Did the MSM and polsters cost Hillary the election .

Its just a thought i had so here goes . Leading up to the election the polls had Hillary leading by various margins days weeks even months out and the MSM were all over it . The problem was that they were wrong , woefully so and i suspect that may have cost Hillary the election or at least helped . Now my question is , how many Hillary supporters did not vote because they had it in the bag . People can be lazy and when it comes down to it what would rather do , stand in a line for hours or sit home with friends and chuck down a few beers , your up 5 points right , no need for my vote . If one in every hundred had this view the close states may have turned out quite different . Anyways i have no dog in this fight but the US elections affects the world so i have been watching closely . Its kind of like watching a slow moving train wreck , you cant take your eyes off it even though you suspect it may not end up badly .

a reply to: hutch622

Now my question is , how many Hillary supporters did not vote because they had it in the bag .

Still struggling for reasons she 'lost' the election?

I had it wrong all down the line, too.

I thought she would be placed in office by the powers that be to continue the policy of war in the middle east and elsewhere. I think they will still wage those wars, with or without a different presider.

The switch from Bush to Obama didn't change that policy either, even a little bit.

a reply to: intrptr

Even though i could not vote i was on the Trump train , there was something about Hillary i did not like , maybe it was the cloven hooves .

a reply to: hutch622

I don't think that complacency did Hillary in. What with the last minute FBI bulletins and the constant email links, it seemed pretty uphill for her all the way to the finish line.

Nope, I think that her advisors didn't calculate and campaign in the right districts, and Trump's team understood and worked the "gerrymandered" districts successfully to their advantage, like magic!

a reply to: hutch622

I see it very differently. I think the polls were designed to lie to discourage trump supporters to go and vote.
Trump supporter: "I'm not going to vote because it won't make a difference because Hillary is going to win in any case"

I think the polling companies knew exactly what was going on, but instead of reporting what the American people were thinking, they were trying to manufacturing how they were feeling. (people are still sheeple and the pollsters knows it. John and all his friends have Nike shoes, I also want some.)
Unfortunately, didn't work this time around

a reply to: chiroy

Yes i guess it can work both ways . The questions is , are you more likely to not vote because you think you cant win or not vote because you cant lose .

To answer your question, mind you it's my opinion only... I think its a combination of several issues that surrounded her bid for the White House.

Her issues with truth, her health to a lesser extent, and the Democrats liberal destructiveness to our Constitution. We have had many disturbing things happen over the last couple years, with the gay agenda, the removal of Southern historical history in the form of flags and monuments. Her own foundation indiscretions, Bill's indiscretions. Her stance on immigration and open borders. She had some pretty exhaustive baggage to be sure.

And just a feeling of villainy surrounding her.

You bring up an interesting point. The Left DSM, or Dominate Stream Media, has been supportive of the democrats since way back in the 40s.
Over time, its no surprise that they have become politicized and carry an agenda.
It was disgusting and to be honest, I feel that they should be slapped with fines or worse, new media laws.
The DSM made a fool of themselves to the Nation and the World. These people continue to scratch their heads, wondering what went wrong.
I've never trusted polls. I don't poll. Thats why when people quote polls, I'm like, whatever we shall see.
It would seem that the phooey and shady Facebook polls were accurate if the outcome.

I think politics and democratic elections are pretty basic when you boil it down, this is the real story of the election and elections in general.

Politicians are meant to serve the people, not the other way round. When they get it backwards they lose.

Hillary seemed to want the people to serve her, she lost. Trump said enough to make voters think maybe.

When politicians get out of touch with the people, the voters, and serve their own interests people get angry and they lose. Isn't democracy great. Once in a while someone comes along and says these crooks aren't doing their job, trump, and gets voted in.
Now if trump turns out to be crap he'll be given the boot at the next election... Although trump did it in a rude vulgar way with some unacceptable comments and that is what people are upset by.

Yes i guess it can work both ways . The questions is , are you more likely to not vote because you think you cant win or not vote because you cant lose .

I think people are more likely to participate if they think they are going to be on the side of victory. Morale could be huge motivating factor

No. Hillary cost Hillary the election.

She knew since well before 2008 that she wanted to be President. When Obama defeated her, she had 8 years to clean up her act and bridge the divide with people who were opposed to her for various reasons. Instead, she and Bill simply doubled-down on hubris and corruption, surrounded herself with sycophant creatures of D.C. and, when confronted with it, lied, lied and lied again.

As painful as it must be for her to reflect upon while on her nature hike of self-reflection - she did this to herself.

a reply to: chiroy

I dont know the psychology of it and i have nothing to compare it to as in Australia it is compulsory to vote .

There can be no doubt that the fake polls showing Hillary ahead DID cost her votes.

maybe not so much from the hardcore Hillary supporters but from the swing voters and undecided voters who were leaning towards Hillary. They voted 3rd party instead, because Hillary already had it in the bag (according to the polls) so why not vote 3rd party to give them %5 and matching funds in the next election.

I`m sure that there were more than few Bernie supporters who didn`t vote at all or didn`t vote for Hillary, but would have if they knew how close the election was going to be.
just look at new Hampshire only about 1,000 votes difference between the winner and loser, I`m sure there are at least 1,000 people who didn`t vote but would have if they knew Hillary was behind in the polls, isn`t New Hampshire Bernie country?

Why is there ANOTHER THREAD asking this question?!?!

a reply to: hutch622

I'm a progressive and I wouldn't blame Hillary's loss on the MSM, pollsters, James Comey, Assange or the Republicans.

The blame for her loss lies squarely on her shoulders and those of the DNC for refusing to recognize the overwhelming anti-establishment mood of the nation and insisting instead on running a heavily flawed establishment candidate with historic negative appeal, while utilizing establishment corruption to quash the Bernie Sanders movement that was the progressive equivalent of the Trump campaign minus the racism, ignorance and bigotry.

The time to protest has passed. At this point in time, it's more like crying over spilled milk. It should have happened when it became clear, (via WikiLeaks) that the DNC had indeed corrupted the primary process in favor of Hillary.

IMO, When it comes to searching for someone to blame, one should always look in the mirror first.

Now I'm hearing that Howard Dean wants to run for the DNC chairmanship. What a joke!

If the DNC can't take off their blinders to see what just happened and accept the fact that they too, are establishment infected and totally out of touch with the mood of this nation and the progressive movement, then they deserve to be ignored and replaced with some kind of a new "People's Party."