rust belt. Unfortunately the GOP is doing its best to undermine both, while making entirely unrealistic promises to their base, like "we'll bring back coal".

You make it sound like Trump's version of change was the only option. Just like Obama, Bernie also offered change. I'm not saying Clinton should have lied. People wanted her to have some sense of a plan. Bernie had a plan. Trump had a plan. Clinton said "everything is great, carry on". If she would have said "let's raise the minimum wage" or "let's provide more education options for people who are displaced" or really anything other than "everything is great, what's your problem?" then she might have had a chance. The tiny glimpse of change that she did manage to squeeze into her platform at the last hour was stolen from Bernie and you're right, I think it was a lie just to try to steal back a few Bernie voters. The coal miners don't necessarily want their coal jobs back, they want their lives back. Clinton didn't campaign on "retraining coal miners to run wind mills", if she did she probably would have won. Just like your post, she campaigned on "everything is great, if you lost your job, it's your problem, the rest of the country is great, you're an acceptable casuality in our march to greatness, maybe I can find you a job at mcdonalds and give you a dollar or two raise" Again, coal miners don't want their jobs back and they don't want a $10 an hour job. They want a job where they can be comfortably middle class just like they were when they had their coal job. Bernie promised this. Trump promised this. Clinton said "nothing is wrong with your current situation"

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Wycliffe]

Not even close. Compare the Wisconsin 2012/2016 numbers. Trump slightly under performed Romney, who lost Wisconsin (1.405m vs 1.407m). Clinton on the other hand, under performed Obama by 240k votes (1.382m vs 1.620m). Also note that Wisconsin had the lowest statewide presidential vote turnout in 20 years.

Clinton's problem was that a sizable chunk of the Democratic vote either stayed home or voted third party. Michigan and Pennsylvania had similar problems. I highlighted Wisconsin as that is where I live.

You can't tell that from the totals. Just because Trump got about the same number of voters as Romney doesn't mean it was the same group of voters. There were likely hundreds of thousands of Republicans that either stayed home or voted 3rd party this election. The reason the numbers were close is because the Democrats who voted for Trump came in and made up the difference. This is the first election ever that I did not vote for the Republican candidate and as I've stated before, I have yet to meet a single democrat who voted libertarian. Every democrat I know voted either for Hillary, Trump, or green party. I'm not saying that there might not be a few democrats that voted libertarian but 300k democrats broke for the libertarian instead of the green party? I doubt that. It makes a lot more sense that most of that 300k were republicans that couldn't stomach Trump and the only reason that Trump didn't lose in a landslide was that Trump was able to get more democrats to cross over and vote for him than he lost in republicans.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. is Number 1 in small arms ownership

That definitely makes America better.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[houghi]

They thought they voted for King Willem-Alexander of The Netherlands when they voted for The Orange One. Silly mistake.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Johnson went from 8k to 172k between 2012 and 2016 in Michigan, That's not anything other than people going "Fuck Clinton".

While this is mostly true, it is important to note that Gary Johnson was not on the ballot in 2012 (you had to write him in), while he was in 2016. That in combination with it not being a non-incumbent year probably had a bit to do with it.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[houghi]

The exception? Wow. I never knew that Europe didn't exist.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[houghi]

I live in Brussels. I have the same thing here. And your point is?

They must have been dumb asses for not going to the US, right?

Re:It's all in a slogan

[dcw3]

The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.

True for those who grew up after 9/11 and the bursting of the internet bubble, and the housing bubble. But, I bet for most Americans who can remember the 80s, 90s, and very early 00s, you'd get a far different answer.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[dcw3]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/am...

Re:It's all in a slogan

[dcw3]

Your anecdotal evidence is not data.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[dcw3]

As a life long (40+ yrs of voting) R voter, I was most definitely voting against HRC, but I could not, and did not, vote for the R candidate for the first time in my life. He had simply said too much stupid shit during the campaign that I simply couldn't, and so I lodged a protest vote for a 3rd party candidate, knowing full well that HRC was going to win my state anyway. If it hadn't been for the open SCOTUS seat, I might have considered voting for her even.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[dcw3]

"The vast majority of voters voted for Hillary. She won the popular vote."

Fake argument tossed around by the losing side to console themselves. There is no "popular vote". Nobody campaigns to win the "popular vote", and if there was, each of the candidates would have ran a different campaign with possibly the same outcome...but, we'll never know, because again, there's no such thing.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

That is soooo weird because he such an obvious asshat idiot. So all these people decided "I never really voted before. But when this total buffoon came along I thought," Finally someone vs getting off my fat ass and vote for". It boggles the fucking mind,

Who knew that all you had to do was lie your fucking ass off and talk like a six year old and you would win.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[ObiWanKenblowme]

Please reference a specific example of my liberal elitist contempt (with the exception of Trump himself). If you consider explaining in the broadest of terms how economics works to be "contempt," then I have nothing further to discuss.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

A huge portion of the US never saw that "recovery". Unemployment is still ridiculously high (higher if you consider the fact the DOL doesn't track people who've been unemployed for too long).

I used to be very against the electoral college, but I've grown up and realized what it really does.

It guarantees a voice to every state, rather than allowing the most populous states to decide who should be the next POTUS.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[WeezulDK]

I agree, considering how left the scales have skewn in the last 20 years, Bill Clinton would almost be considered a conservative in my book. He was very business minded like his predecessor JFK, and even supported some ideas conservatives have been seriously pushing to be reinstated (like work requirements for welfare recipients). He'd probably be looked at much more fondly if he wasn't such a dumbass lying poonhound.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Feminist causes are an existential threat to true freedom and egalitarianism, though...

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, problem solved then. All the Dems have to do it come up with not-Trump & On To Victory!

But who will that be, exactly? (Choose any one of the geriatric survivors.)

Re:It's all in a slogan

[will_die]

So one of your major claims against trump is that less than 7% of the businesses he started filed for bankruptcy protection?
Remind me how many businesses did hillary start? To start you off there was clinton U and the scam that came from that.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

a "vast majority" of 48%, huh?

Re:It's all in a slogan

[dddux]

I'm sorry to have to say this, but you should have written this in past tense. That's the USA around 1997 and earlier. Nowadays you hear more and more people say "I wouldn't want to live there and there's nothing to see there, too." You're not just losing the foreign workforce - "new blood", you're also losing tourists. And when I mention foreign workforce I'm referring to Europeans that traditionally liked to migrate to the USA. Not any more.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say that you may want to examine how insular your circle of friends and family truly is. If you know a dozen, out of 200, people who voted for the person who won the popular vote, you live in a classic opinion bubble. That may not seem like a problem, and in politics it may not be, but it seems like you have very little interaction with the larger culture if you don't even have a 10% level of serious disagreement over such an extremely polarized topic.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Every Trump voter I know was voting for him. They might have held their nose to vote for Jeb Bush if the Republican Establishment had managed to get him the nomination, but many would just have stayed at home if Trump wasn't the nominee.

That's not to say they wouldn't have preferred a different candidate, but he was the only one standing who they could get enthusiastic about.

Just about everyone I know voted either for Trump or Johnson because they were voting AGAINST Cliton.

Further reading: "I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that's not why I lost," says Clinton.

No Hillary you didn't take responsibility for your actions and tried to lie and scam your way out of your crimes. This is why you lost.

All those people I know who voted for either Trump or Johnson including myself would have voted for Bernie if he has run. The Dems would have most likely won if Bernie ran. She lost by her own actions.

The US will never be great again until our leaders are held accountable to the same laws as us Peons are held to.

The bitch should be in jail right now.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

>"Change" is/was not what the US needs

Environmental policy (she was pro fracking)

War policy (look at libya)

Domestic freedom curtailing (they both agreed on)

Net neutrality

non-garbage tier internet.

Sounds like we need PLENTY of change.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[slashdotwannabe]

MAGA is a euphemism for Make America White Again.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[RockDoctor]

You assert that

America doesn't have to be best at everything to be a great country. It just has to not be below a certain badness threshold in any area.

While the original post posits :

seventh in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality,

I notice that you don't answer your own point by actually challenging the evidence that the original writer posted. Which makes me suspect that you can't challenge those points because they're substantially true. Certainly, the low ratings of America in math and science education are matters that discussed here every few months, and those sort of figures are routinely cited. The mediocre levels of literacy are no surprise in the light of general poor American educational effort and attainment. The low ratings of America in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality are equally no surprise (though they might be to rich Americans, who read the phrase "health service" and hear the idea "huge profit potential").

Of course, you're free to take the line that education and lifespan are unimportant matters. Personally, I couldn't give a flying fuck about infant mortality, because I'm not an infant. But other people might consider it an area of importance.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Any of the other Republican candidates, except for possibly Cruz, would have absolutely demolished her. That includes Bush. Cruz would have almost certainly still won, but it would have been close. The Democrats really wanted Trump because they perceived him as the only candidate that Clinton could beat, but they underestimated just how awful of a candidate she really was.

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Triklyn]

yes, everybody is a racist. fine.

if we accept that, can we get on to talking about issues? or is that all you have?

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Triklyn]

it is amusing how it's always about taking other people's money to accomplish your aims right?

Re:It's all in a slogan

[slashdotwannabe]

This is why dog whistles are so useful: it allows apologists to respond with straw men and whine about everything BUT their racism. I never claimed "everyone is a racist". While I'm glad you're willing to accept the obvious racism, if you want to talk about issues, talk about issues. I certainly never stopped you. Which issues did you want to discuss? Or did you simply want to whine that you have somehow been prevented from talking about issues because someone else is pointing out something entirely unrelated?

Finally, no, that is FAR from "all I have". How much time do you have?

Re:It's all in a slogan

[Triklyn]

sure i'm willing to accept the obvious racism. but it's pretty similar to saying 'i'm with her' was a euphemism for saying, 'i'll vote for anything without a penis'.

which, you know, is sexist.

easy right?

honestly, we've got nothing to talk about, because you didn't really say anything other than 'anyone in a maga hat was a secret racist.

i just said that as a throwaway line, because half the time these days, 'racist' is thrown out to shut down debate.

This would explain

[rsilvergun]

Why she didn't campaign in the rust belt. They thought they had a lock on it. That said, as far as I can tell the Republican listened to Nate Silver and the Dems did not. That's what cost her the election.

Re:This would explain

[Triklyn]

nate silver isn't the personification of polling you know.

Re:This would explain

[Anonymous Coward]

Nate Silver predicted that she would win the Rust Belt and the presidency.

Re:This would explain

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think by looking at state level elections (most state houses and Governors were Republican) would have given them a hint that perhaps the Democratic party is not as popular in the middle of the country as they thought..... I can't think of a better baseline 'poll' then that.
   

Re:This would explain

[Anonymous Coward]

He more or less got it right. It's true he had Clinton ahead of Trump, but he had the odds at about 2:1. So unlike almost everyone else, he factored in things like the polls might have a systematic error, or that people might change their mind at the last minute, an so on. As such, he gave Trump a very realistic chance of winning, which is exactly what happened. It was all the others out there who were saying "99% Clinton!!!"

Who made her call 25% of America "deplorable"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only Hillary Clinton made Hillary Clinton call 25% of the voting base "deplorable".
Hillary Clinton made the choices to ignore the states Trump was focusing on at the end (except Florida, she had an arguably correct amount of presence there).
Only Hillary Clinton is responsible for how she handled the myriad of accusations (true and false) from the right.

Hillary Clinton should blame Hillary Clinton. It doesn't matter that she won't.

Re:Who made her call 25% of America "deplorable"?

[avandesande]

Pretty dumb. Alt-right and blatantly racist individuals at most make up 1% of the population.

Re:Who made her call 25% of America "deplorable"?

[meta-monkey]

I call this the left's One Drop Rule of Nazism. If there's one nazi, in any group, then the entire group is nazis.

Yes, there are a handful of racist trolls on 4chan and twitter, but that's nowhere near the 30 million Americans who made up half of Trump's votes. These people are working in coal mines or factories or farms, have never heard of the notorious hacker on steroids known as 4chinz, and are vaguely aware that something called "twatter" exists. Instead of going ofter those people's votes, she lumped them in with the asshole of the internet and sounded like a crazy person screaming at a cartoon frog.

Re:Who made her call 25% of America "deplorable"?

[wyHunter]

I'd say she thinks that about 60% of the population is deplorable.

Re:Who made her call 25% of America "deplorable"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I call this the left's One Drop Rule of Nazism. If there's one nazi, in any group, then the entire group is nazis.

It's quite appropriate, since the right also thinks we must ban immigration and travel from entire countries (actually more like an entire religion, as the courts judged by the president's own rhetoric) because, to paraphrase the meme (which amusingly was originally used by the left on feminism or some other lefty cause), one of the M&Ms is poisoned out of the whole bag.

The right also have a similar view on blacks and latinos (but don't ever mention that those demographics are more Christian than their white counter parts)

Re:Who made her call 25% of America "deplorable"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Alt-right and blatantly racist individuals at most make up 1% of the population

Stop mansplaining! I bet you play video games, that makes you literally Hitler!

Re:Who made her call 25% of America "deplorable"?

[ooloorie]

I call this the left's One Drop Rule of Nazism. If there's one nazi, in any group, then the entire group is nazis.

The actual rule is much simpler: if the left doesn't like you, they'll call you a "Nazi". They don't need any drops for that.

Re:Who made her call 25% of America "deplorable"?

[MooseMiester]

Thank You. One wonders what percentage of the left are true Marxists, it seems higher than 1% to me.

but you didnt win the primary.

[nimbius]

she had "nothing" to work from once she rigged the nomination.
FTFY.

but in all seriousness, this is the kind of petulant bitching I abhor in a statesman. Its the kind of whining you expect to hear from a deep-seated, dynastic candidate with lots of connections and money but limited charisma, tact, and insight. Hillary lost the election because she was a turd of a candidate that avoided red states and rural populations where she refused to send any message. Instead she concentrated on playing the numbers and winning by electoral college votes in big blue cities. Rural and suburban voters outside of these areas saw her as disconnected and disinterested in things like systemic unemployment, drug crises, and healthcare. She was the woman who shamelessly arrived in a five-thousand dollar red designed gunny sack to lecture the masses on inequality.

Re:but you didnt win the primary.

[snoig]

What makes me abhor this petulant bitching even more is the fact that she is bitching about the incompetence of the DNC when the DNC was run by her hand picked BFF Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. So Hillary really has no one to blame but herself.

dealt a weak hand

[mschaffer]

It's not her fault she was dealt a weak hand. Even the "woman card" couldn't improve it. Let's face facts---even the RNC was surprised she couldn't win against Trump. Now she is really going off the rails with her blame game.

Re: dealt a weak hand

[sound vision]

I wouldn't say she has gone "off the rails", she has mostly stayed out of the public eye. I think she's only done a couple of speeches since the election (including this one), whereas Trump has just never stopped talking about it at all. She is still on her rails, they just don't go anywhere particularly nice. That said, Trump is fast rebuilding the track to Auschwitz, so for that reason alone its better for her to stay out of the spotlight. Im willing to excuse her trying to save face as long as it doesn't hurt our country in the process. I don't think it will, because at this point nobody takes her seriously.

Re: dealt a weak hand

[Train0987]

Auschwitz? That kind of wild hyperbole is why he won by the way.

Re: dealt a weak hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawl

Re: dealt a weak hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump made no such statements. Looks like the Nazi's up-voted your lie though.

Incapable of admitting fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad she is not President. She appears incapable of being human and admitting fault. When you fail twice to get elected, you cannot blame everyone else for your failings. Especially when you cannot even admit your mistakes with sensitive data. People like Clinton we do not need in government.

Blaming everyone but herself

[Anonymous Coward]

This blaming everyone but herself for losing is very endearing to voters. I predict a landslide should she run in 2020! I'm with her!

DNC Voter Registration

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we need to speak with the Voter Expansion Data Director and figure out why Clinton wasn't able to connect to her voters.

She lost because she was stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

There's this magic trick. It's called winning and election requires people to vote for you.

If you spend months laughing at the other guy and saying "It's a foregone conclusion, I'll win by a land slide"

And that guy spends all his time visiting each voting district he could win and making a huge point that he needs their vote.

Well, he'll get votes because his people will show up to vote.

You won't get votes because your supporters assume that it's no point because the other guy couldn't possibly win.

This is called being stupid!

And she deserved to lose

And the American people deserved what they ended up with... the crap at the bottom of the barrel who did his job and busted his ass to get the votes.

So, do we want Trump? No sane person would ever want that shitbag.

Would you actually want Hillary? She didn't bother to represent your best interest by protecting you from Trump when she could. Instead, she sat back and laughed.

Reliability of source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming the source is reliable (and I'm a veteran AC - damn if I'll RTFA,) my heart bleeds for her.

If she can take responsibility for the decisions she makes, then she IS the reason she lost. PERIOD. This sounds more like she's making excuses to allow her to con her way into the nomination in 2020.

Hillary "Not My Fault" Clinton spouts off again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is she blaming this time?

Get her off the sauce. She might be able to stand up on her own then.

History vs Hillary

[tgibson]

Hillary claims she lost because of Trump's superior data operation?
FiveThirtyEight a month before the election: "Clinton has more than twice as many field offices as Trump nationwide (489 vs. 207), and her organization dominates Trump’s in every battleground state."

Has there ever been a losing candidate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who got this much press about them being a loser?

Democrats spent more

[Anonymous Coward]

This is very smarmily worded: although DNC spent more, Hillary had to "build" the organization that did the spending. The smarmy part is to say the second part but not the first, making it sound like the DNC was "supposed" to spend more money on her and either didn't spend it or didn't have it, when neither is true. She also ignored data scientists' models in MI/WI/PA, just as she's currently ignoring criticism that she displays awful character by blaming others for her loss.

Is Trump's character even worse? Yes, and the people who can see that voted for Hillary. The rest voted for Trump. Even the voters, if unfrustrated by DNC primary-rigging (ex. registration purges in NYC), are able to pick a candidate better than Hillary. The biggest mistake the DNC made was sacrificing its credibility by using shenanigans to put a bad candidate into the race. They lost both their credibility and the election. I don't care what Hillary thinks. She's over. The problem is her cronies are still in charge of the DNC. The "crazy racist" zombie-messages from the Hillary campaign are still coming out of the DNC and poisoning discourse. Hillary has not lost thoroughly enough.

Bankrupt?

[Anonymous Coward]

The question that needs to be answered is......Fiscally or Morally?

Watch what you email, then leaks won't hurt

[jfdavis668]

If your email system is full of derogatory emails, then email leaks are going to hurt. If you are professional in your communications, then leaked data won't be as embarrassing. The emails that really hurt should never have been written in the first place.

Re:Watch what you email, then leaks won't hurt

[Anonymous Coward]

> If your email system is full of derogatory emails, then email leaks are going to hurt. If you are professional in your communications, then leaked data won't be as embarrassing. The emails that really hurt should never have been written in the first place.

There wasn't actually all that much damaging in the emails.

It was the weaponization and media hype surrounding their tactical release, and then the highly targeted weaponized viral news designed to be spread, based on the news. (e.g. "pizza" == "child sex slaves!"), micro targeted to potential voters in the rust belt.

At the end of the day, the race was very close.

I suspect twiddling any of the following variables would have changed the result of the election:

* No Comey Letter
* Sanders winning the DNC nomination
* Sanders not running for the DNC nomination and splitting the DNC at the seams (I stand by his right to run, as well as the DNC's right to not fully embrace a non-democrat running for the nom)
* Russians not spending millions on micro-targetted fake news facebook at rust belt voters
* Hillary being either 10% more attractive or charismatic (This seems the silliest one to debate, since it is the one thing she could not change).

Re:Watch what you email, then leaks won't hurt

[meta-monkey]

Question, were there any good emails? I mean, if my work emails got leaked, I'm sure there might be an embarrassing one or two if it were taken out of context, but by and large they would show that my team genuinely wants to do their job well and serve our customers. Was there anything redeeming in Hillary's emails about how much they actually really and truly want to help Americans?

Re:Watch what you email, then leaks won't hurt

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Amusingly shortly after the Clinton leak the company I worked for made us go to "email training" to teach us this lesson.

Their point was essentially that all email should be treated as public documents that anyone can read. Not because of hackers, but because of discovery: if the company is sued, those emails can become public record. The timing was probably just coincidental. (The US security clearance training that requiring us to answer various "when is it appropriate to send classified information via public email" with "never" multiple times on the other hand - not so much.)

Re:Watch what you email, then leaks won't hurt

[squiggleslash]

Yes. Yes there were.

Re:Watch what you email, then leaks won't hurt

[Anonymous Coward]

We know the e-mail leaks were subsetted by someone wanting to hurt Hillary's campaign. They might have left in some boring ones to make it look less like a hit job, but they wouldn't have left in ones that make Hillary or the campaign look good. In fact, we know they left off context to make things look worse.

On top of that, I'm surprised at how no one has questioned the thing about the e-mail leaks clearly not having any false info because all of the e-mails are DKIM signed. If the e-mails were acquired by someone with root access to the e-mail server, they could have copied the DKIM private keys along with the real e-mails and signed a few fake e-mails.

Re:Watch what you email, then leaks won't hurt

[meta-monkey]

We know the e-mail leaks were subsetted by someone wanting to hurt Hillary's campaign.

That's the first I've heard of this. Source?

Re:Watch what you email, then leaks won't hurt

[bluegutang]

If she had ever admitted she did something wrong with the emails and apologized, even once for five seconds, it would have given her the margin between losing and winning.

Hillary's right about one thing...

[__aaclcg7560]

A bankrupted DNC hired an IT guy who didn't take the FBI warnings about hacking attempts seriously enough.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html

Re:Hillary's right about one thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Creimer to English translation:

"If she had hired me, my python scripts would have totally secured the shit out of her email systems, while I posted all day on Slashdot."

20+ year junior sys admins don't get hired to do security work, creimer. Go open more tickets.

Re:Hillary's right about one thing...

[__aaclcg7560]

"If she had hired me, my python scripts would have totally secured the shit out of her email systems, while I posted all day on Slashdot."

I don't work for politicians. I had an opportunity to work for Meg Whitman when she ran CA governor in 2010. The recruiter was astonished that I refused to consider the position. Just because I previously worked at eBay didn't mean I have an obligation to work for Meg Whitman. Besides, I voted for the moderate conservative, Tom Campbell, in the Republican primary.

20+ year junior sys admins don't get hired to do security work, creimer.

Who else would look at the Nessus scan for workstations?

Go open more tickets.

Not for the next two weeks. The Nessus scan data just came out.

Re:Hillary's right about one thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't work for politicians.

They don't want you working for them, so I guess you're even.

I had an opportunity to work for Meg Whitman when she ran CA governor in 2010.

Oh wow, that's amazing! You mean her campaign opened a position for a junior helpdesk tech, and you turned it down? You oughta write a story, creimer. Seriously, this is engrossing shit.

The recruiter was astonished that I refused to consider the position.

Yeah, I'll bet. The only astonishment probably came from the fact that you'd be unwilling to take a pay raise, and continue working for minimum wage.

Just because I previously worked at eBay didn't mean I have an obligation to work for Meg Whitman.

Literally NOBODY in the world would suggest that such an obligation exists. The "astonishment" is all in your mind, and so your unhinged brain has manufactured some ridiculous reason to rationalize its bizarrely manufactured reality.

Who else would look at the Nessus scan for workstations?

Literally any junior helpdesk tech? It's not as if Nessus reports are particularly difficult to decipher - the tool tells you the vulnerability AND the remediation steps to take - all you do is cut & paste the remediation steps into a ticket for some other junior level admin to implement.

Not for the next two weeks. The Nessus scan data just came out.

So the scan just came out, and you're going to sit on it for 2 weeks before you start opening tickets to remediate the issues? Seems pretty unprofessional to me, but then, that's what we expect from our man creimer.

Re:Hillary's right about one thing...

[__aaclcg7560]

Literally NOBODY in the world would suggest that such an obligation exists.

The recruiter did. Then again, recruiters aren't the smartest people on the planet.

So the scan just came out, and you're going to sit on it for 2 weeks before you start opening tickets to remediate the issues?

Nope. The Nessus scan is two-third verification and one-third remediation. Once I'm done verifying and remediating, I create tickets for the site techs to turn on, reboot or reimage systems.

Re:Hillary's right about one thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

The recruiter did. Then again, recruiters aren't the smartest people on the planet.

Riiiight. "You worked at eBay under Meg, of COURSE you have an obligation to work for her political campaign!"

That you are claiming this happens tells me that one of the following is true:
1) You are completely tone-deaf to humor;
2) You are just completely full of shit;

I'm not sure which is more likely - but they're both pretty unsurprising coming from you.

The Nessus scan is two-third verification and one-third remediation. Once I'm done verifying and remediating, I create tickets for the site techs to turn on, reboot or reimage systems.

Lol, so you're the junior helpdesk tech who's remediating systems by applying patches manually, and you just ask some other junior helpdesk techs to help you reboot the systems now and then? Also, why the fuck don't you have automation that digests the results of a scan and automatically opens tickets and validates host states? Oh right, that'd require programming skills.

Re:Hillary's right about one thing...

[__aaclcg7560]

Lol, so you're the junior helpdesk tech who's remediating systems by applying patches manually, and you just ask some other junior helpdesk techs to help you reboot the systems now and then?

Is your life so insignificant that you have to keep dissing me? Sad.

Re:Hillary's right about one thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is your life so insignificant that you have to keep dissing me? Sad.

Yep. Don't cry for me creimer, I'm crying for you.

Re:Hillary's right about one thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Creamer asking a slashdotter if his life is insignificant. Oh the irony.

No moron, the least insignificant person on this site literally is you. It's sad when people keep dissing you? When a retard joins a site for nerds and starts posting stupid shit we make fun of him. It's not because the nerds are insignificant. It's because you are. In your world with your peers you're fine. Here you are gum on people's shoes. You get shit on as long as you keep spamming the nerds. Get it Sherlock?

Re:Hillary's right about one thing...

[__aaclcg7560]

No moron, the least insignificant person on this site literally is you.

That would be criemer, an asshat who wants to be me. As Casey Neistat says in his video, success is when people want to be you. I'm so proud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iQ8BGw13So

Re:Hillary's right about one thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

least insignificant

Nice double negative, creimer. You were just told that you were "the most significant" person on Slashdot, and in your haste to pound out a reply between fistfuls of Cheetos, you just asserted that your "asshat" troll is the MOST SIGNIFICANT person on this site.

As Casey Neistadt says in his video, "good job, fucking spaz."

Re:Hillary's right about one thing...

[__aaclcg7560]

You were just told that you were "the most significant" person on Slashdot, and in your haste to pound out a reply between fistfuls of Cheetos, you just asserted that your "asshat" troll is the MOST SIGNIFICANT person on this site.

I'm always willing to help someone get ahead on Slashdot, especially when it comes to being thrown underneath the bus.

Re:Hillary's right about one thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

" Then again, recruiters aren't the smartest people on the planet."

Which is why 800 of them are following you on LinkedIn! Finally we have an explanation!

Re:Hillary's right about one thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret. Some of the replies to your posts have become a game among several of us. We try to get you to reply in a certain way - either by making specific mistakes in our wording or replies which look like regular conversation. Two months running as of today - it started as an April Fool's thing but it was too funny so we kept it going.

Anywise, out of 18 people in the office pool, I am the winner. We post a reply and the general expected response, then each of us guesses whether you'll actually reply that way. 85% correct for me (albeit random is 50%). Thank you buddy. By the way, the amount we are betting is your income. We pitch in evenly for a 4k monthly pool.

I just won $4k from a month of your slashdot posts you awesome fat loser!! Thank you.

Re:Hillary's right about one thing...

[__aadota8673]

Gambling addiction? This is a very poor choice in how to spend your money. You need to create an automatic funnel that Passively brings income. My uncle is 70 years old, and drives a $250k tractor. Wherever he goes, the dirt behind him is cultivated and grows corn. When he passes down that same road again, the tractor collects sad corn: automatic money funnel.

The Real Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Between her & Chelsea, we're guaranteed 8 years of Trump and Republican rule well afterward.

Field Offices != data operation

[rsilvergun]

Field offices are just the folks who knock on doors. A data operation is a centralized thing.

She's actually probably right. She lost because she didn't campaign in the rust belt. That's probably because their data op said they had a lock on it. Also keep in mind she lost by very, very slim margins. It came down to a few tens of thousands of votes in a few dozen districts.

Re:Field Offices != data operation

[thadtheman]

These kinds of statistics are always very tricky. Yes she lost by slim margins in some places, but IIRC there were places where she won by slim margins. ( Wasn't Vriginia one of those? ). Flip all of those states who wins?

Re:Field Offices != data operation

[jeff4747]

Except those field offices where screaming "WE'RE IN TROUBLE!!!!" to HQ from the rust belt.

The Clinton campaign went with Mook's data model instead.

They had all the information they needed to correct their course. The folks at HQ decided they knew better than the people on the ground, which is a recurring theme in every Hillary Clinton campaign.

The winner is the one with more money?

[Anonymous Coward]

When the ammount of money is the measure for ellecting officials, then is time to stop calling it democracy and try something else like plutocracy or remarketting it as wealthcracy.

Preparing for a new campaign?

[evolutionary]

It seems odd that she would continue with this unless she was preparing to fund another war chest. She was expecting to win 8 years ago, but Obama came out of nowhere with crowdfunding for his campaign. Then she made an "arrangement" (not technical illegal but undermining the democratic process so certainly unethical) with the DNC which got leaked proving the nomination was corrupt from the start, then she is saying "it wasn't my fault". Talk about sour grapes.

Re:Preparing for a new campaign?

[will_die]

She is worried about going down in history as total loser, this is her way of propping herself up to Democrats. The overall goal is to do something so that in future election voters will see her as a leading statesman.

Re:things we now know.

[Train0987]

That is simply delusional. The NYT was and still is extremely pro-Trump? How can you possibly believe what you just typed? There is ZERO evidence of any Russian collusion/interference.

Hillary Needs to Retire

[Anonymous Coward]

and enjoy her grandchildren. Let someone else rise to the top. I'm hoping that 2020 sees new blood. In my estimation here are some possible winning tickets:

Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren
Elizabeth Warren / Cory Booker
Gavin Newsom / Cory Booker
Al Franken / Mark Pocan

Anyone associated with HRC will be seen as tainted. Despite this, anyone who takes the reigns in 2020 will likely inherit a smoking crater of a country at the rate things are going.

Re:Hillary Needs to Retire

[0123456]

"Despite this, anyone who takes the reigns in 2020 will likely inherit a smoking crater of a country at the rate things are going."

Better than the radioactive smoking crater they'd have inherited if the Lizard Queen had won.

Re: Hillary Needs to Retire

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes!

Please run any of that batch of losers! Especially any ticket with Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren at the top!

MAGA!

Re:Hillary Needs to Retire

[ooloorie]

Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren
Elizabeth Warren / Cory Booker
Gavin Newsom / Cory Booker
Al Franken / Mark Pocan

Those tickets are even worse than Hillary. And you're out of touch with reality if you think they have a chance.

Wut wut in the butt

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I don't get this. In 2012 the Republicans were in a mess, so much so they thought they had the presidency won. Rove famously started panicking as it became clear Romney wasn't gonna win. (Some was theatrics get out the vote to help discouraged Republicans vote in downstream contests in western states, no doubt, but clearly it was unexpected.)

It was the Dems who won the day with big, advanced data mining.

What the hell happened?

Re:Wut wut in the butt

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I think that the people running much of the advanced data mining are Millennials, who mostly wanted Sanders. So they chose not to go along with Hillary when the DNC screwed him over.

Re:Wut wut in the butt

[phantomfive]

Possible "blame the data scientists" is a convenient scapegoat for both parties, and not the real reason for losing either time.

The DNC is the last she should blame

[GameboyRMH]

This is the same DNC that corruptly threw Bernie under the bus to provide a clear path for Hillary. They did everything they could to get her elected. If they deserve any kind of blame for causing her loss, it should be for pushing such an unpopular candidate into the presidential elections in the first place.

KGOP just can't leave Hillary alone

[Anonymous Coward]

You can look at the popular vote and see that a majority of Americans supported her irregardless of the lack of good functioning IT. On aspect that is really needed is a mandatory paper ballet to computer tally on all precincts. There is a lot more to the Russian hacking to be exposed.

Re:KGOP just can't leave Hillary alone

[Train0987]

Keep running with the "Russia hacked the votes!" narrative and your side will never be relevant again.

Re:KGOP just can't leave Hillary alone

[Anonymous Coward]

You can look at the popular vote and see that a majority of Americans supported her irregardless of the lack of good functioning IT. On aspect that is really needed is a mandatory paper ballet to computer tally on all precincts. There is a lot more to the Russian hacking to be exposed.

Irregardless isn't really a word, and the popular vote is irrelevant (which is definitely a word).

Re:KGOP just can't leave Hillary alone

[brickhouse98]

Well...if Trump and co. actually colluded with Russia, then yes, they should run with that. Not for politics but for America. I don't see how investigating a foreign country interfering in our election is somehow a bad thing. They do need a message refresh but no reason not to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.

Re:KGOP just can't leave Hillary alone

[ooloorie]

You can look at the popular vote and see that a majority of Americans supported her irregardless of the lack of good functioning IT

Hillary got less than a quarter of the votes of eligible voters. No, the "majority of Americans" didn't support her.

On aspect that is really needed is a mandatory paper ballet to computer tally on all precincts. There is a lot more to the Russian hacking to be exposed.

If you think that US voter fraud went in favor of Trump, you're really out of it.

Democrats are bankrupt

[p51d007]

Have been for 30+ years that I've been following politics. I hope hillary runs again in 2020...that is if she hasn't stroked out.

Joe Biden (D-Bank of America)

[Anonymous Coward]

That bastard is more corrupt than Hilary and more dangerous than trump. His puppeteers stole a trillion dollars when he was VP.

It's my turn!

[CrAlt]

Everyone's fault but her own.

Who needs the rust belt or Bernie supporters. Who needs to campaign every day. It was her turn and that should have been enough!

The DNC is a Clintion suicide cult. They will run her again in 2020.

Re:things we now know.

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep pumping that crap out. Eventually someone's going to believe it.

Oh, I should probably add

[rsilvergun]

There's a distinct possibility that the RNC got their hands on those leaked voter rolls. Now, whether they got them from the Russians or not is up to debate. But regardless of where they got them from if they had them it woulda made their data ops world class regardless. There's no doubt the RNC did amazing things with targeted advertising in 2016. It's a big part of how they won. But it's kinda scary to think they mighta pulled it off not with skill but with data they weren't entitled to given to them by a bad actor looking to destabilize the country with a loose cannon party/president...

Re: Oh, I should probably add

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey genius, take off the tin foil hat.

Voter rolls are PUBLIC INFORMATION!

Even an ignorant dumbass like yourself can get them with minimal effort.

Re:Oh, I should probably add

[wyHunter]

I cannot speak on this. But Trump DID actually campaign eveywhere - including Wyoming, which was a R lockup .

Re:Oh, I should probably add

[Straif]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the voter roll public is the US. You may have to pay a fee to get a nice organized list but when you're talking about campaigns spending hundreds of million that's not an issue.

All the actual reports of hacked voter systems were for servers that held public information, as in nothing that was restricted, and even then most of the hacks came from US Federal agencies that were supposedly doing security test.

Re:things we now know.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree there is zero evidence of collusion, however interference maybe, but here's the thing, why are these liberals so upset that a foreign country attempted to meddle in an electron, if it was in their best interest as they see it then why wouldn't they. It isn't illegal. Kennedy tried to kill Castro, he sent people to invade Cuba and depose him. So let's not pretend the US isn't complicit in election tampering around the world. Why are we so offended people might have tried it on us?

popular vote

[p51d007]

I don't know if you are in the USA or not, but, the USA, constitutionally, does NOT elect a president based on the popular vote. They are elected by a MAJORITY of electors from each state. The title of office is President of the United States of America. United STATES...that is the key point. If he were elected by a popular vote, he would be called the President of the United People of America. The purpose of the electoral college, is to give each state, equal weight in the outcome of the election. If we voted, based on popular vote, candidates would only visit the high population cities in the USA. That means, California, New York, Illinois, Florida, Texas, Ohio, would be the only place they would spend any time and, those states would decide the elections, for the entire country, which is not how the Constitution was written.

Re:popular vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Not equal weight.

The electoral college is also there to limit the damage to the system when states like CA and IL let anybody vote multiple times and passes laws making it illegal to catch/harass them.

Re:popular vote

[wyHunter]

Actually it's a proportional outcome in the election, based on population. And it has worked quite well, and will continue to do so.

Re:popular vote

[david_thornley]

Mostly wrong.

The "United States of America" is the name of a country. The President is chosen by a specified process, which could certainly be popular vote.

The purpose of the electoral college is to give slave states a disproportionate amount of influence on who is elected President. Alternately, you could look at the appropriate Federalist paper, which gave reasons for it, which would have meant that the EC stomped Trump into the floor. It does not give each state equal weight.

If we voted based on popular vote, candidates would try to appeal to people overall, since the big population concentrations wouldn't determine the election. Under the current system, candidates only visit possible swing states, and that's not an improvement.

Re:popular vote

[ooloorie]

If we voted based on popular vote, candidates would try to appeal to people overall,

And tyranny of the majority is a good thing... because?

candidates would try to appeal to people overall, since the big population concentrations wouldn't determine the election.

Are you kidding? Under a popular vote system, candidates would go to a handful of big cities in California and on the East Coast and call it a day.

Re:popular vote

[david_thornley]

And tyranny of the majority is a good thing... because?

Tyranny of the minority is better? Almost three million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump. Moreover, the election is decided by swing states, which means we have a tyranny of a few states.

Under a popular vote system, candidates would go to a handful of big cities in California and on the East Coast and call it a day.

We do have popular vote for governor, senators, and some other offices in Minnesota. If what you said were true, you'd think such candidates would stick to the Twin Cities Metro Area and Duluth, but that doesn't happen. They try to appeal to rural Minnesota, and show up in more rural locations.

Re:popular vote

[ooloorie]

Tyranny of the minority is better?

No, limited government is better. Hillary ran on a program of tyranny of the majority. It's not surprising that with such a program, she can get large numbers of votes, but that doesn't legitimize her political program. The fact that the US system keeps people like Hillary out of power (and it's not the first time) is a big plus of our system compared to Europe. A loser like Trump is still better for the country than someone like Hillary.

Almost three million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.

Popular vote totals are meaningless in a electoral system with 55% voter turnout. How hard can that be to understand?

Furthermore, if the election were held today, Trump would probably lead in both electoral votes and popular votes, so even according to your math, Hillary doesn't represent "the majority" anymore.

And 108 million voters chose to vote for neither of those two jerks. If we went by actual majority, we'd have no president at all.

Re:popular vote

[david_thornley]

In other words, it would be bad if the candidate who got more votes to win because you disagree with her politically.

If the election were held again today, there'd be campaigning leading up to it. It wouldn't happen in a vacuum. The poll results are not definitive.

Re:popular vote

[ooloorie]

In other words, it would be bad if the candidate who got more votes to win because you disagree with her politically.

Not quite. What I'm saying is that it would be bad if the candidate who got more vote automatically wins because that's not the way a free society can operate. The fact that candidates like Clinton lose is simply a consequence of a system that is doing its job as intended.

If the election were held again today, there'd be campaigning leading up to it. It wouldn't happen in a vacuum. The poll results are not definitive.

Good you realize that campaigning for certain goals affects outcomes. Now apply the same logic to your "popular vote" argument.

Re:popular vote

[david_thornley]

In almost all democracies, the election is decided by getting the most votes, and they seem to be free societies. The jobs of the Electoral College were to allow slave states extra power in electing Presidents, keeping popular unqualified people out of the office, and keeping creatures of foreign powers out. I didn't see any of those purposes being fulfilled.

Re:popular vote

[ooloorie]

In almost all democracies, the election is decided by getting the most votes, and they seem to be free societies

Actually, in most democracies, the equivalent of the US president isn't determined by popular vote at all, but by coalitions in parliament.

The jobs of the Electoral College were to allow slave states extra power in electing Presidents, keeping popular unqualified people out of the office, and keeping creatures of foreign powers out. I didn't see any of those purposes being fulfilled.

Kept Hillary out of office, didn't it? That seems to indicate it's working.

Re:popular vote

[david_thornley]

A Prime Minister isn't a real good equivalent to a US President.

Re:popular vote

[ooloorie]

A Prime Minister isn't a real good equivalent to a US President.

You're grasping at straws now. Other democracies have executive branches? Those executive branches are led by one or more people? Name other democracies in which those people are "decided by getting the most votes". In fact, in "almost all democracies", little of importance is ever decided by "getting the most votes", it is decided by political coalitions between all-minority parties, usually after the vote.

Your implication that the US with its electoral college is some kind of outlier among a sea of majoritarian democracies is ludicrous. If anything, the US gives people much more of what they want, which is why a populist like Trump can come to power against the imprecations of his own party establishment.

The US electoral system has served the US well, in particular at keeping mad(wo)men out of power. The price we pay for that is a long string of incompetent, mediocre, or simply annoying presidents.

Re:popular vote

[david_thornley]

Let's stick to the UK, since I know something about that. There is no executive branch. There are executive departments, under the control of Parliament. Parliament, with more or less meaningless concessions to the monarch, has all the control. I believe that's typically how parliamentary democracies work. In some countries, seats in parliament are based on how many people voted for which party.

In any case but one where there is an executive with legal power who isn't a monarch, said executive is elected by popular vote.

Re:popular vote

[ooloorie]

Let's stick to the UK, since I know something about that. There is no executive branch. There are executive departments, under the control of Parliament.

You're splitting hairs now. The fact is that executive power is not determined by popular vote. In fact, very few decisions are made by popular vote in parliamentary democracies.

It wasn't my fault....

[PortHaven]

"I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that's not why I lost," Clinton said.

I lost cause...

- I am a woman
- Fake News
- The Russians
- The DNC was incompetent

NOT
- I was repeated caught cheating against Bernie Sanders
- The DNC collusion
- Tarmac meeting to call off investigation
- Failed to campaign to blue collar workers
- Never got boots on the ground
    (Both Bernie and Trump came thru redneck Pennsylvania and Michigan, Hillary assumed her win)
- The long history of being a corrupt insider
- Pass legacy of Clinton Administration
- People are tired of political dynasty's (Kennedy's, Bush's, Clinton's)

These are why she lost...despite her campaign having twice the funds as Trump's campaign, the DNC party spending more than the Republicans, and the SuperPAC's that supported her having nearly 3x the funds of those supporting Trump. Only to be tromped in the electoral college.

Re:It wasn't my fault....

[eaglesrule]

Also, declaring that she'd be the last in line to release the transcripts of her paid speeches. The evasiveness and refusing to lead by example was glaring.

Re:It wasn't my fault....

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the most important and damning to her capability of helming the post of "Commander In Chief", during her time as Secretary of State:
-She reduced security as the US embassy in Benghazi from 34 to 6 personnel
-She denied Ambassador Stephen's request for additional security personnel during his trip to Benghazi
-She refused to take responsibility for Ambassador Stephen's murder, stating that she left such matters up to "experts" and "the ball was not in her court".

No American concerned about the current state of unrest in the world should EVER have voted for Hillary Clinton. The USA would be looking like the UK&France if she was at the helm, letting every suicide bomber in with a warm hug and free healthcare.

Close election: everybody's theory is right

[Freedom Bug]

The election was extremely close, so every little thing that flipped a few voters was one of the straws that broke the camel's back. Comey, the Russians, her slogan, the DNC apparatus, et cetera, et cetera. No single straw broke the camel's back, they were all required.

Heck she could have had a bad hair day that flipped a few voters and that straw could have been enough.

Re:Close election: everybody's theory is right

[ooloorie]

Hillary should have won this election in a landslide, given her resources, name recognition, and support. She started off with a 20 point lead over Trump and pissed it all away.

Yup

[PortHaven]

Double-yup...

Had she become president

[PortHaven]

I fear we would be in a quasi-nominal war with Russia.

Re:Had she become president

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to unconditional surrender without firing a shot like we've done under Trump.
Aren't you guys the same crowd who is always making fun of France for supposedly lying down for tyrants?

Absolutely laughable.

[xession]

The is absolutely laughable! She ran a money laundering operation to drive funds into her campaign while starving the the state-run Democratic parties. Millions of dollars went into the coffers of the DNC office and Hillary Clinton's victory fund and she has the gall to say it was "bankrupted"?

DNC sought to hide details of Clinton funding deal

The DNC was an entity wholly within the umbrella of the Clinton machine for the 2016 election. To say it was bankrupted suggests her own inability to manage her operation. Its as if Hillary Clinton and the DNC spent millions on research to find out why people hate the smell of turds and millions more on trying to find a way for people to enjoy the smell of turds, and left with the conclusion it must just be everyone else's problem for why they don't enjoy the smell of turds. And to top it off, then she whines about being short on money. If every room you walk into smells like shit, check your pants.

Actually wrong in this case

[PortHaven]

Hillary raised and spent nearly twice as much as Trump.

Re:Actually wrong in this case

[wyHunter]

You're violating the meme that the Democrats are the poor underdogs. Never mind they're richer than the Republicans.

Citation

[PortHaven]

So far, no evidence of any real proof of Russian involvement has been provided. The main evidence purported in the government's released report was that the Russian Times published pro-Russian agenda articles. Duh.... like we don't publish pro-USA articles? And guess what, their right to do so is protected by the 1st Amendment. And really, simply google and you'll find that despite all the claimed twitter bots and Russian articles, the readership of those pale in comparison to the mainstream media.

And with further leaks, "hacker groups" which were presumed to be foreign entities have now in fact been identified as CIA spoofs.

Re:Citation

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Technically speaking, RT is based out of Moscow, and is a foreign corporation. The 1st Amendment rights of corporations is still a gray area, and Constitution protections for foreigners is still highly subjective and is still decided on a case-by-case basis. Even cases such as Citizens United really only touch on campaign contributions as a "form" of free speech, and contrary to popular belief, was pretty limited in the resultant decision. There have been many court cases that have decided that foreign nationals are not automatically covered under the Bill of Rights as these where meant for actual citizens of the US. Combining these factors together, this leads to the conclusion that RT would NOT be covered under any 1st Amendment rights.

As for the evidence of Russian involvement, there is proof. However, the actual "list" or whatever is currently still highly classified and not released into the general public yet. The real question is if the involvement was coordinated on the "state level", and was the Trump administration an active participant in said involvement or just a beneficiary. There is evidence of similar tampering in France; however Marcon's cyber team was prepared for this and may have actually done some preemptive "informational poisoning" to derail it.

People who can't see this trail are just keeping their heads buried in the sand; I blame it on something akin to the "beaten spouse syndrome". However, I don't think Clinton was a very good candidate either, and would have brought her own long list of issues with her. It's sad that out of 330 million people these two rose to "the top". We can do better than this; we MUST do better than this. Personally I advocate for replacing the House of Representatives with a proportional representation system to encourage the viability and formation of real third party choices. The US stands alone in having the meme "third party" due to the mathematical fact that our system only allows two sides due to our "winner take all" system. These sides often switch platforms, and absorb any emergent 3rd parties within a few election cycles.

Sources:
RT Network
Are foreign nationals covered under the Constitution?
Corporate personhood
First Amendment and “Foreign-Controlled” U.S. Corporations
Can US election hack be traced to Russia?
Putin: Patriotic Russians may be involved in hacking
The Macedonian Teens Who Mastered Fake News
Macedonia’s fake news industry sets sights on Europe
Russian Cyber Attack Repelled During French Elections
Proportional representation

Re:Citation

[Anonymous Coward]

Story with link showing the FBI's evidence of Russian hacking. It was even a story on /. I read it, there was NO evidence in it.

Its not secret, it just doesn't exit. You are full of shit.

Re:Citation

[ooloorie]

Technically speaking, RT is based out of Moscow, and is a foreign corporation. The 1st Amendment rights of corporations is still a gray area, and Constitution protections for foreigners is still highly subjective and is still decided on a case-by-case basis.

Being a foreign corporation based out of Moscow, they can publish whatever they want. So, when you talk about the "free speech rights of foreign corporations", what you are actually talking about is the American government blocking Americans from accessing foreign web sites that the government deems too much in favor of one presidential candidate or another. How would you like to implement that? Are you going to create the Great Firewall of the US? Are you going to require ISPs to block these sites? Or are you going to have police visit the home of anybody who views RT.com in violation of US government policy? Come on, let us know what brilliant ideas you have in store!

And where were you arguing this when Obama or Hillary received numerous endorsements and support from foreign newspapers, foreign governments, and corporations? Would you like to block those too?

If you think that the ability of corporations to publish political views should be limited by government because you don't believe in "corporate personhood", why don't we start by giving that power to Donald Trump? Let's see how he uses it vis-a-vis the New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC. How about it?

Re:Citation

[ooloorie]

Personally I advocate for replacing the House of Representatives with a proportional representation system to encourage the viability and formation of real third party choices.

Yes, brilliant! That way we can join Europe in having actual socialists, fascists, and communists in parliament, representing the people who believe in that sort of thing (you?).

Just look at how wonderfully that worked out in Germany in 1930-1933: those 18% who voted for the NSDAP in 1930 really managed to get their message across, and then in 1933 came to power with only 33% of the vote through coalition building! Parliamentary democracy FTW!

Campaign much? How about the Bernie Sanders factor

[NotARealUser]

I know she is blaming others, but I think that Clinton was her own worst enemy. She had like a quarter of the campaign stops of Trump AND she disenfranchised many people who were active in the DNC by essentially cheating Bernie Sanders out of the nomination. After offending a large chunk of her most energetic supporters, she greatly reduced her chances of winning against any candidate.

Almost the same thing happened in 2008 and 2012 to the Republicans when they chose a mediocre, establishment candidate, who had all the connections. They corruptly censored their outsider candidate, Ron Paul, who also happened to have the most energized base. Then they sat around moping, not understanding why there was no energy behind their campaign.

The lesson of this election for Democrats, and the lesson of the previous two elections for Republicans, is that you cannot win without energy. While using an establishment candidate preserves the jobs of those in power, it also serves to disenfranchise the energetic workers you need to win elections.

Hillary spent twice as much as Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

This election wasn't won by spending more money. The Clinton campaign spent over twice what the Trump campaign spent and still lost.

Stop terminating data operations people then.

[bill_mcgonigle]

RIP, Seth Rich.

Re:Stop terminating data operations people then.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

#TheRealHannity? LOL

DNC

[fulldecent]

I don't think an insufficient datalist is the most pressing problem with the DNC.

Actually he is

[rsilvergun]

he's a statistical aggregator. He takes all the polls, adjusts them for historical accuracy and likely margin for error and then presents the results. His methodology is reasonably straightforward (by statistician standards) and well vetted. Basically he just approaches polling as a science and remains impartial. Since he's not employed by either party he doesn't mind giving them bad news. And he's not out to bilk anyone (like Rhomney's data team was when they were basically taking the money and running).

Re:Actually he is

[Triklyn]

my comment was more in line with. neither one of the parties should be 'listening' to nate silver. that's what you hire people for internal polling for. and if your internals are conflicting with literally everybody else. you might be wrong. or you might have found a chink in the opponents armor that nobody else is aware of.

nate silver put hillary at 75 percent. seems like the dems listened and the repubs said, 25 percent ain't nothing and we think we're right.

Re:Actually he is

[MooseMiester]

Nonsense. If you want to know what people think you survey as many people as you can, and then create a balanced result set based on representative quotas of age, race, gender, income, and geo region - at a minimum. So you sample, say, 10,000 people, and then build a balanced sample set of 5,000 that reflects the country.

This is how REAL market research is done. 90% of the polls you read about mean NOTHING. So averaging a bunch of crap produces an average of crap. And when you "adjust them for historical accuracy and likely margin for error" you're fudging the numbers to meet the outcome requested by your client...

Yes, polling is a science. Doing it right is expensive. It works extremely well - companies spend huge money on it, and it absolutely works. All of the "everyday" products you buy - CPG (Consumer Package Goods) - are what they are because of effective market research.

On the other hand your typical political poll is absolute crap. A random sample of 1,000 people conducted over the telephone has an MOE of +/- 100%. You don't know what time of day they called - this, in itself, makes a huge difference; what location they called; did they call landlines or cell phones; did they ask screener questions, like "Do you work for a political party or a campaign"; did they suppress any results; and so many other basic polling methodologies. Many of the political polls don't even ask people if they are registered to vote, or if they voted in the last election! Rasmussen you can put some small faith in. Gallup, same. These Fox News, WSJ, NBC, WaPo, etc. polls are completely meaningless as is the "Real Clear Politics" poll.

Voting the president is degraded to datagames

[gotan]

Isn't anyone disturbed by that? I've read "Shattered", much of the book is how nearly every decision in the campaign, where to appear, which media to use, which voters to address is based on "slicing and dicing the electorate", purely for the purpose of maximizing the votes (and only where they matter). Shouldn't voting be about the politics to expect from a candidate?

There weren't really any derogatory emails

[rsilvergun]

There was never much press coverage of individual emails. The reason the email scandal stuck was a) Hilary didn't shut it down by coming forward to claim responsibility day 1 and b) (and more importantly) the Republicans invest heavily in a content and narrative engine (Fox News, InfoWars, Beitbart, etc, etc) to drive their narrative. They can do that because their primary goal in office is tax cuts for the rich, so they can go to the rich and get billions to run a media engine to control the narrative.

Hillary was pounded with 20 years of bad press by a billion dollar media empire who's sole job is to get Republicans elected. Now, what should have happened is she should have fell on her sword to save the party and let Biden run. The worst thing in all this is now that the beast Hilary is slain the RNC is turning that engine on Liz Warren. She, you'll recall, is about the only thing that stands between us and unfettered banks...

Re:There weren't really any derogatory emails

[asdfman2000]

b) (and more importantly) the Republicans invest heavily in a content and narrative engine (Fox News, InfoWars, Beitbart, etc, etc) to drive their narrative.

You're saying the GOP establishment was coordinating with Breitbart and InfoWars? Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about considering both were essentially at war with the GOPe. Not sure if you remember, but Trump lost TONS of every-single-election donors like the Koch brothers. Additionally, all of the standard GOPe newspapers either withheld endorsement, or endorsed Hillary.

Face it, Hillary was a shit candidate with a terrible track record of corruption.

Re:There weren't really any derogatory emails

[MooseMiester]

Hillary was pounded with 20 years of bad press by a billion dollar media empire who's sole job is to get Republicans elected.

Please read the recent Harvard Study about press coverage of Trump and bias.

Not going to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

No one wants to elect her. She's tainted and everyone knows it. The only chance of a Clinton getting elected is if Chelsea runs for office somewhere, which would, by dint, "elect' Hillary, assuming she's healthy enough to provide "guidance" (reminds me of Kim Jong-Un's "field guidance" trips he makes around NORK).

We need a populist like Bernie Sanders, not a tainted insider. We need someone the markets fear or are unsure of. Bernie offered this. Since being mayor, he's been for the little man. No one else comes close, and sadly, Bernie is getting too old.

Re:Not going to happen

[evolutionary]

I would agree Hillary is tainted (and exposed). Sanders seems to have AMAZING energy. He is an 'independent' now. If there is a group behind him financially for another campaign I'm all up for that. Personally I think the the USA needs a 3rd significant party (we have 3 in Canada), to keep the other two honest.

Re:things we now know.

[Shotgun]

Whoosh!!

Re:things we now know.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, are you retarded, or trolling?
Everything he posted was sarcasm.

Owl Lady

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who, who, who can I blame?"

Nate is BIASED

[Anonymous Coward]

Nate is NOT impartial. I read his site all the time and I constantly see stories about "How we can win the House in 2018" with 5 pages of what the DNC needs to do to win seats in the next election.

In the Minnesota election last week he was analysing it and said what would have been needed for "them" to win it instead of the GOP.

You also forget he said Trump had a 15% chance of winning, was bashed by the DNC, and then started retracting that statement the day of the election. Very scientific indeed.

I look at his site to see what "reasonable" DNC supporters are saying. Only problem is they are not reasonable, they are completely delusional there. Running weekly stories about how long before Trump is impeached. The only thing they got going is they are not quite as bad as CNN or the WaPo.

There's got to be *some* reason it's not me ...

[BenBoy]

Watching HRC search for external reasons for her defeat is like watching GWB search for WMDs: after a while, it's not all that fucking funny.

Hillary (a regular slashdot reader, I'm sure), you lost because:

• A candidate (Sanders) came along and reminded people what a Democrat used to look like (i.e., not so much like you).
• You're not very entertaining.
• You fell into the Republicans trap of fighting at the margins (LGBTQ, for example) that particularly piss off (and energize) the Republican base.
• By calling those who disagreed with you "deplorables, basket of", you demonstrated a willingness to govern half of the country. What, Romney's 47% wasn't enough of a heads-up?

Note the use of the word you in the points above. Trump is the president now (which I consider a bad thing), and that is your fault. The buck, for you, evidently stops elsewhere.

Re:There's got to be *some* reason it's not me ...

[will_die]

The difference is that they found WMD, just not the quantity and some of the types that the intelligence agencies around the world said existed.

Bad candidate

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is an idea: maybe she lost because she was a bad (worse) candidate. And that's saying something considering who was the alternative. :-/

DNC should have nominated the actual people's choice: i.e. Sanders. If they have done that (instead of pushing Clinton because she's a woman and "its her turn"), the world would have been a lot different right now.

The fact that Trump ended up the president is far-left nutjob's fault. If DNC kept to a sane candidate, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Folks, seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

...how was she not 50 points ahead?!

Weeeeh! Mommy!

[johanw]

I lost, and that's not fair! Boohooo!

Horse shit

[s.petry]

Trump needed to win enough votes from the Electoral College no matter which States they were. AND HE DID! There were 2 States where Trump had no chance, and he spent no money or time in them. He was in every State where he had a chance, more than once.

Compared to Hillary who did not campaign, but had bought and paid for shilvertisements alleging to be "interviews". Hillary had very few stops in very few States talking to very few people. We know now that Health probably played a role (pneumonia), but her and her staff lied about that which hurt more than it helped adding to her reputation for dishonesty and deceit.

Hillary did have Obama out campaigning for her during the last 3 months of the Election cycle instead of acting as the President. She had massive amounts of cash from PACs running negative ads, and the full array of News Papers, On-line media, and TV media pushing for her and trashing Trump.

Just quit with the woe as me shit "If only Michigan or Ohio", or "If only not for the FBI", or any of the other horse shit. Hillary was and is a terrible person, and made for a horrible candidate. A better candidate may have beaten Trump, but that's up for debate. Trump won because he was not from the Establishment, not because he is a great politician.

rsilvergun is lying and has been told before

[Anonymous Coward]

Voter roles are public information. link to get them. Or Here for information on it.

I think you are quickly taking the position of the literally dumbest person posting to /. now. And that is QUITE a feat.

You have been told this specific information at least 10 times over the last 2 months, yet you keep repeating your lies. That makes you pretty much the least credible person there is here. I might think you might just be an alt account for creimer, but at least creimer doesn't repeat stupid shit once its pointed out to him. So that makes you even dumber than creimer.

The Clintons have been a bane on America.

[thadtheman]

Yes when Bill won he "saved" the Democratic party from Presidential doldrums, but he had a lot -- a really big amount of help from a guy named Ross Perot. In exchange he cost them the House and the Senate, and people who never voted for Republicans for those seats once in their life now began to do so in great numbers.

He then went on to began the corruption ( actually he bagan the corruption in Arkansas, the 49th rated country in the US ) to get himself relected and not impeached. Why do we have Citizen's United, because Bill got caught renting out the Lincoln bedroom and getting campaign donations from China. As a smoke screen to hide the fact he could not follow campaign finance laws, he decided that what we have to is create more laws he would not follow. So campaign finance reform was born which gave us McCain-Feingold, which gave us Citizen's United.

Bill at least had charisma, which Hillary does not. His foibles were weirder then hers but less foul.

He was at least a long time governor, she was a one time senator of a seat she was given. I wish Patrick Moynihan and his kind were back.

Worse, if she makes as comeback, it will encourage Jeb.

Trump got elected because modern politicians are bankrupt. 95% of them. The 5% that are not get indoctinated before too long.

The vast majority of NY and CA for clinton

[mveloso]

True, the vast majority of Californians and New Yorkers voted for Clinton. The rest of the country not so much.

That's why the popular vote doesn't count in US elections - nobody wants CA and NY to decide who the next POTUS will be.

Re:The vast majority of NY and CA for clinton

[TsuruchiBrian]

Lot's of people in California and New York voted for Donald Trump. 32% and 37% respectively. The reason that Hillary running up her totals in california and new york don't help her, is because she is already winning 100% of the electoral vote despite there being many republicans who did not for her.

Texas is projected to flip to being a blue state in 2024. I expect many electoral college proponents will changing their tune at that point.

The electoral college has 2 separate effects. It gives slightly more voting power to smaller states, but it also just makes the results very erratic (severely diverging from the popular vote). This latter effect has a far more profound effect on the outcome of elections.

It is largely incidental that the electoral college has been helping republicans in recent history. When the circumstances change and see the effect start to disproportionately help democrats, we'll see democrats clamoring to keep it and republicans clamoring to get rid of it.

It's not a good voting system, regardless of what your desired outcome is.

Re:The vast majority of NY and CA for clinton

[Anonymous Coward]

As a resident of Kentucky, I absolutely want CA and NY to decide the next POTUS. Looking around at the monumentally stupid people around here and the complete lack of any value that we as a state contribute to the nation or the world, why should we matter?

Re:The vast majority of NY and CA for clinton

[nasch]

Why should people in California and New York have their votes count less than other peoples'?

Re: The vast majority of NY and CA for clinton

[Anonymous Coward]

" Texas is projected to flip to being a blue state in 2024. I expect many electoral college proponents will changing their tune at that point. "

The recent law passed of banning sanctuary cities in Texas will probably impact that timeline a bit.

Re: The vast majority of NY and CA for clinton

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have learned in school what a Republic is. We live in a representative Republic. I would advise a Wikipedia search since your public school failed you spectacularly.

Re:The vast majority of NY and CA for clinton

[t0rkm3]

Because this is a union of states, not a union of people. It's the United STATES of America, not the Democratic Mob of America.

This allows people to have a different local government than the rest of the nation, but still cooperate on the major issues that were decided to best be pushed up to the Federal government.

It allows for an ecosystem of ideas and economies to exist and work along with each other. Technically, the popular vote applying to the federal election is not covered under federal statute at all. Arkansas could decide that the electoral votes will go to the party that wins a coin flip, if that's what the people of Arkansas voted for in their State law.

Re: The vast majority of NY and CA for clinton

[TsuruchiBrian]

I don't see how it would.

Re:The vast majority of NY and CA for clinton

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me flip your argument around. I hope you can see how ridiculous it sounds:

Nobody wants the economically and socially successful states to steer the country.

CA and NY account for just under a fifth of total US population and just over a fifth of total US GDP.

It's almost as though people want to live in those states. And those states general a significant source of economic power and growth for the rest of the country -- compare states like Kansas, where regressive Republican economic and social policies have slowly been destroying the state over (at least) the last decade.

I'm Canadian, by the way, and live in Saskatchewan. We see the same problem: a bunch of ignorant rural folks swing the election in favour of a corrupt conservative party because they want to Make Saskatchewan/America/Racism+Bigotry Great Again.

Note: "ignorant" is not flamebait. They really do seem to be horrifically, willfully ignorant. How many rural voters in your country read the likes of Breitbart? How many people in Saskatchewan voted for Sask Party because they'll save our economy? (Hint: they didn't; they blew through several hundred million dollars of prior years' budget surplus to offset the crass amount of funds they bungled through mismanagement and giving to their buddies)

Please stop advocating for the EC. It made sense back in the day when telecoms didn't exist. Now it just seems to be a tool for orange-coloured reality TV stars to fuel their egos.

WTF? Delusional much?

[s.petry]

Nothing bad in the leaked emails? Really?

Lets start by the DNC stacking the deck to give the nomination to her instead of Sanders, and colluding on ways to beat him. Not the Hillary campaign mind you, but the Democratic National Party. Then we get into the Hillary back slapping crowd, and the back stabbing crowd, each demonstrating what a great for America team this truly was.. right?

Now lets talk about how many positive "lets work on this platform for a better America" emails we found in the dumps...... *crickets*

Russia Russia Russia my ass.

Well

[s.petry]

The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.

Most Americans do believe that the Government no longer works for them though, which was the hallmark of a Great America.

its not her fault at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not her fault she is out of touch, with the average American,
Its not her fault she has no idea about technology
Its not her fault that she cant trust anyone around her
Its not her fault that no one trusts her
Its not her fault that she sounds like a petulant child playing the blame game
Its not her fault that the truth about her backroom dealings have surfaced
Its not her fault that as the FLOTUS she couldnt even keep control of the main missle /sarcasm

come on lets face it, how can people truly vote for a person as president who couldnt control their own house. I mean if she was unaware of bills transgressions then how can people trust her to pay attention to the national security points that would be important on a national scale. If she did know about his transgressions then she is seen as a weak person who doesnt have a backbone.

Lets face it, her husbands impeachment pretty much screwed her chance at the top spot. there were only two ways she could have handled it that would have benefited her and her political ambitions of the presidency

1. she leave him right away! this would have solved the lack of backbone issue and would have cast her as a strong independent woman (which would have gained her more of the female vote) it would also show that as a presidential candidate she wouldn't stand for any bullshit.

Or

2. spin it off as "we are swingers and what we do in our own time is no one else's business" while this strategy might have lost them some puritan voters it would have rallied a whole bunch of the LGBT community behind them.

either way, she is tone-def to what is going on in the world outside of her ivory castle and even if she does run again she should never be taken as a serious political candidate ever. when you rip on your own organization and praise the other it looks like she is trying to jump-ship

some of her tone-def statements:
-she calls the use of a personal email a "nothing burger" (yet it inherently shows that she is against the freedom of information for the American citizens, and "well other people did it" is not an excuse. any 6th grader knows that)
- the constant wailing about misogyny or sexism (seriously, if you have to continues playing that card then all you are doing is furthering that delusion upon your self as being a weak woman, also a president that blames things on sexism looks bad when several other countries have elected female leaders recently, none of whom have had to play the sexism card... probably because they were actually good candidates and their sex had no bearing on their policies that they put forth)
-playing the victim card, I.E. people are blaming clinton for the trump win (FFS just look at how she operated during her campaign, even before the primaries it was blatently obvious that the majority of the public wanted someone who was anti establishment after oboma was a lame duck and only towed the line. This was obvious in the Obama election and obvious in this election as well. Rigging the DNC nomination is precisly what handed trump the W, So she does deserve that mantle and all the hate she gets now)

from the nymag article:
"Recently, she has even declared herself a member of âoethe resistance.â âoeThereâ(TM)s always been this rearguard movement against expanding the circle of opportunity,â she says. âoeAnd I believe that a lot of whatâ(TM)s happening now is a resurgence of the anxiety, the fear, the bias that still affects people who are worried that change is coming even faster, that it will have even more consequences.â The unwillingness to acknowledge this backlash, says Clinton, is âoepart of the reason we are, if not going backward, certainly stalled.â"

she cant even realize that the people wanted change and that is exactly why trump won...

the simple fact is that the American people for the past 8+ years have wanted someone anti establishment and putting forth an establishment candidate was never going to be quelled by playing the woman card, which is all she really had to play.She has no credibility and her name will tarnish any group that she attaches her name to

flavors

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, if there's an option between Vanillary or this new Trumpberry (which is a vanilla/chocolate swirl with sprinkles and brownie bites, however may give you violent diarrhea), give me a double scoop of Trumpberry please!

Links please

[rsilvergun]

I've seen plenty of articles about "How the Democratic Party can win" but not "How _we_ can win".

And Trump did have a 15% chance of winning. That's what statistics mean. A chance. His chances were still very, very low and he won by less than a hair's breath. That's what our "All or Nothing" political system gets you.

And reading his comments section tells you nothing about the man. You're trolling. Stop it. It's annoying, and you're doing it just enough on the edge that some well meaning person might actually mod you up and reduce the quality of what's left of /.'s discourse.

Democrats picked the wrong candidate!

[Theovon]

Hillary lost because the democrats pushed through a weak candidate with lots of strikes against her. Despite all her mistakes (some serious ones, like the email server debacle), I liked Hillary and was and still am very afraid of Donald Trump and the alternative-fact culture currently dominating the Republican party. But she was far from squeaky clean, and voters were also angry over the Democrats nominating someone who was not their strongest candidate. She was nominated because she was a woman. Admittedly, I believe she’s a strong woman with the constitution to be president, and I think that America really needs to have a female president in order to create a historical precedent that gender is not really a factor in what it takes to make a good president. I think she could have done a decent job of it, better than Trump anyhow, although we’re still at a point where women will get more flak than men for exactly the same mistakes.

Anyhow, bottom line is that American voters felt they were let down by the Democrats and went and voted for Trump. DNC IT infrastructure may have sucked, but that’s not why she lost the vote.

The Truth Is

[Anonymous Coward]

Bernie Would Have Won

Re:The Truth Is

[jcr]

Actually, I think the geriatric commie rat bastard might have been the only other person in the country who could lose to Trump. The opposition research on him had some real doozies, like his idiotic habit of praising communist dictators.

-jcr

Hilary lost!

[Anonymous Coward]

Get over it!

Re: can't she shut up

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not married because you're an insufferable twat, as evidenced by your infantile views on half the population

She didn't win because

[Anonymous Coward]

her constituents wanted Bernie.

Well... she already had a mail-server.

[Anonymous Coward]

She should have just used all the hard ware she used to "lose" her e-mails.

It doesn't matter anymore why she lost, really....

[mark-t]

The election is over, its done... the new president is in office, and blaming the turn of events on anything, or whining about how its not her fault even if she were right is not going to change the reality in which we find ourselves living in today... She needs to stop dwelling on the past and focus her energies and thoughts on what she is going to do today, tomorrow, and so on.

Clinton lost the popular vote

[Solandri]

2000 election
48.38% Gore (Dem)
47.87% Bush (Rep)
2.74% Nader (Green)
0.96% Other (all conservative parties)
51.12% total liberal parties
48.83% total conservative parties

2016 election
48.18% Clinton (Dem)
46.09% Trump (Rep)
3.28% Johnson (Libertarian)
1.07% Stein (Green)
0.69% Other (all conservative parties) 0.05% Other (all liberal parties)
49.3% total liberal parties
50.06% total conservative parties

Since the U.S. only allows a single vote for President, if nobody wins an outright majority (50%), you have to take into account votes for other candidates to really judge the will of the people in that election. This accounts for third parties siphoning votes away from the top candidates.

In 2000, Gore won a plurality (but not a majority) of the popular vote, and the liberal parties won a majority of the popular vote. Gore was the "best" winner of the 2000 election.

In 2016, Clinton won a plurality (but not a majority) of the popular vote, but the conservative parties won a majority of the popular vote. Trump was the "best" winner of the 2016 election.

Clinton lost because she wasn't popular enough to get enough liberal voters to go to the polling stations, plain and simple. She (and many liberal pundits) refuse to recognize this, and keep trying to blame external factors for her loss. Russian meddling (never mind that if emails saying Trump had been given debate questions in advance were leaked, that would've been the scandal instead of the source being Russia), "fake news" (which has been present forever, just not with a catchy name), Comey's announcements (Clinton's polls went down when Comey announced she wasn't being charged with anything, not even a reprimand - she likely lost a large number of voters with security clearances), and now poor DNC operations (Trump's campaign was even more disorganized). Winners adapt so they can win. Losers refuse to change even when they're told they're wrong, then blame others for their loss.

Re: Clinton lost the popular vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Russian meddling kept most "liberal" voters from getting involved in the election. Russian meddling made Clinton toxic to everyone and Trump sound reasonable. Without Russian meddling it would have been the other way around. I mean please put your partisanship aside and look at what we really have in office right now.

Re: Clinton lost the popular vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Russian meddling made Clinton toxic

Clinton made Clinton toxic. All Russians did was take the lid off the barrel so everyone could smell it.

Re:Clinton lost the popular vote

[Anonymous Coward]

One correction - The US doesn't allow "a single vote for the Presidency".

It allows for 51 different votes, each in a different geographic location.

captcha: deplores

Re:Clinton lost the popular vote

[Anonymous Coward]

2000 election
48.38% Gore (Dem)
47.87% Bush (Rep)
2.74% Nader (Green)
0.96% Other (all conservative parties)
51.12% total liberal parties
48.83% total conservative parties

2016 election

48.18% Clinton (Dem)
46.09% Trump (Rep)
3.28% Johnson (Libertarian)
1.07% Stein (Green)
0.69% Other (all conservative parties)
0.05% Other (all liberal parties)
49.3% total liberal parties
50.06% total conservative parties
 

It is quite a stretch to define a vote for Johnson as a purely conservative vote. He was quite "liberal" on a lot of social issues (abortion, death penalty, gay marriage). It would be more honest to split the Johnson vote. i.e.

50.94% total liberal parties
48.42% total conservative parties

Re:Clinton lost the popular vote

[amicusNYCL]

Since the U.S. only allows a single vote for President, if nobody wins an outright majority (50%), you have to take into account votes for other candidates to really judge the will of the people in that election. This accounts for third parties siphoning votes away from the top candidates.

That doesn't really tell the whole picture, though. For example, I would have voted for Sanders if I could have, who is obviously liberal. Instead I voted for Johnson, who is included in the conservative total. That vote for Johnson doesn't mean I'm happy that Trump is president though.

Re:Clinton lost the popular vote

[Anonymous Coward]

bullshit. I voted for Johnson. Specifically because I didn't want to vote for Trump. So you're tallying my vote as a plus for Trump?

Get the fuck out of here. +5 informative?

simple fact is, you want to compare candidates, you COMPARE candidates.

48.38% Gore (Dem)
47.87% Bush (Rep)
--
48.18% Clinton (Dem)
46.09% Trump (Rep)

quit being a trump-firster.

Re:Clinton lost the popular vote

[dcw3]

+1

Re:Clinton lost the popular vote

[Anonymous Coward]

This accounts for third parties siphoning votes away from the top candidates.

I hate it when people make comments like this. Nothing in our laws say anything about a two party system. Your buying into what the two parties want you to believe which is why our elections are so screwed. NEITHER party is on the side of "The People". Truth there isn't two parties just an illusion of two when in fact there is only one.

Voting for the third party is giving the finger two our screwed up system of government and the ruling class and until a third party person is elected were are all screwed.

This was an election by sheep for either the wolf or the panther. Either way the vote goes your are going to be eaten.

Hillary lost because of her lies and breaking the law and being a first class bitch.

What happened since 2012

[darth dickinson]

Didn't the DNC have a pretty robust data mining operation for the 2008 and 2012 elections? What happened since then?

Re:What happened since 2012

[will_die]

According to hillary, barak obama. He diverted funds from the data mining operation and did not keep it up. So when she started to run she got nothing from the DNC.

THIS is why politics sucks ...

[gosand]

Notice how only one of your items (#7) is about her stance on issues?
Everything else is all about perception or image. Read through all of the comments in this story, they are all about that. Because that is what matters. Even all her blame is about things that should only be a minor part of presidential elections, but instead are the only things that seem to matter.

Why can't we get back to actual plans, policies, and competencies, instead of headlines, talking points, perception, and how someone campaigns?!

Re:THIS is why politics sucks ...

[taiwanjohn]

While I understand (and agree with) your overall point, I blame that on the media rather than the voters. Case in point: the Bernie Sanders campaign. He had a clear message (economic inequality) and relentlessly hammered a handful of issues above all... and he was hugely successful. He started from nowhere, with zero name recognition, and closed a 60-point gap against Clinton in less than a year. And if not for the "super-delegates" and other hurdles (such as closed primaries) he might very well have beaten her for the nomination.

Bottom line: 2016 was an anti-establishment, populist "wave" election. Trump and Sanders both ran as anti-establishment populists; Hillary ran as the status-quo, establishment candidate. More than any other reason, that's why she lost.

The establishment all wanted Hillary to win, and indeed expected her to win... if not they would never have given Trump so much free air time -- while simultaneously ignoring Bernie's rock-star public appearances.

And don't forget, Trump also had a clear set of core issues that he hammered relentlessly: immigration; 'the wall'; Muslim ban; trade agreements; etc.. Voters do respond to issues, even if they're stupid ones.

Re:THIS is why politics sucks ...

[david_thornley]

Closed primaries are the way to go. When one candidate has a lock on the party nomination, people of his party are likely to cross the line in an open primary and vote for the worst of the opposite party candidates. This is, overall, bad. It's better if people who more or less believe in the party select the party's nominee.

Superdelegates are there to stop candidates like Trump and McGovern. I still have painful memories of 1972.

Sanders would have been viciously attacked as a soshulist the moment he clinched the nomination. He would not have won.

Re:THIS is why politics sucks ...

[taiwanjohn]

I call BS. I remember 1972, and it was very different from 2016. It was the height of the Cold War; anti-communist sentiment was at its peak. Income inequality was trivial by today's standards. It was before Buckley v. Valeo, so money in politics was also trivial by today's standards. The biggest issues of 1972 were the Vietnam war (and the draft) and civil rights. And let's not forget the whole Eagleton affair...

Look at some polling data. People under 45 don't give a shit about socialism these days. People under 35 have a higher opinion of socialism than capitalism. All of Bernie's core issues -- $15/hr minimum wage, universal healthcare, free college tuition, etc -- are all wildly popular. To this day, Bernie remains the single most well-liked politician in the country.

Instead of "protecting" the party from "extreme" candidates, the super-delegate system gave Dems the well-deserved appearance of corruption and insider fixing. As for closed primaries... I've got news for you, the general elections are always "open" not closed. Doesn't make much sense to be actively courting moderate GOP voters in the general when you won't let them vote in the primary.

Re:THIS is why politics sucks ...

[phantomfive]

I agree with your points and assessments, but I don't think superdelegates are the way to solve the problem. People who get their preferred candidate 'stolen' by superdelegates will always feel cheated by a process that is undemocratic.

Re:THIS is why politics sucks ...

[david_thornley]

I don't have a good way to solve the problem. Parties have to have a way of selecting good candidates, and that's not really compatible with popular selection.

Re:THIS is why politics sucks ...

[phantomfive]

A bad population ultimately gets the government it deserves?

You have the wrong president

[SuperKendall]

To be fair, Trump was pretty "Me, Me, Me" as well. In his acceptance speech, he said "Only I can do this, only I can do that, only I blah, blah, blah."

I think you mean Obama. He talked about himself 75 times during his farewell speech...

Meanwhile I cannot find any examples of what you are talking about in Trump's actual speech, which he spent almost entirely thanking other people.

It would be nice if you statist supporters would refrain from outright lying at least once... But I guess that is asking way too much of integrity you completely lack. What a shame that every single post from your kind has to be corrected lest the lies spread.

Re:You have the wrong president

[XxtraLarGe]

Meanwhile I cannot find any examples of what you are talking about in Trump's actual speech

It took me a whole 5 seconds, I guess it was "I alone" instead of "Only I", but I was paraphrasing: Donald Trump accepts GOP nomination, says 'I alone can fix' system

It would be nice if you statist supporters would refrain from outright lying at least once... But I guess that is asking way too much of integrity you completely lack. What a shame that every single post from your kind has to be corrected lest the lies spread.

*sigh* Statist supporter? Did you even notice my sig? I've been voting Libertarian for the past 20 years.

Re:You have the wrong president

[SuperKendall]

It took me a whole 5 seconds, I guess it was "I alone" instead of "Only I",

Which he said only once, and that was accepting the nomination, not the election results...

You claimed it was all "me me me", but there is only one.

Statist supporter? Did you even notice my sig? I've been voting Libertarian for the past 20 years.

Ok, I'll apologize for that one and I note it was uncalled for. But Trump is not nearly about "me" as Obama or most left leaning presidents (and candidates...) have been.

Re:You have the wrong president

[XxtraLarGe]

Which he said only once, and that was accepting the nomination, not the election results...

I wasn't clear about which acceptance speech, but that's what I meant. You're right in that it was only once, clearly my recollection wasn't as good as I thought.

Ok, I'll apologize for that one and I note it was uncalled for. But Trump is not nearly about "me" as Obama or most left leaning presidents (and candidates...) have been.

Apology accepted. No arguments over Obama either. I'm glad he's gone, but not sure Trump is really much better. The whole continuation of budget fiasco has given me doubts. If he had vetoed it, I would have been much more hopeful.

Why can't this cunt get terminal cancer ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am quite sure I am not the only one who is sick of Clinton and her sense of entitlement, along with the deluded idiots who think she
would have been a good president.

I'm not saying Trump is a good president, by the way. Clinton and Trump are both awful people. I suppose in the end the fact that these two
jokers were the candidates says an awful lot about the quality of people in the US, and what is says is not complimentary.

Re:things we now know.

[will_die]

Well hillary has been given the evidence by many people and organizations as she mentioned in that speech and as we know from the campaign it is sexist not to believe "I'm with her".
So here is the evidence.
Putin was directing the Trump campaign and releasing information and directing actions to go off at specific time.(from hillary's speech the "within an hour" part). Russia generate a fake "nothing-burger" email story based on fake stories and email(again the speech) which was "weaponized" and given to the Trump campaign. This was feed to the New York Times, who then decided it make it headline news for many weeks. All of that is very pro-trump and as she said that reporting was a leading reason for Trump to win; this proves the "was" portion.
Since the view of the NYT on trump has not changed since then, they would have to still be pro-Trump. This proves the "still is".

It's NEVER her fault.

[PontifexMaximus]

And that's why NO ONE voted for her. The sane people saw who she was long before the campaign. She'll never get it and the fucking retarded hardcore liberals won't either.

what a difference

[eaglesrule]

The tone and quality of the upmodded comments on this story seem to contrast that of the political submissions where BeaHD has their unlimited mod points. I wish there was an indication when those points are used.

Not really a troll

[s.petry]

I'm anxiously waiting for more results like we just saw in Virginia, where over 1,000 people self reported that they voted illegally. An actual investigation was called for, and I hope we start to see results.

GP is correct, that the majority of votes case illegally tend to go to Democratic candidates. Again, I am anxious to see the numbers.

It's complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many reasons Clinton lost. Bad data was certainly a part of it. A bad ground game was part of it. So were the hacks of DNC and campaign email servers that published what people actually say in private. So was the use of a private email server while at state. So was taking large amounts of cash to tell Goldman Sachs what they wanted to hear. But ultimately, most fed into a narrative that Clinton was an unlikeable candidate, one who was perceived to believe she was better than others, and knew what was better for others, was willing to bend to the will of special interests when money was on the line. That is not the way to excite people about your ideas, and "get out the vote". While there were certainly some that were enthusiastic about her, many who voted for her did so because she was better than the alternative (sometimes you choose the least of the evils), and all too many people just stayed home. If she actually was a 3rd term Obama, she would (most likely) have won. But unfortunately for her, her own baggage (which others carry for her), was her own downfall. The sooner she accepts that the sooner that the party can move forward to the future rather than trying to blame others for the loss.

What?

[slapout]

Wait a minute. Hillary ran in 2008. And multiple campaigns before that. How was she forced to build it "largely from scratch"?

It's not like she had her own private data company

[Anonymous Coward]

The Groundwork started several years ago by Eric Schmidt. It's prime directive was to give Clinton the big data edge that her campaign allegedly needed to win. But yeah, look at the DNC!

https://thegroundwork.com/

Would you please

[Anonymous Coward]

die you cucking funt?

There must be someone that can put led to hed on this evil traitor.

What good people?

[s.petry]

You really need to show me some. Keith Ellison, Tom Perez, Sally Brown, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Tim Kaine?

Those are the current "voices" and leaders in the Democratic Party. You have everyone from open haters of the US Constitution to open haters of White people in that mix, and not a single honest thought in the bunch. Seriously, the Democrats have nobody that I can think of capable of winning an election. The current leaders and voices command a small group of people who fall for the identity politics. The majority of the US is just being more and more turned off by them.

just when i started to dislike trump...

[Anonymous Coward]

hillary shows up with a basket of excuses and i start to like him again! fuck the dishonest media and the failing ny times.

Mods are on crack today

[greythax]

Could you please describe for me how an illegal alien registers to vote? When they show up to the polls, how do they get into the booth? Also, we are talking 3 million votes that made up Hillary's margin. Considering that there are 11 million illegals in the country, how did they get that organized that 30% of them were able to pull this off? Also, how is it that not even one of them has spilled the beans on TV, for, you know, a huge paycheck from fox? If I am making it sound like you are some conspiracy nut, it's because that is what you sound like.

Re:Mods are on crack today

[Anonymous Coward]

Story explaining it. CA allows illegals to get driver's license. When they get one or renew they are automatically registered to vote. In order to not be registered to vote, they have to specifically opt-out.

So by default, in CA if you get a driver's license you are registered to vote, even if illegal.

Obama's Administration REFUSED to give out lists of illegals they knew of in CA so people could check it against voter rolls in CA to see if illegals were registering and voting or not.

Its not a conspiracy. Its simple and Obama obstructed the method of checking if it happened or not.

Re:Mods are on crack today

[phantomfive]

Basically all you need to vote is an address.

Re:Mods are on crack today

[Anonymous Coward]

"Could you please describe for me how an illegal alien registers to vote?"

They lie? Like the over 3,000 that were kicked out of the Virginia voter rolls only after they fessed up they weren't citizens?

The real fuss by democrats against voter registration laws isn't about ensuring grandma without a car can vote (advocacy groups can get people ID's just as easily as registering them to vote) but trying to head off detection of just how bad and rampant non-citizen voting really is.

Re:Mods are on crack today

[Anonymous Coward]

Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck regularly vote Democrat in many regions on multiple levels; then, there's the dead people voting; then, there's kids voting; then, there's even some consummate non-voters voting. Some regions are less picky than others. None check every vote. There was a reason the conservatives wanted photo IDs, and it wasn't bloody racism. There's already confirmed groups of Dems that pick up homeless, hand them fake paperwork, and offer them food to vote. Illegals can pull the same thing since they're likely to've already acquired their own faked papers for their own purposes with voting as a bonus.

Re:Mods are on crack today

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you please describe for me how an illegal alien registers to vote?

They have a residence address. Many of them have valid ID.
Are any state/local voter registration authorities checking citizenship (like with a birth certificate or naturalization document)? I'm not saying it would make a difference if they did.

Re:Mods are on crack today

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask these people:

https://publicinterestlegal.org/

Re:Mods are on crack today

[Anonymous Coward]

And a state that doesn't require voter ID.

Re:Mods are on crack today

[will_die]

From those illegal aliens that had voted and were caught they mostly used false names. Others got registered to vote when they got a drivers license under a false name. For others they just showed up at the voting locations said they were US Citizens and under the law of those states were not required to show any ID.

Re:Mods are on crack today

[Anonymous Coward]

And a state that doesn't check eligibility to vote when building its voter rolls. None of that other stuff really matters, it is the responsibility of the state to know who is eligible to vote. If they do that right, then the only way for someone who isn't eligible to vote, with or without ID checks, is to impersonate an eligible voter. And in order for that to work, the real voter has to not vote. This is risky to attempt on a small scale and damn near impossible on a large scale. Which is why you rarely hear about it. Instead, the real issue is when ineligible voters are registered to vote, people aren't purged from the voter rolls when they die or move, or people who are eligible to vote are purged from the voter rolls without cause. ID checks don't do a damn thing about the real problems.

Re:Mods are on crack today

[Anonymous Coward]

When they did their "recounts" they kept discovering whole counties where they were getting more "Clinton" votes than actual voters. This is conveniently forgotten since the recounts were stopped shortly after these discoveries. Don't take my word for it either, do a search on "Detroit 2016 recount".

Re:things we now know.

[Train0987]

Yep, it's hard to tell the difference any more.

And the "fix"? [Re:It's all in a slogan]

[Tablizer]

H was mostly a "status quo" candidate, for she often talked about continuing and improving O's plans. That wouldn't sit well with the rust-belt: they wanted change. The recovery mostly skipped over them. Non-rust-belt Dems mostly voted the expected pattern.

The rust-belt is a politically tricky sell because most those factory jobs are not coming back no matter what. T blaming lopsided trade on factory loss is mostly false (automation a bigger factor), but at least he give it strong lip-service. He was at least talking about THEIR main problem.

Being honest with the rust-belt would be delivering bad news, which usually doesn't fly politically. She could have talked much more about education and re-training for new industries, but that's NOT politically competitive with T's turn-the-clock-back promise. I'm not sure Bernie's socialist tilt would fly in that area either. Middle America wants their jobs back, not more socialism. The S word is poison there.

I welcome somebody to present a viable and honest rust-belt platform that would have worked politically. Change often creates tough choices, and selling tough choices politically is very difficult. 2 Presidents telling voters to wear sweaters indoors or check tire pressure as a "solution" to energy problems fell flat, even though it's good and practical advice. Voters wanted cheap energy back, not more chores.

T found the right lie at the right place at the right time. Politics is not about logic; it's an emotional sales game. H would probably have to lie to compete.

Re:And the "fix"? [Re:It's all in a slogan]

[phantomfive]

H would probably have to lie to compete.

To be fair, she did compete, and almost one. Just a few small changes, and she would have been president.

Re:And the "fix"? [Re:It's all in a slogan]

[Tablizer]

She was correct, after the fact, that she should have focused more on the issues rather than Trump's unusual personality. Trump voters don't really seem that bothered by his unusual personality, and often see it as a plus in terms of stirring up the status quo.

Re:And the "fix"? [Re:It's all in a slogan]

[phantomfive]

Yes, that would have been better. This list is pretty good. If she'd done almost any one of them differently, it could have won for her. Her choice of VP was especially bad, I don't think it won a single vote for her.

Good Gods

[Anonymous Coward]

She is so full of shit. I have never seen such a sore loser in my life, nor a bigger liar and hypocrite. The Clintons can collectively kiss my butt until it shines. How stupid does she think people are?

Ungrateful Cunt.

[jcr]

So, the DNC commits who knows how many felonies to screw over their own voters and hand this bitch the nomination, even though she's the only crook in the country who could possibly lose to Trump, and she turns around and shits on them?

Anyone else would have had. a cake walk to beat Trump, but the DNC just HAD to feed Hillary's black hole of an ego instead of nominating a decent candidate.

-jcr

Well now...

[daedlanth]

Why didn't she just set up a server in her closet and let the Geek Squad take care of it like she did before?

Nope, that's not why she lost

[holophrastic]

She lost because given the choice between a woman and warlord, the usa will choose a warlord each and every time.

WAAAAA

[Anonymous Coward]

All I see here is "Waaa waaa waaa...I Lost, but it's someone else's fault and the Putin crap I threw at the wall didn't fully stick so now I need someone else to blame. Waaaaaaaah!'

No no...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the rumors are true, Hillary is definitely the iron fist and Huma could make a mint with a book and/or pictures.

Funny stuff!

[s.petry]

Thanks! I needed the good laugh!

Blah, blah, blah

[reboot246]

Has she confessed to having Seth Rich murdered yet?

Get back to me when that happens. Otherwise, I don't want to see her or hear anything she has to say.

the reason Trump went thru Redneckland...

[Anonymous Coward]

was because his data scientist, Jared Kushner, told him that it was a good idea and would help him win the election. Every single establishment data expert, including 538, thought this was wrong, but they were wrong, because Jared was better at it than them.

I think that's kind of her point and I agree. Obama in 2008 had the best data team, just as in 2000 GW Bush has the best data team. Bush's man Karl Rove made his name going back to the 70s, by applying spreadsheets and data science to elections. Obama's people came from the internet and exploited it for the win.

Trump's people came from the data science people who are responsible for things like rainbow smoothies and viral facebook industries. They used social media strategies to pinpoint target Trump rallies in swing states, and it worked.

You know how when Google's AI machine played Go, the Chinese chess-like board game, and won? It kept making moves that "didn't make sense" to human players - but they made sence to the data engine behind the AI. That's what Trump did too.

Elections are not about campaining anymore, they are about big data figuring out how to game the electoral college.

always blame IT

[Anonymous Coward]

I am so tired of people at all levels blaming IT for everything. Even if there were data issues in her case, it's not the only factor. There were many other factors (including human).
I can't tell you how many times I have seen (lazy, negative) people try to blame IT because they are failing. "If the application were easier to use I would have ..blah blah blah". No. Thousands of people can use the application. You are just a blamer.

Whaaa

[jlgreer1]

Maybe she was just the worst presidential candidate in history, worse than Trump, BHO, the other Clinton, and Jimmy.

Lock her up

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if her name will show up in the unmasking scandal along with her aides? As she continues her alcohol and prescription drug fueled nervous breakdown perhaps someone will ask her. She has already said some things lately that would be actionable in court if she were a Republican.

DNC lacked $ for Hillary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean even Soros knew she is a loser?

Just in, rabid dogs caused H to lose!

[Anonymous Coward]

Never ends with her...

Another excuse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if she spent less on her face lift and was available for those missing six months, she might have pulled it off! She had that great house, moved to NY and went Senator immediately, then Secretary of state while being married to a slut of a man, and she blew it all on her own. And all that money that Russia wants BACK from HER, oh, my, those uranium deals were very sweat for her!

Re:things we now know.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if Russians spread false news and hacked emails. Russians did not hack the elections. It were still the people who elected Trump. My country has also a Russian sponsored political party. And they too get the help of hackers and fake news sites. But guess what. They don't even get a percentage of the voters. If there is Russian involvement it is only the same kind of involvement the Arabs, the European nations, China, ... have. Donating to the campaign. I know that my government spent many millions on Clinton's campaign to continue the pro import the third world message. And in the case of the US that translates to pro illegal immigration from South America.

Coronation, denied

[LesserWeevil]

What was missing from both her and the DNC was basic honesty and integrity. She played the inevitable monarch simply waiting for the crown to be bestowed upon her - assuming everything was going to go her way because it always had. The DNC played their part as if they were a banana republic, but without the sincerity or organization of one. They both deserved to lose. Trump, on the other hand, was mounting a hostile takeover of the RNC and had no idea what to do after he won. A "None of the above" vote would have been an improvement over either the D or R this time 'round.

A voter with a security clearance

[Anonymous Coward]

she likely lost a large number of voters with security clearances

This.

Not being allowed to bring your phone into a SCIF is a pain in the ass, but we respect that rule. Hillary obviously felt above that rule.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...