The "foreign meddling in our elections" brouhaha

[Delta1212]

Why do I have the suspicion that your dislike of Wikileaks has to do with the almost entire release of criminal actions turn out to be governments and most especially Obama and Hillary? I guess that shows what sort of direction you are tilting in.

 

It has much less to do with what Wikileaks has released than the way Julian Assange himself has conducted himself over the last few years. My opinion of him soured well before any actions relating to the DNC over this past summer.

 

Don't look now but the actual FACT that the DNC, the Hillary Campaign and the MEDIA involved did NOT rebuke it is PROOF that this in fact, prima facie, occurred.

 

Proof that what occurred? I'm having trouble finding the antecedent to "this" here and would appreciate some clarification. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying so I don't know whether or not I agree with it.

[RiceAWay]

The obvious caveat is that if he provides evidence for something he says, I can then evaluate the evidence, which I can then either accept or reject on its own merits and base my belief on rather than believing Assange himself.

 

I'm not going to actively disbelieve that the sky is blue just because Assange says it is. I just won't be taking his word for it.

By the way Delta, why have you highjacked the entire subject in which I stated that the USA from the start of communications has hacked everything everywhere at any time possible? Why would you cast doubts on Wikileaks when even NBC didn't?

[Delta1212]

 

My best friend who saved my life was a Federal Investigator, now on medical retirement since the stress of these jobs often causes heart problems as it did in him. He contends as other FBI contacts have told me that because of the almost total corruption of the Obama government including Comey that some 24 senior FBI members have resigned/retired because Hillary was not charged. They have incontrovertible evidence and if ANY mistakes had occurred the court could rule on that.

 

There are so many criminal felonies that Hillary should be charged with that they are clear on this - there is two laws in the US: one for the common man and the other for the rich and powerful who do not need to worry about simple things like being law abiding.

 

When even the Washington Post and the New York Times print articles on the incredible illegal activities of Hilary and not a single charge is filed just remember that when you get your next $500 rolling stop right turn on red when you slowed to less than one mph.

 

Ah.

By the way Delta, why have you highjacked the entire subject in which I stated that the USA from the start of communications has hacked everything everywhere at any time possible? Why would you cast doubts on Wikileaks when even NBC didn't?

I haven't hijacked anything and I'm not casting doubt on Wikileaks. I said that I don't trust Assange to provide, without corroborating evidence, an objective and accurate accounting of who provided the information to Wikileaks.

 

I said absolutely nothing about the accuracy of the information itself.

[proximity1]

Obviously I meant to say "legally". It is interesting that you make the assumption that he had to know the source- but that runs counter to how they claim they run their things https://wikileaks.org/About.html

 

 

Thus for some reasons this particular set of information was not processed through their usual pipeline, or Assange is lying. Regarding the rest you really only need to check virtually any news source. Interestingly, the only outlets claiming that it was whistleblower are RT (a Russian outlet) and some alt-right websites (note the Julian Assange Show is broadcasted on RT...) . In either case not citing Assange but Craig Murray. Note that was before the last intelligence report was presented.

 

"whistle-blower"-schmistle-blower, the point is not about the use, whether strictly apt or not, of the term "whistle-blower." The information revealed in the Podesta e-mails constituted information of genuinely legitimate interest and use to an informed electorate in the course of a presidential campaign.

 

 

RE the above emphasized assertion, see :

 

 

Greenwald on Democracy Now! last week, where he said in part:

I really haven’t experienced anything even remotely like the smear campaign that has been launched by Democrats in this really coordinated way ever since I began just expressing skepticism about the prevailing narrative over Russia and its role that it allegedly played in the election and, in particular, in helping to defeat Hillary Clinton. I mean, not even the reporting I did based on the Edward Snowden archive, which was extremely controversial in multiple countries around the world, not even that compared to the attacks now.

And the reason is very, very obvious, which is that it has become exceptionally important to Democratic partisans to believe that the reason they lost this election is not because they chose a candidate who was corrupt and who was extremely disliked and who symbolized all of the worst failings of the Democratic Party. It’s extremely important to them not to face what is really a systemic collapse on the part of the Democratic Party as a political force in the United States, in the House, in the Senate, in state houses and governorships all over the country. And so, in order not to face any of that and have to confront their own failings, they instead want to focus everything on Vladimir Putin and Russia and insist that the reason they lost was because this big, bad dictator interfered in the election. And anyone who challenges or anyone who questions that instantly becomes not just their enemy, but now, according to their framework, someone who’s actually unpatriotic, that if you question the evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence to support this theory, that somehow your loyalties are suspect, that you’re not just a critic of the Democratic Party, you’re actually a stooge of or an agent of the Kremlin.

Souce: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/?comments=1#comment-338208

 

and the article to which the reader's comment responded :

 

 

The Deep State Goes to War With President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer

Glenn Greenwald

January 11 2017, 3:35 p.m.

 

Nothing "Alt-right" about this article, its author or the site at which it is published.

 

Your retraction of the assertion that "the only outlets claiming that it was whistleblower are RT (a Russian outlet) and some alt-right websites (note the Julian Assange Show is broadcasted on RT" is weclome.

[DrP]

OK - Can someone educate me please... The above article seems to suggest that Clinton wasn't voted in because she wasn't trusted because she was corrupt and represented everything people hate about the democrat party... But I thought (maybe naively) that nothing of those allegations stuck. What was she guilty of to have all of that thrown at her and why did people believe it if it wasn't true? I am confused now. I assumed that the alleged 'meddling' was to blow smoke over Clinton to make it seem as though she was probably guilty of at least something and thus influence the minds of the easily swayed, err, I mean the American public, against her.

 

What am I missing?

[Phi for All]

OK - Can someone educate me please... The above article seems to suggest that Clinton wasn't voted in because she wasn't trusted because she was corrupt and represented everything people hate about the democrat party... But I thought (maybe naively) that nothing of those allegations stuck. What was she guilty of to have all of that thrown at her and why did people believe it if it wasn't true? I am confused now. I assumed that the alleged 'meddling' was to blow smoke over Clinton to make it seem as though she was probably guilty of at least something and thus influence the minds of the easily swayed, err, I mean the American public, against her.

 

What am I missing?

 

Any opinion that starts with saying he hasn't experienced a smear campaign like the one Dems are perpetrating on Putin/Trump is absolutely laughable. I'm not a huge Clinton fan, but the campaign against her has been going on far longer, has been far more costly to this country, and has much deeper roots in partisan politics.

[Ten oz]

Had U.S. voters wanted to weigh the importance of Trump's real or supposed ties to interests in Russia or to its president, Vladimir Putin, or to any other Russians as factors in their decisions about the best candidate for U.S. president, is there anyone who seriously doubts or questions their right to consider such aspects? It's a virtual certainty that some voters did just that: considered Trump's personal ties to Russians--and some of them voted for Clinton while others of them voted for Trump.

 

The fact is that voters have a right to consider anything they regard as worthy of their time and attention in weighing up their voting decisions. Anything --no matter its source or the possible motives of the source(s), whether known or only guessed--is within their purview as for their decisions' criteria and bases.

 

Thus, if information bearing on the election-- as the voters see it-- comes to them from whatever source, domestic or foreign, they have a right to either accept or refuse to take that information into account as, in their sole judgment, they see fit to do. No one has a right to require a voter to reveal how or why he or she voted in a secret balloting and no one has a right to require that a voter account for his decision.

 

Thus, attempts by foreign individuals or groups to inform, advise or persuasde voters --openly or via hidden means-- are receivable or not according to the judgment of each individual voter.

 

How else could people be free to vote as they see fit?-- whether it be wisely or foolishly, from fear or in fearlessness, for sound or absurd reasons and motives.

 

Even if Vladimir Putin had avowed having stolen and leaked information for the expressed purpose of influencing voters, the voters have every right to decide whether or not to take this into account--just as they have the right to urge their fellow voters to accept or reject such an effort to influence them.

 

(ETA) All of this prior to election-day.

 

Once the ballots are cast and counted, once a result has come into view, the "rightness," the legitimacy, of the election and its results are properly confined only to whether some ballots were genuine or fraudulent and nothing else about them. Attempts after the ballots are counted to examine or question voters' motives, the grounds and criteria for their private decisions and who or what either did or might have influenced them--unless, of course, organized bribery or threats or intimidation can be shown to have happened-- are out of order and nobody's business to investigate.

Hillary Clinton got 2.9 million more votes than did Donald Trump. To simply frame this as what "voters" did or didn't consider isn't accurate. Hillary Clinton got more votes which means more individual voters sought to elect her than did Donald Trump. So while voters do have the right to consider various bits of information voters as a total collection do not determine the outcome of a Presidential election. It they did Donald Trump would have lost.

 

Trump promoted fruadulent claims. After being breifed by intelligence that the hacks were Russian Trump said in speeches, interviews, and debates that the hacks may have been the work of China. So while people are free to consider all information the challange for them to do so was purposely made difficult by Trump and his supporters who knowingly pushed false information.

 

Jullian Assange, I have 2 issues with hacking:

The first is ethics, how is this information vetted and what is the standard for the leakers? If a whistleblower reaches out to the New York Times the reporter who gets the information is credentialed. They have standards they operate by. Jullian Assange does not.

 

Secondly, context is very important in my opinion. If you read someones hacked email, stolen texts, or whatever you do not know what protion of the full conversation it represents. I can spend 2 hours a day for week discussing something with someone in person, send them a email that plays devil's advocate against a position I have pushed, and then another round of face to face conversation may follow. Simply reading a hacked email doesn't provide context or insight one can rely on. Understand the relationship of the people communicating, the percentage of the total conversation you are seeing, the total being involved in the conversation, and etc are all important things which aren't obvious when just reading someones emails.

[proximity1]

Hillary Clinton got 2.9 million more votes than did Donald Trump. To simply frame this as what "voters" did or didn't consider isn't accurate. Hillary Clinton got more votes which means more individual voters sought to elect her than did Donald Trump. So while voters do have the right to consider various bits of information voters as a total collection do not determine the outcome of a Presidential election. It they did Donald Trump would have lost.

 

Trump promoted fruadulent claims. After being breifed by intelligence that the hacks were Russian Trump said in speeches, interviews, and debates that the hacks may have been the work of China. So while people are free to consider all information the challange for them to do so was purposely made difficult by Trump and his supporters who knowingly pushed false information.

 

Jullian Assange, I have 2 issues with hacking:

The first is ethics, how is this information vetted and what is the standard for the leakers? If a whistleblower reaches out to the New York Times the reporter who gets the information is credentialed. They have standards they operate by. Jullian Assange does not.

 

Secondly, context is very important in my opinion. If you read someones hacked email, stolen texts, or whatever you do not know what protion of the full conversation it represents. I can spend 2 hours a day for week discussing something with someone in person, send them a email that plays devil's advocate against a position I have pushed, and then another round of face to face conversation may follow. Simply reading a hacked email doesn't provide context or insight one can rely on. Understand the relationship of the people communicating, the percentage of the total conversation you are seeing, the total being involved in the conversation, and etc are all important things which aren't obvious when just reading someones emails.

 

Try informing yourself further.

 

DId you read the article by Greenwald I cited above?

 

The following comes from it ( and there are links to other articles which further substantiate the flawed reasoning going on by Trump's critics in this case:

 

 

 

For months, the CIA, with unprecedented clarity, overtly threw its weight behind Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and sought to defeat Donald Trump. In August, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell announced his endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed that “Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” The CIA and NSA director under George W. Bush, Gen. Michael Hayden, also endorsed Clinton and went to the Washington Post to warn, in the week before the election, that “Donald Trump really does sound a lot like Vladimir Putin,” adding that Trump is “the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited.”

It is not hard to understand why the CIA preferred Clinton over Trump. Clinton was critical of Obama for restraining the CIA’s proxy war in Syria and was eager to expand that war, while Trump denounced it. Clinton clearly wanted a harder line than Obama took against the CIA’s long-standing foes in Moscow, while Trump wanted improved relations and greater cooperation. In general, Clinton defended and intended to extend the decadeslong international military order on which the CIA and Pentagon’s preeminence depends, while Trump — through a still-uncertain mix of instability and extremist conviction — posed a threat to it.

Whatever one’s views are on those debates, it is the democratic framework — the presidential election, the confirmation process, congressional leaders, judicial proceedings, citizen activism and protest, civil disobedience — that should determine how they are resolved. All of those policy disputes were debated out in the open; the public heard them; and Trump won. ...

... ...All of the claims about Russia’s interference in U.S. elections and ties to Trump should be fully investigated by a credible body, and the evidence publicly disclosed to the fullest extent possible. As my colleague Sam Biddle argued last week after disclosure of the farcical intelligence community report on Russian hacking — one that even Putin’s foes mocked as a bad joke — the utter lack of evidence for these allegations means “we need an independent, resolute inquiry.” But until then, assertions that are unaccompanied by evidence and disseminated anonymously should be treated with the utmost skepticism — not lavished with convenience-driven gullibility. ...

 

 

Fact : the Podesta e-mail files which Wikileaks published were "protected" by a password which was "password." The most damning aspect pointing up the veracity of this fact is that, a) Podesta has never flatly denied its truth, nor have there been any of the screaming headlines of its falsehood which should surely have quickly followed if it had not been true. Instead, critics replied with the claim that this "lacks evidence." It does not. Assange verified in his interview with Hannity that, indeed, Podesta used "password" as a password. in the face of this, the Obama administration's campagin reveals itself as shameless propaganda of the "WMD" sort.

Edited January 19, 2017 by proximity1

[CharonY]

Not fact: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jan/06/jesse-watters/claim-john-podestas-email-password-was-password-la/

 

At this point regarding the hack we have three positions:

Assange and associates that claim that it was not the Russians (and not being able to prove that without revealing sources). Associates have also claimed that they were not received due to hacks, whereas Assange has not mentioned that (to my knowledge)

 

A second position is that they were due to hacks (evidence of intrusion has been reported repeatedly) and the they may have been the source of the emails. Analysis of cybersecurty have been conducted by intelligence as well as private cybersecurity firms including crowdstrike as well as others.

 

A third position is that the evidence in the intelligence brief is not conclusive enough to tie the hacks to Russia, and need to be declassified (Greenwald et al.). By the same token one would also assume that Assanges assurance would need to face the same level of scrutiny.

Also you are contradicting yourself, if someone else used the account, even if badly protected it would not be lawful. So at least you concede that the source of the mails were obtained illegally and the only point of contention is who the perpetrator was?

[Carrock]

My best friend who saved my life was a Federal Investigator, now on medical retirement since the stress of these jobs often causes heart problems as it did in him. He contends as other FBI contacts have told me that because of the almost total corruption of the Obama government including Comey that some 24 senior FBI members have resigned/retired because Hillary was not charged. They have incontrovertible evidence and if ANY mistakes had occurred the court could rule on that.

A clarification might help.

 

Was Comey demonstrating his integrity when he announced a few days before the election that evidence he hadn't looked at would incriminate Hillary?

Was he demonstrating his corruption when he didn't charge her after trying and failing to find that evidence?

Does he not get any credit for being scrupulously careful not to publicly investigate anything which might harm Trump?

 

 

Comey doesn't bother with subtleties like separation of police and judiciary.

If, as you imply, every F.B.I. agent thinks Comey is corrupt, how trustworthy are those agents who are just following orders?

[Willie71]

Well. I wonder exactly what is going on in your minds. Science is the job of being skeptical about everything ALL of the time. Even your own work might be wrong and every time you trust anyone else you could be putting everything you ever worked for in jeopardy. It doesn't matter whether you are the smallest technician or the highest PhD. I made the mistake of trusting other and on a couple of occasions it almost killed me. So I trust no one and nothing until I have convinced myself that I am acting correctly.

 

We have absolutely NO way of knowing that "Russia" or any other nation was responsible for anything that Wikileaks released. What's MORE none of the information they released was denied by the DNC, the Hillary campaign or the media who were responsible for using unethical means to destroy Bernie Sanders chance at a nomination. Sanders was aware that this happened and yet then campaigned for Hillary. Does that sound moral? Now he'll have to suffer living in his six million dollar home and telling everyone else that socialism is a superior means of government.

 

Whoever it was, they should be given a commendation from this entire nation of either party. Lying to the people of this country by the media and the political establishment HAS TO STOP.

 

Secondly, exactly who is kidding who? The United States since the time of Reagan has hacked every single electronic communication device in the entire world. In the time of George Bush they actually recorded every single communication in the entire world CONTRARY to our Constitutional rights. Obama DOUBLED DOWN ON THIS until Citizens United took this before the Supreme Court and were ordered that they could not tap any citizen's communications without court orders.

 

Russia interfered with American elections by telling the truth? The US has used matware intrusions into MANY governments. In Iran and North Korea they inserted viruses that caused the centrifuges separating U235 from U238 to break down. At one time a third of Iran's processing plants were broken down.

 

How DARE anyone complain that WE might have to take electronic countermeasures to protect ourselves from what the entire rest of the world FRIEND AND FOE ALIKE has had to do from the moment that they began using the Internet seriously? To protect themselves from us.

 

Do none of you who are supposed to be scientists even use your brains for anything other than doorstops when you are not inside your professional cocoons? Please think.

It really puzzles me that so many bright people have blinders on regarding the corruption in US elections, and the meddling seen around the world overthrowing other governments.

 

The intelligence reports are not very strong in the evidence department. There is a possibility/probability that the Russians interfered, but I really doubt this is a new development. This reeks of using McCarthyism to deflect from the internal problems.

 

I suspect much of the issue is that the people most likely to benefit from third way are the professionals who make up the top 10% of the income ladder, the same people likely to be on this board. Not a lot of blue collar workers who lost good paying manufacturing jobs after Nafta, and are now working 70h/week in the service industry to feed their kids. They have a very different experience with the Clinton and Obama presidencies, nothing you posted is really disputable. I'm surprised you have negative props for this pist.

[Ten oz]

It really puzzles me that so many bright people have blinders on regarding the corruption in US elections, and the meddling seen around the world overthrowing other governments.

 

The intelligence reports are not very strong in the evidence department. There is a possibility/probability that the Russians interfered, but I really doubt this is a new development. This reeks of using McCarthyism to deflect from the internal problems.

 

I suspect much of the issue is that the people most likely to benefit from third way are the professionals who make up the top 10% of the income ladder, the same people likely to be on this board. Not a lot of blue collar workers who lost good paying manufacturing jobs after Nafta, and are now working 70h/week in the service industry to feed their kids. They have a very different experience with the Clinton and Obama presidencies, nothing you posted is really disputable. I'm surprised you have negative props for this pist.

It is hard for people to reject manipulation and advantages that benefits them directly. In a more generalized way it is the same reason so many males have a hard time acknowledging sexism in society or white male acknowledging level of privilege. People want to believe everything they have was earned on a totally equal playing field. It is why we (society broadly) tolerates people like Trump, Romney, Bush (any of them), and etc who inherited great wealth and advantage carry on about how hard they worked in life and how smart they had to be to make it. To acknowledge inequality or manipulation demands something be done about it. Those who want Trump as President simply don't want anything done about the myriad of attacks on democracy that has allowed us to reach this point.

[Willie71]

OK - Can someone educate me please... The above article seems to suggest that Clinton wasn't voted in because she wasn't trusted because she was corrupt and represented everything people hate about the democrat party... But I thought (maybe naively) that nothing of those allegations stuck. What was she guilty of to have all of that thrown at her and why did people believe it if it wasn't true? I am confused now. I assumed that the alleged 'meddling' was to blow smoke over Clinton to make it seem as though she was probably guilty of at least something and thus influence the minds of the easily swayed, err, I mean the American public, against her.

 

What am I missing?

People don't believe the investigations were legitimate, or that there was any chance of her being actually charged for wrongdoings. In the same vein that police are rarely charged, let alone convicted for wrongdoing, or how the bankers responsible for the massive fraud committed against the American people weren't charged. Additionally, none of the people responsible for the war crimes in the Middle East or gapuantanamo were prosecuted. There is a lack of trust in the process. It takes pretty heroic apologetics to read the podesta e-mails and not at minimum say, damn, that's not right. Even if it was not illegal, it was pretty smelly.

 

 

Much more important than Russian interference (which the report included media reports on fracking as propaganda against the USA) is the abomination called "crosscheck." Millions of people, most democrats, were prevented from having their vote counted, without any proof they were voting fraudulently. The number of actual violations is in single digits.

[Phi for All]

It takes pretty heroic apologetics to read the podesta e-mails and not at minimum say, damn, that's not right. Even if it was not illegal, it was pretty smelly.

 

I want to point out that you're basically saying the law shouldn't matter if you think something is "not right". Further, you imply ("at minimum") that your views make this an actionable offense. I can't agree with this. It's not on the same level as, say, advocating assault.

[Willie71]

I want to point out that you're basically saying the law shouldn't matter if you think something is "not right". Further, you imply ("at minimum") that your views make this an actionable offense. I can't agree with this. It's not on the same level as, say, advocating assault.

 

I think citizens united is wrong. It's legal, but it's wrong. I disagree that police have a different standard for culpability when killing another person. It's legal, but it's wrong. It's legal for trump to appoint devoss to his cabinet, but it's wrong. Few people disagree with these positions. Definitely not an arbitrary standard.

 

Podesta talked about issues that skirt legality in the USA, but in other nations would be illegal. I stand by my position. Actionable in this case is choosing not to support a party that contradicts people's ethics. The other option was worse, but that's what you get in a two party system that sold out to big money industries.

[Phi for All]

I think citizens united is wrong. It's legal, but it's wrong. I disagree that police have a different standard for culpability when killing another person. It's legal, but it's wrong. It's legal for trump to appoint devoss to his cabinet, but it's wrong. Few people disagree with these positions. Definitely not an arbitrary standard.

 

Podesta talked about issues that skirt legality in the USA, but in other nations would be illegal. I stand by my position. Actionable in this case is choosing not to support a party that contradicts people's ethics. The other option was worse, but that's what you get in a two party system that sold out to big money industries.

 

You should fight laws that are wrong. You shouldn't equate the legal but "not right" (Citizen's United ruling and capital punishment and poor cabinet choices) with the illegal (assault, breach of contract, and fraud).

[Willie71]

You should fight laws that are wrong. You shouldn't equate the legal but "not right" (Citizen's United ruling and capital punishment and poor cabinet choices) with the illegal (assault, breach of contract, and fraud).

That was my point. Even if there were no laws broken with the donations from foreign powers, or the conspiring in the primaries, it's hard to defend the actions discussed. I didn't say she should be charged, or podesta be charged, just that it takes apologetics to justify that no ethical wrongdoing happened. The world isn't a fair place. That expose confirmed many people's perceptions of poor ethics, corruption (loosely defined), and being at the beckoning of the donors, and people didn't like what they saw. I've heard many justify it as "that's the way it's always done." but that falls short for people looking for change. Not addressing this image with more than a rebranding won't work. There needs to be evidence that people, not donors, will be represented.

 

 

I think I missed your point. I'm not advocating for charges if no laws were broken. What I'm saying is two fold. People don't trust that the investigation was legitimate on one hand. Secondly, if it was legitimate, and no laws were broken, the emails still stink and have ethical concerns. Neither is a favourable position.

[RiceAWay]

OK - Can someone educate me please... The above article seems to suggest that Clinton wasn't voted in because she wasn't trusted because she was corrupt and represented everything people hate about the democrat party... But I thought (maybe naively) that nothing of those allegations stuck. What was she guilty of to have all of that thrown at her and why did people believe it if it wasn't true? I am confused now. I assumed that the alleged 'meddling' was to blow smoke over Clinton to make it seem as though she was probably guilty of at least something and thus influence the minds of the easily swayed, err, I mean the American public, against her.

 

What am I missing?

 

Chinagate and the Russian uranium deal was reported EVEN by the Washington Post and the New York Times. That the pay-for-play was clearly visible in these cases as in the Benghazi case SHOULD have been decided on by a court and NOT a partisan government.

[Ten oz]

 

Chinagate and the Russian uranium deal was reported EVEN by the Washington Post and the New York Times. That the pay-for-play was clearly visible in these cases as in the Benghazi case SHOULD have been decided on by a court and NOT a partisan government.

And yet Clinton received 3 million more votes. Any narrative that attempt to imply people broadly distrusted Hillary Clinton is thwarted by the fact that she received 3 million more individual votes than her nearest opponent. More people wanted her to be President than any other candidate.

[ecoli]

And yet Clinton received 3 million more votes. Any narrative that attempt to imply people broadly distrusted Hillary Clinton is thwarted by the fact that she received 3 million more individual votes than her nearest opponent. More people wanted her to be President than any other candidate.

 

You want to say that 'voters' did not mistrust Hillary to an extent that they wouldn't vote for her. But a vote is not necessarily an endorsement of trust (when DJT is the major alternative) - see, for example, unprecedented support for 3rd party candidates - and when 41 million people abstained from voting, many of those, one assumes, did not trust either option.

[Ten oz]

 

You want to say that 'voters' did not mistrust Hillary to an extent that they wouldn't vote for her. But a vote is not necessarily an endorsement of trust (when DJT is the major alternative) - see, for example, unprecedented support for 3rd party candidates - and when 41 million people abstained from voting, many of those, one assumes, did not trust either option.

Both assertions are false. The examples you have used to bolster your position are provably wrong so I recommend you rethink your position.

 

"Unprecedented" by definition means never done before. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein combined for 6 millions votes in 2016. All third party candidates in 2016 (including McMullin and Castie) made about 5% of the total vote. Ross Perot won 18 million or 19% of the total vote in 92' and 8 million or 8% of the total vote in 96'. John B. Anderson won 5.7 million or 6.6% of the vote in 1980. George Wallace won 9.9 million votes or 13.5% of the popular vote in 1968 including 46 electoral votes. There are more examples but the multiple I provided is adequate to prove your claim wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections

 

 

Your reference to those who "abstained" is quantified by turnout. Turnout this year was not substantially different/lower than previous years.

 

[ecoli]

Both assertions are false. The examples you have used to bolster your position are provably wrong so I recommend you rethink your position.

 

"Unprecedented" by definition means never done before.

 

You cite single candidates on an independent platform (I don't count Perot's reform party, since he started the party). I was specifically referencing 3rd parties. I'm interpreting this as higher than average rejection of either major party, rather than a particularly likable alternative candidate with broad appeal (though I haven't seen any data on that) which would be unprecedented in the last few decades.

 

I also did not claim that turnout was higher than average, just that one can safely assume that, of those that did not vote, did so because they actively did not like either candidate.

 

I admit that I was not being entirely precise in my claims, but you haven't adequately supported your own claim either: that the people broadly liked Hillary. Coming in first in a two-horse race where many Americans didn't bother to vote, when her own nomination was hotly contested in the first place, is not strong evidence that she was a popular politician.

[Ten oz]

 

You cite single candidates on an independent platform (I don't count Perot's reform party, since he started the party). I was specifically referencing 3rd parties. I'm interpreting this as higher than average rejection of either major party, rather than a particularly likable alternative candidate with broad appeal (though I haven't seen any data on that) which would be unprecedented in the last few decades.

 

I also did not claim that turnout was higher than average, just that one can safely assume that, of those that did not vote, did so because they actively did not like either candidate.

 

I admit that I was not being entirely precise in my claims, but you haven't adequately supported your own claim either: that the people broadly liked Hillary. Coming in first in a two-horse race where many Americans didn't bother to vote, when her own nomination was hotly contested in the first place, is not strong evidence that she was a popular politician.

You have greatly moved the goal posts on what you're claiming about third parties. I am not even sure how your new claim directly supports your claim, "higher than average" isn't unprecendented. I think it is debatable that it is even unusual. We had Wallace in the 60's, Anderson in the 80's, and Perot in the 90's who did larger numbers than all the 3rd party candidates did this year combined. We also had Ralph Nader in 00' who as a percentage of the vote did good as any specific 3rd party candidate this year. So this year saw higher than average 3rd party numbers historically but nothing unusual in the modern era.

 

As for those who didn't vote I don't see how it supports anything specific about Hillary Clinton considering it was well within normal margins?

[ecoli]

You have greatly moved the goal posts on what you're claiming about third parties. I am not even sure how your new claim directly supports your claim, "higher than average" isn't unprecendented. I think it is debatable that it is even unusual. We had Wallace in the 60's, Anderson in the 80's, and Perot in the 90's who did larger numbers than all the 3rd party candidates did this year combined. We also had Ralph Nader in 00' who as a percentage of the vote did good as any specific 3rd party candidate this year. So this year saw higher than average 3rd party numbers historically but nothing unusual in the modern era.

 

As for those who didn't vote I don't see how it supports anything specific about Hillary Clinton considering it was well within normal margins?

 

Again, I admit using the work 'unprecedented' imprecisely, with the purpose of implying that Hillary Clinton was an unusually unpopular candidate for a Democratic front-runner. You stated that her winning the popular vote was evidence that she was not broadly distrusted by Americans. I pointed out that this was insufficient evidence, since vote !=> trust and a large number of people did not vote for a major party candidate (or anyone at all).

 

Where are the polls that show Americans trusted Hillary? In retrospect, I'm not sure how much we can trust the poll he numbers, but certainly this didn't bode well for her: http://time.com/4554576/donald-trump-trustworthy-hillary-clinton (and again, this only tells us about likely voters).

[Ten oz]

 

Again, I admit using the work 'unprecedented' imprecisely, with the purpose of implying that Hillary Clinton was an unusually unpopular candidate for a Democratic front-runner. You stated that her winning the popular vote was evidence that she was not broadly distrusted by Americans. I pointed out that this was insufficient evidence, since vote !=> trust and a large number of people did not vote for a major party candidate (or anyone at all).

 

Where are the polls that show Americans trusted Hillary? In retrospect, I'm not sure how much we can trust the poll he numbers, but certainly this didn't bode well for her: http://time.com/4554576/donald-trump-trustworthy-hillary-clinton (and again, this only tells us about likely voters).

Perhaps you feel Hillary Clinton winning 3 million more votes is insuffcient evidence but what does it say about Trump? Your arguing that Hillary Clinton wasn't trusted and that is the reason for her only winning 3 million more votes yetdon't apply that same logic imply to Trump? From the link you provided you are seem to be arguing that the candidate with less votes was more trusted. In itself I don't really care whom you think was broadly trusted however you're implying it is the reason Trump is president today which is a notion I object to. You're saying foriegn gov't manipulation, last minute FBI investigation, voter supression, and etc are disposable and ultimately people just don't trust Hillary Clinton.

 

It is unprecedented for a candidate to get 3 million more inidividual votes and lose. It is unprecedented for a rival candidate and themedia to openly use material stolen in a propaganda effort by a foriegn country. It is unprecedented for the FBI to announce investigations into a Presidential front runner a week before an election just to conclude with nothing several days later. This was the first general election held since the Holder vs Shelby County decision stripped the voting rights act which allow 14 states to change their voter registration laws. A lot went on in this past election. I don't believe history books will put this off on voters distrusting Hillary Clinton.

 

 

New Voting restrictions in place 2016: http://www.brennancenter.org/voting-restrictions-first-time-2016