Was Clinton hurt by no shows?

Quote: stinkingliberal

Not really. Trump had a ground game--his hate rallies (he appears to want to hold more). Those proved quite popular. Joe Sixpack was quite willing to drive his pickup truck hundreds of miles to scream hate slogans..

I was at a Trump rally last week and
all I saw was good feelings and good
vibes. There wasn't an ounce of hate
in the crowd of 15,000 plus. You just
talk to hear yourself rant, Trump won,
get over it.

Quote: stinkingliberal

Not really. Trump had a ground game--his hate rallies (he appears to want to hold more).

That is not what is meant by a "ground game." The rallies were about "energy." Some of us here brought it up to have it pointed out to us how much bigger Hillary's machine was. She was going to get them to the polls or something like that. Trump knew this mattered little for a GOP candidate. GOP voters work hard at some sort of job then vote on the way home.

Democrats always seen to need more motivation and reminding. So they have phone banks and jitneys to get people to the polls. With energy, this is far less needed. In 2008, Obama had both.

Ignore energy at your peril. The GOP ignored it, imagine if Jeb had been given the nod. Bernie had it but the game was rigged to give it to Hillary, who only had angry feminists and some Omega Males fired up.

Quote: Evenbob

I was at a Trump rally last week and
all I saw was good feelings and good
vibes. There wasn't an ounce of hate
in the crowd of 15,000 plus. You just
talk to hear yourself rant, Trump won,
get over it.

He's played you, Bob. And 15,000 others, assuming you're not exaggerating.

"Not an ounce of hate" *snicker* Just because you chose not to see it doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Did I mention that he's played you, Bob? Like a puppet.

Quote: AZDuffman

Hillary, who only had angry feminists and some Omega Males fired up.

That's where your sexism distorts your views. You assume that in order to advocate for women's rights, you have to be an "angry feminist." There have been people who thought that way throughout history. If you objected to the Jews being dragged away, you must have had Jewish blood. If you advocated for gay rights, you must be gay yourself. If you objected to the persecution of minorities, you must not be 100% white. (And if you wanted the darkies to be freed, your mommy must have been ****ed by a n****r.)

I fully acknowledge that Trump was elected because of what you call "energy." I already said: hatred and fear are powerful forces. Maybe the strongest motivators in the human psyche. We have built a civilization based on the premise that we should keep those things in check, but that doesn't mean we can't regress, and shockingly quickly at that. Hillary couldn't match that: she appealed to civilized ideals. Trump appealed to hate and fear. It's no real surprise that he won.

Your implication that Republican voters work but Democrats don't is horsecrap, by the way. After all, wasn't Joe Sixpack's basic complaint was that he was out of work?? Be consistent, Duffy.

Quote: stinkingliberal

That's where your sexism distorts your views. You assume that in order to advocate for women's rights, you have to be an "angry feminist."

Not at all, I just know the difference between a strong woman and an angry feminist. What I saw outside the Hillary rally was angry feminists. The kind of woman who's entire life is wrapped around being angry because they think woman are getting a raw deal. The kind who think one of the greatest things a woman can do is get an abortion. The kind that major in Womans Studies and just plain hate men. Occasionally they get lonely so they get themselves an Omega Male who is so glad for any little bit of affection he will just walk in tow. Because they hate any kind of male domination they choose men who have far less job skills and earning power than they do. They hate this, but they hate life in general so it completes the picture.

Alpha and Beta males avoid them except when business or other matters dictate interaction. Little is to be gained by social interaction with them. One of the most sure signs of them is a hyphenated last name. These are impossible to deal with and should be avoided at all costs. Luckily the angrys tend to congregate in places alphas and betas do not. They tend to repel socially.

Quote:

Your implication that Republican voters work but Democrats don't is horsecrap, by the way. After all, wasn't Joe Sixpack's basic complaint was that he was out of work?? Be consistent, Duffy.

Not out of work, but rather underemployed and struggling. While at the same time the feds hand out tens of thousands to illegals.

Now the big plan is to get 36 electors
to change their vote on Dec 19th. This
almost never happens, let alone 36
of them. And even if Soros can bribe
that many, a jail-able felony for all
involved, it would go to congress for
a vote. They are certainly going to back
Trump, the whole thing is a joke.

Quote: Evenbob

Now the big plan is to get 36 electors to change their vote on Dec 19th.

I really wonder if they had gotten 3 electors to change their vote in 2000 on the grounds that Gore won the popular vote, what would have happened. One elector abstained who was supposed to vote for Gore, so if somehow the 3 electors risked jail to switch votes, they would have had to go to House of Representatives anyway since the abstaining vote would have meant that neither candidate had a majority anyway. Since the House was controlled by Republicans at that time, they would have voted GW president anyway.

Anyway, you would need 38 electors to switch votes or 22 in the unlikely event that Michigan is called for Clinton.

Quote: Pacomartin

I really wonder if they had gotten 3 electors to change their vote in 2000 on the grounds that Gore won the popular vote, what would have happened. One elector abstained who was supposed to vote for Gore, so if somehow the 3 electors risked jail to switch votes, they would have had to go to House of Representatives anyway since the abstaining vote would have meant that neither candidate had a majority anyway. Since the House was controlled by Republicans at that time, they would have voted GW president anyway.

Anyway, you would need 38 electors to switch votes or 22 in the unlikely event that Michigan is called for Clinton.

Well, just because EvenBob says it's going to happen doesn't mean that it will. In fact, his saying that something will happen ipso facto greatly reduces the likelihood of that event. Of course, he doesn't have little details like whose "big plan" it is. But most delusions, his or others', are short on details.

You could have a scenario where electors didn't switch, but refused to vote for Trump. Then neither candidate would get to 270, and it would go to the House of Republicans, which makes it ridiculous that anyone would even try to get the electors to do that--it would only postpone the inevitable. So much for Bob's latest conspiracy theory.

Clinton, BTW might be short one elector--there's an American Indian in Washington, an elector, who says he won't vote for ANY white person. He'll get fined $1,000, but big whoop.

It wasn't my idea, I've read it in 6 different
places. It's wild thoughts by people in
wild hysteria, just like when Reagan won.
The world was going to end then too,
a mad man had the nuke launch codes.
He was a double digit IQ washed up
TV actor, according to the press, and
Dems believed it. Soooo gullible then
and soooo gullible now.

Quote: Evenbob

It wasn't my idea, I've read it in 6 different
places. It's wild thoughts by people in
wild hysteria, just like when Reagan won.
The world was going to end then too,
a mad man had the nuke launch codes.
He was a double digit IQ washed up
TV actor, according to the press, and
Dems believed it. Soooo gullible then
and soooo gullible now.

Well, Bob, you do seem to have a tendency to believe everything you read, as long as that's on alt-right websites, but I doubt that you read anything else.