earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Wow, the popular vote is growing further apart (600K now). Chuck Todd just said Hillary will likely have won it by 2 points by the time all the votes are counted. It sucks that our voices won't be heard.

You do understand that election campaigns are run to win the Electoral Vote, right? So, if the winner was decided by popular vote, the Trump campaign would have changed tactics. You can't use numbers from an electorally run campaign and linearly project them out to a popular vote and say "See, she would have won." That is totally missing a huge amount of data (which we all know you love.)

I didn't do that. All I said was it sucks our voices won't be heard.

No, your voices were heard, just like the system designed. The Electoral College vote did what it was intended to do. It didn't take anyones voice away, but tried to stop a Tyranny of a few very large States deciding the election. The Clinton camp ran their campaign to win the electoral vote, not popular vote and they lost, even with Soros voting machines all over the place.

We have a lot of work ahead of us and I hope Trump keeps his promises, but if he does, his life will be in danger as he is talking about cleaning up this corrupt System that Hillary was a big part of.

earthmansurfer wrote:Soros is very connected to the voting machines,he just can't hide it easily.

Snippet:

Smartmatic, the troubled Venezuelan-linked voting company recent partnered up (late 2014) with a firm called SGO. SGO is headed up by one Lord Mark Malloch-Brown. Brown, as it turns out, is a rather curious and troubling figure. Brown, you should know, has close ties to George Soros and rents a Soros owned house in New York. Brown gets a sweetheart deal at only $10,000 a month. He also serves as the VP of Soros’ hedge fund the Quantum Fund.

Lord Brown definitely has had a high flying career in international circles. But it turns out he is another left-wing utopian schemer that naively believes that, for example, we can END world poverty. Good luck with that---let me know how that’s working out for you. What’s infuriating about people like Brown is their insistence that they simply want “to change the world.” But they never EVER ask themselves if the world wants to be changed. And what if it doesn’t? Well, for folks like Brown the answer is “tough—we’ll change it anyway.” It’s how high minded utopianism always descends to brutal totalitarianism. It’s a sad and unwise outcome from a bunch of “smart” people.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/smartmatic-sgo-malloch-brown-soros-operative-buys-election-cj-wilson

earthmansurfer wrote:Soros is very connected to the voting machines,he just can't hide it easily.

Snippet:

Smartmatic, the troubled Venezuelan-linked voting company recent partnered up (late 2014) with a firm called SGO. SGO is headed up by one Lord Mark Malloch-Brown. Brown, as it turns out, is a rather curious and troubling figure. Brown, you should know, has close ties to George Soros and rents a Soros owned house in New York. Brown gets a sweetheart deal at only $10,000 a month. He also serves as the VP of Soros’ hedge fund the Quantum Fund.

Lord Brown definitely has had a high flying career in international circles. But it turns out he is another left-wing utopian schemer that naively believes that, for example, we can END world poverty. Good luck with that---let me know how that’s working out for you. What’s infuriating about people like Brown is their insistence that they simply want “to change the world.” But they never EVER ask themselves if the world wants to be changed. And what if it doesn’t? Well, for folks like Brown the answer is “tough—we’ll change it anyway.” It’s how high minded utopianism always descends to brutal totalitarianism. It’s a sad and unwise outcome from a bunch of “smart” people.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/smartmatic-sgo-malloch-brown-soros-operative-buys-election-cj-wilson

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It

NEW YORK CITY - APRIL 9 2016: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton campaigned in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, appearing with Congressional representative Nydia Velazquez.
Photo Credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com
Hillary was always going to be a weak candidate and the evidence was there for anyone willing to see it. The only surprise was how hard many people worked not to see the obvious. For one, she was exactly the wrong candidate for 2016. Indeed, in May 2014---two and a half years ago---I wrote on these pages:
By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising, college graduates can’t find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking, infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding — and neither party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces. As a result, voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way Clinton can run as a “change” candidate — indeed, having been in power in Washington for 20-plus years as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she is the poster child for the Washington political establishment, an establishment that will not be popular in 2016. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitability-hillary-you-probably-havent-thought-about

This, of course, is exactly what happened, which is why the Washington Post's chief political writer Chris Cilliza could write today:

This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate. To me, this is the single most important number in the exit poll in understanding what voters were thinking when they chose Trump. Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39 percent) said a candidate who "can bring needed change." (A candidate who "has the right experience" was the second most important character trait.) Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote to just 14 percent for Clinton. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3

On top of this problem---which to be fair to Clinton was not a problem of her making---she was extremely unpopular and had a long history dating back to 2007 of polling badly against Republicans. In December 2007, while leading national polls among Democrats by 26 points, in head-to-head polls against Republicans, she polled weaker against Republican presidential candidates than John Edwards and a relatively unknown new black Senator from Illinois. In fact, when matched up against Republicans---who had a very weak field themselves in 2008---she even polled behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate. We saw this inherent weakness repeated in 2016, when she was challenged by a 74-year old Senator from a small state who wasn't even a Democrat, who had virtually no financial base, but went from 3% in national polls to winning 22 contested primaries and 47% of the votes in those primaries, in the process regularly pulling 20,000+ enthusiastic people to his rallies, while Hillary spoke in small gatherings to large donors and never attracted more than 800 people to an event.

What this obvious lack of enthusiasm for Hillary translated to in this election is the single most appalling---and definitive---statistic of this campaign: Hillary got almost TEN MILLION fewer votes than Obama got in 2008, despite the fact there are millions more registered voters now and six million less votes than Obama got in 2012. Trump did not win this election. Hillary lost it. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012! We are not surrounded by more Republicans. We are surrounded by Democrats who were not inspired by the Wall Street-friendly candidate their party pushed on them.

Hillary's utter tone-deafness about her connections to Wall Street was another huge liability. In November 2014, I wrote:

On nearly every important issue, except women’s issues, Clinton stands to the right of her Democratic base. Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton continues to give speeches to Goldman Sachs at $200,000 a pop, assuring them that, “We all got into this mess together and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.” In her world — a world full of friends and donors from Wall Street — the financial industry does not bear any special culpability in the financial meltdown of 2007-'08. The mood of the Democratic base is populist and angry, but Clinton is preaching lack of accountability.

She got hammered by Sanders, and later Trump, for her reliance on Wall Street money, and then added to her problems by not releasing transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks to the public, which exacerbated the perception that she was not transparent and was rigging the system with the financial industry in ways that did not serve the public. So when her email problems arose, it all seemed part of the same pattern of duplicity. Polls with voters rating her 65% "untrustworthy" soon followed.

She also never explained why she had supported the deregulation of Wall Street, never explained why she had promoted NAFTA, why she had called the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of trade deals, despite the damage NAFTA had caused to America's manufacturing base and the millions of jobs that had been exported to lower-paying countries. And the DNC Democrats who fixed the primaries to nominate her have never explained how they expected to win the industrial mid-west with a candidate who had contributed to their economic demise or why they favored Clinton over a candidate who ran ten points stronger against every Republican presidential candidate, including Trump, in match-up polls.

This election was always going to be a plebiscite on the status quo and the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton. For awhile many thought Hillary could pass it because she was matched against the weakest candidate imaginable. In the end, she could not overcome her many liabilities, the fact that her party had forgotten they needed to deliver results to the working class, nor the surly mood of voters who had figured out what a rigged system looked like and were willing to try a long-shot who might just bust up the system.

Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

I disagree. Her approval ratings from 2008 to 2015 were in the 50s and 60s. Trump won the election by tearing Hillary down. He said things (lock her up, crooked Hillary, etc.) in a way that no other Republican would have. It wasn't enough to win the popular vote but apparently it was enough to sway the electorate in many critical swing states.

Keep telling yourself that. It wasnt Clinton's tacit approval for legislation and policies that has caused great suffering to Americans for years now. Legislation and policies she watched her husband enact, that she also supported and promoted as a Senator. It wasnt any of that.

Clinton lost not because she supported policies that has caused misery on a biblical scale in this country. Hillary lost because Trump said mean things about her.

Huh? Are you saying that negative attack messages don't work? The things you mentioned likely had very little to do with the outcome. Her favorability ratings were in the 50s and 60s even after all the events you cited happened.

Hillary breaking the law, as well as those around her, and then getting it made public while the agencies and MSM did little about it, certainly had an effect on the election (on their own).
With: MSM almost 100% behind Hillary, Soros owning electronic voting machines in 16 States, Jay Z and Beyonce singing "free" for Hillary, Corporate America backing her, Sup Pac's spending Millions to "Correct the Record" on the worlds largest social media platforms, etc. Hillary still couldn't stop Trump.

I'm not buying that either. It's just a narrative that Trump to his credit successfully sold. The media spent more time talking about her e-mails than any policy issues or any of Trump's legal issues.

it is pretty apparent whose side MSM was on.

I agree

Just ask the people.
https://morningconsult.com/2016/08/19/voters-agree-trump-say-media-biased-toward-clinton/

Clinton got who she wanted as the Wikileaks show and still lost. Media or not.

Main point here is the corruption of Clinton and she will be going to jail for it, along with a host of others.

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It

NEW YORK CITY - APRIL 9 2016: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton campaigned in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, appearing with Congressional representative Nydia Velazquez.
Photo Credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com
Hillary was always going to be a weak candidate and the evidence was there for anyone willing to see it. The only surprise was how hard many people worked not to see the obvious. For one, she was exactly the wrong candidate for 2016. Indeed, in May 2014---two and a half years ago---I wrote on these pages:
By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising, college graduates can’t find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking, infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding — and neither party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces. As a result, voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way Clinton can run as a “change” candidate — indeed, having been in power in Washington for 20-plus years as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she is the poster child for the Washington political establishment, an establishment that will not be popular in 2016. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitability-hillary-you-probably-havent-thought-about

This, of course, is exactly what happened, which is why the Washington Post's chief political writer Chris Cilliza could write today:

This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate. To me, this is the single most important number in the exit poll in understanding what voters were thinking when they chose Trump. Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39 percent) said a candidate who "can bring needed change." (A candidate who "has the right experience" was the second most important character trait.) Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote to just 14 percent for Clinton. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3

On top of this problem---which to be fair to Clinton was not a problem of her making---she was extremely unpopular and had a long history dating back to 2007 of polling badly against Republicans. In December 2007, while leading national polls among Democrats by 26 points, in head-to-head polls against Republicans, she polled weaker against Republican presidential candidates than John Edwards and a relatively unknown new black Senator from Illinois. In fact, when matched up against Republicans---who had a very weak field themselves in 2008---she even polled behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate. We saw this inherent weakness repeated in 2016, when she was challenged by a 74-year old Senator from a small state who wasn't even a Democrat, who had virtually no financial base, but went from 3% in national polls to winning 22 contested primaries and 47% of the votes in those primaries, in the process regularly pulling 20,000+ enthusiastic people to his rallies, while Hillary spoke in small gatherings to large donors and never attracted more than 800 people to an event.

What this obvious lack of enthusiasm for Hillary translated to in this election is the single most appalling---and definitive---statistic of this campaign: Hillary got almost TEN MILLION fewer votes than Obama got in 2008, despite the fact there are millions more registered voters now and six million less votes than Obama got in 2012. Trump did not win this election. Hillary lost it. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012! We are not surrounded by more Republicans. We are surrounded by Democrats who were not inspired by the Wall Street-friendly candidate their party pushed on them.

Hillary's utter tone-deafness about her connections to Wall Street was another huge liability. In November 2014, I wrote:

On nearly every important issue, except women’s issues, Clinton stands to the right of her Democratic base. Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton continues to give speeches to Goldman Sachs at $200,000 a pop, assuring them that, “We all got into this mess together and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.” In her world — a world full of friends and donors from Wall Street — the financial industry does not bear any special culpability in the financial meltdown of 2007-'08. The mood of the Democratic base is populist and angry, but Clinton is preaching lack of accountability.

She got hammered by Sanders, and later Trump, for her reliance on Wall Street money, and then added to her problems by not releasing transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks to the public, which exacerbated the perception that she was not transparent and was rigging the system with the financial industry in ways that did not serve the public. So when her email problems arose, it all seemed part of the same pattern of duplicity. Polls with voters rating her 65% "untrustworthy" soon followed.

She also never explained why she had supported the deregulation of Wall Street, never explained why she had promoted NAFTA, why she had called the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of trade deals, despite the damage NAFTA had caused to America's manufacturing base and the millions of jobs that had been exported to lower-paying countries. And the DNC Democrats who fixed the primaries to nominate her have never explained how they expected to win the industrial mid-west with a candidate who had contributed to their economic demise or why they favored Clinton over a candidate who ran ten points stronger against every Republican presidential candidate, including Trump, in match-up polls.

This election was always going to be a plebiscite on the status quo and the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton. For awhile many thought Hillary could pass it because she was matched against the weakest candidate imaginable. In the end, she could not overcome her many liabilities, the fact that her party had forgotten they needed to deliver results to the working class, nor the surly mood of voters who had figured out what a rigged system looked like and were willing to try a long-shot who might just bust up the system.

Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

I disagree. Her approval ratings from 2008 to 2015 were in the 50s and 60s. Trump won the election by tearing Hillary down. He said things (lock her up, crooked Hillary, etc.) in a way that no other Republican would have. It wasn't enough to win the popular vote but apparently it was enough to sway the electorate in many critical swing states.

Keep telling yourself that. It wasnt Clinton's tacit approval for legislation and policies that has caused great suffering to Americans for years now. Legislation and policies she watched her husband enact, that she also supported and promoted as a Senator. It wasnt any of that.

Clinton lost not because she supported policies that has caused misery on a biblical scale in this country. Hillary lost because Trump said mean things about her.

Huh? Are you saying that negative attack messages don't work? The things you mentioned likely had very little to do with the outcome. Her favorability ratings were in the 50s and 60s even after all the events you cited happened.

Those same pollsters claimed Clinton would coast to an easy victory. Clinton's attack ads were much more frequent, and much better.

Get your head out of the numbers for a minute and consider the role the Clintons policies have had on the outcome. You don't seem to appreciate the suffering they have caused. You have to add a BC next to the date the last time inequality was this bad. You cant just brush that fact aside, ignore the Clintons role in us getting to this place. It shouldnt have even been close.

Amen. This is the part annoy how hard Hillary supporters worked to ignore the obvious.

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It

NEW YORK CITY - APRIL 9 2016: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton campaigned in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, appearing with Congressional representative Nydia Velazquez.
Photo Credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com
Hillary was always going to be a weak candidate and the evidence was there for anyone willing to see it. The only surprise was how hard many people worked not to see the obvious. For one, she was exactly the wrong candidate for 2016. Indeed, in May 2014---two and a half years ago---I wrote on these pages:
By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising, college graduates can’t find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking, infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding — and neither party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces. As a result, voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way Clinton can run as a “change” candidate — indeed, having been in power in Washington for 20-plus years as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she is the poster child for the Washington political establishment, an establishment that will not be popular in 2016. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitability-hillary-you-probably-havent-thought-about

This, of course, is exactly what happened, which is why the Washington Post's chief political writer Chris Cilliza could write today:

This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate. To me, this is the single most important number in the exit poll in understanding what voters were thinking when they chose Trump. Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39 percent) said a candidate who "can bring needed change." (A candidate who "has the right experience" was the second most important character trait.) Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote to just 14 percent for Clinton. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3

On top of this problem---which to be fair to Clinton was not a problem of her making---she was extremely unpopular and had a long history dating back to 2007 of polling badly against Republicans. In December 2007, while leading national polls among Democrats by 26 points, in head-to-head polls against Republicans, she polled weaker against Republican presidential candidates than John Edwards and a relatively unknown new black Senator from Illinois. In fact, when matched up against Republicans---who had a very weak field themselves in 2008---she even polled behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate. We saw this inherent weakness repeated in 2016, when she was challenged by a 74-year old Senator from a small state who wasn't even a Democrat, who had virtually no financial base, but went from 3% in national polls to winning 22 contested primaries and 47% of the votes in those primaries, in the process regularly pulling 20,000+ enthusiastic people to his rallies, while Hillary spoke in small gatherings to large donors and never attracted more than 800 people to an event.

What this obvious lack of enthusiasm for Hillary translated to in this election is the single most appalling---and definitive---statistic of this campaign: Hillary got almost TEN MILLION fewer votes than Obama got in 2008, despite the fact there are millions more registered voters now and six million less votes than Obama got in 2012. Trump did not win this election. Hillary lost it. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012! We are not surrounded by more Republicans. We are surrounded by Democrats who were not inspired by the Wall Street-friendly candidate their party pushed on them.

Hillary's utter tone-deafness about her connections to Wall Street was another huge liability. In November 2014, I wrote:

On nearly every important issue, except women’s issues, Clinton stands to the right of her Democratic base. Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton continues to give speeches to Goldman Sachs at $200,000 a pop, assuring them that, “We all got into this mess together and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.” In her world — a world full of friends and donors from Wall Street — the financial industry does not bear any special culpability in the financial meltdown of 2007-'08. The mood of the Democratic base is populist and angry, but Clinton is preaching lack of accountability.

She got hammered by Sanders, and later Trump, for her reliance on Wall Street money, and then added to her problems by not releasing transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks to the public, which exacerbated the perception that she was not transparent and was rigging the system with the financial industry in ways that did not serve the public. So when her email problems arose, it all seemed part of the same pattern of duplicity. Polls with voters rating her 65% "untrustworthy" soon followed.

She also never explained why she had supported the deregulation of Wall Street, never explained why she had promoted NAFTA, why she had called the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of trade deals, despite the damage NAFTA had caused to America's manufacturing base and the millions of jobs that had been exported to lower-paying countries. And the DNC Democrats who fixed the primaries to nominate her have never explained how they expected to win the industrial mid-west with a candidate who had contributed to their economic demise or why they favored Clinton over a candidate who ran ten points stronger against every Republican presidential candidate, including Trump, in match-up polls.

This election was always going to be a plebiscite on the status quo and the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton. For awhile many thought Hillary could pass it because she was matched against the weakest candidate imaginable. In the end, she could not overcome her many liabilities, the fact that her party had forgotten they needed to deliver results to the working class, nor the surly mood of voters who had figured out what a rigged system looked like and were willing to try a long-shot who might just bust up the system.

Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

I disagree. Her approval ratings from 2008 to 2015 were in the 50s and 60s. Trump won the election by tearing Hillary down. He said things (lock her up, crooked Hillary, etc.) in a way that no other Republican would have. It wasn't enough to win the popular vote but apparently it was enough to sway the electorate in many critical swing states.

Keep telling yourself that. It wasnt Clinton's tacit approval for legislation and policies that has caused great suffering to Americans for years now. Legislation and policies she watched her husband enact, that she also supported and promoted as a Senator. It wasnt any of that.

Clinton lost not because she supported policies that has caused misery on a biblical scale in this country. Hillary lost because Trump said mean things about her.

Huh? Are you saying that negative attack messages don't work? The things you mentioned likely had very little to do with the outcome. Her favorability ratings were in the 50s and 60s even after all the events you cited happened.

Hillary breaking the law, as well as those around her, and then getting it made public while the agencies and MSM did little about it, certainly had an effect on the election (on their own).
With: MSM almost 100% behind Hillary, Soros owning electronic voting machines in 16 States, Jay Z and Beyonce singing "free" for Hillary, Corporate America backing her, Sup Pac's spending Millions to "Correct the Record" on the worlds largest social media platforms, etc. Hillary still couldn't stop Trump.

I'm not buying that either. It's just a narrative that Trump to his credit successfully sold. The media spent more time talking about her e-mails than any policy issues or any of Trump's legal issues.

it is pretty apparent whose side MSM was on.

I agree

Just ask the people.
https://morningconsult.com/2016/08/19/voters-agree-trump-say-media-biased-toward-clinton/

Clinton got who she wanted as the Wikileaks show and still lost. Media or not.

Main point here is the corruption of Clinton and she will be going to jail for it, along with a host of others.

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It

NEW YORK CITY - APRIL 9 2016: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton campaigned in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, appearing with Congressional representative Nydia Velazquez.
Photo Credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com
Hillary was always going to be a weak candidate and the evidence was there for anyone willing to see it. The only surprise was how hard many people worked not to see the obvious. For one, she was exactly the wrong candidate for 2016. Indeed, in May 2014---two and a half years ago---I wrote on these pages:
By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising, college graduates can’t find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking, infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding — and neither party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces. As a result, voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way Clinton can run as a “change” candidate — indeed, having been in power in Washington for 20-plus years as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she is the poster child for the Washington political establishment, an establishment that will not be popular in 2016. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitability-hillary-you-probably-havent-thought-about

This, of course, is exactly what happened, which is why the Washington Post's chief political writer Chris Cilliza could write today:

This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate. To me, this is the single most important number in the exit poll in understanding what voters were thinking when they chose Trump. Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39 percent) said a candidate who "can bring needed change." (A candidate who "has the right experience" was the second most important character trait.) Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote to just 14 percent for Clinton. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3

On top of this problem---which to be fair to Clinton was not a problem of her making---she was extremely unpopular and had a long history dating back to 2007 of polling badly against Republicans. In December 2007, while leading national polls among Democrats by 26 points, in head-to-head polls against Republicans, she polled weaker against Republican presidential candidates than John Edwards and a relatively unknown new black Senator from Illinois. In fact, when matched up against Republicans---who had a very weak field themselves in 2008---she even polled behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate. We saw this inherent weakness repeated in 2016, when she was challenged by a 74-year old Senator from a small state who wasn't even a Democrat, who had virtually no financial base, but went from 3% in national polls to winning 22 contested primaries and 47% of the votes in those primaries, in the process regularly pulling 20,000+ enthusiastic people to his rallies, while Hillary spoke in small gatherings to large donors and never attracted more than 800 people to an event.

What this obvious lack of enthusiasm for Hillary translated to in this election is the single most appalling---and definitive---statistic of this campaign: Hillary got almost TEN MILLION fewer votes than Obama got in 2008, despite the fact there are millions more registered voters now and six million less votes than Obama got in 2012. Trump did not win this election. Hillary lost it. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012! We are not surrounded by more Republicans. We are surrounded by Democrats who were not inspired by the Wall Street-friendly candidate their party pushed on them.

Hillary's utter tone-deafness about her connections to Wall Street was another huge liability. In November 2014, I wrote:

On nearly every important issue, except women’s issues, Clinton stands to the right of her Democratic base. Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton continues to give speeches to Goldman Sachs at $200,000 a pop, assuring them that, “We all got into this mess together and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.” In her world — a world full of friends and donors from Wall Street — the financial industry does not bear any special culpability in the financial meltdown of 2007-'08. The mood of the Democratic base is populist and angry, but Clinton is preaching lack of accountability.

She got hammered by Sanders, and later Trump, for her reliance on Wall Street money, and then added to her problems by not releasing transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks to the public, which exacerbated the perception that she was not transparent and was rigging the system with the financial industry in ways that did not serve the public. So when her email problems arose, it all seemed part of the same pattern of duplicity. Polls with voters rating her 65% "untrustworthy" soon followed.

She also never explained why she had supported the deregulation of Wall Street, never explained why she had promoted NAFTA, why she had called the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of trade deals, despite the damage NAFTA had caused to America's manufacturing base and the millions of jobs that had been exported to lower-paying countries. And the DNC Democrats who fixed the primaries to nominate her have never explained how they expected to win the industrial mid-west with a candidate who had contributed to their economic demise or why they favored Clinton over a candidate who ran ten points stronger against every Republican presidential candidate, including Trump, in match-up polls.

This election was always going to be a plebiscite on the status quo and the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton. For awhile many thought Hillary could pass it because she was matched against the weakest candidate imaginable. In the end, she could not overcome her many liabilities, the fact that her party had forgotten they needed to deliver results to the working class, nor the surly mood of voters who had figured out what a rigged system looked like and were willing to try a long-shot who might just bust up the system.

Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

I disagree. Her approval ratings from 2008 to 2015 were in the 50s and 60s. Trump won the election by tearing Hillary down. He said things (lock her up, crooked Hillary, etc.) in a way that no other Republican would have. It wasn't enough to win the popular vote but apparently it was enough to sway the electorate in many critical swing states.

Keep telling yourself that. It wasnt Clinton's tacit approval for legislation and policies that has caused great suffering to Americans for years now. Legislation and policies she watched her husband enact, that she also supported and promoted as a Senator. It wasnt any of that.

Clinton lost not because she supported policies that has caused misery on a biblical scale in this country. Hillary lost because Trump said mean things about her.

Huh? Are you saying that negative attack messages don't work? The things you mentioned likely had very little to do with the outcome. Her favorability ratings were in the 50s and 60s even after all the events you cited happened.

Those same pollsters claimed Clinton would coast to an easy victory. Clinton's attack ads were much more frequent, and much better.

Get your head out of the numbers for a minute and consider the role the Clintons policies have had on the outcome. You don't seem to appreciate the suffering they have caused. You have to add a BC next to the date the last time inequality was this bad. You cant just brush that fact aside, ignore the Clintons role in us getting to this place. It shouldnt have even been close.

Amen. This is the part annoy how hard Hillary supporters worked to ignore the obvious.

You can't take the fact that the polls were off by 2 points and conclude you'll never look at another poll again. If you wanted to look at them and give a 2 point larger margin of error, that would make more sense.

djsunyc wrote:trump back on twitter bragging about people congratulating him and insulting the ny times.

And to take that further..One morning show is talking about how Trump wants to change libel laws, for which there are none, so he can go after the press..So he has to appoint Supreme Court justices who are willing to look at the first amendment and total free speech..Talk also about how he will use the FCC to restrict media licenses to certain media companies...And so it begins...

Make America Great Again...

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It

NEW YORK CITY - APRIL 9 2016: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton campaigned in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, appearing with Congressional representative Nydia Velazquez.
Photo Credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com
Hillary was always going to be a weak candidate and the evidence was there for anyone willing to see it. The only surprise was how hard many people worked not to see the obvious. For one, she was exactly the wrong candidate for 2016. Indeed, in May 2014---two and a half years ago---I wrote on these pages:
By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising, college graduates can’t find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking, infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding — and neither party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces. As a result, voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way Clinton can run as a “change” candidate — indeed, having been in power in Washington for 20-plus years as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she is the poster child for the Washington political establishment, an establishment that will not be popular in 2016. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitability-hillary-you-probably-havent-thought-about

This, of course, is exactly what happened, which is why the Washington Post's chief political writer Chris Cilliza could write today:

This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate. To me, this is the single most important number in the exit poll in understanding what voters were thinking when they chose Trump. Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39 percent) said a candidate who "can bring needed change." (A candidate who "has the right experience" was the second most important character trait.) Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote to just 14 percent for Clinton. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3

On top of this problem---which to be fair to Clinton was not a problem of her making---she was extremely unpopular and had a long history dating back to 2007 of polling badly against Republicans. In December 2007, while leading national polls among Democrats by 26 points, in head-to-head polls against Republicans, she polled weaker against Republican presidential candidates than John Edwards and a relatively unknown new black Senator from Illinois. In fact, when matched up against Republicans---who had a very weak field themselves in 2008---she even polled behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate. We saw this inherent weakness repeated in 2016, when she was challenged by a 74-year old Senator from a small state who wasn't even a Democrat, who had virtually no financial base, but went from 3% in national polls to winning 22 contested primaries and 47% of the votes in those primaries, in the process regularly pulling 20,000+ enthusiastic people to his rallies, while Hillary spoke in small gatherings to large donors and never attracted more than 800 people to an event.

What this obvious lack of enthusiasm for Hillary translated to in this election is the single most appalling---and definitive---statistic of this campaign: Hillary got almost TEN MILLION fewer votes than Obama got in 2008, despite the fact there are millions more registered voters now and six million less votes than Obama got in 2012. Trump did not win this election. Hillary lost it. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012! We are not surrounded by more Republicans. We are surrounded by Democrats who were not inspired by the Wall Street-friendly candidate their party pushed on them.

Hillary's utter tone-deafness about her connections to Wall Street was another huge liability. In November 2014, I wrote:

On nearly every important issue, except women’s issues, Clinton stands to the right of her Democratic base. Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton continues to give speeches to Goldman Sachs at $200,000 a pop, assuring them that, “We all got into this mess together and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.” In her world — a world full of friends and donors from Wall Street — the financial industry does not bear any special culpability in the financial meltdown of 2007-'08. The mood of the Democratic base is populist and angry, but Clinton is preaching lack of accountability.

She got hammered by Sanders, and later Trump, for her reliance on Wall Street money, and then added to her problems by not releasing transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks to the public, which exacerbated the perception that she was not transparent and was rigging the system with the financial industry in ways that did not serve the public. So when her email problems arose, it all seemed part of the same pattern of duplicity. Polls with voters rating her 65% "untrustworthy" soon followed.

She also never explained why she had supported the deregulation of Wall Street, never explained why she had promoted NAFTA, why she had called the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of trade deals, despite the damage NAFTA had caused to America's manufacturing base and the millions of jobs that had been exported to lower-paying countries. And the DNC Democrats who fixed the primaries to nominate her have never explained how they expected to win the industrial mid-west with a candidate who had contributed to their economic demise or why they favored Clinton over a candidate who ran ten points stronger against every Republican presidential candidate, including Trump, in match-up polls.

This election was always going to be a plebiscite on the status quo and the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton. For awhile many thought Hillary could pass it because she was matched against the weakest candidate imaginable. In the end, she could not overcome her many liabilities, the fact that her party had forgotten they needed to deliver results to the working class, nor the surly mood of voters who had figured out what a rigged system looked like and were willing to try a long-shot who might just bust up the system.

Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

I disagree. Her approval ratings from 2008 to 2015 were in the 50s and 60s. Trump won the election by tearing Hillary down. He said things (lock her up, crooked Hillary, etc.) in a way that no other Republican would have. It wasn't enough to win the popular vote but apparently it was enough to sway the electorate in many critical swing states.

Keep telling yourself that. It wasnt Clinton's tacit approval for legislation and policies that has caused great suffering to Americans for years now. Legislation and policies she watched her husband enact, that she also supported and promoted as a Senator. It wasnt any of that.

Clinton lost not because she supported policies that has caused misery on a biblical scale in this country. Hillary lost because Trump said mean things about her.

Huh? Are you saying that negative attack messages don't work? The things you mentioned likely had very little to do with the outcome. Her favorability ratings were in the 50s and 60s even after all the events you cited happened.

Those same pollsters claimed Clinton would coast to an easy victory. Clinton's attack ads were much more frequent, and much better.

Get your head out of the numbers for a minute and consider the role the Clintons policies have had on the outcome. You don't seem to appreciate the suffering they have caused. You have to add a BC next to the date the last time inequality was this bad. You cant just brush that fact aside, ignore the Clintons role in us getting to this place. It shouldnt have even been close.

Amen. This is the part annoy how hard Hillary supporters worked to ignore the obvious.

The pollsters were off by about 2 points in the national election and swing states. So her average approval rating was closer to 54 than 56 during that interval? OK I could grant something like that.

You can't take the fact that the polls were off by 2 points and conclude you'll never look at another poll again. If you wanted to look at them and give a 2 point larger margin of error, that would make more sense.

Bonn, these polls are dangerous. One can argue they create public opinion, not reflect it.

Fox & Friends calls out George Soros for funding riots!

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It

NEW YORK CITY - APRIL 9 2016: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton campaigned in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, appearing with Congressional representative Nydia Velazquez.
Photo Credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com
Hillary was always going to be a weak candidate and the evidence was there for anyone willing to see it. The only surprise was how hard many people worked not to see the obvious. For one, she was exactly the wrong candidate for 2016. Indeed, in May 2014---two and a half years ago---I wrote on these pages:
By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising, college graduates can’t find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking, infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding — and neither party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces. As a result, voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way Clinton can run as a “change” candidate — indeed, having been in power in Washington for 20-plus years as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she is the poster child for the Washington political establishment, an establishment that will not be popular in 2016. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitability-hillary-you-probably-havent-thought-about

This, of course, is exactly what happened, which is why the Washington Post's chief political writer Chris Cilliza could write today:

This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate. To me, this is the single most important number in the exit poll in understanding what voters were thinking when they chose Trump. Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39 percent) said a candidate who "can bring needed change." (A candidate who "has the right experience" was the second most important character trait.) Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote to just 14 percent for Clinton. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3

On top of this problem---which to be fair to Clinton was not a problem of her making---she was extremely unpopular and had a long history dating back to 2007 of polling badly against Republicans. In December 2007, while leading national polls among Democrats by 26 points, in head-to-head polls against Republicans, she polled weaker against Republican presidential candidates than John Edwards and a relatively unknown new black Senator from Illinois. In fact, when matched up against Republicans---who had a very weak field themselves in 2008---she even polled behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate. We saw this inherent weakness repeated in 2016, when she was challenged by a 74-year old Senator from a small state who wasn't even a Democrat, who had virtually no financial base, but went from 3% in national polls to winning 22 contested primaries and 47% of the votes in those primaries, in the process regularly pulling 20,000+ enthusiastic people to his rallies, while Hillary spoke in small gatherings to large donors and never attracted more than 800 people to an event.

What this obvious lack of enthusiasm for Hillary translated to in this election is the single most appalling---and definitive---statistic of this campaign: Hillary got almost TEN MILLION fewer votes than Obama got in 2008, despite the fact there are millions more registered voters now and six million less votes than Obama got in 2012. Trump did not win this election. Hillary lost it. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012! We are not surrounded by more Republicans. We are surrounded by Democrats who were not inspired by the Wall Street-friendly candidate their party pushed on them.

Hillary's utter tone-deafness about her connections to Wall Street was another huge liability. In November 2014, I wrote:

On nearly every important issue, except women’s issues, Clinton stands to the right of her Democratic base. Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton continues to give speeches to Goldman Sachs at $200,000 a pop, assuring them that, “We all got into this mess together and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.” In her world — a world full of friends and donors from Wall Street — the financial industry does not bear any special culpability in the financial meltdown of 2007-'08. The mood of the Democratic base is populist and angry, but Clinton is preaching lack of accountability.

She got hammered by Sanders, and later Trump, for her reliance on Wall Street money, and then added to her problems by not releasing transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks to the public, which exacerbated the perception that she was not transparent and was rigging the system with the financial industry in ways that did not serve the public. So when her email problems arose, it all seemed part of the same pattern of duplicity. Polls with voters rating her 65% "untrustworthy" soon followed.

She also never explained why she had supported the deregulation of Wall Street, never explained why she had promoted NAFTA, why she had called the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of trade deals, despite the damage NAFTA had caused to America's manufacturing base and the millions of jobs that had been exported to lower-paying countries. And the DNC Democrats who fixed the primaries to nominate her have never explained how they expected to win the industrial mid-west with a candidate who had contributed to their economic demise or why they favored Clinton over a candidate who ran ten points stronger against every Republican presidential candidate, including Trump, in match-up polls.

This election was always going to be a plebiscite on the status quo and the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton. For awhile many thought Hillary could pass it because she was matched against the weakest candidate imaginable. In the end, she could not overcome her many liabilities, the fact that her party had forgotten they needed to deliver results to the working class, nor the surly mood of voters who had figured out what a rigged system looked like and were willing to try a long-shot who might just bust up the system.

Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

I disagree. Her approval ratings from 2008 to 2015 were in the 50s and 60s. Trump won the election by tearing Hillary down. He said things (lock her up, crooked Hillary, etc.) in a way that no other Republican would have. It wasn't enough to win the popular vote but apparently it was enough to sway the electorate in many critical swing states.

Keep telling yourself that. It wasnt Clinton's tacit approval for legislation and policies that has caused great suffering to Americans for years now. Legislation and policies she watched her husband enact, that she also supported and promoted as a Senator. It wasnt any of that.

Clinton lost not because she supported policies that has caused misery on a biblical scale in this country. Hillary lost because Trump said mean things about her.

Huh? Are you saying that negative attack messages don't work? The things you mentioned likely had very little to do with the outcome. Her favorability ratings were in the 50s and 60s even after all the events you cited happened.

Those same pollsters claimed Clinton would coast to an easy victory. Clinton's attack ads were much more frequent, and much better.

Get your head out of the numbers for a minute and consider the role the Clintons policies have had on the outcome. You don't seem to appreciate the suffering they have caused. You have to add a BC next to the date the last time inequality was this bad. You cant just brush that fact aside, ignore the Clintons role in us getting to this place. It shouldnt have even been close.

Amen. This is the part annoy how hard Hillary supporters worked to ignore the obvious.

The pollsters were off by about 2 points in the national election and swing states. So her average approval rating was closer to 54 than 56 during that interval? OK I could grant something like that.

You can't take the fact that the polls were off by 2 points and conclude you'll never look at another poll again. If you wanted to look at them and give a 2 point larger margin of error, that would make more sense.

See? Case in point, I wasn't talking about the numbers or about polls. I was talking about how democrats have ignored the middle class forever, and how the middle class has figured it out. You can take comfort from the polls and ignore the real message the people just sent, or you can take the blinders off and see what really has happened to the democratic party. One way or another it won't change the movement that has started and I can only hope it keeps gaining momentum.