Real Reason why Hillary Lost - (NOT because of Russia)- Was Because Her Campaign Was Too Intelligent

Cracks me up too because a being 'too smart' is the same as being 'too dumb to know how to win.'

People want to believe that politics is all about being smart, but really it's about being able to read people and figure out what they want. That's why Trump won and that's why Palis won the WR election.

He had people working for him who understood how to talk to people (via PM) to get the votes he needed. We weren't stroking ourselves off in the thread because that doesn't work (source: Panamaican and JVS's disastrous campaigns).

What works is getting down to eye level with people, reading them and telling them what they want to hear. Of the 15 or so votes I secured for Palis, 10 of them did so just on the basis of how much they didn't like JVS and how I played to that.

That's politics.

Not just going 'oh hurr durr I'm soo smurt vote 4 me or ur dumb!!1! lolzz.'

The last 3 presidents didn't get in by talking about how smart they were, they got in by finding a message that resonated with the public. Same thing Trump and Palis did. It's really amazing how far off the mark the modern liberal is when it comes to how to actually do this shit
 
RhinoRush said:
Cracks me up too because a being 'too smart' is the same as being 'too dumb to know how to win.'

People want to believe that politics is all about being smart, but really it's about being able to read people and figure out what they want. That's why Trump won and that's why Palis won the WR election.

He had people working for him who understood how to talk to people (via PM) to get the votes he needed. We weren't stroking ourselves off in the thread because that doesn't work (source: Panamaican and JVS's disastrous campaigns).

What works is getting down to eye level with people, reading them and telling them what they want to hear. Of the 15 or so votes I secured for Palis, 10 of them did so just on the basis of how much they didn't like JVS and how I played to that.

That's politics.

Not just going 'oh hurr durr I'm soo smurt vote 4 me or ur dumb!!1! lolzz.'

The last 3 presidents didn't get in by talking about how smart they were, they got in by finding a message that resonated with the public. Same thing Trump and Palis did. It's really amazing how far off the mark the modern liberal is when it comes to how to actually do this shit
Click to expand...

A WR election? When did this happen?
 
I think liberals should just come out and admit that Hillary was a god awful candidate all along. She didn't lose because she was "too smart." FFS.

She lost because she was unlikable, incompetent and because she appeared to be bought and paid for
 
The democrats are losers to their core. In the coming days I will be making a series of post demonstrating how this is true.
 
What an echo chamber!

I guess we are ignoring the fact that Hillary received the 2nd most votes of any presidential candidate ever?
 
Beastman09 said:
What an echo chamber!

I guess we are ignoring the fact that Hillary received the 2nd most votes of any presidential candidate ever?
Click to expand...

Who gives a shit? The only score that matters is the EC, and she got smoked.
 
Since when is wasting over a billion dollars considered smart?

The US truly dodged a bullet by denying Hillary Clinton and her people control over the taxpayer's dollars; with this type of mentality in power, the country may never have been able to recover again with more than 20 trillion in debt already built up by Obama.
 
Hans Gruber said:
Thank you sir.

Also being part of the winning @Palis and @Dr J campaign made me realize that I can't lose (even on the internet) so was looking for opinions as to whether being too intelligent could actually cause you to lose or not?
Click to expand...

Do you notice the the Dems have searched high and low since the election an have yet to take a look at what really was going on? This started WAY before this election, the election was just the climax of the Democrats collapse. This actually started about 6 years ago and Democrats have yet to address the problem that American's are pissed off.

"What have Democrats done to so offend Americans that they only have 11 governors, that they've lost control of the Senate, they've lost control of the House, they lost 900 legislative seats in the last 6 years. In my home state of Connecticut, my God, Democrats were ahead something like 120 or 130 to 38, now its almost tied. The Senate is tied in Blue Connecticut."

 
I enjoyed the article, but if this is why they lost it's certainly not due to them being too smart.. if they were so smart wouldn't they know that their model's assumptions don't always hold?
 
Beastman09 said:
What an echo chamber!

I guess we are ignoring the fact that Hillary received the 2nd most votes of any presidential candidate ever?
Click to expand...
Of course we are because anything else would be incredibly dumb and irrational.
 
Lead said:
Internal polling had to be telling her something. Same with Trump. He started campaigning the last week in the rust belt and MN and she followed through there as well.
Click to expand...

I always love the "internal polling" angle. I guess internal polling shows you the truth while the polling the rest of us get, not so much.
 
MusterX said:
I always love the "internal polling" angle. I guess internal polling shows you the truth while the polling the rest of us get, not so much.
Click to expand...

There are moves that happen the last week of the election that don't make sense other than the campaign being sure for some reason that public information isn't correct. McCain and Romney both ditched Ohio the last week and toured through Pennsylvania and it sent the message they knew they weren't going to win Ohio and we're trying to find a plan b. What happened this year was the rust belt and both candidates went through it. They had to have some type of information to suddenly think these were the key states.
 
It's funny that people in the bubble will try to analyze this all day, "why did she lose"? It's funny that she could not draw 10 people to a rally while Bernie was drawing 10k and they wonder why she lost: "oh rallies and popularity mean nothing". It's funny that they are unaware that people are now aware owing to the internet, are totally fed up with establishment corporate career politicians, and also that people know the MSM is bullshit even if they tell us what we should feel/think. It's funny that rather than fessing up to the content of the Wikileaks, the fact they rigged the election against Bernie, they point the finger at Russia and accuse them of rigging the election against Hillary. It's funny that they did not pay attention, went to vast efforts to conceal "#DemExit" and the abortion known as the DNC Convention. And most of all, it's funny that Hillary was such a poor and horrible candidate that she lost the primary to a Jewish Socialist from Vermont and had to resort to election fraud, on top of the DNC colluding with MSM to suppress the vote, had to purge voter rolls, shut down voting locations and go to incredible lengths to hide the fact that she was an UNFIT candidate, and crazily, they put her up against a non corporate, non establishment, populist that had many of the strengths of Bernie (would take many Bernie voters, like me) and a candidate that whooped a field of 12 establishment candidate.

Sanders-primary-votes-stolen-based-on-exit-poll-discrepancies-65.png

vote-flipping-1.jpg


Seriously, who runs a loser and expects to win?? This is like putting the team that placed last in the NFL in the Super Bowl and expecting them to win.
 
Lead said:
There are moves that happen the last week of the election that don't make sense other than the campaign being sure for some reason that public information isn't correct. McCain and Romney both ditched Ohio the last week and toured through Pennsylvania and it sent the message they knew they weren't going to win Ohio and we're trying to find a plan b. What happened this year was the rust belt and both candidates went through it. They had to have some type of information to suddenly think these were the key states.
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely. I'm just pointing out that what the American people are privy to and the information they are given, is often just flat wrong or even manipulated.
 
MusterX said:
Oh absolutely. I'm just pointing out that what the American people are privy to and the information they are given, is often just flat wrong or even manipulated.
Click to expand...

I can't really comment on what I think the candidates see that we don't but just from recent elections, it definitely seems to be something more reliable about the map
 
Think of how people would describe 2016 a hundred years in the future. They would say Russia helped Trump win the election, because that's the establishment version of the facts. We know better because we were alive at the time. Now think of how many historical events are probably different than what history passed on.
 
Lead said:
I can't really comment on what I think the candidates see that we don't but just from recent elections, it definitely seems to be something more reliable about the map
Click to expand...

They just lie a lot man.

This is how you know the fix is in when they report this stuff to the American people.

New York Times gave Hillary a 91% chance to win, FiveThirtyEight gave Hillary an 88.7% chance to win, Huffington Post gave Hillary a 98% chance to win, Predict Wise gave Hillary a 91% chance to win, Princeton Election gave Hillary a 97% chance to win, and that's just to name a few.

If you can't see they were lying, they were flat out trying to convince people to stay home and not vote for Trump because he loss was a forgone conclusion then I don't know what to say. We are ruled over by liars and propagandists.
 
MusterX said:
They just lie a lot man.

This is how you know the fix is in when they report this stuff to the American people.

New York Times gave Hillary a 91% chance to win, FiveThirtyEight gave Hillary an 88.7% chance to win, Huffington Post gave Hillary a 98% chance to win, Predict Wise gave Hillary a 91% chance to win, Princeton Election gave Hillary a 97% chance to win, and that's just to name a few.

If you can't see they were lying, they were flat out trying to convince people to stay home and not vote for Trump because he loss was a forgone conclusion then I don't know what to say. We are ruled over by liars and propagandists.
Click to expand...

Part of it could be dishonesty. Another could just be ignorance or bias. There are different ways each of them got to that number and some may have been flawed. Even if it wasn't flawed, the rust belt polling data a large swing from what we had and they build their certainty on that info. Some of those instances are a 1 in 10 chance which means every 1 on 10 times Trump wins. for us now, that's hard to fathom since he did win. It's like the Bernie blowout in Michigan. He had a 1% chance of winning and he did. That may seem ridiculous until you look at the number of state primaries and the last time the polling data swung that far and it was over 100 primaries ago which makes sense for a 1 in 100 chance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,032
Messages
55,462,784
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top