Hillary won more votes for President
Comments
-
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.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Clinton never talked like it no, she acted liked it.Gern Blansten said:
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.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:^^^
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.
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.
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 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?
0 -
Is anyone tuned into msnbc?0
-
Good thinking. Clearly you can defeat President-Elect Trump.what dreams said:
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.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Clinton never talked like it no, she acted liked it.Gern Blansten said:
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.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:^^^
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.
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.
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 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?
So what is your platform?0 -
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.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Good thinking. Clearly you can defeat President-Elect Trump.what dreams said:
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.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Clinton never talked like it no, she acted liked it.Gern Blansten said:
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.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:^^^
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.
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.
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 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?
So what is your platform?0 -
^^^
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.0 -
-
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..."0 -
0 -
Why are you still peddling false shit?JC29856 said:Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
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; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
They simply never planned on losing.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-2325470 -
Who does?Free said:
They simply never planned on losing.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-2325470 -
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.Free said:
They simply never planned on losing.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-2325470 -
Any reasonable candidate knows they are not a shoe-in. That apparently never even occurred to an out-of-touch candidate named HRC.mrussel1 said:
Who does?Free said:
They simply never planned on losing.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-2325470 -
I would guess 99% of politicians discuss plan what if scenarios, but I'm just guessing.mrussel1 said:
Who does?Free said:
They simply never planned on losing.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
https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Hillary-Clinton-New-York-Fireworks-Manhattan-Midtown-Canceled-400282591.html?amp=y0 -
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 on0 -
I don't know. After 'PussyGate' I would be pretty confident if I was against him.Free said:
Any reasonable candidate knows they are not a shoe-in. That apparently never even occurred to an out-of-touch candidate named HRC.mrussel1 said:
Who does?Free said:
They simply never planned on losing.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
0 -
I believe the proper term is trollingGern Blansten said:
Why are you still peddling false shit?JC29856 said:
As my mother used to say....if you ignore them they'll go away0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help