Support NeoGAF

[Vixdean]

Pyrrhic victory and all, but I wish I could slap someone every time someone mentions terrible campaigner and "abnormally" flawed candidiate.

I mean, the good news is that the entire post-election narrative about this being some massive working class revolt against the Democratic party is totally bunk. The key thing here is we don't allow the Bernie-stans to take the party in a totally unproductive direction. Sure, adopt some of their economic messaging, but going full leninist would be the wrong move and only guarantee another Trump/GOP victory in 2020.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

People are still going to use the old narrative. I've been talking about how we should pay attention to the numbers instead of jumping into whatever the most popular hottake was for a while and I kept getting "enjoy losing 2020" as a response.

 

[daedalius]

So no surprise, the FBI threw the election.

Is the hatch act ever going to come up? He very clearly used his influence to sway the election.

 

[nature boy]

Paul Kane ‏@pkcapitol 11m11 minutes ago
Paul Kane Retweeted Marco Rubio
Tillerson has committee vote problem. Rubio, Rand, Flake all on SFRC and it's a 10-9 R/D split. He gets rejected in committee, that's it.

Dems better not be nice.

 

[Manmademan]

Pyrrhic victory and all, but I wish I could slap someone every time someone mentions terrible campaigner and "abnormally" flawed candidiate.

eh, I'm not on board with this because PA, MI, WI, shouldn't have been anywhere near 2 point wins. FL is traditionally close so that one gets a pass.

barely squeaking by in what are traditionally democratic strongholds that go to dems by 5 to 10 points is not 'great strategy'.

 

[Totakeke]

eh, I'm not on board with this because PA, MI, WI, shouldn't have been anywhere near 2 point wins. FL is traditionally close so that one gets a pass.

barely squeaking by in what are traditionally democratic strongholds that go to dems by 5 to 10 points is not 'great strategy'.

Even if what you say is true, there's a big difference between Hillary is terrible vs. Hillary didn't have a great strategy.

 

[Holmes]

Man. Campbell did so poorly.

Yes but expected. A post-Trump Democratic resurgence downballot is not going to begin in a special election in Louisiana one month after the election. It'll be in the 2017 gubernatorial elections.

 

[Pixieking]

Every time I think the general public is going to take something horrifying concerning Trump seriously I end up being disappointed.

Yeah, it's not like the general public particularly fill me with confidence, it's true.

Is the hatch act ever going to come up? He very clearly used his influence to sway the election.

I honestly don't know. If Comey isn't even indicted for violation of the Hatch Act, then it's a worthless piece of paper. If he's indicted but found Not Guilty, then that's one thing, but to not even take him to court is to essentially say that there's no way you can ever even attempt to convict someone of violating it.

Nate Silver Verified account
‏@NateSilver538

I'll put it like this: Clinton would almost certainly be President-elect if the election had been held on Oct. 27 (day before Comey letter).

 

[balladofwindfishes]

eh, I'm not on board with this because PA, MI, WI, shouldn't have been anywhere near 2 point wins. FL is traditionally close so that one gets a pass.

barely squeaking by in what are traditionally democratic strongholds that go to dems by 5 to 10 points is not 'great strategy'.

It's not a great strategy, but she'd at least be president.

 

[royalan]

Dems better not be nice.

Were they really strongholds though?

I'm on mobile so I can't pull up the numbers, but it seemed to me the rust belt was trending red for a while. We saw this in 2012.

Hillary should have still won the states, but I wouldn't have been surprised by smaller margins. Especially here in PA.

Try to hold on to these states, but efforts to turn the sunbelt need to be top priority. Because I don't see the rust belt staying in our column for long, even if Hillary had won.

 

[Totakeke]

I'm sure now there will be reasons why Nate Silver is not to be trusted from the same group of people that hailed him as the pariah just after election.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

eh, I'm not on board with this because PA, MI, WI, shouldn't have been anywhere near 2 point wins. FL is traditionally close so that one gets a pass.

barely squeaking by in what are traditionally democratic strongholds that go to dems by 5 to 10 points is not 'great strategy'.

I'm not sure why Silver is qualifying with probably and almost a certainty. If he believes that pivotal voters in each state broke for Donald Trump because of the Comey letter with all other factors being negligible, then explicitly say James Comey tipped the election and publicly request why the Obama administration has not brought charges against him.

 

[Plinko]

Pyrrhic victory and all, but I wish I could slap someone every time someone mentions terrible campaigner and "abnormally" flawed candidiate.

Slap away. Those states should have been blue, and if anybody with less baggage than Hillary had was the candidate, they'd be president-elect right now. Still waiting for someone to look at Hillary's list of state visits from August through October and explain how that was a good idea.

It's not a matter of Comey losing her the election. She should have had big enough leads in those states to easily overcome that.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Slap away. Those states should have been blue, and if anybody with less baggage than Hillary had was the candidate, they'd be president-elect right now. Still waiting for someone to look at Hillary's list of state visits from August through October and explain how that was a good idea.

It's not a matter of Comey losing her the election. She should have had big enough leads in those states to easily overcome that.

Her visits were securing new states for 2020 and moving them along to be blue states, because polls showed the "blue wall" was completely safe. Why waste resources in PA where you're 10 points ahead instead of NC where you're tied or a couple points down and the state is shifting towards Democrats?

 

[Totakeke]

Slap away. Those states should have been blue, and if anybody with less baggage than Hillary had was the candidate, they'd be president-elect right now. Still waiting for someone to look at Hillary's list of state visits from August through October and explain how that was a good idea.

It's not a matter of Comey losing her the election. She should have had big enough leads in those states to easily overcome that.

If there was not a historically unprecedented meddling by one of the federal agencies in the country than Hillary could have won. It's a difference of perspectives but I think we all can agree that the election was closer than some people would believe.

 

[Geist-]

So I realize that it's an extremely long shot, but could the Supreme Court order a new election due to interference by Russia and Comey skewing the election results? Are there any lawsuits currently ongoing that can give the SCOTUS that option?

I've seen people talking about holding a new election ever since the Russia story broke, but I know that Obama can't force something like that, and that leaves the SCOTUS, which I am unclear if they have the power to do it either.

 

[Debirudog]

No candidate before Hillary had to go through so much interference both outside and the inside. She certainly doesn't deserve to lose when fucking Russia and the FBI had chosen to intervene in the election.

Regardless, it is better off that the dems choose a candidate that has little to no baggage. It's highly unfair considering how republicans can get away with everything but Hillary just doesn't have the charm to swim away from these "scandals".

 

[balladofwindfishes]

So I realize that it's an extremely long shot, but could the Supreme Court order a runoff election due to interference by Russia and Comey skewing the election results? Are there any lawsuits currently ongoing that can give the SCOTUS that option?

I've seen people talking about holding a new election ever since the Russia story broke, but I know that Obama can't force something like that, and that leaves the SCOTUS, which I am unclear if they have the power to do it either.

There's nothing giving anyone power to do anything because this was never anticipated. But there isn't really anything explicitly saying that nothing can be done, either, so they'd be kind of flying blind and winging it.

 

[Mackenzie 92]

Question about public perception of the election:

There's lots of articles and talk about Russia's influence on the election, and therefore the result. How likely is it that Trump becomes tainted by Russia in the same way that Hillary was tainted by emails, for instance? That he loses - and continues to lose - public and political confidence of all but his staunchest allies? That every press conference he holds, there'll be a question regarding his "special relationship" with Putin/Russia? That every political move he makes will be viewed through the prism of Russia's influence?

I may be rather optimistic, but I see this weighing Trump down more than Pussygate and non-disclosure of taxes did.

Thoughts?

nah, just like Reagan, nothing will stick. his public supporters are willfully ignorant and his political supporters are self-serving and corrupt to the core.

 

[Plinko]

Her visits were securing new states for 2020 and moving them along to be blue states, because polls showed the "blue wall" was completely safe. Why waste resources in PA where you're 10 points ahead instead of NC where you're tied or a couple points down and the state is shifting towards Democrats?

If I, a high school teacher from a rural area and not a campaign worker, can state for months that I was worried about how they need to reach out to rural areas, surely a campign headed by highly-paid analysts should be able to do the same. A campaign like that needs to be able to look outside the bubble, and they refused. I get what you're saying, but it was a similar mistake that Romney made with the whole "unskewed polling" stuff.

If there was not a historically unprecedented meddling by one of the federal agencies in the country than Hillary could have won. It's a difference of perspectives but I think we all can agree that the election was closer than some people would believe.

And if Hillary didn't have her baggage, there would have been no unprecedented meddling by federal agencies. Comey was the tipping point, but it was WAY too close at that point considering the opposing candidate involved.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

What you're saying is literally unskewering polls, so I have no idea where you're even going with that angle.

"Well, all these polls that show her being up 10 in PA are wrong because of my gut feelings"

 

[Plinko]

What you're saying is literally unskewering polls, so I have no idea where you're even going with that angle.

"Well, all these polls that show her being up 10 in PA are wrong because of my gut feelings"

They were polling the wrong people. They should have known the racist aspects of Trump's campaigns would energize that group. We saw it in here. How did they not?

Democratic politicians were screaming for months about how the campaign also ignored AA communities and that would decrease votes. Yet, no shift was made.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

They were polling the wrong people. They should have known the racist aspects of Trump's campaigns would energize that group. We saw it in here. How did they not?

Because the data wasn't showing a Trump wave at all. His primary results weren't pointing to anything like this and polls weren't either. All data was showing a strong Hillary win.

 

[Totakeke]

And if Hillary didn't have her baggage, there would have been no unprecedented meddling by federal agencies. Comey was the tipping point, but it was WAY too close at that point considering the opposing candidate involved.

Of course, it was Hillary's fault that FBI meddled too. I'm sorry, now I see the light.

 

[Geist-]

There's nothing giving anyone power to do anything because this was never anticipated. But there isn't really anything explicitly saying that nothing can be done, either, so they'd be kind of flying blind and winging it.

I wish we had more time to figure this out, we have a little over a week until the Electoral votes and a little over a month until the inauguration and this clusterfuck plus how glacially slow the US government moves makes me think we won't see a conclusion to this mess until well after Trump has done as much damage as he possibly can (especially since Trump and his appointees will be trying to do whatever they can to oppose any investigations).

 

[Plinko]

Of course, it was Hillary's fault that FBI meddled too. I'm sorry, now I see the light.

Where did I say that? Stop putting words that aren't there. She had to overcome a TON in this election.

You cannot deny that another candidate doesn't have that FBI problem. She had the baggage that brought it along. It sucked that it happened, it wasn't her fault, but her past was the reason it existed.

 

[Gotchaye]

There's nothing giving anyone power to do anything because this was never anticipated. But there isn't really anything explicitly saying that nothing can be done, either, so they'd be kind of flying blind and winging it.

Seems to me that the obvious constitutional solution is for individual states to decide to come up with a different way to allocate their electoral votes, perhaps by holding new elections. I have a hard time seeing the Supreme Court stepping in to tell states that they've got to do something different than what they're planning to do now since states get so much leeway in how they assign their electoral votes in the first place. Unless there's some sort of equal protection violation, but this doesn't have much to do with Russia.

 

[Totakeke]

Where did I say that? Stop putting words that aren't there. She had to overcome a TON in this election.

And if Hillary didn't have her baggage, there would have been no unprecedented meddling by federal agencies.

.

Btw. Comey was the unprecedented meddling. FBI investigating presidential candidates is not unprecedented.

 

[Plinko]

.

1. How is that a false statement?

2. How is that "blaming" her?

 

[Totakeke]

1. How is that a false statement?

2. How is that "blaming" her?

Do you want to elaborate on what you believe to be "unprecedented meddling"?

 

[Pixieking]

Slap away. Those states should have been blue, and if anybody with less baggage than Hillary had was the candidate, they'd be president-elect right now. Still waiting for someone to look at Hillary's list of state visits from August through October and explain how that was a good idea.

It's not a matter of Comey losing her the election. She should have had big enough leads in those states to easily overcome that.

Pennsylvania (18 visits by Trump and Pence; 18 visits by Clinton and Kaine).

That was in mid-October. Hillary visited PA more during late October/Early November, right? And she still lost PA.

Yes, visiting the other Rust Belt states more would've helped, but to say it's what lost her the states when she visited PA 20-odd times and lost there...

They were polling the wrong people. They should have known the racist aspects of Trump's campaigns would energize that group. We saw it in here. How did they not?

Democratic politicians were screaming for months about how the campaign also ignored AA communities and that would decrease votes. Yet, no shift was made.

And yet you could say the same about Trump and the RNC. "How could they have not seen that Trump was going to win"? Right up to the first post analysis after polls closed, you had a Republican within Trump's circle saying that he needed a miracle to win. Trump and the RNC didn't poll the racist base, because the racist base was bloody well hidden.

And yet you're saying that Hillary's campaign should have seen Trump's racist base beating out the staunch Rust Belt Dems and the Hispanics in Florida? Sure, they should have been more willing to step outside their bubble. But it's crazy to say that they should've seen the racist wave coming.

Now, you do bring up the point of us saying that it was obvious, and I think the issue we run into is that the anecdotal evidence on the ground and in the news reports was different to the statistical evidence and data they had at the time. When everyone reads stories of Trump supporters loving his pussy-grabbing antics, then we can go "What the fuck?" But the data Hillary had didn't support that groundswell. Did they over-rely on it? Yes. Was it a bad mistake? Yes. Was it an understandable mistake? Mmmmm... Yes? No? Hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but you can guarantee that future Dem candidates won't rely on the data-driven Obama-style machine quite as much as Hillary did.

Edit: That said, Dem turnout in Florida was crazy-good, and that probably owes much to the data that the Hillary campaign had. So, what to do? I really want to get into the DNC as an analyst - I think a lot of good analysts, spread-out in varying degrees of closeness to the inner-campaign circle to prevent a bubble-view, could help immensely.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Does anyone else have a feeling that Donald Trump may end up being a bad president?

 

[Totakeke]

Does anyone else have a feeling that Donald Trump may end up being a bad president?

I think you need to reframe your question.

 

[MIMIC]

.

Btw. Comey was the unprecedented meddling. FBI investigating presidential candidates is not unprecedented.

How often is it? And Hillary was the party's nominee, not just a candidate.

 

[Geist-]

Does anyone else have a feeling that Donald Trump may end up being a bad president?

If by feeling you mean already proven fact based on preinauguration behaviour, yes.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Does anyone else have a feeling that Donald Trump may end up being a bad president?

I think that is his ceiling

 

[Plasticine]

Does anyone else have a feeling that Donald Trump may end up being a bad president?

I think we'll all long for the day when he could achieve being just bad.

 

[Plinko]

Do you want to elaborate on what you believe to be "unprecedented meddling"?

Seriously? When is the last time we saw a Federal intelligence agency do that to a candidate days before an election? That is "unprecedented."

 

[Totakeke]

Seriously? When is the last time we saw a Federal intelligence agency do that to a candidate days before an election? That is "unprecedented."

Do what specifically?

 

[~Kinggi~]

Do what specifically?

uh, release an official statement on an ongoing investigation naming Clinton in it and emails acting like, 'oh guys we might of found something here relating to bad things Clinton might have done!'. When in fact you arent supposed to do shit like that to begin with, let alone right before the fucking election day.

 

[Plinko]

That was in mid-October. Hillary visited PA more during late October/Early November, right? And she still lost PA.

Yes, visiting the other Rust Belt states more would've helped, but to say it's what lost her the states when she visited PA 20-odd times and lost there...

Not THE reason, but A reason. I posted a few days ago I thought the combination of like 9 different things contributed to her loss.

And yet you could say the same about Trump and the RNC. "How could they have not seen that Trump was going to win"? Right up to the first post analysis after polls closed, you had a Republican within Trump's circle saying that he needed a miracle to win. Trump and the RNC didn't poll the racist base, because the racist base was bloody well hidden.

And yet you're saying that Hillary's campaign should have seen Trump's racist base beating out the staunch Rust Belt Dems and the Hispanics in Florida? Sure, they should have been more willing to step outside their bubble. But it's crazy to say that they should've seen the racist wave coming.

Now, you do bring up the point of us saying that it was obvious, and I think the issue we run into is that the anecdotal evidence on the ground and in the news reports was different to the statistical evidence and data they had at the time. When everyone reads stories of Trump supporters loving his pussy-grabbing antics, then we can go "What the fuck?" But the data Hillary had didn't support that groundswell. Did they over-rely on it? Yes. Was it a bad mistake? Yes. Was it an understandable mistake? Mmmmm... Yes? No? Hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but you can guarantee that future Dem candidates won't rely on the data-driven Obama-style machine quite as much as Hillary did.

Edit: That said, Dem turnout in Florida was crazy-good, and that probably owes much to the data that the Hillary campaign had. So, what to do? I really want to get into the DNC as an analyst - I think a lot of good analysts, spread-out in varying degrees of closeness to the inner-campaign circle to prevent a bubble-view, could help immensely.

It is understandable why they relied on that data. No argument here on that. I just think Trump was such a unique candidate (and we DID see it way back in the primaries, contrary to what some in here say) that things should have been viewed differently. He gave a voice to their blatant racism/sexism. It hasn't been seen for decades on that scale.

And I 100% agree about your DNC statement. They need to spread things out. Decentralize. Start building candidates for all areas, not just blue candidates made for blue areas.

 

[Suikoguy]

uh, release an official statement on an ongoing investigation naming Clinton in it and emails acting like, 'oh guys we might of found something here relating to bad things Clinton might have done!'. When in fact you arent supposed to do shit like that to begin with, let alone right before the fucking election day.

It's even worse, they did not have permission to even LOOK at the emails when the letter went out.

 

[Totakeke]

uh, release an official statement on an ongoing investigation naming Clinton in it and emails acting like, 'oh guys we might of found something here relating to bad things Clinton might have done!'. When in fact you arent supposed to do shit like that to begin with, let alone right before the fucking election day.

I'm just trying to verify precisely what Plinko is saying to be Hillary's fault.

 

[Retromelon]

Does anyone else have a feeling that Donald Trump may end up being a bad president?

The prospects of the country short term economically are a crapshoot. If he avoids going to war and keeps cutting deals like the carrier plants', he may very well cruise to reelection

 

[Father_Brain]

That was in mid-October. Hillary visited PA more during late October/Early November, right? And she still lost PA.

Yes, visiting the other Rust Belt states more would've helped, but to say it's what lost her the states when she visited PA 20-odd times and lost there...

She almost completely ignored PA outside the Philly/Pittsburgh areas, so that's not a very compelling counterargument.

 

[Dominican Power]

Does anyone else have a feeling that Donald Trump may end up being a bad president?

Did you just wake up from hibernation?

 

[Plinko]

I'm just trying to verify precisely what Plinko is saying to be Hillary's fault.

I'm not blaming her. We've gone over this. It was a circumstance that was avoidable with a different candidate. Hillary had the baggage in her background that made it an issue.

 

[Dominican Power]

Slap away. Those states should have been blue, and if anybody with less baggage than Hillary had was the candidate, they'd be president-elect right now. Still waiting for someone to look at Hillary's list of state visits from August through October and explain how that was a good idea.

It's not a matter of Comey losing her the election. She should have had big enough leads in those states to easily overcome that.

Trump had all the baggage in the world and still got elected.

 

[Totakeke]

I'm not blaming her. We've gone over this. It was a circumstance that was avoidable with a different candidate. Hillary had the baggage in her background that made it an issue.

Are you saying that it had to be someone with baggage that a FBI director comes out with an intentionally vague letter days before the presidential election?

 

[Chumley]

I'm not blaming her. We've gone over this. It was a circumstance that was avoidable with a different candidate. Hillary had the baggage in her background that made it an issue.

Bullllllshit. Trump had a god damn litany of things wayyyyy more damning and ripe for FBI investigation in his closet. Comey cooked up a 100 percent bullshit statement to swing it for him, he could have done the same thing to any other Dem candidate if he wanted to considering he had absolute fuck all actual evidence in that final letter.