Hilldog's election postmortem

[CAA Flagship]

Yeah, should have said "Benghazi investigation." My bad.

Still not following you. Then were you also talking about the investigation into the email server?

[Skjellyfetti]

Yeah... even though no charges came out of it... there was MUCH more there than with Benghazi.

[Ivytalk]

The irony of casting blame on the DNC for her loss in the general election is just rich considering all the heavy lifting the DNC did to rig the Democratic primary for her over Bernie.

I don't regret for an instance voting for the "other her" and not Clinton. What a train wreck.

DNC staffers pissed off that Hildacoont is throwing them under the bus for ignoring their concerns about PA, MI, and WI.

[GannonFan]

The irony of casting blame on the DNC for her loss in the general election is just rich considering all the heavy lifting the DNC did to rig the Democratic primary for her over Bernie.

I don't regret for an instance voting for the "other her" and not Clinton. What a train wreck.

DNC staffers pissed off that Hildacoont is throwing them under the bus for ignoring their concerns about PA, MI, and WI.

Well, you know, misogyny.

[Ivytalk]

DNC staffers pissed off that Hildacoont is throwing them under the bus for ignoring their concerns about PA, MI, and WI.

Well, you know, misogyny.

More like misandry by Broom Hilda.

[GannonFan]

Well, you know, misogyny.

More like misandry by Broom Hilda.

Nah, I'm sure she had included plenty of females in her buckets of contemptibles and irredeemables. She's a equal opportunity elitist and hater.

[Ibanez]

Breaking News, Hillary Clinton's new spokesperson is now laying the blame for her stunning defeat at the feet some unconventional people. Our new Political Corespondent, Girogio Tsoukalos is live with the new accusations.

[JohnStOnge]

Guys, we can never know that if the way Comey handled things made the difference between her winning and losing but it is certainly a reasonable possibility. Just contemplate a scenario in which, instead of giving a big press conference, Comey would simply have said to the Justice Department that the FBI would not recommend charges. Then add to that a scenario in which he would not have said anything about Weiner's computer.

It is very reasonable to think going to those scenarios vs. what happened could have made a difference in who won the election. The thing where Comey resurrected the issue shortly before the election is particularly compelling. At that point Trump was in real trouble due to stuff like the Access Hollywood video and all of a sudden Comey's letter totally changed things.

[Skjellyfetti]

If Hillary was a decent candidate and made no mistakes, I'd agree with you, JSO. But, she was an extremely flawed candidate and made huge mistakes. Trying to cast the blame elsewhere is unhelpful and an unnecessary, selfish distraction.

[AZGrizFan]

If Hillary was a decent candidate and made no mistakes, I'd agree with you, JSO. But, she was an extremely flawed candidate and made huge mistakes. Trying to cast the blame elsewhere is unhelpful and an unnecessary, selfish distraction.

No shit. Imagine a scenario where she was smart enough NOT to use an unsecured server...

[CID1990]

If Hillary was a decent candidate and made no mistakes, I'd agree with you, JSO. But, she was an extremely flawed candidate and made huge mistakes. Trying to cast the blame elsewhere is unhelpful and an unnecessary, selfish distraction.

Saying Hillary was a "flawed" candidate is EXACTLY the same thing as saying Trump is a flawed President

It doesnt quite capture the mood


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

If Hillary was a decent candidate and made no mistakes, I'd agree with you, JSO. But, she was an extremely flawed candidate and made huge mistakes. Trying to cast the blame elsewhere is unhelpful and an unnecessary, selfish distraction.

It's looking at factors contributing to an outcome. Sure, she was an extremely flawed candidate who made huge mistakes. But that doesn't change the fact that any reasonable person would think the way Comey handled things had an impact. Again: Contemplate a situation in which all the public would've heard is that the FBI did not recommend charges against Clinton. At that point the AG had said she would go with the FBI recommendation. So all he does is recommend no charges without having a press conference type thing.

Then contemplate a situation in which he didn't say anything about Weiner's computer right at the end.

To think the way he handled things had no impact is kind of ridiculous. Believing it could've made the difference in who won the election is not irrational at all.

[CID1990]

If Hillary was a decent candidate and made no mistakes, I'd agree with you, JSO. But, she was an extremely flawed candidate and made huge mistakes. Trying to cast the blame elsewhere is unhelpful and an unnecessary, selfish distraction.

It's looking at factors contributing to an outcome. Sure, she was an extremely flawed candidate who made huge mistakes. But that doesn't change the fact that any reasonable person would think the way Comey handled things had an impact. Again: Contemplate a situation in which all the public would've heard is that the FBI did not recommend charges against Clinton. At that point the AG had said she would go with the FBI recommendation. So all he does is recommend no charges without having a press conference type thing.

Then contemplate a situation in which he didn't say anything about Weiner's computer right at the end.

To think the way he handled things had no impact is kind of ridiculous. Believing it could've made the difference in who won the election is not irrational at all.

Sure it is. It's irrational as hell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

It's looking at factors contributing to an outcome. Sure, she was an extremely flawed candidate who made huge mistakes. But that doesn't change the fact that any reasonable person would think the way Comey handled things had an impact. Again: Contemplate a situation in which all the public would've heard is that the FBI did not recommend charges against Clinton. At that point the AG had said she would go with the FBI recommendation. So all he does is recommend no charges without having a press conference type thing.

Then contemplate a situation in which he didn't say anything about Weiner's computer right at the end.

To think the way he handled things had no impact is kind of ridiculous. Believing it could've made the difference in who won the election is not irrational at all.

Sure it is. It's irrational as hell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You know better than that. You're just jerking chains now.

[CID1990]

Sure it is. It's irrational as hell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You know better than that. You're just jerking chains now.

No, I don't. Your assertion that Comey's letter swung voters is no more based in fact than saying it didn't. It's your feels, and that's it.

[kalm]

You know better than that. You're just jerking chains now.

No, I don't. Your assertion that Comey's letter swung voters is no more based in fact than saying it didn't. It's your feels, and that's it.

And ultimately, she's still the one to blame for Comey's letter.

[CID1990]

No, I don't. Your assertion that Comey's letter swung voters is no more based in fact than saying it didn't. It's your feels, and that's it.

And ultimately, she's still the one to blame for Comey's letter.

Not according to her - I think of her list of things responsible for her losing (not named Hillary Clinton) is up to 36 or so items.

She should hire JSO to bring more focus to the blamecasting

[Pwns]

Guys, we can never know that if the way Comey handled things made the difference between her winning and losing but it is certainly a reasonable possibility. Just contemplate a scenario in which, instead of giving a big press conference, Comey would simply have said to the Justice Department that the FBI would not recommend charges. Then add to that a scenario in which he would not have said anything about Weiner's computer.

It is very reasonable to think going to those scenarios vs. what happened could have made a difference in who won the election. The thing where Comey resurrected the issue shortly before the election is particularly compelling. At that point Trump was in real trouble due to stuff like the Access Hollywood video and all of a sudden Comey's letter totally changed things.

Five Thirty Eight seems to think the Comey thing tipped the election.

Blaming him for Hillary losing, though, is like blaming one bad call by the referees when you lose in football to a team you should've beat by 4 touchdowns.

Think of everything there is you don't like about Trump and remind yourselves that the donks a presidential election to the guy.

[BDKJMU]

If Hillary was a decent candidate and made no mistakes, I'd agree with you, JSO. But, she was an extremely flawed candidate and made huge mistakes. Trying to cast the blame elsewhere is unhelpful and an unnecessary, selfish distraction.

It's looking at factors contributing to an outcome. Sure, she was an extremely flawed candidate who made huge mistakes. But that doesn't change the fact that any reasonable person would think the way Comey handled things had an impact. Again: Contemplate a situation in which all the public would've heard is that the FBI did not recommend charges against Clinton. At that point the AG had said she would go with the FBI recommendation. So all he does is recommend no charges without having a press conference type thing.

Then contemplate a situation in which he didn't say anything about Weiner's computer right at the end.

To think the way he handled things had no impact is kind of ridiculous. Believing it could've made the difference in who won the election is not irrational at all.

And contemplate a situation where Comey did what he should have done- recommended charges.

[JohnStOnge]

You know better than that. You're just jerking chains now.

No, I don't. Your assertion that Comey's letter swung voters is no more based in fact than saying it didn't. It's your feels, and that's it.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... -election/

The Comey Letter Probably Cost Clinton The Election
So why won’t the media admit as much?

And before you guys say 538 "predicted" Clinton would win: No they didn't. They produced an analysis indicating a confidence level (71.8%) which falls far short of what standard practice says is sufficient evidence to conclude that one thing or the other would happen. Their last election forecast indicated "too close to call."

Note that I'm not just saying that now. I posted that on the night before the election. I posted that the 538 forecast indicated that the election was not a done deal at all.

You can find other people who disagree. But I didn't say it's possible to KNOW whether or not Clinton would've won without Comey doing what he did. I said it's reasonable to BELIEVE it could've made a difference. And it is. Frankly I am surprised that you would disagree.

Remember I'm not just talking about the late thing about the Weiner computer. I'm also talking about giving a big press conference where he said he wasn't going to recommend charges then launched into all kinds of criticism of her. A situation in which he simply would've told the Justice Department that he wasn't recommending charges without making any public comments would've been very different.

We're talking about an election wherein Trump won by 0.7% in Pennsylvania, 0.2% in Michigan, and 0.8% in Wisconsin. With things being that close it's kind of ridiculous to say there is high confidence that he'd have won those three States regardless of what Comey did. It's pretty damned obvious that the way Comey handled things...given that he'd decided not to recommend charges...hurt Clinton's chances.

[CID1990]

No, I don't. Your assertion that Comey's letter swung voters is no more based in fact than saying it didn't. It's your feels, and that's it.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... -election/

The Comey Letter Probably Cost Clinton The Election
So why won’t the media admit as much?

And before you guys say 538 "predicted" Clinton would win: No they didn't. They produced an analysis indicating a confidence level (71.8%) which falls far short of what standard practice says is sufficient evidence to conclude that one thing or the other would happen. Their last election forecast indicated "too close to call."

Note that I'm not just saying that now. I posted that on the night before the election. I posted that the 538 forecast indicated that the election was not a done deal at all.

You can find other people who disagree. But I didn't say it's possible to KNOW whether or not Clinton would've won without Comey doing what he did. I said it's reasonable to BELIEVE it could've made a difference. And it is. Frankly I am surprised that you would disagree.

Remember I'm not just talking about the late thing about the Weiner computer. I'm also talking about giving a big press conference where he said he wasn't going to recommend charges then launched into all kinds of criticism of her. A situation in which he simply would've told the Justice Department that he wasn't recommending charges without making any public comments would've been very different.

We're talking about an election wherein Trump won by 0.7% in Pennsylvania, 0.2% in Michigan, and 0.8% in Wisconsin. With things being that close it's kind of ridiculous to say there is high confidence that he'd have won those three States regardless of what Comey did. It's pretty damned obvious that the way Comey handled things...given that he'd decided not to recommend charges...hurt Clinton's chances.

No server, no letter

Nobody hurt Hillary's chances more than Hillary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I agree with the conclusion that Hillary's decision to have a private e mail server was a bigger factor than anything Comey did. I've posted before that I think she'd be President right now if she hadn't made that fateful decision and that I don't think the election would even have been close. Obviously there would've been no Comey factor if she hadn't made that decision.

But that doesn't mean Comey's handling of the situation wasn't a factor. Again: It's very reasonable to think a scenario in which he simply tells the Justice Department that he's not recommending charges without making any public statements would've created a very different dynamic than the scenario in which he did what he did. And I don't think there's any reasonable question that him dropping that bomb late in the election season hurt Hillary. Trump obviously seized on it. He obviously knew it was something he could use and that it helped him.

I don't even get why people are even remotely inclined to deny that. It was pretty obvious while it was all going on that the way Comey handled things hurt Clinton. Also hurt the Democratic Party cause. Heck, if he'd have just recommended charges against Clinton during the summer the Democrats could've hitched their wagon to Sanders. And I think Sanders would've blown Trump out. Instead, Comey severely wounded Clinton without taking her out. Best thing that could've happened for Trump.

I honestly think Comey was just doing what he thought was right in each instance. But I also think he really helped Trump's chances in the way he handled things.

[BDKJMU]

I agree with the conclusion that Hillary's decision to have a private e mail server was a bigger factor than anything Comey did. I've posted before that I think she'd be President right now if she hadn't made that fateful decision and that I don't think the election would even have been close. Obviously there would've been no Comey factor if she hadn't made that decision.

But that doesn't mean Comey's handling of the situation wasn't a factor. Again: It's very reasonable to think a scenario in which he simply tells the Justice Department that he's not recommending charges without making any public statements would've created a very different dynamic than the scenario in which he did what he did. And I don't think there's any reasonable question that him dropping that bomb late in the election season hurt Hillary. Trump obviously seized on it. He obviously knew it was something he could use and that it helped him.

I don't even get why people are even remotely inclined to deny that. It was pretty obvious while it was all going on that the way Comey handled things hurt Clinton. Also hurt the Democratic Party cause. Heck, if he'd have just recommended charges against Clinton during the summer the Democrats could've hitched their wagon to Sanders. And I think Sanders would've blown Trump out. Instead, Comey severely wounded Clinton without taking her out. Best thing that could've happened for Trump.

I honestly think Comey was just doing what he thought was right in each instance. But I also think he really helped Trump's chances in the way he handled things.

Oh baloney. The crazy old man MIGHT have beaten Trump, but he's too much of a wing nut to have blown Trump out. Even some on the left acknowledge that..

Bernie Sanders would have beaten Donald Trump? Not so fast
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... p-election

[JohnStOnge]

Five Thirty Eight seems to think the Comey thing tipped the election.

And actually I thought that way before I knew anything about 538 opining on the matter. I can remember walking into my Mom's House the day after Comey announced the Weiner computer thing and telling the anti-Trump home health care worker that takes care of her "Well it looks like we could very well have a President Trump now." And I was watching what polls were doing too. There was no question that it switched the situation from one in which Clinton had all the momentum to one in which she was suddenly in serious trouble.

I didn't need 538 to tell me it changed the trajectory.

And I don't see how anyone who lived through the situation could have perceived the situation differently. Even if you are a Trump supporter, are you going to tell me you didn't see that at the time as helping Trump's chances? Are you going to tell me it didn't encourage you? That you weren't glad to see it happen and think it helped the candidate you were pulling for?

[JohnStOnge]

[

Bernie Sanders would have beaten Donald Trump? Not so fast
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... p-election

Some of that is the same old fallacy about the polls being way off in the 2016 election. As noted in some of my previous posts, the overall popular vote polls were very close to the actual outcome. And if you look at the latest State by State polls reported at Real Clear Politics site the candidate that won among respondents in each poll won the State in 44 of 46 cases where polls are reported. That includes Trump winning among respondents for the latest polls of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. The latest poll for North Carolina was reported as a tie. The only case in which the latest poll reported at RealClearPolitics had the majority of respondents fail to pick the candidate that won the State is Wisconsin.

So you have this from the article you linked:

Nevertheless, it’s understandable why one of those polls is now being widely circulated. It found that in a race between Sanders and Trump, Sanders would have won with 56% of the vote. The national poll, which spoke to 1,600 registered voters two days before the general election was conducted by Gravis Marketing.

Even more than most polls, that one is deeply flawed because it asks individuals to consider an alternate reality where Sanders was a nominee.

The problem with that...aside from the false underlying premise that the polls in general were deeply flawed...is that it wasn't just that poll. I was watching the polls all along. As long as they were reporting on Sanders and he was an active candidate he consistently ran something like 10 to 15 percentage points stronger against Trump than Clinton did. He was consistently up on Trump by something like 15 to 20 points. He was clearly the stronger potential general election candidate for the Democrats.

Plus common sense should tell you that Trump would not have been able to use the "crooked Hillary" type stuff against Sanders. He'd have been in a situation where the Democrat was on the same side as he was on the trade deals and such. He'd have been neutered.