DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

It's still an ingredient. If you look at an 84% figure, that's a 16% drop off in voters. When you consider that Hillary lost the election by a total of 78,000 votes in three states, that's an ingredient.

There's no doubt in my mind that her simply being a terrible and unpopular candidate is the biggest ingredient. Hell, I couldn't bring myself to vote for her. But when you look at the number of votes she lost by in those three states which cost her the election, it didn't take a lot of Bernie voters to make the difference.

I'm not saying it's not an ingredient. I'm saying it's not a reason to be mad at anyone and deflect blame. And, as you pointed out, it's not the reason Hillary lost.

Hillary lost because she didn't go to Wisconsin. At all. She lost because she didn't step foot in a UAW hall. She lost because her response was "I think America is already great!"

And this highlights a flaw that I think is unique to the Democrats - They feel entitled to your vote, and that you're obligated to vote for them.

When Romney lost because people they expected to come out stayed home, that crew basically said "welp, he was a dud" and moved on. They were mad at him, not the people who stayed home.

The Democrats do it the other way around - where you're somehow obligated to trudge out and eat whatever they serve, and if you don't, it's your fault, not theirs.

The fact that it even came down to 70,000 is the problem itself.

So you're saying I was correct? It was an ingredient/factor?

That's all I ever said from the beginning.

An anticipated ingredient, yes.

The Clinton campaign should've realistically expected a 25-35% drop of Sanders primary voters flipping or staying home. They got way higher turnout than they should've bargained for.

The Sanders contingent went above and beyond the call of duty in terms of taking their medicine and voting for her.

well i guess i definitely have the minority opinion on this board because i disagree with you and others completely.

the short answer is don't vote, don't complain.

the longer answer is you seem to have a hypocritical stance, as you're doing all this whining about Hillary....yet guess what you still did? you still voted for her. for whatever reason it may be, you still decided to show up and vote for her. so you can make whatever excuses you want for why you did it, but at the end of the day, you did.

go ask these conservatives why they voted for Trump. Hell, my two best examples are two guys i have absolute 100% respect for: Ted and GM.

They will be the first two to tell you that Trump was a trash candidate. just like *most* hillary voters will tell you. but when it comes down to it, when it became crunch time, they decided that Hillary's views was something they couldn't stomach.

the same thing is vise versa with hillary voters. and yea specifically me. At the end of the day, my social views combined with some economic beliefs is why i had to choose hillary over Trump. She was the one i could stomach, not Trump.

but when you don't even show up to vote, then why complain? the people who didn't show up to vote told everyone in the country "hey, i know i do a lot of complaining, but instead of making my voice heard, instead i'm going to let others decide my fate for me".

that is exactly what happened. when you don't show up, you are telling whatever opposing side you're against to make the decision for you.

and i don't know what nonsense you were watching but i specifically remember a ton of conservatives ticked off that people didn't show up to vote for Mitt Romney.

people try to push this "protest vote" or "i didn't show up out of principle" BS when at the end of the day, it's BS.

they honestly think people care that they didn't vote for some moral reason. to liberals, do you honestly think conservatives cared if you stayed home? they WANT you to stay home so that their candidate can win.

they BANK on lazy ass liberals not showing up in mid terms all the time. obviously combining it with gerrymandering but the point has been made. nobody on the right gives a damn that these hard left bernie bros stayed home instead of showing up in the generals. Trump supporters around the country gave a big ass "thank you" to those who didn't show up.

but as soon as Trump won, what did YOU see, PDF? those same losers who didn't show up, now rioting in the streets that Trump won.

how pathetic is that. seriously, the left has earned its snowflake label 10 times over.

ANTIFA is filled with nothing but those sorry ass bernie bro's who couldn't bother to stand in line to vote, but can travel around the country destroying property. it's pathetic and makes me ashamed that i deployed 4 times for a bunch of damn babes.

did hillary run a trash campaign? yes.

did she deserve to lose? yes. for a plethora of reasons.

but these assholes couldn't even be bothered to show up to the polls and vote for Harambe or write a candidate in. they just didn't show up.

and it wasn't just the generals, it's a recurring problem during the midterms.

but that's what you do, PDR. you'll blame everyone else yet can't seem to hold the people themselves responsible.

you do you, but i roll differently. i hold people responsible for their votes. everyone knew what was at stake this election. but because people hated the player getting the play call to win the game, they decided to sit their asses on the bench and let someone else win/lose them the game.

so yea i disagree with you completely. you can say what you want about conservatives and the flip side, but at the end of the day they will show up to win if the other side is worse.

the people who ACTUALLY think their vote matters got their president. the people who always cry about their vote not counting and "politicians are all corrupt" are once again saying the same BS while contributing absolutely nothing to change it. and i will continue to hold their feet to the fire until they get it through their head that this is the current state of politics.

I think she's a dishonest hack at best, and a war criminal at worst. I can't stand her, but I voted for her because the other option was a slug-brained racist in the throes of dementia.

If it was Kasich v Clinton or Rubio v Clinton, I would've stayed home. I cast an opposition vote. What, exactly, is hypocritical about my stance?

I did what I did, and I'd probably do it again. But I don't hold it against anyone who stayed home, nor do I think their abstaining strips them of the right to voice their opinion.

Hillary Clinton wasn't entitled to those people's votes, and they weren't obligated to vote for her.

Me, personally? I felt obligated to do whatever I could to keep that sociopath out of office. But that's my moral compass.

i guess i disagree.

if people feel that strongly about the other side to the point they take to the streets and riot, shut down schools cause they're too busy crying about the election results, then that certainly sounds like they were obligated to vote for whatever the candidate was.

people didn't have to vote for Trump, but the conservatives felt obligated to. because of what they felt was at stake.

but that's just me, again i'm the minority opinion here. i'll put whatever beef i have with hillary aside because the alternative was, and is definitely showing to be way worse.

but liberals decided to send a message instead of sending in a president. unfortunately the message they sent wasn't the message received to the majority of americans.

and, Republicans were BEGGING for sanders to win the nomination.

it would've been a slaughter. just him being a far-left candidate, and the word "Socialist" attached to him means it would've been over before it even started.

Just today a report came out that the Trump campaign and it's pollsters were deathly afraid of the prospect of a Sanders nomination.

Remember during the campaign, where Trump started challenging Bernie to a debate at his rallies, and Sanders accepted, and Trump didn't mention his name for months?

I think the lowest margin he had against Trump in any polling across all services was around 9%, but don't quote me on that.

He would've buried Trump. At the very least, beat him in a squeaker. He would've won WI and MI, no question.

i definitely remember that, but Trump was saying whatever hoping it would stick, then disappear in the shadows. i didn't get his campaign strategy whatsoever, but it freaking worked.

i think Bernie would've won WI and MI but would've lost some other states, and had less popular votes because he would've appealed to one demographic of liberals but not the other.

and not just Trump, but republicans would've gone after his financial plans ridiculously hard. you already saw that a good portion of people didn't vote for Hillary because they felt she was gonna raise taxes.

they KNEW sanders was gonna raise taxes on everybody. that was already gonna be a big no-no, regardless on if a Ryan-led congress would've put an end to it or not.

and then, as i've stated before, the alt-right element that helped get Trump in the oval would've been stronger if a socialist jew was running against him.

^^ that felt dirty out of my mouth, but unfortunately thats the truth.

This is a point worth arguing.



Trump would most definitely lack the capability to do this. He has the emotional control of an infant, and can't memorize data for the life of him. There's simply no chance he would've been effective at knocking down any specific policy. Hell, he didn't try with Hillary.



Nah, but it's an argument to be had.

Their online presence is louder than their actual numbers. I don't know that "Jew" would be slander that moves the needle.

And Sanders has effectively shed the stigma of "socialist" everywhere he goes. He's popular with rural GOP voters all over the country who typically see that as a dirty word.

he was liked by some GOP voters because everybody called him "honest".

that doesn't equate to actual votes though. if that mattered at all, Trump would've never made it out the primaries.

Not just some.

And there's plenty of statistical and antecdotal evidence (have you watched his town halls in WV, MI, WI, etc.?) to show that his health care plans are incredibly popular all over the country, across all demographics.

And, again - he has the gift of zeroing in on self-interests of the person he's talking to. Pull up those town halls. You'll see guys take the mic and tell him they hate socialism, and when they're done talking, the guy likes Bernie, and his health care plan.

I'm not saying he's the Messiah - he has a myriad of flaws. But he's the most popular politician in America, and in my opinion he would've thrashed Trump.

When neither party can come up with a candidate deserving to be president, everyone should complain. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

This is the first time EVER that I didn't vote for president. Stop acting like Hillary would have really been better. When both parties can't do any better than Trump and Hillary it's time we all stop voting and raise hell from the rooftops.

Not sit here silently.

so i'm having trouble understanding something.

in one convo about taxes, you stated that it wouldn't matter what his plan was because a Ryan-led congress wouldn't have allowed it to begin with.

now, we are talking about healthcare plan and you're argument is that he was popular with GOP voters.....even though you conveniently left out the part where it wouldn't matter what his healthcare plan was because a ryan-led congress wouldn't have allowed it to begin with.

so while i understand this convo's are fluid and thus change, you keep changing the criteria for which we are judging hillary and bernie on.

because so far, what i have concluded is that hillary is a trash candidate who offered realistic policies.

Bernie was the "popular" candidate who offered unrealistic policies.

if anything you've made the argument to vote for hillary stronger.

Hillary would've been better. so i'm not gonna stop acting as if she would've been because its the truth. she would've been better than Trump.

you specifically made the argument before that hillary would've just maintained the status quo.

hindsight says that right now, the status quo would've been worlds better than the trainwreck we're currently witnessing.

Medicare for all/single payer is popular with most American's, Bernie would have sold it. That doesn't mean it would have been passed but the heat would have been on, that's for sure.

its definitely popular right now.

but was it popular during the election season? not nearly as much as it is now, i believe.

So 8 years of GOP lite snafu is better than 1-2 years of quackmire nutjob politics? Not if you believe we could do better in 2020. Not if you believe that the Dems needed to understand that it was time to change direction. Not if you watched Bernie be cheated and felt it was as wrong as Trump winning the GOP. So your views are merely your opinion. A lot of people on the same side as you felt completely different about her.

I hate that Trump was elected, but I couldn't vote for her in good conscious AND I have every right to be salty towards Trump because I don't like his politics at all. That's America.

We don't owe our votes to anyone. Hillary and the DNC/Dms forgot that bit.

The American people had a chance to have single payer years ago and rejected it as being unAmerican.

The tale of the NY Doctor who's parents in Kansas were getting elderly and he wanted to move closer to them to care for them, really hit home with most people.

The Government, running single payer, tells the Doctor, No. We have enough Doctors in that area so you can not move there and open a practice.

What true American can even picture our citizens being told where they can move to and where they may work?

It is a slippery slope once you go there.

yes, it is better. and btw, "GOP lite" ends up being nothing more than a diss toward moderates.

yes, it's my opinion, just like your post in this discussion is also an opinion.

yea its early, but i don't see anything better from the dems in 2020. that includes Warren, or Bernie if he decides to run (hope not).

if you couldn't vote for her, fine. but you didn't vote for anybody, right? did you vote gary, or jill stein? or write in a candidate?

if you didn't vote in the generals, does that also mean you didn't vote for anybody in congress, either? there were also local elections going on in the ballot box. did you not vote for those, either?

so yea, it's my opinion. but so far, you and others haven't said anything to remotely change my opinion about you guys with THIS specific topic.

don't vote, don't complain.

There is one factor of Hillary's loss that doesn't get much attention from her supporters but deserves to be pointed out; 30 years of the right building hate towards her, dragging her through the mud, labeling her with almost every derogatory term a person could be labeled... That had as much to do with her loss as anything else.

She was a political pariah to everyone on the right from jump. She could have brought the left together and won but she acted entitled instead of deserving.

It wouldn't have taken much for her to earn 70 k more votes in the states that made the difference. But she wouldn't go that extra mile because she thought she was owed votes.

i agree about the 30 years of hate.

but stop bro. yall was #bernieorbust BEFORE we even found out about the rigging. Hillary wasn't uniting anything because you guys already took your ball and went home.

OCD we are boys, but dont be out here rewriting history. it was #bernieorbust before the primaries was even over with.

come on dude.

You're right. But we did know, or at least we suspected dirty politics and cheating well before the primaries ended. Everything from debate schedule to shutting down access to DNC voter records to closing of certain voting stations and scrubbing voter registration lists! So many things happened that one or two could have been wrote off, but a pattern became clear and every single time it worked out best for HRC...

And yes we are definitely boys and I'll always have your back, but that don't mean we can't disagree on this. She lost, and in 2020 I hope we earn your vote.

depends on who is running.

pocahontas has an uphill battle.

Bernie if he runs, if in good health I expect he will.

Not a big fan of Warren but would like her over some of the other current leaders. I think if Bernie is out we will see somebody more progressive than HRC but right of Bernie on a Bernie-esque platform.

In my NOT so humble opinion I don't think anything will come of this.

When did the United States, or the states of NY and KS, have a single payer health care system?

Maybe two realities are starting to converge? Maybe there's a reality where the U.S. has single payer, but Trump is president.

This means there must be a reality where Hillary won, and we still have the ACA.

Quick, merge the two dimensions of reality together!

j/c

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/...ace-to-gop.html

Shocking Brazile expose drives Hillary camp into chaos, may throw key Virginia governor race to GOP

Donna Brazile's scathing review of Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential campaign sent more shock waves this weekend through the Democratic Party, with members eager to bury the Clinton era ahead of Tuesday’s key Virginia governor’s race and other upcoming elections.

“Those telling me to shut up … I tell them, 'Go to hell.' I’m gonna tell my story,” Brazile, who ran the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 White House race, on Sunday told ABC’s “This Week.”

Brazile roiled the political world on Thursday when she published excerpts in Politico of her upcoming book that detailed a 2015 money deal between the Clinton campaign and the DNC that made winning the party’s presidential nomination nearly impossible for any other Democratic candidate.

NBC News published a memorandum Saturday detailing the joint-fundraising agreement that shows the Clinton camp would have input on such key DNC decisions as hiring and spending, in exchange for helping the group with its roughly $20 million debt.

The memo also made clear that other potential candidates could enter into a similar agreement with the DNC.

But Brazile suggested Sunday that the authority the Clinton camp had under the agreement went beyond “standard” joint-fundraising agreements and that a “separate,” undisclosed deal also existed.

“I could not control the purse strings of the Democratic Party,” she said. “I become chair, and I'm trying to write a check for something that I raised money (for.) And they're like, 'You have to get that signed off on from Brooklyn.' This wasn’t a standard joint fundraising agreement. … They had separate memo of understanding.”

A review Saturday by The Washington Post of the book -- “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House” -- resulted in former Clinton campaign staffers penning an open letter, disputing Brazile’s accusations that the campaign was tone-deaf to middle-class voters, acted with a false sense of “inevitability” and in the closing weeks had “the odor of failure.”

According to the review, Brazile, who is African-American, also said she felt the campaign treated her like a “slave” and that she considered replacing Clinton with then-Vice President Joe Biden, after Clinton passed out during a 9/11 memorial ceremony in New York City.

“We were shocked to learn the news that Donna Brazile actively considered overturning the will of the Democratic voters by attempting to replace Hillary Clinton,” campaign members, including Robby Mook, John Podesta and Huma Abedin, in part said in the letter. “We are pretty tired of people who were not part of our campaign telling the world what it was like to be on the inside.”

To be sure, the scathing criticism of one long-standing Democrat on other members of her own party comes at a bad time -- days away from the Virginia gubernatorial race featuring Republican Ed Gillespie against Democratic Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam.

The RealClearPolitics polls average shows Northam now leading by 3 percentage points, essentially a dead heat, after leading by nearly 7 points just weeks ago.

“Donna Brazile going off the reservation right now is bad for Democrats,” Republican strategist Rory McShane told Fox News on Sunday. “But we’ve seen this before in off-year elections like in Georgia and South Carolina, where Democrats believed they’d win. This is just the latest case of no message, no organization, no leadership.”

Tom Perez, the new DNC chairman, on Saturday, after The Post review of Brazile’s book, rushed to assure Democrats that he would clean up the group’s mess ahead of the next presidential election cycle.

“While we’ve made remarkable progress since last November, we still have a long way to go,” he said in a statement. “I am more committed than ever before to restoring voters’ faith in our democratic process because even the perception of impartiality or an unfair advantage undermines our ability to win. That is unacceptable. To that end, the new DNC under my leadership is committed to the task of making sure that our 2020 nominating process will be unquestionably fair and transparent.”

Liz Smith, who was a spokeswoman for Martin O’Malley, another 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, on Saturday told Fox News’ “America’s News Headquarters”: “I know Donald Trump and Republicans would like to use Hillary Clinton as a whipping boy. But she’s in our past. We are moving beyond her.”

Have someone read my post to you since you don't comprehend what I said.

And don't quote parts of what I posted to feed your attack, post the entire thing honestly for a change.

Unless you are just here to play games, which is beginning to appear true.

NY and KS have never had single payer, thus making this story impossible.

And for a guy who embarrasses himself on a daily basis trying to argue obvious lies a fifth grader wouldn't fall for, maybe ease up on accusing others of not being able to comprehend things.

Nope, NY and KS never had single payer and my original post never claimed they did.

The only thing I find embarrassing around here is that I once posted that back in the day you were an educated and eloquent poster.

I wish I could take that back. It is embarrassing.

You never said it, huh?

You'd think basic common sense would tell you, "hey, before I deny this, maybe I should scroll up a bit and check".

J/C

For those arguing about why Hillary wasn't elected and so forth. I really do think you are missing a very LARGE factor as to why Trump won, if not the biggest reason.

His name is Gorsuch.

There were a lot of independents and people that were not favorable of Trump that voted for him, because they did not want Hillary appointing 1-2 judges to the SCOTUS

Gorsuch is a turd who has the potential to do massive damage to the country and will undoubtedly wipe his backside with the Constitution, but you're right, I don't disagree.

Well, I disagree with you assessment on gorsuch, however this is not the thread for that argument.

but like I said, the vast majority of trump voters were put off with the fact that Hillary was going to appoint a judge, possibly two, and possibly 3. They didn't care about trump, they didn't care about his policies, they did not want a liberal judge(s) on the court. That is what got the right and independents out to vote, imo

Russia dossier investigators suspect reporters were paid to spread collusion claims

The role of reporters is taking on added importance in federal court battles over the infamous Russia dossier that leveled unverified charges of collusion against the Donald Trump campaign.

Rep. Devin Nunes, California Republican and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, signed a subpoena to force a bank to turn over Fusion’s financial records. He wants to know who paid for the dossier, which was written in a series of 18 memos by former British spy Christopher Steele. He relied almost exclusively on unidentified Kremlin sources.

On the demand for information on any payments to journalists, Fusion cited First Amendment protection and confidentiality. It did not deny it had paid journalists.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/5/journalist-pay-questioned-in-russian-dossier-court/

Hmmmmmmm, interesting.

1) This is the same publication you cited the other night when you got duped into believing that Obama was holding a "military coup". The article was so filled with obvious lies that even "slanted" would be too generous a descriptor

2) If you read the article, the sole push of this claim is coming from Devin Nunes, who earlier this year got himself in trouble for leaking investigation details to the Trump administration