Summations Only

And it's irrelevant, and boring, because ... she lost the election. She wasn't a noob that didn't know how the electoral college worked, so that's not a reason she lost.Let's list the reasons she lost:1. She didn't appeal enough to voters in key states to win their electoral votes.
2. Gerrymandering.
3. Voter suppression (voter ID laws, distribution of polling stations, etc).
4. Vote fixing (machine tampering etc).
5. The known vagaries of the electoral college.The way the system works, every vote for a candidate after they win the electoral votes for that state is irrelevant, wasted, and unimportant.The only one she had control over was the first.As a seasoned veteran of many elections and a manipulator of primary elections she had to be fully cognizant of the other reasons.Blaming people who voted for Jill Stein is as unreasonable, weak and pitiful as blaming voters that voted for Trump, not because they liked Trump, but because they though republicans were better than democrats. It also looks like a childlike hissy fit tantrum, rather than accepting the results and figuring out how to move forward.One thing seems pretty clear to me: winning a lot of votes above what was needed to win a state's electoral votes, while at the same time losing enough votes in key states so that you lose the election, means that the campaign energy was misplaced/misdirected/misspent. That falls clearly on the campaign management shoulders, not on the voters. Too much time in the wrong places and not enough time in the critical places.Enjoy.

Sadly many people rely on tv ads for their "research" and they'll pick candidates that fit their perception of reality without questioning it.But I don't think the numbers of people who regret their vote is large: if nothing else they will rationalize it to resolve cognitive dissonance. Okay. Reasons that Hillary did not appeal to some voters enough to gain their vote:1. Wall Street speeches and the appearance of coddling Wall Street. Saying the laws we now have are good enough instead of bringing back Glass-Steagall new and improved.
2. Promise to maintain the status quo (ie -- act like a 3rd Obama term) rather that do anything for working people.
3. Waffle on minimum wage (starting with $12/hr instead of $15/hr).
4. Waffle on healthcare for all, saying universal healthcare was impractical and we needed to settle for ACA.
5. Waffle on Native Rights regarding the NoDAPL issue.
6. Cared more about rich donors than working people.
etc etc etcShe had many opportunities to take a strong committed stand on these and didn't. It seemed like she was following rather than leading.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

White, male, employed, privileged. Personal economics will always be more important to voters than general global issues. This is why a living minimum wage and universal healthcare are winners. Clinton's address to coal miners as case in point. She lost a lot of votes there.Enjoy

Probably.The democrats have not fixed any of their problems and are instead hunkering down and purging Berniecrats from the DNC. If they win any seats in 2018 it will be due to failure on the republican party ... which is possible given the divisions in the party that makes them unable to pass any significant legislation.If there are no changes then it becomes more likely. Schrubbia was, when it seemed his popularity was lower than the first time.The average voters are idiots that get their information from the media they watch and they aren't interested in fact checking.Enjoy?

So I'll repeat what I said about that: getting a massive vote in states you have already won the electoral college votes, but failing to win electoral votes in swing states is to my mind a failure to properly manage where the election energy, cashflow, ads, etc was spent. ie - less time in california and more in pennsylvania and michigan could have made a difference. The extra votes were wasted when a few more votes in specific areas were needed.This is a problem at the DNC/campaign level, and I don't see any discussion of changing game plans. Hubris.From what I have seen, Hillary's book is pathetic. The democrats don't seem to know how to campaign in "off year" elections, letting republicans win in state and federal races for representatives etc.Wasserman-Schultz was particularly myopic in that regard, when several issues -- like $15/hr minimum wage, universal health insurance, paid family leave, etc -- were available but ignored.Going for corporate sponsorship is a huge mistake when your base is working people trying to make ends meet.The more they campaign as "republican lite" the fewer people will be interested, especially in off-years.So yes, Trump will likely win a second term, because the democrats will be running the same losing campaign.Enjoy

Well she had a negative image long before November. Exactly, the model was wrong because they didn't look at rural working people and rural unemployed -- so Trump picked them up. Especially when you factor in Hillary's comments to the coal miners -- that was a major mistake. The rust belt was more Trump than Hillary because she didn't have anything for them other than more years of Obama II, when they got nothing to bail them out. Catering to Wall Street over people was her biggest mistake.Enjoy

And vote tampering, as Jill Stein was finding out in Michigan when they stopped her investigation.Enjoy

If Trump is impeached over Russia, Pence is likely to go as well - it seems he was just as involved.If 2018 upsets the House leadership we could end up with ... president Pelosi? (conservative heads explode)It would take a majority democrat house to bring terms of impeachment, but we still have senate stonewalling.Enjoy

quote:

---

The Trump administration's plans to share nuclear technology with Saudi Arabia could lead to an arms race in the Middle East

​

• Saudi Arabia is planning to shift to nuclear power and looking for help from the US.
• The US plan to share nuclear technology with the Saudis has been in the works for years, but has stalled because Saudi Arabia hasn't agreed to certain safeguards.
• Now critics worry that the Trump administration may forgo those safeguards, giving Saudi Arabia access to technology that could lead to a regional arms race.

​

The Trump administration is holding talks on providing nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia a move that critics say could upend decades of U.S. policy and lead to an arms race in the Middle East.

​

The Saudi government wants nuclear power to free up more oil for export, but current and former American officials suspect the country’s leaders also want to keep up with the enrichment capabilities of their rival, Iran.

​

Saudi Arabia needs approval from the U.S. in order to receive sensitive American technology. Past negotiations broke down because the Saudi government wouldn’t commit to certain safeguards against eventually using the technology for weapons.

​

Now the Trump administration has reopened those talks and might not insist on the same precautions. At a Senate hearing on Nov. 28, Christopher Ford, the National Security Council’s senior director for weapons of mass destruction and counterproliferation, disclosed that the U.S. is discussing the issue with the Saudi government. He called the safeguards a desired outcome but didn’t commit to them.

​

Abandoning the safeguards would set up a showdown with powerful skeptics in Congress. It could be a hell of a fight, one senior Democratic congressional aide said.

​

The idea of sharing nuclear technology with Saudi Arabia took an unlikely path to the highest levels of government. An eccentric inventor and a murky group of retired military brass most of them with plenty of medals but no experience in commercial nuclear energy have peddled various incarnations of the plan for years.

​

Many U.S. officials didn’t think the idea was serious, reputable or in the national interest. It smelled so bad I said I never wanted to be anywhere close to that, one former White House official said. But the proponents persisted, and finally found an opening in the chaotic early days of the Trump administration, when advisers Michael Flynn and Tom Barrack championed the idea.

---

Stoking middle east Armageddon?

This is the problem I have:

quote:

---

Results

​

Candidate	Party	Votes	%
Doug Jones	Democrat	671,151	49.9
Roy Moore	Republican	650,436	48.4
Write-In	-	22,819	1.7

---

People that did not vote for Doug Jones = 50.1% (673,255), and they will likely vote against him in the next election, unless there is more change/disagreement with Trump in the interim.People that did not vote for Roy Moore = 51.6% (693,970), so he definitely lost, but a different candidate may have won.While good for the interim, the future is not certain and this is no bellweather/test of Trumps continued appeal in the south.We can hope that many Trump voters are disillusioned, and that more will become so - especially if the tax scam passes and come April they are paying more in taxes - but I don't think this is a big message in that direction.On an up note, part of these results is due to the ACLU working tirelessly to restore voting rights to Alabama citizens that had served their time for their crimes -- reportedly thousands of voters, who were overjoyed at the opportunity to vote.We can hope for more positive results from this hard working group (and if you aren't a member already, now may be a good time to join). Just as we can hope for some positive results from lawsuits on gerrymandering and voter ID laws.Certainly the 2018 elections will be very interesting if voting rights are restored and #MeToo sexual harassment suits force many incumbents to resign or to be defeated in primaries.Time will tell.Enjoy

Curiously, according to some information I have seen, the statute gives presidents the power to add lands to monuments, etc, but does not mention (perhaps no one thought they would) the power to remove lands.Could be an interesting question for the lawyers. Anyone have comments?

Here's a different breakdown of the votes:

quote:

---

Black America-The Backbone of Jones’ Victory and the Democratic Party:

​

​

Doug Jones won on the strength of the Black vote.

​

... it is an unequivocal demonstration that Black America is the backbone of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party cannot win without us. Moving forward, the Democratic Party must invest time and resources in the Black community if it is to win at all.

​

... any strategy for Democrats to win must include addressing racially motivated voter suppression tactics so that gerrymandering and voting intimidation is overcome, voting suppression efforts are punished and neutralized, and a new Voting Rights Act, if not an amendment, is instituted to ensure these racially motivated policies stemming from the 18th century never again occur in the 21st century and beyond. This starts with improving voter engagement related efforts. It ends with legally ending racially based gerrymandering and suppression.

​

... a progressive movement seeking to capture political power must recognize that the civil rights Black Americans continue to fight for must be given the same credence as the economic rights laborers fight for, the same credence as reproductive rights women fight for, and the same credence as the rights fought for by the LGBTQ+ community. A progressive movement seeking to capture political power must become a new and true rainbow coalition where Blackness is a vibrant part of the color palate.

---

This offers some additional hope for the future, as republicans have isolated themselves into the bunker of male white voters, while the demographics evolving to make them more and more a bitter vocal minority.This holds for latino and other minority groups, as America will be more racially equitable when there is no majority in power.Enjoy

Curiously I take as hyperbole to emphasize a point.It would have been more accurate to sayTax benefits for colleges and students were killed, but they give a tax benefit to private jet ownersShowing that it is all about different priorities.Enjoy

Due to the new imperial edict from Trump Ego Tower comes this report

If they don't want me to read it, then I won't. There are enough news sources that fund their pages with ads, so I don't need to pay extra.Call me socialist, but all news should be freely accessible to everyone.Enjoyps -- if you need a hack, sometimes you can do a ctrl-A ctrl-C before the sign in box appears, then paste into word.Edited by RAZD, : .