Slashdot Mirror
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.
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."
"Clinton did have more votes than Trump" Wrong. Trump had more votes: 304 to 227.
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.
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...)
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
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.
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.