Hillary Clinton: What happened

JimmyV

2016 was not a chicken/egg scenario. We know what came first and it was not Jim Comey. It was the Democratic Party nominating a candidate they knew was the subject of an active FBI investigation. All the finger pointing in the world will not change that. When you choose a candidate that you know is susceptible to an October Surprise, you can't blame anyone else when that candidate falls victim to such a surprise. If the world knew nothing about the investigation and then it leaked out my view would be different. That isn't what happened.

More and more it seems like this argument over whether Hillary Clinton took responsibility for her loss or didn't take responsibility for her loss or didn't take enough responsibility for her loss, it all misses the point. She can and should take responsibility for the mistakes she personally made. She can and should own the decisions her campaign made. What she cannot and should not do is take sole responsibility for what happened to the Democrats and to this country in 2016. She isn't solely responsible. The Democratic Party itself shares much of that blame. As do Trump voters and third party swing state voters. They don't get a pass.

Anyone hoping to hear Hillary Clinton someday say "It was all my fault", I hope you are forever disappointed. At the same time, some of these fingers pointing outward in Democratic circles need to be turned inward. It took a village to elect Donald Trump.

Gern Blansten

JimmyV said:

2016 was not a chicken/egg scenario. We know what came first and it was not Jim Comey. It was the Democratic Party nominating a candidate they knew was the subject of an active FBI investigation. All the finger pointing in the world will not change that. When you choose a candidate that you know is susceptible to an October Surprise, you can't blame anyone else when that candidate falls victim to such a surprise. If the world knew nothing about the investigation and then it leaked out my view would be different. That isn't what happened.

More and more it seems like this argument over whether Hillary Clinton took responsibility for her loss or didn't take responsibility for her loss or didn't take enough responsibility for her loss, it all misses the point. She can and should take responsibility for the mistakes she personally made. She can and should own the decisions her campaign made. What she cannot and should not do is take sole responsibility for what happened to the Democrats and to this country in 2016. She isn't solely responsible. The Democratic Party itself shares much of that blame. As do Trump voters and third party swing state voters. They don't get a pass.

Anyone hoping to hear Hillary Clinton someday say "It was all my fault", I hope you are forever disappointed. At the same time, some of these fingers pointing outward in Democratic circles need to be turned inward. It took a village to elect Donald Trump.

Disagree...there was an FBI investigation related to Trump/Russia...why didn't Comey bring that up?

You must not visit here much.  Hillary has claimed complete responsibility verbally and in the first few pages of her book.

Clinton received 3,000,000 more votes than tRump.  The national polls were right on.  The state polls were right on except for MI, PA and WI...tRump won the EC by about 77,000 votes.  That was a calculated effort by something...my guess is Russia.

JC29856

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney. The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election...Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent

If you don’t like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didn’t. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

I would say it related more to the Comey bullshit.  The last minute gut punch that should have never been brought up.

Strangest thing ever, IMO.
According to investigative congressional committee members Comey did many many things that appeared as strange.
I cant find any reason why Comey would decide to do that, other than he thought it would have little to no outcome on the election.

Gern Blansten

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney. The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election...Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent

If you don’t like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didn’t. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

I would say it related more to the Comey bullshit.  The last minute gut punch that should have never been brought up.

Strangest thing ever, IMO.
According to investigative congressional committee members Comey did many many things that appeared as strange.
I cant find any reason why Comey would decide to do that, other than he thought it would have little to no outcome on the election.

I saw a theory where Comey felt it necessary to discuss the Clinton email crap due to the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the AG. Comey may have actually said that himself....can't remember. 

It was definitely odd.  

But when you look back and see that the FBI was also investigating the Russian stuff related to the Trump Campaign it gets even weirder.  I remember Harry Reid asking that question but the media didn't pick up on it too much because the FBI wouldn't confirm anything.

CM189191

JC29856 said:

CM189191 said:

JC29856 said:

 most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

that's just categorically false.  most voters preferred Hillary.

You remind me of a child learning to speak.  You make a lot of noise, but don't really ever get to the point or say anything worth listening to.

On the rare occasion you actually do say something coherent, it's to let every know you shit yourself.

You any good a properly changing a diaper?
I kinda already stated much of what was in that piece in a previous posts, you may have bumped your head those days.
To your point, Im not sure if Matt is referring to all registered voters or just those that voted in 2016.
We know many voters decided to sit that one out, just compare Obamas vote totals to Hillarys.
A fascinating argument (I stated my opinion previously) given all of the available data, Hillarys messages, campaign ads, including Hillary & Co campaign "plans" depicted in those "Russian Wikileaks emails", did Hillary get more "against Trump votes" or more "for Hillary" votes?  

Congratulations, you made a dookie! Now next time just leave it in the toilet. No need to show it to everyone.

JC29856

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney. The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election...Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent

If you don’t like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didn’t. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

I would say it related more to the Comey bullshit.  The last minute gut punch that should have never been brought up.

Strangest thing ever, IMO.
According to investigative congressional committee members Comey did many many things that appeared as strange.
I cant find any reason why Comey would decide to do that, other than he thought it would have little to no outcome on the election.

I saw a theory where Comey felt it necessary to discuss the Clinton email crap due to the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the AG. Comey may have actually said that himself....can't remember. 

It was definitely odd.  

But when you look back and see that the FBI was also investigating the Russian stuff related to the Trump Campaign it gets even weirder.  I remember Harry Reid asking that question but the media didn't pick up on it too much because the FBI wouldn't confirm anything.

Comey said he couldn't confirm or deny anything with respect to the Trump Russia investigation, I think he said its policy.
Anyway this is the same guy that said in Jan and Feb, Trump wasn't under investigation and that Flynn was cleared.
If we're placing blame other than on Hillary, then the Comey thing certainly deserves some. As I stated numerous times, 95% of it is on the DNC and Hillary, but of all the excuses, Comey at least has some validity.
JimmyV has a good point above, Hillary and the DNC thought that they could convince the public that Hillary is/was the subject to numerous investigations (and cleared if you want to call it that) simply because she is Hillary or a women. It didn't work, the smart people in the room stayed home, they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either (horrendous) candidate.  

Gern Blansten

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney. The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election...Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent

If you don’t like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didn’t. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

I would say it related more to the Comey bullshit.  The last minute gut punch that should have never been brought up.

Strangest thing ever, IMO.
According to investigative congressional committee members Comey did many many things that appeared as strange.
I cant find any reason why Comey would decide to do that, other than he thought it would have little to no outcome on the election.

I saw a theory where Comey felt it necessary to discuss the Clinton email crap due to the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the AG. Comey may have actually said that himself....can't remember. 

It was definitely odd.  

But when you look back and see that the FBI was also investigating the Russian stuff related to the Trump Campaign it gets even weirder.  I remember Harry Reid asking that question but the media didn't pick up on it too much because the FBI wouldn't confirm anything.

Comey said he couldn't confirm or deny anything with respect to the Trump Russia investigation, I think he said its policy.
Anyway this is the same guy that said in Jan and Feb, Trump wasn't under investigation and that Flynn was cleared.
If we're placing blame other than on Hillary, then the Comey thing certainly deserves some. As I stated numerous times, 95% of it is on the DNC and Hillary, but of all the excuses, Comey at least has some validity.
JimmyV has a good point above, Hillary and the DNC thought that they could convince the public that Hillary is/was the subject to numerous investigations (and cleared if you want to call it that) simply because she is Hillary or a women. It didn't work, the smart people in the room stayed home, they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either (horrendous) candidate.  

I can't agree with that.  She got 3 million more votes.  The nation wanted her.  The bullshit that went down in WI, MI and PA is the main culprit.

Comey gave tRump ammo.  tRump had no momentum up until the point that Comey issued his bullshit.  That gave tRump the opportunity to say that the "investigation was back on."

And then the facebook targeting started.  

JC29856

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney. The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election...Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent

If you don’t like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didn’t. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

I would say it related more to the Comey bullshit.  The last minute gut punch that should have never been brought up.

Strangest thing ever, IMO.
According to investigative congressional committee members Comey did many many things that appeared as strange.
I cant find any reason why Comey would decide to do that, other than he thought it would have little to no outcome on the election.

I saw a theory where Comey felt it necessary to discuss the Clinton email crap due to the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the AG. Comey may have actually said that himself....can't remember. 

It was definitely odd.  

But when you look back and see that the FBI was also investigating the Russian stuff related to the Trump Campaign it gets even weirder.  I remember Harry Reid asking that question but the media didn't pick up on it too much because the FBI wouldn't confirm anything.

Comey said he couldn't confirm or deny anything with respect to the Trump Russia investigation, I think he said its policy.
Anyway this is the same guy that said in Jan and Feb, Trump wasn't under investigation and that Flynn was cleared.
If we're placing blame other than on Hillary, then the Comey thing certainly deserves some. As I stated numerous times, 95% of it is on the DNC and Hillary, but of all the excuses, Comey at least has some validity.
JimmyV has a good point above, Hillary and the DNC thought that they could convince the public that Hillary is/was the subject to numerous investigations (and cleared if you want to call it that) simply because she is Hillary or a women. It didn't work, the smart people in the room stayed home, they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either (horrendous) candidate.  

I can't agree with that.  She got 3 million more votes.  The nation wanted her.  The bullshit that went down in WI, MI and PA is the main culprit.

Comey gave tRump ammo.  tRump had no momentum up until the point that Comey issued his bullshit.  That gave tRump the opportunity to say that the "investigation was back on."

And then the facebook targeting started.  

Understood but then one can argue that 1 state does not represent a nation, to use your words. Wouldn't all other states and commonwealths except California better represent our nation? = Trump won by 1.3M
I'm not sure either matter under the current system in place.

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney. The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election...Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent

If you don’t like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didn’t. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

I would say it related more to the Comey bullshit.  The last minute gut punch that should have never been brought up.

Strangest thing ever, IMO.
According to investigative congressional committee members Comey did many many things that appeared as strange.
I cant find any reason why Comey would decide to do that, other than he thought it would have little to no outcome on the election.

I saw a theory where Comey felt it necessary to discuss the Clinton email crap due to the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the AG. Comey may have actually said that himself....can't remember. 

It was definitely odd.  

But when you look back and see that the FBI was also investigating the Russian stuff related to the Trump Campaign it gets even weirder.  I remember Harry Reid asking that question but the media didn't pick up on it too much because the FBI wouldn't confirm anything.

Comey said he couldn't confirm or deny anything with respect to the Trump Russia investigation, I think he said its policy.
Anyway this is the same guy that said in Jan and Feb, Trump wasn't under investigation and that Flynn was cleared.
If we're placing blame other than on Hillary, then the Comey thing certainly deserves some. As I stated numerous times, 95% of it is on the DNC and Hillary, but of all the excuses, Comey at least has some validity.
JimmyV has a good point above, Hillary and the DNC thought that they could convince the public that Hillary is/was the subject to numerous investigations (and cleared if you want to call it that) simply because she is Hillary or a women. It didn't work, the smart people in the room stayed home, they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either (horrendous) candidate.  

I can't agree with that.  She got 3 million more votes.  The nation wanted her.  The bullshit that went down in WI, MI and PA is the main culprit.

Comey gave tRump ammo.  tRump had no momentum up until the point that Comey issued his bullshit.  That gave tRump the opportunity to say that the "investigation was back on."

And then the facebook targeting started.  

I hate trump as much as the next guy, but some perspective is required here. 3 million people sounds like a lot, and it keeps getting repeated. you know what it amounts to?

2.4%.

3 million more votes equals 2.4% out of total votes cast.

that's hardly "the nation". that's a sliver. 

PJ_Soul

But that is the difference between a democratic nation wanting her or not.... That's how democracy is supposed to work. Unfortunately, the USA isn't really a democratic nation.

Go Beavers

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney. The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election...Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent

If you don’t like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didn’t. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

I would say it related more to the Comey bullshit.  The last minute gut punch that should have never been brought up.

Strangest thing ever, IMO.
According to investigative congressional committee members Comey did many many things that appeared as strange.
I cant find any reason why Comey would decide to do that, other than he thought it would have little to no outcome on the election.

I saw a theory where Comey felt it necessary to discuss the Clinton email crap due to the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the AG. Comey may have actually said that himself....can't remember. 

It was definitely odd.  

But when you look back and see that the FBI was also investigating the Russian stuff related to the Trump Campaign it gets even weirder.  I remember Harry Reid asking that question but the media didn't pick up on it too much because the FBI wouldn't confirm anything.

Comey said he couldn't confirm or deny anything with respect to the Trump Russia investigation, I think he said its policy.
Anyway this is the same guy that said in Jan and Feb, Trump wasn't under investigation and that Flynn was cleared.
If we're placing blame other than on Hillary, then the Comey thing certainly deserves some. As I stated numerous times, 95% of it is on the DNC and Hillary, but of all the excuses, Comey at least has some validity.
JimmyV has a good point above, Hillary and the DNC thought that they could convince the public that Hillary is/was the subject to numerous investigations (and cleared if you want to call it that) simply because she is Hillary or a women. It didn't work, the smart people in the room stayed home, they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either (horrendous) candidate.  

I can't agree with that.  She got 3 million more votes.  The nation wanted her.  The bullshit that went down in WI, MI and PA is the main culprit.

Comey gave tRump ammo.  tRump had no momentum up until the point that Comey issued his bullshit.  That gave tRump the opportunity to say that the "investigation was back on."

And then the facebook targeting started.  

I hate trump as much as the next guy, but some perspective is required here. 3 million people sounds like a lot, and it keeps getting repeated. you know what it amounts to?

2.4%.

3 million more votes equals 2.4% out of total votes cast.

that's hardly "the nation". that's a sliver. 

In elections, for whatever reason that's considered a large margin. Winning by 5% is considered a beat down. 

HughFreakingDillon

either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid. 

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid. 

Sorry, what's dumb? Majority wins you mean?

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid. 

Sorry, what's dumb? Majority wins you mean?

no, I mean in each given state, say candidate 1 gets 51% of the vote, and candidate 2 gets 49%. Candidate 1 gets every single electoral college vote from that state. it should get split by the percentages that they won by. you shouldn't get all 29 EC votes in Florida if only barely half of that population voted for you. Benjs put it was better in a previous post. 

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid. 

Sorry, what's dumb? Majority wins you mean?

no, I mean in each given state, say candidate 1 gets 51% of the vote, and candidate 2 gets 49%. Candidate 1 gets every single electoral college vote from that state. it should get split by the percentages that they won by. you shouldn't get all 29 EC votes in Florida if only barely half of that population voted for you. Benjs put it was better in a previous post. 

Oh yeah I agree 100%. That's how most modern nations operate, isn't it? American desperately needs to change its government system... obviously it won't, because for some reason too many Americans think everything they do is the best option.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid. 

Sorry, what's dumb? Majority wins you mean?

no, I mean in each given state, say candidate 1 gets 51% of the vote, and candidate 2 gets 49%. Candidate 1 gets every single electoral college vote from that state. it should get split by the percentages that they won by. you shouldn't get all 29 EC votes in Florida if only barely half of that population voted for you. Benjs put it was better in a previous post. 

Oh yeah I agree 100%. That's how most modern nations operate, isn't it? American desperately needs to change its government system... obviously it won't, because for some reason too many Americans think everything they do is the best option.

not on that scale. in canada you win seats in much smaller regions, not entire provinces. 

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid. 

Sorry, what's dumb? Majority wins you mean?

no, I mean in each given state, say candidate 1 gets 51% of the vote, and candidate 2 gets 49%. Candidate 1 gets every single electoral college vote from that state. it should get split by the percentages that they won by. you shouldn't get all 29 EC votes in Florida if only barely half of that population voted for you. Benjs put it was better in a previous post. 

Oh yeah I agree 100%. That's how most modern nations operate, isn't it? American desperately needs to change its government system... obviously it won't, because for some reason too many Americans think everything they do is the best option.

not on that scale. in canada you win seats in much smaller regions, not entire provinces. 

I am not sure what you're saying then. You think there shouldn't be majority leaders?

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid. 

Sorry, what's dumb? Majority wins you mean?

no, I mean in each given state, say candidate 1 gets 51% of the vote, and candidate 2 gets 49%. Candidate 1 gets every single electoral college vote from that state. it should get split by the percentages that they won by. you shouldn't get all 29 EC votes in Florida if only barely half of that population voted for you. Benjs put it was better in a previous post. 

Oh yeah I agree 100%. That's how most modern nations operate, isn't it? American desperately needs to change its government system... obviously it won't, because for some reason too many Americans think everything they do is the best option.

not on that scale. in canada you win seats in much smaller regions, not entire provinces. 

I am not sure what you're saying then. You think there shouldn't be majority leaders?

no, that's not what I'm saying. if only the search function on someone's posts didn't include all of the quotes of every one else's posts,I'd be able to find what Benjs had explained a while back about it should work. I agreed with him, but I can't articulate it myself. 

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid. 

Sorry, what's dumb? Majority wins you mean?

no, I mean in each given state, say candidate 1 gets 51% of the vote, and candidate 2 gets 49%. Candidate 1 gets every single electoral college vote from that state. it should get split by the percentages that they won by. you shouldn't get all 29 EC votes in Florida if only barely half of that population voted for you. Benjs put it was better in a previous post. 

Oh yeah I agree 100%. That's how most modern nations operate, isn't it? American desperately needs to change its government system... obviously it won't, because for some reason too many Americans think everything they do is the best option.

not on that scale. in canada you win seats in much smaller regions, not entire provinces. 

I am not sure what you're saying then. You think there shouldn't be majority leaders?

no, that's not what I'm saying. if only the search function on someone's posts didn't include all of the quotes of every one else's posts,I'd be able to find what Benjs had explained a while back about it should work. I agreed with him, but I can't articulate it myself. 

Fair enough.

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney. The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election...Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent

If you don’t like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didn’t. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

I would say it related more to the Comey bullshit.  The last minute gut punch that should have never been brought up.

Strangest thing ever, IMO.
According to investigative congressional committee members Comey did many many things that appeared as strange.
I cant find any reason why Comey would decide to do that, other than he thought it would have little to no outcome on the election.

I saw a theory where Comey felt it necessary to discuss the Clinton email crap due to the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the AG. Comey may have actually said that himself....can't remember. 

It was definitely odd.  

But when you look back and see that the FBI was also investigating the Russian stuff related to the Trump Campaign it gets even weirder.  I remember Harry Reid asking that question but the media didn't pick up on it too much because the FBI wouldn't confirm anything.

Comey said he couldn't confirm or deny anything with respect to the Trump Russia investigation, I think he said its policy.
Anyway this is the same guy that said in Jan and Feb, Trump wasn't under investigation and that Flynn was cleared.
If we're placing blame other than on Hillary, then the Comey thing certainly deserves some. As I stated numerous times, 95% of it is on the DNC and Hillary, but of all the excuses, Comey at least has some validity.
JimmyV has a good point above, Hillary and the DNC thought that they could convince the public that Hillary is/was the subject to numerous investigations (and cleared if you want to call it that) simply because she is Hillary or a women. It didn't work, the smart people in the room stayed home, they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either (horrendous) candidate.  

I can't agree with that.  She got 3 million more votes.  The nation wanted her.  The bullshit that went down in WI, MI and PA is the main culprit.

Comey gave tRump ammo.  tRump had no momentum up until the point that Comey issued his bullshit.  That gave tRump the opportunity to say that the "investigation was back on."

And then the facebook targeting started.  

I hate trump as much as the next guy, but some perspective is required here. 3 million people sounds like a lot, and it keeps getting repeated. you know what it amounts to?

2.4%.

3 million more votes equals 2.4% out of total votes cast.

that's hardly "the nation". that's a sliver. 

a sliver....that is 3 million more slivers then tRump got