Trump Voters Really Were Putin's Puppets

[Linc]

The whole problem was the last election was between two very unpopular

I promise to respond to your very lengthy post when I get a bit more time brother Pero, but you know where I'm going. Aren't you looking forward to 62 more days of political ads out of Atlanta? I see where Limbaugh is broadcasting against Ossoff on 14 Georgia University radio stations.

For all those saying Ossoff underperformed based on Clinton's numbers, their missing one huge %. 4.87% of CD-6 did not vote for either trump or Clinton. That number is not taken into account in last night's results.

Ossoff raised another half million in small dollar amounts today, while the GOPs are badly bruised by the civil war between 4 candidates and their other civil war between trump PAC 45 and club for growth.

How about throwing us a bone and set up your Senate chart when you get a chance. I've got a lot done on the House but it's an enormous task, together with the governors and state legislatures .

 

[Fletch]

lol...if that's all you think was involved, this thread is definitely for you.

What else was there?

 

[Risky Thicket]

No, no, Bernie was actively engaged in it. He often and loudly complained at the unfairness of the process, highlighting for the press exactly how the DNC undermined the democratic process.

And he did visit Russia during the cold war. Hmmm, curiouser and curiouser.

Are you saying Bernie was wrong about the DNC? Do you mean the DNC didn't undermine the democratic process?

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Are you saying Bernie was wrong about the DNC? Do you mean the DNC didn't undermine the democratic process?

I am taking a very tongue-in-cheek approach to claims of Russian interference. I find it unlikely that those same complainers who believe Trump is a tool of the Russians would also say that Berie is as well... yet the subject of the OP would suggest the narrative from the Bernie camp is exactly what the Russian propagandists wanted to weaken confidence in the electoral system.

Basically, I'm saying that everyone is stupid, and nobody can pull back for the 5 seconds it takes realize the absurdity of it all.

 

[Linc]

Are you saying Bernie was wrong about the DNC? Do you mean the DNC didn't undermine the democratic process?

You know where I'm at on this RT. Sen. Sanders and DNC Chief Perez are on an 8-state tour to begin the next generation of DEMs fighting for all 50 states.

That is now becoming obvious with DEMs at least fighting in these special elections in KS, GA, SC and MT. You'll like Rob Quist in Montana .

 

[Linc]

The whole problem was the last election was between two very unpopular candidates that outside of their core supporters, most Americans didn't want either one to become the next president. But in our two party system, one had to win. If exit polls are to be believed, half of those who voted for trump where anti-Clinton voters. They didn't necessarily vote for Trump, any Tom, Dick or Harry would have done as long as it wasn't Hillary Clinton. If one breaks that down, that is 23% of the total electorate wanted Trump as their next president. Hillary was in better shape, 39% of those who voted for Clinton was an anti-Trump vote meaning that 30% of the total electorate wanted her as their next president. That is pitiful.

I'll answer your first paragraph with these %: 46% of 75 Millenials voted; 61% of 66 million gen Xers voted; 69% of 73 million boomers voted; 72% of 24 million elderly voted; numbers are approximate. So, the electoral college for Millenials had Clinton with over 500 EVs. GOTV .

 

[Perotista]

I promise to respond to your very lengthy post when I get a bit more time brother Pero, but you know where I'm going. Aren't you looking forward to 62 more days of political ads out of Atlanta? I see where Limbaugh is broadcasting against Ossoff on 14 Georgia University radio stations.

For all those saying Ossoff underperformed based on Clinton's numbers, their missing one huge %. 4.87% of CD-6 did not vote for either trump or Clinton. That number is not taken into account in last night's results.

Ossoff raised another half million in small dollar amounts today, while the GOPs are badly bruised by the civil war between 4 candidates and their other civil war between trump PAC 45 and club for growth.

How about throwing us a bone and set up your Senate chart when you get a chance. I've got a lot done on the House but it's an enormous task, together with the governors and state legislatures .

Much too early on the senate. On the house, I do think the Dems take it back because Trump is president and independents are coming off the fence against him or at least, don't approve of the job he is doing. The first midterm is usually about how one views the president. Ossoff had TV ads all over the place down here. I must have seen close to a hundred of his to none for any of the Republican candidates. I live south of Atlanta, but get all the Atlanta stations and CD-6 if just north of Atlanta.

You had over 200,000 vote in that special election which is really a bunch considering special elections usually draw less than 100,000 down here and runoffs are usually well below 50,000 What I hear through the grape vine is Ossoff will try to make the election about Trump while Handel will try to make it about Pelosi. In other words, nationalize it. If Ossoff can get the same type of turnout he got for this special election, he has a darn good chance. CD 6 is a republican district, Price won with 61% last November. But Price was much more popular than Trump there. There still is a lot of Republicans who don't care for Trump. Trump won Georgia, but other state wide Republicans did at least 5 points better than Trump. Perhaps reverse coat tails?

In CD-6 Trump has an approval rating of 51%, that is close to ten point higher than nationwide. But it will all boil down to turnout. Which side has the most motivation. I don't read too much into these special election this far out. Now if it were June of 2018 instead of 2017, then perhaps one ought to keep an eye on it.

I heard the Democrats spent 8 million dollars on ads for Ossoff. I haven't heard how much the Republicans spent. But judging from lack of political ads, probably not that much. I would throw in a word of caution. Coming as close as Ossoff did to winning right off, that may have shook the complacency of the Republicans off. If so, you're talking about a district that is roughly 3-2 Republican. Even with all the money Ossoff spent, remember the total vote across all eleven Republicans in the field was 51%, vs. 49% for the five Democrats. Handel was Secretary of state a while back, then she ran for Governor and later for senator, losing in the Republican primaries both times.

I like these jungle type elections and wish every election in Georgia was like that. I also like the runoffs if no candidate receives 50% plus one vote.

 

[eohrnberger]

How many years into Benghazi? No evidence of a crime.

One invented (Trump / Russian collusion). Other other not.

As I posted before, it is likely that the very weapons that were used in the Benghazi attack were the ones Hillary's State via the CIA sold to them, and this is what DC doesn't want to talk about. Who can blame them? That's all very embarrassing.

 

[Mario]

lol@Trumpy's Guppies

Turns out a Putin think tank hatched a plan to swing the presidential election toward Donald Trump by undermining faith in the electoral system. "It's rigged" ring a bell?

Nonsense.

 

[Fletch]

How many years into Benghazi? No evidence of a crime.

So your argument then is that since the republicans were foolish to chase a non-story for years, the democrats should engage in the same foolishness?

 

[Linc]

The whole problem was the last election was between two very unpopular candidates that outside of their core supporters, most Americans didn't want either one to become the next president. But in our two party system, one had to win. If exit polls are to be believed, half of those who voted for trump where anti-Clinton voters. They didn't necessarily vote for Trump, any Tom, Dick or Harry would have done as long as it wasn't Hillary Clinton. If one breaks that down, that is 23% of the total electorate wanted Trump as their next president. Hillary was in better shape, 39% of those who voted for Clinton was an anti-Trump vote meaning that 30% of the total electorate wanted her as their next president. That is pitiful.

According to Gallup 25% of all Americans held negative views of both Trump and Clinton and didn't want either one. But it was this group that gave the election to Trump. They went 47-30 voting for Trump with 23% voting third party. Strange that it was those who didn't want either one to be the next president had the final say in who would be the next president.

This last election was all about whom one wanted to lose than whom one wanted to win. That and this is what happens when both parties ignore Americans as a whole. One last stat that I really found interesting. Remember the jury rigged Democratic primaries in Clinton's favor. Those who supported Sanders during the primary voted for Clinton by a 65-22 margin with 13% voting third party. Compare that to the Democratic base which went for Clinton 89-8 with 3% voting third Party. That isn't counting how many there were of Sanders supporters who stayed home. If Sanders supporters voted in the same numbers as the Democratic base did, Hillary would be president today. Kind of the jury rigged Democratic primaries coming back to haunt.

Because of choices the two major parties made and how they made them, we now have a thin skinned, egotistical opportunist as president. Too darn bad one or the other major political party couldn't have offered up a decent candidate. So we have what we have. The loser of the unpopularity contest, least not wanted presidential candidate is now president. Not one we wanted, but the least non-wanted one..

I'm being pretty careful to not relitigate 2016 in any way except to learn from the past. No need to get into a pissing contest with anyone that may eventually vote my way, until I perish.

You're forgetting to state that all DEM primaries and caucuses were proportional, unlike so many of the GOP primaries that were winner take all, allowing plurality candidate trump to win.

GOPrimaries are like the electoral college. DEM primaries are like the total popular vote. Remember in 1969 when Congress almost killed the electoral college ?

 

[Linc]

So your argument then is that since the republicans were foolish to chase a non-story for years, the democrats should engage in the same foolishness?

And your argument is that Democrats should take the high road and the GOP should get away with taking the low road. Americans agrees with you.

Americans expect better from DEMs. Such as a positive, issue-oriented campaign from a pragmatic moderate .

 

[Linc]

Much too early on the senate. On the house, I do think the Dems take it back because Trump is president and independents are coming off the fence against him or at least, don't approve of the job he is doing. The first midterm is usually about how one views the president. Ossoff had TV ads all over the place down here. I must have seen close to a hundred of his to none for any of the Republican candidates. I live south of Atlanta, but get all the Atlanta stations and CD-6 if just north of Atlanta.

You had over 200,000 vote in that special election which is really a bunch considering special elections usually draw less than 100,000 down here and runoffs are usually well below 50,000 What I hear through the grape vine is Ossoff will try to make the election about Trump while Handel will try to make it about Pelosi. In other words, nationalize it. If Ossoff can get the same type of turnout he got for this special election, he has a darn good chance. CD 6 is a republican district, Price won with 61% last November. But Price was much more popular than Trump there. There still is a lot of Republicans who don't care for Trump. Trump won Georgia, but other state wide Republicans did at least 5 points better than Trump. Perhaps reverse coat tails?

In CD-6 Trump has an approval rating of 51%, that is close to ten point higher than nationwide. But it will all boil down to turnout. Which side has the most motivation. I don't read too much into these special election this far out. Now if it were June of 2018 instead of 2017, then perhaps one ought to keep an eye on it.

I heard the Democrats spent 8 million dollars on ads for Ossoff. I haven't heard how much the Republicans spent. But judging from lack of political ads, probably not that much. I would throw in a word of caution. Coming as close as Ossoff did to winning right off, that may have shook the complacency of the Republicans off. If so, you're talking about a district that is roughly 3-2 Republican. Even with all the money Ossoff spent, remember the total vote across all eleven Republicans in the field was 51%, vs. 49% for the five Democrats. Handel was Secretary of state a while back, then she ran for Governor and later for senator, losing in the Republican primaries both times.

I like these jungle type elections and wish every election in Georgia was like that. I also like the runoffs if no candidate receives 50% plus one vote.

Ossoff raised $8.3 M and spent $6.1 M of it according to the The Green Papers: United States Off Year Election 2017 ;one of my top two sites; GOPs spent at least $4 M of dark sleazy money to smear Ossoff. Ossoff raised 500k in just one day today and will be back up on air tomorrow; I'll be sending a Bernie type donation to him; already sent one to Quist in MT;

DEMs are going national and it's about time; Ossoff has a positive message compared to the way GOPs slammed each other as well as slammed Ossoff; it's all they know how to do; when the KS race got close, the GOP sent in a few million in smear ads; that **** isn't going to work next year with the albatross trump AND the worthless GOP congress .

 

[sanman]

Haha, I was just reading that the latest popularity survey among Democrats which shows that Bernie Sanders is the most popular Democrat leader in the entire party! This is a guy who took vacations in Moscow, for ****'s sakes - he's a real Red Square intellectual - and then you Lib-Dem-Lefties have the audacity to accuse the other side of being Putin's puppets! What a damn joke!

 

[Moot]

Haha, I was just reading that the latest popularity survey among Democrats which shows that Bernie Sanders is the most popular Democrat leader in the entire party! This is a guy who took vacations in Moscow, for ****'s sakes - he's a real Red Square intellectual - and then you Lib-Dem-Lefties have the audacity to accuse the other side of being Putin's puppets! What a damn joke!

Hmmm....maybe that's why Clinton won the nomination instead of Bernie. Because if Bernie had won then the Russians wouldn't know which puppet to to support...Trump or Bernie. But truth be known..I think they preferred Trump all along....

"...A Russian government think tank controlled by Vladimir Putin developed a plan to swing the 2016 U.S. presidential election to Donald Trump and undermine voters’ faith in the American electoral system, three current and four former U.S. officials told Reuters...."

Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - documents | Reuters​

 

[sanman]

Hmmm....maybe that's why Clinton won the nomination instead of Bernie. Because if Bernie had won then the Russians wouldn't know which puppet to to support...Trump or Bernie. But truth be known..I think they preferred Trump all along....

Huh? Putin wanted Clinton to beat Bernie because then at least non-puppet Clinton would have a chance at winning the Whitehouse?!?!

If Putin was really engaged in this nefarious scheme to capture the Whitehouse, then it would be in his interest to make sure puppets won the nomination for BOTH parties - in which case, Putin would have ensured Bernie beat Hillary. But what we saw instead were Democrat operatives like Donna Brazille giving debate questions to Hillary behind the scenes, as well as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz also tilting towards Hillary.

Oh hey - but now you can make the excuse that Donna and Debbie were actually patriotic heroes protecting America from Putin, by helping Clinton beat Bernie! :roll:

 

[Fletch]

And your argument is that Democrats should take the high road and the GOP should get away with taking the low road. Americans agrees with you.

Americans expect better from DEMs. Such as a positive, issue-oriented campaign from a pragmatic moderate .

Looks like Americans are going to be disappointed.

 

[Moot]

Huh? Putin wanted Clinton to beat Bernie because then at least non-puppet Clinton would have a chance at winning the Whitehouse?!?!

Well, if Clinton won the nomination and Putin doesn't like Clinton and not all leftist are Bernie supporters...then why would that make the left hypocrites for criticizing Trump's ties to Russia? That was your premise, wasn't it?

If Putin was really engaged in this nefarious scheme to capture the Whitehouse, then it would be in his interest to make sure puppets won the nomination for BOTH parties - in which case, Putin would have ensured Bernie beat Hillary. But what we saw instead were Democrat operatives like Donna Brazille giving debate questions to Hillary behind the scenes, as well as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz also tilting towards Hillary.

Oh hey - but now you can make the excuse that Donna and Debbie were actually patriotic heroes protecting America from Putin, by helping Clinton beat Bernie! :roll:

Not necessarily. Bernie went to Russia on his honeymoon in the 1980s (?) and hasn't been there in decades...whereas, Trump has been schmoozing with Russian oligarchs close to Putin for the last 10 or 15 years or so. Putin really likes leaders that are businessmen because he thinks they're easier to negotiate with than politicians...and both Bernie and Clinton are politicians, not businessmen.

There's plenty of threads about the DNC hacking...so I don't think it necessary to go into here suffice it to say the Russians are playing you for a dupe. :roll:

 

[calamity]

How many years into Benghazi? No evidence of a crime.

Benghazi was the trial balloon to see just how gullible the guppies really were. And, it flew quite high.

 

[rocket88]

So your argument then is that since the republicans were foolish to chase a non-story for years, the democrats should engage in the same foolishness?

It's called politics. If Trump can't take it he could have stayed in real estate. I've heard he was fairly successful.

But thanks for admitting that Benghazi was a non-story.

 

[rocket88]

Hillary didn't commit any crimes IE Benghazi BUT she proved herself to be a liar, even if it wasn't under oath. The Benghazi hearings also brought out the fact that she was using a private server and, while she never faced any charges for that either, it gave her two black eyes and proved all over again that she was a habitual liar. And this is the heir apparent nominee the Democrats chose for the top of the ticket.

Oh sure, but it was a long partisan witch hunt.

 

[rocket88]

Looks like Americans are going to be disappointed.

Of course, there is a party that could end all the investigations....

Clearly, someone on that side thinks it's worth the trouble.

 

[Perotista]

I'll answer your first paragraph with these %: 46% of 75 Millenials voted; 61% of 66 million gen Xers voted; 69% of 73 million boomers voted; 72% of 24 million elderly voted; numbers are approximate. So, the electoral college for Millenials had Clinton with over 500 EVs. GOTV .

True enough, but it seems those in the 18-29 age group, quite a lot change their voting habits over time. If not the Democrats would have 60% or about of all Americans affiliating with their party.

Age Group 18-29 according to Roper, only the two major parties with the third party vote making up the rest to come to 100%.
2016 Clinton 55 Trump 36
2012 Obama 60 Romney 37
2008 Obama 66 McCain 32
2004 Kerry 56 Bush 43

Obama twice and Kerry did better among the 18-29 year olds than Hillary Clinton did. Trump's 36% was better than only McCain among this age group. But carrying on.

2000 Gore 49 Bush 46
1996 Clinton 55 Dole 35
1992 Clinton 46 Bush 33
1988 Dukakis 47 Bush 53

We have to go back to 1988 before any Republican candidate won the 18-29 age group.

1984 Mondale 43 Reagan 57
1980 Carter 44 Reagan 44
1976 Carter 56 Ford 44

As you can see, the Democratic candidates have won the 18-29 age group 8 out of 11 elections, Republicans only twice with one tie. The Democratic candidates have won this age group the last seven elections in a row. Although they won four of the seven. So it is easy to deduce as a lot of these 18-29 year olds grow older, they change from democrat to republican. They lose their college induced mind set and have to face the real world. Without their changing political persuasions, any Democratic candidate today would always get around 60% of the vote if they held true to their 18-29 voting habits.

 

[Moderate Right]

Oh sure, but it was a long partisan witch hunt.

I don't deny that it was a partisan witch hunt but it did bring out her character flaws and the fact that she was untrustworthy. I don't blame the left for wanting paybacks but they should at least be man or woman enough to admit that the crap they spew is just partisan payback and not substantial. On top of that, they need to admit to their hypocrisy for saying that, "when they go low, we go high", because they are not going high. They are getting down in the mud just like the other side did.

 

[Perotista]

Ossoff raised $8.3 M and spent $6.1 M of it according to the The Green Papers: United States Off Year Election 2017 ;one of my top two sites; GOPs spent at least $4 M of dark sleazy money to smear Ossoff. Ossoff raised 500k in just one day today and will be back up on air tomorrow; I'll be sending a Bernie type donation to him; already sent one to Quist in MT;

DEMs are going national and it's about time; Ossoff has a positive message compared to the way GOPs slammed each other as well as slammed Ossoff; it's all they know how to do; when the KS race got close, the GOP sent in a few million in smear ads; that **** isn't going to work next year with the albatross trump AND the worthless GOP congress .

Unless the economy begins to boom, Trump is indeed an albatross around the GOP's neck. 4 million for the GOP, I wonder where they spent it, certainly not on political ads for any candidate. Maybe mailers and radio. But about the only TV political ads I seen were for Ossoff. Lots of them. But I didn't follow this race at all. One of 435 means little when the GOP has a 24 or so seat majority in the House. What is interesting, if Ossoff wins, he would be the only Democratic congressman Georgia has who isn't black, majority minority districts or touching Atlanta, Fulton and Dekalb counties.