Hillary won more votes for President

1300301303305306325

Comments

  • what dreamswhat dreams Posts: 1,761

    ^^^
    Had the party beat up Clinton w/ public outcry on how to stop Trump, it may have turned things.
    But instead they sat back because they had it in the bag.
    Liberal pothead laziness.

    This is what the right wing is saying over and over but it isn't true. Clinton never talked like she had it in the bag. The polling suggested she did. The polls were correct except for MI, WI and PA. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
    You need to look at the evidence and stop vomiting that bullshit over and over.
    PLUS: It is now very clear that the Comey letter had a major impact on the election. It is also starting to become apparent that the Russian influence had an effect. We saw it on here...post after post about leaked emails that had no substance at all.
    Clinton never talked like it no, she acted liked it.
    Polls are best friends to liberals hence the perception that Hillary would win.
    You need to look at the evidence that Hillary lost even w/ 3mil more votes than the current President-elect Trump. Stop and think about that.
    Trump had it in the bag the whole time and Hillary knew it but would not dare tell the people on the ground working for her.


    Oh, yes, I forgot. You know what Hillary knew but wouldn't tell us. You had these secret conversations with her the whole time. She told you to tell us what she wouldn't, but we wouldn't listen to you, either, so what does it matter.

    Oh my gosh. Trump is right about one damn thing. The election is over.

    I for one am staying involved at the local level. I'm even thinking about running for office myself. Fuck it. Why not?
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    Is anyone tuned into msnbc?
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    JC29856 said:

    Is anyone tuned into msnbc?

    Love the format.

  • ^^^
    Had the party beat up Clinton w/ public outcry on how to stop Trump, it may have turned things.
    But instead they sat back because they had it in the bag.
    Liberal pothead laziness.

    This is what the right wing is saying over and over but it isn't true. Clinton never talked like she had it in the bag. The polling suggested she did. The polls were correct except for MI, WI and PA. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
    You need to look at the evidence and stop vomiting that bullshit over and over.
    PLUS: It is now very clear that the Comey letter had a major impact on the election. It is also starting to become apparent that the Russian influence had an effect. We saw it on here...post after post about leaked emails that had no substance at all.
    Clinton never talked like it no, she acted liked it.
    Polls are best friends to liberals hence the perception that Hillary would win.
    You need to look at the evidence that Hillary lost even w/ 3mil more votes than the current President-elect Trump. Stop and think about that.
    Trump had it in the bag the whole time and Hillary knew it but would not dare tell the people on the ground working for her.


    Oh, yes, I forgot. You know what Hillary knew but wouldn't tell us. You had these secret conversations with her the whole time. She told you to tell us what she wouldn't, but we wouldn't listen to you, either, so what does it matter.

    Oh my gosh. Trump is right about one damn thing. The election is over.

    I for one am staying involved at the local level. I'm even thinking about running for office myself. Fuck it. Why not?
    Good thinking. Clearly you can defeat President-Elect Trump.
    So what is your platform?
  • ^^^
    Had the party beat up Clinton w/ public outcry on how to stop Trump, it may have turned things.
    But instead they sat back because they had it in the bag.
    Liberal pothead laziness.

    This is what the right wing is saying over and over but it isn't true. Clinton never talked like she had it in the bag. The polling suggested she did. The polls were correct except for MI, WI and PA. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
    You need to look at the evidence and stop vomiting that bullshit over and over.
    PLUS: It is now very clear that the Comey letter had a major impact on the election. It is also starting to become apparent that the Russian influence had an effect. We saw it on here...post after post about leaked emails that had no substance at all.
    Clinton never talked like it no, she acted liked it.
    Polls are best friends to liberals hence the perception that Hillary would win.
    You need to look at the evidence that Hillary lost even w/ 3mil more votes than the current President-elect Trump. Stop and think about that.
    Trump had it in the bag the whole time and Hillary knew it but would not dare tell the people on the ground working for her.


    Oh, yes, I forgot. You know what Hillary knew but wouldn't tell us. You had these secret conversations with her the whole time. She told you to tell us what she wouldn't, but we wouldn't listen to you, either, so what does it matter.

    Oh my gosh. Trump is right about one damn thing. The election is over.

    I for one am staying involved at the local level. I'm even thinking about running for office myself. Fuck it. Why not?
    Good thinking. Clearly you can defeat President-Elect Trump.
    So what is your platform?
    Why mock someone willing to get involved civically? He sees something he doesn't like and is willing to be part of the solution instead of just talking shit on a band's message board.
  • PJfanwillneverleave1PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    edited December 2016
    ^^^
    Enough already.
    It's not mocking.
    One corner of the mouth is involved civically and the other corner wants to run for office.
    Sounds like a politician.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    Free said:

    JC29856 said:

    Is anyone tuned into msnbc?

    Love the format.

    Hillary tried to go to Wisconsin and Michigan but Russiav Russia Russia kept hacking her plane back to California and New York
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    JC29856 said:

    Free said:

    JC29856 said:

    Is anyone tuned into msnbc?

    Love the format.

    Hillary tried to go to Wisconsin and Michigan but Russiav Russia Russia kept hacking her plane back to California and New York
    Will they be airing more of these?
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,163
    On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said.

    Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so.

    In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.

    But an hour-and-a-half after polls closed, Clinton aides began making rushed calls, redrawing paths to 270 through the single electoral vote in Maine and Nebraska. Still assuming wins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Michigan suddenly looked like the state that was going to decide the presidency.

    They scrambled a call with campaign attorney Marc Elias, prepping for a recount in a vote that oddly looked like it would be a narrower win than they had ever prepared for. An hour later, after they hung up, they realized it was over. They could tell by the numbers they were seeing — not the numbers being spewed from their own internal analytics team, but the numbers sitting at the bottom of the TV tuned to CNN. With the recount frozen, Clinton lost Michigan by 10,704 votes.

    “I think it’s true, they executed well. I think it’s true that the plan was accomplished,” said a former labor leader in the state. “But the plan was not the right plan.”


    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    image
  • JC29856 said:

    image

    Why are you still peddling false shit?
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    JimmyV said:

    On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said.

    Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so.

    In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.

    But an hour-and-a-half after polls closed, Clinton aides began making rushed calls, redrawing paths to 270 through the single electoral vote in Maine and Nebraska. Still assuming wins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Michigan suddenly looked like the state that was going to decide the presidency.

    They scrambled a call with campaign attorney Marc Elias, prepping for a recount in a vote that oddly looked like it would be a narrower win than they had ever prepared for. An hour later, after they hung up, they realized it was over. They could tell by the numbers they were seeing — not the numbers being spewed from their own internal analytics team, but the numbers sitting at the bottom of the TV tuned to CNN. With the recount frozen, Clinton lost Michigan by 10,704 votes.

    “I think it’s true, they executed well. I think it’s true that the plan was accomplished,” said a former labor leader in the state. “But the plan was not the right plan.”


    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

    They simply never planned on losing.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,627
    Free said:

    JimmyV said:

    On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said.

    Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so.

    In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.

    But an hour-and-a-half after polls closed, Clinton aides began making rushed calls, redrawing paths to 270 through the single electoral vote in Maine and Nebraska. Still assuming wins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Michigan suddenly looked like the state that was going to decide the presidency.

    They scrambled a call with campaign attorney Marc Elias, prepping for a recount in a vote that oddly looked like it would be a narrower win than they had ever prepared for. An hour later, after they hung up, they realized it was over. They could tell by the numbers they were seeing — not the numbers being spewed from their own internal analytics team, but the numbers sitting at the bottom of the TV tuned to CNN. With the recount frozen, Clinton lost Michigan by 10,704 votes.

    “I think it’s true, they executed well. I think it’s true that the plan was accomplished,” said a former labor leader in the state. “But the plan was not the right plan.”


    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

    They simply never planned on losing.
    Who does?
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    Free said:

    JimmyV said:

    On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said.

    Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so.

    In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.

    But an hour-and-a-half after polls closed, Clinton aides began making rushed calls, redrawing paths to 270 through the single electoral vote in Maine and Nebraska. Still assuming wins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Michigan suddenly looked like the state that was going to decide the presidency.

    They scrambled a call with campaign attorney Marc Elias, prepping for a recount in a vote that oddly looked like it would be a narrower win than they had ever prepared for. An hour later, after they hung up, they realized it was over. They could tell by the numbers they were seeing — not the numbers being spewed from their own internal analytics team, but the numbers sitting at the bottom of the TV tuned to CNN. With the recount frozen, Clinton lost Michigan by 10,704 votes.

    “I think it’s true, they executed well. I think it’s true that the plan was accomplished,” said a former labor leader in the state. “But the plan was not the right plan.”


    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

    They simply never planned on losing.
    Correct, but they had a pretty good feeling back in July it wouldn't be as easy as expected then days before it was too late for planning so they went into panic mode but it was too late for planning and too late for winning.
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    mrussel1 said:

    Free said:

    JimmyV said:

    On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said.

    Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so.

    In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.

    But an hour-and-a-half after polls closed, Clinton aides began making rushed calls, redrawing paths to 270 through the single electoral vote in Maine and Nebraska. Still assuming wins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Michigan suddenly looked like the state that was going to decide the presidency.

    They scrambled a call with campaign attorney Marc Elias, prepping for a recount in a vote that oddly looked like it would be a narrower win than they had ever prepared for. An hour later, after they hung up, they realized it was over. They could tell by the numbers they were seeing — not the numbers being spewed from their own internal analytics team, but the numbers sitting at the bottom of the TV tuned to CNN. With the recount frozen, Clinton lost Michigan by 10,704 votes.

    “I think it’s true, they executed well. I think it’s true that the plan was accomplished,” said a former labor leader in the state. “But the plan was not the right plan.”


    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

    They simply never planned on losing.
    Who does?
    Any reasonable candidate knows they are not a shoe-in. That apparently never even occurred to an out-of-touch candidate named HRC.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    Free said:

    JimmyV said:

    On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said.

    Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so.

    In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.

    But an hour-and-a-half after polls closed, Clinton aides began making rushed calls, redrawing paths to 270 through the single electoral vote in Maine and Nebraska. Still assuming wins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Michigan suddenly looked like the state that was going to decide the presidency.

    They scrambled a call with campaign attorney Marc Elias, prepping for a recount in a vote that oddly looked like it would be a narrower win than they had ever prepared for. An hour later, after they hung up, they realized it was over. They could tell by the numbers they were seeing — not the numbers being spewed from their own internal analytics team, but the numbers sitting at the bottom of the TV tuned to CNN. With the recount frozen, Clinton lost Michigan by 10,704 votes.

    “I think it’s true, they executed well. I think it’s true that the plan was accomplished,” said a former labor leader in the state. “But the plan was not the right plan.”


    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

    They simply never planned on losing.
    Who does?
    I would guess 99% of politicians discuss plan what if scenarios, but I'm just guessing.


    https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Hillary-Clinton-New-York-Fireworks-Manhattan-Midtown-Canceled-400282591.html?amp=y
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    edited December 2016
    Could be doctored, fake and from mother Russia Russia Russia but this hacked/leaked email was from 2.29.16

    "We're told that President Clinton, like Secretary Clinton and some others, think Trump could pose a real threat in battleground states that President Obama carried in 2008 and 2012 -- like Virginia and Ohio -- and he will be competitive in Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin."

    If you accept the results of the election ignoring the connections, possibilities, appearances, and indications of Russian vote flipping or Russian cyborgs voting, Trump carried all those states except Virginia.
    Post edited by JC29856 on
  • eddieceddiec Posts: 3,877
    Free said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Free said:

    JimmyV said:

    On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said.

    Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so.

    In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.

    But an hour-and-a-half after polls closed, Clinton aides began making rushed calls, redrawing paths to 270 through the single electoral vote in Maine and Nebraska. Still assuming wins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Michigan suddenly looked like the state that was going to decide the presidency.

    They scrambled a call with campaign attorney Marc Elias, prepping for a recount in a vote that oddly looked like it would be a narrower win than they had ever prepared for. An hour later, after they hung up, they realized it was over. They could tell by the numbers they were seeing — not the numbers being spewed from their own internal analytics team, but the numbers sitting at the bottom of the TV tuned to CNN. With the recount frozen, Clinton lost Michigan by 10,704 votes.

    “I think it’s true, they executed well. I think it’s true that the plan was accomplished,” said a former labor leader in the state. “But the plan was not the right plan.”


    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

    They simply never planned on losing.
    Who does?
    Any reasonable candidate knows they are not a shoe-in. That apparently never even occurred to an out-of-touch candidate named HRC.
    I don't know. After 'PussyGate' I would be pretty confident if I was against him.

  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Posts: 10,746

    JC29856 said:

    image

    Why are you still peddling false shit?
    I believe the proper term is trolling

    As my mother used to say....if you ignore them they'll go away
  • JC29856 said:

    image

    Why are you still peddling false shit?
    I believe the proper term is trolling

    As my mother used to say....if you ignore them they'll go away
    Yeah....I should have let it alone. Dude became a troll for some reason.
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    eddiec said:

    Free said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Free said:

    JimmyV said:

    On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said.

    Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so.

    In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.

    But an hour-and-a-half after polls closed, Clinton aides began making rushed calls, redrawing paths to 270 through the single electoral vote in Maine and Nebraska. Still assuming wins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Michigan suddenly looked like the state that was going to decide the presidency.

    They scrambled a call with campaign attorney Marc Elias, prepping for a recount in a vote that oddly looked like it would be a narrower win than they had ever prepared for. An hour later, after they hung up, they realized it was over. They could tell by the numbers they were seeing — not the numbers being spewed from their own internal analytics team, but the numbers sitting at the bottom of the TV tuned to CNN. With the recount frozen, Clinton lost Michigan by 10,704 votes.

    “I think it’s true, they executed well. I think it’s true that the plan was accomplished,” said a former labor leader in the state. “But the plan was not the right plan.”


    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

    They simply never planned on losing.
    Who does?
    Any reasonable candidate knows they are not a shoe-in. That apparently never even occurred to an out-of-touch candidate named HRC.
    I don't know. After 'PussyGate' I would be pretty confident if I was against him.

    Which horse would you bet on?

    "Pretty Confident" at 8-1
    Or
    "Shoe In" at even money
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,163
    I believed Clinton was a lock but that was because I believed MI, WI and PA were locked down. That wasn't the case. The article I linked to above is an interesting read. It illustrates what went wrong in Michigan and does suggest much of it was avoidable. I don't at all disagree that WikiLeaks and Comey hurt Clinton, but there was a lot of self-inflicted damage done too.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,627
    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Free said:

    JimmyV said:

    On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said.

    Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so.

    In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.

    But an hour-and-a-half after polls closed, Clinton aides began making rushed calls, redrawing paths to 270 through the single electoral vote in Maine and Nebraska. Still assuming wins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Michigan suddenly looked like the state that was going to decide the presidency.

    They scrambled a call with campaign attorney Marc Elias, prepping for a recount in a vote that oddly looked like it would be a narrower win than they had ever prepared for. An hour later, after they hung up, they realized it was over. They could tell by the numbers they were seeing — not the numbers being spewed from their own internal analytics team, but the numbers sitting at the bottom of the TV tuned to CNN. With the recount frozen, Clinton lost Michigan by 10,704 votes.

    “I think it’s true, they executed well. I think it’s true that the plan was accomplished,” said a former labor leader in the state. “But the plan was not the right plan.”


    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

    They simply never planned on losing.
    Who does?
    I would guess 99% of politicians discuss plan what if scenarios, but I'm just guessing.


    https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Hillary-Clinton-New-York-Fireworks-Manhattan-Midtown-Canceled-400282591.html?amp=y
    Planning for it and and planning on it are two different things.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Free said:

    JimmyV said:

    On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said.

    Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so.

    In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.

    But an hour-and-a-half after polls closed, Clinton aides began making rushed calls, redrawing paths to 270 through the single electoral vote in Maine and Nebraska. Still assuming wins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Michigan suddenly looked like the state that was going to decide the presidency.

    They scrambled a call with campaign attorney Marc Elias, prepping for a recount in a vote that oddly looked like it would be a narrower win than they had ever prepared for. An hour later, after they hung up, they realized it was over. They could tell by the numbers they were seeing — not the numbers being spewed from their own internal analytics team, but the numbers sitting at the bottom of the TV tuned to CNN. With the recount frozen, Clinton lost Michigan by 10,704 votes.

    “I think it’s true, they executed well. I think it’s true that the plan was accomplished,” said a former labor leader in the state. “But the plan was not the right plan.”


    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

    They simply never planned on losing.
    Who does?
    I would guess 99% of politicians discuss plan what if scenarios, but I'm just guessing.


    https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Hillary-Clinton-New-York-Fireworks-Manhattan-Midtown-Canceled-400282591.html?amp=y
    Planning for it and and planning on it are two different things.
    Yeah, I didn't read that much into it.

    I plan on going on vacation.
    I plan for vacation.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,627
    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Free said:

    JimmyV said:

    On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said.

    Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so.

    In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.

    But an hour-and-a-half after polls closed, Clinton aides began making rushed calls, redrawing paths to 270 through the single electoral vote in Maine and Nebraska. Still assuming wins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Michigan suddenly looked like the state that was going to decide the presidency.

    They scrambled a call with campaign attorney Marc Elias, prepping for a recount in a vote that oddly looked like it would be a narrower win than they had ever prepared for. An hour later, after they hung up, they realized it was over. They could tell by the numbers they were seeing — not the numbers being spewed from their own internal analytics team, but the numbers sitting at the bottom of the TV tuned to CNN. With the recount frozen, Clinton lost Michigan by 10,704 votes.

    “I think it’s true, they executed well. I think it’s true that the plan was accomplished,” said a former labor leader in the state. “But the plan was not the right plan.”


    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

    They simply never planned on losing.
    Who does?
    I would guess 99% of politicians discuss plan what if scenarios, but I'm just guessing.


    https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Hillary-Clinton-New-York-Fireworks-Manhattan-Midtown-Canceled-400282591.html?amp=y
    Planning for it and and planning on it are two different things.
    Yeah, I didn't read that much into it.

    I plan on going on vacation.
    I plan for vacation.
    I'm not arguing that the campaign was obtuse about the reality in Michigan. But I think the article was pointing out that it was recognized on game day. What's the point of having a great ground game if you ignore their information, when they are telling you city vote was down by 25%? At the same time, can you do anything about it on the afternoon of the election? I'm not sure.
  • mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Free said:

    JimmyV said:

    On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said.

    Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so.

    In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.

    But an hour-and-a-half after polls closed, Clinton aides began making rushed calls, redrawing paths to 270 through the single electoral vote in Maine and Nebraska. Still assuming wins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Michigan suddenly looked like the state that was going to decide the presidency.

    They scrambled a call with campaign attorney Marc Elias, prepping for a recount in a vote that oddly looked like it would be a narrower win than they had ever prepared for. An hour later, after they hung up, they realized it was over. They could tell by the numbers they were seeing — not the numbers being spewed from their own internal analytics team, but the numbers sitting at the bottom of the TV tuned to CNN. With the recount frozen, Clinton lost Michigan by 10,704 votes.

    “I think it’s true, they executed well. I think it’s true that the plan was accomplished,” said a former labor leader in the state. “But the plan was not the right plan.”


    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

    They simply never planned on losing.
    Who does?
    I would guess 99% of politicians discuss plan what if scenarios, but I'm just guessing.


    https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Hillary-Clinton-New-York-Fireworks-Manhattan-Midtown-Canceled-400282591.html?amp=y
    Planning for it and and planning on it are two different things.
    Yeah, I didn't read that much into it.

    I plan on going on vacation.
    I plan for vacation.
    I'm not arguing that the campaign was obtuse about the reality in Michigan. But I think the article was pointing out that it was recognized on game day. What's the point of having a great ground game if you ignore their information, when they are telling you city vote was down by 25%? At the same time, can you do anything about it on the afternoon of the election? I'm not sure.
    Does that 25% relate to the broken machines in Detroit?

    http://time.com/4599886/detroit-voting-machine-failures-were-widespread-on-election-day/
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,627
    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Free said:

    JimmyV said:

    On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said.

    Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so.

    In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.

    But an hour-and-a-half after polls closed, Clinton aides began making rushed calls, redrawing paths to 270 through the single electoral vote in Maine and Nebraska. Still assuming wins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Michigan suddenly looked like the state that was going to decide the presidency.

    They scrambled a call with campaign attorney Marc Elias, prepping for a recount in a vote that oddly looked like it would be a narrower win than they had ever prepared for. An hour later, after they hung up, they realized it was over. They could tell by the numbers they were seeing — not the numbers being spewed from their own internal analytics team, but the numbers sitting at the bottom of the TV tuned to CNN. With the recount frozen, Clinton lost Michigan by 10,704 votes.

    “I think it’s true, they executed well. I think it’s true that the plan was accomplished,” said a former labor leader in the state. “But the plan was not the right plan.”


    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

    They simply never planned on losing.
    Who does?
    I would guess 99% of politicians discuss plan what if scenarios, but I'm just guessing.


    https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Hillary-Clinton-New-York-Fireworks-Manhattan-Midtown-Canceled-400282591.html?amp=y
    Planning for it and and planning on it are two different things.
    Yeah, I didn't read that much into it.

    I plan on going on vacation.
    I plan for vacation.
    You don't see the difference in your two statements? They are very different.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Free said:

    JimmyV said:

    On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said.

    Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so.

    In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.

    But an hour-and-a-half after polls closed, Clinton aides began making rushed calls, redrawing paths to 270 through the single electoral vote in Maine and Nebraska. Still assuming wins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Michigan suddenly looked like the state that was going to decide the presidency.

    They scrambled a call with campaign attorney Marc Elias, prepping for a recount in a vote that oddly looked like it would be a narrower win than they had ever prepared for. An hour later, after they hung up, they realized it was over. They could tell by the numbers they were seeing — not the numbers being spewed from their own internal analytics team, but the numbers sitting at the bottom of the TV tuned to CNN. With the recount frozen, Clinton lost Michigan by 10,704 votes.

    “I think it’s true, they executed well. I think it’s true that the plan was accomplished,” said a former labor leader in the state. “But the plan was not the right plan.”


    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

    They simply never planned on losing.
    Who does?
    I would guess 99% of politicians discuss plan what if scenarios, but I'm just guessing.


    https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Hillary-Clinton-New-York-Fireworks-Manhattan-Midtown-Canceled-400282591.html?amp=y
    Planning for it and and planning on it are two different things.
    Yeah, I didn't read that much into it.

    I plan on going on vacation.
    I plan for vacation.
    You don't see the difference in your two statements? They are very different.
    Yeah, yes that's why I used in those examples.
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    edited December 2016
    .
This discussion has been closed.