February 28, 2018

Facebook's own data debunks “crazy” Hillary Clinton's claims about social media and the election

Amanda HeadRebel Contributor

Poor Hillary Clinton. She still won't go away. And she's talking crazy again. Where have all her handlers gone? 

Perhaps at this point, all her advisors and any wise people who ever hung-around the two-time failed presidential candidate, have departed. It might be time to "Baker Act"-her.

As you well-know, Hillary has blamed everything and everyone but herself for her election demise. Her latest target? Social media.

Over the course of her coronation tour, which ended with a participation trophy instead of the Oval Office, she displayed concerning health ailments not the least of which was complete and utter delusion and entitlement.

To this day, she is simply incapable of owning up to her part of her campaign's failure. She blamed Russia and Putin... and your burnt toast this morning.

Your car won't start? It's those darn Russkies again.

She blamed misogyny and sexism. She blamed the irredeemable people in that basket of deplorables. She blamed James Comey (who her party oddly now defends since President Trump justifiably fired him.)

And lest we forget the massive pile of blame she heaped on poor ole Wikileaks and Julian Assange. All along the way, when she was blaming sexism for lack of votes, she must've forgotten that the American people have vivid memories of her failures as Secretary of State, which are too numerous to cite.

And now, the target of her ire is social media.

She failed to get the irony that she announced this via social media. Maybe the Russians hacked her account and posted the tweet?

Clinton's tweet reads:

"We should all care about how social media platforms play a part in our democratic process. Because unless it's addressed it will happen again. The midterms are in 8 months. We owe it to our democracy to get this right, and fast."

However, Facebook released the metric usage and payment scale of the Clinton campaign vs. the Trump campaign, revealing the Trump campaign paid more for their advertising on Facebook than Clinton.

Top Facebook executive Andrew Bosworth added:

"During the general election period, Trump campaign paid slightly higher CPM prices on most days rather than lower as has been reported."

The reason, however, has nothing to do with politics.

It's all about business and marketing and what posts generate the most revenue for the platform.

As reported in the Washington Post:

"Rather than simply reward that ad position to the highest bidder, though, Facebook uses a complex model that considers both the dollar value of each bid as well as how good a piece of clickbait (or view-bait, or comment-bait) the corresponding ad is. If Facebook's model thinks your ad is 10 times more likely to engage a user than another company's ad, then your effective bid at auction is considered 10 times higher than a company willing to pay the same dollar amount."

So one could reasonably deduce that social media helped Hillary Clinton.

But the use of reason escaped Hillary years ago when she entered public service, or possibly before.

Though she'll never come to terms with it: The good guy won.

It's a tale as old as time but thankfully, it's a story about four — hopefully eight — years of Donald Trump and no (more) years of Hillary Clinton.


You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2018-03-03 12:05:29 -0500
“Drew Wakariuk commented 2018-03-03 03:33:37 -0500
Andrew sorry that is BS.”

What’s BS, and why? Make sure you share the evidence you used to come to that conclusion.
commented 2018-03-03 03:33:37 -0500
Andrew sorry that is BS. And your left wing fact check BS is only to appease sheep like you. Now please tell us when some actual Trump/Russia evidence will show up LMAO!
commented 2018-03-02 01:17:05 -0500
Judicial Watch is a bunch of right wing activists whose primary activity is vexatious lawsuits, most of which they lose. They’ve also got a reputation for … a casual relationship to the truth. See, for example, their claim about a controversial anti-Trump billboard receiving tax dollars, which turns out to have been completely wrong. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2017/05/12/fact-check-did-taxpayers-fund-anti-trump-billboard-phoenix/101607546/

So, Judicial Watch is not a reputable source.

The Pew report says exactly what I did – that it’s not evidence of vote fraud, but rather that the databases need more careful upkeep – or did, in 2012, when it was published. Once again, having your address in the database wrong, does not mean you are an illegal dead person that voted twice, or whatever the claim is this week.

Why did you go to the grainy and hyperbolic video of some conspiracy theorist instead of linking the report directly? I enjoy being spoonfed wild conspiracies supported by pointing at an official looking report (but not actually reading the contents) as much as the next person, but really … net time go directly to it. What he says, and what the report says, are two very different things.

Here’s the actual report: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf

The one time it mentions “fraud”, it is to say it could be possible. That’s literally it. I hope you know the difference between “could happen” and “Is happening”.

By the way, why do people always think that vote fraud runs to the left? I mean, how do you know those dead people who are supposedly voting in these elections, aren’t actually Trump supporters?
commented 2018-03-02 01:12:54 -0500
Andrew when did he lie? Did the LYING MEDIA tell you that he did?
commented 2018-03-01 21:38:50 -0500
Gave you two verifiable sources to check – Judicial Watch (organization made up of lawyers) and PEW
You often don’t post links and expect people to search out what you are referring to. Surely you can find the two sources I’m referring to.
So you don’t like Voter Fraud Commissioners to give public interviews….that’s interesting!
commented 2018-03-01 19:07:47 -0500
Tammie, 18 million inaccurate records isn’t necessarily indicative of “voter fraud”. It means … inaccurate records, usually because they haven’t been updated. If your address hasn’t been updated, you’d fall into those “18 million” voters. Since they’re clearly ON the voter registry, they’re eligible to vote. And … unless there’s actual evidence of wrongdoing (which is to say, that they actually did something more nefarious than failing to report to the registry that they moved), then it’s completely meaningless. If they had hard evidence of actual fraud, that’s what they’d be talking about, not overinterpreting out of date vital information.

If dead people were voting, then show me evidence that dead people were voting. Not that the records were out of date, which again … means nothing beyond its direct implications.

It’s interesting that you resort to vague speculation on TV magazine shows, rather than actually submitting hard, written evidence put out by someone official. I have very little patience for unverifiable he-said-she-said.

Sorry, I must have missed Harpe’s speech. Very forgettable, apparently. I concede that one.
commented 2018-03-01 11:00:53 -0500
“As Drew pointed out, the media lies. "

So does Trump. When it comes down to his word vs theirs, guess who I believe? It’s easy enough to find supporting evidence either way, and by and large, the “media lies” are sins of omission, not outright fabrication as Trump’s are.

Taking the “millions of illegal voters” argument as an example, the study that claim is based upon was actually several years old (in an era when the illegal population has been declining), had an order of magnitude estimate, and even using the very top end of that very rough estimate, still didn’t explain Trump’s vote loss (5 million potentials * 60% turnout * 80% Clinton = 2.5 million, less than the spread). That’s literally the only evidence presented in support of that. The media did report some cases of vote fraud, but it wasn’t anywhere close to millions of votes – something I’m sure, someone would notice. No, that claim was entirely Trump babbling because his ego doesn’t allow him to be anything BUT a winner in his own mind, and then someone like Infowars went out to scrape up whatever infnormation could plausibly support the claims to someone that doesn’t investigate further or who wants to believe it’s true, and that’s then passed around as fact by the True Believers. I buy none of it, Tammie. It’s bullshit the whole way down, and “Media Lies” isn’t an explanation that changes that. It’s what you want to believe and a mechanism to reject evidence otherwise, not what is actually objectively supportable.

By the way, Harper didn’t give a concession speech on election night. Do you feel only scumbags don’t?
commented 2018-03-01 06:40:06 -0500
Hildabeast owns one of the worst political history’s in American politics. From Watergate to present day her antics have been recorded and people have seen the true person she is.

Hildabeast : look into a mirror for your answer as to why you lost 2 presidential elections.
commented 2018-03-01 06:29:18 -0500
Andrew, she didn’t have a concession speech the night of the election….that is what I was referring to. She left the venue without giving one, which is most unusual for a defeated politician.

As Drew pointed out, the media lies.
commented 2018-03-01 01:40:41 -0500
Andrew the media lies. ONE BIG REASON! And also left wingers are brainless sheep that ignore reality.
commented 2018-02-28 23:30:21 -0500
“Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 2018-02-28 21:13:37 -0500
Yes, the millions of illegals votes and she still lost!!!! All the celebrity endorsements and regular people gave her the finger! They also gave the DNC the finger.”
Oh, please. “Millions”? There’s absolutely no evidence of anything of the sort. There were a couple dozen verified cases of vote fraud, and some of them favoured Trump.

The “regular” people gave her the finger by giving her the most votes?

“She didn’t even write a concession speech and left her “victory venue”….priceless! She believed the fake polls and was too arrogant to recognize the low numbers at her rally’s was a better gauge. "

Her concession speech is here: https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/hillary-clinton-concession-speech/index.html .
The polls were accurate – they said she’d win the popular vote by a few percent, and she did. Electoral college distributions are tricky to predict; Trump winning was unlikely but possible. The reality that he didn’t take a single College vote past 273 by more than 1% – well less than margin of error on polling – is compatible with it being a statistical fluke.

Anything else?

No comment on Trump’s sudden conversion to supporting gun control? Man… the NRA is PISSED.
commented 2018-02-28 22:52:23 -0500
Me thinks the, ahem, “lady” doth protest to much. Put out the lights, then put out the light. Oh sweet dagger.
commented 2018-02-28 21:13:37 -0500
Yes, the millions of illegals votes and she still lost!!!! All the celebrity endorsements and regular people gave her the finger! They also gave the DNC the finger.
She didn’t even write a concession speech and left her “victory venue”….priceless! She believed the fake polls and was too arrogant to recognize the low numbers at her rally’s was a better gauge.
commented 2018-02-28 20:54:29 -0500
Sure Andrew, now Hillary was a flawed candidate. You likely whack to her picture every night. You Libs love your criminal politicians as they tell you how to think. I think it is hilarious that Trump thumped the Clinton Cartel even with all the millions of illegals voting for Killary. Nice that you moron Libs keep commenting as it it is good for a laugh.

TRUMP Trumps MORONS!!!!!
commented 2018-02-28 20:39:23 -0500
Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 2018-02-28 18:54:33 -0500
The blindly fervent Clinton supporters were willing to overlook her longstanding criminal activity; corruption and abuse of power. Her day of reckoning can’t come soon enough!"

I for one think it’s fascinating that despite being the worst candidate imaginable, more people still voted for her than the “gun grabber in chief”.

Had the Dems actually had a candidate that people could be fervent about, how would it have turned out?
commented 2018-02-28 20:06:01 -0500
Andrew Stephenson,
“The only thing this actually tells us is that Turd enthusiasts are more blindly fervent than any of us and are going to pay until their death for the new libtard reckless spending act”
commented 2018-02-28 18:54:33 -0500
The blindly fervent Clinton supporters were willing to overlook her longstanding criminal activity; corruption and abuse of power. Her day of reckoning can’t come soon enough!
commented 2018-02-28 18:47:31 -0500
The only thing this actually tells us is that Trump enthusiasts are more blindly fervent than Clinton ones, which is not something that really surprises anyone.
commented 2018-02-28 18:26:28 -0500
The poor hag just won’t go away!