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

Hillary Clinton Derail From Religion Of Libertarianism

All that tells me is that she lost the game she set out to play with full knowledge of the rules

How would that have mattered?

Seriously? Trump is your President. It mattered.

What happened to result in a technical EC shift was a less than 1% voting differential in certain key counties in just three states.

That she thought she had in the bag and didn't bother to visit.

Absolutely no "knowledge of the rules" was at play in such a unique anomalous situation, including, as has often been asserted, the notion that her "ground game" (aka, EC game) was off in some manner. It wasn't. There were many issues that culminated in that miniscule sliver, most prominent among them being a latent as well as blatant racism/sexism among Dem-leaning old white people in rural counties combined with a "Hillary has it locked/Trump can't possibly win/No reason to vote, because I live in a Blue State" attitude in larger populated urban counties.

Or maybe, just maybe, because she failed to motivate people to come out to vote? You know, like Obama, the black Obama, had?

I do agree that there was a "Hillary has it locked" feeling her self-entitlement and the media backing her exuded.

No "knowledge of the rules" or subsequent change in her "ground game" could have effected either of those conditions.

I didn't say she lacked knowledge of the rules. I said she had full knowledge of the rules. She knew the game she was playing, and she lost it.

We have never been a Democracy. We are a Republic.

Yet you keep droning on about her "winning" because she got more votes. She didn't win. She lost, Tremendously. It was a Huge upset, Believe Me. And she failed to Make America Great Again.
 
In no way did she "violate" any such thing as there was nothing official to "violate":...

Dude

Dude.

she passed classified material via unauthorized means.

"Unauthorized" by whom?

That's illegal.

No, it was not. What is illegal would be deliberately releasing classified information to the general public.

EDIT: note that your link was written in 2015, long before Comey testified about her investigation.

Irrelevant to the point that it supported.
 
Always an amusing moment in history.

For those who supported Trump, I imagine it was absolutely hilarious and better than Chirstmas morning is for kids.

For Hillary supporters, I imagine it felt like the end of the world.

And for those of us who voted for her because she was just a giant douche and not literally a turd sandwich, we were the most bitter tears of all. I'd rather take a douche than swallow a turd sandwich, after all.
 
Seriously?

Specifically.

Trump is your President. It mattered.

You avoided the point. "Knowledge of the rules" would not have in any way changed the outcome.

What happened to result in a technical EC shift was a less than 1% voting differential in certain key counties in just three states.

That she thought she had in the bag and didn't bother to visit.

False. She visited every Blue state many times throughout the primary. She didn't re-visit ONE of the contested States--Wisconsin--because her campaign felt other states (like Iowa and Florida) were more important AND they had both Obama and Sanders (who took the state in the primaries) campaigning in Wisconsin for her. The sophistry of such illogic was eloquently summed up by Nate Silver (emphasis mine):

There are several major problems with the idea that Clinton’s Electoral College tactics cost her the election. For one thing, winning Wisconsin and Michigan — states that Clinton is rightly accused of ignoring — would not have sufficed to win her the Electoral College. She’d also have needed Pennsylvania, Florida or another state where she campaigned extensively. For another, Clinton spent almost twice as much money as Trump on her campaign in total. So even if she devoted a smaller share of her budget to a particular state or a particular activity, it may nonetheless have amounted to more resources overall (5 percent of a $969 million budget is more than 8 percent of a $531 million one).

But most importantly, the changes in the vote from 2012 to 2016 are much better explained by demographics than by where the campaigns spent their time and money. Let me start with a couple of simple comparisons that I think pretty convincingly demonstrate this, and then we’ll attempt a more rigorous approach.

Comparison No. 1: Clinton spent literally no time in Wisconsin, whereas Trump repeatedly campaigned in the state. Wisconsin turned red. But so did Pennsylvania, where both candidates campaigned extensively. Trump’s margin of victory in each state was almost identical, in fact — 0.8 percentage points in Wisconsin and 0.7 percentage points in Pennsylvania. That strongly implies that the demographic commonalities between Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — both of them have lots of white voters without college degrees — mattered a lot more than the difference in campaign tactics.

Comparison No. 2: As I mentioned, Trump campaigned a lot more than Clinton in Wisconsin, and it turned red. But Trump also campaigned a lot more than Clinton in Colorado — it actually had the largest gap of any state in where the candidates spent their time. Colorado remained blue, however, with Clinton winning it by about the same margin that Obama won it by in 2012. The difference is that Colorado has relatively few white voters without college degrees, while Wisconsin has lots of them. Again, that strongly implies that demographics rather than campaign tactics drove the shift in the results.​
...
In Pennsylvania, for instance, the share of white voters without college degrees is well above average so the model expects an above-average shift toward Trump. And that’s exactly what happened, of course: Trump won Pennsylvania by about 1 percentage point, right in line with the model’s expectations. Wisconsin? Clinton’s roughly 1-point loss there is actually a tick better than the 3-point loss the regression model projects. The model also projects Michigan, Minnesota and Florida to be photo finishes, as they were. It has Trump favored in New Hampshire, which has a lot of white voters without college degrees, so that may have been a state where Clinton’s ground game did save her.

On the flip side, the regression correctly projects Clinton to roughly replicate Obama’s numbers in Colorado and Virginia, as she did — even though Trump spent much more time than she did in those states. With one or two exceptions, such as Hawaii, it also does a good job with red states and blue states — for instance, in capturing the big shift toward Trump in Maine and the one toward Clinton in Texas.

To be clear, these are after-the-fact projections done with knowledge of how the actual vote turned out, as opposed to pre-election predictions. But the regression is able to figure all of this out without giving any consideration to how Clinton and Trump spent their time and money. Instead, it can explain the Electoral College drop-off Clinton experienced relative to Obama based on some simple demographic variables and the 2012 vote alone. That suggests that either the ground game didn’t matter much — or that Clinton’s ground game advantage was as large as Obama’s was after all.

Regardless and once again to the point, how would that have changed racist's/misogynist's minds and/or the feeling that Hillary had a lock/Trump couldn't possibly win?

Absolutely no "knowledge of the rules" was at play in such a unique anomalous situation, including, as has often been asserted, the notion that her "ground game" (aka, EC game) was off in some manner. It wasn't. There were many issues that culminated in that miniscule sliver, most prominent among them being a latent as well as blatant racism/sexism among Dem-leaning old white people in rural counties combined with a "Hillary has it locked/Trump can't possibly win/No reason to vote, because I live in a Blue State" attitude in larger populated urban counties.

Or maybe, just maybe, because she failed to motivate people to come out to vote? You know, like Obama, the black Obama, had?

She matched Obama from 2012. She didn't match him from 2008, because 2008 was a blowout record smashing election.

Here is her account:

Critics point to her lack of a trip to Wisconsin following the party conventions as proof that she did not take the idea of potentially losing those crucial states seriously, but Clinton said that idea is without merit, saying "we didn't ignore those states."

The former secretary of state wrote that in Pennsylvania, her team had 120 more staffers on the ground than President Barack Obama did four years earlier and spent 211% more on TV ads. She noted that she held more than 25 campaign events in the Keystone State while having major surrogates like Obama and Vice President Joe Biden make appearances as well.

She also noted that in Michigan, she had about 140 more staffers on the ground than Obama in 2012, spent 166% more on TV ads, and made seven visits during the general election campaign.

"We lost both states, but no one can say we weren't doing everything possible to compete and win," she wrote.

On Wisconsin, Clinton said it was the "one place where we were caught by surprise."

She said her team deployed 133 staffers to the Badger State and spent $3 million on TV ads, "but if our data (or anyone else's) had shown we were in danger, of course we would have invested even more."

"I would have torn up my schedule, which was designed based on the best information we had, and camped out there," she wrote.

Clinton pointed to new voter ID laws in the state as a strong reason for why she lost Wisconsin.

"Bear in mind that Trump received roughly the same number of votes in Wisconsin that Mitt Romney did," she wrote, referring to the 2012 Republican presidential nominee. "There was no surge in Republican turnout. Instead, enough voters switched, stayed home, or went for third parties in the final days to cost me the state."

"Here's the bottom line: I campaigned heavily across Pennsylvania, had an aggressive ground game and lots of advertising, and still lost by 44,000 votes, more than the margin in Wisconsin and Michigan combined," she continued. "So it's just not credible that the best explanation for the outcome in those states — and therefore the election — was where I held rallies."

Precisely.

I didn't say she lacked knowledge of the rules. I said she had full knowledge of the rules. She knew the game she was playing, and she lost it.

Nice backpedal! And what I said was that knowing the game had nothing to do with a less than 1% statistical anomaly that resulted in the fact that some 40,000 votes in three states counted more than some 3,000,000 in another, thereby granting Trump the presidency in spite of the clear fact that Clinton was the preferred candidate by the largest percentage of voters.

We have never been a Democracy. We are a Republic.

Yet you keep droning on about her "winning" because she got more votes.

Correct. Which is true. That, however, has nothing to do with the fact that you evidently mistook the US for a Democracy. Did you mean to imply something in regard to the popular vote with that remark, as that too would have nothing to do with the fact that her winning the popular vote proves conclusively that she was the preferred candidate by the largest percentage of voters?

She didn't win.

False. She isn't President, which is a different matter. She won the vote, which, once again, is all that matters in regard to which candidate/policies were the preferred ones by the largest percentage of voters.
 
Last edited:
She won the vote.

That, in a presidential election, might get you a latte, if you add $2.75

AND it gets you a clear indication of who the largest percentage of voters preferred. A fact that I keep having to point out for some bizarre reason as it is straightforward, obvious and all important when discussing who the largest percentage of voters prefer.
 
Always an amusing moment in history.

For those who supported Trump, I imagine it was absolutely hilarious and better than Chirstmas morning is for kids.

For Hillary supporters, I imagine it felt like the end of the world.

TBH, I couldn't hold my nose long enough to vote for either deplorable, so I voted Third Party. OTOH, I'm glad Trump beat Hillary in the election. Yes, it was like the end of the world for them:

Hillary supporter-1.jpgHillary supporter-2.jpg
 
Always an amusing moment in history.

For those who supported Trump, I imagine it was absolutely hilarious and better than Chirstmas morning is for kids.

For Hillary supporters, I imagine it felt like the end of the world.

And for those of us who voted for her because she was just a giant douche and not literally a turd sandwich, we were the most bitter tears of all. I'd rather take a douche than swallow a turd sandwich, after all.

Then there's those of us who want to do neither and prefer an honest, qualified leader not just the douche or turd handed to us to consume.

- - - Updated - - -

She won the vote.

That, in a presidential election, might get you a latte, if you add $2.75 .
This time around, the vote is being rigged and the left suppressed, so the right might well win "the vote", and this time it matters, since there is no EC.

The LW "popular vote" meme is a subtle attack to further chip away at the Constitution, a common aim of the LW. What passes for "modern liberals" today are, undoubtedly causing the true Liberal founders of our nation to roll in their graves.
 
And for those of us who voted for her because she was just a giant douche and not literally a turd sandwich, we were the most bitter tears of all. I'd rather take a douche than swallow a turd sandwich, after all.

Then there's those of us who want to do neither and prefer an honest, qualified leader not just the douche or turd handed to us to consume.

- - - Updated - - -

She won the vote.

That, in a presidential election, might get you a latte, if you add $2.75 .
This time around, the vote is being rigged and the left suppressed, so the right might well win "the vote", and this time it matters, since there is no EC.

The LW "popular vote" meme is a subtle attack to further chip away at the Constitution, a common aim of the LW. What passes for "modern liberals" today are, undoubtedly causing the true Liberal founders of our nation to roll in their graves.

Excepting, of course, that you do seem to be consuming a whole turd sandwich.
 
The LW "popular vote" meme is a subtle attack to further chip away at the Constitution

How so? This should be mildly amusing.
:eating_popcorn:

Are you an American? You obviously know very little about the US Constitution. Here, let me help you understand:

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
...

Twelfth Amendment
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

- - - Updated - - -

Then there's those of us who want to do neither and prefer an honest, qualified leader not just the douche or turd handed to us to consume.

- - - Updated - - -

She won the vote.

That, in a presidential election, might get you a latte, if you add $2.75 .
This time around, the vote is being rigged and the left suppressed, so the right might well win "the vote", and this time it matters, since there is no EC.

The LW "popular vote" meme is a subtle attack to further chip away at the Constitution, a common aim of the LW. What passes for "modern liberals" today are, undoubtedly causing the true Liberal founders of our nation to roll in their graves.

Excepting, of course, that you do seem to be consuming a whole turd sandwich.

Why do you think so?...or are you claiming you are too?
 
And for those of us who voted for her because she was just a giant douche and not literally a turd sandwich, we were the most bitter tears of all. I'd rather take a douche than swallow a turd sandwich, after all.

Then there's those of us who want to do neither and prefer an honest, qualified leader not just the douche or turd handed to us to consume.

- - - Updated - - -

She won the vote.

That, in a presidential election, might get you a latte, if you add $2.75 .
This time around, the vote is being rigged and the left suppressed, so the right might well win "the vote", and this time it matters, since there is no EC.

The LW "popular vote" meme is a subtle attack to further chip away at the Constitution, a common aim of the LW. What passes for "modern liberals" today are, undoubtedly causing the true Liberal founders of our nation to roll in their graves.

Excepting, of course, that you do seem to be consuming a whole turd sandwich, and after talking about 'how you don't want to do either', and then harp further on those who point out that our voting system is broken with cries about 'but muh constitutionally enshrined voting system'.

You can either decry our voting system for putting you in the position of choosing between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, and thus decry our constitution for its antiquated bullshit (and thus accept that there may be some validity of those who decry it for having produced "turd sandwich"), or be satisfied with choosing between douches and turds and take the least objectionable. You cont get to have it both ways.one.
 
Then there's those of us who want to do neither and prefer an honest, qualified leader not just the douche or turd handed to us to consume.

- - - Updated - - -

She won the vote.

That, in a presidential election, might get you a latte, if you add $2.75 .
This time around, the vote is being rigged and the left suppressed, so the right might well win "the vote", and this time it matters, since there is no EC.

The LW "popular vote" meme is a subtle attack to further chip away at the Constitution, a common aim of the LW. What passes for "modern liberals" today are, undoubtedly causing the true Liberal founders of our nation to roll in their graves.

Excepting, of course, that you do seem to be consuming a whole turd sandwich, and after talking about 'how you don't want to do either', and then harp further on those who point out that our voting system is broken with cries about 'but muh constitutionally enshrined voting system'.

You can either decry our voting system for putting you in the position of choosing between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, and thus decry our constitution for its antiquated bullshit (and thus accept that there may be some validity of those who decry it for having produced "turd sandwich"), or be satisfied with choosing between douches and turds and take the least objectionable. You cont get to have it both ways.one.

You're still pushing the "either/or" meme. That's fine.
 
3) If even secure government systems have been hacked, smart people realize that Hillary's unsecure system would be a cakewalk for the Chinese.

Her system was not "unsecure." It just wasn't a government server. Once again, government servers are NOT magical impenetrable servers.

Perhaps even more importantly, her server was not hacked.

According to the report, an FBI forensics agent told the IG’s office that he was “fairly confident that there wasn’t an intrusion,” and a letterhead memorandum, or LHM, summarizing the FBI’s findings said there was no “evidence confirming that Clinton’s email server systems were compromised by cyber means.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/14/doj-watchdog-james-comey-hillary-clinton-server-647020
 
Are you an American? You obviously know very little about the US Constitution.

I so dearly love it when DK kicks in.

Here, let me help you understand:

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
...*snip*...


Awww. All you did was quote the Constitution. What you DID NOT do is go into the fact that the EC has been castrated by nearly every state since its inception and that almost none of them allow their electors to go faithless. Do you know what that means and why it's important?

:eating_popcorn:
 
Are you an American? You obviously know very little about the US Constitution.

I so dearly love it when DK kicks in.

Here, let me help you understand:

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
...*snip*...


Awww. All you did was quote the Constitution. What you DID NOT do is go into the fact that the EC has been castrated by nearly every state since its inception and that almost none of them allow their electors to go faithless. Do you know what that means and why it's important?

:eating_popcorn:


I provide facts and you provide insults and sarcasm. Fascinating!
 
I so dearly love it when DK kicks in.



Awww. All you did was quote the Constitution. What you DID NOT do is go into the fact that the EC has been castrated by nearly every state since its inception and that almost none of them allow their electors to go faithless. Do you know what that means and why it's important?

:eating_popcorn:

I provide facts and you provide insults and sarcasm. Fascinating! and wild unsubstantiated claims about the "LW"
Fify
 
Then there's those of us who want to do neither and prefer an honest, qualified leader not just the douche or turd handed to us to consume.

- - - Updated - - -

That, in a presidential election, might get you a latte, if you add $2.75 .
This time around, the vote is being rigged and the left suppressed, so the right might well win "the vote", and this time it matters, since there is no EC.

The LW "popular vote" meme is a subtle attack to further chip away at the Constitution, a common aim of the LW. What passes for "modern liberals" today are, undoubtedly causing the true Liberal founders of our nation to roll in their graves.

Excepting, of course, that you do seem to be consuming a whole turd sandwich, and after talking about 'how you don't want to do either', and then harp further on those who point out that our voting system is broken with cries about 'but muh constitutionally enshrined voting system'.

You can either decry our voting system for putting you in the position of choosing between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, and thus decry our constitution for its antiquated bullshit (and thus accept that there may be some validity of those who decry it for having produced "turd sandwich"), or be satisfied with choosing between douches and turds and take the least objectionable. You cont get to have it both ways.one.

You're still pushing the "either/or" meme. That's fine.

You seem to be ignoring the statistical facts of our system: the FPTP system involving an electoral college is designed in such a way that there isn't really any way for alternative options to not be automatically self-defeating; any dissent from the core of a party will automatically split the bloc necessary to defeat the opposition.

So if you do not support a world where the options are 'douche' and 'turd', you must at a BARE minimum, reject the system of FPTP, which the EC clearly is. Full stop, right there. You have decried the results, while decrying those who object to the very system that produces those results. You CANNOT have it both ways.
 
Back
Top Bottom