Hillary won more votes for President

Gern Blansten · December 2016

Bentleyspop said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:
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.

JC29856 · December 2016

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

JimmyV · December 2016

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.

mrussel1 · December 2016

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.

JC29856 · December 2016

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.

mrussel1 · December 2016

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.

Gern Blansten · December 2016

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/

mrussel1 · December 2016

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.

JC29856 · December 2016

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.

Free · December 2016

.

mrussel1 · December 2016

Free said:
.

We're on the same page there.

MeanMr.Mustard · December 2016

watching the news last night I saw that voter fraud was an issue in Michigan ? voting poll volunteer's actually resubmitting voting sheets 2 to 3 times for HRC votes ?

JC29856 · December 2016

Happy Hilliarys and Merry Christmas everybody!

JimmyV · December 2016

https://youtu.be/a_VqlWn5S3s

JC29856 · December 2016

See a list of Hilliary Clinton upcoming speeches below. I copied and pasted from this site
https://hillaryspeeches.com/scheduled-events/

JimmyV · December 2016

Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.

But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?

“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/hillary-clinton-campaign-donors-post-mortem-232715

MeanMr.Mustard · December 2016

JimmyV said:
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.

But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?

“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/hillary-clinton-campaign-donors-post-mortem-232715

reading it sounds like (between the lines) that the bundlers and donors are not getting what they have paid for in advance ?
Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party seems to want something along the lines of easier
immigration access for cheaper farm labor (no $15 an hour labor) or maybe something different ? but it would be interesting
to know what returns were expected for the Billion dollar investment made by these labor leaders, business executives and owners
and even the foreign contributor's, I wouldn't be surprised he she was sued at some point for fraudulent campaign donations by these same people.

mrussel1 · December 2016

MeanMr.Mustard said:

JimmyV said:
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.

But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?

“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/hillary-clinton-campaign-donors-post-mortem-232715
reading it sounds like (between the lines) that the bundlers and donors are not getting what they have paid for in advance ?
Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party seems to want something along the lines of easier
immigration access for cheaper farm labor (no $15 an hour labor) or maybe something different ? but it would be interesting
to know what returns were expected for the Billion dollar investment made by these labor leaders, business executives and owners
and even the foreign contributor's, I wouldn't be surprised he she was sued at some point for fraudulent campaign donations by these same people.

Wait, what? You think that wealthy people contribute to campaigns with the expectations that certainly policy goals that they support are fulfilled? No way. Say it isn't so. This Democratic party is so corrupt. They should only support candidates because they are partial to the letter D, not because there is alignment of causes.

Free · December 2016

JimmyV said:
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.

But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?

“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/hillary-clinton-campaign-donors-post-mortem-232715

Still wasting time wallowing in grief. Big donors prob want their money back!

MeanMr.Mustard · December 2016

mrussel1 said:

MeanMr.Mustard said:

JimmyV said:
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.

But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?

“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/hillary-clinton-campaign-donors-post-mortem-232715
reading it sounds like (between the lines) that the bundlers and donors are not getting what they have paid for in advance ?
Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party seems to want something along the lines of easier
immigration access for cheaper farm labor (no $15 an hour labor) or maybe something different ? but it would be interesting
to know what returns were expected for the Billion dollar investment made by these labor leaders, business executives and owners
and even the foreign contributor's, I wouldn't be surprised he she was sued at some point for fraudulent campaign donations by these same people.

Wait, what? You think that wealthy people contribute to campaigns with the expectations that certainly policy goals that they support are fulfilled? No way. Say it isn't so. This Democratic party is so corrupt. They should only support candidates because they are partial to the letter D, not because there is alignment of causes.

jajajajajajajajjajaj ! some members of the labor union only vote for candidates with the letter "D" by their name, I will agree the democratic party has been corrupted for many years as is the republican party and where I come from nothing is free.

Hillary won more votes for President

Comments

Categories