Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Concerning prediction for the COVID-19 pandemic

Perhaps this doesn't make the legal definition of a fix, but it the next best thing.

The common phrase “the fix is in” means that the outcome of an event or process has been covertly manipulated to ensure a result that would otherwise be determined by chance or a fair test of some kind

The question is, would she have lost had Dir Comey not re-opened the investigation???? Remember ... the entire campaign, to the last person, thought Mr Trump would not win as late as election day ...

right .... it does not nor is it the next best thing.


That many "establishment" type Democrats did not want Sen Sanders was well known publicly. There was no covert manipulation i.e. stuffing ballot boxes, disenfranchising voters, etc, and I am not sure how one overtly manipulates anything, unless you are Mr Trump.

I quit the Democrat Party in 1972 because of party machinery and process.

No, for me, it is the normal political process. A president is the leader of a ruling party, especially a beloved one like Barack Obama, so, he made his preference known, and people followed him. It has happened over and over and over and over and over and over in all democracies in the world (including ours). Only Bernie Bros. whine about it. Everywhere else, it's the normal political process. Politics is the game of power, influence, coalitions, endorsements, support, and the earning and spending of political capital. Barack earned a lot of political capital, and he spent it in making an indication of his preferred candidate. Why shouldn't he? There is nothing abnormal about it; and no, it's no fix.

Then, you submit it to the voters. Well, the voters did pick her, with no trace of electoral fraud. The most that happened was some email exchanges between DNC operatives that never amounted to much. One low-level operative suggested by email that the Hillary campaign should use against Bernie the fact that he is a Jew. Hillary's campaign never accepted the suggestion. Donna Brazile fed Hillary a couple of CNN debate questions. Disgraceful but rather a big deal. From this, Bernie Bros. go to OH MY GOD THE SKY IS FALLING THE FIX IS IN THE NOMINATION WAS STOLEN FROM BERNIE!!! They should grow up and understand a bit more what Politics is about.

Have you realized that she would have won the nomination anyway, WITHOUT a single superdelegate? She won 34 contests and beat Sanders by 3.7 million votes. She got more than what was needed in regular pledged delegates, no superdelegates needed. That is a FACT that Bernie Bros. like to ignore. They say the nomination was stolen from Sanders. No, it wasn't, because it was never his to start with. He never had the votes. For something to be stolen from you, you have to own it first. Hillary had the votes, and beat him.

Sanders managed to lose to the second most rejected candidate in the history of presidential nominations (second only to Trump, and Hillary even managed to lose to Trump).

Then in 2020 without the anti-Hillary vote, we saw what's the true dimension of the Sanders movement: small. Insufficient.

Sanders without Hillary in the ballot went from 86% in his own state of Vermont to barely more than 50% (50.something). He lost badly in neighboring states, and even when he won, it was with a smaller total than in 2016, and it was inferior to the sum of the votes granted to his moderate opponents, and it wasn't a majority (except for Vermont, the tiniest of majorities). Elsewhere, Sanders' popular voting totals dropped dramatically from 2016 to 2020. There were states in which he had won ALL congressional districts in 2016, and then he lost ALL congressional districts in 2020, when he no longer had the anti-Hillary vote.

Again, Bernie or Bust types are whining... but they couldn't even get their lazy behinds off the videogame couch to go vote, as the youth participation for Sanders in 2020 was smaller than in 2016.

If you want a democratic voting revolution, you need to go vote. If you don't go vote, you need to shut up and stop complaining. Bernie Bros. think the fault of Bernie not being the nominee is the fault of everybody else (the DNC, the evil establishment, Wall Street, stupid and ignorant voters, etc., etc.) except the fault of themselves (who didn't even bother to come in and vote) and the fault of their non-charismatic, 2-trick pony (M4A, Wall Street), aloof, unrealistic (pies-in-the-sky) whining candidate whose policies were rejected by the vast majority of Dem and Dem-leaning primary popular voters.

I'm not a Hillary Clinton fan. I did not vote for her in the 2008 primaries (voted for Obama). And I did vote for Bernie Sanders in the 2020 primaries (when my state early-voted before Super Tuesday, I didn't think Biden had a chance, so I voted for the candidate I thought had the best chance at beating Trump, and at the time I thought that that candidate by default was Bernie; now I know it wasn't, once he failed to stimulate any turnout on Super Tuesday; which Biden did).

But I'm mature enough to move on when the candidate I prefer doesn't win. I then go to the next best thing or the lesser of two evils. Which is why even though I voted for Sanders in the primaries, I'll definitely vote for Biden in November.

That Bernie or Bust people couldn't make this move is proof of political inexperience and naivete. Hillary Clinton's platform was a whooping 95% similar to Bernie Sanders', in 2016. Trump's platform was 0% similar to Bernie's. Still, spiteful because their candidate LOST (it wasn't stolen from him; he simply lost because he didn't have enough popular votes), they abandon the candidate with 95% of similar platform, who wouldn't have nominated Trump's 252 conservative federal judges and 2 justices, and go for the guy whose platform is 0% similar to their idol's. Smart! [NOT!]

Bunch of spoiled brats. They got us Trump. There is a saying that every people have the president they deserve. I guess it applies to the Bernie or Bust crowd. It's unfortunate that the damage is not just to them, but to all of us.

Again, sure, there were 10 or 15 other factors and I'm perfectly aware of them, and just as angry at the other 9 or 14 factors. But yes, Bernie or Bust people were one of the essential factors, as proven by the Newsweek article, and so, yes, they are to blame.

I'm not mad at Bernie Sanders himself (better proof, I voted for him). He had the right to run. But once he lost (twice, now), people need to move on, and yes, I *am* angry at the whiny, spoiled, lazy, naive Bernie or Bust types who couldn't even bother voting in expressive numbers (videogames and smoking pot are more attractive than waiting 4 hours to vote in a precinct) and now say they won't vote against Trump in November.

Well, again, they will get 4 more years of the president they deserve, who will happily crush all the dreams of their generation.

No NO

Sec Clinton was a terrible candidate for a gang of reasons all dutifully listed by Perotista ... all true and valid, which accounted for depressed polling numbers. Had she been a "good" candidate, she would have been some +20% favorite over Mr Trump. All of those reasons she was a poor candidate depressed her polling numbers, but still she had a sizeable national polling lead ... that is until Dir Comey re-opened the FBI investigation into emails, at which point her polling numbers plummeted. To analyze the reasons for her failure to win the election without any consideration of the FBI investigation as the most important reason she lost in the final days of the election is dereliction, much akin to Mr Trump not acknowledging the obvious, ergo perotista's analysis reminds me of what Mr Trump does and why reporters continue to ask question over and again ... acknowledge and move on ... too tough for Mr Trump, which I understand since he is a narcissist, but not so easy for me to understand of perotista, since I don't see him as a narcissist, ergo my confusion.

The question is, would she have lost had Dir Comey not re-opened the investigation???? Remember ... the entire campaign, to the last person, thought Mr Trump would not win as late as election day ...

No, she wouldn't. Without the Comey letter she would have won.
But without the Bernie or Bust crowd she would have won.
Without the help from Putin for Trump she would have won.
Without sexism she would have won.
Without her idiotic failure to campaign in the Rust Belt states she would have won.
Without her nincompoop of a campaign manager she would have won.
Without the racism and xenophobia of Trump supporters she would have won.
Without the disillusionment of the Rust Belt blue collar former Democrat workers she would have won.
Without her unforced errors such as saying to Wall Street investors that she had one opinion for them, another for public consumption shw would have won.
Without Wikileaks she would have won.
Without the enthusiasm gap in her campaign vs. Trump's she would have won.

And so on and so forth.

When you lose by a grand total of 80,000 votes differential in three states (and remember, she needed to only flip 40,001 of those to win) ANY of the above factors is a decisive factor.

Sure, we can say that Comey's letter was one of the biggest factors... but even WITH Comey's letter but without the Bernie or Bust crowd, she would have won.

And so on and so forth.

Only the confluence of ALL the above factors and whatever else I forgot to mention, gave Trump his victory. So each individual factor is decisive.

I do think that since 15 Oct Trump making twice as many campaign appearances, visits, holding rallies etc. more than Hillary probably had more to do with it than Comey, but that is just my opinion.

The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College.

Clinton’s standing in the polls fell sharply. She’d led Trump by 5.9 percentage points in FiveThirtyEight’s popular vote projection at 12:01 a.m. on Oct. 28. A week later — after polls had time to fully reflect the letter — her lead had declined to 2.9 percentage points. That is to say, there was a shift of about 3 percentage points against Clinton.

the obnoxious, uncouth, name calling spoiled brat vs. the wet mop