The Clinton Thread: All things Hillary

[Katiebee]

It's her money to spend.

And that entire commentary is spin. A recount is not necessarily contesting the result. In this case two states Michigan, Wisconsin were all extremely close.

In order to change the electorial count significantly, Michigan and Florida would have to go to Clinton. Michigan had a spread of 11,000 votes, which could be made up in a recount if things when for Clinton. In Wisonsin the spread is 27,000, a much greater hurdle.

In Florida, which was pivotal to Clinton, the spread was 120,000. Clinton would have to make up 43 electorial votes, which Michigan and Wisconsin would not do. she would need a state like Florida to do that.

All it is going to do is erode Trump's bogus claim of a landslide victory. He didn't get a majority of popular votes, and 306 electorial votes does not equal a landslide.

He got a contested election, not a mandate.

After Trump made a scene about how the vote was rigged, and still won, he should shut the fuck up and let the recount go uncontested.

Trump won in the Electorial college with 56.8% of the vote.

Now your math may be different, if your values of 2 are sufficiently large, but 56.8% is just over a majority. A landslide would be in the range of 70%, or 377 electorial votes. He only got 306.

[Lois]

Hillary is not saying Trump did not win.  However, there were reported irregularities and Hillary's base is demanding action.  What better way to put the whole matter to rest than let Jill Stein's recount move forward?  Without the recount, the legitimacy of Trump's victory will always be in question. Trump should welcome any and all recounts ........ unless he has something to hide?

[Katiebee]

The move to suppress the recount is really not the work of a confident person. It reveals both a weakness and a pettiness in Trump that is very disturbing.

[watcher1]

The move to suppress the recount is really not the work of a confident person. It reveals both a weakness and a pettiness in Trump that is very disturbing.

True, but why was a recount wanted by the Green Party anyway?  What did they have to gain by a recount?

[Katiebee]

They wanted to make a point about the count validity. And probably to stick it to Trump.

[Lois]

I think it is because Stein realizes that Trump was the worst of all possible outcomes, and because his win was fishy.  I mean how could all the polls have been so wrong?  Is it possible they weren't?  I would like to know, and I think confidence in our system demands verification.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/2016-exit-polls-did-hillaty-clinton-win-presidential-election-voter-fraud-donald-trump-lose-rigged/

[Sensualtravler]

I think it is because Stein realizes that Trump was the worst of all possible outcomes, and because his win was fishy.  I mean how could all the polls have been so wrong?  Is it possible they weren't?  I would like to know, and I think confidence in our system demands verification.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/2016-exit-polls-did-hillaty-clinton-win-presidential-election-voter-fraud-donald-trump-lose-rigged/

Any time the Democrats lose an election they claim it was 'fishy.'
I wonder how much influence Hillary had on Stein wanting a recount? A position in her cabinet possibly?

[watasch]

     The only true "fishy" aspect with the polls was the media had put all their chips on Clinton and didn't take Trump seriously as a candidate.  (On more local level just look at the postings and predictions here on KB)  As a result, instead of looking at the facts surrounding the Trump campaign, they spent their time bolstering their viewpoint and belief in Clinton's "win".  Not exactly the best example of an impartial press.
     Another example:  look at how the media covered some of the alternative candidates.  I think  you will be hard pressed to find any appreciable or positive coverage of their campaigns, especially in comparison to how they covered Clinton.
     Any poll has its issues with accuracy.  Any basic class in statistics will teach how easy it is for the ones making and conducting the poll to insert their bias into the process.  The only "poll" that mattered was the final count (survey) of the votes.
     

[Sensualtravler]

Kellyanne Conway Would Be A Feminist Hero If She Were A Democrat

[/size][/size][/size][/size]

She's a lawyer, pollster, and business owner. She's a mom of four, and a self-made woman. Why do feminists ignore her? Oh, that's right—she's Republican.


http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/01/kellyanne-conway-would-be-a-feminist-hero-if-she-were-a-democrat/

[Katiebee]

Careful, you could the similar things about Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin, given the proper context.

Given that she is supporting a man who has made numerous mysoginistic remarks, she is viewed as less than a hero by feminists.

[Sensualtravler]

Careful, you could the similar things about Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin, given the proper context.

Given that she is supporting a man who has made numerous mysoginistic remarks, she is viewed as less than a hero by feminists.

The previous goals that feminists used to define themselves, has changed so drastically that even they no longer know how to define themselves.

If she had been foul mouthed Hillarys campaign manager, and she had won, she would have been idolized by women claiming themselves to be feminists.

[MissBarbara]

     The only true "fishy" aspect with the polls was the media had put all their chips on Clinton and didn't take Trump seriously as a candidate.  (On more local level just look at the postings and predictions here on KB)  As a result, instead of looking at the facts surrounding the Trump campaign, they spent their time bolstering their viewpoint and belief in Clinton's "win".  Not exactly the best example of an impartial press.
     Another example:  look at how the media covered some of the alternative candidates.  I think  you will be hard pressed to find any appreciable or positive coverage of their campaigns, especially in comparison to how they covered Clinton.
     Any poll has its issues with accuracy.  Any basic class in statistics will teach how easy it is for the ones making and conducting the poll to insert their bias into the process.  The only "poll" that mattered was the final count (survey) of the votes.
     

I think this might be the most succinct and accurate description of why Trump's victory was so "shocking."

As I've mentioned elsewhere, reading the NY Times daily, both in print and online, there seemed to be not even the slightest chance of of a Trump victory, and Clinton's victory was completely foregone.

I wonder how many additional votes Clinton would have received had her victory not been viewed as foregone, had Trump not been positioned as guaranteed to lose, and had polling data been viewed open-eyed and unblinkered? Maybe even enough for her to have won the election?

[Katiebee]

Sensualtraveler, you paint very liberally with a broad brush.you still ignore the salient fact, if you have any sympathy with feminism then someone who allies with a mysoginist is not going to be viewed with any kind of favor.

[watasch]

     The only true "fishy" aspect with the polls was the media had put all their chips on Clinton and didn't take Trump seriously as a candidate.  (On more local level just look at the postings and predictions here on KB)  As a result, instead of looking at the facts surrounding the Trump campaign, they spent their time bolstering their viewpoint and belief in Clinton's "win".  Not exactly the best example of an impartial press.
     Another example:  look at how the media covered some of the alternative candidates.  I think  you will be hard pressed to find any appreciable or positive coverage of their campaigns, especially in comparison to how they covered Clinton.
     Any poll has its issues with accuracy.  Any basic class in statistics will teach how easy it is for the ones making and conducting the poll to insert their bias into the process.  The only "poll" that mattered was the final count (survey) of the votes.
     

I think this might be the most succinct and accurate description of why Trump's victory was so "shocking."

As I've mentioned elsewhere, reading the NY Times daily, both in print and online, there seemed to be not even the slightest chance of of a Trump victory, and Clinton's victory was completely foregone.

I wonder how many additional votes Clinton would have received had her victory not been viewed as foregone, had Trump not been positioned as guaranteed to lose, and had polling data been viewed open-eyed and unblinkered? Maybe even enough for her to have won the election?

    Who knows how many decided not to vote due to the press' drumbeat?  I will make a prediction here.  In the next election, off season in particular, the press will NOT have learned their lesson and will continue with their ways. The next election cycle (2 years hence) will be a repeat of their self serving ways.

[MissBarbara]

     The only true "fishy" aspect with the polls was the media had put all their chips on Clinton and didn't take Trump seriously as a candidate.  (On more local level just look at the postings and predictions here on KB)  As a result, instead of looking at the facts surrounding the Trump campaign, they spent their time bolstering their viewpoint and belief in Clinton's "win".  Not exactly the best example of an impartial press.
     Another example:  look at how the media covered some of the alternative candidates.  I think  you will be hard pressed to find any appreciable or positive coverage of their campaigns, especially in comparison to how they covered Clinton.
     Any poll has its issues with accuracy.  Any basic class in statistics will teach how easy it is for the ones making and conducting the poll to insert their bias into the process.  The only "poll" that mattered was the final count (survey) of the votes.
     

I think this might be the most succinct and accurate description of why Trump's victory was so "shocking."

As I've mentioned elsewhere, reading the NY Times daily, both in print and online, there seemed to be not even the slightest chance of of a Trump victory, and Clinton's victory was completely foregone.

I wonder how many additional votes Clinton would have received had her victory not been viewed as foregone, had Trump not been positioned as guaranteed to lose, and had polling data been viewed open-eyed and unblinkered? Maybe even enough for her to have won the election?

    Who knows how many decided not to vote due to the press' drumbeat?  I will make a prediction here.  In the next election, off season in particular, the press will NOT have learned their lesson and will continue with their ways. The next election cycle (2 years hence) will be a repeat of their self serving ways.

At the risk of blowing my own horn, at one point I posted on the Board this exact scenario -- Clinton voters staying home as a result of assuming a Clinton landslide -- as one path to a Trump victory.

Okay, the horn blowing's over.

I agree and disagree about your second point. While I agree that the mainstream media will not learn their lesson, I believe that the Democrats will learn from their mistakes and get their act together enough to score some victories in the 2018 Midterms.

[phtlc]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, reading the NY Times daily, both in print and online, there seemed to be not even the slightest chance of of a Trump victory, and Clinton's victory was completely foregone.

I was guilty of that too. I think I even said here that when election time came he would not be president. Oh well, I guess I have to be wrong just once in my life.

[GEMINIGUY]

Ha!

[MissBarbara]

Oh well, I guess I have to be wrong just once in my life.

That's true. But please don't start making a habit of it! 

[phtlc]

Oh well, I guess I have to be wrong just once in my life.

That's true. But please don't start making a habit of it! 

It's never happened before and I can assure you it will never happen again 

[MissBarbara]

Oh well, I guess I have to be wrong just once in my life.

That's true. But please don't start making a habit of it! 

It's never happened before and I can assure you it will never happen again 

I will take that as a promise...