3 ms·

They're seething and downvoting, but 2000 → Florida 2004 → Whatever the "don't taze me bro" guy claimed 2008 → All sorts of crazy Tea Party shit 2012 → ???

They're seething and downvoting, but 2000 → Florida 2004 → Whatever the "don't taze me bro" guy claimed 2008 → All sorts of crazy Tea Party shit 2012 → ??? (Nobody actually liked Romney) 2016 → Russia 2020 → Whatever Trump claimed

thuridas 3y ago
Note that Russia was accused of influencing elections rather than hacking the voting itself. That is: - Providing money for campaign - Using data from Cambridge analítica with target voters. - Hacking democrats trying to get advantage / dark secrets. This broke several privacy issues and campaign finance laws but as far as I remember not the voting machines themselves. That said. Voting with paper makes everybody more confident of the result.
drewcoo 3y ago
Bernie's ideas were wildly popular in 2016, some of them across party lines. The DNC's superdelegate (rigging) system meant that he wouldn't get the ticket and even though he would win every county in West Virginia, he somehow lost West Virginia. Instead the DNC selected a candidate intensely disliked by a large portion of the population. So unpopular that she was bested by a game show host. Basically, the DNC overrode the people's will and threw the election. Hillary had to blame something and it certainly wasn't going to be herself or her party. Maybe the reason was: - Russia - Americans who had voted for Obama suddenly turned into deplorable, low-information bigots - sexism - too much bad press about things like her emails - Wikileaks - Bernie was too mean - Comey etc. Oh, and her base, not understanding error bars, went on a statistician witch hunt.
- krapp 3y ago
  Hillary Clinton got millions more votes than the talk show host - more votes than any losing candidate in history - and the margin between them was split almost exactly 50/50. The narrative that she lost because she was "intensely disliked" or unpopular (except among the right, who were never going to vote for her anyway) is simply incorrect. >too much bad press about things like her emails. >Comey Wikileaks and Comey reopening the email inquiry did obvious damage to her campaign, I don't know why you would imply that's not a legitimate complaint on her part. You could say she didn't do damage control well enough, sure, but there's a reason the only thing anyone remembers about her campaign comes from conspiracy theories about her emails and the DNC hack, and nothing to do with her actual platform. >Americans who had voted for Obama suddenly turned into deplorable, low-information bigots What? She said that about a subset of Trump voters who would never vote for Obama. And time has proven her correct.

thuridas 3y ago

Note that Russia was accused of influencing elections rather than hacking the voting itself. That is: - Providing money for campaign - Using data from Cambridge analítica with target voters. - Hacking democrats trying to get advantage / dark secrets. This broke several privacy issues and campaign finance laws but as far as I remember not the voting machines themselves. That said. Voting with paper makes everybody more confident of the result.

drewcoo 3y ago

Bernie's ideas were wildly popular in 2016, some of them across party lines. The DNC's superdelegate (rigging) system meant that he wouldn't get the ticket and even though he would win every county in West Virginia, he somehow lost West Virginia. Instead the DNC selected a candidate intensely disliked by a large portion of the population. So unpopular that she was bested by a game show host. Basically, the DNC overrode the people's will and threw the election. Hillary had to blame something and it certainly wasn't going to be herself or her party. Maybe the reason was: - Russia - Americans who had voted for Obama suddenly turned into deplorable, low-information bigots - sexism - too much bad press about things like her emails - Wikileaks - Bernie was too mean - Comey etc. Oh, and her base, not understanding error bars, went on a statistician witch hunt.

krapp 3y ago
Hillary Clinton got millions more votes than the talk show host - more votes than any losing candidate in history - and the margin between them was split almost exactly 50/50. The narrative that she lost because she was "intensely disliked" or unpopular (except among the right, who were never going to vote for her anyway) is simply incorrect. >too much bad press about things like her emails. >Comey Wikileaks and Comey reopening the email inquiry did obvious damage to her campaign, I don't know why you would imply that's not a legitimate complaint on her part. You could say she didn't do damage control well enough, sure, but there's a reason the only thing anyone remembers about her campaign comes from conspiracy theories about her emails and the DNC hack, and nothing to do with her actual platform. >Americans who had voted for Obama suddenly turned into deplorable, low-information bigots What? She said that about a subset of Trump voters who would never vote for Obama. And time has proven her correct.