2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[Flagg]

Who gives a fuck about qualifications, honestly? From the perspective of the average voter that is. I mean Trump won, he ain't got none but he still won. I remember thinking what the big deal was when people tried to shit on Bernie with that earlier on during the primaries. People don't want someone who understands the system and can fine tune it, they want someone who destroys it and is not tainted by it.

Yeah, but after exploding it, it needs to be rebuilt. And Trump doesn't know how. He just declares bankruptcy and walks away. That's the worst kind of person to even get to visit the WH. Plus he's a Pedophile and Rapist.

[Simon_Jester]

See, the point is, this isn't even about Trump's lousy character. The point is that most of our models of what makes a good candidate in this day and age appear to be wrong.

By conventional standards, Hillary Clinton looked like a good candidate. By those same standards, Trump was a bad one. Either conventional standards are wrong and Clinton was a bad candidate who lost to another bad one, or conventional standards are wrong and Clinton was a good candidate... but Trump was an even better candidate.

Think about post-Iraq War presidential history.

A black guy beat two sane-competentish Republicans in a row by huge margins- the first one, on the strength of his experience as a freshman senator.

A white woman lost to a crazy-horrible Republican by a narrow margin (despite winning the popular vote, which is promising).

Minority status is not the defining thing here. Experience is not the defining thing here. We have to ask ourselves, what did Obama have that Clinton didn't?

Because I'm pretty sure that had he been able to run again, either as Incumbent 2012 Obama or as Hope and Change 2008 Obama...

...Obama would have relegated Trump's toupee to the floor-mopping duties it deserves, then gone on to wipe the walls with the rest of him.

[K. A. Pital]

It was not Clinton but the perception of Clinton.

And with 30 years of political history you can't change perceptions overnight.

Trump was always shallow - a self-mocking walking joke which nonetheless turned into something serious when people gave him the votes.

Clinton was dead serious as a candidate and it brought her... not much.

[Simon_Jester]

This is essentially my point.

Conventional analysis largely ignored the issue of Clinton's terrible 'brand,' the fact that she is widely hated on the right and little loved on the left.

Conversely, I think it also largely ignored the fact that Trump has long since mastered the art of winning the love of every would-be sycophant. For something like 40-50 years he's been projecting himself as the God-Emperor of Used Car Salesmen. The man every person with even an ounce of greedy, amoral sleaze in their character wants to look up to.

That turned out to be a powerful asset.

[Alferd Packer]

Apparently she also didn't take Trump's strategy seriously until it was too late. She wasn't even conducting polls in Wisconsin until late October. She thought she could ignore the Rust Belt, and she wasted resources in places like Georgia and Arizona. In other words, she ran a bad campaign. And even a good candidate can't get away with that.

[Flagg]

This is essentially my point.

Conventional analysis largely ignored the issue of Clinton's terrible 'brand,' the fact that she is widely hated on the right and little loved on the left.

Conversely, I think it also largely ignored the fact that Trump has long since mastered the art of winning the love of every would-be sycophant. For something like 40-50 years he's been projecting himself as the God-Emperor of Used Car Salesmen. The man every person with even an ounce of greedy, amoral sleaze in their character wants to look up to.

That turned out to be a powerful asset.

Again, I don't really think Donnie Douchebag won, so much as Clinton lost, if that makes any sense. I still believe Clinton's high poll numbers caused many who would have voted, and voted for her, stayed home because her win seemed inevitable.

[K. A. Pital]

I honestly think polls matter very little outside the politicized internet crowd. So their impact is overstated.

[aerius]

Apparently she also didn't take Trump's strategy seriously until it was too late. She wasn't even conducting polls in Wisconsin until late October. She thought she could ignore the Rust Belt, and she wasted resources in places like Georgia and Arizona. In other words, she ran a bad campaign. And even a good candidate can't get away with that.

Found a link to the following while wandering in the internet
http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/9200-you ... ntry307365

Summary: Trump ran a damn smart campaign, he didn't waste his time in the States that don't matter and focused his time & effort on the ones that did. He understands how the system works, what he needs to win the game, had a clear plan, and set it into action to achieve his goals.

[Q99]

Yea, I do not think polls affect voting much.

During the primary people complained that Hillary's delegate numbers were discouraging... but those, one, mattered more than the polls, and two, voting still really went on the lines of their demographic bases. The only case I can think of where it might've mattered was Michigan, which was, one, right on the line, and two, a case where people were going, "Hey, I want Hillary to win but I don't want it to be by *too* much so that the party goes more liberal, so....".

Again, I don't really think Donnie Douchebag won, so much as Clinton lost, if that makes any sense. I still believe Clinton's high poll numbers caused many who would have voted, and voted for her, stayed home because her win seemed inevitable.

Note, her polls were not that safe due to the Comey meddling. They looked like she was ahead but inside margin of error.

They were not the +8 polls of the week before.

[Flagg]

I honestly think polls matter very little outside the politicized internet crowd. So their impact is overstated.

I dunno abut that., polls, emails (indictments any day now!!! ), and Rapist Donnie Douchebag's daily bedshitting were all heavily covered on the 24 hour "newpinion" channels as well as the regular nightly news and Sunday morning hangover "Political Softball Insider Twat Circle Jerk Interview" shows. But anytime a new poll would come out, it was a headliner until the next poll came out.

Which isn't to say you're wrong. Frankly if the 1/5-1/4 of the American population that actually voted for Rapist Pedophile Donnie Douchebag (or any other candidate) based on them "liking him more than Clinton/whomever is the most qualified" then it's just more proof that that segment of the population needs to be forcibly relocated to Wyoming so we can wall off all but Yellowstone.

I vote based on ones qualification rather than some popular dink. It's the same with people saying "I voted for <some douche> because I can trust them" which is so goddamned stupid it makes my balls hurt. Even if I like a candidate, I don't fucking trust them. The fuckers should be monitored by the public all the time.

[Flagg]

Yea, I do not think polls affect voting much.

During the primary people complained that Hillary's delegate numbers were discouraging... but those, one, mattered more than the polls, and two, voting still really went on the lines of their demographic bases. The only case I can think of where it might've mattered was Michigan, which was, one, right on the line, and two, a case where people were going, "Hey, I want Hillary to win but I don't want it to be by *too* much so that the party goes more liberal, so....".

Again, I don't really think Donnie Douchebag won, so much as Clinton lost, if that makes any sense. I still believe Clinton's high poll numbers caused many who would have voted, and voted for her, stayed home because her win seemed inevitable.

Note, her polls were not that safe due to the Comey meddling. They looked like she was ahead but inside margin of error.

They were not the +8 polls of the week before.

Yeah, that's why Comey should be (politically) crucified.

[Flagg]

It was not Clinton but the perception of Clinton.

And with 30 years of political history you can't change perceptions overnight.

Trump was always shallow - a self-mocking walking joke which nonetheless turned into something serious when people gave him the votes.

Clinton was dead serious as a candidate and it brought her... not much.

It's a pretty sad state of affaires, really. Clinton garnered the hatred of the right because of who she was married to and bullshit no one but the regressive right wing hate machine gives 2 shits about.

Meanwhile all Trump is known for is a shitty ripoff reality show, bankruptcies by the dozen, and calling women he doesn't like (so, all of them) fat pigs on the internet. And I fucking dare him to get whatever stooge he puts in the Attorney General spot to use prosecutorial misconduct to charge Clinton or any other person he has a vendetta against. You think the anti-Trump protests are bad now? It may well result in the first Presidential lynching in American history. Not that I would condone pulling a Mussolini on Donnie Douchebag or any other form of violence.

[Flagg]

Yea, I do not think polls affect voting much.

During the primary people complained that Hillary's delegate numbers were discouraging... but those, one, mattered more than the polls, and two, voting still really went on the lines of their demographic bases. The only case I can think of where it might've mattered was Michigan, which was, one, right on the line, and two, a case where people were going, "Hey, I want Hillary to win but I don't want it to be by *too* much so that the party goes more liberal, so....".

Again, I don't really think Donnie Douchebag won, so much as Clinton lost, if that makes any sense. I still believe Clinton's high poll numbers caused many who would have voted, and voted for her, stayed home because her win seemed inevitable.

Note, her polls were not that safe due to the Comey meddling. They looked like she was ahead but inside margin of error.

They were not the +8 polls of the week before.

Let's not act like Clinton got the stuffing beat out of her, I mean I know it's of no legal significance, but she won the popular vote.

[The Romulan Republic]

Who gives a fuck about qualifications, honestly? From the perspective of the average voter that is. I mean Trump won, he ain't got none but he still won. I remember thinking what the big deal was when people tried to shit on Bernie with that earlier on during the primaries. People don't want someone who understands the system and can fine tune it, they want someone who destroys it and is not tainted by it.

Both points of view have some validity.

Clearly, in terms of winning elections, political experience is, if anything, a liability these days. And one doesn't need a Clintonesque resume to be a good President. While it was, admittedly, a different time, I would point to Abraham Lincoln, arguably our greatest President, and a man who never held higher office than one-term Congressman before being elected President.

On the other hand, you obviously need someone who has an understanding of how law and politics work, and who has experience managing a large and complicated organization and juggling a great many responsibilities. The Presidency is pretty much the definition of "not an entry-level position".

I would say that a Presidential candidate, ideally, ought to have had at least one prior political/government office at the national level (or a Governorship). But that's just my feelings on the matter.

Edit: Granted, if Trump face-plants as hard as many of us are expecting, then experience is likely to be a lot more important to being electable in the future.

[aerius]

Hypothetical question: What if Trump succeeds? Forget about your feelings on his policies, what if after 4 years, the country hasn't burned to the ground and is in as good or better shape than it is now?

[The Romulan Republic]

Then I'll be glad, relieved, but still consider him a loathsome individual and support electing someone else.

Of course I'm not rooting for the country to collapse just to spite Trump. But he could be the next FDR in terms of policy and he'd still be loathsome on a personal level.

Of course, its probably a moot point, because based on his words and actions thus far, I expect him to be either totally, catastrophically ineffectual, or an authoritarian strong-man.

[Iroscato]

I'd like nothing more than to be proven totally wrong on Trump - if it turns out that he can keep a tight check on the excesses of the GOP and deliver a stellar presidency that looks after the people and kickstarts the economy, then I'll gladly eat crow and throw my weight behind the president if not the man.

Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen though.

[Dalton]

Hypothetical question: What if Trump succeeds? Forget about your feelings on his policies, what if after 4 years, the country hasn't burned to the ground and is in as good or better shape than it is now?

Dickhead has such a low bar for success that if he manages to finish four years without shitting his pants his supporters will scream "greatest president in history" from the rooftops.

[Napoleon the Clown]

By conventional standards, Hillary Clinton looked like a good candidate.

Image has always been an incredibly important factor in a candidate's viability. HW Bush got a boost against Dukakis by successfully painting him as being unpatriotic. Everyone thought of Al Gore as being "boring" and no different than Dubya. John Kerry had a perception of lacking in patriotism due to protesting the Vietnam War... Perception is, and basically always has been, more important than your actual ideas or actual experience. If Hillary looked like a good candidate by conventional standards, conventional standards have been inaccurate for many decades at the very least.

To admit that Hillary Clinton's public image is shit is not to admit that she did the things many believe she did. It is to admit the reality of her having a bad public image.


Flagg is exactly right that Hillary Clinton lost more than Jester Cheetah won. She just straight up underperformed. She was unable to convince enough people to vote for her in the places she needed it. Blame hubris making her think she needn't campaign in former strongholds. Blame sexism. Blame voter suppression efforts... Have all three as factors. But the reality is, she just didn't motivate enough people to vote for her where she needed it most.

[FireNexus]

Dean just namedropped Joe Kennedy 3 in an NPR interview as a possible presidential candidate. Which made me think back to the DNC, where I saw him speak and thought "That guy is going to be fucking President."

He'll be a 3.5 term house rep by 2020, and I don't see him making it out of a primary when "We just elected a guy who doesn't know shit, and it isn't working out too well" is an argument. But I'd bet at long odds that he'll be sworn in before 2030.

[FireNexus]

Hypothetical question: What if Trump succeeds? Forget about your feelings on his policies, what if after 4 years, the country hasn't burned to the ground and is in as good or better shape than it is now?

Dickhead has such a low bar for success that if he manages to finish four years without shitting his pants his supporters will scream "greatest president in history" from the rooftops.

The hardcore, maybe. But the fence sitters who gel on Trump will just want a charismatic white men or an absolutely saintly white woman to rescue them from Trump if he's actually shitty.

If he can make it out of a Dem primary with his Patriot Act vote and the above-mentioned "Why would we go from a failing President who doesn't know shit to a new President who doesn't know shit" argument, my money is on Joe 3. He's Obama-level charismatic and white as the driven snow. That covers the working class whites, whose anti-establishmentarian tendencies should be tempered by Trump's total failure to deliver on his promises. He's also the nephew of Democrat Jesus, which should bring along most of the Bernie wing.

Whether any white man can really rally the Obama coalition is in question. But I'd bet Joey does it if given the chance.

[Flagg]

Hypothetical question: What if Trump succeeds? Forget about your feelings on his policies, what if after 4 years, the country hasn't burned to the ground and is in as good or better shape than it is now?

Dickhead has such a low bar for success that if he manages to finish four years without shitting his pants his supporters will scream "greatest president in history" from the rooftops.

We could lose another city by the wrath of Neptune and the Pedophile Rapist Donnie Douchebag would be given a ticker tape parade as he digs into his Depends and eats the gobs of shit he pulls out just for not ordering the nuclear destruction of South Korea. Not a typo, he's just that fucking stupid.

[Flagg]

Dean just namedropped Joe Kennedy 3 in an NPR interview as a possible presidential candidate. Which made me think back to the DNC, where I saw him speak and thought "That guy is going to be fucking President."

He'll be a 3.5 term house rep by 2020, and I don't see him making it out of a primary when "We just elected a guy who doesn't know shit, and it isn't working out too well" is an argument. But I'd bet at long odds that he'll be sworn in before 2030.

Isn't he the one with the fucked up squeaky voice?

[The Romulan Republic]

Hypothetical question: What if Trump succeeds? Forget about your feelings on his policies, what if after 4 years, the country hasn't burned to the ground and is in as good or better shape than it is now?

Dickhead has such a low bar for success that if he manages to finish four years without shitting his pants his supporters will scream "greatest president in history" from the rooftops.

The hardcore, maybe. But the fence sitters who gel on Trump will just want a charismatic white men or an absolutely saintly white woman to rescue them from Trump if he's actually shitty.

If he can make it out of a Dem primary with his Patriot Act vote and the above-mentioned "Why would we go from a failing President who doesn't know shit to a new President who doesn't know shit" argument, my money is on Joe 3. He's Obama-level charismatic and white as the driven snow. That covers the working class whites, whose anti-establishmentarian tendencies should be tempered by Trump's total failure to deliver on his promises. He's also the nephew of Democrat Jesus, which should bring along most of the Bernie wing.

Whether any white man can really rally the Obama coalition is in question. But I'd bet Joey does it if given the chance.

You keep ignoring and dismissing all the other reasons why the Democrats lost (including being perceived as being Republican lite) so you can push your repulsive and idiotic narrative that Democrats need to throw women and minorities under the bus and embrace another few decades of straight white male supremacy.

It is a dark day when we have Democrats extolling a candidate's whiteness as a reason to nominate them for President.

Again, the majority voted for Clinton. If she'd matched Obama's turnout with black and young voters, if she'd done just a little better in a few key states, that would probably have done it. If she had pulled in more working class white voters by not being the embodiement of corporate cronyism and unfair trade deals in their eyes, that might have done it.

Hell, if the FBI hadn't interfered on Trump's behalf, that might have done it.

But no, let's throw women and minorities under the bus to try to be Republican lite, and make sure that it is only straight white men who have a voice in the political mainstream. The people who vote primarily on race/gender largely won't come back to us anyway, and the people who are voting on anti-establishment/anti-trade deals will certainly not, and we'll lose even more support with minorities and young voters, but hey, what's the worst that could happen?

This is why Democrats lose: Because we are the party of surrender, defeatism, and incrementalism, because we respond to defeat by trying to move further to the Right, because we do not give voters something to believe in, to fight for. Right now, we have a chance to reevaluate our past mistakes as a party and become something better.

Throwing civil rights and equality under the bus so we can avoid having to make any changes on our support for establishment economics is pretty much the polar opposite of what we need to do in every way.

If you want to relegate the Democrats to third party status, you're on the right track.

Your position is not only morally repugnant, a willing surrender to and collaboration with misogyny and white supremacy which you have not remotely demonstrated to be politically necessary, but it is actively counterproductive. It is pretty much the worst possible course you could advocate.

You cannot compromise on equality. Give the bigots an inch, and they'll take a mile, as we have seen in this election.

[The Romulan Republic]

Is anyone else going to call out FireNexus on extolling a candidate's whiteness as a reason for the Democrats to nominate him?

Its not enough that we have Vichy Republicans. Now we have God damn Vichy Democrats.