|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 2, 2016 8:31:51 GMT -5
www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/politics/clinton-trump-harvard/index.htmlThe discussions mirror pretty much every pre and post election flame war on the internet... And so forth and so on. But the Clinton team held on to the Comey letter as a game-changer. I know I misread the election; I didn't think Trump could win, I thought it would be a miracle if he even made the Electoral College numbers close. But my sense is--after the fact--that it wasn't the letter at all, that there were a lot more closet Trump supporters in critical States than anyone realized and that they had been there all along. I don't think there was any real movement in this regard. Anyway, I'm not particularly impressed with either team here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 2, 2016 8:54:03 GMT -5
I have a feeling it's a bit of both. Clinton was a weak candidate, and all those controversies, wherever you stand, did add up.
Trump did clearly use language that was heard as a dog whistle.
It was always a race to the bottom.
Like you, I didn't think Trump could possibly win, but I think that there were people who when polled said they wouldn't vote Trump and yet intended to. I also think that for the late breakers, Clinton was the known entity. Almost like an incumbent. If she didn't sell you on her by election day, she wasn't going to, and people broke for Trump.
I know a few people who voted Trump, not because they didn't think he was bad, but they felt she was worse. It was a "You know what you're getting with her and it's not good"
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 2, 2016 10:14:59 GMT -5
Regardless of causes, it bugs me that they couldn't behave better. From what I've read, both sides were behaving like children. Or like adults on the internet.
And I guess the last is kinda my point/angle: is the course of this meeting evidence that the internet is conditioning behavior? Would this kind of back forth taken place between advisers of past campaigns? Or is it because this election was just so divisive all on its own?
|
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Dec 2, 2016 10:57:19 GMT -5
The phrase this is a whole lot of nothing seems appropriate here. A pox on both their houses.
Who cares what the losing side thinks? Save it for the books written by the campaign insiders I probably won't read anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 2, 2016 11:00:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 2, 2016 11:20:06 GMT -5
Sure they did. Part of that was because of ratings , because you can't not watch a wreck. But a large part was that they wanted Trump to win the nomination because they believed, as did we all, that Clinton would trounce him. Guess that part didn't work out so well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 2, 2016 21:59:00 GMT -5
I think the pollsters need to re-think their polling techniques. (Make it real simple: Question #1, are you going to vote? Answer no, thank you for your time. Answer yes, Question #2, who are you going to vote for? List candidates with corresponding numbers. THE END.)
I think that, based on poll reports, a lot of people figured Clinton would win and didn't bother voting to make sure. Clinton's support certainly wasn't overwhelmingly enthusiastic, regardless. A few of the states that flipped weren't even predicted to possibly do so... why would anyone anti-Trump be concerned about a flip in their state when there was nothing to be concerned about?
Also, I read an interesting statistic (somewhere) that only 20% of the time the party in power stays in power where two new candidates are up for election. A flip was likely based on that statistic alone.
But yes, I agree with rob, no amount of last minute "sabotage" was to blame for Clinton's loss.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 8, 2016 9:34:17 GMT -5
An op-ed from one of the participants in the event: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-campaign-lost-the-election-but-trumps-team-must-own-up-to-how-he-won/2016/12/07/4a6a4c24-bcbd-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.494151959647Jennifer Palmieri, communications director for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, had a back and forth with Kellyanne Conway (whom I personally cannot stand) and wrote this op-ed as a defense, of sorts. But it's hysterical imo, and not in a good way. She opens thusly: She then proceeds to demonstrate that she has absolutely no idea how to be a gracious loser, whatsoever. She whines about the popular vote and she offers one of the dumbest "facts" that I've seen in this regard, that "Clinton got more votes than any white man in history." What a dumb "fact." Yes, it's true. Clinton got more votes than any candidate ever has, aside from Obama. But Trump got more votes than any candidate ever has, aside from Obama and Clinton. This "fact" is simply a consequence of population growth. And it really irks me that this stat is being used as a "gotcha" moment. Just for point of info, JFK got some 34 million votes in 1960. The US voting age population was 110 million then. That's 31% of the VAP voting Kennedy. In 2016, the VAP is around 251 million and Clinton got 64 million. That's 25% of the VAP. That's big difference. Huge, actually. From there, the piece goes on to talk about David Duke and the KKK. How gracious. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2016 9:43:38 GMT -5
I hate out-of-context facts.
I detest whiny losers.
I loathe Kellyanne Conway.
(I cannot even enjoy the prospect of likely seeing less of Debbie Wasserman Shultz, whome I also loathe, given that I will see more of Conway. At least Trump's state of the union addresses will provide drinking game fodder.)
|
|
