Russia Likely Did Swing Votes For Donald Trump

[_EAllusion]

To add to my previous comment, I don't want to encourage revisionist history regarding Trump in the primaries. Trump won, but he won with under-water approval ratings. Nothing even close to that happened before. He was the least popular Republican primary candidate in to win the Republican primary in the history of measuring that.

He won because it was a crowded field of candidates and the anti-Trump voting contingent split itself among several other candidates allowing no one challenger to emerge until it was too late. He squeaked through that gauntlet. In fairness to Trump, anyone who won that primary probably would've only done so by the rest of the field undermining their competition. It's only after Trump captured the primary that Republican attitudes towards Trump improved. That's because of partisanship. Republicans in particular have a very strong tendency to be fans of whatever their party leaders are doing, mediated by right-wing media, so once Trump became the flag-bearer of the party, it was only a matter of time before the party became Trumpist. That's what intellectuals in the party were worried about. It would be a mistake to project current Republican infatuation with Trump onto the past. He didn't roll those primaries. He eeked it out.

[_Markk]

It should go without saying that Trump appealing to Republican primary votes is a different animal altogether from Trump winning a general election. The logic that he beat Republicans in the primary, therefore he would be a strong candidate in the general is so flawed that it's kinda disqualifying when you make it.

Since you simply assert that the truth is Russian interference had zero influence on the election outcome - meaning it wasn't sufficient to move under 100k votes in MI, WI, and PA - it's hard to reply. I supplied some reason to think that very well might not be true. I guess what I can say is that this really is a radical thesis that widespread negative coverage of a candidate over a period time doesn't impact voters basically at all. I'm skeptical.

How can it be flawed...he won, he beat the field? He won votes that went for Obama...that is what won the election. He had a message that neither Democrat's, GOP, or Bernie had...he won EA...try as you will to ignore that. Everybody, including me said he could not do it...but he did.

It is all if and buts as to whether the Russians influenced the election...and I never said that there was not zero proof that Russia did not interfere with the election...in fact, if you have read my posts on the subject over the past year, you would know that I wrote that they have been interfering since post ww2, even if Obama did not know that.

And to the bigger point I was making...it shows that the golden child of the DMC..." one of the most qualified candidates ever"...could not even beat Donald Trump...and it is everybody's fault but hers. This may go down in history as the greatest upset in presidential election history EA...Dewy step aside.

[_Kevin Graham]

So what you're saying Markk, is you don't care about facts and circumstances surrounding the election, and you're just going to keep making bald assertions.

Trump won the election. It wasn't because of his superior message, it wasn't because everyone likes him, it was because Russian influence + Wisconsin's voter suppression + Comey letter = Electoral victory.

He is the first person ever to be elected President just weeks after the Nation found out he admitted to being a sexual predator. He is the first person ever to be elected President who cannot get a loan from American banks because of his unethical business practices. He's the first President ever to be elected President just before paying out $25 million to American citizens he had defrauded. Nazis murder an American citizen on US soil on his watch and he calls them "fine people." The list of political sins that would have buried any normal candidate is really too long to list, but the fact that "he won" is less a testament of Trump's greatness and more a testament of what American society has become, and what kinds of people he's managed to drag out of the woodwork. He's empowered White Supremacists everywhere. That's just a flat out, undeniable fact.

Following your logic, Italy was the best soccer team in 2006, BYU was the best college football team in 1984, and Ohio State was a legit champion in 2002.

[_Markk]

So what you're saying Markk, is you don't care about facts and circumstances surrounding the election, and you're just going to keep making bald assertions.

No, I am saying Hillary Clinton could not beat DJT...and if you look at every theory why she didn't, they are all subjective with if's and buts...and "there seems to be evidence"..."it is impossible to prove"..."it is very likely" etc.

Kevin...Few were excited about Hillary Clinton...she had blunder after blunder, picked a boring VP, she avoided tough questions and the topics Trump was not afraid to touch on...she is frankly not a likable person. My guess, which is more provable than all your guesses, is that her saying dumb things like she was going to put coal miners out of work and calling American's deplorable... sunk her.

And think about all the stupid crapola Trump said...and she still couldn't beat him, nor could the other GOP candidates, or Bernie.

What is a bald assertion with that?

[_Markk]

Trump won the election. It wasn't because of his superior message, it wasn't because everyone likes him, it was because Russian influence + Wisconsin's voter suppression + Comey letter = Electoral victory.

He is the first person ever to be elected President just weeks after the Nation found out he admitted to being a sexual predator. He is the first person ever to be elected President who cannot get a loan from American banks because of his unethical business practices. He's the first President ever to be elected President just before paying out $25 million to American citizens he had defrauded. Nazis murder an American citizen on US soil on his watch and he calls them "fine people." The list of political sins that would have buried any normal candidate is really too long to list, but the fact that "he won" is less a testament of Trump's greatness and more a testament of what American society has become, and what kinds of people he's managed to drag out of the woodwork. He's empowered White Supremacists everywhere. That's just a flat out, undeniable fact.

Following your logic, Italy was the best soccer team in 2006, BYU was the best college football team in 1984, and Ohio State was a legit champion in 2002.

I have to ask, do you think that Trump got the white supremacy votes... that Romney couldn't get from Obama? I am trying to understand the logic here.

Also...did only Hillary voters not have a valid ID so could not vote? The article I read said that there is no way to know...or did I miss something?

He is the first person ever to be elected President just weeks after the Nation found out he admitted to being a sexual predator. He is the first person ever to be elected President who cannot get a loan from American banks because of his unethical business practices. He's the first President ever to be elected President just before paying out $25 million to American citizens he had defrauded. Nazis murder an American citizen on US soil on his watch and he calls them "fine people." The list of political sins that would have buried any normal candidate is really too long to list, but the fact that "he won" is less a testament of Trump's greatness and more a testament of what American society has become, and what kinds of people he's managed to drag out of the woodwork. He's empowered White Supremacists everywhere. That's just a flat out, undeniable fact.

And after all that and he still beat Hillary...so in your mind, what does that say about Hillary?

[_moksha]

What would Russia's motivation be in wanting to allegedly swing votes in favor of the Kremlin Candidate?

[_EAllusion]

I have to ask, do you think that Trump got the white supremacy votes... that Romney couldn't get from Obama? I am trying to understand the logic here.

As it turns out, racial resentment is a better predictor of Trump support over Clinton than Romney over Obama:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... 808e92e0c9

Also...did only Hillary voters not have a valid ID so could not vote? The article I read said that there is no way to know...or did I miss something?

Democratic voters disproportionately have a harder time securing accepted voter ID's, which is why Republicans pursue Voter ID as a means to reduce Democratic voter turnout. In Wisconsin, this led to 10's of thousands of fewer Democrats voting than anticipated (numbers vary on which study you buy), which is within the margin of outcome.

And after all that and he still beat Hillary...so in your mind, what does that say about Hillary?

You should probably ask yourself what that says about America.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

From the article where I go the graphic above:

Millennials (those ages 18 to 35 in 2016) had a 49.4% voter turnout rate.

Clinton just did a terrible job of getting Millennials to turn out. GenX was ~64%, Boomers ~69%, and Old as “F” People ~71%.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

It is no doubt the case that black turnout declined in part because Obama wasn't on the ticket. However, 2016 was also the first presidential election where laws in a wide variety of states designed specifically to make it harder for blacks to vote really took effect. It may have been the difference in Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Michigan which is enough to be decisive. Both these things can be true at the same time.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

People will do the responsible thing if they're motivated.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights ... nt-prevent

Some 1.3 million Alabamians – more than twice as many who voted in the primary – turned out to vote in Tuesday’s special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The article goes on to explain how black Alabamians are being purportedly suppressed or whatever. The point is, if they're motivated they'll vote and Clinton just didn't do it for them. I'm not sure if Sanders would've either, but the disparity between the Black vote and everyone else is pretty noticeable.

That's on the Democrats to figure out how to overcome. Maybe they should've ran another black person. I don't know.

- Doc