The Official Former President Trump thread

[harry94]

6 hours ago, dorlomin said:

Cool but did Trump know this was not to happen?

 

Was Trump a master tactician or did he get lucky. 

Easy question. 

They pushed the resources into the right place at the right time and engineered a bit of darkness behind the scenes with the email investigation being reopened at the particular time it was opened.

It was unexpected as the projections didn't show it in advance but there was something which I think hinted at the strategy and had me doing a bit of rethinking on the day before they voted. He was campaigning in Pennsylvania (or Michigan maybe) and his speech had a big emphasis on trade deals and the message was much more strict compared to his usual rambles made up on the spot. Hillary at the same time was in the same states but giving speeches about not being a racist.

Even if I think his response is entirely moronic and misguided, it's understandable that forming a response to people that takes into account of some of the things that have had a massive impact on their life will be a lot harder hitting and trump a speech which is just niceness and assuring someone that you aren't corrupt.

I kind of think that being long term in politics is a bit of a curse these days as it comes with the establishment stigma and a history of making tough decisions (which generally people are unfairly critiqued on as context is removed) but I don't think Clinton's team used all the tools she had by the end of things. People didn't necessarily flip their votes but the turnout for people who voted for Obama last time was down by quite a bit. His presence and operation in those states was good and he did have actual achievements he could point to that had made a positive difference (bailout of the automobile industry was huge) and had attempted quite a lot of legislation that Republicans had blocked. If that was brought to the focal point, she may have won.

[Deplorable]

13 hours ago, pandarilla said:

 

Focused on winning the electoral college? Well done on pointing out the obvious. The democrats were doing the same.

None of that takes away from the fact that 2 1/2 million more voters voted against trump than for him. An undeniable fact in the nation that prides itself in being the very embodiment of democracy.

Actually, Politico just had an inside account of the last days inside Clinton's campaign. She actually pulled resources out of Michigan to try and run up numbers among black voters in Chicago and New Orleans even though those states were uncontested. She was worried about Trump winning the popular vote, but thought there was zero chance he could win the electoral college. Go read the whole article. It's amazing. Her people on the ground told her they were going to lose Michigan if they didn't move resources from Iowa. She wanted to keep resources in Iowa in an attempt to fool Trump into spending resources there as well. Thinking beyond ideologically, our country probably dodged a bullet that with her loss. This complete failure of a campaign adds to her long, long list of failures operating at the top levels of US society. Her successes were winning a safe Senate seat after her Republican opponent had to drop out with cancer and barely beating an obscure socialist and an all time weak Democrat primary field. She's just not competent enough to be President.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

[Deplorable]

9 hours ago, dorlomin said:

Cool but did Trump know this was not to happen?

 

Was Trump a master tactician or did he get lucky. 

Easy question. 

From what I've read the Trump campaign modeled out several different strategies. Regarding what states to target, they thought they had a chance to win the electoral vote even while losing the popular vote by up to 4% if they targeted the industrial midwest. They felt this was their best path to the Presidency. The campaign actually thought they had a pretty good chance to win the popular vote while losing the Presidency if they conducted a more traditional Republican campaign that largely ignored the Democrats "Blue Wall." Take away Trump's Blue Wall wins in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Maine's congressional district then he has to win Virginia (lost by 5.2%) or Colorado (lost by 2.4%) and Nevada (lost by 4.9%). Fight against Demographic changes turning those former red states blue or try to make inroads with blue voters in the Midwest? He chose correctly.

 

Also, regarding the popular vote, Trump made a specific decision to spend his time campaigning at rallies in the states he was determined to win rather than spending time at high dollar fundraisers. This meant that the normal Republican disadvantage financially against democrats became a massive gulf. If I remember correctly Clinton raised over $1 billion while Trump was somewhere around $600 million. This meant he had to sacrifice ad buys in the states where he didn't campaign. This probably contributed to a closer race in states like Texas and Georgia, and bigger blowouts in states like California. But it turned out to be a proper use of his time as without the rallies he loses his Blue Wall states.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Deplorable

[Bishop Briggs]

Fascinating maps

 

[strichener]

9 hours ago, dorlomin said:

Cool. Who disagrees. Now the Trump's master plan baloney was failing right up till the 11th hour and the FBI, yes?

HRC 2016 65,844,610

Obama 2012 65,915,795

Did you even check the data for yourself before spouting memes? (Rhetorical)

 

Which completely ignores those eligible to vote.

Quote

The figure means more than 50 million new people have registered to vote in the past eight years. Only 146.3 million were registered as recently as 2008, when then-Sen. Barack Obama first won the White House — a remarkable 33 percent surge in the electorate during a single presidency.

The last time a Clinton was on the presidential ballot 20 years ago, the electorate was 127.6 million people.

The wave of new voters this year has dramatically favored the Democratic Party, according to TargetSmart, which analyzed the expected party preferences of the new registrants in 15 of the first- and second-tier presidential battlegrounds.

Overall, TargetSmart found that 42.6 percent of the new voters registered this year lean Democratic, and only 29 percent lean Republican (28.4 percent lean independent).

 

[Deplorable]

On 12/16/2016 at 04:57, hehawhehaw said:

Get a load of episode 2

I got around to watching this. I found one part very, very interesting from a sociological point of view. The Muslims read the results of British public surveys showing that large percentages of British people do not think Muslims are doing enough to integrate. They are all horribly offended by this opinion. Immediately after they meet a group of non-Muslim British folks. One organizes a trip to a memorial for locals who died in the military. Half of the Muslims refuse to participate on the grounds that they won't honor British war dead. The high maintenance chick is offended by the dude with the fresh bow tie for wondering why the Muslim chicks he met in college wouldn't go to the bar with him. She said he should have invited them to a place which doesn't serve alcohol. Then the Muslims are completely unimpressed with the historic Cathedral that the locals obviously value as a point of pride and are offended by what the locals regard as scenes that are representative of Britain.  

[Paco]

Are we defending Clinton here because she won the popular vote against a man who targeted women, Muslims, Mexicans and the disabled? While supported by 100% of the mainstream media in an entirely unprecedented environment, receiving constantly glowing references on the campaign trail from a very popular sitting President and First Lady, the wife of a popular former President, while having a budget almost 50% bigger than her opponents, against a man who hadn't even been elected to sit on a school council before?

She is by a long way the biggest failure in the history of American politics, even bigger than Mondale who was at least trounced by an American icon in a time of high-tension. You could stand just about anyone against Trump and they would win and that is no exaggeration. 

Some of us said this during the primaries, of course, but were assured she was the "most-qualified person ever" to be President. Shame we'll never find out and are stuck with a complete buffoon - and all because the DNC's pet project just had to be allowed to run, no matter the cost or what the people actually wanted.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Paco

[hehawhehaw]

38 minutes ago, Deplorable said:

I got around to watching this. I found one part very, very interesting from a sociological point of view. The Muslims read the results of British public surveys showing that large percentages of British people do not think Muslims are doing enough to integrate. They are all horribly offended by this opinion. Immediately after they meet a group of non-Muslim British folks. One organizes a trip to a memorial for locals who died in the military. Half of the Muslims refuse to participate on the grounds that they won't honor British war dead. The high maintenance chick is offended by the dude with the fresh bow tie for wondering why the Muslim chicks he met in college wouldn't go to the bar with him. She said he should have invited them to a place which doesn't serve alcohol. Then the Muslims are completely unimpressed with the historic Cathedral that the locals obviously value as a point of pride and are offended by what the locals regard as scenes that are representative of Britain.  

John Quincy Adams on Islam:

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, [ Editor’s Note: Mohammed] combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion.

He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE [capitals in original].

Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus…

The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

Quite amazing that JQA could see this so clearly, and without the media of TV or radio. A most insightful man.

[Baxter Parp]

5 minutes ago, Paco said:

Are we defending Clinton here because she won the popular vote against a man who targeted women, Muslims, Mexicans and the disabled? While supported by 100% of the mainstream media

This is entirely untrue. It's like you never heard of Fox News.  She got more votes than Obama and still lost.  It's not her failure it's a failure of the system.

[Paco]

Just now, Baxter Parp said:

This is entirely untrue. It's like you never heard of Fox News.  She got more votes than Obama and still lost.  It's not her failure it's a failure of the system.

OK, I'll accept that. 99% of the mainstream media. 

Clinton actually looks like she's missed both of Obama's totals (4m less than '08, narrowly missing '12). Regardless, beating previous candidates totals is a pretty normal occurence as voter rolls and population grows. John Kerry in 2004 got 12 million more votes than Bill Clinton in 1996, for example. Nobody would claim Kerry did all he could and was 'failed by the system', or that he's more popular than Bill Clinton. 

The system which, assuming you mean the Electoral College, is in the US constitution and has been the premise of every election since 1789. Which Clinton allies have been suggesting should be ignored, disenfranchising hundreds of millions of voters in the process. A literal coup d'etat of the legitimate government.

Trump is the dangerous one though, right? 

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Paco said:

OK, I'll accept that. 99% of the mainstream media. 

Clinton actually looks like she's missed both of Obama's totals (4m less than '08, narrowly missing '12). Regardless, beating previous candidates totals is a pretty normal occurence as voter rolls and population grows. John Kerry in 2004 got 12 million more votes than Bill Clinton in 1996, for example. Nobody would claim Kerry did all he could and was 'failed by the system', or that he's more popular than Bill Clinton. 

The system which, assuming you mean the Electoral College, is in the US constitution and has been the premise of every election since 1789. Which Clinton allies have been suggesting should be ignored, disenfranchising hundreds of millions of voters in the process. A literal coup d'etat of the legitimate government.

Trump is the dangerous one though, right? 

Wyoming get one electoral vote for every 176,000 citizens, California get one for every 670,000. How is that fair?

[NotThePars]

Right. So Fox News, Breitbart
and Infowars versus the entire mainstream American media and the establishment and she still Dundee'd it. She was standing against a man who openly boasted of sexual assault and targeted dozens of groups in the campaign and the best she could muster was "I'm With Her"? Ah, yes, because in the face of Donald Trump and massive levels of domestic discontent Hillary Clinton and her campaign's best chance should be "vote for this woman's fairytale journey to the highest political office." If the electoral college was such a hindrance to US democracy then the Democrats, and Clinton, had plenty of time to get rid of it but obviously they completely misjudged the election and thought it would save their candidate.

[Paco]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Wyoming get one electoral vote for every 176,000 citizens, California get one for every 670,000. How is that fair?

It isn't. It should be put it to a vote in Congress and if it gets changed, it gets changed - democratically, in line with the constitution. 

Trying to force rebellion because your preferred candidate lost? That's anarchy. 

As with during the election I feel it's easy to get bogged down depending on which side you're on. So let's imagine for a minute that good old Vlad lost an election in similar circumstances in Russia. His allies then begin putting pressure on the college electors to vote against the people's wishes, based on some flimsy statements from the KGB or other so-called concerns about whether the individual is unfit for office.

How would that be playing out, in international media, in the UN, with political rights groups? 

[Granny Danger]

The Electoral College is inherently unfair but I really think we should get FPTP  for Westminster sorted before we get too bogged down with the deficiencies in other countries' electoral systems.

[Wee Willie]

13 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

The Electoral College is inherently unfair but I really think we should get FPTP  for Westminster sorted before we get too bogged down with the deficiencies in other countries' electoral systems.

Of course we should but just remember that Scotland's voice in Westminster politics means eff-all.

It will (as always) be English politicians who will decide the voting system in the UK.

And there is eff-all we can do about it.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Wee Willie

[welshbairn]

7 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

Right. So Fox News, Breitbart
and Infowars versus the entire mainstream American media and the establishment and she still Dundee'd it. She was standing against a man who openly boasted of sexual assault and targeted dozens of groups in the campaign and the best she could muster was "I'm With Her"? Ah, yes, because in the face of Donald Trump and massive levels of domestic discontent Hillary Clinton and her campaign's best chance should be "vote for this woman's fairytale journey to the highest political office." If the electoral college was such a hindrance to US democracy then the Democrats, and Clinton, had plenty of time to get rid of it but obviously they completely misjudged the election and thought it would save their candidate.

It came down to Clinton offering more of the same and Trump offering change, however ill thought out and dangerous. A few well practised soundbites guaranteed to hit the headlines is much more effective than incremental, costed and pragmatic policies that voters can't be bothered reading about. As others have said the electoral college rules were clear before the election and Trump clearly won, a few people whining about it isn't going to change that. Rather than getting rid of it (if they did anyone living outside the major population centres would be totally ignored) I expect a major effort will go into looking at gerrymandered electoral districts which will be dull and take a lot of time and effort.

[NotThePars]

Well Obama seemed to be able to offer effective sound bites and costed policy. If it's so obvious that a few well practiced sound bites is very effective then why did the Clinton campaign settle for shite like "America is already great" and "Pokemon Go to the polls". Clinton and her team have obviously been preparing for this for at least a decade but you wouldn't have thought that judging by how piss poor and uninspiring the campaign was.

[Baxter Parp]

12 minutes ago, Paco said:

OK, I'll accept that. 99% of the mainstream media. 

Pish.

13 minutes ago, Paco said:

Clinton actually looks like she's missed both of Obama's totals (4m less than '08, narrowly missing '12). Regardless, beating previous candidates totals is a pretty normal occurence as voter rolls and population grows. John Kerry in 2004 got 12 million more votes than Bill Clinton in 1996, for example. Nobody would claim Kerry did all he could and was 'failed by the system', or that he's more popular than Bill Clinton. 

Normal my arse. Kerry lost the popular vote, the electoral vote and there was a third candidate when Clinton ran, so why he's relevant is beyond me.

 

35 minutes ago, Paco said:

The system which, assuming you mean the Electoral College, is in the US constitution and has been the premise of every election since 1789. Which Clinton allies have been suggesting should be ignored, disenfranchising hundreds of millions of voters in the process. A literal coup d'etat of the legitimate government.

"Clinton allies" are "weasel words" that mean nothing and infer a lot.  "Trump allies" are suggesting muslim concentration camps and that Jews are evil, for instance.

 

37 minutes ago, Paco said:

Trump is the dangerous one though, right? 

You're fucking right there.

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

Well Obama seemed to be able to offer effective sound bites and costed policy. If it's so obvious that a few well practiced sound bites is very effective then why did the Clinton campaign settle for shite like "America is already great" and "Pokemon Go to the polls". Clinton and her team have obviously been preparing for this for at least a decade but you wouldn't have thought that judging by how piss poor and uninspiring the campaign was.

I'm agreeing with you, she ran an totally uninspiring campaign. She was more worried about getting caught out with a gaff than persuading anyone that she could improve their lives with a simple message. The worrying thing is that it might be the last time an election is won by somebody outside the entertainment industry or sales. People like Obama or Kennedy don't turn up very often.

[strichener]

11 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I'm agreeing with you, she ran an totally uninspiring campaign. She was more worried about getting caught out with a gaff than persuading anyone that she could improve their lives with a simple message. The worrying thing is that it might be the last time an election is won by somebody outside the entertainment industry or sales. People like Obama or Kennedy don't turn up very often.

Obama is surely going to go down as one of the most ineffectual, hypocritical presidents of the US.  "Change we can believe in", don't make me laugh.

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by strichener