2684
TRUMP GUILTY ON ALL 34 COUNTS
(www.bbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
2684 points (100.0% liked)
News
23622 readers
2573 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles donโt match the source wonโt be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we wonโt delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Remember when Clinton lost the election because the FBI didn't find anything on her assistant's laptop?
I mean she could have spent a weekend in Michigan. That was an unforced error.
She could have addressed her relationship with Goldman Sachs, and all the other banks that fucked over the entirety of the American people during the housing crisis that she earned millions upon millions giving "speeches" to.
She could have made an olive branch to the progressive caucus.
She could have not said "Sit down and shut up" to BLM activists.
There are a lot of things she could have done.
She could have Pokemon gone to Michigan
Amazing ๐
She was too busy "just chilling" in Cedar Rapids
With hot sauce in her purse? ๐๐
That's a trick question btw - the hot sauce is always in her purse! ๐
Or, like, hear me out, the Democrats could have not nominated her and nominated someone who isn't strongly disliked by both sides.
Should've Been Bernie
To be fair, we elected a Bush twice, and if Sirhan Sirhan hadn't shot Bobby we'd have had two Kennedies to go along with the Roosevelts and Adamses
She could also not have stolen the fucking nomination from Sanders
I think she would've won regardless of everything else, but it would've been closer. Really the mistake from the primaries is that she didn't really try to incorporate any of Bernie's ideas into her platform, or even work with him at all. She treated him as an opponent and obstacle, not as a rival and peer.
This is where Biden was successful however -- he didn't dismiss Bernie nor his platform ideas. He did incorporate some into presidency, most obviously the climate change policies and student debt forgiveness where possible.
And where I sincerely believe this difference came down to -- Biden was friendly to Bernie in the Senate and made an effort to be friendly colleagues, if not work friends. Clinton didn't. It shows the power of cooperation allying together with progressives, instead of allying together with "moderate" Republicans.
Its fine though. The Supreme Court said they can rig their own primaries. /s
That's all true, but she still would have won without the dramatic search of Huma Abadeen's laptop.
You know I completely forgot about that laptop thing. I remember the emails but that is about it.
I dont think that moved anyone. Like I really dont. The laptop thing was only interesting to Trump die-hards.
Maybe, but it happened right before the election. I observed noticeable shift in attitude. That's not good evidence, I know, but Clinton's polls which had been steady, took a 3% dip at the time and stayed down through election day.
People talked about the polls being off compared to the election, but the election matched the post-Comey polls pretty well. It's only the polls that mixed pre-Comey data that were too high for Clinton.
If you are interested in doing a more detailed analysis of this, I can supply you with some boiler plate code. 538 has pretty detailed polling data that's free to download. I'm going to be getting into it later in June for my monthly polling update.
I was considering calculating Trumps polling error differential from 2016 and seeing how it changed to 2020. I did a map of his differential polling error for 2020 for my update two weeks ago.
I'm also considering of taking the differential polling result for just swing states, applying it to current polling, and mapping out a series of 'pathways' to 270 for each candidate, highlighting where the pressure points are.
I think a trying to model the impact of a single news story could be pretty interesting.
There were a lot of factors at play in 2016, and the margin was tiny. She had a lot of factors under her control that could've led to victory.
Trying to run for president while having two X chromosomes was a massive error on her part as well.
Voters decided against her for mishandling classified documents, right? So these same voters, who think things through with consistency and integrity, will decide against someone who stole boxes of documents and got CIA agents killed selling state secrets to Russia, right?