Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by LeanderK 3510 days ago
I immediately stop reading when i see sentences like "The Media Lied To Us About EVERYTHING". This is stupid and i don't trust the author anymore. It's a huge red flag. Did the NYTimes ever openly lie (That's not publishing false information)? I only read it for american/international news, but they always seemed very trustworthy and many trustworthy people declared it trustworthy (the guardian and my favourite newspaper, the german sueddeutsche Zeitung are all working with it).

I know about the emails and the investigation, that's nothing new. Please don't write articles about how everybody forgot about wikileaks and how much leaked emails you were posting in social media, because i don't care. These are not facts, they don't help me understand how trump won.

Also it was a very, very close race. Especially in Florida, i was glued to the screen.

EDIT: i read the whole article. Its clickbait. It never even starts trying to explain how hillary lost. It just states things not supported by facts like "Bernie Sanders Would Have Beat Trump". I would like to see Bernie beating Trump, but it is 100% opinion. No facts supported this claim. A third of the article is a positive outlook for the trump-presidency, which has nothing to do with the headline and what i expected to read. Also the first third is all about the leaked wikileaks emails, but no facts are presented that support the conclusion that they were even that important. I doubt it, of course it's a scandal, but the candidates were too different to let the emails be the decisive factor.

I want to understand how hillary lost, but i want facts, polls, interviews, data and experts analysing the data. Not somebody rambling about how he knew it all along.

2 comments

Yep, hindsight is 20/20, and now people are going to come out of the woodwork explain how "inevitable" a Trump victory was.

The fact is there was always a margin for error and probabilities involved here. Clinton having an 89% chance of winning did not predict a victory. Also, we obviously don't have a model for how many democrats are going to sit on their asses and not vote in any given election.

Looking back, the thing that signaled something weird was going on was the fact that Trump could say literally any offensive dumb-ass idea, roil the media and all his opponents, and come out unscathed or even stronger. He did this a dozen times or more throughout the campaign. I suspect that really understanding that dynamic will explain how Trump won.

Okay. As a Trump supporter, I'll help you to understand. Which part were you confused about?

>...the fact that Trump could say literally any offensive dumb-ass idea...

Okay. You're gonna have to be more specific than that. Which idea did you thought was dumb?

I think you'll find out soon enough.
She "stole" the PEOPLE'S CHOICE?!!?! Bernie.

Just another sore loser who's own echo chambre prevents him from realising most democrats voted for clinton, and no preference the DNC staffers had changed that.

Um...yes, it did. They manipulated everything they could to limit his exposure and got a decent number of African American voters to fill out absentee ballots towards the beginning of the primary before they had any idea who the other candidates were.
Yes, cause Bernie had the AA. vote in his pocket.