Russia Likely Did Swing Votes For Donald Trump

[_Kishkumen]

The fact that different factors may have resulted in a narrow victory for Clinton does not, in my mind, change the most relevant factor in her loss--her weakness as a candidate.

She should have utterly destroyed Trump. A strong candidate would have. A strong candidate would have managed to eke out a victory despite all of the Russian meddling and GOP cheating.

Really, the election should have never been close. Not even within a lightyear of distance between the two candidates.

The Dems lost. They just did. I am sad that Trump is president. It represents a catastrophic failure of our nation and our culture. And the Dems must take responsibility for their part in bringing this about.

Blaming the other person just doesn't cut it. In fact, it just insures continued failure and decline.

For all of her many virtues, Hillary Clinton is an oblivious narcissist whose ambition to be a historic figure overwhelmed her statesmanship and prudence. She should have never run in the first place. My objections to her candidacy have nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. They have everything to do with the fact that it was going to take a candidate of truly rare qualities and a spotless record to be the first woman president.

Obama was that rare candidate for black America. Clinton was not that person for women.

As a hypothetical, consider any possible candidate for the presidency who has attracted the abject hatred of a large percentage of the electorate and attracted nutty conspiracy theories for decades and ask yourself, "Is this this person a safe bet for a win?" If our party has had the presidency for 8 years, is it likely that this candidate, who has inspired an entire cottage industry of lunacy against the candidate the person who is going to hold the presidency for our party for 8 more years? Is it possible that, given the fact that millions of people have been primed to think that this candidate is up to no good, the other party just might exploit that in some way during the election, or that someone will be forced to take extra measures to insure the lack of bias in such a way that they will compromise the candidate's chances?

Is Hillary a bad person? Is the lunacy opposition to her fair? No on both accounts. But it simply does not matter. The irrationality and hatred of others is a factor that must be taken into account, no matter how wrong it is. Would there have been a Comey situation or indefatigable Putin opposition if this had been another candidate? I don't think so. These were some of Clinton's particular weak points and liabilities going into the race.

Remember how Obama was pretty consistent in his opposition to the Iraq War at a time when the Iraq War had attracted a lot of public anger. In our times that anger was focused on the economy. Hillary was never credibly on the side of those who feel exploited and abused by corporate America and the financial sector. She couldn't even pretend to be because she had been in a position where she could be held accountable for past actions in the government and her devotion to the cause of the little person was murky at best.

I am not saying that Trump won an honest victory. I am not saying that, given other factors, Clinton might not have won. But I think that her weaknesses as a candidate were a very strong indicator of this outcome. It should have been easy to beat Trump. A better candidate, a better campaigner, a more credible champion of the little person would have won, could have easily been the first woman president. But Clinton is a tarnished brand. It has been a tarnished brand for some time.

It may not be right. It may not be fair. It simply is the case. And it is part of the reason we have a reckless, idiotic buffoon as president of the country. If Hillary and her friends did not have their heads so firmly fixed into their own rear ends, then we probably would not have Trump as our president today. Elizabeth Warren might have been president. Would Putin have gone after her? Would Comey have had such an email situation to deal with?

No. No. And don't tell me that I have a gender issue because I think Hillary, while being a highly competent and qualified leader, was not a good candidate. I would be very overjoyed to have a woman in the White House. Overjoyed.

[_Themis]

It is all if and buts as to whether the Russians influenced the election...and I never said that there was not zero proof that Russia did not interfere with the election

Did the Russians hack HC's emails and then release them when they wanted to Markk?

...in fact, if you have read my posts on the subject over the past year, you would know that I wrote that they have been interfering since post ww2, even if Obama did not know that.

They certainly have tried, but they have not had real abilities to do so until the last decade or so with things like social media.

[_Themis]

What would Russia's motivation be in wanting to allegedly swing votes in favor of the Kremlin Candidate?

It's a good question people should consider. From what I know they did not like HC, so they would have some motivation to hurt her. But why help Trump? He is clearly not qualified and will cause a lot of problems for the US and the world. The Russian's would have to be our adversary to want to help Trump get elected. Trump also seems to have a lot of connections to Russia we have not seen from other candidates. I suppose that would be enough for them to help Trump thinking they may get better treatment from him. If they have blackmail information on him that would be even much better because they could them manipulate him more to give them what they want.

[_Some Schmo]

I am not saying that Trump won an honest victory. I am not saying that, given other factors, Clinton might not have won. But I think that her weaknesses as a candidate were a very strong indicator of this outcome. It should have been easy to beat Trump. A better candidate, a better campaigner, a more credible champion of the little person would have won, could have easily been the first woman president. But Clinton is a tarnished brand. It has been a tarnished brand for some time.

Hard to argue with any of this.

Lately, my wife and I have been talking about how so much of the public awakening (#metoo, thousands more regular folks running for various offices, the marches, etc.) wouldn't have happened under Clinton. Drumpf is so awful, in some ways it's having a positive effect on our culture. That might be offset by all the racists coming out of the woodwork, but I suppose we'll see long-term where all of this goes.

[_Kishkumen]

Hard to argue with any of this.

And yet...

I hardly dare make any of these points most days of the week because of the predictable backlash and assumptions that I am a Bernie Bro hater who is a secret misogynist. All because I did not think Hillary--the person I voted for--was a strong candidate.

(Maybe I lacked the faith in her to push her over the finish line to victory?)

People lecture me on how I must be wrong. How the factors I am mentioning don't really matter, how Hillary should be president because of the strong candidate she was, were it not for the Russians and voter suppression. I fully grant the Russians and the voter suppression.

My point is that the contest should not have been close enough for any of that to matter.

Trump is manifestly unqualified and morally despicable. What kind of candidate loses to Trump?

A good one?

Really?

That must have been some cheating. We're talking Third World evil regime type cheating. Is that what people are saying? That our elections are so corrupt as to be completely unreliable? Such that votes really don't matter but only the will of the party in power?

I don't think so.

Lately, my wife and I have been talking about how so much of the public awakening (#metoo, thousands more regular folks running for various offices, the marches, etc.) wouldn't have happened under Clinton. Drumpf is so awful, in some ways it's having a positive effect on our culture. That might be offset by all the racists coming out of the woodwork, but I suppose we'll see long-term where all of this goes.

You guys are onto something there. Maybe Drumpf can have a counterintuitively positive effect because of his awfulness.

[_Xenophon]

Lately, my wife and I have been talking about how so much of the public awakening (#metoo, thousands more regular folks running for various offices, the marches, etc.) wouldn't have happened under Clinton. Drumpf is so awful, in some ways it's having a positive effect on our culture. That might be offset by all the racists coming out of the woodwork, but I suppose we'll see long-term where all of this goes.

You guys are onto something there. Maybe Drumpf can have a counterintuitively positive effect because of his awfulness.

There was actually a current of thought prior to the 2016 election that the party that wins the White House would ultimately be the loser. I especially know many #NeverTrumpers who's primary reason to resist Trump was because they thought hy would spell the GOPs ultimate demise. I don't fully agree with the take but it isn't a totally outrageous idea to believe that the person that political parties were putting forth weren't good for the longevity of that party's health.

[_Some Schmo]

Hard to argue with any of this.

And yet...

I hardly dare make any of these points most days of the week because of the predictable backlash and assumptions that I am a Bernie Bro hater who is a secret misogynist. All because I did not think Hillary--the person I voted for--was a strong candidate.

Well, I'm in the exact same boat (I've been called a Bernie Bro a couple times). I remember saying during the primary that I was all for a female president, just not this particular female. And I ended up voting for her too. I think she would have been a middling president at best, but I wouldn't have worried so much about what the rest of the world thought of us.

I can't take people seriously if they call me a misogynist. On that subject, I am quite confident about who I am.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I can't take people seriously if they call me a misogynist. On that subject, I am quite confident about who I am.

The only person who could possibly mistake you for a misogynist is this guy:



- Doc

[_Kevin Graham]

Trump is manifestly unqualified and morally despicable. What kind of candidate loses to Trump?

A good one?

Really?

I just don't see how this gets pinned on HC alone. I mean the same question can and has been asked of the American people. What kind of people elect someone like Trump? I notice the same people who voted for Stein own this more than the people who voted for HC because they're the ones who basically helped Trump.

Is it really HC's fault so many people are this stupid? You've seen Trump supporters, do they strike you as the kind of people who are swayed by facts and evidence? HC could have done nothing to beat sense into their heads. She couldn't prevent Comey's BS letter, Russia's interference or Wisconsin's voter restrictions. It was just a perfect storm of all kinds of BS.

[_Kevin Graham]

That must have been some cheating. We're talking Third World evil regime type cheating. Is that what people are saying?

Um, yes? When someone gets three million more votes and loses, that's an unreliable system. When a vote in South Dakota counts four times as much as a vote in California, that's an unreliable and unfair system.

And do we really need to discuss how the GOP gerrymanders control of Congress?