News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Reuters' position on covering Trump. Parent comment

[dead]
Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump by dragonwriter on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @04:07PM (#13545190)
> First, tell me the numbers for electoral votes. I would consider that a landslide

Then you don't understand what a landslide, electoral or otherwise, is. Of the post-WWII elections, virtually all were bigger wins, electorally, the exception being both of George W. Bush's elections, Nixon's 1968 election, and Kennedy's 1960 election.

Actually, while WWII is often used as a breakpoint for considering modern elections, the same is true if you extend the timeframe to post-WWI.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump by williamle8300 on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @04:19PM (#13545326)
You may not consider 232 (CLINTON) -– 306 (TRUMP) a landslide but I certainly do.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump by dragonwriter on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @04:22PM (#13545356)
If you do, you rob "landslide" of any substantive meaning -- virtually every Presidential election is a "landslide" by that standard, and Trump's is the fifth weakest in 100 years.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump by peeters on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @04:09PM (#13545213)
I'm having trouble seeing where in your link there is any evidence presented that Obama's birth certificate is forged. It's an article about some guy saying it was forged.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump by ugh22 on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @05:49PM (#13546199)
Your evidence is Arpaio? lol.

I guess the newspaper announcement was faked 60 years ago too?

Seriously dude, drop it. It's pathetic and sad. Hundreds of experts have looked at it, of course there is 1 racist goon who will say otherwise.

[ Parent | on HN ]