Hillary Clinton's campaign lost for several dozens very complex reasons. We've listed those ad nauseam. But the steady leaks of destructive information, security threats, and hacks absolutely mattered. They pushed fringe voters away & distracted her whole team at crucial times.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And yet they were necessary to illustrate the truth: that the DNC, corporate media, Clinton Inc. and the Democratic establishment did everything in their power to sabotage Bernie and progressives in the 2016 primaries

-
Still with this PROVEN Russian disinformation? Sheesh! Even when
@ShaunKing is making an effort to be conciliatory, the brobots continue.... -
What is the “proven Russian disinformation”? Arm Wrestling Jesus?pic.twitter.com/aFjFimhWug
-
Right? Russia's disinformation included awful memes and ads that sounded like Alex Jones created them. These were Russia's political ads according to Mueller's 1st indictment (pg. 20). How many were persuaded by these ads? https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download …pic.twitter.com/aZ0inmPU05
-
These are indistinguishable from domestic appeals to voters. So this whole thing is based on the argument from origin fallacy. Ridiculous how politics makes people forget critical thinking.
-
Yep. And I'd take all
#russiagate w/ a grain of salt. It's 2 yrs later & they "indicted" some Russians to bolster their lackluster performance. No hard evidence. WMD lies come to mind. Still believe emails were leaked, not hacked. - 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
WHile I voted for Bernie in the primary, I have kind of soured on him, and I agree that the hacks and leaks damaged the campaign, though the ones regarding risotto and getting a dessert made me actually like Mrs. Clinton a great deal more than I did previously.
-
Bernie still lost any way we slice it. But he'll be back at again. We should be ready
-
Unfortunately, I believe he was one of the distractions....
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
They also sought to benefit Bernie and many of his supporters fell for it.
-
First of all, how did they benefit Bernie? Secondly, what do you mean “fell for it”? The emails were real. We can say that they shouldn’t have been released, but there was nothing to fall for. Thirdly, if they fell for it, why did approx 90% of Sanders supporters vote for HRC?
-
Bernie had lost the black vote in the south before the emails came out and that is the reason he was so far behind. So how was that rigged? Why would the DNC embrace a non-democrat? Despite the emails, he lost the VOTES. The rhetoric of Bernie supporters were not helpful.
-
The Black vote was not meaningful for the General. What was meaningful is that there was a surge of Black votes in the mid-west for Bernie and pretty much everywhere once folks got to know him. +
-
+ But the DNC and the Clinton campaign conspired to put a fork in it as Tom Perez said in the emails of Berni. And the Clinton-owned media repeatedly lied and said Blacks did not support him when they did. But that's cool w/you?
-
No. We really didn’t.
-
Yes, and I fail to see what the Clintons have done for any minority group (including my own) to earn such devotion. Did they provide relief for neighborhoods devastated by deindustrialization, globalization or the disappearance of work? No. Read this. https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/ …
-
Don’t get me wrong. I was proud and eager to vote for Clinton in the general. I phone-banked, went door-to-door, and drove people to the polls. It was a privilege to do so. But between Sanders and Clinton, Sanders is better on every issue, and it’s not even close.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.