2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[The Romulan Republic]

For people who are navel gazing and asking 'how did this happen and the pollsters got it so wrong?' I have a no-shitpost question for you guys; how did you see a typical Trump rally turnout versus a typical Clinton rally turnout (you know the ones minus JayZ and Beyonce) and then look at the polls showing Clinton with a 12 point lead and it didn't occur to you that something was off about this?

Like I'm sincere here, she was almost as low energy as Jeb! for crying out loud. Do you not have eyes?

Rally size means nothing.

If it did mean anything, Bernie would probably be President elect right now.

[Crown]

Rally size means nothing.

If it did mean anything, Bernie would probably be President elect right now.

I accept that, but there were differences; Bernie couldn't (or fucked up) in getting his message out to black voters who screwed him early on in the primaries. He was impeded in communicating beyond those already ready to listen.

Trump on the other hand had unfettered access to get on the media (who laughably paid for his campaign for him while trying to destroy him).

So the question still stands; did you not look at this and think, how are these polls telling me something that is counter intuitive to what I can see my own eyes?

[aerius]

For people who are navel gazing and asking 'how did this happen and the pollsters got it so wrong?' I have a no-shitpost question for you guys; how did you see a typical Trump rally turnout versus a typical Clinton rally turnout (you know the ones minus JayZ and Beyonce) and then look at the polls showing Clinton with a 12 point lead and it didn't occur to you that something was off about this?

Like I'm sincere here, she was almost as low energy as Jeb! for crying out loud. Do you not have eyes?

Tampering with Goal seeking the polls to fit the narrative is a thing. Who could've known?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-2 ... over-trump

12 point leads don't happen unless there's a video of the candidate diddling ladyboys in Thailand.

[Gaidin]

Rally size means nothing.

If it did mean anything, Bernie would probably be President elect right now.

I accept that, but there were differences; Bernie couldn't (or fucked up) in getting his message out to black voters who screwed him early on in the primaries. He was impeded in communicating beyond those already ready to listen.

Trump on the other hand had unfettered access to get on the media (who laughably paid for his campaign for him while trying to destroy him).

So the question still stands; did you not look at this and think, how are these polls telling me something that is counter intuitive to what I can see my own eyes?

Going by what I'm seeing in hindsight. Trump ran a legit whistlestop campaign and polls be damned. Bernie probably could've done the same in the South and stolen them from Hillary.

[Crown]

For people who are navel gazing and asking 'how did this happen and the pollsters got it so wrong?' I have a no-shitpost question for you guys; how did you see a typical Trump rally turnout versus a typical Clinton rally turnout (you know the ones minus JayZ and Beyonce) and then look at the polls showing Clinton with a 12 point lead and it didn't occur to you that something was off about this?

Like I'm sincere here, she was almost as low energy as Jeb! for crying out loud. Do you not have eyes?

Tampering with Goal seeking the polls to fit the narrative is a thing. Who could've known?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-2 ... over-trump

12 point leads don't happen unless there's a video of the candidate diddling ladyboys in Thailand.

I for one am shocked aerius, shocked I tell you!

Next you'll be telling me that Wolf Blitzer received directives from John Podesta on what to ask her political rivals, or Donna Brazille would give the Clinton campaign advance knowledge of questions during the primaries, tell me it ain't so!

[Crown]

I accept that, but there were differences; Bernie couldn't (or fucked up) in getting his message out to black voters who screwed him early on in the primaries. He was impeded in communicating beyond those already ready to listen.

Trump on the other hand had unfettered access to get on the media (who laughably paid for his campaign for him while trying to destroy him).

So the question still stands; did you not look at this and think, how are these polls telling me something that is counter intuitive to what I can see my own eyes?

Going by what I'm seeing in hindsight. Trump ran a legit whistlestop campaign and polls be damned. Bernie probably could've done the same in the South and stolen them from Hillary.

Bernie was fucked in the South; the entire Black caucus threw their weight behind Hillary before the Bernie effect really took off and the horse fled the stable before he had a chance to penetrate her name recognition.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Um no Ziggy.
Plenty of people did see it coming.

I was one of them, I posted about it a few times on this board, got a lot of shit in return for even mentioning the possibility existed.

They rendered inaccurate predictions because their interpretation of the data was inaccurate. Plain and simple. Theread has been a paradigm shift that is more obvious for younger people largely due to social media and mobile devices that the older experienced decision makers have not fully mentally grasped and included in their analysis.

Saying that it is unpredictable is absurd. It was predictable, they were just wrong and stagnant.

Since both of you made the same stupid strawman of my argument, I'll address you both at once:

I never said that there was NEVER a possibility and that NO ONE predicted it, or that it was completely unpredictable. I just said that it's an UPSET. This is a fact that every single person who has followed the campaign in any detail agrees upon. Nobody every thought it was IMPOSSIBLE (well, at least no one intelligent) that Trump would win, only that it was UNLIKELY.

AP, you even ADMIT my point, when you say there has been a "paradigm shift". All of the conventional wisdom has been overturned. That's what makes it so unlikely. Not that it was impossible or utterly unpredictable. Even the people that thought Trump could win knew it was a longshot. It was the result of a confluence of complex socio-political, economic, and cultural factors that have intertwined over the course of the past decade, combined with simple serendipity (the e-mail scandal, etc.).

[ArmorPierce]

I accept that, but there were differences; Bernie couldn't (or fucked up) in getting his message out to black voters who screwed him early on in the primaries. He was impeded in communicating beyond those already ready to listen.

Trump on the other hand had unfettered access to get on the media (who laughably paid for his campaign for him while trying to destroy him).

So the question still stands; did you not look at this and think, how are these polls telling me something that is counter intuitive to what I can see my own eyes?

Going by what I'm seeing in hindsight. Trump ran a legit whistlestop campaign and polls be damned. Bernie probably could've done the same in the South and stolen them from Hillary.

Bernie was fucked in the South; the entire Black caucus threw their weight behind Hillary before the Bernie effect really took off and the horse fled the stable before he had a chance to penetrate her name recognition.

Yup. Didn't help that the Democrat black came out supporting Hillary and when asked about bernie their response is that they don't know bernie, they know hillary. The Democrats were far more effective in squashing the populist candidate, probably partly due to Trumps already established name recognition.

[Ziggy Stardust]

There's a lot more than arrogance/complacency involved, and I think it's a bit naive to say otherwise. This WAS a gigantic political upset, in that in winning Trump has utterly destroyed myriad conventions and traditions of our system. It wasn't JUST Hillary supporters saying she'd win, it was scientific analysis of polling data courtesy of Nate Silver, too. There is a very real and deep issue (most likely a demographic one) that, quite simply, nobody saw coming. Sure, there was arrogance/complacency in thinking that Hillary had in the bag, but any reasonable person who saw the numbers before yesterday would have rightly considered her the favorite.

Stop blaming Silver would you. He was the one giving her the low analysis. And taking hits for it as well. Every other one was giving Clinton upwards of 90%.

How on earth could you possibly interpret any part of my post as "blaming Silver"? And somehow think that saying that every other poll had HIGHER probabilities for Clinton actually contradicts my point? My entire point was that scientific polling favored Clinton, and you respond to that with, "No, but other polls favored her MORE"?

[ArmorPierce]

Um no Ziggy.
Plenty of people did see it coming.

I was one of them, I posted about it a few times on this board, got a lot of shit in return for even mentioning the possibility existed.

They rendered inaccurate predictions because their interpretation of the data was inaccurate. Plain and simple. Theread has been a paradigm shift that is more obvious for younger people largely due to social media and mobile devices that the older experienced decision makers have not fully mentally grasped and included in their analysis.

Saying that it is unpredictable is absurd. It was predictable, they were just wrong and stagnant.

Since both of you made the same stupid strawman of my argument, I'll address you both at once:

I never said that there was NEVER a possibility and that NO ONE predicted it, or that it was completely unpredictable. I just said that it's an UPSET. This is a fact that every single person who has followed the campaign in any detail agrees upon. Nobody every thought it was IMPOSSIBLE (well, at least no one intelligent) that Trump would win, only that it was UNLIKELY.

AP, you even ADMIT my point, when you say there has been a "paradigm shift". All of the conventional wisdom has been overturned. That's what makes it so unlikely. Not that it was impossible or utterly unpredictable. Even the people that thought Trump could win knew it was a longshot. It was the result of a confluence of complex socio-political, economic, and cultural factors that have intertwined over the course of the past decade, combined with simple serendipity (the e-mail scandal, etc.).

I'm not sure why you're getting upsetabout it, we're just engaging in discourse and furthering the conversation.

I am referring in general to this notion (not necessarily your post) that things are unpredictable which I've seen contended by others in the past to excuse their erroneous forecasts which I would dispute. It's not that they are unpredictable, you just don't have all the facts and are not interpreting it accurately often due to a changing environment that they failed to notice.

[Block]

Rally size means nothing.

If it did mean anything, Bernie would probably be President elect right now.

I accept that, but there were differences; Bernie couldn't (or fucked up) in getting his message out to black voters who screwed him early on in the primaries. He was impeded in communicating beyond those already ready to listen.

Trump on the other hand had unfettered access to get on the media (who laughably paid for his campaign for him while trying to destroy him).

So the question still stands; did you not look at this and think, how are these polls telling me something that is counter intuitive to what I can see my own eyes?

Going by what I'm seeing in hindsight. Trump ran a legit whistlestop campaign and polls be damned. Bernie probably could've done the same in the South and stolen them from Hillary.

Nah, Southern Blacks were never going to vote for a Jew. Christian anti-Semitism is still very much alive and well in the South, and Black people are very very Christian.

[Gaidin]

How on earth could you possibly interpret any part of my post as "blaming Silver"? And somehow think that saying that every other poll had HIGHER probabilities for Clinton actually contradicts my point? My entire point was that scientific polling favored Clinton, and you respond to that with, "No, but other polls favored her MORE"?

You're literally naming him maybe? Dude literally gave her a weighted coin at best. Everyone else called it for her days before.

[Crown]

So the question still stands; did you not look at this and think, how are these polls telling me something that is counter intuitive to what I can see my own eyes?

Going by what I'm seeing in hindsight. Trump ran a legit whistlestop campaign and polls be damned. Bernie probably could've done the same in the South and stolen them from Hillary.

Nah, Southern Blacks were never going to vote for a Jew. Christian anti-Semitism is still very much alive and well in the South, and Black people are very very Christian.

That's actually something I didn't consider, is there a poll or trend on this or just gut opinion?

[ArmorPierce]

Going by what I'm seeing in hindsight. Trump ran a legit whistlestop campaign and polls be damned. Bernie probably could've done the same in the South and stolen them from Hillary.

Nah, Southern Blacks were never going to vote for a Jew. Christian anti-Semitism is still very much alive and well in the South, and Black people are very very Christian.

That's actually something I didn't consider, is there a poll or trend on this or just gut opinion?

Oh yes this is something I forgot.

I grew up in a black environment. I can vouch for anti semitism from blacks being very common. No objective numbers however.

[Welf]

Hi, I haven't been on the forum for a few months, but I came here to gloat. So with no further ado: (US) America sucks.

You guys are still vastly over-estimating Trump. Hillary Clinton is 90% responsible for this result.

Not sure if Clinton is really that responsible. Trump had the advantage from the beginning. The economy is sluggish, if improving, but a lot of people do not participate. Plus there was a lot on the line for poor white voters. More free trade as advocated by Obama and early Clinton would mean less economic power, and the Clinton coalition around minorities and women would mean less political influence, and would only get worse with a path to citizenship for illegals and more immigrations. A lot of reasons to go out and vote. Clinton would have needed different polices and a different voter coalition to have a chance in the election, like the one Sanders had. But that wouldn't have worked in the democratic primaries.

There's a lot more than arrogance/complacency involved, and I think it's a bit naive to say otherwise. This WAS a gigantic political upset, in that in winning Trump has utterly destroyed myriad conventions and traditions of our system. It wasn't JUST Hillary supporters saying she'd win, it was scientific analysis of polling data courtesy of Nate Silver, too. There is a very real and deep issue (most likely a demographic one) that, quite simply, nobody saw coming. Sure, there was arrogance/complacency in thinking that Hillary had in the bag, but any reasonable person who saw the numbers before yesterday would have rightly considered her the favorite.

I think we need to downgrade statistics as political science a bit, at least as a predictive science. Trump likely get around 306 electoral votes, that is not a close election like in 2000. I think the issue with these models is that they are good at slicing and dicing the electorate, but bad at detecting changes in party affiliation. Political sciences or economic were better at predicting the outcome (like for example Ray Fair's model). In his last post before the election Silver (the one with 71% for Clinton) gives a good explanation why his prediction has a lot of uncertainty.

[The Romulan Republic]

If Clinton's lead in the popular vote holds, then I know exactly what to blame, and it isn't Clinton, or Trump, or Bernie, or Comey.

Its the fucking Electoral College which will have appointed two of our last three Presidents against the will of the electorate.

[The Vortex Empire]

Anti-Defamation league surveys show that about 12% of Americans in general hold anti-semitic views, and over 30% of blacks and latinos.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... d-latinos/

[Tribble]

If Clinton's lead in the popular vote holds, then I know exactly what to blame, and it isn't Clinton, or Trump, or Bernie, or Comey.

Its the fucking Electoral College which will have appointed two of our last three Presidents against the will of the electorate.

In the case of Bush, it was the Governor of Florida being his brother and the Supreme Court that appointed him, not the electoral college (if there had been the recount Florida would have been Democrat and Gore would have won).

And your idea goes against the very idea of federalism - If elections were simply run via majority vote then the vast majority of states / rural areas would be completely ignored. The electoral college was specifically designed to ensure that everyone some level of importance, and you couldn't simply go to big cities / states to win.

Where I do agree with you is with the "winner take all" provisions (which I explained in the other thread goes against what the original drafters of the constitution were intending). That IMO is the biggest problem with the electoral college. While each state should be given some electors so that each state has some sway, those electors should be proportionate to the vote in that state rather than "all or nothing". That is where I feel the electoral college largely fails.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't give a hoot for federalism, or tradition, if it goes against democracy.

This idea that "rural areas will be ignored" doesn't fly for me. I try not to divide the country into homogenous blocks which are entitled to a certain degree of control. I try to see each American as an individual, casting an individual vote and entitled to equal representation as a citizen. But that's not what we have now, the EC gives more influence to rural states, and it does so at the expense of every voter who doesn't live in a swing state. That is unacceptable.

Why should a tiny percentage of rural voters be entitled to a stranglehold on our democracy?

[Tribble]

I don't give a hoot for federalism, or tradition, if it goes against democracy.

This idea that "rural areas will be ignored" doesn't fly for me. I try not to divide the country into homogenous blocks which are entitled to a certain degree of control. I try to see each American as an individual, casting an individual vote and entitled to equal representation as a citizen. But that's not what we have now, the EC gives more influence to rural states, and it does so at the expense of every voter who doesn't live in a swing state. That is unacceptable.

Why should a tiny percentage of rural voters be entitled to a stranglehold on our democracy?

A state is only considered "safe" because the majority tend to vote for one party or the other. A "swing state" is only such because voters there tend to be more picky and less inclined to remain with one particular party. Swing states only count for so much because the "safe" states always refuse to change their minds.

And yes, I think that state representation is important. By your logic things like Brexit should be followed through, even though it was clear that the majority vote (aka England and to a lesser degree Wales) are forcing Scotland and Northern Ireland to leave the EU against their will. I disagree with the assessment that a the simple majority (aka New York and California) should get to dictate to everyone else who the president would be and how things should be run. What the hell do they know about the rest of the country? Even though I would have voted democrat and that would be to my advantage if I lived there, I'm against that type of tyranny.

[The Romulan Republic]

My feeling about Brexit is much the same as my feeling about Trump winning:

Its the wrong outcome, but if it was done lawfully, it should be accepted. If not (as a court has essentially ruled with Brexit, saying that a referendum is not enough and that Parliament must vote on it), it should not be. However, the laws should be changed to ensure that in future, the will of the people is respected, with the exception of basic civil liberties and democratic principles, which should not be overturned by a simple majority.

That said, since Scotland is part of the EU, wishes to remain in the EU, and remained in Britain on the assumption that it would remain in the EU, I would have a hard time faulting the Scots if they chose to seek independence.

And it is not "tyranny" for the majority of the voters to determine the winner of an election. Its democracy.

[Tribble]

My feeling about Brexit is much the same as my feeling about Trump winning:

Its the wrong outcome, but if it was done lawfully, it should be accepted. If not (as a court has essentially ruled with Brexit, saying that a referendum is not enough and that Parliament must vote on it), it should not be. However, the laws should be changed to ensure that in future, the will of the people is respected, with the exception of basic civil liberties and democratic principles, which should not be overturned by a simple majority.

That said, since Scotland is part of the EU, wishes to remain in the EU, and remained in Britain on the assumption that it would remain in the EU, I would have a hard time faulting the Scots if they chose to seek independence.

And it is not "tyranny" for the majority of the voters to determine the winner of an election. Its democracy.

So yes to majorities, but if the majority in a particular region disagree, they should be allowed to leave? IMO it would make more sense that a consensus is required for major changes rather than "all or nothing".

By that logic if people in smaller states know that they will have no real bearing on who gets elected president, I wouldn't fault them for wanting to seek independence (though in the USA's case its illegal so they can't. Sucks to be them in your version of the US).

[The Romulan Republic]

Weather they should be allowed to leave depends on the circumstances. I gave the reasons why I feel that Scotland could make a case for leaving.

I'm against secession in nearly all cases because it seems to be usually driven by nationalism, prejudices, and old grudges; because it creates a lot of hassle and risk for instability, and because I favour a more united over a less united world.

In Scotland's case, however, they have other compelling reasons to leave and would in a sense be taking the pro-unity, anti-secession position by remaining in the EU, and so I am more open to their case than I normally would be to a secessionist cause.

[Tribble]

Weather they should be allowed to leave depends on the circumstances. I gave the reasons why I feel that Scotland could make a case for leaving.

I'm against secession in nearly all cases because it seems to be usually driven by nationalism, prejudices, and old grudges; because it creates a lot of hassle and risk for instability, and because I favour a more united over a less united world.

In Scotland's case, however, they have other compelling reasons to leave and would in a sense be taking the pro-unity, anti-secession position by remaining in the EU, and so I am more open to their case than I normally would be to a secessionist cause.

Well I disagree with that assessment and I believe in the merits of federalism rather than the simple majority utopia you seem to be rooting for - I suppose if this issue came up you'll vote one way and I'll vote the other. lol

[Tanasinn]

Guess I was right about the knock-on effects of pissing off and humiliating Sanders voters.

I'm genuinely shocked my own Michigan swung for Trump. He was smart, courting factory workers and auto workers. It seems to have made a difference.