Every Dem in the Senate and House should have stood with Rep. Waters in not accepting the results...

[brush]

Last edited Sat Jan 7, 2017, 08:41 PM - Edit history (1)

of the election yesterday.

The intelligence agencies have all said that Putin and the Russians interfered with our election to install trump and our Congressional leadership just accepts it and throws up their hands as if they can't do anything.

It's sickening. The election was stolen and they don't even stand behind one Dem who is courageous enough to say "NO, we do not accept this."

[elleng]

1. Yes, I was pleased to see my new Representative,

Jamie Raskin, doing so. About the Senators, that's a problem.

[mythology]

2. At best, Russia leaked some documents

They didn't hack the voting machines or take people off registration rolls. Yes it needs to stop, yes Putin is a dick, but no, the election wasn't stolen. All of the Wikileaks stuff didn't really impact Clinton's polling that much. What did, was the second Comey announcement right before the election. That dropped her poll numbers to where they were on election day of about 2 points ahead instead of 6 points. That swung the election and had nothing to do with Russia.

[brush]

3. Thanks for the republican perspective. The intel agencies don't agree with your assessment either.

So we should just accept Russian interference in our election process?

And you have no idea how the the Russian hacking affected individual voters. You're just guessing and putting it out there as fact.

Check this OP for more info on the depth of the Russian interference that you discount as amounting to nothing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028443906

[karynnj]

14. The intel agencies did not make an assessment on impact on the elections - that is clearly not their

area of expertise. You are right that ANYONE saying how it affected people is guessing. Think of any close election in the past -- and you will find that many things could possibly have made the difference. Here, we KNOW that the DNC leaks and the Podesta email created stories that ranged from not positive to embarrassing.

It is extremely difficult to estimate the impact of any event on the results of the election. However, you can look at when poll numbers changed. The leak of the DNC stuff was clearly timed to turn the convention into a hot mess -- but that did not happen and the CW at the end of the convention was the party was unified. (It was contrasted to Ted Cruz calling out the nominee and not saying he would vote for him) That leak - at that time - seemed not to have had a huge impact, but could it have angered enough of the Reagan Democrats or Bernie supports in the three critical states to not vote or vote Trump? I know of no study done there to answer that.

The Podesta emails, seemed pretty boring and not particularly scandalous, but they came out in drips and drabs - I think Trump used the leak of the GS speeches - to both bring that up again and to highlight comments on TPP. With both this and the DNC stuff - as Obama suggested, implying indirectly that it wasn't helpful- you can't say for sure it hurt, but it did keep the campaign off message.

On the other hand, from polling data, the BIG drop was in the next few days after the first Comey letter. This was seen looking at all the national polls taken. It is highly likely that raising that issue again (and bringing up Weiner) can almost certainly be said to have had a big enough affect that it changed the election from an easy win to a loss.

The fact that we can't prove from any of the polls etc that this caused the loss -- this is a very bad, unacceptable infringement of our democracy.

[BzaDem]

22. The impact of the revelations is not relevant to the OP.

The OP is proposing that we should not accept the results of the election.

Let's imagine a hypothetical world where HRC was 20 points ahead before the WikiLeaks dump, and 5 points behind afterwards. In other words, a world where the evidence showing unambiguously that Russia's exposing of the emails single-handedly turned a sure win into a loss.

Would it then make sense to not accept the election results? What would happen after a hypothetical refusal to accept the results? Would we re-run the election, where voters would have exactly the same information from the emails (about their content and sourcing) that they had before the election? If Hillary lost again, would we re-run the election a third time?

This is absurd. Voters made their choice. A very poor choice, but a free choice nonetheless. Absent evidence that Trump didn't actually win the states he won, it is time to move on.

[susanna]

27. 'move along, nothing to see here.' n/t

[karynnj]

30. It answers the direct assertion of the post I responded to

I agree that the Russian actions were unbelievably wrong. I would suggest that you should have responded to it because it said the Itelligence agencies said it cost the elections, which they did not say.

Not all posts relate just to the OP.

[mythology]

49. Thanks for the pathetic insults

It's good to know that in addition to not reading the intelligence report, where they expressly didn't investigate the impact, you also have no valid argument so you have to resort to petty insults.

[brush]

52. You're quite welcome.

[lapucelle]

4. Maybe not directly, but the DNC hack fed into the narrative that Sanders

was ill-treated and this probably cost Clinton votes.

I do agree with you that Comey's letter was the deciding factor. For whatever reason, Democratic leadership decided early on that it would not support efforts to contest the election.

[CrispyQ]

53. "Democratic leadership decided early on that it would not support efforts to contest the election."

This is the third time they've capitulated this century. Weak. The dems are weak. They play nice, get trounced & we pay for it.

[kimbutgar]

6. What about cross check where they eliminated voters and all the provisional votes not counted?

Yes thanks for the gopcorp narrative.

[bdamomma]

16. Yes, cross check hasn't been mentioned

There was so much crap going on it was voter supression along with other crap.

It was really a coup. And it was premediated for a long time. Should we call them TRAITORS?? or I am walking on a fine line of saying that?

[kimbutgar]

24. No it is what is, treason

[karynnj]

31. I have posted elsewhere that voter suppression has been

An ongoing situation that cost us several elections. There are very strong cases that it cost us the 2000 and 2004 races.

I was addressing whether the hack cost us the election and did NOT rule it out. I did rule out simply claiming the Intelligence agencies said it did, because that is simply not true. I suggested two ways it might have hurt. What no one has really studied and for which, to my knowledge, there is no data is whether the DNC stuff influenced enough rust belt voters. As to the Posta stuff, it probably changed the message of the HRC campaign in the last few weeks - though the Comey letters were the big news then.

[mythology]

51. Please feel free to quantify exactly how many people were affected

Until you do that, there's nothing to be taken seriously. There aren't many reports of people claiming they had their name incorrectly removed. I like evidence. I'm not willing to rant and rave without that. It's sad you consider that to be Republican.

[doc03]

7. What proof do you have that the Russian hack didn't really impact Clinton's

polling that much? Maybe if it wasn't for the Russians her poll numbers would have been 12 points ahead instead of 6 when the
Comey letter came out! Maybe she would have been 8 points ahead on election day. A Trumpster told me this morning the Russians
didn't affect her election because she didn't campaign in Wisconsin.
Oh on edit: It takes a backbone to stand up!

[Mr.Bill]

17. Yeah, I'm sure half of the Trump voters

believing Hillary was running a child sex slave ring out of a pizza joint had nothing to do with her losing the election.

[former9thward]

50. Anyone who believed that was never going to vote for Clinton no matter what.

[elmac]

18. they did much more then hack, leak emails

they had an army of paid trolls and disinformation networks. They have done this, are doing this to other countries with the same results. It is war, cyber war. Now, I am skeptical about hacking voter machines and they did have the vast stupidity of the American voter working for them but still, its was cyber war. I doubt if anything major is done about it while the fascists are in control, they were involved with the ruskie smear campaign.

[kimbutgar]

5. They are all scared little pu$$ies

We need some new radical blood in the Democratic Party who will stand up to bullies and push back.

I am glad Bernie is activating his followers to get involved. If I was 20 years younger I'd get more involved in politics.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

8. This may be a feel-good thing to do but we really need to put our energies elsewhere.

No way are these gestures going to accomplish anything. The Republicans have the majority and only they can rid of us of Trump and they will not do so until (1) he becomes a danger to their party and their agenda and (2) he beings to lose the devotion of at least some of his Deplorables.

Until the Republicans recognize that he is too much or an embarrassment or liability to them, we are stuck with him.

Our energy should be spent on pushing back on specific problems, especially where we expect to find broad support, like changes to ACA or medicare or social security; or ethical problems.

[brush]

9. A resounding, united protest by the Dems would energize our efforts to fight against trump and . . .

the repug cheaters.

We just witnessed the effectiveness of protest, the Sanders campaign.

The Dem leaders need to show some backbone and stop being the hapless victims all the time to the bully repugs.

Fight fu_king back.

[jimlup]

10. Given that we are in post mortem mode, why?

I'm allowed to ask why?

(I'm pretty sure I know but I do want to see what other people say so I'll hold back on my opinion.)

[brush]

11. Express your opinion. It's a discussion board.

Mine is the Dem leadership needs to show some backbone and stop playing the hapless victim to the repug bullies all the time.

It would fire up the rank and file too as some guy, what's his name, used to say.

[jimlup]

21. It's the doctrinal system...

Senators must act as if they care about the and believe in the "system". To advocate to subvert the electoral college vote is to suggest that the electoral system is flawed. "Senators" can't do that. They are respected members of that very system. To suggest it might be flawed would undermine their credibility in the eyes of that very system. (Note that not in the eyes of their constituents who likely would mostly support such an action.)

I didn't not voice my opinion because I was shy. I honestly wanted to see what others would say and also if anyone saw it as I do.

[brush]

23. That's how the senate views itself, gentile and collegial (at least on the Dem side, the repugs, no)

The repugs would not be cordial and polite and respectful if the situation was reversed. They'd be raising hell.

I would love our Dem senators to stand up, raise hell and say we are not okay with Russians interfering in our elections. We do not accept the results of this election.

I would love our Dem senators to stand up, raise hell and make it known that the EC is antiquated, rooted in racism, is unfair and needs to change.

I know, wishful thinking but I still wish our leadership would show some fight instead of being timid, not-wanting-to-make-waves, Casper Milquetoasts as the repugs kick sand in their faces.

[jimlup]

32. Yes

apparently, in our society it is OK to raise hell if you support a conservative regressive cause but the reverse is not true. Interesting and I only kind of understand it.

[Binkie The Clown]

12. It would be refreshing to see a Dem pol stand up for something for a change.

There's Bernie, of course, but wait... he's not really a Dem, is he?

[brush]

19. He didn't stand up either

[NCTraveler]

13. This is not a reason to not accept the results.

"The intelligence agencies have all said that Putin and the Russians interfered with our election to install trump and our Congressional leadership just accepts it and throws up their hands as if they can't do anything."

[mopinko]

15. the language in the report about "disparaging" clinton. omg.

who doesnt look at that and say- wtf?
this was where it all turned. on the doubt that clinton was clean. thats all they needed to do- entrench that doubt.
isnt that enough? ffffffs.

[BzaDem]

20. Remember when we were horrified when Trump said he wouldn't accept the election results?

Apparently we were only horrified because we expected Clinton to win. This OP quite literally calls for not accepting the results of the election. Sheesh.

There is absolutely no evidence that Russia altered any vote counts, let alone tens of thousands of votes in three states. There is no evidence that the vote was anything other than the result of a free choice by the American people. And yet you are saying that we should not accept the verdict, because we don't like their choice?

I abhor Russia's illegal hacking and exposing information as much as anyone here. But that has nothing to do with whether or not voters were able to choose freely between the candidates. We are much better served by a system that respects the will of the people, even when it sometimes produces disastrous results.

[brush]

28. God! Thanks for the perspective from the other side. Both candidates vowed to accept the results . .

not knowing, at least in Clinton's case, that a foreign actor/rival nation was interfering in the election.

IMO it's entirely justified to question and protest the results of the election since we now know that Putin was working to get trump elected.

From your post I'm guessing Putin's interference is all right by you? Here's a link for you btw:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028441677

Also the question of what trump knew about the interference and when did he know it is unresolved?

Hell, trump could be the proverbial Manchurian candidate for all we know.

Not ok, IMO.

[BzaDem]

34. Of course Putin's interference is not "all right by me."

Many things about this election were not all right by me. That doesn't change the fact that the voters had a free choice, and that Trump won. The voters even knew all about Russia's interference -- HRC brought it up at all the debates. Not enough of them cared.

Our country is founded upon the principle that the people choose. Russia's interference did not affect in any way the fact that the people had a free choice. We need to respect that choice, even if they sometimes choose very badly. A country where the people don't choose would be a much worse country to live in.

We should protest what Trump says and does, not the fact that he won the election. We should then work to throw him out in 2020 (after rebuking him in 2018).

[brush]

36. Nice, a view from the right.

[BzaDem]

38. Perhaps the concept of the people choosing is now a "view from the right."

If so, that would be a very unfortunate event for our party. Fortunately it is not so.

[brush]

39. And I guess the concept of not standing up to interference of a hostile power in our elections...

is now acceptable?

WTH? We just bend over now and wait to get screwed?

God! When will the acquiescence by spineless Dems end?

We did nothing in 2000 after the repugs stole it for W Bush, as a result now we may have a Russian puppet in the White House for all we know and people are caving and saying, "well we vowed to stand by the results of the election"?

Well the results of the election have been examined by our intel agencies and we know Putin worked to get trump install.

Not OK, IMO. No wonder so many are questioning our party. Too many seem willing to continue being bullied by the repugs.

[BzaDem]

40. If you define "spinelessness" as "accepting reality", it isn't ever going to end.

You are going to continue to be frustrated at the supposed spinelessness, now and forever, but that is more of a function of your own problematic expectations than a function of what Democrats should be doing. At a certain point it might be useful to re-examine those expectations, rather than just assume that everyone else is wrong.

In Gore's case, you seem to forget that he did fight hard for over a month. You are confusing "losing a fight" with "not having fought." There actually is such thing as losing a fight. The correct position does not always carry the day. Not all stories have happy endings. To call this "spinelessness" is absurd. A sane political party fights where they have future opportunities to win -- not where they have none.

Unlike 2000, Trump is actually the legitimate winner of the election. He won the most votes in the states that mattered. Claiming otherwise is factually false, completely pointless, and has no chance of benefiting progressives and progressive policies in the future. What does stand a chance is fighting President Trump through the normal political process.

[brush]

41. You have your opinions.

[onenote]

37. Clinton specifically blamed Putin for the wikileaks disclosures during the third debate

The problem is that no one cared.

[iluvtennis]

25. Agreed.

[brush]

29. Agreed to what? The Russian interference in our election?

[iluvtennis]

33. Absolutely not...I agree that all Dems should have stood with Representative Maxine Waters nt

[BadgerMom]

26. My problem with Russia's interference

I don't like the fact that Putin inserted himself in the election. The fact that Moscow celebrated Trump's victory (while I drank too much tequila) repels me. But the situation that is unexplored as yet is Trump's culpability. He surrounds himself with people having dubious ties to Russia (e.g., Manafort). He professes out sized admiration for Putin. He asks Russian hackers to help him by uncovering Hillary's emails. None of that is illegal, I know. But it makes me wonder at the coincidences of all that occurring while Putin, according to Friday's report, was trying to help Trump in numerous ways (e.g., revealing campaign emails, paying hackers). It seems as though he had some knowledge that mischief was afoot. If he or one of his advisers did have knowledge that Russia was interfering on his behalf, that is a crime, right?

I'm wondering if we should forget about the legislative branch taking action. (We should.) Might this be a criminal issue? If the IC has any evidence of Trump's knowledge of this, wouldn't action be in the hands of the judiciary? That's a real question. If memory serves, Nixon faced arrest which is what caused him to resign and for Ford to pardon him.

[BzaDem]

35. Nixon didn't face arrest until after he resigned. He did face impeachmemt and removal.

The Justice department was ultimately under his control, so removing him was a prerequisite to arresting him.

[BadgerMom]

42. Thanks

…for clarifying.

[Rex]

43. I am having depressing revisions of 2000 run through my mind.

Nobody listened to her back then. Nobody listened to her now. We heard.

[snowy owl]

44. Does anybody here really believe Clinton lost because Podesta's emails were leaked?

No voting systems were hacked by Russians. That's been established.

[brush]

45. So no harm no foul, huh? It's ok for Putin to purposely interfere for trump?

And you have no way of knowing if any voters changed their mind because of the email hacks. You also have no idea how many were influenced by the army of paid trolls Putin deployed on social media to trash Clinton, or how many voters stayed home, voted third party or even voted for trump because of all the vicious fake news that was circulated about Clinton.

It wasn't just Podesta's emails. That meme is what the repugs keep repeating. Why are we doing it?

And also Comey's actions should just be ignored too?

Again, every Dem in the House and Senate should have stood up and objected, even if it's just symbolic, stand up and send a message to us that Dem leadership intends to stop being bullied by the repugs.

[snowy owl]

46. Actually I agree that some energy on the part of Dems wouldn't hurt.

Just not sure Waters was on the right track. It sounds whiny to me esp. since no real proof even yet. Lots of surmises by government-backed officials. I'm not there yet.

[nikto]

47. The main hackers of the 2016 election were most likely the GOP

Last edited Wed Jan 11, 2017, 02:06 AM - Edit history (3)

There was the interstate GOP "Cross-Check" system described in detail by Greg Palast on his site
and in numerous articles and videos.

http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/

Add-in literally 1000s of polling places closed-down in a couple dozen GOP-run states in areas of likely strong Democratic leanings,
along with the ID card restrictions imposed in Texas and numerous other GOP states.

Then, as the final Coup de grâce, (and this is the real hack) there was the "red-shift" vs the exit-polls
(which was so prominent back in 2004), especially strong in the swing states, where it appeared with
an almost surgical precision to turn those states around, in spite of large popular vote advantages for HC,
and in spite of the fact that there was no equivalent 'blue-shift"
in ANY state, in ANY race.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/2016-exit-polls-did-hillaty-clinton-win-presidential-election-voter-fraud-donald-trump-lose-rigged/

http://www.alternet.org/something-stinks-when-exit-polls-and-official-counts-dont-match

http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/10/2016-presidential-election-table/

http://www.inquisitr.com/3742358/2016-electoral-map-results-comparing-exit-polls-with-elections-results-in-light-of-recount2016/




What bothers me a lot is that, in spite of loud protestations about possible Russian hacking of the election,
which is scary and bad,
Democrats don't seem very interested in this story, where domestic hackers may have been key
in flipping the election.

Is election fraud OK if it's done by Americans?

Mainstream Democrats hardly even address this issue.
Dear God,
Why is that?

[brush]

48. Right! We need to stop just accepting this stuff. We have to figure ways to combat it, and...

expose and protest it loudly when it happens.