Did Kellyanne Conway win the election for Trump?

[Kathandira]

I think many people don't even know her, but her work is tremendous. I think that to work with a person like Trump require an outstanding amount of courage and determination.

This is likely the only positive thing one could say about the job she did that I can't disagree with. Her job could not have been easy at all, and she really came through for Trump.

[Naxere]

The DNC won the election for Trump, when they decided they'd rather have their propped-up candidate be their nominee over Bernie. Bernie would've smashed Trump.

[NYC17]

This is likely the only positive thing one could say about the job she did that I can't disagree with. Her job could not have been easy at all, and she really came through for Trump.

Describing her as courageous for being Trump's mouthpiece seems a little bit too dramatic for me. SHe did a very good job for him but that hardly takes courage.

[Paranoid Android]

KellyAnne Conway was very good at her job. She should very much get any praise awarded to her.

That being said...

KellyAnne Conway is one of the worst in political speak and surrogate or whatever her official title was (spokesperson maybe). Every interview she deflected with Hillary. I know, I know. Every politician does their talking points and deflect onto the other party. Conway was just the worst at it, in that she never even thought about the incoming question. She soon deflected everything back to Hillary.

When she did try or was boxed into a corner with a question, Conway was fairly bad at her job. Just this past week, Seth Meyers cornered her where she fumbled and could not give straight answers. To her defense, I don't know how you can give any straight answer on Trump. Pence almost looks as dumb.

[Symphonic]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

No.

Trump won because of Electoral College BS. Thats it. His campaign was a disaster on par with Romney, even worse I think. I would argue that Kellyanne made it worse with her constant BS justifications. Not even the people I know who voted (R) think she was smart.

So the fact that he beat Clinton means... that it was really due to her being pushed through on the democrat side? Even though the DNC was clearly favoring her and not Sanders? If his campaign was as bad as Romney's, and that made him lose, the fact that Trumps was worse, and he won... that says something about the democratic party candidate, to me.

[Nihilanth]

She broke the so called "glass ceiling" (no such thing exists) by being the first woman campaign manager to win an election.

Give it up for Kellyane!

[Draco-Onis]

More like defending him against the completely false accusations thrown at him by biased media.

It's the same thing every time. "Trumps a racist!" "Trump did this" "Trump did that" but they still don't have even a single case where he actually did anything racist or wrong. Same BS over and over.

I know how dare the media use his own tweets and words against him, it's like words have meaning and stuff.

[Stormdash]

The DNC doing everything they can to make sure a democrat won the nomination isn't stealing; it's business. You may not like it, understand it, or accept it, but it is what it is. Bernie was using the party and the party knew it.

The end.

Worked out brilliantly.

The problem is that, both of these parties choose to operate a choice structure illusion to suck the air out of the electorate's will to challenge their orthodoxy; they do this by having a touring road show of "elections" that give the voter the false conception that the private political advocacy group (all a party is, really) is handing over control of its agenda and internal heirarchy to the voters.

Consider for a second -- if the DNC had a press conference and just announced Clinton, and the GOP had a press conference and just announced Jeb! Bush, like NFL teams announcing a coaching hire, voters who didn't like that would have just said "uh, no" and started looking around the menu to vote for someone other than the Democrat, or other than the Republican. The only point of primaries, by either party, is to dupe people into using up their whole willingness to shop around and their sense of efficacy on just that party's own people, so they fall in line behind the nominee, grudgingly accepting that they "had their say".

The Democrats position was FTS and they just rigged it outright and ended up with the official party nominee basically being the person with no actual zeal or energy behind her among the voters they typically rely on to "get on the bus". The GOP wanted no more a part of Trump than the DNC did of Bernie, but they had the sense it takes to come in out of the rain, or to eat their broccoli. Which is to say, they realized that once you've given this false sense of choice in nominee, you're stuck with even someone you don't like because if you screw with the people that participated, they will throw their hands up and walk away. That's why the GOP also stomped out any attempts to overthrow Trump's nomination through wonkery, because at the end of the day, they knew the widely preferred candidate being dumped would guarantee electoral defeat.

[NYC17]

Worked out brilliantly.

The problem is that, both of these parties choose to operate a choice structure illusion to suck the air out of the electorate's will to challenge their orthodoxy; they do this by having a touring road show of "elections" that give the voter the false conception that the private political advocacy group (all a party is, really) is handing over control of its agenda and internal heirarchy to the voters.

Consider for a second -- if the DNC had a press conference and just announced Clinton, and the GOP had a press conference and just announced Jeb! Bush, like NFL teams announcing a coaching hire, voters who didn't like that would have just said "uh, no" and started looking around the menu to vote for someone other than the Democrat, or other than the Republican. The only point of primaries, by either party, is to dupe people into using up their whole willingness to shop around and their sense of efficacy on just that party's own people, so they fall in line behind the nominee, grudgingly accepting that they "had their say".

The Democrats position was FTS and they just rigged it outright and ended up with the official party nominee basically being the person with no actual zeal or energy behind her among the voters they typically rely on to "get on the bus". The GOP wanted no more a part of Trump than the DNC did of Bernie, but they had the sense it takes to come in out of the rain, or to eat their broccoli. Which is to say, they realized that once you've given this false sense of choice in nominee, you're stuck with even someone you don't like because if you screw with the people that participated, they will throw their hands up and walk away. That's why the GOP also stomped out any attempts to overthrow Trump's nomination through wonkery, because at the end of the day, they knew the widely preferred candidate being dumped would guarantee electoral defeat.

It worked out probably in the way they deserved. I voted for Clinton because I dislike Trump that much. I grew up in the tri-state area. I knew what he was and what he is now, and the country will find out soon enough, if they haven't already been paying attention. The RNC and the Trump campaign played on the ignorance of people to sell him being "one of them" and they bought it. They'll have buyer's remorse soon enough.

Pretending like the RNC just fell in line with Trump because they realized the people had their say is pretty oblivious. They went through every possible nominee before siding with Trump, and we don't exactly know to what extent they went to deny him because we don't have the inside information that we did with the DNC. Sort of a revisionist history there, but not unexpected.

A more likable candidate could have overcome the issues which cost Hillary the election, and there isn't just one deciding issue. As it stands, as horrible of a candidate as Hillary was, and as bad as of a campaign as she and her people ran, she still overwhelmingly won the popular vote and lost the EC by a pretty slim margin. If the RNC, Republicans, and supporters want to misread those results as some sort of electoral master stroke, more power to em.

[satimy]

I think Hilary lost it

I wanted to vote for her because Trump is such a jackass but she basically was silent for 3 months because she was afraid to alienate the far left by giving realistic answers on foreign policy, entitlements and immigration

[Altrec]

Republicans basically held their noses and voted for Trump en masse, she's part of the reason they did.

I think the FBI chief who reopened Hillary's email case days before the election had more to do with getting Trump elected.

I think the first part is mostly true, but there was a lot of early voting across the country which would have happened before the last minute reopening of the case. It may have played a role, but I really don't think it had that much of an impact. People who were going to vote for her voted for her and people that voted for Trump were going to vote for Trump regardless. The two candidates were too different for me to believe that there were a lot of people that were really on the fence other than not wanting to admit to anyone they were voting on one or the other.

[Stormdash]

It worked out probably in the way they deserved. I voted for Clinton because I dislike Trump that much. I grew up in the tri-state area. I knew what he was and what he is now, and the country will find out soon enough, if they haven't already been paying attention. The RNC and the Trump campaign played on the ignorance of people to sell him being "one of them" and they bought it. They'll have buyer's remorse soon enough.

Pretending like the RNC just fell in line with Trump because they realized the people had their say is pretty oblivious. They went through every possible nominee before siding with Trump, and we don't exactly know to what extent they went to deny him because we don't have the inside information that we did with the DNC. Sort of a revisionist history there, but not unexpected.

A more likable candidate could have overcome the issues which cost Hillary the election, and there isn't just one deciding issue. As it stands, as horrible of a candidate as Hillary was, and as bad as of a campaign as she and her people ran, she still overwhelmingly won the popular vote and lost the EC by a pretty slim margin. If the RNC, Republicans, and supporters want to misread those results as some sort of electoral master stroke, more power to em.

You don't understand what I said at all. The RNC hardly submitted to Trump because the people "had their say". On the contrary, I said the only reason the DNC and RNC hold primaries at all is to trick people into deluding themselves into thinking they had a choice. But in the case of an "insurgent" candidate, that scheme does nothing but grab a tiger by its tail -- because the people think they had a say, and if the RNC or DNC just say "actually..." and go against it and pick someone else, the whole house of cards come down.

The GOP has no love or loyalty to Trump and he should watch his back around them at all times; they accepted him because it was in their short and long term survival instincts to do so, and just try to manage, contain, corral, redefine, limit, or usurp him as suits their own agenda while in office. They realized elections are still better for you when you win them.

The DNC decided to just put the fix in and not be shy about it, and they were punished accordingly by people who didn't appreciate realizing that the illusion was... well, an illusion.

[NYC17]

You don't understand what I said at all. The RNC hardly submitted to Trump because the people "had their say". On the contrary, I said the only reason the DNC and RNC hold primaries at all is to trick people into deluding themselves into thinking they had a choice. But in the case of an "insurgent" candidate, that scheme does nothing but grab a tiger by its tail -- because the people think they had a say, and if the RNC or DNC just say "actually..." and go against it and pick someone else, the whole house of cards come down.

The GOP has no love or loyalty to Trump and he should watch his back around them at all times; they accepted him because it was in their short and long term survival instincts to do so, and just try to manage, contain, corral, redefine, limit, or usurp him as suits their own agenda while in office. They realized elections are still better for you when you win them.

The DNC decided to just put the fix in and not be shy about it, and they were punished accordingly by people who didn't appreciate realizing that the illusion was... well, an illusion.

I understand perfectly what you said. The overall argument, not specifically yours, when comparing the RNC and DNC is that the RNC recognized the will of the people; essentially we agree, we just disagree on the why. We also disagree on the nature of primaries and "trickery". That doesn't hold up when you consider Obama's 2008 triumph over Hillary. This election was more about the candidates themselves and Hillary couldn't stand up to Trump. That's a damning indictment in and of itself. She's been a poor candidate for longer than just this cycle, and it has nothing to do with DNC "trickery". Maybe it's easier to trick Republicans? I don't know.

As for elections being better when you win, we shall see. We haven't quite had a situation like this. Trump has the potential to cost the Republicans more than policy initiatives. The party of "personal responsibility" will now have to take responsibility for a leader with an extremely fragile ego and who doesn't like to be held accountable for anything. As bad as this election was for democrats, the future could be much worse for Republicans.

[Felya]

The DNC won the election for Trump, when they decided they'd rather have their propped-up candidate be their nominee over Bernie. Bernie would've smashed Trump.

Bullshit... You think those who voted for Trump would change their tune, if instead of crooked Hillary, we had communist Bernie? Suddenly the shit talking about Bernie's kibbutz would have disappeared? If Bernie ran, the only difference would have been, in those republican/conservative news sources would have backed Trump over Bernie. You think Bernie would have won the popular vote by more than 3 million, to lose the electoral?

[NYC17]

Bullshit... You think those who voted for Trump would change their tune, if instead of crooked Hillary, we had communist Bernie? Suddenly the shit talking about Bernie's kibbutz would have disappeared? If Bernie ran, the only difference would have been, in those republican/conservative news sources would have backed Trump over Bernie. You think Bernie would have won the popular vote by more than 3 million, to lose the electoral?

Fuck, I can only imagine(and don't really want to) the stories Breitbart and the like would have conjured up about Jewish conspiracies etc if Bernie had actually won the nomination.

[Garnier Fructis]

Are people still going on about the DNC and Bernie?

They didn't steal anything from Bernie. Disgruntled Bernie voters are in denial, that's it. They have only themselves to blame for the conservative Supreme Court that will last decades, because they are the ones that put principle over pragmatism.

- - - Updated - - -

Bullshit... You think those who voted for Trump would change their tune, if instead of crooked Hillary, we had communist Bernie? Suddenly the shit talking about Bernie's kibbutz would have disappeared? If Bernie ran, the only difference would have been, in those republican/conservative news sources would have backed Trump over Bernie. You think Bernie would have won the popular vote by more than 3 million, to lose the electoral?

It's not that farfetched. Hillary lost some states she should have won because certain demographics that traditionally vote Democrat broke for Trump instead. The same demographics that Bernie was speaking to.

[Felya]

You don't understand what I said at all. The RNC hardly submitted to Trump because the people "had their say". On the contrary, I said the only reason the DNC and RNC hold primaries at all is to trick people into deluding themselves into thinking they had a choice. But in the case of an "insurgent" candidate, that scheme does nothing but grab a tiger by its tail -- because the people think they had a say, and if the RNC or DNC just say "actually..." and go against it and pick someone else, the whole house of cards come down.

Diluting people into thinking they have a choice in primaries?! Ha! Try, diluting people to believe there is no other choice, but the main two parties. We had two of the worst rated candidates in history, without any measurable success of their alternatives. It's so ingrained, the big scandal was of an independent being sidelined for a DNC icon.

People are so convinced that the two party system is ingrained into our democracy, they don't even realize that the only reason DNC and RNC are more relevant than Green or Libertarian, is the attention we give them. If libertarians got the same or more attention than RNC, we would no longer have a 2 party system. Which is the whole point of the show that is primaries. Public votes that are counted after a candidate is selected, such as in NV and WA, included.

The DNC decided to just put the fix in and not be shy about it, and they were punished accordingly by people who didn't appreciate realizing that the illusion was... well, an illusion.

This doesn't make any sense. Bernie won WA State a whole 2 month prior to the public vote. Trump him self complained about similar circumstances he faced in Navada. It doesn't actually seem like those who realized the illusion that are punishing anyone, but those whose principles are based on this illusion that are cutting off their own nose.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not that farfetched. Hillary lost some states she should have won because certain demographics that traditionally vote Democrat broke for Trump instead. The same demographics that Bernie was speaking to.

After months of the same Trump tact, but even without conservative outlets backing someone who by the time voting rolls around would be the second coming of Lenin? I'm from WA, where Bernie was selected during a caucus 2 months prior to the public vote. My primary vote meant absolutely nothing. So, pardon me, if I find the 'Hillary fixed the game!' rhetoric hard to swallow.

[Heladys]

Reminds me of the sign "Rape Melania!" that some anti-trump protestor had awhile ago.

You need therapy done on your brain.

[Garnier Fructis]

In regards to that rape sign: When bad shit happens to Democrats, it's a false flag by Democrats to smear Republicans. When bad shit happens to Republicans, it's the Democrats.

[TheCount]

She was also his, what, third choice after a clown who was followed by a dude being investigated for his dealings in Russia and the Ukraine?

Bit off topic but the Trump adminstration gave a job to Corey Lewdownski, the 1st manager? I know he was a CNN correspondent for awhile.