I think the "poll manipulation" may have backfired, Hillary supporters got complacent and Trump supporters went to the polls. The telling sign all along were the crowds at the rallies.

You had one group doing the leg work and the other group trying to cheat and glamour puss their way to victory. Indeed, the attendance at the rallies said it all.

the attendance at the rallies said it all.

I wondered the same thing, but I thought it was oversimplification to draw inferences between the two.

Sure enough.

I'm not sure what you are saying.

As in, I thought it was too simplistic to say, "Trump's going to get more voters because more people turn out to see him," but there was indeed a link.

The media did an outstanding job reminding everyone that rally turnouts didn't translate by pointing at Bernie Sanders' numbers.

Makes you wonder; If the primaries weren't filled with the fuckery like magically changing party affiliation and claims of election fraud maybe Bernie would have easily won.

Oh, Bernie DID win: When you understand how the DNC's database works, it's exceptionally easy to flip votes and purge records of those who you know are going to vote Clinton. The Dem's project with Google was very likely merging our browsing habits (which reveals a ton) with the known census data/govt data, and then using that to purge Sanders supporters. In the database is a prediction percent of how likely you are to vote for a certain candidate. Those were the ones that got erased, switched, or altered.

They used these tricks, and it's why the statistic that she won fairly was a mere 1:70,000,000,000.

But of course, the database can't be used like this in the general election because Clinton needed every single voter in there.

Agreed. I felt that if people can't even stand to go to her rallies even if she brings in various celebrities then they truly don't support her. Podesta said she smells bad, I don't know could be part of it.

Or maybe it was as designed.

Swing state here that was projected for Clinton. My spouse and I couldn't figure out where the Clinton votes were coming from. We drove through a very liberal college town and then the country and counted a 30 to 1 ratio of Trump to Clinton yard signs. Turns out the votes weren't there.

The number of media gatekeepers who selectively promoted only the information that they agreed with was astonishing. They will now be keen to see Trump fail in order to prove themselves right.

Well, and their agenda doesn't stop just because Trump gets elected.

We see in the emails--especially the outline discussed between Soros and Podesta--that this is a long-term, concerted effort to endorse a "populist movement" (and I put that in quotes because it's really to foment local instability to capitalize from it, rather than a genuine one like that of Sanders).

It was really close. Hillary won the popular vote, and I'm sure there are a lot of people in the middle class who didn't want to admit to supporting trump because it would hurt their social value in their peer group.

o_0

We saw a similar theme of nefarious collusion by the mainstream media in India during the 2014 election campaign against Modi. Most of those presstitutes were left slack-jawed when he emerged with a landslide victory.

...really? I saw a lot of parallels between Modi and Obama's campaign in the message, way it was run, youth outreach, etc. I didn't see much discord against Modi, except in the American media... but that went away once he came out so pro-FDI.

Apart from Zee News, Aaj Tak, and ABP News, almost all major outlets like NDTV, CNN-IBN, Headlines Today, Hindustan Times and The Hindu kept trying to stir up the same lame duck fascist fundamentalist threat. They really undermined BJP in the exit polls too and got a major reality check when the people proved just how badly the media has failed to feel the pulse of reality.

NDTV, CNN-IBN

You're braver than me, I can't watch these networks for more than 1 minute before the ticker mark triggers an epileptic seizure.

Interesting take on the Indian elections.

This speaks more to effective compartmentalization. Of course there are observable instances of ... I don't even know what to call them at this point. Anchors?

There are observable instances of anchors pushing propaganda. But overall, they may have been as blinded by the filters of censorship they purveyed.

As misanthropic as I am as a person, and all the mistrust I have of media and government, something inside my mind cannot reconcile the possibility that they were all such simple agents of misinformation.

They had incentive to toe the line in interest of a paycheck. I think many of them actually believed the shit they were peddling.

Not that that really changes anything for me today. I have no sympathy, and neither do I think that anyone should let them restructure themselves.

Many of the real journalists this election season were condemned or even killed in the attempt to bring us the real information. And for each and every one of those journalists, who had to scuttle about in the dark behind the scenes, the MSM are to blame for this atrocity of the 1st amendment.

What do you make of

• PA was TRUMP's 1-2 hours before they called it. You had commentators saying things like, PA is going to go TRUMP's way, but we're not calling it yet.
• The NYT suddenly changed their percent of vote counted in PA from 98% to 89% about 1/2 hr before they called it
• hillary did not concede.
• The Dow Jones was down 800 pts. then suddenly it was only down 300 pts.

Were they planning to / trying to rig PA for hillary?

here's where the election thread noticed it

Great points. It got really weird with the news reporters like no one was saying anything despite Trump clearly having won. States stopped being called despite the number of votes outstanding being less than the difference between the candidates. And then a reporter announces Clinton has conceded but no word from her for hours.

I was taking screenshots of everything, there was definitely something cucky going on there.

"GASP* we cant believe our propaganda machine and media manipulation tactics havent worked like always ! we were positive our shill of a candidate had this shit made." - Mainstream Media

It's about a 3-4% national polling error, systematic across swing states. Sampling error (phone respondents are not a representative sample anymore), or people not telling the truth to pollsters. This happens.

Today should reassure you, at least a little, of the integrity of the American electoral process and in the media too. Until tomorrow, of course. Staying vigilant is good. Being absurdly paranoid is silly.

Yes they have... do you know what they were lying about?

One of the emails from June said don't use public polls real number was 43 42 trump nationally. Media response: "who would've thought!"

...really? I saw a lot of parallels between Modi and Obama's campaign in the message, way it was run, youth outreach, etc. I didn't see much discord against Modi, except in the American media... but that went away once he came out so pro-FDI.