• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Donna Brazile Thought of Replacing Clinton

Ffs, give it a fucking rest. She won the popular vote, which is the ONLY measure of preference of the American people that exists. Period. Absolutely nothing will ever change that fact.

So what? That doesn't mean who became president. Hillary failed. You all suffer for her failure. Full stop.

Which means, he has no mandate; he did not earn the office; there is no way to strategize winning the EC, while losing the popular vote

I'm sure he didn't aim to lose the popular vote, but he did campaign where he knew it mattered. He did hit Hillary where she failed to campaign. He did bring a populous message while she brought an establishment one. He did play identity politics, a game Republicans win, and easily got her to play it with him.

She based her campaign on the pillars of Status Quo, Self Entitlement, Identity Politics, and Empty Platitudes. And she ran as not-Trump. Trump was such a horrible candidate that she almost won anyway. Had she switched around any one of these pillars she likely would have won. She worked hard for her loss. Obama was "Hope. Change. Yes, We Can". Hillary was "No Magical Ponies. No we can't", which was especially highlighted in contrast to Sanders' policies in the primary and Trump's "Make America Great Again" in the general. Hillary chose another status quo milk toast politician as her running mate instead of Warren or Sanders. Obama was "No red or blue, but the United States of America". Hillary was "Basket of Deplorables". Hillary was "I'm With Her" instead of "She's with us".

most importantly, he cheated by committing treasonous acts.

Nothing has been proved tying him to any treasonous acts despite a years long inquiry into it. You may need to let that one go.

He will go down in history as the worst President to have yet existed.

Possibly yes. And you'll have Hillary to thank for it.

But what should happen and what does happen rarely coincide in politics, but that doesn't change the fact that voter preference was overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton.

Apparently not in big enough numbers where it mattered.
 

Piercing counter argument.

I'm sure he didn't aim to lose the popular vote

Then you've just conceded that it can't be a measure of superior strategy as much as it is pure dumb luck.

but he did campaign where he knew it mattered.

Where he hoped it mattered and it did NOT. A less than 1% voting differential could literally be caused by a fucking sneeze, NOT by any kind of strategy.

Or a massive Russian influence warfare that targeted exactly the states he ended up winning by less than 1%.

You are conveniently looking through hindsight at what was at the time apparently nothing more than a move of last minute desperation (though, again, it lines up perfectly with exactly what the Russians were doing and where).

Regardless, even with the knowledge of clandestine Russian interference, there would still be no possible way for him to strategize a sure win, so looking at the after math--especially when it's statistically nonexistent--can't possible be attributed to anything other than external forces and not anything that reflects on the candidate himself.

The implication is that he somehow knew the winds of change, but that's clearly not the case as .07% does in no way represent a wind of change or the pulse of American ideology.

The ONLY measure of that is the overall total (aka, "popular") vote and that was for Hillary by millions.

You're looking at a sliver and calling it a forest. It simply is pure sophistry.

He did hit Hillary where she failed to campaign.

Yes you and many others have repeated that sophistry many times and it is always disproven by the fact that both candidates campaigned extensively in Pennsylvania, but Clinton lost and Trump out-campaigned Clinton in Colorado--which had the largest gap of any state where the candidates spent their time--and it remained firmly blue, with Clinton winning it by about the same margin that Obama won it in 2012.

So why the fuck would her not being in one State matter when it didn't matter in others?

He did bring a populous message while she brought an establishment one.

All of which is irrelevant. The measure of the PREFERENCE OF THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE is what matters in regard to the political ideological "pulse" of the largest percentages of Americans.

There is no way around that. It is the superior measurement, regardless of the fact that he's president by a technicality.
 
Last edited:
Then you've just conceded that it can't be a measure of superior strategy as much as it is pure dumb luck.

Most of what Trump does is dumb. So what? Hillary lost the election to this dumb guy, and now you all have to call him Mr. President.

Regardless, even with the knowledge of clandestine Russian interference, there would still be no possible way for him to strategize a sure win, so looking at the after math--especially when it's statistically nonexistent--can't possible be attributed to anything other than external forces and not anything that reflects on the candidate himself.

He was a BAD candidate, not a good one. His approval numbers were very low. But so were hers. She managed to lose the election to him.

The implication is that he somehow knew the winds of change

Who alleged that? He was a faux populist pushing a message of Make America Great Again. And he was against politics as usual and he was brash and people took that as him being less phony (even though he was and is phony). He's always been a dumb egomaniac. Hillary lost to this dumb egomaniac.

You're looking at a sliver and calling it a forest. It simply is pure sophistry.

That's exactly what you are doing. You have President Donald Trump, not President Hillary Clinton, but you are trying to spin it that she won and didn't fail.

He did bring a populous message while she brought an establishment one.

All of which is irrelevant. The measure of the PREFERENCE OF THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE is what matters in regard to the political ideological "pulse" of the largest percentages of Americans.

No. What matters is who wins. That's how you got the current president and his policies being implemented. Congratulations.
 
Hillary lost the election to this dumb guy

Wrong. Again. She won the election, but due to a technicality we have to call Trump Mr. President.

Once again you are trying to imply that it was something either she did wrong or he did right when in fact it was neither.

What matters is who wins.

Thank you for perfectly demonstrating the idiotic binary sophistry in regard to "winning" of what I had thought was just American stupidity, but evidently is much more universal.
 
What matters is who wins.

Thank you for perfectly demonstrating the idiotic binary sophistry in regard to "winning" of what I had thought was just American stupidity, but evidently is much more universal.

Caring who wins isn't sophistry. It is what actually matters for who will be the President what policy will be implemented. Its the real world. Sophistry is your spinning in circles whining that Hillary got the popular vote as if that's what matters in your electoral college system.
 
JP said:
What matters is who wins.

Thank you for perfectly demonstrating the idiotic binary sophistry in regard to "winning" of what I had thought was just American stupidity, but evidently is much more universal.

Caring who wins isn't sophistry.

Thinking that there can be only one winner is. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote proves that the largest percentage of Americans wanted her as the President and not Trump. Due to an archaic technicality and .07%--a percentage that does not statistically even exist it's so small--Trump was made President instead.

Thus, it is possible to win and still lose and lose and still win.

It is what actually matters for who will be the President what policy will be implemented.

No shit. And is the sky blue too?

Per usual, that has absolutely nothing to do with the point and your derail a total waste of everyone's time. If you'll recall, I had posted (in response to Bosch's post):

Trump didn't win on merits, he won on a technicality only.

And you derailed with:

He won. She lost. Her being the Democrat nominee and failing is why Donald Trump is your president.

Which is just flat out wrong as we've both just established.
 
Per usual, that has absolutely nothing to do with the point and your derail a total waste of everyone's time. If you'll recall, I had posted (in response to Bosch's post):

Trump didn't win on merits, he won on a technicality only.

And you derailed with:

He won. She lost. Her being the Democrat nominee and failing is why Donald Trump is your president.

Which is just flat out wrong as we've both just established.

Your comment was a derail to begin with. And what I wrote is factual. She lost the election. Had somebody else run instead of her for the Democrats against Trump in the general, they could have won, and Trump may not be your President. Had she run a better campaign, she herself could have won too. She failed. Her failure brought you your current President. Congratulations.
 
Your comment was a derail to begin with.

Horseshit.

Bosch wrote:

I think that anyone who claims that the dems should have won in 2016 really doesn't understand the American system. First off, Trump beat 12 or 13 very qualified and deeply funded republicans before he turned to Clinton. Secondly, you don't understand that the system is stacked against the democrats. The republicans can win with millions of fewer voters. The republicans are incredibly united. Trump got incredible free press. Russian bots. White males have substantially more power than any other group. I can go on and on.

I added to it with:

You don't need to. Hillary won the vote, which conclusively proves she was the preferred choice and therefore the better of the two candidates. Trump didn't win on merits, he won on a technicality only.

It was, at best, an addendum to his comments.

And what I wrote is factual.

No, what you wrote was deliberately omitting a key qualifying component.To whit:

She lost the election.

She did not lose the election. The eleciont is the popular vote. What she lost was the Presidency. That happened due to a technicality that had no bearing on whether or not she was the more popular/preferred candidate.

Had somebody else run instead of her for the Democrats against Trump in the general, they could have won

Again, she did win the election, she just lost the Presidency.

Had she run a better campaign

False. Her campaign--once again--was determined to be the better, more preferred one than Trump's as measured by the only measurement that exists; the popular vote.

She failed.

False.

Her failure brought you your current President.

False again. A combination of Russian cyber warfare, the Comey letter (itself prompted by Russian cyber warfare) and pure dumb 0.7% luck--as well as millions of hate filled pig assed ignoramuses--brought us our current President. Plus a Russian fueled bitterly divisive civil war primary certainly didn't help.
 

She failed and couldn't accept that she lost. She didn't imagine she could lose. She didn't even have a concession speech prepared for the possibility. And then she went on a non-apology book tour to soothe her conscience, after her failure gave you President Trump.

Her failure brought you your current President.

False again. A combination of Russian cyber warfare, the Comey letter (itself prompted by Russian cyber warfare) and pure dumb 0.7% luck--as well as millions of hate filled pig assed ignoramuses--brought us our current President. Plus a Russian fueled bitterly divisive civil war primary certainly didn't help.

Hillary, is that you?
 
She didn't imagine she could lose.

Because she didn't. By at least 2.5 million votes. It doesn't matter how many times you falsey equivocate winning the popular vote with losing the presidency. All you're doing is proving my point that people of low intelligence can't fathom the concept of a non-binary proposition.
 
She didn't imagine she could lose.

Because she didn't. By at least 2.5 million votes. It doesn't matter how many times you falsey equivocate winning the popular vote with losing the presidency. All you're doing is proving my point that people of low intelligence can't fathom the concept of a non-binary proposition.
Hillary Clinton won the three battleground states necessary to win the election (Nevada, New Hampshire, and Virginia). What wasn't thought possible (by anyone) was winning Virginia by 5+ points and somehow losing Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
 
Here's an excellent piece on how it happened:How Russia used Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to invade our national sovereignty — and why they’ll do it again.

Snippets:

1) The social media front.

Mueller and his team exhaustively detailed the “information warfare” against the United States in Volume I, Section II of the report, specifically how the IRA infiltrated Facebook and Twitter with the intent to change the minds of voters, its propaganda targeted at Americans to either vote for Trump or against Hillary Clinton. In conjunction with the leaking of stolen emails by the Russian GRU through Julian Assange’s Wikileaks, Guccifer 2.0 and DCleaks, the IRA operated Facebook groups with hundreds of thousands of members. Mueller notes that Facebook told investigators the reach of the propaganda was anywhere from 29 million to 126 million people (page 26). Shockingly, many of the IRA’s tweets and statuses were retweeted and shared by Trump and his campaign, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, thus adding to the legitimacy of the agitprop. The fake Twitter accounts boasted tens of thousands of followers.

Sadly, there are millions of Americans who share, like and retweet without investigating whether they’re sharing foreign propaganda or fake news. Many of us recall seeing these materials in our feed — we watched it happen in real time — and anyone who’s been on social media for more than two minutes knows how influential it can be.

2) Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Perhaps one of the most outrageous sections of the Mueller Report describes contacts between Trump’s campaign chairman and convicted felon Paul Manafort and his “man in Kiev” Konstantin Kilimnik, a GRU operative and Manafort’s longtime fixer in Ukraine. Turns out, Manafort owed Russian aluminum king and Putin ally Oleg Deripaska millions of dollars, and as part of his repayment, Manafort offered Deripaska through go-between Kilminik access to Trump campaign materials. On page 140 of the Mueller Report, investigators described the following scene from August 2, 2016:

…Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafort’s plan to win the election. That briefing encompassed the Campaign’s messaging and its internal polling data. According to [deputy campaign chairman Rick] Gates, it also included discussion of “battleground” states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.

As we all know, those three states, minus Minnesota which Trump barely lost, were the clinchers for Trump. Neither Mitt Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush nor Bob Dole won any of those states in previous elections, yet we’re expected to believe Trump, of all people, accomplished what no other Republican has been able to do since 1988? Additionally, Trump won the entire trifecta by less than one percent of the popular vote — a 10,000-vote margin in Michigan, 22,000 votes in Wisconsin and about 44,000 in Pennsylvania. Around 51,000 previous Bernie Sanders supporters voted for Trump in Wisconsin, around 47,000 Sanders voters went for Trump in Michigan, and a whopping 116,000 more in Pennsylvania. In every case, we’re talking about election-altering margins, especially when we add the tens of thousands of votes for Green Party nominee Jill Stein in those states.

Now, it turns out Manafort and the Russian GRU targeted these states as clinchers. Mueller doesn’t connect the final few dots on this front, but in context of the widespread nature of the attack, it’s fair to say that Russia knew where to focus its efforts, and the bizarre election results speak for themselves.

And as we know from the House Intelligence report:

Facebook data:

As part of the Committee’s open hearing with social media companies in November 2017, the Minority used a number of advertisements as exhibits, and made others available as part of a small representative sampling. During the hearing, Committee Members noted the breadth of activity by the IRA on Facebook:

  • 3,393 advertisements purchased (a total 3,519 advertisements total were released after more were identified by the company);
  • More than 11.4 million American users exposed to those advertisements;
  • 470 IRA-created Facebook pages;
  • 80,000 pieces of organic content created by those pages; and
  • Exposure of organic content to more than 126 million Americans.
...
Twitter data:

During the Committee’s November 2017 open hearing, the Minority introduced into the record 2,752 Twitter accounts that Twitter identified as connected to the Internet Research Agency (IRA), the Kremlin-linked “troll farm.” These accounts were designed to impersonate U.S. news entities, political parties, and groups focused on social and political issues. During the hearing, the Minority also revealed a selection of Twitter advertisements paid for by Russian news outlet RT, which the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment labeled as “the Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet.”

According to data provided to the Committee by Twitter, a snapshot of relevant Twitter activity in the period between September 1 and November 15, 2016 reveals:
  • More than 36,000 Russian-linked bot accounts tweeted about the U.S. election
  • More than 36,000 Russian-linked bot accounts tweeted about the U.S. election
  • Approximately 288 million impressions of Russian bot tweets; and
  • More than 130,000 tweets by accounts linked to the IRA.

The Minority is making public an additional 1,103 accounts that were identified by Twitter subsequent to the November 1, 2017 hearing as connected to the IRA. Twitter has also informed that it removed 14 handles from the original list provided to Congress last fall, yielding an updated total of 3,841 Twitter accounts affiliated with the IRA.

So that's 126 million Americans exposed to organic content (which means they thought it was from a friend or friend of a friend and therefore far more influential) and 288 million Twitter impressions (impressions on Twitter are the number of times a post shows up in someone's feed, not necessarily that the someone read it, but, again, we're talking about organic efforts, so it's a tweet that came from a friend or friend of a friend, so chances are good you saw it).

And of course this is only the tip of the iceberg as I've shown in great lengths in my thread Russian Influence Measured, but it's worth noting here the findings of one study (the OCSD study conducted in 2012 on 61-million Facebook users) that quantified the influence of just ONE Facebook post specifically in regard to influencing a friend or friend of a friend to actually cast a vote:

The effect of social transmission on real-world voting was greater than the direct effect of the messages themselves...Our results suggest that the Facebook social message increased turnout directly by about 60,000 voters and indirectly through social contagion by another 280,000 voters, for a total of 340,000 additional votes...This means it is possible that more of the 0.60% growth in turnout between 2006 and 2010 might have been caused by a single message on Facebook.

Again, that's the result of just ONE organic Facebook post and the reason it's so large is because the pool of users was 61 million. So when we're talking about thousands of posts reaching 126 million people on Facebook alone (and another 288 million on Twitter and more on additional sites not listed here), we have already vastly surpassed the much much smaller number of voters that tipped the scales in those handful of counties in just three states.

And while it's not a smoking gun, it abundantly proves the point that such a massive attack alone could have accounted for the suppression of black male voters (in particular) and increase in white non-college educated voters in rural "rust belt" states that in turn caused what would have otherwise been a massive landslide victory for Hillary on the order of some 75 million votes.

As it stands, however, Hillary Clinton received nearly as many votes as Obama did in 2012, thereby making her victory over Trump in the popular vote the third largest turnout in regard to raw votes in all of US history.

In short, she received more raw votes than any other white male President.
 
Back
Top Bottom