Hillary Clinton could still win the presidency

[Venerable Bede]

I don't think that is the Democrat strategy right now, they want to help reunify the country after the massive divisiveness caused by the election. That's what I got from Obama's talk with Trump.

The democrat strategy should be to grow a goddamn spine. I for one would prefer the CORRECT candidate get the nod. If that happens to still be Trump, so be it. The numbers still warrant investigation.

Calling for an investigation will be seen as overtly ideological. That will seriously compromise possibility of cooperation between the parties, and could lead to Republicans vindictively steamrolling the Democrats (since they now have that power).

[Godular]

The democrat strategy should be to grow a goddamn spine. I for one would prefer the CORRECT candidate get the nod. If that happens to still be Trump, so be it. The numbers still warrant investigation.

Calling for an investigation will be seen as overtly ideological. That will seriously compromise possibility of cooperation between the parties, and could lead to Republicans vindictively steamrolling the Democrats (since they now have that power).

No they don't. They do not possess a supermajority, so dems can still filibuster anything particularly egregious. And if it means the dems retain the WH, so much the better. If not, options were explored. If people think investigating allegations of tampering is overly partisan, tough teabags.

[Juristonia]

Calling for an investigation will be seen as overtly ideological. That will seriously compromise possibility of cooperation between the parties, and could lead to Republicans vindictively steamrolling the Democrats (since they now have that power).

No they don't. They do not possess a supermajority, so dems can still filibuster anything particularly egregious. And if it means the dems retain the WH, so much the better. If not, options were explored. If people think investigating allegations of tampering is overly partisan, tough teabags.

Standing back and letting a third party lead the charge is much smarter from a PR perspective.
Clinton isn't seen as reliable. If she starts pushing for recounts and investigations, it's just going to look bad, which'll only work against the Dems in 2018.

Let someone else do it.
If something actually comes out of it, they can always step in then.
If it doesn't, they had nothing to do with it.

[Uiiop]

No they don't. They do not possess a supermajority, so dems can still filibuster anything particularly egregious. And if it means the dems retain the WH, so much the better. If not, options were explored. If people think investigating allegations of tampering is overly partisan, tough teabags.

Standing back and letting a third party lead the charge is much smarter from a PR perspective.
Clinton isn't seen as reliable. If she starts pushing for recounts and investigations, it's just going to look bad, which'll only work against the Dems in 2018.

Let someone else do it.
If something actually comes out of it, they can always step in then.
If it doesn't, they had nothing to do with it.

BTW the first milestone has been reached.
I think it mean they are going to try in one state and the rest are for the other two.

[Godular]

No they don't. They do not possess a supermajority, so dems can still filibuster anything particularly egregious. And if it means the dems retain the WH, so much the better. If not, options were explored. If people think investigating allegations of tampering is overly partisan, tough teabags.

Standing back and letting a third party lead the charge is much smarter from a PR perspective.
Clinton isn't seen as reliable. If she starts pushing for recounts and investigations, it's just going to look bad, which'll only work against the Dems in 2018.

Let someone else do it.
If something actually comes out of it, they can always step in then.
If it doesn't, they had nothing to do with it.

Whoever thinks ill of her isn't going to have their mind changed by a recount. If a 'third party' does it, that's cool/whatevs, but if there is legit cause to call for a recount as indicated by the CS experts then to hell with image. Let justice be actually done.

[Juristonia]

Whoever thinks ill of her isn't going to have their mind changed by a recount. If a 'third party' does it, that's cool/whatevs, but if there is legit cause to call for a recount as indicated by the CS experts then to hell with image. Let justice be actually done.

I agree in theory, but have you ever met the average swing voter?
They change their mind soundbite by soundbite.

Would be nice if they didn't, but people have a habit of sucking.

[Venerable Bede]

Whoever thinks ill of her isn't going to have their mind changed by a recount. If a 'third party' does it, that's cool/whatevs, but if there is legit cause to call for a recount as indicated by the CS experts then to hell with image. Let justice be actually done.

I agree in theory, but have you ever met the average swing voter?
They change their mind soundbite by soundbite.

Would be nice if they didn't, but people have a habit of sucking.

Yeah, Clinton was leading massively until the FBI announced they were reopening the investigation, and then things swung back to Trump, even though they dropped the investigation again the day before the election. If things had just been timed differently, the reopening and closing of the investigation a couple of weeks prior, and the Trump groping scandal coming to light a couple of days before election, she would have cinched it.

[Licana]

Yeah, Clinton was leading massively until the FBI announced they were reopening the investigation, and then things swung back to Trump, even though they dropped the investigation again the day before the election. If things had just been timed differently, the reopening and closing of the investigation a couple of weeks prior, and the Trump groping scandal coming to light a couple of days before election, she would have cinched it.

Clinton was leading massively up until she lost. Of course, I'd question anyone who was still believing in pollsters after the Republican Primaries.

[Vassenor]

I agree in theory, but have you ever met the average swing voter?
They change their mind soundbite by soundbite.

Would be nice if they didn't, but people have a habit of sucking.

Yeah, Clinton was leading massively until the FBI announced they were reopening the investigation, and then things swung back to Trump, even though they dropped the investigation again the day before the election. If things had just been timed differently, the reopening and closing of the investigation a couple of weeks prior, and the Trump groping scandal coming to light a couple of days before election, she would have cinched it.

Hatch Act charges when?

[The Emerald Legion]

Yeah, Clinton was leading massively until the FBI announced they were reopening the investigation, and then things swung back to Trump, even though they dropped the investigation again the day before the election. If things had just been timed differently, the reopening and closing of the investigation a couple of weeks prior, and the Trump groping scandal coming to light a couple of days before election, she would have cinched it.

Hatch Act charges when?

Never, It would have been a violation of the Hatch Act NOT to say anything. Besides all that did was cover up the last wikileaks dump. Which at least one person has floated the opinion to me that that was the goal. Bring up something that sounds bad, then clear her of charges. Suddenly nobody noticed the last of wikileaks dirt.

She was screwed either way from a PR perspective.

You also get the fact that people weren't polling as Trump because people have been total asshats if you say you support Trump. Well, not at my work but elsewhere. Because the media has been busy trying to paint him as the next Hitler.

[Vassenor]

Hatch Act charges when?

Never, It would have been a violation of the Hatch Act NOT to say anything. Besides all that did was cover up the last wikileaks dump. Which at least one person has floated the opinion to me that that was the goal. Bring up something that sounds bad, then clear her of charges. Suddenly nobody noticed the last of wikileaks dirt.

She was screwed either way from a PR perspective.

You also get the fact that people weren't polling as Trump because people have been total asshats if you say you support Trump. Well, not at my work but elsewhere. Because the media has been busy trying to paint him as the next Hitler.

How would not saying anything have directly skewed the result in favour of one side?

[The Emerald Legion]

Never, It would have been a violation of the Hatch Act NOT to say anything. Besides all that did was cover up the last wikileaks dump. Which at least one person has floated the opinion to me that that was the goal. Bring up something that sounds bad, then clear her of charges. Suddenly nobody noticed the last of wikileaks dirt.

She was screwed either way from a PR perspective.

You also get the fact that people weren't polling as Trump because people have been total asshats if you say you support Trump. Well, not at my work but elsewhere. Because the media has been busy trying to paint him as the next Hitler.

How would not saying anything have directly skewed the result in favour of one side?

"Oh hey, we stumbled across some shit that might have bearing on the Clinton case. Better just bury it so it doesn't skew the results against her."

And thus, it would have skewed the result in favour of Clinton.

[Vassenor]

How would not saying anything have directly skewed the result in favour of one side?

"Oh hey, we stumbled across some shit that might have bearing on the Clinton case. Better just bury it so it doesn't skew the results against her."

And thus, it would have skewed the result in favour of Clinton.

I'm not sure I follow your logic.

[The Emerald Legion]

OK. Suppose evidence turned up that indicated Trump shot someone. That's something that needs investigation right? So, if they had refrained from doing so, that would tilt the election in his favor because he's not being investigated as would normally happen.

[Vassenor]

OK. Suppose evidence turned up that indicated Trump shot someone. That's something that needs investigation right? So, if they had refrained from doing so, that would tilt the election in his favor because he's not being investigated as would normally happen.

The problem is the way you're phrasing it makes it seem like neutral journalism should be considered a Hatch Act violation.

[Alvecia]

OK. Suppose evidence turned up that indicated Trump shot someone. That's something that needs investigation right? So, if they had refrained from doing so, that would tilt the election in his favor because he's not being investigated as would normally happen.

Depends how you spin it.
"Secret Trump consiracy prevents investigation"
"Corrupt Trump government won't investigate shooting allegations"

[Jolthig]

People are not Libertarian? So the 3% of voters for Johnson are not Libertarian?

3% of this country is not going to elect the President.

3% also stated their own opinion, even knowing he wouldn't become president.

[Greed and Death]

People are not Libertarian? So the 3% of voters for Johnson are not Libertarian?

3% of this country is not going to elect the President.

That 3% that normally swings Republican or Democrat may very well have decided this election.

Fact of the matter is when there are low turnout elections the Democratic party needs the Libertarians. But we wont vote Democrat while they favor a mandate.
The only reason we did not vote Republican this year is Trump.

[Nazeroth]

Wasn't everyone talking about how horrible it would be if Trump didn't accept the results of the presidency and he was a danger to democracy?

then this happens...

[Juristonia]

Weren't Trump supporters constantly talking about how horribly rigged and unfair the whole thing was?

Then this happens.............

[Nazeroth]

Weren't Trump supporters constantly talking about how horribly rigged and unfair the whole thing was?

Then this happens.............

Not justifying anything, I'm just saying.

This Triggering is on a national level.

[Alvecia]

Wasn't everyone talking about how horrible it would be if Trump didn't accept the results of the presidency and he was a danger to democracy?

then this happens...

It's funny how you think a couple people on an Internet forum are comparable to a Presidential nominee

[Juristonia]

Right, so you didn't really have an argument you were taking anywhere.
Just wanted to clear that up.

[Nazeroth]

Wasn't everyone talking about how horrible it would be if Trump didn't accept the results of the presidency and he was a danger to democracy?

then this happens...

It's funny how you think a couple people on an Internet forum are comparable to a Presidential nominee

I'm referring to people in general, people got so fucking mad about it, but now they are triggered and want to do insane shit like try to change the election, secede california etc etc

[Ifreann]

Wasn't everyone talking about how horrible it would be if Trump didn't accept the results of the presidency and he was a danger to democracy?

Yes, people were concerned that if Trump, who in 2012 called for a revolution when he imagined that Obama won the electoral college vote but not the public vote, lost the election and refused to accept the result he might incite his followers into violent and seditious acts.

then this happens...

Then what happens? People discuss online the fact that faithless electors could still give the presidency to Clinton?