Seth Rich story resurfacing

[brycejones]

Page views, yes. But not in unique viewers.

So thedonald is populated by a bunch of cowardly mice mashing the refresh button hoping for their latest talking points.

 

[Pens1566]

Who put out the contract, Bill or Hillary? And I wonder if they used the same person they hired to assassinate Kathleen Wiley's cat.

Well, it was Bill that slayed her cat ... if you know what I mean.

 

[brycejones]

Hey, remember that time Trump gave away classified secrets to the Russian foreign minister? lol--that was nuts!

Hillary's emails! Stay focused man!

 

[woolfe9998]

I just want to point out one thing before removing myself from this irritating thread. Forget for the moment that 17 intelligence agencies have said the Russians did it. When the first tranche of DNC documents (before the e-mails) were released in June via DC Leaks, the documents contained Russian metadata. This fact was apparent to anyone who downloaded those docs and viewed the metadata.

The metadata in the leaked documents are perhaps most revealing: one dumped document was modified using Russian language settings, by a user named "Феликс Эдмундович," a code name referring to the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, the Cheka, memorialised in a 15-ton iron statue in front of the old KGB headquarters during Soviet times. The original intruders made other errors: one leaked document included hyperlink error messages in Cyrillic, the result of editing the file on a computer with Russian language settings. After this mistake became public, the intruders removed the Cyrillic information from the metadata in the next dump and carefully used made-up user names from different world regions, thereby confirming they had made a mistake in the first round.

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack

 

[acta_diurna]

I imagine with enough unsubstantiated leaps of logic you could disprove just about anything.

Bernie lost because he was a bad candidate that never found a way to expand his appeal outside of his white base. It's time to accept that.

You just made an unsubstantiated leap of logic.

Are you saying that the DNC had no impact at all on Benie's loss? If not, how much impact will you admit that it had?

How do you know that Bernie lost because he was a bad candidate? It is clearly the subject of much dispute, and regardless of how you choose to substantiate it, your statement was unsubstantiated.

1. The DNC believes it has the right and ability to pick whichever candidate it wants. Source: The Observer

attorneys representing the DNC claim that the Democratic National Committee would be well within their rights to “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.”

2. At least one member of the media passed debate questions to Hillary before one of her debates with Sanders. Source: Salon

Former interim Democratic National Committee chair and CNN political commentator Donna Brazile has apologized for passing along debate questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign during last year’s contest for the Democratic presidential nomination.

3. Many media outlets reported that the DNC openly favored Hillary. This doesn't make it fact, but it makes it a reasonable enough suggestion that your criticism of unsubstantiated leaps of logic is fallible. Source: Huffington Post

Debbie Wasserman Schultz And The DNC Favored Hillary Clinton Over Bernie Sanders. Where’s The Outrage?

4. There is evidence that the DNC directed resources and influence unfairly to Hillary instead of Sanders. Source: Politico

The emails, released the day before the opening of the Democratic National Convention here, exposed DNC staffers seemingly undermining Sanders’ insurgent campaign against Clinton.

 

[Chiropteran]

Supposedly the "investigator" has been working for Faux News. Family is disavowing of the current story. Nothing-burger.

Are you talking about the "family" spokesperson who is a former employee of the DNC?

 

[fskimospy]

You just made an unsubstantiated leap of logic.

How is it unsubstantiated? Bernie lost because won white voters while losing minority voters heavily. There weren't enough white voters in the democratic primaries to make up for his losses elsewhere. This is just a simple statement of facts.

Are you saying that the DNC had no impact at all on Benie's loss? If not, how much impact will you admit that it had?

Where did you get the idea that I said they had no impact? I said they didn't have sufficient impact to make up for the magnitude of his defeat, which was very large. The only reason it looks closer than it was is because he decided to stay in long after the time where other candidates in past primaries have realized they couldn't win and conceded.

How do you know that Bernie lost because he was a bad candidate? It is clearly the subject of much dispute, and regardless of how you choose to substantiate it, your statement was unsubstantiated.

I literally substantiated it in the post you quoted. He was unable to win over sufficient voters outside of his white base. An inability to appeal to vast swaths of your party is the mark of a bad candidate.

1. The DNC believes it has the right and ability to pick whichever candidate it wants. Source: The Observer

The DNC DOES have the right and ability to do that, as the method for selecting candidates is governed by the bylaws of the DNC, which can be amended by DNC members at any time.

2. At least one member of the media passed debate questions to Hillary before one of her debates with Sanders. Source: Salon


3. Many media outlets reported that the DNC openly favored Hillary. This doesn't make it fact, but it makes it a reasonable enough suggestion that your criticism of unsubstantiated leaps of logic is fallible. Source: Huffington Post

4. There is evidence that the DNC directed resources and influence unfairly to Hillary instead of Sanders. Source: Politico

So to be clear you think that knowing a debate question in advance and two nebulous claims about favoritism translates into millions of votes? On what planet does anyone actually think this is true?

 

[Chiropteran]

How is it unsubstantiated? Bernie lost because won white voters while losing minority voters heavily. There weren't enough white voters in the democratic primaries to make up for his losses elsewhere. This is just a simple statement of facts.

This is so fucking hilarious.

Not enough white voters to give Bernie the win!

Trump only won because of white male voters!

How can both be true? Well you see, in the liberal brain (it does exist, in theory) they can hold completely contradictory statements as both true as long as both statements support the arguments put forth by leading liberal news agencies.

 

[fskimospy]

This is so fucking hilarious.

Not enough white voters to give Bernie the win!

Trump only won because of white male voters!

How can both be true? Well you see, in the liberal brain (it does exist, in theory) they can hold completely contradictory statements as both true as long as both statements support the arguments put forth by leading liberal news agencies.

I agree, this is pretty fucking hilarious! Thanks for owning yourself yet again you moron.

Bernie ran in the Democratic Primary. Trump won in the General Election.

Percentage of nonwhite voters in the Democratic Primary: ~38%. http://pos.org/democratic-primary-voter-demographic-shifts-and-candidate-coalitions/
Percentage of nonwhite voters in the General Election: ~27%. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/

Durrrrrrrrr.

 

[Paratus]

This is so fucking hilarious.

Not enough white voters to give Bernie the win!

Trump only won because of white male voters!

How can both be true? Well you see, in the liberal brain (it does exist, in theory) they can hold completely contradictory statements as both true as long as both statements support the arguments put forth by leading liberal news agencies.

Chiro you ignorant slut.

Bernie lost in the Democratic Primary which was made up of whites, minorities, men and women.

Trump lost the popular vote (but won the EC) in the Presidential Election.

Now this maybe lost on you but those are not the same election, nor do they have the same proportion of whites to minorities.

How do you not know this? And acting like it's a "gotcha" to Fski?

SAD.

 

[acta_diurna]

"fskimospy, post: 38895986, member: 191266"]How is it unsubstantiated?

You didn't substantiate how Bernie is a "bad candidate".

You didn't substantiate how Bernie lost to Hillary because he was unable to expand his appeal beyond his white base.

"Bernie lost because won white voters while losing minority voters heavily. There weren't enough white voters in the democratic primaries to make up for his losses elsewhere. This is just a simple statement of facts.

How do you define heavily?

States with exit polls conducted by ABC news showed that Sanders received a larger share of the African-Americans under 30 than did Clinton. Source: ABC News

Sanders, according to the exit polls in these states, received 52 percent of the votes of African-Americans under 30, compared to 47 percent for Clinton.

"Where did you get the idea that I said they had no impact? I said they didn't have sufficient impact to make up for the magnitude of his defeat, which was very large. The only reason it looks closer than it was is because he decided to stay in long after the time where other candidates in past primaries have realized they couldn't win and conceded.

You did not say that. Where did you say that? We can see your original post.

"I literally substantiated it in the post you quoted. He was unable to win over sufficient voters outside of his white base. An inability to appeal to vast swaths of your party is the mark of a bad candidate.

You did not substantiate that. You also did not substantiate that Bernie is a bad candidate.

Accepting your premise that Hillary appealed to minority voters, explain her performance with them during the general election.

"The DNC DOES have the right and ability to do that, as the method for selecting candidates is governed by the bylaws of the DNC, which can be amended by DNC members at any time.

The DNC charter suggests the process is fair and decided by voters, not the DNC.

"So to be clear you think that knowing a debate question in advance

A combination of DNC resources and media favoritism. Media favoritism as evidenced by knowing a debate question in advance, and DNC resources as described by a class action lawsuit currently pending against the DNC and widely corroborated reports such as those I linked and you dismissed as a result of an inability to refute them.

"and two nebulous claims about favoritism translates into millions of votes? On what planet does anyone actually think this is true?

Hahaha you describe two well-sourced claims that are widely known and corroborated by other sources as nebulous. You didn't have any way to refute these reportsso you just say they are nebulous?

 

[Maxima1]

Not this crap again.

February national polls predict wins better until August and on. Bernie was doing better than Hillary even at that point when he was surging. Hillary was about ~5% at that point, but Bernie higher and wasn't at his peak. To be fair, Hillary lost about 1-2% from the Comey letter and some other factors from Russia's meddling.

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/...are-the-best-you-get-until-august/#more-15718

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

How is it unsubstantiated? Bernie lost because won white voters while losing minority voters heavily. There weren't enough white voters in the democratic primaries to make up for his losses elsewhere. This is just a simple statement of facts.

Bernie voters are more likely to sit out the election, while Hillary voters would have stayed with Bernie. That's what the national polls reflected. Your argument is also quite laughable considering the states she lost to Trump.

Where did you get the idea that I said they had no impact? I said they didn't have sufficient impact to make up for the magnitude of his defeat, which was very large. The only reason it looks closer than it was is because he decided to stay in long after the time where other candidates in past primaries have realized they couldn't win and conceded.

When a candidate is likely to lose, people start sitting out, so your "very large defeat" talking point is meaningless. The states in the front-end generally benefited her more, too (go figure), and the superdelegate BS was discouraging to people..

The DNC DOES have the right and ability to do that, as the method for selecting candidates is governed by the bylaws of the DNC, which can be amended by DNC members at any time.

It's a **** system that undermines picking Condorcet winners.

 

[Chiropteran]

Chiro you ignorant slut.

Bernie lost in the Democratic Primary which was made up of whites, minorities, men and women.

Trump lost the popular vote (but won the EC) in the Presidential Election.

Now this maybe lost on you but those are not the same election, nor do they have the same proportion of whites to minorities.

We weren't talking about the viability of him as a candidate vs Hillary?

Remember: "The DNC DOES have the right and ability to do that, as the method for selecting candidates is governed by the bylaws of the DNC, which can be amended by DNC members at any time."

Primary numbers are meaningless. It doesn't matter who gets more legit votes, the DNC was going to pick whoever they wanted to pick regardless. The question is whether the candidate is viable in the actual election. And the idea that Bernie was a worse choice because he was "only" favored among Whites is ridiculous, because the exact same arguments were used against Trump and we all know how that turned out.

 

[fskimospy]

You didn't substantiate how Bernie is a "bad candidate".

So what? I don't have to.

You didn't substantiate how Bernie lost to Hillary because he was unable to expand his appeal beyond his white base.

That is self evidently true by the vote results. How is this at all confusing to you? Look at the demographic breakdown of who voted for who.

How do you define heavily?

States with exit polls conducted by ABC news showed that Sanders received a larger share of the African-Americans under 30 than did Clinton. Source: ABC News

I define heavily by the primary vote totals. Nice attempt to cherry pick a favorable demographic though, haha. Clinton won African American voters by 53 points. That's heavy.

http://pos.org/democratic-primary-voter-demographic-shifts-and-candidate-coalitions/

You did not say that. Where did you say that? We can see your original post.

I strongly suggest you read the thread before commenting in the future.

You did not substantiate that. You also did not substantiate that Bernie is a bad candidate.

Nonsense. See above.

Accepting your premise that Hillary appealed to minority voters, explain her performance with them during the general election.

There is no need to accept or reject my premise, it is self evidently true from the democratic primary results, which is what we are discussing.

The DNC charter suggests the process is fair and decided by voters, not the DNC.

I suggest you actually read what the bylaws say. How they make you feel is irrelevant. The process for changing the bylaws is all that matters.

A combination of DNC resources and media favoritism. Media favoritism as evidenced by knowing a debate question in advance

Then how do you explain that media coverage of Sanders during was far more favorable than coverage of Clinton? (This doesn't cover the whole time but it covers enough)

https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

Sanders’ media coverage during the pre-primary period was a sore spot with his followers, who complained the media was biased against his candidacy. In relative terms at least, their complaint lacks substance. Among candidates in recent decades who entered the campaign with no money, no organization, and no national following, Sanders fared better than nearly all of them.

Does the evidence change your mind? (Haha of course it doesn't.)

and DNC resources as described by a class action lawsuit currently pending against the DNC and widely corroborated reports such as those I linked and you dismissed as a result of an inability to refute them.

So someone filing a lawsuit is now evidence. Amazing.

Hahaha you describe two well-sourced claims that are widely known and corroborated by other sources as nebulous. You didn't have any way to refute these reportsso you just say they are nebulous?

No, I'm saying the allegations are nebulous. 'Unfairly directed resources' and 'hostile to' are not operational terms that can credibly be linked to vote totals in any way that would compensate for Sanders's loss by millions of votes.

I think you are allowing an emotional attachment to Sanders's candidacy cloud your logical thinking.

 

[Chiropteran]

Chiro you ignorant slut.

Bernie lost in the Democratic Primary which was made up of whites, minorities, men and women.
.

This isn't known. Without the corrupt DNC meddling, he may have won.

Remember, the liars telling you he had no chance were the same people saying Hillary was 98% likely to win the election.

 

[Chiropteran]

So what? I don't have to.

Trolls don't have to do anything!

 

[Jhhnn]

You just made an unsubstantiated leap of logic.

Are you saying that the DNC had no impact at all on Benie's loss? If not, how much impact will you admit that it had?

How do you know that Bernie lost because he was a bad candidate? It is clearly the subject of much dispute, and regardless of how you choose to substantiate it, your statement was unsubstantiated.

1. The DNC believes it has the right and ability to pick whichever candidate it wants. Source: The Observer


2. At least one member of the media passed debate questions to Hillary before one of her debates with Sanders. Source: Salon


3. Many media outlets reported that the DNC openly favored Hillary. This doesn't make it fact, but it makes it a reasonable enough suggestion that your criticism of unsubstantiated leaps of logic is fallible. Source: Huffington Post


4. There is evidence that the DNC directed resources and influence unfairly to Hillary instead of Sanders. Source: Politico

So we get a new persona to perpetrate the usual list of talking points. Seth Rich is just a segue to that, obviously.

Poor Bernie! So cheated! Evil Democrats!

My fave is the "leaked questions" smear. Donna Brazile told them that there would be a question about the death penalty... Duh! Like Hillary wasn't ready for that. And a question about Fling water at a townhall in Flint... Double Duh!

 

[fskimospy]

Not this crap again.

February national polls predict wins better until August and on. Bernie was doing better than Hillary even at that point when he was surging. Hillary was about ~5% at that point, but Bernie higher and wasn't at his peak. To be fair, Hillary lost about 1-2% from the Comey letter and some other factors from Russia's meddling.

Not this shit again indeed. That is true only for the eventual nominees. You can't compare matchups with non-nominees to nominees.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.

Bernie voters are more likely to sit out the election, while Hillary voters would have stayed with Bernie. That's what the national polls reflected. Your argument is also quite laughable considering the states she lost to Trump.

Clinton beat Sanders in most of the states she needed to win but lost to Trump in.

When a candidate is likely to lose, people start sitting out, so your "very large defeat" talking point is meaningless. The states in the front-end generally benefited her more, too (go figure), and the superdelegate BS was discouraging to people..

Her lead was pretty consistent throughout. The only time Sanders did well was when there was a string of caucus states, and caucuses are extremely undemocratic.

 

[Chiropteran]

Not this shit again indeed. That is true only for the eventual nominees. You can't compare matchups with non-nominees to nominees.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

Awesome source, they totally called the election spot on.

Who will win the presidency?

• https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#
• https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#

Chance of winning

Hillary Clinton

71.4%

Donald Trump

28.6%

 

[fskimospy]

Awesome source, they totally called the election spot on.

Who will win the presidency?
Chance of winning

Hillary Clinton

71.4%

Donald Trump

28.6%

You just keep making yourself look dumber and dumber.

Flip a coin twice, if you get heads or tails both times you just had something happen with a lower probability than Trump's victory. Things with a 28% likelihood happen all the time.

 

[Jhhnn]

Chirpy's bullshit is familiar, guys. It's the usual non-specific smear about the DNC having allegedly "done something" to thwart Bernie. Quite what he can't say, but they must have, you know, because they're evil...

 

[Pens1566]

Yeah how dare the DNC actually want a Democrat to win the party nomination. JFC. I wonder if some of the posters around here had parents with kids that lived ...

 

[Maxima1]

Not this shit again indeed. That is true only for the eventual nominees. You can't compare matchups with non-nominees to nominees.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

I believe you're taking it out of context. Polls are generally higher if they aren't in the race (e.g. Biden), but are still being polled against someone. But Sam Wang's article is saying that polls after February don't match in accuracy until August. That's why Sabato and others projected she would likely get about 5% in the election against Trump. I'm not going to bother beating the dead horse more on the other stuff.

 

[fskimospy]

I believe you're taking it out of context. Polls are generally higher if they aren't in the race (e.g. Biden), but are still being polled against someone. But Sam Wang's article is saying that polls after February don't match in accuracy until August. That's why Sabato and others projected she would likely get about 5% in the election against Trump. I'm not going to bother beating the dead horse more on the other stuff.

I'm definitely not taking it out of context. I mean 'ignore hypothetical matchups, they mean nothing' is unequivocal. They say it is especially true for people not in the race but it is true in general as well.

Also, Fivethirtyeight performed much, much better than Sam Wang. Not sure if he has eaten that bug yet.

 

[Maxima1]

I'm definitely not taking it out of context. I mean 'ignore hypothetical matchups, they mean nothing' is unequivocal. They say it is especially true for people not in the race but it is true in general as well.

What do you mean by "it is true in the general as well"? I'm not referring to polls of Sanders during the general. I'm pointing out according to Sam Wang's article, the polls don't even become as accurate as February until August (i.e. general election polls of the one who was nominated!). And I don't see any reason to assume that if a candidate loses in the primary, that it somehow means their February polls weren't accurate.

Also, Fivethirtyeight performed much, much better than Sam Wang. Not sure if he has eaten that bug yet.

Silver's model sucked. It changed on the dime, and he was being conservative due to how humiliated he got after being so wrong on Trump and the Cubs. lmao

Sam Wang's issue was simple. He was modeling after a margin between polls and results that was considerably smaller than what recent elections suggested (0.5 vs. 1.2 or so). If he put the correct input, it was around 88-90% chance she would win. She still essentially won, though. It was 2% and a loss of only about 80K votes divided among three states.