Hillary won more votes for President

1…448449451453454…488

Comments

  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    Quoting CNN is nothing more than saying "I'm still with Her".

  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    edited December 2016
    eddiec said:

    Free said:

    josevolution said:

    Free said:

    Claiming investigating other countries for our election issues is nothing with deflecting andnot taking responsibility. Let's go ahead and spend our media, time and money on this.

    So the country should only focus on what you perceived as corrupt and just turn an eye away from this Russia issue ?
    When are you Dems going to stop blaming others for losing?
    You need to step back and look at the big picture. Forget about political parties. If the Russians played a role in tampering/swaying the voting process in the US it is a major concern. It's not to reverse any decisions or make excuses. It's our old enemy, turned ally, turning enemy again influencing our politics at the voter level. Do you not see the problem with that?
    It's the media using distraction and blame. I'm all for investigation, eat your heart out. But placing focus continually on the Dems to renig their own problems w/ their poorly run campaign and look elsewhere for blame is pretty fucking pathetic. They continue to keep their heads in the sand.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,882
    Free said:

    Quoting CNN is nothing more than saying "I'm still with Her".

    That reply makes no sense in context of a news story. You need more than one angle to argue effectively.
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    Repeating over and over again that Hillary has more votes is not working.
    Just accept that President-elect Trump won w/ less votes.
    This thread
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,882
    Free said:

    eddiec said:

    Free said:

    josevolution said:

    Free said:

    Claiming investigating other countries for our election issues is nothing with deflecting andnot taking responsibility. Let's go ahead and spend our media, time and money on this.

    So the country should only focus on what you perceived as corrupt and just turn an eye away from this Russia issue ?
    When are you Dems going to stop blaming others for losing?
    You need to step back and look at the big picture. Forget about political parties. If the Russians played a role in tampering/swaying the voting process in the US it is a major concern. It's not to reverse any decisions or make excuses. It's our old enemy, turned ally, turning enemy again influencing our politics at the voter level. Do you not see the problem with that?
    It's the media using distraction and blame. I'm all for investigation, eat your heart out. But placing focus continually on the Dems to renig their own problems w/ their poorly run campaign and look elsewhere for blame is pretty fucking pathetic. They continue to keep their heads in the sand.
    You're missing the point. This is about Trump, not Hillary. It's not about the election. That outcome will never change. The question now is what does this US Russia relationship mean for NATO countries, former Soviet Block countries, etc. How does Russia's alleged and apparent influence affect geopolitical relationships for the next four years?
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    mrussel1 said:


    Free said:

    eddiec said:

    Free said:

    josevolution said:

    Free said:

    Claiming investigating other countries for our election issues is nothing with deflecting andnot taking responsibility. Let's go ahead and spend our media, time and money on this.

    So the country should only focus on what you perceived as corrupt and just turn an eye away from this Russia issue ?
    When are you Dems going to stop blaming others for losing?
    You need to step back and look at the big picture. Forget about political parties. If the Russians played a role in tampering/swaying the voting process in the US it is a major concern. It's not to reverse any decisions or make excuses. It's our old enemy, turned ally, turning enemy again influencing our politics at the voter level. Do you not see the problem with that?
    It's the media using distraction and blame. I'm all for investigation, eat your heart out. But placing focus continually on the Dems to renig their own problems w/ their poorly run campaign and look elsewhere for blame is pretty fucking pathetic. They continue to keep their heads in the sand.
    You're missing the point. This is about Trump, not Hillary. It's not about the election. That outcome will never change. The question now is what does this US Russia relationship mean for NATO countries, former Soviet Block countries, etc. How does Russia's alleged and apparent influence affect geopolitical relationships for the next four years?
    If the entire Russia thing has nothing to do with Hillary, then it wouldn't even be in this thread. Hillary's camp involved Russia in the whole pre-election bullshit. It has everything to do with her and her campaign. Democrats will stop at nothing to look elsewhere for their problems. Meanwhile Bernie Sanders is the only one doing anything at this point speaking out against trump on behalf of the people of this country.
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    mrussel1 said:

    Free said:

    Quoting CNN is nothing more than saying "I'm still with Her".

    That reply makes no sense in context of a news story. You need more than one angle to argue effectively.
    Clinton News Network is explanatory in itself.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,882
    Free said:

    mrussel1 said:


    Free said:

    eddiec said:

    Free said:

    josevolution said:

    Free said:

    Claiming investigating other countries for our election issues is nothing with deflecting andnot taking responsibility. Let's go ahead and spend our media, time and money on this.

    So the country should only focus on what you perceived as corrupt and just turn an eye away from this Russia issue ?
    When are you Dems going to stop blaming others for losing?
    You need to step back and look at the big picture. Forget about political parties. If the Russians played a role in tampering/swaying the voting process in the US it is a major concern. It's not to reverse any decisions or make excuses. It's our old enemy, turned ally, turning enemy again influencing our politics at the voter level. Do you not see the problem with that?
    It's the media using distraction and blame. I'm all for investigation, eat your heart out. But placing focus continually on the Dems to renig their own problems w/ their poorly run campaign and look elsewhere for blame is pretty fucking pathetic. They continue to keep their heads in the sand.
    You're missing the point. This is about Trump, not Hillary. It's not about the election. That outcome will never change. The question now is what does this US Russia relationship mean for NATO countries, former Soviet Block countries, etc. How does Russia's alleged and apparent influence affect geopolitical relationships for the next four years?
    If the entire Russia thing has nothing to do with Hillary, then it wouldn't even be in this thread. Hillary's camp involved Russia in the whole pre-election bullshit. It has everything to do with her and her campaign. Democrats will stop at nothing to look elsewhere for their problems. Meanwhile Bernie Sanders is the only one doing anything at this point speaking out against trump on behalf of the people of this country.
    I guess I'm not thinking about it in context to this thread. I really don't care about the thread, it's just where the conversation was headed. I'll say this unequivocally so we are on the same page: I do not believe the Russians had a MATERIAL influence on the outcome of the election. I believe they tried with the wikileaks or whatever, but not materially.

    I also dont' necessarily believe that HRC's campaign was poorly run. I thought, from an execution perspective, it was well run. She had weaknesses that she couldn't overcome and Comey's last minute bomb did not help in the least.

    Could Bernie have beaten Trump? Maybe...we'll never know. I think he would have lost FL and NC just like she did. He wasn't very good with the minority votes. He may have even lost NV too. I don't think there's anyway he wins Ohio. Could he have won PA and MI? Maybe. Those are heavy minority states too. He probably would have done a bit better with white voters, but would that have just been a swap out for fewer minorities? We'll never know.
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    edited December 2016
    :lol: Of course you think it was well run, you refused to look at her or her campaign realistically without criticism that led a few of us to believe you were just a Hillbot. And in continuing to think it was well run? Pretty hilarious at this point. :relieved:

    Post edited by Free on
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    mrussel1 said:

    Free said:

    mrussel1 said:


    Free said:

    eddiec said:

    Free said:

    josevolution said:

    Free said:

    Claiming investigating other countries for our election issues is nothing with deflecting andnot taking responsibility. Let's go ahead and spend our media, time and money on this.

    So the country should only focus on what you perceived as corrupt and just turn an eye away from this Russia issue ?
    When are you Dems going to stop blaming others for losing?
    You need to step back and look at the big picture. Forget about political parties. If the Russians played a role in tampering/swaying the voting process in the US it is a major concern. It's not to reverse any decisions or make excuses. It's our old enemy, turned ally, turning enemy again influencing our politics at the voter level. Do you not see the problem with that?
    It's the media using distraction and blame. I'm all for investigation, eat your heart out. But placing focus continually on the Dems to renig their own problems w/ their poorly run campaign and look elsewhere for blame is pretty fucking pathetic. They continue to keep their heads in the sand.
    You're missing the point. This is about Trump, not Hillary. It's not about the election. That outcome will never change. The question now is what does this US Russia relationship mean for NATO countries, former Soviet Block countries, etc. How does Russia's alleged and apparent influence affect geopolitical relationships for the next four years?
    If the entire Russia thing has nothing to do with Hillary, then it wouldn't even be in this thread. Hillary's camp involved Russia in the whole pre-election bullshit. It has everything to do with her and her campaign. Democrats will stop at nothing to look elsewhere for their problems. Meanwhile Bernie Sanders is the only one doing anything at this point speaking out against trump on behalf of the people of this country.
    I guess I'm not thinking about it in context to this thread. I really don't care about the thread, it's just where the conversation was headed. I'll say this unequivocally so we are on the same page: I do not believe the Russians had a MATERIAL influence on the outcome of the election. I believe they tried with the wikileaks or whatever, but not materially.

    I also dont' necessarily believe that HRC's campaign was poorly run. I thought, from an execution perspective, it was well run. She had weaknesses that she couldn't overcome and Comey's last minute bomb did not help in the least.

    Could Bernie have beaten Trump? Maybe...we'll never know. I think he would have lost FL and NC just like she did. He wasn't very good with the minority votes. He may have even lost NV too. I don't think there's anyway he wins Ohio. Could he have won PA and MI? Maybe. Those are heavy minority states too. He probably would have done a bit better with white voters, but would that have just been a swap out for fewer minorities? We'll never know.
    This was an awesome post. Well put on all points
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,882
    Free said:

    :lol: Of course you think it was well run, you refused to look at her or her campaign realistically without criticism that led a few of us to believe you were just a Hillbot.

    Have a nice day.

    You're missing the point again, about the tactics of the campaign and the candidate themselves, but I expect nothing less. It's just interesting that your candidate couldn't beat Hillary yet you think he is a deity. But I know you're going to say it was rigged. Yet didn't Trump overcome his party establishment? He had an entire wing of #NeverTrump against him yet succeeded. Why couldn't your candidate do the same? Trump proved that populism could overcome establishment. Your candidate failed in that regard.

    Bernie's biggest national election problem is that NO ONE WINS ON A PLATFORM OF RAISING TAXES. It just...doesn't...happen. How would a midwestern auto worker vote when faced with....This guy promises to raise my taxes to give kids free education. This guy is promising to lower my taxes. Pretty easy.
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    Once a Hillbot, always a Hilbot. :weary:
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,882
    Free said:

    Once a Hillbot, always a Hilbot. :weary:

    What a lazy response.
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    edited December 2016
    If you can't see how she didn't actually campaign in all states, only giving celebrity fundraisers, not doing enough rallies, not listening to the real voters in middle America, hiding out and not doing press conferences nor talking to actual voters??? If you continue to think she ran a great campaign??

    One word: DENIAL.

    She didn't have to lose, but she was lazy. Her campaign and her party screwed Bernie Sanders. Assumed she was going to win no problem. how ultimately embarrassing.
    Post edited by Free on
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,599
    Free said:

    JimmyV said:

    Free said:

    Claiming investigating other countries for our election issues is nothing with deflecting andnot taking responsibility. Let's go ahead and spend our media, time and money on this.

    Take a step back and imagine Bernie was the nominee and not Hillary. Would you be saying the same thing? Because I would. This needs to cut deeper than partisan divides and candidate preferences.
    Any party intentionally squashing an opponent running on the same party ticket deserves scrutiny. Any party cheating to win the primary deserves the same and more including shame and calls to step down. And any candidate who refuses to accept and admit defeat deserves to be called on it. Obama is embarrassing himself and legacy when insisting on blaming Russia. Investigate all you want, The fools are the American people believing it all. We have MUCH bigger problems but let's focus on that!

    Bernie would not, with his level of decency and integrity do half of what the Dem party has pulled and look the other way. You are comparing apples to oranges right there.
    No, I'm comparing candidate to candidate and credibility to credibility. I would be saying the exact same things regardless of who the candidate was who may or may not have been disadvantaged by the Russians.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,882
    Free said:

    If you can't see how she didn't actually campaign in all states, only giving celebrity fundraisers, not doing enough rallies, not listening to the real voters in middle America, hiding out and not doing press conferences nor talking to actual voters??? If you continue to think she ran a great campaign??

    One word: DENIAL.

    You think she should have campaigned in ALL states? CA, NY, OR, WA, etc.? You would be a brilliant campaign strategist.

    Her message clearly didn't resonate well enough in the Big 10 states. Obviously. But that's a policy/messaging issue, not about where they spent their time, money and resources. They put the time into the states that were important. She lost them. Like I said, I'm differentiating between the campaign strategy and the message.
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S8gyNRqIp5U
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,599
    mrussel1 said:

    Free said:

    If you can't see how she didn't actually campaign in all states, only giving celebrity fundraisers, not doing enough rallies, not listening to the real voters in middle America, hiding out and not doing press conferences nor talking to actual voters??? If you continue to think she ran a great campaign??

    One word: DENIAL.

    You think she should have campaigned in ALL states? CA, NY, OR, WA, etc.? You would be a brilliant campaign strategist.

    Her message clearly didn't resonate well enough in the Big 10 states. Obviously. But that's a policy/messaging issue, not about where they spent their time, money and resources. They put the time into the states that were important. She lost them. Like I said, I'm differentiating between the campaign strategy and the message.
    Pardon if this is something you've already pointed out. To your point I found it interesting that while she campaigned like crazy in PA, made a late push in MI and largely ignored WI, she lost them all by similar margins. That's clearly message related, not where she spent her time. I do think she should have made sure the blue wall was indeed a wall before she went for the blowout. But, it is possible the Midwest was already lost and there was nothing she could do.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,882
    JimmyV said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Free said:

    If you can't see how she didn't actually campaign in all states, only giving celebrity fundraisers, not doing enough rallies, not listening to the real voters in middle America, hiding out and not doing press conferences nor talking to actual voters??? If you continue to think she ran a great campaign??

    One word: DENIAL.

    You think she should have campaigned in ALL states? CA, NY, OR, WA, etc.? You would be a brilliant campaign strategist.

    Her message clearly didn't resonate well enough in the Big 10 states. Obviously. But that's a policy/messaging issue, not about where they spent their time, money and resources. They put the time into the states that were important. She lost them. Like I said, I'm differentiating between the campaign strategy and the message.
    Pardon if this is something you've already pointed out. To your point I found it interesting that while she campaigned like crazy in PA, made a late push in MI and largely ignored WI, she lost them all by similar margins. That's clearly message related, not where she spent her time. I do think she should have made sure the blue wall was indeed a wall before she went for the blowout. But, it is possible the Midwest was already lost and there was nothing she could do.
    I think the blue wall was already gone, but your point is accurate. Ironically the Democratic party has really changed over the past 20 years. It's become more urban, educated and coastal. Educated liberals leave the midwest. I grew up in Cleveland but would never go back because the jobs are not there (excluding Chicago of course). I'm not sure how the educated Democratic party meshes back with the blue collar part of the base.
  • Bentleyspop
    Bentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, Colorado Posts: 11,422
    edited December 2016
    mrussel1 said:

    Donald Trump, without any evidence, sides with Putin over the US Intelligence Community. That's a stunning development. He forgets which side he is on... oh wait, he doesn't. He's on HIS side.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/10/politics/donald-trump-response-russian-hacking/index.html

    Remember when Russia was the enemy? :murica:
This discussion has been closed.

Categories