Hillary Clinton Looks At Her Campaign's Many Missteps, Decides To Blame James Comey For Her Loss

from the #NeverMyFault dept

Hillary Clinton has stepped forward to officially (such as it were...) blame FBI Director James Comey for robbing her of an election win.

“There are lots of reasons why an election like this is not successful,” Clinton told top donors on a farewell conference call Saturday.

“But our analysis is that [FBI Director James B.] Comey’s letter raising doubts that were groundless, baseless, proven to be, stopped our momentum,” she said.

Clinton is referring to Comey taking it upon himself to step into the breach and declare to Congress there might be something suspicious about emails he hadn't seen (and his agency hadn't yet acquired a warrant to look at) discovered on former Congress member Anthony Weiner's laptop. Comey's announcement arrived with only a couple of weeks left until the election, prompting nearly everyone to criticize his decision to insert himself into a normally hands-off pre-election period.

Clinton blaming Comey, though, looks more like a candidate looking for anyone else to blame but herself, her staff, and the DNC, which aided her run greatly by agreeing to sandbag her competition.

Comey's belated announcement (and even more belated "never mind") arrived far too late to push undecided voters into Trump's corner. Those who had already decided who they were voting for wouldn't have been swayed either, as it either confirmed their beliefs that Clinton was a crook who would never be punished, or that Clinton was being baselessly persecuted by a politicized FBI.

What data has been gathered from talking to voters about their sentiments pre- and post-election shows barely any correlation, much less causation. Clinton says her campaign's "analysis" points to Comey. But what exactly have they "analyzed?" Marcy Wheeler takes a good look at the information currently available and finds nothing that indicates Comey's announcement played a part in the election results.

What these two pieces — from Trump’s data analyst and Hillary’s pollster — suggest is a correlation between the Comey letter and Trump’s improved chances. But there’s no proof of causation — certainly not that Comey is the primary explanation.

In fact, temporally, the correlation is not perfect. Trump’s analysts say the trend started before the Comey letter. This was a weird election, but it is still highly unlikely that a letter released on October 28 can entirely explain a trend that started before October 28.

Even shifting the focus entirely to swing states does nothing to solidify either party's claims that Comey's announcement swayed the election. Late-deciding voters went for Trump in several key states, but voters also broke in the other direction -- at odds with the narrative the Clinton campaign has decided to push. In Virginia, where beltway security clearance holders might have felt more animosity towards a candidate who skated on a federal investigation involved the mishandling of classified documents, late-deciders opted more often for Clinton than Trump.

None of this really adds up to anything, which would be fine if Clinton's camp wasn't so ready to insist that it does. While it did seem Clinton would have grabbed an insurmountable lead in the wake of Trump's post-"grab 'em by the pussy" debate flame-out, the real issues affecting undecided voters the most weren't Trump's sexism or Clinton's private email server, but far more common worries: the economy, crime, and a distrust for anything considered to be part of the government establishment.

Clinton does list something in her "blame Comey" speech that should have been obvious all along -- something that pretty much undercuts her narrative that the FBI director cost her the election.

“Just as we were back up on the upward trajectory, the second letter from Comey essentially doing what we knew it would — saying there was no there there — was a real motivator for Trump’s voters,” Clinton said.

No matter what Comey said -- nor what was found during the Email Investigation 1.5 -- would have changed the minds of entrenched voters. Those supporting Clinton saw more exoneration. Those supporting Trump saw more evidence of a rigged system. It just didn't matter.

As for the rest of the undecided nation, the original email investigation and its last-minute sequel were too far off in the weeds to be considered worth examining more closely. Writing for Techdirt and conversing with like-minded individuals tends to give the impression that everyone follows these developments closely, but a majority of Americans simply don't care about the wonkish details. If something can be explained simply (Hillary is/is not a crook), then the nuances aren't important. Clinton thought those nuances should have mattered. Trump knew they wouldn't.

Blaming Comey is handy but does nothing to help future candidates better prepare for this fractured American landscape we still call "united." It is, in fact, its own form of denial.

The Democrat focused on the outside events she said affected her campaign in the last three weeks of the election. She said nothing about other, larger forces at work — Trump's message of change in a restive time, his pledge to represent the aggrieved working class, the difficulty of any political party winning a third consecutive presidential term, her own limited attention to economic anxiety, or the sexism and discomfort that surrounded her attempt to become the first female president.

[...]

Neither [Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri] nor Clinton herself addressed how Clinton's decision seven years ago to use a private system for her government communication had opened the door to the FBI inquiry in the midst of her second run for the White House.

While government agencies sounded the alarm about hackers attacking voter data and infrastructure, Trump pushed a rigged election narrative. And for no apparent reason, the FBI felt it just couldn't wait to inform Congress about something it knew next to nothing about, less than two weeks before election day. There were plenty of reasons for voters to feel less than confident about candidates and the process of electing them, but campaigns were won and lost without the FBI's assistance -- no matter how gratifying it might be to pass the buck in the wake of a surprising loss.

Filed Under: blame, hillary clinton, james comey


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    PrivateFrazer, 14 Nov 2016 @ 6:47am

    It did look like Comey had been 'Got At'

    when he then said there was actually nothing amiss - which was particularly clever i thought.
    What a brilliant way to pander to the conspiracy theorists.
    So no, Comey is not to blame 100% but he did his bit to support Trumps.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Norahc (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:09am

      Re: It did look like Comey had been 'Got At'

      Clinton has no one to blame but herself for the whole "Emailgate". Despite having received security briefings and clearances for years, she decided that her own convenience trumped the rules. In the end, she needs to accept the consequences of her own actions that created this whole thing in the first place, and place the blame squarely where it belongs...on herself.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        I.T. Guy, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:42am

        Re: Re: It did look like Comey had been 'Got At'

        "her own convenience"
        That's cute. But one does not run an email server for convenience. It's anything but.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Norahc (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:14am

          Re: Re: Re: It did look like Comey had been 'Got At'

          Guess somebody forgot to tell her that when she gave it as a reason she was running one.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:29am

          Re: Re: Re: It did look like Comey had been 'Got At'

          It's very easy for someone in her position to run an email server, they pick a member of staff and tell them to set one up. See, easy and no more haggling with the official IT support staff and those department rules about emails..

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:42am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: It did look like Comey had been 'Got At'

            Funny thing is, I could have accepted that. If she would have come out and said...Look, I'm not trying to hide shit, here's all my emails, have at them. I only had my own server because the Gov email is such a pain in the ass. It would have been a non story, and I, and hopefully most sane people in the word, would have thought nothing of it. It's when the lying and the deleting started that I had a problem. If she didn't do anything wrong, why's she lying and deleting emails? Not that it matters anymore really....lol

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:58am

        Re: Re: It did look like Comey had been 'Got At'

        See, the issue is far more complex than that; for example, Trump managed to appeal to those people in the regions of America where industry has fallen by the wayside, for various reasons.

        There's no doubt that Comey's actions were monumentally stupid. But it's simply one of a myriad small losses that culminated in the large loss.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:18am

        Re: Re: It did look like Comey had been 'Got At'

        I wouldn't say that her convenience trumped the rules. I think that more accurately, her attempt to circumvent FOIA which just happened as a side effect was against security regulations. She didn't give a damn about the convenience or for that matter security. She simply didn't want her communications to be subject to FOIA and instead of doing everything over the phone which does avoid FOIA, she wanted the asynchronous nature of email, but didn't want to keep a public record.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Paul Renault (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:48pm

        Re: Re: It did look like Comey had been 'Got At'

        "Clinton has no one to blame but herself"

        That's where you should have ended that sentence. Of course, HRC and the DNC will blame everyone but themselves - where the blame should squarely lie - thus ensuring the DNC doesn't get fixed and that Trump wins a second term.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    spikerman87, 14 Nov 2016 @ 6:58am

    I'm going to take a wild guess that Obama will pardon her and that'll be the end. She won't go to jail, she won't get a slap on the wrist, she'll just walk away totally unscathed and live the next 25-30 years laughing at the world.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:01am

      Re:

      Doesn't she have to be convicted of something before she can be pardoned?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        spikerman87, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:05am

        Re: Re:

        Nope. Ford pardoned Nixon for "crimes he may have been involved in." Nixon was never convicted of anything before he was pardoned. If Obama pardons her, Trump cannot un-pardon her, a pardon is a pardon.

        It's a wonderful country we live in.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:18am

          Re: Re: Re:

          OK, my mistake.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 9:58am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Not that it matters or that anyone really cares but It's still a double edge sword. If he DOES give her a pardon, then it is an admission that she may have done something wrong, and that all the times she denied any wrong doing she may have been lying. Of course the left will say that she's being pardoned so the Right doesn't retaliate or "go after her", and the Right will say she's covering her ass. Like most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:11am

        Re: Re:

        > Doesn't she have to be convicted of something before she can be pardoned?

        No. For example, see President Ford's pardon of Nixon.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:33am

      Re:

      As much as I would like to see her in prison, I hope they don't go after her. Her loss will eat her alive and that is enough punishment. I don't like the message sent that there are those above the law and those under the law, but any hope of compromise and getting things done in Trump's administration will require looking ahead and not behind. Obama spent 8 years blaming Bush, Trump needs to look ahead. There is a reason the windshield is far larger than the rear view mirror.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        art guerrilla (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 9:56am

        Re: Re:

        1. depends on whether you believe in the rule of law or not... hillary just recently proclaimed she did... it was a sick joke to watch, akin to obomber, kissinger, etc getting nobel peace prizes...
        2. IF you believe in the rule of law, she should be in jail... there is NO DOUBT she broke numerous laws IN THE EMAIL case alone; there is NO DOUBT, you, i, ed snowden, or anyone else but power elite cronies could get away with such bullshit as 'didn't have intent', DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER...
        (only in a limited aspect, legally for sentencing purposes)
        3. klinton klavern foundation is rotten to the core...
        4. your 'analysis' of how contemporary his story DID NOT happen is bizarre, and i thought perhaps sarcastic, but it reads earnestly...
        obama studiously AVOIDED ANY and ALL investigations of any number of things that he not only retroactively approved of, but furthered Empire and its horror more than most...
        you CAN NOT be for the rule of law, and let these illegal activities at the highest level go by, ESPECIALLY if you persecute the RIGHTFUL and RIGHTEOUS whistleblowing actions of others...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:12pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          > 1. depends on whether you believe in the rule of law or not... hillary just recently proclaimed she did... it was a sick joke

          She does. For other people.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        wayout, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:15am

        Re: Re:

        "As much as I would like to see her in prison, I hope they don't go after her"

        What does making her pay for her crimes have to do with compromise...would you or I get the same treatment...Her having to face the music like the "little people" that she considers us to be would eat her up even more....
        As long as its above board...no underhanded moves...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:50am

      Re: Pardon

      A pardon is probably a good idea for at least 3 reasons, 1) An implicit acknowledgment that "something wrong" was done, 2) We're spared another political circus, and 3) She'll certainly never be elected to anything in the future. Maybe she'll use her money and do something good for once as a private citizen. Probably not, but that's on her.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:58am

        Re: Re: Pardon

        you forgot #4: Trump will not have to look vindictive and can save face with his base. Based on some of his new rhetoric it looks like his is waffling on following through on this.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:24am

          Re: Re: Re: Pardon

          If anyone voted for Trump expecting him to follow through on anything, I'd say they got what they deserved!
          The "man" has been waffling about everything he says since he started his candidacy, probably even before that (I only peripherally knew of him as a TV "personality" before all this).
          My guess is that if someone calls him out on it, he'll just post a vaguely insulting tweet along the lines of "I've always enjoyed the delicacies northern France has to offer" and call it a day.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:30am

      Re:

      First off, she is unelectable after Obama pardons her, which has got to tear her up inside.

      Second off, if Trump sends her to the scaffold, you will certainly see other less free countries use it as an example: "Throw the loser of the election in jail or worse!"

      While Trump may not care about domestic political rules, he is going to have to wake up to the international diplomatic reality. The international institutions serve a purpose even if they lack some on the results-side: They facilitate diplomatic relations between distant countries and particularly smaller countries benefit from that. If USA says "every man for himself", I can assure you that several countries will sieze the chance to "clean up" and "defend national interests" by non-diplomatic means.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sorrykb (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:12am

      Re:

      Obama has no reason to pardon her because there is no evidence she did anything deserving of criminal charges.
      And Comey has been trying to find evidence for 25 years.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:16pm

        Re: Re:

        > here is no evidence she did anything deserving of criminal charges.

        She is just as deserving of criminal charges as a commoner would be if they had done the same thing.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 3:14pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          > She is just as deserving of criminal charges as a commoner would be if they had done the same thing.

          Exactly, which is to say, not at all

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Jim, 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:13pm

      Re:

      Pardon her for what? What did she do wrong? Ran a losing campaign, not crying foul, not hammering him on his Russian connections? Not hammering him on his supposed donations? What does she need a pardon for, oh, email account. Good god, you can go to jail also? You have an account that people can email you at. Same reasoning. Did you report in yet, remember to turn in your firearms, when you report, felons cannot legally own weapons.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        sorrykb (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 3:15pm

        Re: Re:

        Jim wrote:

        Pardon her for what? What did she do wrong?

        It's obvious. She was despised by people who spent decades trying -- and failing -- to pin criminal charges on her. The failure to find anything in itself proves just how guilty she is.

        At least, I think that's how the logic works. Can't double-check because my brain just shut down in protest.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:06am

    Do Tell

    “There are lots of reasons why an election like this is not successful,”

    Because when they said they did not like Hillary, they were called, wait for it... dirty names.

    Because when they said they had a different plan, they were called, wait for it... dirty names.

    Because when they said they wanted to have rule of law, they were called, wait for it... dirty names.

    Just keep it up folks, you are really winning those hearts and minds out there!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DebbyS (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 12:14pm

      Re: Do Tell

      When people wanted to -- and *did!* -- vote third party, the "major" party candidates and their fans called such voters and their preferred candidates all kinds of unkind names. It happens every time. I recall being warned against voting for Nader, I believe, in 2004, or Bush would win (no, Gore lost). Rather than warn us about Pence, for example, a lot of pro-Hillary pundits just used the argument of "nobody votes for 'third-party' candidates so they don't win so nobody votes for them." They can't argue their "major" candidate is better, they can only argue how less evil he or she is than the "major" opponent. So Clinton and her friends were really her own worst enemies.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Padpaw (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 2:50am

      Re: Do Tell

      Of course if you are not with us then you must be destroyed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:09am

    If you dislike Trump, don't look to the democratic party to save you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:16am

    Because running a sadistic narc for POTUS had nothing at all to do with it.

    This election was lost at the primary. End of story. It wasn't the FBI, or the fraudulent pollsters, or the unholy trinity of cabal news, or the DNC. It was that the constituency didn't expect integrity from it's leadership.

    So WE put a sadistic narc in a candidacy that was mostly about a race to the bottom. And people like this ALWAYS leave a smoking hole in the ground. They are just really good at races to the bottom, because they are more concerned about getting attention, than they are about having integrity.

    The HRC candidacy was an inevitable conclusion. It doesn't matter what Trump did. She would have lost to a cartoon character if it would have gotten her more fame. And playing to that flaw, is how Trump beat her.

    That says more about the party than it does about the candidate. Which is why anyone who saw this coming, should be looking to build up a third party run for the next election. If the DNC is this divorced from the idea of integrity, then it will never be able to split the rural vote.

    And that is really the legacy of HRC. The single handed demolition of the DNC, for nothing more than a tribute to her ego.

    Congrats Hillary. You achieved the most spectacular loss in American history. Your name will go down in history. Congrats SCOTUS. You now know how badly you fucked up with Citizens United. v FEC. Congrats Comey. You've put agents all over the country at greater risk.

    Now back to your regularly scheduled excuse.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:30am

      Re: Because running a sadistic narc for POTUS had nothing at all to do with it.

      And somehow the conclusion that Whatever will take is that Snowden is to blame.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Padpaw (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 2:54am

        Re: Re: Because running a sadistic narc for POTUS had nothing at all to do with it.

        Considering how well he seems to want to get along with putin, trump might give snowden a pardon.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 6:02am

          Re: Re: Re: Because running a sadistic narc for POTUS had nothing at all to do with it.

          He did say Snowden should be pardoned and brought home on the fastest plane.

          One presumes he hasn't given that any more thought than he's given to jailing Hillary.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:18am

    More excuses and backtracking

    No matter what people think of her, this sort of attitude from her is what caused her loss.
    For me to vote against here it was:
    1. Needing 1/2 dozen of her co-workers to invoke the 5th
    2. Needing 1/2 dozen of her co-workers to get immunity
    3. Bill visiting Lynch on the plane with a bs excuse for it.
    4. Always having an excuse and then backtracking when caught.
    5. Calling people who would vote against her 'uneducated'.
    6. Saying she is going to put coal miners out of jobs.
    7. Backstabbing Sanders and Sanders supporters
    8. Being fed questions (shows she cant think on her feet).
    9. Getting a 1/2 dozen positive articles about her on yahoo news and 1/2 dozen negative articles about Trump.
    10. Obvious Pay to Play with her foundation
    11. Email server.

    Hillary is as nasty as they come. Hillary and the DNC are to blame for her loss, not Comey.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:36am

      Re: More excuses and backtracking

      You sir, get it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 9:20am

        Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking

        The problem is that there are several million voters that are okay with this type of corruption.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:01am

          Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking

          ...on ANY side.

          Hillary's private email server use was standard practice for Republican White House officials, Secretaries of State, governors, etc. Charge her, and you'd have to prosecute most of Washington. Shenanigans in the primaries and the rest - no one bats an eye when Republicans do it.

          Trump - between his Trump University scam, charity scams, tax dodging and much, much more - is AT LEAST as corrupt.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:07am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking

            .. here we go again. Rice, Chaney, Bush, muddy muddy the water, point point the finger.. anything but admittance. Yawn.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            wayout, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:17am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking

            NONE of them ran a private server in their home...if you have proof otherwise please link to it...!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:19am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking

              I think Bush took his server home with him when he left office.... not 100% sure.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Roger Strong (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 11:29am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking

              Okie-dokie!

              Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails. (Are you going to argue that AOL is more secure than a private server?) In fact Colin Powell advised Hillary to do so.

              Then there's Bush II, Cheney, Rove and anyone else connected to the Bush White House email controversy, tens of millions of White House emails sent through private servers. Millions of them lost. With the same security issues.

              And Jeb!, who as governor used his own server against the rules and as Florida governor to discuss security and military issues such as troop deployments to the Middle East and the protection of nuclear plants.

              And while it's not exactly the same, 2016 candidates Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal each have their own email scandals. Mitt Romney too.

              And of course there's all those Congressman who claim that they "don't use email", while having their aides use their private accounts to avoid FOIA requests, security be damned.

              This is yet another case of IOKIYAR: It's OK If You're A Republican.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 12:12pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking

                Congratulations!!!!!! You've won the "I didn't read the fucking question" game. You win 1 internet.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Roger Strong (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:50pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking

                  If you don't have an intelligent response, just say so.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:52pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking

                    Why don't you read the fucking question Mr. Okie-dokie!?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2016 @ 12:23am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking

                      God's teeth, you are one hell of a moron.

                      The guy responded intelligently to what can only be seen as a challenge (not actually a question) and you come back spewing drivel. Congratulations!!!!!! You are the poster boy for posting-while-drunk.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2016 @ 4:08am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking

                        You can't read either apparently.

                        The poster said "NONE of them ran a private server in their home"

                        None of that bullshit Roger posted challenged that remark. It just gave him a window to toss out the usual Leftist apologist "point at everyone else" bullshit.

                        So, answer the fucking question. Did any of them, aside from the a fore mentioned Jeb taking his server home with him when he left office, run a private email server from their home?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 6:04am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking

                          The location of the server doesn't matter. If it's private, it's a problem.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2016 @ 7:32am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking

                            I agree that the location shouldn't matter Wendy, your statement is very logical. But it still doesn't challenge the AC's original statement.

                            Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, her situation was unique. She had the server under her complete control including the physical machine as the physical machine was located at her house.

                            The AC asked if any one else had the server located at their house. I responded that I thought Jeb took his home when he left office, but I don't think he "ran" it out of his house.

                            Instead of simply answering the question or challenging the statement with an actual example, Roger tossed out every idiot on the Right that ever did something stupid with their email. At the end of his Trump like word salad, he still didn't provide the proof/example that the AC asked for, and when challenged, he doubled down with more dumb ass.

                            Unless someone can provide proof to the contrary, I submit that the AC was correct in his statement.

                            Can we just all agree that out of all the examples that Roger gave, only Hillary ran the server out of her house? That fact alone, in and of itself, however irrelevant, makes her specific situation unique?

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Roger Strong (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 8:24am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking

                              Instead of simply answering the question or challenging the statement with an actual example, Roger tossed out every idiot on the Right that ever did something stupid with their email.

                              That "every idiot on the right" is "damn near all of them." The entire last Republican administration. The last two Republican SecStates. Pretty much everyone connected to the 2016 Republican primaries who could have an email scandal, did have an email scandal.

                              Deny all you want, but it's firmly established that you're criticizing Hillary for what is standard Republican practice.

                              That fact alone, in and of itself, however irrelevant, makes her specific situation unique?

                              Nonsense. You could also claim that she was the only one using a Dell server or the only server using an ergonomic keyboard.... and it would still be irrelevant. The others used non-government servers. Some (like the Bush White House) off-site, some in (like Jeb!) their own offices away from government IT staff, and some (like Colin Powel) used AOL. It makes no difference.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2016 @ 8:36am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking

                                You just can't do it can you. He made a simple statement, and challenged someone to prove him wrong and you can't do it.

                                Original statement/question/challenge.

                                "NONE of them ran a private server in their home...if you have proof otherwise please link to it...!"

                                Answer: You are correct. NONE of them ran a private email server in their home.


                                It's that simple.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 16 Nov 2016 @ 2:31am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking

                                  It's the privacy of the server, not the location, that's the issue. If they have complete control over the "physical machine" as well as the data, that's what's at issue. Don't split hairs.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:28am

      Re: More excuses and backtracking

      Wonder what happens when we feed the list of evils for the two candidates into the vote2016() function?

      clinton = { evil => [ 'Needing 1/2 dozen of her co-workers to invoke the 5th', 'Needing 1/2 dozen of her co-workers to get immunity', 'Bill visiting Lynch on the plane with a bs excuse for it.', 'Always having an excuse and then backtracking when caught.', 'Calling people who would vote against her uneducated.', 'Saying she is going to put coal miners out of jobs.', 'Backstabbing Sanders and Sanders supporters', 'Being fed questions (shows she cant think on her feet).', 'Getting a 1/2 dozen positive articles about her on yahoo news and 1/2 dozen negative articles about Trump.', 'Obvious Pay to Play with her foundation', 'Email server' ], 'sex' => 'female', 'party' => 'democrat' }

      trump = { evil => [ 'racist', 'sexist', 'xenophobe' ], 'sex' => 'male', 'party' => 'republican' }

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Padpaw (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 2:56am

      Re: More excuses and backtracking

      The media shilling for her so much the bias because obvious to most people, probably made a lot of people question why they were so desperate to cover for her.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    maquignon, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:19am

    She really should give some credit for her loss to her lying, duplicity and corruption.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:26am

    I agree with most of your reasoning. While it may have swayed the media away from covering more important stories for a week, I agree that most already decided. The very, very few it may have swayed would likely have done nothing to swing any states.

    What really lost Clinton the vote was the general apathy of her voters. Too many of her would be supporters did not come out to vote. Whatever their personal reason be, that is what truly lost it for her.

    If she wants to blame anyone, it should be the failure of her team to get people to the polls.

    Now we are stuck with a racist voted in by millions of racists*.

    *You may not think of yourself as racist, but by voting for one who unapologetically and proudly supports racism, you thus then condone and support racism.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:36am

      Re:

      It's YOU and the Democrats that are the Racists and keep throwing out that LIE!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:06am

        Re: Re:

        I know you are but what am I?

        Seriously?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 9:28am

          Re: Re: Re:

          It's true.

          The left constantly disparages their own voters to enact policy change.

          School education? Our voters are too stupid, change it!
          Voting policy? Our voters are too stupid to acquire valid ID, change it!
          Affirmative Action? Our voters are too incompetent to compete with whitey we have to make sure that a bare minimum is hired qualified or not!

          All because telling someone that no matter what, they still have a minimum amount of effort to expend to do something is somehow racist.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 9:57am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            It also makes life tougher for the poor whites who are now legally discriminated against based on the color of their skin. Being told that you are racist and have had a privileged life is funny when you have to be dramatically more qualified just to get hired.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:45am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              It also makes life tougher for the poor whites who are now legally discriminated against based on the color of their skin. Being told that you are racist and have had a privileged life is funny when you have to be dramatically more qualified just to get hired.

              Maybe you are in fact, less qualified.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 12:18pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "Maybe you are in fact, less qualified."

                Your a racist!

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 12:19pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  It's "You're a racist!"

                  Dumbass.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 12:48pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    lol.. stupid word police hate facts.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 12:51pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Maybe your spelling is why people think you're less qualified - that's all I was trying to say.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:02pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Maybe I'm writing in the comment sections because I'm not a professional writer? Maybe English is not my first language? You hating on me? Racist!

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:06pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Maybe English is not my first language?

                          Better not let any of your fellow Trump supporters hear that.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:19pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Yeah, I voted for trump. I held my nose, squinted, and forced myself to color in the dot.... Why? Because Hillary scares the hell out of me.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:36am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            School education? Our voters are too stupid, change it!

            When you consider the push to include creationism in curriculum, despite no evidence to support it, you might be too stupid.

            Voting policy? Our voters are too stupid to acquire valid ID, change it!

            When you think acquiring ID is a matter of intelligence, rather than a function of location, cost, or availability, you might be too stupid.

            Affirmative Action? Our voters are too incompetent to compete with whitey we have to make sure that a bare minimum is hired qualified or not!

            When you consider that there are plenty of people ready to discriminate against serving the LBGT community as part of their daily business operations because of their "beliefs" but somehow think that color of skin could never come into play, you might be too stupid.

            Sometimes the truth hurts. And white society as a whole isn't nearly as benevolent as they would like to think they are.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 11:05am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Keep the hate alive!!!! Lets call every white person on the planet that doesn't think, believe, or act like we do a racists. Yawn. Pretty much why Trump won right there. You've gone too far. After being beaten to death with tolerance this, racist that, identify as this or that, ole whitey had enough and voted themselves in a giant fuck you into office. Good luck with that one.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 11:11am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                After being beaten to death with tolerance this, racist that, identify as this or that, ole whitey had enough and voted themselves in a giant fuck you into office. Good luck with that one.

                Yeah, that tolerance stuff is just too much.

                If you can't hate blacks, latinos, and those who don't follow the christian faith, then what's the point of living?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 11:13am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You should really look into why HRC lost. Also, look on this page for the link to the Politico story about the Dems losing 900 offices since 2008. Until you understand why you are losing, you will keep losing and deservedly so. I will give you a hint, it has nothing to do with racism, sexism, etc.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 11:30am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Hmmm...while I think of "why we're losing" consider maybe "why YOU'RE winning."

                    You ran McCain in 2008, and he actually had a chance until you paired him up with Palin, who embodied the phrase "simple-minded idiot." You lost.

                    You then ran Romney in 2012, and paired him up with the guy who's got a hard on for privatizing social security. Again, you lost.

                    This time, you put up the biggest latino-deporting, muslim-banning, BLM-hating person you could find, along with a religious nutjob for good measure and win. But you're telling me that racism, sexism, etc. has nothing to do with it.

                    Seems like the reason we lost is refusing to cater to the scum that you're enthusiastic about working with.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 11:38am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      You still don't understand why you lost. The name calling no longer works. In fact, you are calling members of your own party names. The working class, middle Americans. You call them deplorable. You call them rednecks. The liberal elitist attitude turns people off and they are finally seeing the light. The people you call these names are none of those things. On top of that your policies are failing. Which is why you resort to name calling because it is impossible to hide the failures.

                      Now come to the table with real solutions and ready to reach across the isle or continue the name calling and continue the losing.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 12:15pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        They can't. It would mean they would have to admit that they are not 100% correct, and the average hard working middle class white person is not a racist. Not going to happen. Hell, Hillary called half of the American population "deplorables", but were the racists lol...

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 12:21pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Now come to the table with real solutions and ready to reach across the isle or continue the name calling and continue the losing.

                        We will. Just like you did with Obama in 2008.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 12:08pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  True insanity right here. You don't now, nor will you ever, get it. I'm going to talk in generalities about your average middle class whitey for a minute. The following statement doesn't include your maniac Hitler type minority of crazy white folks, just your average hamburger eating whitey.

                  Whitey as a whole doesn't hate, they just don't care. Be what color you want, fuck who you want, and identify however you want, they don't care and their tired of hearing it. Keep that shit to yourself, out of the workplace, out of the schools, and out of their hair.

                  One of the reasons Democrats lost is not because of true racism ( I agree it does exist, and may have had an impact however small) but because instead of holding a meaningful argument about character, they throw out that word as a means to demonize and ostracize whitey. It's used to obfuscate the real issues when someone disagrees with Democrats point of views. It's like a poker game where your opponents get all wild cards, all the time.

                  Here's the bad news. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. The left collectively stood up and called the entire middle class of America a sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, racist. The big white couch potato didn't like that.

                  Now you got Trump. Whitey dropped a collective fuck you on the table, left the game, and plopped right back down on their couch. Enjoy!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 12:18pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Be what color you want, fuck who you want, and identify however you want, they don't care and their tired of hearing it. Keep that shit to yourself, out of the workplace, out of the schools, and out of their hair.

                    For a race that couldn't care less, much less get off the couch to care, they sure want a lot of laws that discriminate based on just that, though don't they?

                    Gays want to marry? Nope, can't do that. God'll get pissed off.

                    Gays want to use a bathroom? Hang on a sec - we'll tell you which one to use.

                    Want to discriminate against gays because your imaginary man gets butthurt over it? Sure - go ahead! If god tells you it's OK, it must be.

                    Want to say that this is a polytheistic nation? The fuck we are! This is a christian nation!

                    Want to teach evolution? Not without giving equal time to our god story.

                    So while you like to think you're open minded, and that the vast majority of you don't care, your actions clearly say otherwise.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 12:47pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      I really appreciate you proving my point for me idiot.

                      In 2016 42% of Black / Hispanic people supported gay marriage, 57% of whites supported gay marriage.

                      So more more of the white people support gay marriage than Blacks OR Hispanics.

                      Who's the homophobic here hater?

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:01pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Despite you patting yourself on the back like you just used the toilet by yourself, you seem to have missed this little line:

                        Opposition to same-sex marriage still retains a majority of support in the following: Conservatives,[9] people who agree with the Tea Party movement,[9] people with religious beliefs conflicting with homosexuality,[9] people who attend religious services at least weekly,[9] Protestants,[9] members of the Republican Party,[9] the Silent Generation,[9] people living in the South Central United States (AL, AR, KY, LA, MS, OK, TN, and TX combined).[9] and the states of Alabama,[10] Arkansas,[10] Mississippi,[10] South Dakota,[10] and Tennessee.[10]

                        If you look at all of those groups, tell me - which of those do you not identify with?

                        And while you're looking, which of those groups just helped elect Trump, and maintained Republican control of Congress?

                        So it's either you're voting against your values or you're full of shit.

                        Which is it?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:15pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Your the one that linked race and homophobia, not me. YOU brought race into this conversation, not me. You were trying to tie the 2 together, shit didn't tie real well did it genius?

                          "For a race that couldn't care less, much less get off the couch to care, they sure want a lot of laws that discriminate based on just that, though don't they?"

                          I said the average whitey doesn't care what you do. I supported it with facts showing that what I said was true. Now you want to turn the argument into a religious one.

                          You want to point at the religious right? Have at it, some of them are haters too. My argument was that it had nothing to do with race or racism. Looks like that argument is over.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:23pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            My argument was that it had nothing to do with race or racism. Looks like that argument is over.

                            Given your candidate just appointed this little gem, I'd say it's far from over.

                            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/14/trumps-appointment-bannon-receives-wave-criticism.html

                            T ell me - how's the air there in the bubble? Or am I just misunderstanding why he'd appoint this shitbag?

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:48pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              I don't care who Trump puts in power. I don't care what politician does what. None of that had anything the fuck to do with what I was talking about. Your just being an asshole now.

                              I was pointing out that Homophobia is not a "racial" issue, that most white people are not racists, that whitey doesn't really give a fuck how you "identify", and that the Democrats use racism to deflect from the real issues.

                              You brought in that whitey hates the gays, and makes the laws to stop the gays from marrying. I pointed out that minorities are less tolerant than the white people are regarding the acceptance of gay marriage. It's a fact, and it's all I was trying to say.

                              Give it up.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:50pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                I don't care who Trump puts in power. I don't care what politician does what.

                                Who's he catering to? Blacks?

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:39pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Actually, no.

                            I said the average whitey doesn't care what you do.

                            Yet they certainly have an opinion, either for or against. If they didn't have an opinion, wouldn't they fall into the third "Don't Care" column?

                            I supported it with facts showing that what I said was true.

                            However, out of those groups:

                            4% of whites don't care

                            8% of black, non-hispanic don't care

                            5-6% of hispanic don't care

                            So it would seem that a higher percentage of blacks and hispanics truly don't care.

                            Your numbers certainly don't lie - you said it yourself.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:50pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              You won't stop because you can't stop. This is why you lost right here. Own it. Here; have this cup o Trump to keep you company. :)

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:52pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                You said "don't care" - several times. Perhaps you should've chosen your words more carefully. Actually, you should've chosen your proof more carefully.

                                But you don't like it when the numbers don't say what you want do you?

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 2:09pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  Fact! Minorities are more homophobic than whitey... not just by a little bit either. Can't stand it can you? It's a fact! You can drag in religion, trump, bush, whitey, the moon... none of that will change the fact that Minorities are more homophobic than the white man..

                                  Here .. say it with me..... Minorities-are-more-homophobic-than-whitey! Shit man, lets keep this going. How about Islamophobia? or Antisemitism? Pastafarianism? I wonder if we broke the whole phobia thing down by a percentage of population by race what it would look like. Anyone got any graph paper?

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    sorrykb (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 3:09pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    With every post you prove your detractors right.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2016 @ 12:52am

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    "...whitey..."

                                    You keep using this word and it makes you sound rather silly. It's also pejorative and a little bit obnoxious. It does nothing for any argument you make as I don't read past it.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2016 @ 8:14am

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    Your original statement:

                                    Whitey as a whole doesn't hate, they just don't care.

                                    Yet, in the link you provided:

                                    4% of whites don't care, 8% of black, non-hispanic don't care, 5-6% of hispanic don't care

                                    (You weren't kidding about English being your second language, were you?)

                                    Whenever I bring up something Trump actually says, I typically get "what he means is..."

                                    Seems like you really meant, they care - but you said they don't care.

                                    Just admit it and move on. Your quote is right there for everyone to read - you said - (and clearly, multiple times) "don't care."

                                    If you meant something else, you should've (wait for it) said something else.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    OGquaker, 16 Nov 2016 @ 12:40am

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    DebbyS (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 12:25pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "The left collectively..." Which "left" are you talking about? My branch of "the left", the Green Party, certainly never does that. But you wouldn't know that because there was so little coverage of Jill Stein et al. and what the party stands for.

                    I wish commenters on forums wouldn't use sweeping generalities because lumping a large group of people together under one name just shows how weak the argument is.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:00pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Their are 15ish major, and dozens of minor parties that consider themselves Left in the U.S. Because the Democrat part portrays itself as the "Left" party, and in the interest of keeping my post short, I generalized. Doesn't make my argument any weaker, even when "DebbyS" says so.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2016 @ 12:57am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "Doesn't make my argument any weaker, even when "DebbyS" says so."

                        I disagree. You've done nothing but generalize and your take on politics is nothing short of hysterical.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:37am

      Re:

      Supporting Clinton would condone and support extra-judicial killing, regime change wars of aggression, illegal surveillance, and aiding countries like Saudi Arabia with barbaric human rights records. There was no moral high ground in either choice of major party candidates.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Roger Strong (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:56am

        Re: Re:

        Yup. Clinton was a traditional Republican who would continue all the policies of the last Republican administration that you mention.

        Trump is alt-right. Not better, but different.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:15am

          Re: Re: Re:

          LOL.. It's all Bush's fault. I hope you guys are still blaming him the next time the Republicans kick your ass.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Roger Strong (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 11:38am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I did not claim nor even hint that "it's all Bush's fault."

            I'd just like for once to see a complaint from Republicans that isn't about Obama or Hillary doing something that's standard practice for Republicans.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 11:44am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              How about rigging their own primary? How about getting questions in advance of the debates? How about blaming a YouTube video for a terrorist attack? How about not ignoring the Ambassador's request to come home and for more security because of fear of a terrorist attack?

              I will tell you something that the Repubs are doing that the Dems aren't: winning!

              http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-los t-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 12:21pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                HEY NOW! Stop with those pesky facts. .. *digs around in bag*... hmmm... sry man, All I got is "racists".. RACIST!!!

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Roger Strong (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 2:20pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                How about rigging their own primary?

                A fine example! Ask Ron Paul about rigged primaries.

                Or John McCain. Republican candidates in 2000 were given what was essentially a loyalty oath stipulating that they would support George W. Bush in the forthcoming primaries exclusively, and not McCain, and if they didn't agree, the Party would withhold its financing.

                And of course Republicans were openly trying to rig the primaries against Trump as panic set in. But it was too late.

                How about blaming a YouTube video for a terrorist attack?

                Another good example! Republicans did the same, until they agreed on a talking point. It was certainly a reasonable conclusion, given that there were other protests at the time, known to be linked to the video.

                Hillary, on the day of the attack, merely noted that the video might have sparked it, as intelligence officials were telling her. She chose to wait for more information to come in before drawing any conclusion.

                How about not ignoring the Ambassador's request to come home and for more security because of fear of a terrorist attack?

                At the time of the attack, Benghazi had the five member security team that was requested. More were requested, but not until the day of the attack.

                But even with your dishonesty, it's still an excellent example! Compare all the Benghazis just during the previous administration:

                Jan 2002 - Calcutta, India - 5 dead when Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami gunmen attack US consulate.

                2002 - Nine people killed by bomb blast near US embassy in Lima - seen as attempt to disrupt forthcoming visit by President George W. Bush.

                Jun 2002 - A truck bomb detonates outside the United States Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. Twelve dead, 51 injured.

                2002 - Two Marines shot, one killed in Kuwait.

                Feb 2003 - Karachi, Pakistan - Two dead, five wounded by gunmen on motorcycles in front of the US consulate. The attack was deliberately aimed at those guarding the consulate.

                May 2003 - Riyadh Compound Bombings kill 9 Americans, among 35 others.

                Oct 2003 - Three American diplomats are killed by a roadside bomb targeting their convoy in Gaza.

                Mar 2004 - Karachi, Pakistan - Another attempt to blow up a van in front of the consulate. Found and deactivated by police.

                Jun 2004 - Tashkent, Uzbekistan - Two dead as Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan suicide bomber attacks US Embassy.

                Dec 2004 - Jeddah, Saudi Arabia - Nine dead as al-Qaeda gunmen raid diplomatic compound.

                2004 - Paul Marshall Johnson, Jr, civilian working in Saudi Arabia, kidnapped and beheaded; five other Americans die in attacks in Saudi Arabia in 2004.

                Mar 2006 - Karachi, Pakistan - a suicide car bomb killed American diplomat David Foy, and three Pakistanis and injured thirty outside the Marriott Hotel, about 20 yards from the consulate. It appears that Foy was the direct target of the bomber, who detonated his vehicle in the car park behind the consulate as Foy arrived.

                Sep 2006 - Damascus, Syria - Four dead as gunmen raid US Embassy.

                Jan 2007 - Athens, Greece - RPG Fired at US Embassy

                Mar 2008 - Sana'a, Yemen - Mortar attack against US Embassy

                Jul 2008 - Istanbul, Turkey - Six dead in Armed attack against Consulate

                Sep 2008 - Sana'a, Yemen - 16 dead in two car bombs outside US embassy in Yemeni capital

                2008 - John Granville, US diplomat, assassinated in Khartoum, Sudan

                Notice that that includes at least three consulates/embassies overrun just like Benghazi. And that's just during one administration.

                ALL of these incidents could be exploited in the same partisan manner that Republicans do with Benghazi. ALL can lead to the same false accusations. But the other side simply didn't sink to the same depths as Republicans.

                That, and an unwillingness to court the racists, misogynists, homophobes and conspiracy theorists, is why Dems lost.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:38am

      Re:

      So the DNC staffers referring to the Hispanic community as "taco bowl engagement" isn't racist? Dem votiers ignoring Hillary's persecution of Bill's sexual assault victims isn't sexist?

      You have no idea why the Dems lost and have been losing for 8 years. Until you do, the Dems will keep losing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:23am

      Re:

      That's not how it works. Voting for a racist no more makes you a racist than voting for a murderer makes you a murderer. Voting for someone does not mean you support and condone each and every of their positions and personal beliefs.

      Voting for someone means either that of the available candidates you think they are overall the best choice for your county/state/nation when their pros and cons are weighed against the pros and cons of their opposing candidates, or that of the available candidates they hold policy positions most favorable to you.

      So just like there are people who favored the death penalty who voted for Tim Kaine in spite of his personal pro-life beliefs, it's guaranteed that there are plenty of people who voted for Trump in spite of his racism.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        sorrykb (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:04am

        Re: Re:

        Anonymous Coward (but seriously we know who you are) wrote:

        Voting for a racist no more makes you a racist than voting for a murderer makes you a murderer.

        You really picked a perfect example there. Just perfect.

        Your racist ran on the explicit promise of racist policies. His newly appointed "chief strategist and counselor" is an avowed anti-Semite and white supremacist. So your vote means you don't give a shit about the targets of those policies. Which makes you, at best, an enabler. A collaborator.

        To continue your analogy: You voted for the murderer whose campaign was founded on explicit promises to murder more people. You don't get a pass on that.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:20am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I didn't vote for Trump, and never planned on voting for him. You don't need to be a Trump supporter to be disgusted by arguments like "Any vote not for Hillary is a vote for Trump", or "If you voted for Trump for any reason you're a racist."

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            sorrykb (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:26am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You don't need to be a Trump supporter to be disgusted by arguments like "Any vote not for Hillary is a vote for Trump", or "If you voted for Trump for any reason you're a racist."

            People can be disgusted all they like. If people voted for Trump, either they're racist, or they excuse racism. It's not like he kept his racism hidden.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:55am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              So the DNC calling reaching out to the Hispanic community "taco bowl engagement" is not racist? So Hillary going after the victims of Bill's sexual assaults is not sexist? How about election rigging? How about lying about the cause of the Benghazi attack? How about a Hillary leaving a wake of lies, corruption and failure behind her?

              I guess the thing that amazes me the most about this election is the left point out the sins of Trump while totally ignoring the sins of Hillary. If you think you are a saint and everyone else is a sinner, you are fooling yourself.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                sorrykb (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 11:01am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                So the DNC calling reaching out to the Hispanic community "taco bowl engagement" is not racist?

                No, because it's explicity mocking the racism and ignorance of Trump, who thought that a photo of himself eating a "taco bowl" (WTF even is that) was a great Cinco de Mayo message.

                How about election rigging?

                Didn't happen, unless you're talking about, say, Republican voter suppression in North Carolina.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 11:11am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  What? So Hillary didn't rig the primary against Bernie? I guess that is news to the rest of us. How about the media helping her out in the debates? Face it, she is a walking disaster.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2016 @ 4:16am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    You may as well stop. They have an answer for everything. They lost the Presidency, the don't have either house, and they lost out on probably 2 or 3 SCOTUS appointments. With all that said, you'll never convince them they are wrong on anything.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 11:05am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I guess the thing that amazes me the most about this election is the left point out the sins of Trump while totally ignoring the sins of Hillary.

                No ones ignoring them.

                We're simply pointing out that as a whole, Trump is a far bigger douchebag.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 7:40am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              They're also excluding abuse of women, fraud, and crony capitalism. Why stop at racism? It's not the only social sin.

              Until we stop demonising Trump voters we're not going to understand why people voted for him. It's not as cut-and-dried as you think.

              My personal understanding is that they wanted to upend a system they believed was rigged against them. They understood the right thing in the wrong way; the rigging is not a partisan one and it's not done in a partisan way. In fact, partisanship is just a ploy to divide and conquer and unfortunately they fell for it. It'll flippin' hurt when Trump breaks all the promises he's walking back on right now. Who will they blame then? The Republicans own both houses. When I didn't get it I complained about bias. Now that I do I'll join the other smart people in saying that the only choice Americans have is between Kang and Kodos. There's no meaningful left as such and while Progressives can be noisy they've not got as far as they want to, depending on which state you're in.

              The failures are with neoliberalism and Progressives and their liberal agenda is just a distraction. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, the scary-looking smoky guy is talking.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Norahc (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:32am

      Re:

      "*You may not think of yourself as racist, but by voting for one who unapologetically and proudly supports racism, you thus then condone and support racism."

      Who knew that this entire election was about nothing else but racism? Guess things like the economy, gender issues, security, gun control, crime, and politics as usual had absolutely nothing to do with it.

      And if you truly believe what you said, than you're just as narrow-minded and single issue focused as those you decided to call racists. If you can't see past the single issue that you decided to post about, then you're part of the reason that people

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        sorrykb (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:06am

        Re: Re:

        Quite right. The Trump campaign wasn't just about appealing to racists. It was also about appealing to sexists, homophobes, islamphobes, and anti-Semites. Pretty much the entire neonazi platform. I'll be sure to get it right next time.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:21pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Quite right. The Trump campaign wasn't just about appealing to racists. It was also about appealing to sexists, homophobes, islamphobes, and anti-Semites. Pretty much the entire neonazi platform. I'll be sure to get it right next time."

          No you won't. It is funny how bad you don't get why the dems lost. (Trigger warning) they just wouldn't listen.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2016 @ 5:32am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            No you won't. It is funny how bad you don't get why the dems lost. (Trigger warning) they just wouldn't listen.

            Are you arguing that we must listen to the racist, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-semitic element of this country?

            It sounds like you are.

            And that makes you a pathetic piece of shit.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 7:42am

          Re: Re: Re:

          sorrykb while that is true it's not the only truth. Sooner or later you'll have to accept that the world is bigger than bedsheet-wearing church-burning freaks and their basement-dwelling inbred cousins.

          People wanted change, and when that change kicks in they'll find it's not the change they voted for.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      wayout, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:11am

      Re:

      un no, its just we couldn't vote for the other candidate even if we had cotton balls stuffed up our nose and blinders on...

      He wasn't my candidate of choice, but the other side was way worse...

      So by your definition, if you voted for HRC then you are are lying back stabbing crook with absolutely no integrity, and no morals other than what is politically convenient at the time...

      Sound about right..?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Padpaw (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 2:58am

      Re:

      Then you must hate men solely because trump is a man.

      Following your logic.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:27am

    Partisan Autopilots

    Driverless car manufacturers have discovered that their cars need to be programmed to be more aggressive in order to merge onto a freeway. Perhaps they'll let the user select the car's aggressiveness.

    I expect many will crank the aggressiveness up to the point where driverless cars fight over parking spots. I'm looking forward to the YouTube videos.

    Soon, more customization will be a selling feature: Driverless cars are all connected to cloud computing. The possibilities for instant automated lookups on the vehicles around you is endless. If this election is any indication, a decade from now you'll be able to tell your car to be cooperate with driver/owners sharing your political affiliation, and to be downright bastards to those who don't.

    It'll give us a definitive answer to the Trolley Problem.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:28am

    Which straw broke the camel's back?

    I wouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss the Clinton campaign's analysis. They have access to a lot more and more detailed polls and data than what gets released to the public, and I think it's quite credible that they saw something in the numbers that wasn't apparent in the public data. There's no question that the e-mail story was utterly dominating the political news a week before election day, at a time when many people were actually casting ballots.

    That said, Clinton was an incredibly weak candidate. But so too was Trump. Turnout was way down this year from prior elections, and given that Clinton won the popular vote, it's fair to say that the country remains right on the knife edge of 50-50.

    There are many things you could argue in retrospect might have changed the outcome, and this election had so many absurd twists that the challenge is choosing which one weird and unprecedented event might be most important.

    I think it's very plausible to say that if Comey hadn't sent his letter then Clinton might have won. It's all speculation of course, and we don't get to run the experiment again to find out.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      madasahatter (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 4:38pm

      Re: Which straw broke the camel's back?

      One major flaw, her problems were self-inflicted and many detested her because of her corrupt antics. Some chose to vote for Trump but others chose not to vote. Those who refused to vote if dragged to the polls might have voted for Trump instead.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2016 @ 12:23am

      Re: Which straw broke the camel's back?

      It's not just that they have better polls - public polls showed her 6-7 points ahead of Trump right before the FBI letter dropped.

      So, whatever other problems the Clinton campaign had (many), it's the FBI's letters letter that ultimately lost her the election.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:30am

    I love that the Dems are still in denial as to why they lost

    The polls were rigged to show Hillary would win by a landslide. They over polled Dems. Also, there might be some Trump supporters unwilling to state that fact due to the pressure from the left.

    But the name calling and labeling is a losing tactic now. People are finally starting to look at the real issues. Check the link below, the Dems have lost big time since Obama took office and will quite likely keep losing until they realize and admit why they are losing. I will give you a hint, crying wolf isn't working anymore.


    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-los t-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      JustShutUpAndObey, 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:23am

      Who was most despised?

      That's what it came down to this time: Who was most despised by the American people. The advantage went to Hillary - she'd been despised by more people for more years (completely irrelevant whether or not that hatred was justified: it was/is real). She did nothing significant to change that.

      Secondly, people deeply resented the corporate media's efforts to ram her down their throats.

      Finally, Hillary represented the establishment in an anti-establishment year. She promised more of the same (and sometimes said so explicitly). A lot of people were willing to roll the dice.

      It is unfortunate that the dice came up craps and they'll lose everything under Trump/Pence, but at the time, it probably seemed like the best bet for a lot of folks.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        PRMan, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:07am

        Re: Who was most despised?

        I know it's only been a week, but so far Trump has driven a stake through the heart of TPP. So far, that's not rolling craps.

        Let's continue to keep an open mind and see what he does.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          sorrykb (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:09am

          Re: Re: Who was most despised?

          Trump's appointed a neonazi as his chief strategist.
          Does that help?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Padpaw (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 3:02am

            Re: Re: Re: Who was most despised?

            so why not give them enough rope to hang themselves instead of trying to get a mob to lynch them before he even starts?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2016 @ 12:30am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Who was most despised?

              Because people might die. Due to the lack of access to healthcare or due to all the crazies they empowered.

              They have the potential to dig a hole that will be very hard to climb out of.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      JustShutUpAndObey, 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:31am

      Re: I love that the Dems are still in denial as to why they lost

      People don't vote according to policies or promises, they are smart enough to understand those are all bullshit.
      They vote according to personality/likability, but are not smart enough to understand how that will backfire.
      Hillary had no personality (none that she could communicate, at least) and was even more unlikable than Donald Trump.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:38am

    The question would be on if Comey's letter discouraged Democrats from voting rather than encouraged more Republicans to vote or changed undecided voters to vote Republican, seeing as this election was characterized by its lack of turnout.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 1:12pm

      Re:

      That would be part of where it is at.

      Plus, the traditional democratic northern states are suffering economically, has a large population willing to go with anything but status quo and has a lower proportion of the less Trump-leaning demographics.

      While some republicans found Trump repulsive, noone liked Clinton. Also, NRA... I rest my case.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Teamchaos (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:39am

    Why?

    Tim - even though I agree with the premise of your piece, I'm wondering why it's on tech dirt. Is tech dirt just becoming just another political site? (albeit one that prides itself on not taking sides)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      I.T. Guy, 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:03am

      Re: Why?

      Have you asked the same of Ars, Wired, Gizmodo, etc, etc?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Teamchaos (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:31am

        Re: Re: Why?

        I don't read those sites. Perhaps I should start.

        I read WSJ, WaPo, NYT, Slate, Vox, Breitbart, Drudge, RCP, Politico, Fox, MSNBC, NPR, the Hill, and Townhall for political news. There are plenty of sites out there that cover politics. Very few sites cover technology, the surveillance state, etc. like Tech Dirt does. (IMHO, YMMV)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          I.T. Guy, 14 Nov 2016 @ 9:18am

          Re: Re: Re: Why?

          "The Climate of Insanity."
          Is what I call it.

          Lots of Tech blogs are running political commentary right now.

          It'll pass. Until TheTrumpet starts doing stupid shit. [Grabs popcorn.]

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Padpaw (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 3:04am

      Re: Why?

      They seem a bit bitter about trump winning and hillary losing. Thought they are taking it better than most liberals that I have seen.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 7:55am

    She will never get that it was her

    The DNC could not have put forth a worse candidate, for God's sake she lost to Donald Trump. I agree partially with what another AC posted.

    "And that is really the legacy of HRC. The single handed demolition of the DNC, for nothing more than a tribute to her ego."

    It was not all her, the DNC shares equally in this loss, it was all about payback for 2008 when she was told she would have to wait a little longer for her anointment. She had one shot at the presidency and in hindsight it was 2008. Since then she dug her grave and the DNC was just the mechanism that lowered the body. Hillary will never accept any blame for this, but the DNC will have to live with the memory that Bernie would most likely have beat Trump.

    The other reason she can't take blame IMHO is that she has to tell her donors something and it can't be 'it was my fault', they might want their money back.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      I.T. Guy, 14 Nov 2016 @ 9:22am

      Re: She will never get that it was her

      I've been trying to start a nasty rumor that it must have been Russian hackers. When asked for proof:
      "Well... Donald Trump won." Is the answer.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:11am

    Re: Blaming Comey is handy

    Yes it is: as a shot across the bow.

    It would appear that HRC is concerned about pending criminal litigation, and is trying to use the trinities respective post mortems, to proxy threats at Comey. ("If WE go down YOU go down!", etc. etc.)

    Comey needs to be relieved of duty. It doesn't matter at this point what he did or when he did it. What matters, is that his continuation in his position will taint any following criminal prosecutions against the Clintons.

    If you look at the Forum posts during her concession speech it is clear. Any mandate that Trump has, is within his own constituency, intertwined with this prosecution going forward. If it doesn't Trump will be seeing a much more serious problem in the 2000 elections.

    It was a campaign pledge. And his people have memories likes elephants.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    crade (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:13am

    Rather than focusing on why she lost, why not focus on why there is no one on the ballot that the people actually wanted to be president?

    This a race of putting up the two most hated people you can find and having people pick based on who they hate more. How come? Who cares why Hilary lost, I'd like to know why she was on the ballot.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:15am

      Re:

      > I'd like to know why she was on the ballot
      Because the democratic party had the bad judgement to nominate her.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        crade (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:30am

        Re: Re:

        That's kinda like saying she lost the election because she got less votes.. It doesn't really shed much light on how the system is so broken that basically everyone is voting against something they hate instead of for something they want.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Skullduggery, 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:30am

    Typical criminal response...

    I didn't do it....

    Yes, Hillarity, you did indeed break, not bend, but break the law.
    You committed acts of treason.
    Not that I'm saying Donna Strumpet is any better.

    Eventually, people are going to wise up and figure out there's more than 2 parties in our system, or better yet, abolish all parties.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Norahc (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:34am

    Really need an edit button

    ** to continue previous post**

    reason that people voted for Trump. It was a rebellion against being told what to think and being called names for not thinking as told.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sorrykb (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:08am

      Re: Really need an edit button

      It was a rebellion against being told what to think and being called names for not thinking as told.

      A temper tantrum, then, worthy of a 2-year-old. Congratulations Toddler Nation.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:57am

        Re: Re: Really need an edit button

        No, that tantrum is being played out in the streets now by the left.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:58am

        Re: Re: Really need an edit button

        Kind of proves the point...resorting to name calling because people disagree with you or didn't vote the way you think they should have.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:18am

      Re: Really need an edit button

      It was the biggest middle finger in history.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:39am

    I voted for HRC, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt

    "I'm with her".

    Perhaps I'd be better off with the one that says
    "I'm with stupid".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    ANON, 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:47am

    Yes and No

    I doubt the issue of the re-opened investigation did much in and of itself to change voters' minds. What I do think is that the narrative suddenly changed from "incredibly sexist Donald Trump" to "Hillary is under investigation". Usually, when Trump made some serious news-worthy pronouncement that reflected badly on himself or his campaign, he managed to push it out of the headlines with another equally audacious pronouncement. In this case, Comey did the honors for him - twice - at the crucial later stages of the campaign.

    For all the criticism of Hillary and her email server, for all the other emails leaked and swirling around in the news - I have seen nothing to indicate that her server was hacked. If it were, don't you think 33,000 or 65,000 or 650,000 emails (seriously? Who has that many?) would be all over WikiLeaks months ago.

    Maybe DNC should hire Hillary's tech support staff.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    kallethen, 14 Nov 2016 @ 9:01am

    I do think it is fair for Hillary/DNC to be upset at what Comey did. And really, it's obvious he was trying to upset things for her with how vague he worded his letter.

    But you are correct that she needs to blame herself first. It's all cause and effect. Her misuse of emails was the cause, Comey's actions were (part of) the effect.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    mrvco (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 9:33am

    One moment Comey is the greatest guy in the world when he didn't recommend prosecution and then he's the worst, most corrupt guy in the world when he suggests that there might be more to investigate. It was a no-win for him since (apparently) the NYPD was threatening to leak the 650k emails found on Weiner's laptop if he didn't do something.

    If the Clintons would just disappear into the history books (along with the Bush dynasty), then that would be the best for this country. I really don't look forward to all the nastiness that will come if a special prosecutor is appointed to investigate EmailGate, PedoGate, HaitiGate, Pay2PlayGate, the Clinton Foundation filings, etc, etc. ad infinium.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Wyrm (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 9:48am

    the one answer

    This is depressing. Each time something bag happens to them, people want the one answer to all their troubles.

    This is OK in some few cases, but politics is definitely not one of those. Politics is a complex world where lots of things factor in.

    It's so much easier to go around, grab the first thing that comes to mind (and that isn't yourself, preferably) than checking for the complex social interactions that brought the result.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 9:57am

    Hillary Clinton lost because everyone knows she is a liar.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 11:28am

    I'm surprised Google lets you guys criticize Hillary Clinton.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous cowherd, 14 Nov 2016 @ 2:00pm

    Alternate Headline

    In her first meeting after the election, Clinton shits all over James Comey!


    Heh.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 3:17pm

    I think your analysis is missing the damage that might have been done by the letter. People who were going to vote for trump, were going to vote for trump no matter what came of the email investigation. they may have claimed otherwise at some point, by 59.85 million +/- .5% have voted for the republican nominee in the last 3 elections, and trump got the fewest votes.

    the point where the Comey letter comes into play is with voters who might have voted for Clinton, but either 1. didn't vote, or 2. voted for a 3rd party / write in candidate.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Tin-Foil-Hat, 14 Nov 2016 @ 4:50pm

    Not exactly

    There was a lot wrong with Hilary. Comedy may have contributed but is not responsible for her loss. However, if there's a law against releasing information like this within days of an election then Comey violated it. Of course the law is for little people so I expect to see him held to account exactly as much as all the other rich and powerful when they break the law. Our elections are rigged already either by gerrymandering or bribes so I don't expect to be represented no matter who sits in the chair.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 8:06pm

    If they ever find Hillary's missing emails,

    they'll probably find her missing votes in the same place.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    FM Hilton, 14 Nov 2016 @ 11:16pm

    Why she lost

    At the risk of sounding sexist, I'm going to say that she offended alot of people by being an 'uppity female' with an attitude.

    Why does she scare so many men? Why were women so quick to not vote for her?

    And why did anyone listen to Comey in the first place when he didn't even have a warrant to look at those extra emails?

    Because she was female, and everyone knows that females are the weaker of the two sexes. They have no business running this country.

    However, a xenophobic, sexist, racist, 1% male with absolutely no previous job experience in elected office is perfectly ok for President.

    That was easy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 2:49am

    Personally I think she should blame herself and the DNC for rigging the primary in her favour. I think anyone but Hillary would have stood a good chance against trump.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Locutus, 15 Nov 2016 @ 4:10am

    Irony

    Here's the supreme irony: if Bernie Sanders had remained independent (and had slightly better campaign management), rather than glomming onto the failed Democrats, he would have stood a strong chance of winning against -- seriously? -- Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. So much for brain trusts ...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2016 @ 6:16am

    what a surprise

    a woman falling down, coughing up a lung and dragging 53 body bags behind her, trailed by her miserable pervert husband wasn't elected. shock!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DNY (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 6:27am

    Ingratitude

    This strikes me as staggering ingratitude. The law applicable to the handling of classified information explicitly criminalized negligence and as such contains no mens rea provision, yet Comey used a purported absence of ill-intent on the part of Sec. Clinton in her routing of e-mails, including many containing classified information, and some marked (C) for classified, through her insecure private server.

    Of course perhaps she's right. Her treatment (contrast with that of a decorated Marine who sent one e-mail containing classified intelligence through an insecure channel in an ultimately vain attempt to save the lives of fellow Marines in Afghanistan) reinforced the impression that Washington elites have placed themselves above the law, and may have spurred some otherwise lukewarm voters to pull the lever for the business/entertainment elitist rather than the political elitist on November 8th.

    Full disclosure: I'm a #NeverTrump Republican who didn't vote for either of the wannabe Caesars.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2016 @ 2:37pm

    sexist racist

    1. you would have to be hiding under a rock on a different planet to not notice the police killings and assaults on black people these past 8 years. the incident where a police woman in texas put her hands up a black woman's vagina on the ground by the side of the road supposedly in search of a joint, comes to mind. A police man held her down. The Guardian has a list of the police killings. A Democrat President, Obama, has done nothing to stem these abuses. Nothing. 8 years. There goes the black vote.

    The Native Americans also getting their heads bashed in and shot at with rubber bullets. Children protesters bleeding from attacks by police dogs. This is racist. This is the Democrat administration doing Nothing to help the indigenous people and instead beating, stripping, caging and arresting people for exercising their first amendment right to peacefully assemble and freely associate. Why would a thinking person think that electing another Democrat would improve the situation for minorities?

    2. women. Well. Clinton's first move out of the gate was to enlist a couple of hard core macho feminists to tell us that if we didn't vote for Clinton we were going to hell. Have any of you fan boys ever met a woman? Ever talk to her like that? Go over well did it? There is much more, but basically, she cares about herself, not women.

    3. the screeching vitriol of the online hate brigade employed by the Clinton campaign and her super packs did a great deal to spread the sentiment to Bernie supporters and independents that their vote was neither desired nor required by her majesty Mrs Clinton.

    It is unfortunate but not surprising that the DNC continues in the vein of head sand burying by repeating the same mistakes. They are clearly not interested in reforming their party.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Wendy Cockcroft, 16 Nov 2016 @ 2:36am

      Re: sexist racist

      All true. Which goes to prove they're not a left wing party; they're neocons with Progressives in the back seat making noise till they get what they want.

      Now repeat after me: non-Republican =/= Leftist.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    AnonCow, 20 Nov 2016 @ 1:53pm

    Who to blame (in order):
    -Older white women (since they are in menopause, losing reproductive rights didn't matter to them)
    -Latinos: They want those annoying relatives who moved into the garage a year ago deported
    -Blacks: Trump presidency = more innocent black males shot by police which is a great way to promote #blacklivesmatter

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.