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.
Now she is a data scientist ?
The laughs never stop with this woman. I'm with her 2020.
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.
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!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
her little heart. She only outspent The Donald by a factor of 2 to 1, and still lost.
I don't think that word means what she thinks it means.
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.
So, do you think she will run roughshod over the DNC to run again in 2020?
Everything is to blame, except for her own manifold failings.
"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.
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
"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.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
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.
Good people go to bed earlier.
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.
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."
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.
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
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
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.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
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.
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?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
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.
I have to return some videotapes...
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.
"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.
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.
Double-yup...
I fear we would be in a quasi-nominal war with Russia.
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.
Hillary raised and spent nearly twice as much as Trump.
Keep running with the "Russia hacked the votes!" narrative and your side will never be relevant again.
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.
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.
RIP, Seth Rich.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I don't think an insufficient datalist is the most pressing problem with the DNC.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
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).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
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?
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
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...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Whoosh!!
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Hillary (a regular slashdot reader, I'm sure), you lost because:
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.
I lost, and that's not fair! Boohooo!
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.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
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.
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.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I've seen plenty of articles about "How the Democratic Party can win" but not "How _we_ can win".
/.'s discourse.
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
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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 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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
Didn't the DNC have a pretty robust data mining operation for the 2008 and 2012 elections? What happened since then?
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.
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?!
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I cannot speak on this. But Trump DID actually campaign eveywhere - including Wyoming, which was a R lockup .
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.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
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".
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.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
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.
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.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Wait a minute. Hillary ran in 2008. And multiple campaigns before that. How was she forced to build it "largely from scratch"?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
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.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
Yep, it's hard to tell the difference any more.
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.
Table-ized A.I.
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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?
She lost because given the choice between a woman and warlord, the usa will choose a warlord each and every time.
Thanks! I needed the good laugh!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
Those tickets are even worse than Hillary. And you're out of touch with reality if you think they have a chance.
Hillary got less than a quarter of the votes of eligible voters. No, the "majority of Americans" didn't support her.
If you think that US voter fraud went in favor of Trump, you're really out of it.
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.