Can Our Democracy Survive This?

[_EAllusion]

let us beat that dead horse. the presidential contest is made up of 51 unique popular votes. those are the damned rules.

that is the goddamn system. scoring this by a different set of rules and a hypothetical and different system, to prove your thesis, is, again, insanity. ya know, repeating the same goddamn mistake with the same goddamn result, insane.

We're not talking about the rules. We're talking about popularity. Who wins the most electoral votes doesn't determine national popularity. The popular vote, while imperfect, is a better measure of that. I said that Democrats win more votes and you called that - quoting you here - "insane." When I refer to the numbers, you then flip back to arguing who won elections. You simultaneously realize and don't realize that parties can win elections while receiving fewer votes nationally depending what is convenient for you to say. To spell it out again, I am saying that Democrats do not have a popularity problem as evidenced by the fact that they on average, consistently get more votes than Republicans nationally and consistently poll better on a candidate and issue level. What they have, instead, is a distribution problem.

being more popular in california and failing to export that popularity because it is based on such a peculiar and separatist community, does not translate into a higher popularity. the election results have dealt blows to the democratic party.

...

you, you, you are confusing popularity. you are confusing crap. you are translating sample polls and extrapolating conclusions based on samples. you are confusing popularity in a fictional contest (the total national contest) with the popular vote in 51 actual contests. you are confusing a poll of likely voters, with the actual results of people that actually care enough, and express support, by voting.

doing what is necessary to win AN ELECTION is part of becoming popular and gaining popularity. what the “F”, man? can you hear what you are saying? we are not talking about winning a contract, where doing what it takes to win and being popular can be at odds. we are talking about winning a popularity contest and doing what it takes to be popular.

It's actually amazing how you've argued yourself in circles here. I argued that the Democrats need to do a better job appealing to rural voters. I described it as their A1 task. You called me racist for saying this. Then, only a few posts later, you are saying the same thing while imagining yourself to disagree with me. Only you're doing it with palpable hatred. Do you know how Democrats do better with the rules of the system in place? Win more rural voters who have more representation than their urban counterparts. Apparently me saying that they need to do a better job appealing to people in areas of lower population density is "racist" while you calling California a peculiar and separatist community is A-Ok.

[_EAllusion]

There was about a 4 point swing post Comey letter including an immediate collapse in Clinton's polling numbers right after the story came out.

polls are dildoic, but since you brought it up, maybe the polls can shed a little light on this.

what were the polling results for a democratic candidate that was not under FBI investigation compared to a candidate that was under FBI investigation?

if the polls asked about "Hillary's Criminal Investigation" instead of the "Comey Letter", would the results of the poll and conclusions be the same?

The polls I'm referring to asked about neither. They asked people who they planned to vote for. After the Comey letter came out, Clinton's numbers took a dive by enough points to cost her the election. This gets brought up both because it was a highly unexpected event and because there was nothing to the story but hype. Seems like an asinine thing for the fate of the free world to rest on.

[_Mayan Elephant]

The polls I'm referring to asked about neither. They asked people who they planned to vote for. After the Comey letter came out, Clinton's numbers took a dive by enough points to cost her the election. This gets brought up both because it was a highly unexpected event and because there was nothing to the story but hype. Seems like an asinine thing for the fate of the free world to rest on.

eh voila.

the dnc anointed a candidate that was under investigation. those that supported her religiously, did not expect anything unforeseen from the investigation.

nothing but hype? what? EA, that is delusional. sure, there was nothing revealed in the emails on weiner's laptop. are you suggesting there was not a laptop and there were no emails? as far as i know, that was not hyped. that was factual.

fate of the free world rested on that? uh, drama much? if there was any truth to that, at all, then the dnc should have been a lot more serious about how they went about picking a candidate.

[_Gunnar]

. . .then the dnc should have been a lot more serious about how they went about picking a candidate.

That much of what you said is certainly true. I doubt you will get any argument from EA over that.

[_beastie]

Wow. What a turn this thread has taken. Thanks to our local contrarian.

[_Kevin Graham]

eh voila.

the dnc anointed a candidate that was under investigation. those that supported her religiously, did not expect anything unforeseen from the investigation.

nothing but hype? what? EA, that is delusional. sure, there was nothing revealed in the emails on weiner's laptop. are you suggesting there was not a laptop and there were no emails? as far as i know, that was not hyped. that was factual.

fate of the free world rested on that? uh, drama much? if there was any truth to that, at all, then the dnc should have been a lot more serious about how they went about picking a candidate.

Jesus, you really haven't paid any attention to much at all these past months have you?

First you say you didn't know any polls had Trump leading in any of those states, which makes you fairly ignorant considering you're trying to debate this stuff on the internet, and now you're pretending there was just cause for Comey's announcement just prior to the election, knowing full well it would be blown up by the media to benefit Trump. And on top of all that, you're stupid enough to believe it had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election because....

Oh yeah, that's right. You don't think polls tell us anything and you want so desperately to believe most Americans were holding the emails against her. Oh, and you've made up your mind the blame should be placed completely on the DNC instead of just accepting the hard to swallow fact that she beat Trump in the popular vote by a wide margin and would have beaten him in the election had Comey not pulled this stunt.

[_EAllusion]

nothing but hype? what? EA, that is delusional. sure, there was nothing revealed in the emails on weiner's laptop. are you suggesting there was not a laptop and there were no emails? as far as i know, that was not hyped. that was factual.

The story was covered in a self-fulfilling prophecy as a bombshell that would alter the election with all sorts of innuendo that new information was being found about Clinton that revealed great depths of deceptive and/or irresponsible behavior. It was nothing. It revealed nothing new or troubling. People reasoned, and Republicans explicitly argued, that if Comey was going to the trouble of announcing the investigation it must contain some serious issues. It did not.

The letter story was actually a double whammy. When the letter was released, it cut into Clinton's marginal swing voter support. Enough to cost her the election as it turns out. When the second letter story hit stating nothing was found, it made on-the-fence conservatives think she was getting away with something and moved that cohort's votes against her to some extent. It was a brutal turn of events completely out of the blue and unanticipated by everyone. It's so obvious that even the Trump camp was surprised and caught flat-footed by their victory.

[_Mayan Elephant]

The story was covered in a self-fulfilling prophecy as a bombshell that would alter the election with all sorts of innuendo that new information was being found about Clinton that revealed great depths of deceptive and/or irresponsible behavior. It was nothing. It revealed nothing new or troubling. People reasoned, and Republicans explicitly argued, that if Comey was going to the trouble of announcing the investigation it must contain some serious issues. It did not.

The letter story was actually a double whammy. When the letter was released, it cut into Clinton's marginal swing voter support. Enough to cost her the election as it turns out. When the second letter story hit stating nothing was found, it made on-the-fence conservatives think she was getting away with something and moved that cohort's votes against her to some extent. It was a brutal turn of events completely out of the blue and unanticipated by everyone. It's so obvious that even the Trump camp was surprised and caught flat-footed by their victory.

what prophecy?

[_Mayan Elephant]

Jesus h Christ.

and now you're pretending there was just cause for Comey's announcement just prior to the election, knowing full well it would be blown up by the media to benefit Trump.

i am not pretending crap, you jackass. comey said he had just cause. he released it. hell if i know if it was just or not. all i am saying is that there was a laptop with her emails on it. that was factual. comey reported it. so the “F” what? if he didn't say anything, he gets crucified. if he says something, he gets crucified. you can't blame comey for how the media treats it. Jesus.

And on top of all that, you're stupid enough to believe it had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election because....

i have no way of knowing if the letter had absolutely no effect or all the effects, you jackass. what i am saying is that comey's letter is NOT THE GODDAMN ISSUE and not why Trump is president. the issue is that the democratic candidate was the subject of an investigation in the first place, way before that fateful october announcement. if you enter a lame horse into a horserace, it is not the veterinarians fault for killing it on the track when it collapses. comey is the symptom of nominating a candidate that was vulnerable, he is not the cause for chrissakes.

Oh yeah, that's right. You don't think polls tell us anything and you want so desperately to believe most Americans were holding the emails against her.

that sentence makes no sense. and that is not what i think, fool. i think that the actual election results tell us something and that not all polls are reliable or unbiased. and that includes polls about how people vote.

i do not care about the emails or how americans hold them against her or the media or comey. what i believe, is that this added to her trustworthiness issue with voters and made her a bad candidate.

Oh, and you've made up your mind the blame should be placed completely on the DNC instead of just accepting the hard to swallow fact that she beat Trump in the popular vote by a wide margin and would have beaten him in the election had Comey not pulled this stunt.

just plain stupid. i accept the fact that she beat Trump in the total votes of voting americans. accepted. not denying that. what has you confused? accepted and acknowledged. she got more votes on that day. great. doesn't matter. she lost in 30 states. she lost the contest. she is not president elect. can you accept that hard to swallow fact that she is not the president elect?

i have no clue how blaming the dnc for the nomination and anointing (a valid concern) confuses you enough to think i do not acknowledge the vote tally. care to explain?

you are speculating about whether she would have beaten him had comey not pulled a stunt. you are speculating about whether it was a stunt. you are speculating about whether she would have won. she lost because she was vulnerable to something like the fbi discovery and she burned about as many bridges and favors along the way as she could, and it caught up to her. the comey response pales in comparison to what the lynch/bubba meeting did to her credibility. and the comey response may very well have been different if lynch was still a credible public player later in the campaign. your speculation, based on polls, is just that - speculation. and my contention is that the results of the election are more telling than the polls. the timing of the fbi discovery and comey response is dramatic. the probability of a discovery happening to the suspect of an investigation is not low. it happened. did it change the outcome of the election? maybe, but the answer is one of speculation.

i have my own speculations too. we all do. there are knowns and unknowns. my speculation is that the clinton circus is tiring. it is obnoxious. it is endless. my speculation is that the lynch/bubba meeting crushed her credibility and just told the world, again, that these clintons do things a different way. that meeting put comey at the fore instead of lynch and obama. lynch made that very clear. the clintons rolled the dice. they hoped comey would get the message. he did. he said Screw you and chose to be transparent. he was not choosing sides, he was choosing transparency at ANY cost. ANY!

if comey made that decision, and chose transparency, did he change the outcome of the election - NO NO NO NO NO NO Goddamn no. the election was going the way it was going, and he was showing his cards. if the outcome changed, it was because the other players gave him those cards, not because he played them incorrectly. to blame comey, or the letter, is nuts. the players and the field and all their attributes and baggage were put in play in the year leading up to that. you cannot blame him. and you cannot predict the outcome had he not been alive.

[_EAllusion]

The story was covered in a self-fulfilling prophecy as a bombshell that would alter the election with all sorts of innuendo that new information was being found about Clinton that revealed great depths of deceptive and/or irresponsible behavior. It was nothing. It revealed nothing new or troubling. People reasoned, and Republicans explicitly argued, that if Comey was going to the trouble of announcing the investigation it must contain some serious issues. It did not.

The letter story was actually a double whammy. When the letter was released, it cut into Clinton's marginal swing voter support. Enough to cost her the election as it turns out. When the second letter story hit stating nothing was found, it made on-the-fence conservatives think she was getting away with something and moved that cohort's votes against her to some extent. It was a brutal turn of events completely out of the blue and unanticipated by everyone. It's so obvious that even the Trump camp was surprised and caught flat-footed by their victory.

what prophecy?

The Comey letter story was covered with extreme intensity on the premise that it was important news that might alter the course of the election. But the coverage itself is what altered course of the election. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

It got every single above the fold story in the New York Times. For perspective, nothing Trump has done, including some incredibly scandalous things, has gotten that much play up to this point.