Another Dem that drank way too much of the Kool Aid. (Page 2/9)
blackrams JAN 17, 06:36 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
One of the main reason Trump won in 2016 was that FBI director Jim Comey re-opened an investigation into Hillary just 2 weeks before the election, and it turned out to be nothing. As for the IRS I was not aware the Hunter Biden was one of Joe's "political enemies".


All of these agencies (DOJ, FBI, IRS, CIA, etc) have political agendas and this is nothing new with the Biden administration. But they still have to win in court with unbiased juries, a majority of Federal Judges being Republicans, and the Supreme Court being 6-3 Republican.




While I wouldn't argue the point, I personally believe that the FBI investigation had little to do with HRC losing, those that voted against her were doing just that, voting against HRC. Much more so than voting for DJT. Opinion but, that's what I think.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-17-2024).]

82-T/A [At Work] JAN 17, 07:05 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:While I wouldn't argue the point, I personally believe that the FBI investigation had little to do with HRC losing, those that voted against her were doing just that, voting against HRC. Much more so than voting for DJT. Opinion but, that's what I think.

Rams



At least in Florida, there were zero, zilch... no Hillary signs ANYWHERE... I mean, nothing.

People were wildly motivated for Trump though. Signs absolutely *everywhere*. He's also the first candidate that I've actually been motivated for voting for. I couldn't volunteer for his campaign because I was a govie at the time and it would have been illegal for me, but more than anything, I really wanted to.
BingB JAN 17, 07:27 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:


While I wouldn't argue the point, I personally believe that the FBI investigation had little to do with HRC losing, those that voted against her were doing just that, voting against HRC. Much more so than voting for DJT. Opinion but, that's what I think.

Rams




Opinions are fine, but there are numbers to look at.

The fact is that Clinton held about a 6 point lead in the Polls on October 28 (9 days before election) when Comey released his letter. It is hard to tell if the Comey letter was more damaging than the wikileaks, but it is clear that voters shifted a lot in the final couple of weeks. By election day her lead was down to about 2 points which is almost exactly the margin by which she won the popular vote.

If Trump had been clearly the more popular candidate it would have shown up sooner in the campaign. Neither he nor Hillary did anything different in the final weeks to change opinions, so it had to be the stuff in the news.
blackrams JAN 17, 07:51 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:


Opinions are fine, but there are numbers to look at.

The fact is that Clinton held about a 6 point lead in the Polls on October 28 (9 days before election) when Comey released his letter. It is hard to tell if the Comey letter was more damaging than the wikileaks, but it is clear that voters shifted a lot in the final couple of weeks. By election day her lead was down to about 2 points which is almost exactly the margin by which she won the popular vote.

If Trump had been clearly the more popular candidate it would have shown up sooner in the campaign. Neither he nor Hillary did anything different in the final weeks to change opinions, so it had to be the stuff in the news.



As I stated, not something I'd argue over but, polls have been consistently wrong (or should I say inconsistent) the past few elections. You may or I may be right. Not worth arguing over.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-17-2024).]

82-T/A [At Work] JAN 18, 07:57 AM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
If Trump had been clearly the more popular candidate it would have shown up sooner in the campaign. Neither he nor Hillary did anything different in the final weeks to change opinions, so it had to be the stuff in the news.



Throughout the entire campaign, Trump gave speeches to seriously packed houses. Stadiums to be more precise. Hillary was giving speeches in high school auditoriums, and they weren't even full. The difference in enthusiasm in people supporting Trump and those supporting Hillary was night and day. They were over-sampling Democrats, and many people believe that to a degree it was actually intentional as if to give a perception of momentum.

ray b JAN 18, 09:37 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:


Throughout the entire campaign, Trump gave speeches to seriously packed houses. Stadiums to be more precise. Hillary was giving speeches in high school auditoriums, and they weren't even full. The difference in enthusiasm in people supporting Trump and those supporting Hillary was night and day. They were over-sampling Democrats, and many people believe that to a degree it was actually intentional as if to give a perception of momentum.



you describe the actions of a cult enthusiasm for a questionable leadership idol

and only a cult would still support the rump NOW
after his long list of criminal and tax cheating actions
ray b JAN 18, 09:47 AM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
I understand it all.

You are the one who fails to understand that you are not "free" to violate another persons rights.

Individuals can not make their own laws because the end up violating the rights of others just because they think it is okay. Got any examples from history where complete anarchy has worked out well?



a right to cheat protected by laws

who wanted that law fat cats who rig the system
and do not want the people to know how little they really pay in taxes
while lying about how the rich are over taxed

all things in moderation inc a little anarchy is a good thing
only when totally out of control like a Gop gov by the 1% for the 1%
does it become bad
BingB JAN 18, 04:13 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:


Throughout the entire campaign, Trump gave speeches to seriously packed houses. Stadiums to be more precise. Hillary was giving speeches in high school auditoriums, and they weren't even full. The difference in enthusiasm in people supporting Trump and those supporting Hillary was night and day. They were over-sampling Democrats, and many people believe that to a degree it was actually intentional as if to give a perception of momentum.




Personal appearances are not a valid indication of voting. Large crowds were chanting "I love you" to Trump in 2020 while Biden hid in his basement and Joe won in a blowout.

There was no "over sampling of democrats". The poll numbers ended up being pretty close to correct. Hillary had a 1%-2% edge by election day and that is about the margin that she won the popular vote. The key to the polls is watching how Hillary dropped dramatically over the last month. Lots of people made up their minds (or changed them) late in the race. Neither candidate changed their message over the last month, but Hillary had to deal with the Comey letter and the Wikileaks.

I am not a big fan of Hillary. Just stating facts about the election. If someone like Romney had been the Republican candidate I would have voted for him over Clinton. I was mainly voting against Trump.
82-T/A [At Work] JAN 18, 04:42 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB: I was mainly voting against Trump.



And you'll get to do that again.
ray b JAN 18, 04:53 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:


And you'll get to do that again.



bet joe beats the rump cult by more then 7 million this time
if he does not defect to putin to avoid prison