2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[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.

The thing is, Trump had some powerful weapons in his corner or he couldn't have won even with Clinton making every tactical mistake in the book. He couldn't even have won the primary if he didn't have something going for him.

He had the benefit of being an outsider who is so full of shit it shoots out of his pores like the limbs hacked off in 'Kill Bill', coating his opponents 3 inches thick. It also helped that his biggest "threat" was Jeb Bush, aka Governor Pumpkinhead, and even most Republicans won't touch a Bush with a ten foot pole, and not just because they all have tiny dicks.

What he had going for him in the general was the ability to lie so much it was impossible for fact-checkers to keep up, when any bothered. But what really made it possible for him to get an electoral win after months of scandals drenching his campaign like hot cat piss was the Comey Cumdumpster Cabal who hated Clinton and were supporters of Trump putting out a bullshit story about a "new" email investigation that didn't exactly, you know, exist.

So Trump basically eroded Clinton's lead just enough that the depressed turnout that always benefits Republicans, benefitted Repubicans, specifically, El Douchey. And you can see it by the fact that downballot House and Senate Repubicans by and large, overperformed.

[Flagg]

Now it's "muslims" (even if they're not muslims) taking "your" jobs
50 years ago it was "wetbacks"
100 years ago it was "Italians Wops, Irish Mics, and Chinese Chinks"
150 years ago it was... I think you can see where this is going. But, hey, Totally Not Racism(tm). Somehow.

No, because every example you listed above isn't a race. But hey, it's just easier to make blanket statements against people whom you do not know because it is easier. After all, the "RACIST!" label is a powerful one even when it doesn't apply. If you want to redefine what racism is to include, I don't know, everything...then nothing is racist.

Every group poo-poos their own members transgressions. Every outside group amplifies said transgressions. Did actual racism and sexism play a role? I believe it did. Is *every* Trump voter a racist or sexist? I do not believe that to be true. I have an acquaintance on Facebook who is female and Navajo as well as an avowed feminist. What was her major focus? Sexism. Very important. Just as equal as all others. 100% Racism. 100% Xenophobia. And definitely, most absolutely, 200% sexism caused the rise of Trump. How dare you not believe that isn't true Cis White Christian Male!

Oh, I'm going to have fun with you!

[Gandalf]

Wait, Italians, Irish and Chinese aren't races? Huh?

[Dragon Angel]

Some examples fall more under ethnicity than race, but the point still stands really. How one can not see "wetback" and "chink" as racist beats me though.

Irish especially were barely even considered human a century or more ago so I'm just...

[Danny Bhoy]

Some examples fall more under ethnicity than race, but the point still stands really. How one can not see "wetback" and "chink" as racist beats me though.

Irish especially were barely even considered human a century or more ago so I'm just...

Serious question: How is "Chink" racist? As an ethnic Chinese, I haven't a scoobie how that's as racist as "nigger" to one of African ethnicity or "jungle bunny" to just about anyone from Africa or Southeast Asia. Frankly being called "Jap" (1980s to early 2000s) bugs me more because it's inaccurate and I'm not particularly fond of the Japanese.

And elements associated with some ethnicities have been able to neutralise/coopt erstwhile epithets into "badges of honour", e.g. the Protestant term Taig for an Irish RC in NI and Scotland has I think lost most if not all of its venom in the last 20 years.

[Dragon Angel]

Serious question: How is "Chink" racist? As an ethnic Chinese, I haven't a scoobie how that's as racist as "nigger" to one of African ethnicity or "jungle bunny" to just about anyone from Africa or Southeast Asia. Frankly being called "Jap" (1980s to early 2000s) bugs me more because it's inaccurate and I'm not particularly fond of the Japanese.

I've been told it, at the same level as "gook", etc. YMMV on how offensive it is I guess.

[TheFeniX]

Serious question: How is "Chink" racist? As an ethnic Chinese, I haven't a scoobie how that's as racist as "nigger" to one of African ethnicity or "jungle bunny" to just about anyone from Africa or Southeast Asia. Frankly being called "Jap" (1980s to early 2000s) bugs me more because it's inaccurate and I'm not particularly fond of the Japanese.

Seriously? Ok, biting: It's racist because it's slang used as a racist term. If "keyboard" was used to insult Chinese, as stupid as that would be, it would be a racial slur. It's called context.

And elements associated with some ethnicities have been able to neutralise/coopt erstwhile epithets into "badges of honour", e.g. the Protestant term Taig for an Irish RC in NI and Scotland has I think lost most if not all of its venom in the last 20 years.

Doesn't mater: those are still racial slurs if used to disparage someone based on their race. This is not a complex concept.

[mr friendly guy]

Wait, Italians, Irish and Chinese aren't races? Huh?

Some people who are into these race classifications schema, ie racists race realist would argue that these are ethnicities and that the race are white, white and east asian or using the outdated racist term "mongoloid" for those ethnicities.

I have seen some Pan-Asianism retards argue that conflicts between Asians don't have racist elements because they're both the same race. No, I wish I was kidding.

[Dragon Angel]

At the end of the day, honestly, they're all still fucking rude words especially in the context of racial/ethnic slurs. They don't paint the users of those slurs well in any light.

[Flagg]

Serious question: How is "Chink" racist? As an ethnic Chinese, I haven't a scoobie how that's as racist as "nigger" to one of African ethnicity or "jungle bunny" to just about anyone from Africa or Southeast Asia. Frankly being called "Jap" (1980s to early 2000s) bugs me more because it's inaccurate and I'm not particularly fond of the Japanese.

Seriously? Ok, biting: It's racist because it's slang used as a racist term. If "keyboard" was used to insult Chinese, as stupid as that would be, it would be a racial slur. It's called context.

And elements associated with some ethnicities have been able to neutralise/coopt erstwhile epithets into "badges of honour", e.g. the Protestant term Taig for an Irish RC in NI and Scotland has I think lost most if not all of its venom in the last 20 years.

Doesn't mater: those are still racial slurs if used to disparage someone based on their race. This is not a complex concept.

Yeah, I think this guy may have forgotten to look when the elevator doors opened and fell a few floors before landing on his head. Go up to any Chinese American and say "chink" and I think you'll get a pretty negative reaction unless they are a blacksmith at the local Ren Fair.

[K. A. Pital]

In my native language the word "man" means both men and women, so I obviously did not mean to exclude them, it just got lost in translation.

But why do you think they voted against their interests? What are their interests?

Policies that would increase their wealth and social mobility. A substantial number of Republicans are less affluent white people who would benefit from liberal social policies and reject it due to irrational beliefs of the others talking their jobs and stealing their money despite objective evidence showing that thsee beliefs have no basis in reality.

Of course there are many who actually care more about identifying with the winning team rather than increasing their personal wealth and social and economic mobility... a lot of folks are happy with their social and economic status... they don't wish to have to compete to maintain it.

How would Democratic policies increase their wealth exactly?

Ratio of female wages to male wages - constant


Real hourly for all earnings - not growing for decades


So wages are not growing overall and female wages are not growing relative to male wages.

Is there any good argument why they suddenly would start growing? Under Clinton of all people?

[The Romulan Republic]

Something that's occurred to me for a while, and is becoming more and more clear to me, is that its nearly impossible to craft a coherent, consistent, and credible narrative against Trump, because the man himself is so fucking inconsistent.

How do you argue against a man who swings from neo-fascism to moderate liberal and back in the span of a day or a week? Do you call out his extremist positions, and appear an alarmist, or do you treat him as a pragmatic moderate, or at worst a mere incompetent, and risk overlooking his more extreme and dangerous proposals?

I wonder if part of Trump's success, perversely, is that his inconsistency makes it damn near impossible to construct a consistent counterargument, beyond pointing out his inconsistency and unpredictability?

Edit: This is, at least in part, where I'm coming from with the whole "Trump is engaging in deliberate misdirection" theory I floated earlier. Because if nothing else, he's media-savvy, and is constantly radical shifting of positions makes no sense otherwise.

[Dragon Angel]

I think one would just need to point out exactly that: He's too chaotic. His positions are unreliable and indecisive. His leadership skill, if he has the capability to show any leadership, will shift so much one could never truly tell which direction he could take the country.

It's like walking through the Sahara desert while stuck right in the middle of it, with no map and no ability to tell your direction otherwise.

He cannot lead, period. A lack of clear and consistent vision is extremely dangerous to a leader's followers. People who would follow him would die of dehydration in the Sahara, and in our country's case, we will probably all collectively suffer from that.

[Flagg]

In my native language the word "man" means both men and women, so I obviously did not mean to exclude them, it just got lost in translation.

But why do you think they voted against their interests? What are their interests?

Policies that would increase their wealth and social mobility. A substantial number of Republicans are less affluent white people who would benefit from liberal social policies and reject it due to irrational beliefs of the others talking their jobs and stealing their money despite objective evidence showing that thsee beliefs have no basis in reality.

Of course there are many who actually care more about identifying with the winning team rather than increasing their personal wealth and social and economic mobility... a lot of folks are happy with their social and economic status... they don't wish to have to compete to maintain it.

How would Democratic policies increase their wealth exactly?

Ratio of female wages to male wages - constant


Real hourly for all earnings - not growing for decades


So wages are not growing overall and female wages are not growing relative to male wages.

Is there any good argument why they suddenly would start growing? Under Clinton of all people?

If Clinton had been elected with a Democratic congress, I think she'd likely have raised the federal minimum wage by about a dollar. But most minimum wage increases are being done on the municipal, county, and state level.

[K. A. Pital]

Would that dollar raise be an actual real purchasing power increase, or would it come and be eaten by currency swings and/or other sources of inflation?

Bear in mind that pursuing the free trade agreements to their fullest extent would have likely exerted some downward pressure on wages. As to whether would that pressure be offset by cheaper prices, I cannot say, because the price swings of oil and many other commodities are quite unpredictable.

A doubling of the nominal minimum wage would have likely caused a huge expansion of working class purchasing power. But I don't know if this is at all feasible in the US political climate. Even with a Democratic Congress.

[Flagg]

I think one would just need to point out exactly that: He's too chaotic. His positions are unreliable and indecisive. His leadership skill, if he has the capability to show any leadership, will shift so much one could never truly tell which direction he could take the country.

It's like walking through the Sahara desert while stuck right in the middle of it, with no map and no ability to tell your direction otherwise.

He cannot lead, period. A lack of clear and consistent vision is extremely dangerous to a leader's followers. People who would follow him would die of dehydration in the Sahara, and in our country's case, we will probably all collectively suffer from that.

Yeah, well I'm sure just like Bush 43* they will hand wave away the fact that (I'm totally serious it's almost suicide inducing) Trump doesn't really know what the President, you know, does by saying he'll "be surrounded by smart, knowledgeable people". Of course those people are the likes of Adolph Ghouliani and Grand Wizard Bannon. So, yeah.

[Flagg]

Would that dollar raise be an actual real purchasing power increase, or would it come and be eaten by currency swings and/or other sources of inflation?

Bear in mind that pursuing the free trade agreements to their fullest extent would have likely exerted some downward pressure on wages. As to whether would that pressure be offset by cheaper prices, I cannot say, because the price swings of oil and many other commodities are quite unpredictable.

A doubling of the nominal minimum wage would have likely caused a huge expansion of working class purchasing power. But I don't know if this is at all feasible in the US political climate. Even with a Democratic Congress.

I honestly don't know, economics is well outside my balliwick. But I'd guess that it wouldn't do anything but almost catch up with inflation. Seattle passed a ballot initiative raising it to $13.50/hr over 3 years. IIRC the Federal minimum wage is something in the high $6.00's, low $7.00's which to me are slave wages.

[His Divine Shadow]

Merkel Says TTIP dead
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/1 ... -also-dead

[Dragon Angel]

Yeah, well I'm sure just like Bush 43* they will hand wave away the fact that (I'm totally serious it's almost suicide inducing) Trump doesn't really know what the President, you know, does by saying he'll "be surrounded by smart, knowledgeable people". Of course those people are the likes of Adolph Ghouliani and Grand Wizard Bannon. So, yeah.

Yeah... Trump is like the incompetent king with the scheming chancellor whispering what he should really do. Though, our ironic saving grace could well be his arrogance and pride causing him to ignore Pence, his cabinet, and the loaded dice of a Congress we now have in favor of his brand of chaos.

Well, I suppose it was an eventuality that we would have our own Caligula.

[K. A. Pital]

Merkel Says TTIP dead
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/1 ... -also-dead

Whoops!

[ArmorPierce]

In my native language the word "man" means both men and women, so I obviously did not mean to exclude them, it just got lost in translation.

But why do you think they voted against their interests? What are their interests?

Policies that would increase their wealth and social mobility. A substantial number of Republicans are less affluent white people who would benefit from liberal social policies and reject it due to irrational beliefs of the others talking their jobs and stealing their money despite objective evidence showing that thsee beliefs have no basis in reality.

Of course there are many who actually care more about identifying with the winning team rather than increasing their personal wealth and social and economic mobility... a lot of folks are happy with their social and economic status... they don't wish to have to compete to maintain it.

How would Democratic policies increase their wealth exactly?

Ratio of female wages to male wages - constant


Real hourly for all earnings - not growing for decades


So wages are not growing overall and female wages are not growing relative to male wages.

Is there any good argument why they suddenly would start growing? Under Clinton of all people?

Did I say that Democrats would have increased their wages?

No I didn't, I said they vote against their interest by voting against certain liberal(/progressive) policies. Think bernie sanders rather than democratic party.

Further, it is absurd that you point to wages during a specific period labeled the lost decade that was precipitated by decades of conservative and supply side economic policies. There is a reason why it is called the lost decade due to the unique nature of it in recent amercantile history and having been precipitated by one of the worse recessions in living memory.

It's also disingenuous. Why does that graph not show figures regarding unemployment rate that dropped substantially?! That grapH has 0 meaning without proper context.

For a more realistic objective view of economic performance and individual wealth I can point to statistics that shows that the economy has higher growth when a Democrat is in office.

Reference see link

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/ ... -democrats

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Yeah, well I'm sure just like Bush 43* they will hand wave away the fact that (I'm totally serious it's almost suicide inducing) Trump doesn't really know what the President, you know, does by saying he'll "be surrounded by smart, knowledgeable people". Of course those people are the likes of Adolph Ghouliani and Grand Wizard Bannon. So, yeah.

Yeah... Trump is like the incompetent king with the scheming chancellor whispering what he should really do. Though, our ironic saving grace could well be his arrogance and pride causing him to ignore Pence, his cabinet, and the loaded dice of a Congress we now have in favor of his brand of chaos.

Well, I suppose it was an eventuality that we would have our own Caligula. :|

Donald Trump knows less about being president than he does about being an honest businessman. As long as his yes-men verbally fellate him on a regular basis, he'll be more than happy to let Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell run the country for him. Especially since they only need him to be sane and reasonable for, at best, a few minutes (or however long it takes to rubber-stamp legislation) each week. Otherwise he and his family are free to basically loot the planet for their own personal enrichment.

Which is actually worse in every way, compared to simply having the Donald run everything himself. It would be marginally more tolerable if we had an opposition party that knew how to, you know, oppose. Except we don't. The Democrats in Washington are already showing that they only care for their own personal power. You have Chuck Schumer making conciliatory noises in the Senate about how they look forward to working with the Republicans; when the right thing to do would be to take a page from the Republicans' playbook and vigorously oppose everything the GOP puts forward. You have Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders whitewashing (pun very fucking intended) Donald Trump's victory as one solely of economics. You even have Bernie Sanders saying that Trump would have a goddamned ally in him if he were to take on Bernie Sanders' pet issue.

And to think there were people who thought Bernie Sanders would save the Democrats. Joke's on you now ... and I'm sorry if it isn't very funny. The only thing that will save the Democrats is if every last one of them at the national level got put on unemployment, and local Democrats rebuilt the party from the state level.

[K. A. Pital]

I did not point out anything beyond the fact female wages have not substantially increased relative to male wages.

If you think that under typical progressive policies the female unemployment rate would have further reduced relative to the male one, that view is also kind of unfounded. Where to should it fall and how could participation furhter increase if it has been stagnating for both sexes? Labor participation rate by sex:


I think the unemployment has not fallen fast enough or jobs created were not of decent quality (a trend well noted by many economists) after the recession. This also created the potential for Trump to capitalize on.

[Dragon Angel]

Donald Trump knows less about being president than he does about being an honest businessman. As long as his yes-men verbally fellate him on a regular basis, he'll be more than happy to let Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell run the country for him. Especially since they only need him to be sane and reasonable for, at best, a few minutes (or however long it takes to rubber-stamp legislation) each week. Otherwise he and his family are free to basically loot the planet for their own personal enrichment.

There's that side of it too I suppose... I was hoping he'd be so utterly and stupidly arrogant that he'd perhaps gridlock himself.

Oh well, there goes that wisp of morbid optimism.

[Ralin]

There's that side of it too I suppose... I was hoping he'd be so utterly and stupidly arrogant that he'd perhaps gridlock himself.

Oh well, there goes that wisp of morbid optimism.

I think there are multiple plausible theories for exactly what a Trump presidency is going to look like and that we really won't know which is on the money until we're in the middle of it.