Hillary won more votes for President

Free

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

I really can't believe how this is still a relevant thread.
I mean who cares?
Those numbers are phoney bologna.
If they were correct Hillary would be POTUS right?
my god

mcgruff10

what's the update to date numbers? +3million by now?

PJ_Soul

mcgruff10 said:

what's the update to date numbers? +3million by now?

2.56 million as of yesterday.

PJfanwillneverleave1

^^^
And?

JC29856

GERMAN GOV’T GAVE $5 MILLION TO CLINTON FOUNDATION ‘AT HEIGHT OF THE US ELECTIONS’

HILLARY Clinton is facing a backlash in Germany after it was revealed the country’s taxpayers handed over £4million to her foundation via the government at the height of the US elections.

According to reports, the failed Democratic nominee’s US-based charity received the cash to help plant trees in Africa at exactly the time she declared Angela Merkel her “favourite” politician.

JC29856

RUSSIAN GOV’T GAVE $5 MILLION TO TRUMP ORGANIZATION AT HEIGHT OF THE US ELECTIONS’

Donald Trump is facing a backlash in Russia after it was revealed the country’s taxpayers handed over RUB315million to his foundation via the government at the height of the US elections.

According to reports, the successful Republican nominee’s US-based charity received the cash to help build schools in Africa at exactly the time he declared Vladimir Putin "a good friend".

rgambs

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

I really can't believe how this is still a relevant thread.
I mean who cares?
Those numbers are phoney bologna.
If they were correct Hillary would be POTUS right?
my god

They are fact.

dignin

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

I really can't believe how this is still a relevant thread.
I mean who cares?
Those numbers are phoney bologna.
If they were correct Hillary would be POTUS right?
my god

They are fact.

Haven't you got the memo? Facts are officially a matter of opinion in the USA now.

Good luck gambs.

JimmyV

2,597,156

JC29856

JimmyV said:

2,597,156

I'm thinking something is awry...too too many voters suddenly decide to wait in lines only to vote down ticket? I think not, seems very Rove-ian although I know he wasn't involved in the Trump campaign.

rgambs

dignin said:

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

I really can't believe how this is still a relevant thread.
I mean who cares?
Those numbers are phoney bologna.
If they were correct Hillary would be POTUS right?
my god

They are fact.

Haven't you got the memo? Facts are officially a matter of opinion in the USA now.

Good luck gambs.

Thanks, we are gonna need luck in this post-truth America.

JimmyV

2,653,958

Jason P

JimmyV said:

2,653,958

232

JimmyV

Jason P said:

JimmyV said:

2,653,958

232

Somehow both exactly the point and completely beside the point. Exactly the point in that we choose the President via the Electoral College and the Clinton machine failed to run a campaign that competed there. Completely beside the point in that "232" speaks not at all to the number of Americans who chose Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

Jason P

JimmyV said:

Jason P said:

JimmyV said:

2,653,958

232

Somehow both exactly the point and completely beside the point. Exactly the point in that we choose the President via the Electoral College and the Clinton machine failed to run a campaign that competed there. Completely beside the point in that "232" speaks not at all to the number of Americans who chose Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

In any election you are going to have 55 - 65 million souls that feel you do not speak for them. That is a significant number of souls.

She had been meticulously planning this for the past 16 years so I think her team should have had a clear grasp on the electoral college.

Jason P

Also note that neither candidate gained the approval of the majority of Americans.

JimmyV

Jason P said:

JimmyV said:

Jason P said:

JimmyV said:

2,653,958

232

Somehow both exactly the point and completely beside the point. Exactly the point in that we choose the President via the Electoral College and the Clinton machine failed to run a campaign that competed there. Completely beside the point in that "232" speaks not at all to the number of Americans who chose Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

In any election you are going to have 55 - 65 million souls that feel you do not speak for them. That is a significant number of souls.

She had been meticulously planning this for the past 16 years so I think her team should have had a clear grasp on the electoral college.

I don't disagree. There is no excuse for going after a blowout win without first making sure you have secured THE WIN. At the same time, that 55-65 million number is usually less than the number on the winning side. Not the case this time.

mace1229

Just me, or anyone else find it amusing that anyone who speaks ill of Hilary gets jumped all over and told "what difference does it make at this point?" but then go on complaining about Trump and how Hilary should ne POTUS. Irony.

Gern Blansten

mace1229 said:

Just me, or anyone else find it amusing that anyone who speaks ill of Hilary gets jumped all over and told "what difference does it make at this point?" but then go on complaining about Trump and how Hilary should ne POTUS. Irony.

Where is that happening? I don't see it on here.

mace1229

On this page and the previous page, on multiple posts.

Gern Blansten

Jason P said:

Also note that neither candidate gained the approval of the majority of Americans.

uh....of the people that voted one candidate clearly got the majority of votes.

Gern Blansten

mace1229 said:

On this page and the previous page, on multiple posts.

Focus on this page....none

Jason P

Gern Blansten said:

Jason P said:

Also note that neither candidate gained the approval of the majority of Americans.

uh....of the people that voted one candidate clearly got the majority of votes.

I was defining majority as more then half.

Free

Heads in the Sand

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/12/06/heads-sand

It seems that many Democrats are determined not to change, not to learn any lessons from the 2016 election. Instead of trying to figure out what went wrong, they are clinging to denial and self-righteousness. During the election, “I’m With Her” was used to silence internal opposition. Gung-ho Democrats dismissed the idea that liberals could have legitimate qualms about full throated support for Hillary because of her war-mongering, close relationship with Wall Street, and only passing concern for the economic struggles of large segments of the population.

Progressives who were not entirely with her were told that they were sexist or were guilty of having internalized the attacks that the right had level against the Clintons over the years. Even when Hillary stumbled, the left rushed to her defense rather than acknowledge the establishment’s dangerous self-righteousness. And it is worth being clear, despite protests to the contrary that attempted to justify Hillary’s position, characterizing half of Trump supporters as “deplorables” who are “irredeemable” was and is the sort of holier-than-thou perspective that contributes to the sad state of the Democratic Party.

Within the echo chamber of the coastal elites, a steady stream of Facebook posts deny the reality that Republicans won and won big in 2016. A steady diet of stories touts everything from Clinton’s numerical victory in the polls and the role of gerrymandering in this election to the rise in discrimination after the election and the possibility that the Electoral College might reject Trump on principle. What is missing is the recognition that the Democratic Party needs to change even if all these things are true.

As the media has not tired of reporting, at a recent event, hosted not surprisingly at Harvard, the Clinton and Trump campaign managers got in a fight over whether Trump won because of racism or because of his message. It is easier for liberals to chalk up the stunning defeat in November to racism, sexism, zenophobia, and ignorance than it is to admit weaknesses in the Democratic Party and in the Party’s approach. Put differently, what does it say about the Democratic Party that Republicans, marching behind a transparently ridiculous and dangerous buffoon, were able to gain control over all branches of the national government and a majority of state governments? The head in the sand response is to attribute the election results to a victory by America’s deplorables, but a better response when one fails is to figure out what went wrong and try something new going forward.

Democrats may not be able to change all parts of the American political landscape—the Republican party will likely continue to rely in part on race-baiting to win votes—but Democrats can be a more honest and less self-righteous about what went wrong. Establishment Democrats are trying desperately to turn attention away from the 2016 loss. The large orange-haired, instable elephant in the room undoubtedly represents a grave threat not only to the social safety net but also to the country itself. But unless Democrats present an alternative version of progress, it will be hard to fight against the “greatness” Trump is promising.

Hillary’s basic campaign message—I’m better than him—was accurate but hardly inspiring.

But even writing that risks the wrath of party hacks who pounce on anybody who does not stick to the party line. Just as conservatives who put the country above the Republican Party should already be acting to reign in Trump’s behavior and police his conflicts of interest, progressives should have been horrified by the Democratic Party’s favoritism during the primaries and the cheating—passing along questions to candidate Clinton before a debate—by the current interim chair of the Democratic National Committee during the campaign. The protest that these are false equivalents, that the Republicans are much worse, is only momentarily satisfying, for it cannot disguise the fact that the Democratic Party is in shambles.

The Clinton era is over and hopefully so too is the strategy of triangulation. It is time for the Democratic Party to unapologetically return to those values—a commitment to economic and racial equality on the domestic front and to being a voice for peace not for war in foreign affairs—that were core values of the Party but that have gotten a bit tarnished with time. Egomaniacs tend either to believe that they are infallible or to blame their failures on others, but Democrats cannot afford—more importantly, the poor, the vulnerable, and the country cannot afford—to let the party elite’s self-righteousness prevent progressives from reflecting critically on the 2016 election and making necessary course corrections as far as the Democratic Party’s orientation.

Gern Blansten

Dems needed the wake up call...no doubt. I do believe that Sanders would have beat Trump soundly.

The bottom line is that the average American voter is much more ignorant than I think anyone could have imagined.

JimmyV

2,672,911

JimmyV

I don't know for sure that Sanders would have won. It would have been a tough campaign with different attacks than we saw. BUT...I do know he would have competed for every vote in Wisconsin and Michigan. His message would have resonated in Iowa and Ohio, too. A Sanders loss would not look like this Clinton loss in the EC.

JC29856

JC29856

this might help warm the bones, certainly provide a chuckle or two

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMZe4MyPAn4&feature=youtu.be

JimmyV

2,775,035