5 ms·

to be fair she won the popular by 3m, they just happened to be inefficient votes.

Mikeb85 9y ago
Which polling should have been able to reflect, and allow her to better target some of the voters she lost. She skipped out on campaigning in several states that flipped for Trump, and didn't really do much to address her (un)likeability. Edit - the US election is won or lost on electoral votes, not the popular vote. You play to win within the rules, not to make excuses.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Clinton's campaigning problems were cobsistent, IIRC, across all of her elections; she consistently lost ground, she just had less of it to lose in her Presidential run. (This is true not only of here Senate and Presidential general election campaigns, but also both Presidential primaries.) It seems likely to me that it wasn't her pollsters from all those elections that were the weakness, but the candidate, who has a strong loyal base within the party, limited ability to hold on to votes that initially lean her way that aren't part of that base, and basically no ability (in part because of hardened negative opinions on a large segment of the electorate) to swing opposed or uncommitted voters.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  In particular, she didn't visit Wisconsin even once during the general election campaign.
sergiotapia 9y ago
Allegedly. They're investigating whether a lot of those votes were made by illegal aliens. Here in Miami for example, I was asked for my driver's license. In places like California you can get one of those even as an illegal alien.
- jtmcmc 9y ago
  LOL. Are you also a pizzagater?
  - sergiotapia 9y ago
    Why is this specific conspiracy attacked so hard by literally everyone in a position to silence it. Hm... really activates my almonds. http://i.imgur.com/RWTYTk2.jpg http://i.imgur.com/RWTYTk2.jpg
    - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
      So yes?
  - dang 9y ago
    Would you please not take HN threads even lower than they already are?
    - Fuckhndang 9y ago
      You are a cunt dang
- quantdev 9y ago
  Are you kidding me? Do you have any proof for this claim or do you think 3 million people illegally voted because Trump's ego tweeted it one day?
  - sergiotapia 9y ago
    "“If you are talking about California, the state is apparently relying on the illegal alien to tell the state they shouldn’t be registered. There is still an honor system,” said von Spakovsky, co-author of the book “Who's Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk.”" "“We have an honor system, which is effective for people who are honorable, but is also an opportunity for people who are not honorable,” Bell said. “There is a gap in the system, and we don’t have administrative folks who will be aggressive about looking into that.”" "One concern, said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Washington D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies, is that California issues driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, allowing them to automatically be registered to vote under the federal “motor-voter” laws. Since the AB60 law went into effect in 2015, 806,000 illegal immigrants have received a license." "There is no driver’s license required to register to vote, and there are stiff penalties for illegally voting, the spokesman said." "Even John Podesta, former chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, acknowledged in a leaked email that driver’s licenses do provide a loophole." "Claude Arnold, who served as the former Special Agent in Charge for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations in Southern California, Nevada, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota, said he has witnessed voter fraud firsthand." “Throughout my 27-year career with [Immigration and Naturalization Service] and ICE, I arrested hundreds of illegal criminal aliens who had voter registration cards,” Arnold said. “They would often admit they voted, but they were rarely prosecuted for illegally voting.” --- So basically, a humongous state like California, has an honor system. Be honest with yourself: On average, would you say people are honorable or try to exploit systems to their advantage?
microcolonel 9y ago
A ~1% popular advantage is not anywhere near what the committee's own polling data suggested (30-40% spread), nor that of any mainstream media outlet. They were closer to the edge of the scale than the actual number. That is to say, they were almost as wrong as numerically possible, without going the opposite direction.
- cadlin 9y ago
  She didn't win the popular vote by 1%. She won by 2.1% (that means your memory of the election results are off by a factor of two... maybe check that). Fivethirtyeight's prediction had her winning the popular vote by 3.5%, so the results were within the margin of error. Not sure where you're getting your information from... but get it from somewhere else.
Turing_Machine 9y ago
The president of the United States is not, and never has been, elected by popular vote. In fact, virtually no Western democracy chooses its leader on the basis of a popular vote (I believe there are a few exceptions). It's sophistry to even bring it up. I mean, sorry to step on your narrative by pointing out this basic fact. You guys do know that even if our government operated like Canada, or Sweden, or any of the other countries you profess to admire, that Hillary Clinton still wouldn't be President, right? In fact, under a parliamentary system, the President would be chosen by insider dealing between party hacks like McConnell, Ryan, etc.
- lern_too_spel 9y ago
  Canada has an independent organization draw its districts, which means there is effectively no gerrymandering. Under that system, a hypothetical US Parliament would be majority Democrat, and Clinton's popularity among elected officials in her party would have made her a shoo-in in the hypothetical PM election.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    "Canada has an independent organization draw its districts, which means there is effectively no gerrymandering." That just transfers the gerrymandering power from elected officials (who can be thrown out if they annoy the voters enough) to whoever gets appointed to an unelected "independent organization" (which can't be thrown out by the voters). In practice, this "independent organization" is appointed by the Canadian parliament (i.e., by the political parties), so it is "independent" in name only. To expand a bit, the very notion of an "independent organization" seems questionable. Who will make up this organization? Career civil servants? They will be biased toward whichever party proposes to spend more money on civil servants. Appointees by whichever party controls parliament (as appears to be the case in Canada)? The problem there should be obvious. Proportional appointment on the basis of election results? Biased toward the major parties at the expense of minority parties. And so on. Not even a blind grid system is immune -- in that case where you set the origin of the grid can have a major effect.

Which polling should have been able to reflect, and allow her to better target some of the voters she lost. She skipped out on campaigning in several states that flipped for Trump, and didn't really do much to address her (un)likeability. Edit - the US election is won or lost on electoral votes, not the popular vote. You play to win within the rules, not to make excuses.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 9y ago
Clinton's campaigning problems were cobsistent, IIRC, across all of her elections; she consistently lost ground, she just had less of it to lose in her Presidential run. (This is true not only of here Senate and Presidential general election campaigns, but also both Presidential primaries.) It seems likely to me that it wasn't her pollsters from all those elections that were the weakness, but the candidate, who has a strong loyal base within the party, limited ability to hold on to votes that initially lean her way that aren't part of that base, and basically no ability (in part because of hardened negative opinions on a large segment of the electorate) to swing opposed or uncommitted voters.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Turing_Machine 9y ago
In particular, she didn't visit Wisconsin even once during the general election campaign.

sergiotapia 9y ago

Allegedly. They're investigating whether a lot of those votes were made by illegal aliens. Here in Miami for example, I was asked for my driver's license. In places like California you can get one of those even as an illegal alien.

jtmcmc 9y ago
LOL. Are you also a pizzagater?
- sergiotapia 9y ago
  Why is this specific conspiracy attacked so hard by literally everyone in a position to silence it. Hm... really activates my almonds. http://i.imgur.com/RWTYTk2.jpg http://i.imgur.com/RWTYTk2.jpg
  - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
    So yes?
- dang 9y ago
  Would you please not take HN threads even lower than they already are?
  - Fuckhndang 9y ago
    You are a cunt dang
quantdev 9y ago
Are you kidding me? Do you have any proof for this claim or do you think 3 million people illegally voted because Trump's ego tweeted it one day?
- sergiotapia 9y ago
  "“If you are talking about California, the state is apparently relying on the illegal alien to tell the state they shouldn’t be registered. There is still an honor system,” said von Spakovsky, co-author of the book “Who's Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk.”" "“We have an honor system, which is effective for people who are honorable, but is also an opportunity for people who are not honorable,” Bell said. “There is a gap in the system, and we don’t have administrative folks who will be aggressive about looking into that.”" "One concern, said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Washington D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies, is that California issues driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, allowing them to automatically be registered to vote under the federal “motor-voter” laws. Since the AB60 law went into effect in 2015, 806,000 illegal immigrants have received a license." "There is no driver’s license required to register to vote, and there are stiff penalties for illegally voting, the spokesman said." "Even John Podesta, former chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, acknowledged in a leaked email that driver’s licenses do provide a loophole." "Claude Arnold, who served as the former Special Agent in Charge for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations in Southern California, Nevada, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota, said he has witnessed voter fraud firsthand." “Throughout my 27-year career with [Immigration and Naturalization Service] and ICE, I arrested hundreds of illegal criminal aliens who had voter registration cards,” Arnold said. “They would often admit they voted, but they were rarely prosecuted for illegally voting.” --- So basically, a humongous state like California, has an honor system. Be honest with yourself: On average, would you say people are honorable or try to exploit systems to their advantage?

microcolonel 9y ago

A ~1% popular advantage is not anywhere near what the committee's own polling data suggested (30-40% spread), nor that of any mainstream media outlet. They were closer to the edge of the scale than the actual number. That is to say, they were almost as wrong as numerically possible, without going the opposite direction.

cadlin 9y ago
She didn't win the popular vote by 1%. She won by 2.1% (that means your memory of the election results are off by a factor of two... maybe check that). Fivethirtyeight's prediction had her winning the popular vote by 3.5%, so the results were within the margin of error. Not sure where you're getting your information from... but get it from somewhere else.

Turing_Machine 9y ago

The president of the United States is not, and never has been, elected by popular vote. In fact, virtually no Western democracy chooses its leader on the basis of a popular vote (I believe there are a few exceptions). It's sophistry to even bring it up. I mean, sorry to step on your narrative by pointing out this basic fact. You guys do know that even if our government operated like Canada, or Sweden, or any of the other countries you profess to admire, that Hillary Clinton still wouldn't be President, right? In fact, under a parliamentary system, the President would be chosen by insider dealing between party hacks like McConnell, Ryan, etc.

lern_too_spel 9y ago
Canada has an independent organization draw its districts, which means there is effectively no gerrymandering. Under that system, a hypothetical US Parliament would be majority Democrat, and Clinton's popularity among elected officials in her party would have made her a shoo-in in the hypothetical PM election.
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  "Canada has an independent organization draw its districts, which means there is effectively no gerrymandering." That just transfers the gerrymandering power from elected officials (who can be thrown out if they annoy the voters enough) to whoever gets appointed to an unelected "independent organization" (which can't be thrown out by the voters). In practice, this "independent organization" is appointed by the Canadian parliament (i.e., by the political parties), so it is "independent" in name only. To expand a bit, the very notion of an "independent organization" seems questionable. Who will make up this organization? Career civil servants? They will be biased toward whichever party proposes to spend more money on civil servants. Appointees by whichever party controls parliament (as appears to be the case in Canada)? The problem there should be obvious. Proportional appointment on the basis of election results? Biased toward the major parties at the expense of minority parties. And so on. Not even a blind grid system is immune -- in that case where you set the origin of the grid can have a major effect.