LOL So many Russian Bots on overdrive as we approach midterms

[zinfamous]

Bernie bros were not all outsiders, not by a longshot. He enjoyed wide support among rank & file Dems. He just didn't win. The Russians were all over that discontent like stink on shit.

Bernie Bros were a specific section of Bernie supporters. Plenty of Dems liked and supported Bernie, for rational reasons and further, for the same rational reasons, supported Hillary over Trump because. Well, Trump.

These people weren't Bernie Bros. Bernie Bros, to me, are basically the first-time participants in an election during that election cycle. I think they are generally politics-agnostic, like the typical Trump supporter: the type of Klan member that never felt like their voice had a real champion until Trump started speaking to them directly, and voted for the first time in their lives in a national election.

 

[Jhhnn]

Bernie Bros were a specific section of Bernie supporters. Plenty of Dems liked and supported Bernie, for rational reasons and further, for the same rational reasons, supported Hillary over Trump because. Well, Trump.

These people weren't Bernie Bros. Bernie Bros, to me, are basically the first-time participants in an election during that election cycle. I think they are generally politics-agnostic, like the typical Trump supporter: the type of Klan member that never felt like their voice had a real champion until Trump started speaking to them directly, and voted for the first time in their lives in a national election.

Semantic quibbling. Russian efforts were aimed squarely at the voters you mention, however. Make no mistake about that.

 

[Paratus]

DSF falls for it too.
[URL="http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/p-ns-middle-name-is-and.2390807/page-713#post-39492494"]P&Ns middle name is and[/URL]

 

[Victorian Gray]

DSF falls for it too.
P&Ns middle name is and

Well, he is part of the target audience.

 

[Amused]

DSF falls for it too.
P&Ns middle name is and

Yes he did, and the facts behind who suckered him are amazingly predictable:

So... You prefer to listen to long time alt-right clowns claiming to be walking away from the Democtatic party?

How fucking stupid is this shit???

Seriously?

How fucking gullible can you be???

Here is this woman, BEFORE the walk away campaign, posting alt-right posts on her Twitter.

Clue: She never was a democrat. She's a Jordan Peterson, Alex Jones, Alt right clown.

 

[Greenman]

Bernie Bros were a specific section of Bernie supporters. Plenty of Dems liked and supported Bernie, for rational reasons and further, for the same rational reasons, supported Hillary over Trump because. Well, Trump.

These people weren't Bernie Bros. Bernie Bros, to me, are basically the first-time participants in an election during that election cycle. I think they are generally politics-agnostic, like the typical Trump supporter: the type of Klan member that never felt like their voice had a real champion until Trump started speaking to them directly, and voted for the first time in their lives in a national election.

So the "GET OUT AND VOTE" campaign didn't work exactly as planed. Sometimes it just takes a bit of trial and error.

 

[Jhhnn]

So the "GET OUT AND VOTE" campaign didn't work exactly as planed. Sometimes it just takes a bit of trial and error.

Trump & the Russians did dog whistle every deplorable & malcontent in America out from under their rocks, didn't he? Oh, Baby!

They managed to depress Dem turnout at the same time, too.

Most excellent propaganda- a brilliant & audacious tour de force in those dark arts.

The other side of it, of course, is that Trump & a GOP Congress isn't working out quite like the images Donald put in their minds... How could it, given that it was all lies?

 

[Greenman]

Trump & the Russians did dog whistle every deplorable & malcontent in America out from under their rocks, didn't he? Oh, Baby!

They managed to depress Dem turnout at the same time, too.

Most excellent propaganda- a brilliant & audacious tour de force in those dark arts.

The other side of it, of course, is that Trump & a GOP Congress isn't working out quite like the images Donald put in their minds... How could it, given that it was all lies?

That's the one huge failure of every democratic government, the deplorable's get to vote as well, along with the stupid and ill informed. The issue is even worse when you consider that we have to govern at the lowest level, we end up with laws replacing common sense, respect, and manners.

How did Trump and his Russian cohorts depress the democratic turn out? I always thought it was because the dems just knew they had it in the bag, Trump simply couldn't be elected. I even remember reading Hillary's comment about not even thinking about Trump anymore. She was that assured of victory. Seems like that was a self inflected wound to me.

 

[ivwshane]

That's the one huge failure of every democratic government, the deplorable's get to vote as well, along with the stupid and ill informed. The issue is even worse when you consider that we have to govern at the lowest level, we end up with laws replacing common sense, respect, and manners.

How did Trump and his Russian cohorts depress the democratic turn out? I always thought it was because the dems just knew they had it in the bag, Trump simply couldn't be elected. I even remember reading Hillary's comment about not even thinking about Trump anymore. She was that assured of victory. Seems like that was a self inflected wound to me.

Lol! You unwittingly repeat Republican/Russian agitprop and then ask how they depressed Democratic turn out. Its the same story as those that say both parties put forth horrible candidates. You people are so brainwashed and so completely unaware. It would be funny except for the disastrous results that it's causing.

You are right though, the failure of democracies is the uneducated or intellectually lazy voter. The founding fathers actually knew this and understood this. Its why we have an electoral college in the first place. Unfortunately, that fail safe failed.

 

[Greenman]

Lol! You unwittingly repeat Republican/Russian agitprop and then ask how they depressed Democratic turn out. Its the same story as those that say both parties put forth horrible candidates. You people are so brainwashed and so completely unaware. It would be funny except for the disastrous results that it's causing.

You are right though, the failure of democracies is the uneducated or intellectually lazy voter. The founding fathers actually knew this and understood this. Its why we have an electoral college in the first place. Unfortunately, that fail safe failed.

What in your opinion caused the low turnout? Why didn't democrats vote?

 

[soundforbjt]

What in your opinion caused the low turnout? Why didn't democrats vote?

They figured there was no way any thinking American would vote for Trump.
3 million more voted for Hillary than Trump.

 

[ivwshane]

What in your opinion caused the low turnout? Why didn't democrats vote?

Turn out wasn't low, it was average. Low voter turnout is around 49% like it was in the 96 election. High voter turnout is around 63% as it was in the 1960 election. Turnout for the 2016 election was about 55%.

So I disagree with the premise of your question. Clinton lost for many reasons, one of which was a poor electoral strategy. Losing by less than a total of 100k votes in three states but winning 3 million more votes, should tell any strategist that a tweaking of the previous strategy is required, not starting from scratch, as most people seem to think.

 

[Maxima1]

Turn out wasn't low, it was average. Low voter turnout is around 49% like it was in the 96 election. High voter turnout is around 63% as it was in the 1960 election. Turnout for the 2016 election was about 55%.

So I disagree with the premise of your question. Clinton lost for many reasons, one of which was a poor electoral strategy. Losing by less than a total of 100k votes in three states but winning 3 million more votes, should tell any strategist that a tweaking of the previous strategy is required, not starting from scratch, as most people seem to think.

Please. She won the popular vote only by ~2% to Trump of all people. That's bad. Rubio would have defeated her. Shee-it, they all would have tore her apart. There's a reason why Democrats were all giddy when Donnie was going to nab the nomination.

The public's negative view of the establishment didn't just start in that election. Just because it's a Russian talking point doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate criticism. Democrat leadership looks so bad when they see Pelosi's fundraising ability as some kind of measuring stick for success. A shame the outcome was what it was because they really only needed to put someone up that had less baggage. But no, she had to be queen.

 

[soundforbjt]

Please. She won the popular vote only by ~2% to Trump of all people. That's bad. Rubio would have defeated her. Shee-it, they all would have tore her apart. There's a reason why Democrats were all giddy when Donnie was going to nab the nomination.

The public's negative view of the establishment didn't just start in that election. Just because it's a Russian talking point doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate criticism. Democrat leadership looks so bad when they see Pelosi's fundraising ability as some kind of measuring stick for success. A shame the outcome was what it was because they really only needed to put someone up that had less baggage. But no, she had to be queen.

So, they should have gone against the majority and put up Sanders, right?
Did the republicans change their candidate, the leadership sure didn’t want him at first.

 

[ivwshane]

Please. She won the popular vote only by ~2% to Trump of all people. That's bad. Rubio would have defeated her. Shee-it, they all would have tore her apart. There's a reason why Democrats were all giddy when Donnie was going to nab the nomination.

The public's negative view of the establishment didn't just start in that election. Just because it's a Russian talking point doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate criticism. Democrat leadership looks so bad when they see Pelosi's fundraising ability as some kind of measuring stick for success. A shame the outcome was what it was because they really only needed to put someone up that had less baggage. But no, she had to be queen.

Sure, which explains why Bernie was destroyed in the primaries. Get real.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lol! You unwittingly repeat Republican/Russian agitprop and then ask how they depressed Democratic turn out. Its the same story as those that say both parties put forth horrible candidates. You people are so brainwashed and so completely unaware. It would be funny except for the disastrous results that it's causing.

You are right though, the failure of democracies is the uneducated or intellectually lazy voter. The founding fathers actually knew this and understood this. Its why we have an electoral college in the first place. Unfortunately, that fail safe failed.

Indeed. Now that it's over conservatives will try to tell us that there was some rationality involved in voting for Trump when it was the result of manipulation at a deep emotional level, that whole hopes & fears thing. It's what con artists do. It's what they've always done. The way it was presented was a way that a lot of people really weren't prepared to deal with. They got chumped by professionals. I don't think it's a feat that will be duplicated any time RSN.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure, which explains why Bernie was destroyed in the primaries. Get real.

It's the same sort of rationalization for the irrational employed by Greenman.

 

[Maxima1]

So, they should have gone against the majority and put up Sanders, right?

I'm simply suggesting that it would have been better had Clinton not run. It doesn't have to be about Sanders. I disagree that he would have been worse. He was doing better in the presidential matchups He would have had to decline significantly to even get to the 2% Clinton ultimately got. Moreover, I don't believe he would have had a problem with the electoral college because he would have likely done better in the states the Hildabeast lost in. Shee-it, he pulled off one of the greatest upsets in Michigan during the primaries.

Did the republicans change their candidate, the leadership sure didn’t want him at first.

No, that would be inane to do. I'm not advocating for shitting on the process. Even if they would have done better, it would likely put off so many people that they end up doing worse than the other candidate.

Sure, which explains why Bernie was destroyed in the primaries. Get real.

Like this? XD

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[ivwshane]

I'm simply suggesting that it would have been better had Clinton not run. It doesn't have to be about Sanders. I disagree that he would have been worse. He was doing better in the presidential matchups He would have had to decline significantly to even get to the 2% Clinton ultimately got. Moreover, I don't believe he would have had a problem with the electoral college because he would have likely done better in the states the Hildabeast lost in. Shee-it, he pulled off one of the greatest upsets in Michigan during the primaries.



No, that would be inane to do. I'm not advocating for shitting on the process. Even if they would have done better, it would likely put off so many people that they end up doing worse than the other candidate.



Like this? XD

So your one data point proves your whole theory? Sure.

As I said, Clinton lost because of a failed electoral strategy, your post actually supports my claim.

 

[glenn1]

So your one data point proves your whole theory? Sure.

As I said, Clinton lost because of a failed electoral strategy, your post actually supports my claim.

Clinton lost because she was the nominee and the second most disliked candidate in history. The only tweak Democrats need in election strategy for 2020 is picking someone other than her, not selecting a novelty candidate like Oprah, and not repeating the formless "vote for me because I'm not him" message of Kerry from 2004. Someone like Corey Booker, Tim Kaine, or even Joe Biden should beat Trump pretty soundly.

 

[boomerang]

Someone like Corey Booker, Tim Kaine, or even Joe Biden should beat Trump pretty soundly.

I see what you did there.

 

[glenn1]

I see what you did there.

You could add on some women candidates if you like; Kamala Harris seems to get the most mentions but she's only been in the Senate for a year. IMHO Elizabeth Warren won't get the nomination since she'd be basically reprising the Bernie Sanders role; Howard Dean (the left wing favorite) didn't get the nomination over the "centrist" John Kerry candidate in 2004 either so it would make sense that a centrist candidate like Biden or Kaine would get the nomination in 2020 for basically the same reason of "electability."

 

[Greenman]

Turn out wasn't low, it was average. Low voter turnout is around 49% like it was in the 96 election. High voter turnout is around 63% as it was in the 1960 election. Turnout for the 2016 election was about 55%.

So I disagree with the premise of your question. Clinton lost for many reasons, one of which was a poor electoral strategy. Losing by less than a total of 100k votes in three states but winning 3 million more votes, should tell any strategist that a tweaking of the previous strategy is required, not starting from scratch, as most people seem to think.

So jhhnn is being disingenuous when he said the Russian bots helped depress voter turnout. I should have known better than to take his word for it.

 

[fskimospy]

So jhhnn is being disingenuous when he said the Russian bots helped depress voter turnout. I should have known better than to take his word for it.

Wouldn't the relevant question be if they depressed turnout relative to what it would have been otherwise, absent their involvement? It's not something we can know for sure but the causal mechanism for it seems relatively obvious. That's what negative campaigning is all about, after all.

 

[Jhhnn]

So your one data point proves your whole theory? Sure.

As I said, Clinton lost because of a failed electoral strategy, your post actually supports my claim.

Trump won because of a brilliant propaganda campaign executed with no small amount of help from Russian mind benders. He conjured up a wave of hate & discontent, rode it right up onto the beach.

To put it in any other terms is to miss the point entirely.