>>21303
>All the guests were women and majority American.
Bloody women. Bloody yanks. Burn the loty of them, I say.

It was godawful. I turned it off after 15 minutes.

>>21304

>All the guests were women and majority American

That buck-toothed one on the far left does make me think of insurgencies in the Golden Crescent IYKWIM.

>misogyny
Kind of funny given that Franky Boyle was kicked off Mock The Week for making fun of that female Olympic swimmer. I guess the BBC are forgiving.

Mock The Week has never been the same without him.

It started as the usual 'The wrong candidate won' sour grapes, and moved into all men are bastards and the reason hillary didn't win had to be because of crypto misogyny in the middle.

>>21308
He was great fun on Mock The Week. He started to get irritating and shit around the time he started making everything politicised.

I laughed a few times. Even at a few of the women's jokes. It did feel like they were deadweight compared to Boyle though.

Didn't like Osman's defence of... Whatever it was. The fact it's American is enough to confirm it was indefensible and he was wrong, anyway.

It could've been harsher on Clinton, I feel.

>>21303

I thought it wasn't too bad.

>All the guests were women and majority American

How dare they have Americans on a show discussing the American election. And no, the majority weren't American since Katherine Ryan is Canadian.

>Some topics included misogyny
The misogyny section was justified because there were a lot of voters who felt that, they would not be told what to do by a woman and hence would not vote for Clinton, especially after having a black president which they didn't like. Also because of Trump's views on women.

>>21311
Watched it a few weeks ago, think he defended Hollywood produced media. Apart from that, Osman provided useful insight. Yeah agreed, they could have criticized Clinton more.

>>21313
>The misogyny section was justified because there were a lot of voters who felt that, they would not be told what to do by a woman and hence would not vote for Clinton, especially after having a black president which they didn't like. Also because of Trump's views on women.

Seeing posts like this always makes me laugh. I normally only see them anywhere else in the guise of satire, but you really believe this horseshit don't you? The only reason Clinton could have lost was because of a bunch of *isms. What a complete berk you, and the entire crowd of people who think this way are. This thinking is why she lost.

But keep calling everyone names, sure that will bring them round to your side.

>>21314
>Seeing posts like this always makes me laugh.
Not him, but I'm glad reality amuses you so. You can go back to sucking Milo's cock now.

>>21315

Lets not pretend she didn't actively fuck herself over. Even if the whole email server thing was totally innocent and you accept her version of events entirely.

At the very least She displayed a level of incomptance and ignorance that you don't want in your commander-in-chief.

Only Hilary could make Donald Trump electable. All she needed to do to win was not look fucking awful and she couldn't even do that.

>>21316
The only one pretending here is you, pretending that Hillary was apparently the dirty one. They were both ear-deep in it.

>>21317
I don't think you even know what you are fighting against. I don't even like Trump.

I just think Hilary looked fucking awful, and any other cadidate would have beaten Trump.

>>21319
>I just think Hilary looked fucking awful, and any other cadidate would have beaten Trump.
You're just looking for excuses, and you're underestimating both his lack of shame and the stupidity of the electorate. Given that what resonated with the Rust Belt voters was the lies he was feeding them rather than anything to do with the scandals, it's not all that clear that "anyone but Hillary" is tenable.

Also, learn to spell, you dullard.

It's fantastic that you cunts can even manage to turn this thread into /pol/. Wankers.

Boyle has been on the downswing for years now, both his "Autopsy" shows and his last Netflix-only gig were all terrible. It's not just the faux-intellectual politicking, the constant apologies for being (mildly) offensive, or the fact that he keeps rehashing the same shit jokes he's been using for years; rather it's the blatantly obvious fact that he just doesn't want to be there. He always looks like he's about a hair's breadth away from having a full on mental breakdown and/or stroke. I don't know whether the price of street Valium has gone up a lot in Scotland or if he has a hell of a lot of child support to pay but whatever's compelling him to keep on churning out this shite must be pretty terrible.

>>21320
>it's not all that clear that "anyone but Hillary" is tenable.
It's pretty clear when you look at the voter turnout. The democrats lost something like 5 million votes compared to the past few elections. Especially when you look at certain states which used to be strongly democratic.

>>21320

>it's not all that clear that "anyone but Hillary" is tenable

Sanders also had a lot of white working class support, which would've ate into Trump's numbers.

>>21323
Bernie was more popular with middle class "latte liberal" whites, he would only have gotten more votes in irrelevant states like the New England region.

>>21324

It's interesting then that in all the states that Hillary should have won to stop Donald like Michigan and Penn, Bernie won the primaries and won wih the working class white vote.

How interesting.

>>21325
I somehow doubt a candidate that says to your face "You can't be poor if you're white" would win over said demographic. It's the self-defeating problem of nu-leftism, where working class whites are considered worse than shit, hardly surprising they said "fuck you" and voted Trump, like Michael Moore predicted.

You never, EVER shittalk your voters, Romney did it, he lost, Hillary did it, she lost, Bernie did it, he lost.

>>21322
>It's pretty clear when you look at the voter turnout. The democrats lost something like 5 million votes compared to the past few elections.
Last time I checked, 65 minus 64 was not 5.

>Especially when you look at certain states which used to be strongly democratic.
Look at the demographic breakdown. Blacks weren't enthusiastic. Blue-collar workers switched.

>>21323
>Sanders also had a lot of white working class support
... which are precisely the voters that swallowed the lies. When they were asked why they were voting for Trump, the answer wasn't that they distrusted Hillary. It was that they liked Trump and his positions.

>>21326
Bernie didn't lose because of "shittalking his voters", what are you on about?

>>21327
>When they were asked why they were voting for Trump, the answer wasn't that they distrusted Hillary. It was that they liked Trump and his positions.
The positions they liked weren't fundamentally "Trumpist" . Bernie could make the attack on the banks from the left, but Clinton, with her Goldman Sachs speeches and record on financial regulation, could not. Bernie could talk about the impact od trade deals on employment, but Clinton, whose husband signed NAFTA, couldn't. Etc. Etc.

The "positions" of Trump's that people went for werent wedded to any specific ideology, but to disillusionment with the established political class. Clinton was the exact worst candidate imagineable in this election, given this fact.

>>21326

The classic 'I'm guessing what I think is right' britfa.gs poster type strikes again.

>Compared with 2008, Mrs. Clinton won far fewer rural counties with lots of white, non-Hispanic residents. She also won fewer college towns. Those results, along with her struggle to beat Mr. Sanders among white voters overall, could suggest a weakness in the general election. Republicans tend to win white voters, and presumed GOP nominee Donald Trump is particularly strong among lower-income white voters.


http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/

I can't imagine what it's like to spend all my time arguing on the internet about something I've just made up in my head and hope that nobody calls me out on it.

Politics is boring.

>>21329
Oh look, another bumsore Berniebro.

The positions weren't "Trumpist" because there was and still is no such thing as "Trumpism" - he was making shit up to garner votes, and the electorate were daft enough for it to work. It wouldn't have mattered who he was up against.

Those blue-collar voters didn't turn away from someone who had nothing to offer them. They enthusiastically turned towards someone who was promising to fix things for them.

>but to disillusionment with the established political class
So someone who has been in Washington for almost 30 years would have been a poor choice. Pic related.

>>21332

It's weird that you're peddling this when evidence to the contrary shows the complete opposite.

Clinton had a huge turnout and domination with the rich, older white people and black people of all ages and socio-economic classes.

Stop talking shite.

>>21328
It sure is fun to deny reality, less fun to keep it up when electoral defeat comes knocking.


>>21330
You're operating on the assumption that Bernard Gutman would've been able to actually hold Trump's feet to the fire in the debates, given that he just handed his podium over to a couple of rampaging sheboons and liked Hillary's feet half the time during the primaries "We're sick of hearing about those damn emails!" I sincerely doubt you can extract anything from those polls, also, polls? In a universe where Trump won Wisconsin despite being Hillary being 8 points up? There's a 3000 post thread here where you've been "guessing what you think is right" and proved wrong at every single turn.

It's obvious he would've fucked it up, he's cut from the same cloth as Corbyn,

>>21331
I'd have agreed with you a couple years ago.

>>21332
>The positions weren't "Trumpist" because there was and still is no such thing as "Trumpism"
Yes, hence the quotation marks.

>Those blue-collar voters didn't turn away from someone who had nothing to offer them. They enthusiastically turned towards someone who was promising to fix things for them.
And Bernie likewise had a message of change, whereas Clinton essentially ran an "Obama's 3rd term" campaign.

>someone who has been in Washington for almost 30 years would have been a poor choice
The concept of a political establishment is a little bit deeper than just "people who have been involved in politics for a long time", my friend.

>>21333
>>21335
Keep on denying, Berniebros. I'm sure all that pent up emotion will make Trump cave in and appoint Sanders the new God-King.

>>21333
>It's weird that you're peddling this when evidence to the contrary shows the complete opposite.
Feel free to show us your evidence that blue-collar voters were voting against Clinton rather than voting for Trump, because literally every opinion I've heard from blue-collar voters in the Rust Belt was the latter.

>>21336

I remember this lad posting here before the election: It doesn't matter what you say, Clinton is a saint, Trump Beelzebub and Sanders' Satan. It doesn't matter that the first was rotten and friendly with war criminals (Sharon to Kissinger and the House of Saud), the second will have to work bloody hard to match her record of corruption, and the last would've certainly won the White House if he wasn't undermined by Clinton Ltd. and the DNC.

It's odd because I would've expected Correct The Record to have closed shop by now? Or perhaps we're just unfortunate enough to be burdened with some poor sap who succumbed to the bullshit he was peddling?

>>21336
I don't really understand what you're accusing me of denying here.

>>21339
Reality, mainly. Just keep on believing the drivel about the white working class hating Clinton. Obviously that's why they voted for Trump. It couldn't possibly be that they preferred what Trump was selling, because if that were the case it would undermine your faith in the One True Saviour who definitely would have won if the primaries hadn't been knobbled, and we can't be having that, can we?

>>21338
That's it, bro. Your denial brings Bernie one step closer to the Presidency. Keep it up!

>>21340
What are you talking about? You're addressing arguments that nobody in this thread has made.

>>21340

>because if that were the case it would undermine your faith in the One True Saviour who definitely would have won if the primaries hadn't been knobbled, and we can't be having that, can we?

Ah, I get it now, you're not shilling after all. You're just one of those odd people who have come to hate those who try to fix shitty situations rather than those who exacerbate them.

And, yeah, just how dare they? Don't they know that in this world we're all alone, and all things are descending, logically, into an entropic void? It's utopian tosh to think you - or anyone - can stop it. Besides, all that matters is my will to Übermenschhood (or whatever Schopenhauer's variant of it was).

In other words, mate, you're a cock.

>>21342

He does that a lot. In his own mind, he's up on the crest of some sun-beamed, blood-soaked hill, slicing through hoards of Guardianistas coming at him with explosive sun-dried tomatoes and Gerry Adam's facial hair. Wagner is probably booming in the background too.

It doesn't matter, to him at least, that he's missing the point again and again.

>>21344
Mind if I burrow you tomorrow? We've got an important meeting but our projector's on the blink.

>>21337
Ah yes, it's well known that people are completely self-aware and conscious of how their opinions are formed. It's definitely not possible that they believe they voted "positively" for Trump, while actually having taken a journey that began with a distaste for Hillary and snowballed.

I'm glad Sanders lost the primaries. Sanders was an idiot to position himself as a socialist when he was a social-democrat (amongst other things.) but much more importantly: People like Clinton need to lose elections to drive the point home. A Sanders victory against Trump was too far from certain to be worth banking on, and if he lost that would give the old narrative of "Socialist loses" instead of the more appropriate "Managerial dynasty politician loses." which actually holds hope of making sure people like Clinton (either of them, while we're at it, but at least Bill was charming.) never dare stand again.

The point I'm actually making, and not the tangent I'm typing, is that most people are less self aware than the average cat. and I'd speculate it's worst amongst the poor because of different social norms for bullshit: the rich need to be vaguely self aware so that they're not judged gauche for holding their spoon wrong. At least cats look indignant when they've made a tit of themselves. People just keep going. Like me, Now.

MEOW.

>>21345

>Mind if I burrow you tomorrow? We've got an important meeting but our projector's on the blink

If it's anything like that "come-back", you're better off investing in a new one entirely. Not amount of tinkering will get it to work.

>>21346
>Managerial dynasty politician
Oh, it's you again.

>>21342
Erm, are you looking at the right thread? See >>21316, >>21323, >>21325, >>21329 and >>21335.

>>21348
Who?

I'm not sure what there is to object to in the claim that she's
Managerial: https://www.ft.com/content/3b323e04-9b8b-11e6-8f9b-70e3cabccfae ("Managerial" appears 3 times)
Part of a Dynasty: https://www.ft.com/content/d6274d3c-5091-11e5-b029-b9d50a74fd14 (While "Dynasty" doesn't appear, Dynas* appears 5 times - 4 "Dynasties" and one "Dynastic")
I trust you can do without any citation on her being a politician.

>>21350

Everyone knows the FT is staffed almost exclusively by the sort of people who read Noam Chomsky while on the bog.

>>21351

Well he did do some very interesting work applying set theory to language.

>>21349
Not only am I looking at the thread, I'm reading it. You should try that before you're tempted to post again.

>>21350
Wait, you mean we've had more than one nutter that witters on about "managerial politicians" and how they and their system need to burn to the ground? I honestly didn't think this site was that popular outside of its usual beefy niche.

>>21353
So you'll have seen those half a dozen posts where the argument you claim was never made was actually made then?

>>21354
I'd wager at least 70% of this site is familiar with Adam Curtis, a man who uses "managerial" like a Scotsman uses "bastirt" and an Australian uses "cunt", so I'm not sure why this would come as a surprise.

>>21356
I posted a couple of the posts you referred to, and I'm telling you that if you think that argument was being made, you are incorrect.

So many amazing photos coming out of the Trumpening.

>>21359

>>21359
>>21360


Fucking brilliant.

>>21358
Do feel free to explain how you come to think that "Bernie could have won" somehow doesn't require "those voters didn't like Hillary".

>>21359
At this stage I honestly don't know which way he's covering up. Is he trying to hide his genuine unease, or is he trying to look uneasy to hide that their disagreement boiled down to the whitest beef ever and they were both playing to the crowd?

>>21363
Mitt attacked him pretty harshly, harder than he hit Obama at any rate. Trump's probably just going to have some fun with him before he tosses him into the ashbin of history, along with the Bushes.

>>21364
I can't help but think that Mitt was just playing to the gallery, though. He did seem to have a bit of a smirk going on whenever he was attacking The Donald, but that said Mormons are notoriously cheerful.

>>21363
The cautionary post written about Ed Miliband and the media's selection of pictures that fit the desired narrative probably applies. There were certainly jovial and friendly moments when Obama hosted Trump at the White House and the usual suspects went with the frosty pictures.

>>21362
Again:

Hillary's pitch was that she would continue the Obama years. See her response to Trump's whole "make America great again" theme: she responded that "America is already great". Instead of offering an alternative solution to the problems that Trump talked about, she mostly refused to engage with them, or at most said that Trump wasn't the right person to address them, again without offering any substantive counter.

In a way, she couldn't believably talk about how she was going to address them, because she had been intimately involved in the last two Democratic administration. Her husband signed NAFTA and Gramm–Leach–Bailey, she was a prolific establishment senator and ally of Wall St. in the years leading up to the GFC, she was a key player in the Obama administration's overseas misadventures. If she gave any serious acknowledgement of the issues facing America and Americans, she immediately opened herself up to attacks on her role in creating them.

Sanders did not have that constraint, and could have (and undoubtedly would have) run a campaign that put those issues, and his preferred solutions, front and centre instead of cynically asking the American public "what else are you going to do, vote for Donald Trump?".

>>21367
>Sanders did not have that constraint, and could have (and undoubtedly would have) run a campaign that put those issues, and his preferred solutions
... and unless they were only voting Trump because they didn't like Clinton, he'd still have lost. On the messages they responded to, Trump was offering them far more than Sanders. Sanders offered criticism, Trump offered action. Sanders said it wasn't fair that jobs were being moved to Mexico. Trump said he'd not only stop jobs being moved to Mexico, but also bring jobs back to the US. Things like that matter, even if the promises are unrealistic. (Case-in-point: He's already walked back on most of them.) If Sanders wasn't going to win them over on message, the only way he was going to do it was if the voters simply didn't like the candidate they'd been given, and all the evidence suggests that the association simply wasn't that weak. Those voters weren't regretfully voting against Clinton. They were enthusiastically voting in favour of Trump.

In hindsight, Trump's appeal to those voters is undeniable, except apparently to the Berniebros who seem intent on continuing to deny it. For all the talk of Sanders being almost certain to defeat Trump, remember that when the polls opened on election morning, Clinton was almost certain to defeat Trump. The final polling averages in some states missed the result by more than the supposed margin of error. That's for actual polls - I daresay the hypothetical polls will have missed even harder.

But by all means continue to deny reality. Continue to argue that Sanders could have won even in the face of all the evidence. That's definitely going to achieve something.

>>21368
>and unless they were only voting Trump because they didn't like Clinton, he'd still have lost.
You keep saying this but that doesn't make it true. You don't seem to understand that the pool of people who could potentially have been persuaded to vote Democrat includes many more people who didn't vote than people who voted Trump.

>Sanders offered criticism, Trump offered action
Of course, I remember how Sanders would end every speech on, say, income inequality with "... but I don't intend to do anything about it". The fuck are you talking about?

>Continue to argue that Sanders could have won even in the face of all the evidence. That's definitely going to achieve something.
Mate, I don't argue with people on this website because I think I'm "achieving something". If you do, you should really take a good long look at yourself.

>>21368
>Berniebros
The democrats deserved to lose for creating this meme alone.

>>21369
>You keep saying this but that doesn't make it true.
Nice meme, m7. You can bleat about it all you like but the fact remains that it is indisputably true. You can make as many excuses as you like. The simple fact of the matter is that the constituency the Democrats needed to vote for their candidate not only didn't, they openly embranced their opponent. End of story.

>You don't seem to understand that the pool of people who could potentially have been persuaded to vote Democrat includes many more people who didn't vote than people who voted Trump.
Well that's all right then. If Bernie couldn't win by persuading the people that were going to vote Trump, maybe he could have persuaded a bunch of new voters to come to the polls. Feel free to make some suggestions. FWIW, where Clinton really suffered with turnout was among black working-class voters, but it turns out there aren't that many of those in the Rust Belt. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are 85% white.

>I remember how Sanders would end every speech on, say, income inequality
You mean those speeches on issues like income inequality and student debt that mainly middle-class voters care about? Middle-class voters that in those states were already going to vote Democratic? While Trump was literally promising the working class he was going to bring their jobs back?

>The fuck are you talking about?
Your inability to read beyond the bits you want to quote.

>>21371
I'm not sure even you know what the actual case you're making is at this point. You're positively manic for someone casting accusations of "pent up emotion".

>>21372
If you weren't such a daft cunt, you'd have noticed it was that the idea of "Bernie would have won" is bollocks and anyone who believes it is either deluding themselves or in denial. It's just like the Corbynistas who seem insistent that their man is totally electable and is going to win in 2020, despite the party having substantially underperformed under his stewardship.

>>21373
Log off the computer and have a nice sleep mate, you seem like you need it.

>>21375
Again with the projection, lad?

>>21376

It was a different lad, lad.

Your projection come-back only really works when the person targeted is projecting and not, as is the case here, simply taken aback at the absurdity of an infuriated finger-painter. One who believes his incoherent and repetitive attacks against "the Guardianistas" on an obscure imageboard really, like really, matter.

Hope you had a good nap.

>>21377
I'm sorry that you find reality absurd.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/the_myth_of_the_rust_belt_revolt.html

>In the Rust Belt 5, the GOP’s pickup of voters making $50,000 or less is overshadowed by the Democrats’ dramatic loss of voters in that category.

>Compared with Republicans’ performance in 2012, the GOP in the Rust Belt 5 picked up 335,000 additional voters who earned less than $50,000 (+10.6 percent). But the Republicans’ gain in this area was nothing compared with the Democrats’ loss of 1.17 million (-21.7 percent) voters in the same income category. Likewise, Republicans picked up a measly 26,000 new voters in the $50–$100K bracket (+0.7 percent), but Democrats lost 379,000 voters in the same bracket (-11.7 percent).

Well would you look at that, seems like Mr "voters didn't just not turn out for Hillary, they switched to Trump" was totally fucking wrong. I'm sure he'll be along to admit as much shortly.

>>21379
Those cherries look awfully sweet. Shame they included Ohio and Iowa. They're purple states that have been getting redder for the past eight years. If you look at the numbers just for Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, it's clear that Clinton's lost vote alone only flips Wisconsin. In the other two, even with all those lost votes, Trump doesn't win without attracting a big chunk of them. Therefore, Trump won because voters actively turned towards him.

>>21380
>Clinton's lost vote alone only flips Wisconsin. In the other two, even with all those lost votes, Trump doesn't win without attracting a big chunk of them
Trump won Pennsylvania because of Obama voters crossing over, eh? Might want to check those numbers again mate.

>>21380
>Those cherries look awfully sweet. Shame they included Ohio and Iowa. They're purple states that have been getting redder for the past eight years
Sorry, how do you imagine that the inclusion of Ohio and Iowa distorts the stats, exactly?

>>21381
I don't know. I mean, when I was at school, 2.68 million was definitely less than 2.86 million, but then I suppose with this post-truth thing maybe numbers don't work like they used to.

>>21382
>They're purple states that have been getting redder for the past eight years.

>>21384
I'm not asking you to repeat yourself, I'm asking you to clarify.

>>21383
Oh dear. You really need your hand held here, huh?

Look at how many voters the Democrats lost from 2012 to 2016. Compare that to the number the Republicans gained.

>>21385
What's to clarify? OH and IA were purply-red states which even before the campaign people were expecting to vote Republican. MI, PA and WI were solid blue states which the polls put around 5-6 points in favour of the Democrats. Politically they're apples and oranges.

>>21386
Wow, you're right. Around 150k people that voted for Obama must have just not voted at all, and the 250k additional voters Trump must have all not voted last time. Clearly absolutely none of them were swayed from one side to the other, and this article is full of scurrilous lies:
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/10/12/nearly-100000-pennsylvania-voters-switch-from-democrat-to-republican/

>>21388
No, the article isn't full of lies, you just don't understand it. It'ss about party registration, not presidential votes. Being a registered Democrat is not the same thing at all as being a 2012 Obama voter.

>>21387
>Politically they're apples and oranges.
They are part of the rust belt. This conversation has been about the rust belt.

>>21390
>They are part of the rust belt.
So are Illinois and Indiana. Yet they're not included in the aggregation.

>>21392
Because they weren't battlegrounds and they didn't flip from 2012. Therefore they aren't relevant to the subject of the article, which is why rust belt states flipped. Seriously, lad, how are you this dense?

>>21391
I think you're the one that doesn't understand it if that's your response. Following your post to its logical conclusion, party registration doesn't matter and those 100,000 registered Democrats voted for Romney. I wouldn't go so far as to say that outcome is entirely impossible, but it's rather unlikely.

>>21393
Well that's all right then. It's fine to lump together two completely different groups of states as long as they meet some arbitrary criterion such as whether they flipped.

And yet you think I'm dense.

>>21394
There are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans in Oklahoma. Oklahoma has voted for a Democratic president precisely once since 1948.

Registration matters, but it's not a proxy for voting intentions by any means.

>>21395
It's not an arbitrary criteria, it's the entire point of the fucking article.

>>21396
>There are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans in Oklahoma.
Well, yes, when you put it in a misleading fashion like that, then you would find it difficult to use it as a proxy. Thankfully, it turns out that people that deal with this stuff for a living aren't quite as dense and acknowledge that party registration is, in fact, a good proxy for actual votes if you know how to use it. And they know that spouting lines like that one is not using it properly.

>It's not an arbitrary criteria, it's the entire point of the fucking article.
Erm, if it's "the entire point of the fucking article" then by definition it is arbitrary. Alternatively, if you want to use the "other" arbitrary, then given that the two groups of states are politically very different, the choice to lump them all together rather than treat them separately was by definition arbitrary.

Put it this way: lumping OH/IA together with MI/PA/WI and drawing conclusions from the whole is like taking the UK as a whole and saying the swing from Labour to the SNP was only 0.8%.

>>21397
Looking at data from rust belt states which flipped from Obama to Trump is not an arbitrary criterion to use when examining the reasons behind rust belt states flipping from Obama to Trump. If you're going to continue to claim it is, you're either trolling or powerfully stupid. In any case, you aren't worth talking to.

>>21383
>post-truth thing
Yeah, because politics has always been a paragon of honesty. It's only since ~2012 that this whole post-truth business came about. Before that everyone was unfailingly honest.

Peace in our time. I am NOT a crook. Saddam is ready to fire chemical weapons at us in 5 minutes.

>>21399
I can't speak for anything else, but certainly in 2012 I don't recall any politician disputing the order on the natural numbers.

>>21398
>Looking at data from rust belt states which flipped from Obama to Trump is not an arbitrary criterion to use
Nobody said that. I said that aggregating them was arbitrary. I'm sure all three of us would agree that there's nothing wrong with looking at people's genitals, but I'm sure we'd also agree that taking the population as a whole and conclusion that on average we've got one ball each isn't reasonable.

In Iowa, Clinton received over 20% fewer votes than Obama did. In Ohio, she dropped over 400k. These two states represent more votes lost than the other three put together, and they were states that were expected to flip. Obama carrying Ohio a second time was itself unexpected - when the networks called it, the Romney camp called in to complain because their numbers were telling them otherwise, and Karl Rove memorably went into meltdown on live television. Nobody genuinely expected the other three to flip, not even in Trump's own campaign. Those two groups don't belong together as an aggregate.

>>21401
Happily, you can look through them state by state to see how wrong you are.

>>21402
Go on.