Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 12-07-2019, 06:19 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Heh... Wyoming! Not sure if I've ever seen such a self refuting argument!
Fine pick another rural state then
  #102  
Old 12-07-2019, 06:35 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Please introduce me to this dictionary in which “crapload” encompasses “three”. Three out of fifty-one.
Obama won by 126 electoral votes
Hillary lost by 77 electoral votes.
It wasnt three states.
It was a crapload.
  #103  
Old 12-07-2019, 06:50 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Because the Clintons actually have money. Many millions of legitimate wealth, not billions in shuck-and-jive, unlike America's bigliest phony.
He has legitimate money. Not as much as he wants people to believe but he made a lot of money licensing his name, doing the Apprentice and royalties on his books. He made all his money before elected office.

The Clinton's made all their money during or immediately afterwards.

Their foundation lost a lot of its donors after they left office.
  #104  
Old 12-07-2019, 06:59 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Obama won by 126 electoral votes
Hillary lost by 77 electoral votes.
It wasnt three states.
It was a crapload.
Michigan: 16 EVs (margin: 10,704 votes)
Pennsylvania: 20 EVs (margin: 44,292 votes)
Wisconsin: 10 EVs (margin: 22,748 votes)

Those are the only states that she lost by a narrow margin (of less than 1%). Put those 46 EVs in her column (taking them away from AgentOrange) and she wins the EC. Basically, you would have to turn about 100K votes in her favor across those states, to show a reasonable margin of victory in each of them, which would be around 0.07% of the overall total.

So, yeah, three.

Last edited by eschereal; 12-07-2019 at 07:00 PM.
  #105  
Old 12-07-2019, 08:09 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Fine pick another rural state then
So you have no problem with the vast majority of states being totally ignored? Can you explain your argument again? That seems to directly refute your prior argument.

Right now, with the EC, candidates only visit swing states. Tens of millions of voters are ignored, and their votes basically don't matter. I propose an imperfect scheme in which candidates will still spend most of their time visiting a limited number of places (just like now!), but every voter's influence will be exactly the same as every other voter. A voter in CA will have the exact same chance to influence the vote as a voter in IA, NH, TX, or FL. Why, exactly, is the former scheme superior, in your opinion?
  #106  
Old 12-07-2019, 08:10 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Obama won by 126 electoral votes
Hillary lost by 77 electoral votes.
It wasnt three states.
It was a crapload.
Wow, you really don't understand how the EC works, do you? If Hillary had won PA, WI, and MI, she would have won the election.
  #107  
Old 12-07-2019, 08:17 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Tens of millions of voters are ignored, and their votes basically don't matter.
Tens? Why not just say a hundred? After all, only 136 million even bothered to vote.
  #108  
Old 12-07-2019, 08:28 PM
Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 23,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
I can't think of a better way to hand the election to Trump than to run Hillary again.
I didn't vote for Trump, but I would* if she ran again.

*Actually, I wouldn't bother. My vote is worthless in my state.
  #109  
Old 12-07-2019, 08:59 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,904
Worthless? She won your state by 2.4 percentage points (27K). I would say your state might be in play.
  #110  
Old 12-07-2019, 09:23 PM
Mike Mabes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Wow, you really don't understand how the EC works, do you? If Hillary had won PA, WI, and MI, she would have won the election.
Yes, yes,yes. Quoted for truth. "This." Whatever cliche you want to use. It only takes a few thousand votes to get rid of this (insert description). Of course, as an incumbent, with a strong economy, it will require a few more voters to come out.

Last edited by Mike Mabes; 12-07-2019 at 09:24 PM.
  #111  
Old 12-07-2019, 09:50 PM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Right now, with the EC, candidates only visit swing states. Tens of millions of voters are ignored, and their votes basically don't matter. I propose an imperfect scheme in which candidates will still spend most of their time visiting a limited number of places (just like now!), but every voter's influence will be exactly the same as every other voter. A voter in CA will have the exact same chance to influence the vote as a voter in IA, NH, TX, or FL. Why, exactly, is the former scheme superior, in your opinion?
Like all of us I can be selfish at times. And I despise political ads( also politicking in general ). As a Californian, I do not want fucking presidential candidates in my state! The more CA is taken for granted and avoided the happier I am. And of course the votes still matter, because believe me if CA started voting Republican en masse tomorrow the DP would be truly fucked. As it stands we just don't have to listen to as much shilling.

Now I know many thoughtful, intelligent, and very attractive people disagree. But they are all wrong. Because, yes - it is in fact all about me .

ETA: I'm fine with ending the EC. But don't ever suggest we need more presidential visits in non-swing states. That's fucking heresy!

Last edited by Tamerlane; 12-07-2019 at 09:53 PM.
  #112  
Old 12-07-2019, 10:09 PM
Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 23,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Worthless? She won your state by 2.4 percentage points (27K). I would say your state might be in play.
Nah. Californi… I mean Clark County snuffs every other vote from the whole state.

I got dogs to take out in the desert that day. More important.
  #113  
Old 12-07-2019, 10:13 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by MortSahlFan View Post
Hillary isn't left, or even close to it. I'm glad she lost.
So you're glad Trump won?
  #114  
Old 12-07-2019, 10:16 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
So you're glad Trump won?
He has been kind of a wake-up call to the country. Tough love therapy. We will have a lot of cleanup to do, though.
  #115  
Old 12-08-2019, 09:56 AM
Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Mabes View Post
Still trying to blame anyone but herself for losing to Trump. If only Bernie had endorsed her a month sooner, she would have won.
Shut the fuck up and go away!


https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/polit...ern/index.html
I'm going to pull something out of the memory hole, so hold on to those pearls people:

In its self-described "pied piper" strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new "mainstream of the Republican Party" in order to try to increase Clinton's chances of winning.

The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee called for using far-right candidates "as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right." Clinton's camp insisted that Trump and other extremists should be "elevated" to "leaders of the pack" and media outlets should be told to "take them seriously."
00:00/00:00

The strategy backfired — royally.


She, and her campaign are the main reason Trump was elected. Over three years later and some people are still running around like headless chicken trying to find some other reason.
  #116  
Old 12-08-2019, 10:41 AM
margin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,501
Yeah, I'm going to rant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
I'd like to see a cite that Sanders has bought into ANY of these theories.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...linton-attacks

https://www.thecut.com/2016/02/what-...le-female.html

https://www.thecut.com/2016/04/berni...mbitious.html#

But let's face it, none of the Bernie fans and the "Hillary is a shrill bitchy harpy but DON'T YOU DARE call me sexist!" guys (lots of overlap there)will read anything that casts aspersions on poor oppressed old lying white dude Saint Bernie. No argument will convince them. Nothing but a signed, witnessed, confession by Bernie himself will make them believe that Saint Bernie is less than a shimmering pure Saint.
Ever. Bernie is their Savior. They will look for ANY nitpick that they can cling to, usually---in the case of Saint Bernie----by demanding that people prove Bernie's sexist. Never mind that he's been saying for thirty years that women voting for women is "sexist" while also surrounding himself with guys who say women only vote with and for uteruses. Plus, there's this: "You have to do more than say, 'I'm a woman, vote for me,'" which really should end all discussion.

The general MO of sexist white dudes on the dope is to say that something incredibly sexist like "harpy" or "shrill" or "hysterical" or claim that their "advice" isn't victim-blaming, then claim ignorance. Then they argue, in effect, that ignorance means innocence, so you're (general you)the real sexist. Plus, when you (general you) get dipshits saying shit like "harpy" and "hysterical" aren't sexist, there's no way in hell subtler sexism like Bernie's accusations of Hillary plotting and stealing and conniving his rightful election from His Saintnesshood ever get discussed. Not when "hysterical" and "harpy" aren't acknowledged as sexist and have to be fought over every goddamned time.

You ought to know how dogwhistles work, how it's the accumulation of small things, how eventually the whole picture emerges. Bigots know they can't say the "n-word" unless they're with other bigots, so they say "thug" or "urban" or "community organizer" instead. There's no "n-word" that is regarded as offensive for women.


Hillary Clinton is the "black lives matter" tee shirt of human beings. Those people who bristle at "black lives matter" almost always have a cluster of other certain beliefs, too. Just as a "blue lives matter" meme or statement reveals a person with certain beliefs, "Hillary is evil" and "Bernie Sanders is a saint who NEVER said or did anything sexist ever" reveals certain things, too.

Plus, this, by Mort Sahl Fan?

Quote:
Hillary isn't left or even close to it. I'm glad she lost.
is SO revealing of sexism that I think it says it all. Only a white dude could say bullshit like this and expect to get taken seriously, because if you (general "you") are anybody BUT an angry asshole white dude, Hillary is to left of Saint Bernie. She and Bernie voted identically 94% of the time, and Bernie voted FOR the goddamned crime bill, but Bernie gets to lie because white guys believe other white guys.
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #117  
Old 12-08-2019, 10:41 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
....We will have a lot of cleanup to do, though.
Urban renewal in Dresden, 1946.
  #118  
Old 12-08-2019, 10:52 AM
margin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,501

Utter bullshit from a far right rapist who ONLY attacks liberal women


Oh, look, it's sourced from wikileaks, long since revealed as a conduit from Putin through rapist Assange to attack liberal women.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ent-influence/

Lefty boyz gotta have their version of Pizzagate, even while they use a rapist working for Putin as their "proof." White male privilege is something else.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...rticle/554432/

Roger Stone was in contact with Assange to attack Clinton.

Yeah, again, so sexism----in 2016, the year of the predator----doesn't exist, Russian collusion didn't happen, Repub gerrymandering and voter suppression didn't happen, just Hillary's evil and yet incompetant about it.

Fuck it, I STILL can't do links.
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

Last edited by margin; 12-08-2019 at 10:53 AM. Reason: spelling
  #119  
Old 12-08-2019, 01:19 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,135
Margin -- I'm not going to parse your post and reply line-by-line or anything, but I am pretty offended that you think my criticism of Hillary is that she's "shrill" or that I think she's a "harpy". I agree that people who level those criticisms at Hillary are sexist. But I wonder if you can see that there is room to disagree with Clinton due to policy reasons?

Clinton pledged to overturn Citizens United, but she did it while taking corporate money. Getting money out of politics was my #1 issue in 2016 (it's my #2 issue in 2020, behind replacing Donald Trump).

Clinton's healthcare plan would do nothing to address the root of the flaw in our healthcare system: the for-profit nature of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Sanders would get rid of for-profit insurance; he'd also be willing to use the government's constitutional right to seize patents when a medical company is charging outrageous prices for medicine (which means he'd never actually have to do it -- the medical companies aren't stupid; they'd much rather manufacture the drugs at a fair price than lose their patent). Clinton's healthcare plan is a bandaid, just like the ACA.

Clinton would be opposed to a wealth tax, which is the only way to make sure that the rich pay their dues to society in an economy where wealth is created by wealth, not income.

Clinton's America would be... fine. It would be business-as-usual. It would be 4 more years of Obama. It would not be the kind of America we need to face 21st century problems. It would not be ready for the massive increase in automation that we are right on the cusp of. That's why I prefer Sanders.

None of this is about her being "shrill" or a "harpy". None of this means I wouldn't vote for Hillary. And I've never claimed Sanders is a saint. But complaining that he dared to cross Clinton is ludicrous. Were you this upset when Clinton criticized Obama during the 2008 election campaign? She did so very sharply -- much more so than Bernie's campaign ever attacked her. (And no, I am NOT referring to the theories that Clinton started the birther rumors. That's obviously bullshit. I'm referring to the overall tone of her campaign, which was a much more hostile one than the campaign Bernie ran against her).

Considering my posting history (on ATMB and elsewhere), I find it pretty offensive that you would assume the only reason I would be critical of Hillary Clinton is sexism. Our politics may differ, but I respect you as a person and believe you are arguing with sincerity and good faith. I would hope you would do the same for me.

If Bernie Sanders has made some sexist comments -- and you've definitely linked some comments that could be construed as such -- then I don't agree with those comments. I don't think he's a sexist person overall, and I think a country run by Bernie Sanders would be a step in the right direction when it comes to women's rights (and that applies fully to Hillary as well, and to Obama, and to many other politicians).

Clinton has made some racist comments in the past, though I don't think she did so intentionally nor because she was a racist person. She's expressed regrets about these comments, and about some of the laws she's passed. I would hope that's true of Bernie Sanders as well. He's not perfect -- nobody is -- but I think you'd really be pushing it if you said he wasn't a pro-woman candidate, over all.
  #120  
Old 12-08-2019, 06:29 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The problem is, nobody wants Medicare for All.
This is not what polling says. Lots of Americans do want it & are backing Bernie specifically because of it.

Quote:
An arbitrarily selected minimum wage of $15 per hour for every employee in every business is unworkable and bad for business.
That sounds less like you're arguing against Fight for 15 than against any minimum wage. Me, I think HRC lost in part because she didn't support a living wage.

Quote:
And he's suggesting tax hikes that everyone in their sane mind knows have no chance of passing.
Cool. Let's be insane, then. If a living wage won't work, & tax hikes won't pass, then we're stuck with oppressive income disparity & lost opportunity.

Here's what the Beltway won't accept: Maybe half the country is to Bernie Sander's left on these kinds of issues. Bernie's viability staves off the guillotines.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 12-08-2019 at 06:30 PM.
  #121  
Old 12-08-2019, 06:53 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
She and Bill (and possibly Chelsea) are still excellent fundraisers and organizers.
I have to agree that they are some of the best fundraisers & organizers the Republicans have. They've helped build the GOP into the nigh-unassailable powerhouse it is today.
  #122  
Old 12-08-2019, 07:19 PM
BrickBat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: US
Posts: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Here's what the Beltway won't accept: Maybe half the country is to Bernie Sander's left on these kinds of issues. Bernie's viability staves off the guillotines.
Bingo. The plutocrats will still be absurdly wealthy under progressive policies, and if their positions of being de-facto powers-that-be are even marginally less solidified, it's a small price to pay to prevent the unrest that's sure to follow if income inequality is not addressed and the well being of the populace is not seen too.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable". John F Kennedy

Last edited by BrickBat; 12-08-2019 at 07:20 PM.
  #123  
Old 12-08-2019, 09:43 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,506

Re: Fuck Hillary Clinton!


1) She's married.
2) No.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-08-2019 at 09:44 PM.
  #124  
Old 12-08-2019, 10:07 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,873
I know I haven't been on the SDMB so much lately, but I don't remember margin that well. Is a table-pounding freakout as we saw in this thread in character?
  #125  
Old 12-08-2019, 10:20 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Clinton pledged to overturn Citizens United, but she did it while taking corporate money.
So . fucking . what.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Clinton's healthcare plan would do nothing to address the root of the flaw in our healthcare system: the for-profit nature of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Sanders would get rid of for-profit insurance; he'd also be willing to use the government's constitutional right to seize patents when a medical company is charging outrageous prices for medicine (which means he'd never actually have to do it -- the medical companies aren't stupid; they'd much rather manufacture the drugs at a fair price than lose their patent). Clinton's healthcare plan is a bandaid, just like the ACA.
He wasn't going to get any of that shit done because Obama had proposed only doing a fraction of that and Obamacare was the best he could come up with -- and he was rewarded with a batshit insane, obstructionist Republican majority of both chambers of congress in 2010 because of it. What do you NOT understand about this? All of the magical unicorn shit that Bernie bros wanted...they didn't really seem to support in 2009 and 2010. They just got an erection because St Bernard talked about "revolution" in 2015. It's easy as fuck to talk about revolution but it's the hardest thing in the world to deliver it. Lazy-assed Bernie Bros are the reason that congress went to the GOP in 2010 and the reason why we can't have good things.
  #126  
Old 12-08-2019, 11:28 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
So . fucking . what.



He wasn't going to get any of that shit done because Obama had proposed only doing a fraction of that and Obamacare was the best he could come up with -- and he was rewarded with a batshit insane, obstructionist Republican majority of both chambers of congress in 2010 because of it. What do you NOT understand about this? All of the magical unicorn shit that Bernie bros wanted...they didn't really seem to support in 2009 and 2010. They just got an erection because St Bernard talked about "revolution" in 2015. It's easy as fuck to talk about revolution but it's the hardest thing in the world to deliver it. Lazy-assed Bernie Bros are the reason that congress went to the GOP in 2010 and the reason why we can't have good things.
You really need to turn down the fury my friend. I voted for Hillary, and for every down ballot Democrat on the ticket. And I voted in the midterms. So I certainly did not get the GOP elected. The solution to gop obstructionism is to call them out at every turn and get them unelected, not capitulate, since they wont thank you anyways, just fuck you harder.
  #127  
Old 12-09-2019, 02:55 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 25,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post

She, and her campaign are the main reason Trump was elected. Over three years later and some people are still running around like headless chicken trying to find some other reason.
There were plenty of Democrats here on the Dope who were urging people to vote for Trump in the primaries, because "he couldn't win". So that's one lesson learned, at least.
  #128  
Old 12-09-2019, 04:50 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Is it Two-Minute Hate time again? That's always fun for the whole family.
Asked and answered by this entire fucking thread. It's fascinating to watch to what extent people will twist reality, rewrite history and ignore all evidence to the contrary to blame Hillary Clinton for absolutely everything.
  #129  
Old 12-09-2019, 09:03 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 25,077
Personally, I think there's more than enough blame to go around. It wasn't all Hillary's fault - it wasn't even mostly her fault - but that doesn't mean she didn't screw up big time.
  #130  
Old 12-09-2019, 09:25 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Personally, I think there's more than enough blame to go around. It wasn't all Hillary's fault - it wasn't even mostly her fault - but that doesn't mean she didn't screw up big time.
Now see, that's a reasonable assessment. Of course she made several material mistakes during the campaign that had a negative effect, but noting that there were other, more substantial factors involved is also key here. As opposed to, for example:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
She, and her campaign are the main reason Trump was elected. Over three years later and some people are still running around like headless chicken trying to find some other reason.
Anyone handwaving away the effect of the 25-year right-wing smear campaign against her, active Russian propaganda and hacking efforts, the effect of Comey's last-minute announcement about the investigation and, last but certainly not least, the fact that a disturbing number of Americans admire Donald Trump for being an alpha asshole who gets away with the kind of shit they wish they could get away with, isn't really interested in a realistic analysis of the last election and is just looking for an excuse to continue the aforementioned smear campaign.

Yes, she made some significant mistakes as a candidate and isn't a terribly likeable person but Trump is also a terrible person who was literally in the middle of a fraud court case during the campaign so why is it that Clinton bears the full weight of her loss and his victory? The minor Comey bump aside, I'd argue that the other three factors I mentioned had a lot more to do with the election result than her failure to schedule a few more election stops in Michigan. And it's not "running around like a headless chicken" to point that out.

But no, if it makes any of y'all happy to blame Hillary for everything, go right on lying about her. It's not like we're all not used to that sort of thing already.
  #131  
Old 12-09-2019, 09:40 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
… the effect of Comey's last-minute announcement about the investigation …
That was very significant, and she handled it very badly.

How does one handle being blindsided? Well, given the nature of modern election cycles, it should be expected. The candidate, especially at that level, needs to have a team of strategists specifically organized to deal with the October Surprize. Anyone caught off guard like that does not deserve the office they are running for.

And that was her biggest problem. She deserved to be in the Oval Office, and it was going to be handed to her on a plate. It was hers, and all she had to do was smile and make a few witty comments.

That was why she pissed so many people off. We owed it to her. Arrogant twit.
  #132  
Old 12-09-2019, 10:04 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
That was very significant, and she handled it very badly.

How does one handle being blindsided? Well, given the nature of modern election cycles, it should be expected. The candidate, especially at that level, needs to have a team of strategists specifically organized to deal with the October Surprize. Anyone caught off guard like that does not deserve the office they are running for.

And that was her biggest problem. She deserved to be in the Oval Office, and it was going to be handed to her on a plate. It was hers, and all she had to do was smile and make a few witty comments.

That was why she pissed so many people off. We owed it to her. Arrogant twit.
You're doing it again. Why assume that "it was going to be handed to her on a plate"? That was just the conventional wisdom - the same conventional wisdom that assumed that most Americans weren't stupid enough to vote for an openly-narcissistic conman, the same conventional wisdom that was staggeringly wrong. The default was never "It's Clinton's election to lose" - that view also ignored the various forces arrayed against her. Yes, she still could have won if she'd run a better campaign, but that's just claiming that the last straw to break the camel's back did so because it was the heaviest.
  #133  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:15 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 25,077
As wife of a former president, you can't deny that she benefited from a certain amount of nepotism. Not as much as, say, George W. Bush, but in the same wheelhouse. Is it wrong to assume that it involved a certain amount of entitlement?
  #134  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:20 AM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Is it wrong to assume that it involved a certain amount of entitlement?
Maybe the first time she ran in 2008 and lost the nomination to Obama.

Even then, I'd argue against it.

But in 2016? Unlikely.
  #135  
Old 12-09-2019, 01:15 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
You really need to turn down the fury my friend. I voted for Hillary, and for every down ballot Democrat on the ticket. And I voted in the midterms. So I certainly did not get the GOP elected. The solution to gop obstructionism is to call them out at every turn and get them unelected, not capitulate, since they wont thank you anyways, just fuck you harder.
This is the unvarnished truth.
  #136  
Old 12-09-2019, 01:40 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Why assume that "it was going to be handed to her on a plate"?
Because that was how she was fucking acting. We owed to her. She believed that it was her turn and she did not have to bust her ass to get there, like everyone else in history. I mean, look how the Party capitulated and handed her the nomination. The rest of the country was supposed to see the oil on her forehead and accept her. All she had to do was step over a troublesome dirt clod.
  #137  
Old 12-09-2019, 05:41 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Michigan: 16 EVs (margin: 10,704 votes)
Pennsylvania: 20 EVs (margin: 44,292 votes)
Wisconsin: 10 EVs (margin: 22,748 votes)

Those are the only states that she lost by a narrow margin (of less than 1%). Put those 46 EVs in her column (taking them away from AgentOrange) and she wins the EC. Basically, you would have to turn about 100K votes in her favor across those states, to show a reasonable margin of victory in each of them, which would be around 0.07% of the overall total.

So, yeah, three.
Sure, if you get to define handful as less than 1%. I think she lost about

If you take that 5 million vote popular vote "victory" in California and spread it out over some of the other states, she would have had a landslide victory. So (A) really bad politician and (B) the popular vote "victory" powered mostly be turnout in California) is meaningless.

With a total of 136 million votes cast, if she could have moved the needle on 1% or 1.36 million of those votes in the right states, she would have won at least 126 more electoral votes. But at least she won California by 5 million votes.
  #138  
Old 12-09-2019, 05:42 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
So you have no problem with the vast majority of states being totally ignored? Can you explain your argument again? That seems to directly refute your prior argument.

Right now, with the EC, candidates only visit swing states. Tens of millions of voters are ignored, and their votes basically don't matter. I propose an imperfect scheme in which candidates will still spend most of their time visiting a limited number of places (just like now!), but every voter's influence will be exactly the same as every other voter. A voter in CA will have the exact same chance to influence the vote as a voter in IA, NH, TX, or FL. Why, exactly, is the former scheme superior, in your opinion?
Because it keeps campaigns affordable, it focuses on the swing voters, it doesn't ignore rural voters, and discounts the opinions of the most partisan states.
  #139  
Old 12-09-2019, 05:50 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Wow, you really don't understand how the EC works, do you? If Hillary had won PA, WI, and MI, she would have won the election.
That is the dumbest comment I have seen from you in a long fucking time. Do you really think I don't understand how the Electoral College works?

The point is that Obama won by a shit ton of electoral votes and Hillary didn't just lose ground, she lost by a healthy margin of electoral votes. And her popular vote tally is meaningless.

Trump could just as credibly say that if he were going for the popular vote, he would have won that bigly. And you couldn't prove otherwise. But Hillary could not really say that she would beat Trump in an electoral vote election because she didn't.

This is the equivalent of the Panthers claiming they are the ACTUAL winners of the superbowl in 2016 because they got 50% more yards than the Broncos and their 24-10 loss reflects a problem with the rules of how football games are determined.
  #140  
Old 12-09-2019, 06:03 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
That is the dumbest comment I have seen from you in a long fucking time. Do you really think I don't understand how the Electoral College works?

The point is that Obama won by a shit ton of electoral votes and Hillary didn't just lose ground, she lost by a healthy margin of electoral votes. And her popular vote tally is meaningless.

Trump could just as credibly say that if he were going for the popular vote, he would have won that bigly. And you couldn't prove otherwise. But Hillary could not really say that she would beat Trump in an electoral vote election because she didn't.

This is the equivalent of the Panthers claiming they are the ACTUAL winners of the superbowl in 2016 because they got 50% more yards than the Broncos and their 24-10 loss reflects a problem with the rules of how football games are determined.
This doesn't refute anything I said. You said "it wasn't three states", when that is a factually false statement -- Hillary lost the election by just 3 states.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 12-09-2019 at 06:04 PM.
  #141  
Old 12-09-2019, 06:06 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
He has been kind of a wake-up call to the country. Tough love therapy. We will have a lot of cleanup to do, though.
David Chappelle compares him to the death of Emmett Till. It's forcing us to take a good look at who we are. His presidency is moving the needle. It's making the racists bold but its also making the rest of us bold too.
  #142  
Old 12-09-2019, 08:24 PM
MyFootsZZZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Because that was how she was fucking acting. We owed to her. She believed that it was her turn and she did not have to bust her ass to get there, like everyone else in history. I mean, look how the Party capitulated and handed her the nomination. The rest of the country was supposed to see the oil on her forehead and accept her. All she had to do was step over a troublesome dirt clod.
This.

I don't hate Hill-dawg... I just don't particularly like her.

Donna Brazil admitted that the DNC didn't give the Bernster a fair shake.

It's sad but I feel most of the hate for Sand-man is manufactured.

I mean... Medicare For Those Who Want It is silly to me. Maybe it's because I'm poor, but I see other countries implementing Medicare For All and they're fine. I feel like... 'Those who want it' will leave people - poor/mentally handicap people - in the dark because... they don't know where their Social Security Card is.

I don't think if Bernie becomes president that he'll just be able to enact anything he wants. So...

And Joe Biden, on the environment alone... Is like... Out to lunch. His ways are too old. People are sick of these privileged elites helping their friends.

That's just my POV.
  #143  
Old 12-09-2019, 08:46 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
So you have no problem with the vast majority of states being totally ignored? Can you explain your argument again? That seems to directly refute your prior argument.

Right now, with the EC, candidates only visit swing states. Tens of millions of voters are ignored, and their votes basically don't matter. I propose an imperfect scheme in which candidates will still spend most of their time visiting a limited number of places (just like now!), but every voter's influence will be exactly the same as every other voter. A voter in CA will have the exact same chance to influence the vote as a voter in IA, NH, TX, or FL. Why, exactly, is the former scheme superior, in your opinion?

Perhaps Asimov was on to something here.
  #144  
Old 12-09-2019, 10:59 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This doesn't refute anything I said. You said "it wasn't three states", when that is a factually false statement -- Hillary lost the election by just 3 states.
That wasn't the conversation. I said she won CAlifornia by 5 million votes and lost a crapload of states by a handful of votes.

Eschereal said (paraphrase) nuh uh she only lost 3 states by a handful of votes, she lost the others by more than what i deem to be a handful of votes. So there.

I do not disagree that she could have won with a majority of the electoral votes.

So maybe your comment wasn't stupid, you simply misunderstaood the conversation that was going on.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 12-09-2019 at 11:00 PM.
  #145  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:31 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,904
Ms. Clinton won 13 states + DC (+ 1 District in ME) for a total of 171 EVs. The other guy won 23 states (+ 1 Distict in ME and 2 in NE) for a total of 190 EVs. The remaining 15 states and 1 District (177 EVs) were not awarded to a candidate who was able to command a majority (>50%) of their vote (the lowest figure being the EVs of Utah awarded for 45.5% of the vote). It seems like something is not quite right with that method.

Last edited by eschereal; 12-10-2019 at 12:34 AM.
  #146  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:40 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Ms. Clinton won 13 states + DC (+ 1 District in ME) for a total of 171 EVs. The other guy won 23 states (+ 1 Distict in ME and 2 in NE) for a total of 190 EVs. The remaining 15 states and 1 District (177 EVs) were not awarded to a candidate who was able to command a majority (>50%) of their vote (the lowest figure being the EVs of Utah awarded for 45.5% of the vote). It seems like something is not quite right with that method.
What's not quite right other than the results?
  #147  
Old 12-10-2019, 02:48 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
What's not quite right other than the results?
In Arizona, 51.3% of the voters chose someone other than the winner
In Colorado, 51.8% chose someone else
In Florida, 51% chose someone else
In Maine, 52.1% chose someone else
In Michigan, 52.5% chose someone else
In Nevada 52.1% chose someone else
In New Hampshire, 53.2% chose someone else
In New Mexico, 51.7% chose someone else
In North Carolina, 50.1% chose someone else
In Pennsylvania, 51.8% chose someone else
In Utah, 54.5% chose someone else
In Virginia, 50.3% chose someone else
And in Wisconsin, 52.8% chose someone else

Overall, in the popular vote, 51.8% chose not the highest vote-getter, and 53.9% chose not the winner.

If you think that is not a deeply defective system that needs some manner of major repair, I think there must be something defective in your thinking.
  #148  
Old 12-10-2019, 06:07 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
In Arizona, 51.3% of the voters chose someone other than the winner
In Colorado, 51.8% chose someone else
In Florida, 51% chose someone else
In Maine, 52.1% chose someone else
In Michigan, 52.5% chose someone else
In Nevada 52.1% chose someone else
In New Hampshire, 53.2% chose someone else
In New Mexico, 51.7% chose someone else
In North Carolina, 50.1% chose someone else
In Pennsylvania, 51.8% chose someone else
In Utah, 54.5% chose someone else
In Virginia, 50.3% chose someone else
And in Wisconsin, 52.8% chose someone else

Overall, in the popular vote, 51.8% chose not the highest vote-getter, and 53.9% chose not the winner.

If you think that is not a deeply defective system that needs some manner of major repair, I think there must be something defective in your thinking.
Umm Virginia didn't go to Trump. Hillary won in Virginia. And she got those electoral votes even though 50.27% of Virginian voters voted for someone other than Hillary.

In fact:
In Minnesota 53.56% of voters didn't choose Hillary
In New Hampshire 53.02% of the voters didn't choose Hillary
In Nevada 52.5% of voters didn't choose Hillary
In Maine 52.17% of voters didn't choose Hillary
In Colorado 51.84% of voters didn't choose Hillary
In New Mexico 51.74% of voters didn't choose Hillary
and as mentioned above, in Virginia, 50.27% of voters didn't choose Hillary.

In fact, nationwide 51.72% of the voters didn't choose Hillary.

Your argument is stupid. I'm not even sure why people make this argument other than butthurtedness.
  #149  
Old 12-10-2019, 06:13 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Umm Virginia didn't go to Trump. Hillary won in Virginia. And she got those electoral votes even though 50.27% of Virginian voters voted for someone other than Hillary.

In fact:
In Minnesota 53.56% of voters didn't choose Hillary
In New Hampshire 53.02% of the voters didn't choose Hillary
In Nevada 52.5% of voters didn't choose Hillary
In Maine 52.17% of voters didn't choose Hillary
In Colorado 51.84% of voters didn't choose Hillary
In New Mexico 51.74% of voters didn't choose Hillary
and as mentioned above, in Virginia, 50.27% of voters didn't choose Hillary.

In fact, nationwide 51.72% of the voters didn't choose Hillary.

Your argument is stupid. I'm not even sure why people make this argument other than butthurtedness.
Perhaps they're arguing for some sort of alternate voting system where a candidate must get over 50% of the vote to win.

Getting such a thing implemented in America is a doomed endeavor, of course - we prefer to stick with existing systems even if they suck. Nay, especially if they suck.
  #150  
Old 12-11-2019, 03:19 AM
Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Now see, that's a reasonable assessment. Of course she made several material mistakes during the campaign that had a negative effect, but noting that there were other, more substantial factors involved is also key here. As opposed to, for example:


Anyone handwaving away the effect of the 25-year right-wing smear campaign against her, active Russian propaganda and hacking efforts, the effect of Comey's last-minute announcement about the investigation and, last but certainly not least, the fact that a disturbing number of Americans admire Donald Trump for being an alpha asshole who gets away with the kind of shit they wish they could get away with, isn't really interested in a realistic analysis of the last election and is just looking for an excuse to continue the aforementioned smear campaign.

Yes, she made some significant mistakes as a candidate and isn't a terribly likeable person but Trump is also a terrible person who was literally in the middle of a fraud court case during the campaign so why is it that Clinton bears the full weight of her loss and his victory? The minor Comey bump aside, I'd argue that the other three factors I mentioned had a lot more to do with the election result than her failure to schedule a few more election stops in Michigan. And it's not "running around like a headless chicken" to point that out.

But no, if it makes any of y'all happy to blame Hillary for everything, go right on lying about her. It's not like we're all not used to that sort of thing already.
It's very telling that one element of the "realistic analysis" is the Russia Did It conspiracy theory.

"In other calls with advisers and political surrogates in the days after the election, Hillary declined to take responsibility for her own loss. "She's not being particularly self-reflective," said one longtime ally who was on calls with her shortly after the election, Instead, Hillary kept pointing the finger at Comey and Russia. "She wants to make sure all these narratives get spun the right way," this person said."

"Within 24 hours of her concession speech, [campaign chair John Podesta and manager Robby Mook] assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."

Bolding mine,

It's propaganda from a sore loser who sees Russia everywhere, Trump is a Russian asset, Gabbard is a Russian asset, Sanders is a Russian asset, the chair she stubbed her toe against is a Russian asset. Normally one questions the mental health of people like that, not try to elevate them to the highest positions of power.

The shame of losing to someone like Trump is such a loss of face that clinging on to a fantasy is preferable, or as Dore puts it here, they'd rather start WWIII than admit of running a shitty campaign.
Unfortunately the propaganda sure hit the right buttons. Like those rats in experiments that have an electrode implanted in their pleasure centre wired to a lever, the rats will hit that lever until they literally die of exhaustion or starvation. More Russia, tell me more about Russia, oooh feels good, doesn't it? Looking from the outside, seen you frantically pushing that lever, it doesn't look good, I'll tell you that.
TPTB sure know it's effective, and have been caught in the act:

"To justify its claim that Gabbard is the Kremlin’s candidate, NBC stated, “analysts at New Knowledge, the company the Senate Intelligence Committee used to track Russian activities in the 2016 election, told NBC News they’ve spotted ‘chatter’ related to Gabbard in anonymous online message boards, including those known for fomenting right-wing troll campaigns.”

What NBC — amazingly — concealed is a fact that reveals its article to be a journalistic fraud: That same firm, New Knowledge, was caught just six weeks ago engaging in a massive scam to create fictitious Russian troll accounts on Facebook and Twitter in order to claim that the Kremlin was working to defeat Democratic Senate nominee Doug Jones in Alabama. The New York Times, when exposing the scam, quoted a New Knowledge report that boasted of its fabrications: “We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the [Roy] Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.'”"


It's disturbing, as all xenophobic rabble rousing for political gain has ever been.

How hard would it be to come up with someone more appealing than Trump, of all the people in the US nobody could be put in that position except Hillary Clinton? The very embodiment of an entrenched, neo nobiliary caste who see itself as entitled to have power. Heck, at least with kings one doesn't vote for them, but for people wilfully, happily, smugly to vote in the same types into power its something to behold.

Last edited by Ale; 12-11-2019 at 03:21 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017