2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Locked
User avatar
Wild Zontargs
Padawan Learner
Posts: 360
Joined: 2010-07-06 01:24pm

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Wild Zontargs »

esr (aka Eric S Raymond the open-source advocate with "interesting" political views) gets to say "I told you so":

Hey, Democrats! We need you to get your act together!
It’s now just a bit over a month since Election Day, and I’m starting to be seriously concerned about the possibility that the U.S. might become a one-party democracy.

Therefore this is an open letter to Democrats; the country needs you to get your act together. Yes, ideally I personally would prefer your place in the two-party Duverger equilibrium to be taken by the Libertarian Party, but there are practical reasons this is extremely unlikely to happen. The other minor parties are even more doomed. If the Republicans are going to have a counterpoise, it has to be you Democrats.

Donald Trump’s victory reads to me like a realignment election, a historic break with the way interest and demographic groups have behaved in the U.S. in my lifetime. Yet, Democrats, you so far seem to have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Indeed, if I were Donald Trump I would be cackling with glee at your post-election behavior, which seems ideally calculated to lock Trump in for a second term before he has been sworn in for the first.

Stop this. Your country needs you. I’m not joking and I’m not concern-trolling. The wailing and the gnashing of teeth and the denial of reality have to end. In the rest of this essay I’m not going to talk about right and wrong and ideology, I’m going to talk about the brutal practical politics of what you have to do to climb out of the hole you are in.


We need to start with an unsparing assessment of that hole.

First, your ability to assemble a broad-based national coalition has collapsed. Do not be fooled into thinking otherwise by your popular vote “win”; that majority came entirely from the West Coast metroplex and disguises a large-scale collapse in popular support everywhere else in the U.S. Trump even achieved 30-40% support in blue states where he didn’t spend any money.

County-by-county psephological maps show that your base is now confined to two major coastal enclaves and a handful of university towns. Only 4 of 50 states have both a Democratic-controlled legislature and a Democratic governor. In 2018 that regionalization is going to get worse, not better; you will be defending 25 seats in areas where Trump took the popular vote, while the Republicans have to defend only 8 where Clinton won.

Your party leadership is geriatric, decades older than the average for their Republican counterparts. Years of steady losses at state level, masked by the personal popularity of Barack Obama, have left you without a bench to speak of – little young talent and basically no seasoned Presidential timber under retirement age. The fact that Joseph Biden, who will be 78 for the next Election Day, is being seriously mooted as the next Democratic candidate, speaks volumes – none of them good.

Your ideological lock on the elite media and show business has flipped from a powerful asset to a liability. Trump campaigned against that lock and won; his tactics can be and will be replicated. Worse, a self-created media bubble insulated you from grasping the actual concerns of the American public so completely that you didn’t realize the shit you were in until election night.

Your donor advantage didn’t help either. Clinton outspent Trump 2:1 and still lost.

Your “coalition of the ascendant” is sinking. Tell all the just-so stories you like, but the brute fact is that it failed to turn out to defeat the Republican candidate with the highest negatives in history. You thought all you had to do was wait for the old white men to die, but anybody who has studied the history of immigration in the U.S. could have told you that the political identities of immigrant ethnic groups do not remain stable as they assimilate. You weren’t going to own the Hispanics forever any more than you owned the Irish and the Italians forever. African-Americans, trained by decades of identity politics, simply failed to show up for a white candidate in the numbers you needed. The sexism card didn’t play either, as a bare majority of married women who actually went to the polls seem to have voted for Trump.

But your worst problem is less tangible. Trump has popped the preference bubble. The conservative majority in most of the U.S. (coastal enclaves excepted) now knows it’s a conservative majority. Before the election every pundit in sight pooh-poohed the idea that discouraged conservative voters, believing themselves isolated and powerless, had been sitting out several election cycles. But it turned out to be true, not least where I live in the swing state of Pennsylvania, where mid-state voters nobody knew were there put Trump over the top. Pretty much the same thing happened all through the Rust Belt.

That genie isn’t going to be stuffed back in the bottle. Those voters now know they can deliver the media and the coastal elites a gigantic fuck-you, and Republicans know the populist techniques to mobilize them to do that. Trump’s playbook was not exactly complicated.

Some Democrats are beginning to talk, tentatively, about reconnecting to the white working class. But your real problem is larger; you need to make the long journey back to the political center. Not the center you imagine exists, either; that’s an artifact of your media bubble. I’m pointing at the actual center revealed by psephological analysis of voter preferences.

That center is far to the right of what you would prefer. For that matter it is rather the right of where I would prefer – but facts are facts and denying them isn’t going to help. You Democrats need to think about what it takes to be competitive on a continuum where Fox News is barely right of center, Mitt Romney was an out-of-touch liberal, and as near as I could tell the politician who actually nailed the psephological center in 2008 was none other than Sarah Palin.

If you do not do this thing, you will continue to lose.

Again, I emphasize that I am not issuing an ideological prescription here. I am not arguing in this essay that the present Democratic platform and strategy is wrong in an abstract moral sense, but rather that that it has become suicidal practical politics. Trump has dynamited almost every connection it had to winning elections, and smarter Republicans than Trump will take the lesson going forward.

Before I get to suggesting some changes, I want to point out that the results of the dominance Republicans have already achieved are going to make your problems even worse than they look now. Those problems don’t end with not having a farm team. State-level control means the Republicans will largely determine redistricting in the 2020 census. Their ability to pass voter-ID laws will surely hurt you as well.

I also need to point out that you shouldn’t count on Republican failure to save you. Yes, I know Democrats tell themselves Republican “hard right” policy actually implemented will alienate so many voters that they’ll come running back to your party. But you also thought Hillary was inevitable and how did that work out for ya? Trump’s popularity has risen as his program becomes clearer. You need to be positioned so that you can cope with outcomes other than catastrophic disenchantment with Trumpian populism.

So, what can you do?

The most obvious thing is that you have to stop contemptuously dismissing the largest single demographic segment of the American electorate. Because believe me, they noticed. So did their wives and children.

This has larger implications than you may yet understand. It’s not just that you need to take any Democrat who uses the phrase “angry white men” out to the woodshed and beat him or her with a strap until he/she wises up. The whole apparatus of racial and ethnic identity politics is turning in your hand, reversing (like your old-media dominance) from an asset to a liability.

(Just to drive the point home, the gender card doesn’t work any more either. Trump is a feminist’s worst nightmare. He won anyway. He came close enough to winning the entire female vote to trigger bitter post-election denunciations of American women in general by feminists – which pretty much epitomizes the sort of reaction that isn’t going to help you.)

Your best plausible case is that the minority groups you counted on passively fail to add up to a winning coalition, as they did this cycle. Your worst – and increasingly likely – case is that white people now begin voting as something like an ethnic bloc. This is, after all, how you’ve been teaching other ethnic groups to play the game since the 1960s.

You will not prevent this development by screaming “racism!”. Here’s a hot tip: people you dismiss as retrograde scum will not, in general, vote for you. In fact, one of the things you Democrats most urgently need to do is banish “racism” and “sexism” from your political vocabulary.

While these words point at some real problems, they are also a trap. They lead you to organize your political pitch around virtue-signaling, exclusion and demonization. That, in turn, can be successful (though repulsive) politics when it’s used against a minority to mobilize a majority or plurality. But you’re in the opposite situation now. You were trapped by your own privilege theory. You demonized a plurality of American voters, and in return they gave you Trump.

If you continue to do this, you will lose.

It is irrelevant whether an actual plurality of American voters actually are as racist and sexist as you think. They don’t think they are, and they’re fed up with being hectored about it. This isn’t 1965, and your ability to tap into a substratum of guilt by white people who deep down know they were in the wrong is gone. What that same move brings up now is resentment.

Speaking of virtue signaling, another thing you need to give up is focusing on peacock issues (like, say, transgender rights) while ignoring pocketbook problems like the hollowing out of middle-class employment.

Again, this advice has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of individual peacock issues and more with a general sense that the elites are fiddling while Rome burns. For the first time since records have been kept, U.S. life expectancy went down during the Obama years, led by a disturbing rise in suicides and opiate addiction among discouraged unemployed in flyover country. A Democratic Party that fails to address that while it screws around with bathroom-law boycotts is willfully consigning itself to irrelevance.

Many of Trump’s “pro-working-class” policies are objectively terrible; a new wave of trade protectionism is, for example, bound to have dire long-term consequences. But that doesn’t matter, in a political competitive sense, until you Democrats have something to answer him with.

Right now, you have nothing. You have less than nothing, because your instinctive solution repels the Trump plurality. They don’t want welfare, they want jobs and dignity and a modicum of respect. (And, just as a reminder, not to be dismissed as retrograde racists and sexists.)

Now we need to talk about guns.

This is a more particular issue than I’ve touched so far, but it’s one that cuts straight to the heart of the self-alienation of the Democratic Party from the political center.

Again, I’m not going to address the rights and wrongs of gun policy here, just its practical political ramifications. A quarter century ago Bill Clinton – who is as shrewd a practical politician as has ever operated in the U.S. – warned his fellow Democrats that pushing gun control was a sure way to lose more voters than it gained. They ignored his advice and got shellacked in the 1994 elections.

Today voter support for personal firearms rights is at an unprecedented high. This is revealed both in polls and in the wave of state-level liberalizations of concealed-carry laws. One of Trump’s most popular first-hundred-days promises is nationwide concealed-carry reciprocity. From the fact that gun control was slow party suicide in 1994 we can deduce that it’s even worse practical politics today.

And yet, the Democratic Party line is still hostile to gun rights, and less than six months ago its leaders and captive pundits were talking up Australian style gun confiscation.

If you continue to do this, you will lose.

The Democratic line on gun policy is a perfect symbol of everything that has become disconnected about the party. It reads as corrosive disrespect for middle-Americans who like their firearms, think of themselves as a nation of armed citizens rather than cowering subjects, and use their guns responsibly. It reeks of class warfare, urban elites against flyover-country proles. It’s disempowering, not empowering. It is, in short, a perfect focus for anti-Democratic populist anger.

Here’s what I’ve been building up to:

You Democrats don’t just need to reform your gun policy, you need to reform your attitude towards the voters to a place from which your present policy looks as vicious and absurd as it does to them.

You Democrats don’t just need to reform your rhetoric about racism and sexism, you need to reform your attitude towards the voters to a place from which your present rhetoric looks as vicious and absurd as it does to them.

It’s all of a piece. You’ve forgotten how to be the party of the people. Trump was the price of that forgetfulness. Now, you need to relearn it, for all our sakes.

The alternative is that something like the Republicans, or possibly worse, dominates American politics for the foreseeable future. I don’t want that, and you should fear it more than I do.

So get your act together now.
Доверяй, но проверяй
"Ugh. I hate agreeing with Zontargs." -- Alyrium Denryle
"What you are is abject human trash who is very good at dodging actual rule violations while still being human trash." -- Alyrium Denryle
iustitia socialis delenda est
User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3131
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Tribble »

IMO it was the opposite problem. The Democrats were running an establishment figure with establishment politics despite it being apparent (at least to me) that the voters were not interested in establishment politics. Playing for the centre was what backfired because it muddled any messages Democrats were trying to send. What did the Democrats really stand for in this election apart from "Not Trump" and "Meh, more of the same?" Even though both were good arguments to vote Democrat, they weren't exactly inspirational.

And it should be remembered that the old-guard Republican candidates were wiped out just as badly. They were obviously aiming for "Bush / Romney 2.0" and that didn't get them anywhere either.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Simon_Jester »

Zontargs, I'm assuming you agree with the content of the article.

Out of curiosity, how do you figure that an election in which the winning candidate won the Electoral College by flipping three states, and lost the popular vote, is a "realignment election?" Trump's win was not by any stretch of the imagination inevitable. It would not have taken a very different combination of strategies to result in Trump's defeat.

...

For that matter, I'm having a bit of trouble parsing how the author thinks Obama won two presidential elections. Because apparently the "silent majority" of "real Americans" in "flyover country" have revolted as one in an irresistible mass that is going to effortlessly dominate American politics... I mean hell, this guy doesn't have a damn clue what a real blowout election looks like. A real blowout is when the popular vote splits 55/45 in the winner's favor. When the electoral college map is pretty much monochrome.

2016 was not a blowout election in Trump's favor. You can argue that Trump has pioneered some trends that it will be hard for the Democrats to counter without changing their game... but it is intellectually bankrupt to claim that he had 'inevitability' on his side or that his voting coalition is some kind of juggernaut.

...

There is a fundamental issue at work here that needs to be dug out from under the "OH MY GOD THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING-"ism of Zontargs' article. That is that, bluntly, much of the American middle class has been conditioned to associate the Democratic Party with identity politics that they don't believe affects them. Selling them on the idea that the identity politics does affect them really does not work, or if it does, it just turns them into this weird blob of borderline fascists.

It turns out you can get people to do really stupid shit, as long as they can pat themselves on the back about how they're showing those "social justice warriors" what's what in the process.

Getting the American middle class to vote in the interests of anyone other than blustering millionaire psychopaths is going to take some work. It is going to take compromise on a few key issues.

Personally I think gun control should be one of them. Although honestly, that ties into an issue that this particular article, in its smugness, neglects: many Democrats really do not care enough about gun control to try to ramrod it through in the face of opposition. It doesn't take much to convince the Democrats to ditch that plank of the party platform.

On the other hand, gun-control-baiting, as practiced by Republicans who want you to expect the Democrats to take away your guns, is alive and well. Countering that is a much more difficult problem.

That generalizes, too.

The problem here is not that the actual Democratic Party, as a collective institution, has somehow become the party of an elite minority. Parties of an elite minority don't win the popular majority vote in presidential elections.

The problem here is that white middle class voters have been persuaded that the Democrats are the party of an elite minority, that despite the Republicans sizing them up to be carved up like a roast, it is the Democrats who cannot be trusted. That does take outreach, but it doesn't take a "run to the right" platform.

Because in a real sense the article here is ignoring its own argument. The argument is that the American middle class wants to be treated with respect... But 'respect' has very little to do with actual policy planks in a political platform. There's no reason a candidate with Bernie Sanders' politics can't be respectful of the middle class.
Last edited by Simon_Jester on 2016-12-15 04:58am, edited 1 time in total.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Zaune
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7540
Joined: 2010-06-21 11:05am
Location: In Transit
Contact:

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Zaune »

The Romulan Republic wrote:Or impeachment, or nationwide protests/strikes/civil disobedience that the armed forces are not prepared to crush by force, or the Supreme Court between now and whenever Trump manages to successfully pack it with his judges.

You seem awfully quick to jump to (implicitly armed) revolt. That may be your wish list, but it isn't mine. I do not care to have positions that are not mine ascribed to me, especially when it is an issue I feel so strongly about, and have made my views on clear time and time again
Tribalism in US politics is so deeply entrenched that I'm pretty sure the Republicans wouldn't impeach a President of their own party if he was photographed committing forcible rape of a minor at this point, and civil disobedience requires the people in power to give a shit about consent of the governed. My faith in the power of peaceful protest was broken a long time ago, and nothing I've read in the news in recent years has helped repair it. I'm not sure if I envy you your continuing faith in it or not.

And you are slightly mischaracterising my position. For the record, I think armed revolt in the United States is pretty much inevitable, and frankly I don't think anything short of that has a snowball's chance in hell of fixing everything liberals and the saner conservatives don't like about your system of government; sometimes you just have to raze the whole thing to the ground and start afresh. But that doesn't mean I actually want it to happen, because the vast majority of the people I care about could well get caught in the crossfire.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)


Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin


Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon

I Have A Blog
User avatar
Wild Zontargs
Padawan Learner
Posts: 360
Joined: 2010-07-06 01:24pm

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Wild Zontargs »

Simon_Jester wrote:Zontargs, I'm assuming you agree with the content of the article.
Not entirely, no. esr's a bit of an eccentric, and it's usually a coin-toss on whether I'd agree with one of his political opinions. He's a bit too capital-L Libertarian for my tastes (the Free Market isn't some all-seeing, all-knowing god), and his tendency to see Marxists hiding under every piece of furniture is getting a bit old.
Out of curiosity, how do you figure that an election in which the winning candidate won the Electoral College by flipping three states, and lost the popular vote, is a "realignment election?" Trump's win was not by any stretch of the imagination inevitable. It would not have taken a very different combination of strategies to result in Trump's defeat.
I don't think it is an "everything has changed" situation, so much as a "things are changing, and the Democrats risk being left behind" situation.

From the electoral result maps (even population-adjusted ones), there appears to be "two Americas" to an increasing degree. I agree that the non-Blue regions just had a "look what we can do" moment, whether that's justified by long-term trends or not. Spin/narrative/perception seems to be more important in politics than facts right now, so that's going to boost their side.
There is a fundamental issue at work here that needs to be dug out from under the "OH MY GOD THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING-"ism of Zontargs' article. That is that, bluntly, much of the American middle class has been conditioned to associate the Democratic Party with identity politics that they don't believe affects them. Selling them on the idea that the identity politics does affect them really does not work, or if it does, it just turns them into this weird blob of borderline fascists.

It turns out you can get people to do really stupid shit, as long as they can pat themselves on the back about how they're showing those "social justice warriors" what's what in the process.

Getting the American middle class to vote in the interests of anyone other than blustering millionaire psychopaths is going to take some work. It is going to take compromise on a few key issues.

Personally I think gun control should be one of them. Although honestly, that ties into an issue that this particular article, in its smugness, neglects: many Democrats really do not care enough about gun control to try to ramrod it through in the face of opposition. It doesn't take much to convince the Democrats to ditch that plank of the party platform.

On the other hand, gun-control-baiting, as practiced by Republicans who want you to expect the Democrats to take away your guns, is alive and well. Countering that is a much more difficult problem.

That generalizes, too.
This I agree with.
The problem here is not that the actual Democratic Party, as a collective institution, has somehow become the party of an elite minority. Parties of an elite minority don't win the popular majority vote in presidential elections.

The problem here is that white middle class voters have been persuaded that the Democrats are the party of an elite minority, that despite the Republicans sizing them up to be carved up like a roast, it is the Democrats who cannot be trusted. That does take outreach, but it doesn't take a "run to the right" platform.

Because in a real sense the article here is ignoring its own argument. The argument is that the American middle class wants to be treated with respect... But 'respect' has very little to do with actual policy planks in a political platform. There's no reason a candidate with Bernie Sanders' politics can't be respectful of the middle class.
This I'm not so sure. While they don't make up a majority of my online acquaintances, I hang out with a lot of people who are on the Right/Red side of US politics. Fairly close to the middle, and usually more small-l libertarian than Republican, but definitely on that side. They're also middle class. They're exactly the demographic you're talking about, and they didn't need any "persuading" to see the Dems as elitists, at least not during this election cycle. Those who reluctantly supported Trump weren't that happy about voting Republican, but they were voting against the Democrats. The rest voted third party or left the presidential box blank.

Now, perhaps they've been "persuaded" to be anti-Dem over years and years, but it seems like it was the Dems who did that. They say things along the lines of "both parties are going to fuck us, but at least Trump says he won't fuck us on
  • , and I care about those, so I'll hold my nose and vote for him / not vote against him". The Dems are not successfully appealing to these people, so there's no reason to vote for them.

    The Dems are successfully appealing to the Blues, and the Reds increasingly see the Blues as elite enemies of their side. Since the Dems are the Blue party, that makes them the elite enemy party. A broader appeal would likely reduce this tendency. I don't think decreasing this Red-Blue tribalism is likely to happen on any politically-relevant timescale (generations vs election cycles), so staying left/Blue and converting the voters isn't going to be a winning strategy for the Democrats.
Доверяй, но проверяй
"Ugh. I hate agreeing with Zontargs." -- Alyrium Denryle
"What you are is abject human trash who is very good at dodging actual rule violations while still being human trash." -- Alyrium Denryle
iustitia socialis delenda est
User avatar
FireNexus
Cookie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:10am

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by FireNexus »

My favorite idea of this election cycle is that the original idea of the electoral college was to guard against demagoguery. It is pretty clear that Hamilton's writing on the subject was an ad hoc rationalization to convince the north to take it up the democratic ass in service to the goal of securing southern economic power.

Fact is, the electoral college in this instance did precisely what it was designed for. It gave low population states a disproportionate impact on the choice of president. That it's lived 160 years past it's useful lifetime doesn't change that fact in the slightest.
I had a Bill Maher quote here. But fuck him for his white privelegy "joke".

All the rest? Too long.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Flagg »

Ralin wrote:
Flagg wrote:Simon, so you're saying that because there are more democratic votes, there needs to be some method of giving republicans an equal say despite the will of the majority (aka Democracy)? I'd say that wish is fulfilled by the senate. Why should it also be true of the executive?
I think it's pretty obvious that he's arguing the exact opposite and explaining why it's actually not in the Democrats' best interests to keep the Electoral College?
Then I misread it. Sorry, Simon.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3131
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Tribble »

FireNexus wrote:My favorite idea of this election cycle is that the original idea of the electoral college was to guard against demagoguery. It is pretty clear that Hamilton's writing on the subject was an ad hoc rationalization to convince the north to take it up the democratic ass in service to the goal of securing southern economic power.

Fact is, the electoral college in this instance did precisely what it was designed for. It gave low population states a disproportionate impact on the choice of president. That it's lived 160 years past it's useful lifetime doesn't change that fact in the slightest.
To be fair elector independence was the other key feature and electors were not supposed to pledge themselves to any particular candidate beforehand, nor were they supposed to be required vote in blocks via "winner take all". Hamilton and Madison expressly against the current setup.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Flagg »

Tribble wrote:
FireNexus wrote:My favorite idea of this election cycle is that the original idea of the electoral college was to guard against demagoguery. It is pretty clear that Hamilton's writing on the subject was an ad hoc rationalization to convince the north to take it up the democratic ass in service to the goal of securing southern economic power.

Fact is, the electoral college in this instance did precisely what it was designed for. It gave low population states a disproportionate impact on the choice of president. That it's lived 160 years past it's useful lifetime doesn't change that fact in the slightest.
To be fair elector independence was the other key feature and electors were not supposed to pledge themselves to any particular candidate beforehand, nor were they supposed to be required vote in blocks via "winner take all". Hamilton and Madison expressly against the current setup.
Does it really matter? We have what we have and I'm generally against giving much of a shit what the intentions of people 200 years ago were. I mean beyond the trivia.

To me it's clear: When a "Democratic" system produces results counter to the will of the majority twice in 16 years, it's broken. Original intent or not.

But this hoping against hope that the EC will "see the light" and give the votes to Clinton is just setting people up for disappointment (and I'm talking across the board, I'm getting emails about it), because it's not going to happen. Given Trumps not doing what incoming presidents are supposed to do, I think a valid case could be made, but these are very partisan people (by design) and they aren't going to risk legal ramifications.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
FireNexus
Cookie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:10am

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by FireNexus »

Tribble wrote:
FireNexus wrote:My favorite idea of this election cycle is that the original idea of the electoral college was to guard against demagoguery. It is pretty clear that Hamilton's writing on the subject was an ad hoc rationalization to convince the north to take it up the democratic ass in service to the goal of securing southern economic power.

Fact is, the electoral college in this instance did precisely what it was designed for. It gave low population states a disproportionate impact on the choice of president. That it's lived 160 years past it's useful lifetime doesn't change that fact in the slightest.
To be fair elector independence was the other key feature and electors were not supposed to pledge themselves to any particular candidate beforehand, nor were they supposed to be required vote in blocks via "winner take all". Hamilton and Madison expressly against the current setup.
Hamilton Madison argued expressly against the current setup in The Federalist Papers, a propaganda piece designed to promote the constitution. In the context of the Senate and the 3/5ths compromise, and given that the EC as a body was never meant to meet all together nor debate or consider, Hamilton and Madison's justifications seem pretty hollow. They were trying to find ways to convince the people getting fucked by the system to agree that it was consensual after the fact.

If it was designed to do what Hamilton and Madison said, it would have been designed in a way that made it legitimately capable of doing what they said. Or the electors simply would have been the house reps and senators they get assigned based on. It wasn't and they weren't. Hamilton hoped it could be used that way, but that wasn't intended in any way to be it's use.
I had a Bill Maher quote here. But fuck him for his white privelegy "joke".

All the rest? Too long.
User avatar
FireNexus
Cookie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:10am

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by FireNexus »

Flagg wrote: Does it really matter? We have what we have and I'm generally against giving much of a shit what the intentions of people 200 years ago were. I mean beyond the trivia.

To me it's clear: When a "Democratic" system produces results counter to the will of the majority twice in 16 years, it's broken. Original intent or not.

But this hoping against hope that the EC will "see the light" and give the votes to Clinton is just setting people up for disappointment (and I'm talking across the board, I'm getting emails about it), because it's not going to happen. Given Trumps not doing what incoming presidents are supposed to do, I think a valid case could be made, but these are very partisan people (by design) and they aren't going to risk legal ramifications.
If something really explosive comes out tomorrow or Saturday (like the RNC being made aware of the RNC hacks and coerced into falling in line behind Trump-which I have no reason to believe is the case but which would make sense, or video of Trump speaking to a Russian agent about the hacks, or Trump's tax returns proving Russia ties that are worse than we know) it might get us a GOP alternate. The first one seems most likely to me, because there would stop being anything to lose if that's why they did it, but any of the three might be enough to deny Trump.

There will never be a shot of Clinton getting the Presidency due to GOP politicos, though. Not unless Trump quickly becomes literally radioactive and a set of Electors manage to rig the voting so the choices are Trump with his dick in a child, Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Even then you might actually see a President Bernie rather than Clinton, such is GOP hatred for the former FLOTUS.
Last edited by FireNexus on 2016-12-15 12:58pm, edited 1 time in total.
I had a Bill Maher quote here. But fuck him for his white privelegy "joke".

All the rest? Too long.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Flagg »

FireNexus wrote:
Flagg wrote: Does it really matter? We have what we have and I'm generally against giving much of a shit what the intentions of people 200 years ago were. I mean beyond the trivia.

To me it's clear: When a "Democratic" system produces results counter to the will of the majority twice in 16 years, it's broken. Original intent or not.

But this hoping against hope that the EC will "see the light" and give the votes to Clinton is just setting people up for disappointment (and I'm talking across the board, I'm getting emails about it), because it's not going to happen. Given Trumps not doing what incoming presidents are supposed to do, I think a valid case could be made, but these are very partisan people (by design) and they aren't going to risk legal ramifications.
If something really explosive comes out tomorrow or Saturday (like the RNC being made aware of the RNC hacks and coerced into falling in line behind Trump-which I have no reason to believe is the case but which would make sense, or video of Trump speaking to a Russian agent about the hacks, or Trump's tax returns proving Russia ties that are worse than we know) it might get us a GOP alternate. The first one seems most likely to me, because there would stop being anything to lose if that's why they did it, but any of the three might be enough to deny Trump.

There will never be a shot of Clinton getting the Presidency due to GOP politicos, though. Not unless Trump quickly becomes literally radioactive and a set of Electors manage to rig the voting so the choices are Trump with his dick in a child, Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Even then you might actually see a President Bernie rather than Clinton, such is GOP hatred for the former FLOTUS.
I'll believe it when I see it. And TBH an incompetent that gets booted after 4 years or a semicompetent that gets reelected... Kinda wonder which is worse.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3131
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Tribble »

Does it really matter? We have what we have and I'm generally against giving much of a shit what the intentions of people 200 years ago were. I mean beyond the trivia.
It could matter quite a lot depending on how the courts end up deciding the issue. It might not matter much in this particular election due to lack of time, but if it ends up at the Supreme Court and they rule that electors can indeed act independently it could completely change things.
To me it's clear: When a "Democratic" system produces results counter to the will of the majority twice in 16 years, it's broken. Original intent or not.


I agree that the electoral college should be reformed, though as I pointed out earlier in the thread the chances of most reforms going through are next to nil. Confirming that electors are independent may in fact be the most reform you're likely (for better or worse), and even then it's not likely.
But this hoping against hope that the EC will "see the light" and give the votes to Clinton is just setting people up for disappointment (and I'm talking across the board, I'm getting emails about it), because it's not going to happen. Given Trumps not doing what incoming presidents are supposed to do, I think a valid case could be made, but these are very partisan people (by design) and they aren't going to risk legal ramifications.
Technically speaking, all the electors would have to do prevent Trump from automatically winning is to vote for any other candidate. If he drops below 270 IIRC it automatically the choice of presidency goes to the House (and for the V.P. to the senate). That could open up an entire can of worms and I agree it's not likely to happen, but it is possible. What is more likely though is that you will see a few trump electors defect, but not enough to make the difference.
Hamilton Madison argued expressly against the current setup in The Federalist Papers, a propaganda piece designed to promote the constitution. In the context of the Senate and the 3/5ths compromise, and given that the EC as a body was never meant to meet all together nor debate or consider, Hamilton and Madison's justifications seem pretty hollow. They were trying to find ways to convince the people getting fucked by the system to agree that it was consensual after the fact.
Context is important here. The EC was not supposed to meet all together nor debate together because Hamilton and Madison feared that by doing so the EC would quickly break down into party politics. By independent electors they meant that each elector was supposed to be independent, rather than just the EC as a whole. By keeping them apart Hamilton and Madison believed that each elector would be free to vote as they truly believed rather than being pressured into voting for someone they didn't necessarily agree with.

If it was designed to do what Hamilton and Madison said, it would have been designed in a way that made it legitimately capable of doing what they said.
Hamilton and Madison believed that was precisely what was supposed to happen, their failure was that they anticipated the states would follow along (which is why they gave the states the power to decide electors were chosen) and that didn't happen. When states started to switch to "winner take all" they attempted to correct their oversight (with Hamilton going so far as to draft an amendment to the constitution to prevent the states from controlling electors) but by that point it was too late and they failed. This was well after the Federalist papers and they made it clear that the current system was a complete distortion of what they had being trying to do.

Or the electors simply would have been the house reps and senators they get assigned based on. It wasn't and they weren't. Hamilton hoped it could be used that way, but that wasn't intended in any way to be it's use.
Hamilton and Madison did not want House Reps or Senate Reps choosing the President for the same reason above: they didn't want party politics to influence the choice of president. The electors were deliberately intended to be a separate position that would be difficult to influence politically (as they were voted into office for a single purpose and only had a relatively short time to make a decision)


Of course, that's not to say that their system would have worked any better. We'll never know, since it quickly became "winner take all" against their protests. They may well have been completely wrong with their approach, but I'm not convinced that they were deliberately trying to sabotage things and screw people over which is what you seem to be suggesting.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Simon_Jester »

Wild Zontargs wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:Zontargs, I'm assuming you agree with the content of the article.
Not entirely, no. esr's a bit of an eccentric, and it's usually a coin-toss on whether I'd agree with one of his political opinions. He's a bit too capital-L Libertarian for my tastes (the Free Market isn't some all-seeing, all-knowing god), and his tendency to see Marxists hiding under every piece of furniture is getting a bit old.
Yeah. People like that are very prone to having a distorted view of the political left. And for that matter the political right. Which is how you get a guy who can say with a straight face something like "as near as I could tell the politician who actually nailed the psephological center in 2008 was none other than Sarah Palin." Because Palin was kind of a political failure in that election, and her political career pretty much cratered after that point.

That kind of attitude is how you turn into Baghdad Bob, basically. And listening to Baghdad Bob is not a good idea. He may happen to say true things by coincidence, but it IS by coincidence. And the tone with which he says them tends to conceal the relevance or value of the information.
Out of curiosity, how do you figure that an election in which the winning candidate won the Electoral College by flipping three states, and lost the popular vote, is a "realignment election?" Trump's win was not by any stretch of the imagination inevitable. It would not have taken a very different combination of strategies to result in Trump's defeat.
I don't think it is an "everything has changed" situation, so much as a "things are changing, and the Democrats risk being left behind" situation.
Things are changing in a lot of directions at once. The Democratic Party definitely needs to adapt, and not try to run elections as if it were 2004 (or for that matter 1992, or 1968). But listening to this particular bozo talk about how to do it isn't going to cut the mustard.
From the electoral result maps (even population-adjusted ones), there appears to be "two Americas" to an increasing degree. I agree that the non-Blue regions just had a "look what we can do" moment, whether that's justified by long-term trends or not. Spin/narrative/perception seems to be more important in politics than facts right now, so that's going to boost their side.
The problem here is not that the actual Democratic Party, as a collective institution, has somehow become the party of an elite minority. Parties of an elite minority don't win the popular majority vote in presidential elections.

The problem here is that white middle class voters have been persuaded that the Democrats are the party of an elite minority, that despite the Republicans sizing them up to be carved up like a roast, it is the Democrats who cannot be trusted. That does take outreach, but it doesn't take a "run to the right" platform.

Because in a real sense the article here is ignoring its own argument. The argument is that the American middle class wants to be treated with respect... But 'respect' has very little to do with actual policy planks in a political platform. There's no reason a candidate with Bernie Sanders' politics can't be respectful of the middle class.
This I'm not so sure. While they don't make up a majority of my online acquaintances, I hang out with a lot of people who are on the Right/Red side of US politics. Fairly close to the middle, and usually more small-l libertarian than Republican, but definitely on that side. They're also middle class. They're exactly the demographic you're talking about, and they didn't need any "persuading" to see the Dems as elitists, at least not during this election cycle. Those who reluctantly supported Trump weren't that happy about voting Republican, but they were voting against the Democrats. The rest voted third party or left the presidential box blank.

Now, perhaps they've been "persuaded" to be anti-Dem over years and years, but it seems like it was the Dems who did that. They say things along the lines of "both parties are going to fuck us, but at least Trump says he won't fuck us on
  • , and I care about those, so I'll hold my nose and vote for him / not vote against him". The Dems are not successfully appealing to these people, so there's no reason to vote for them.
See, the persuasion I'm talking about is long term. The Republican Party has spent thirty years cultivating a Red base that will view Democrats as the party of ivory tower elitists who don't give a shit about them, while cheerfully handing power to a bunch of gated community elitists who don't give a shit about them. Enormous amounts of time and resources have been spent creating a whole infrastructure to spin things this way.

The Democratic Party has, literally tragically, been sucked into going along with this. But it is not purely a Democratic failure, and pretending that the Democrats can convince half the Reds to support them just by adopting a bullet point list of 'right wing' policies is a farce.

There are some issues the Democrats should just jettison, gun control being one of them. The Democrats already have perfectly good policy answers to the urgent questions that motivate gun control like "how can we limit urban crime," and "how do we stop the mentally ill from going on killing sprees" and so on. Because the Democrats as an organic whole are not, in reality, a bunch of gated community elitists who don't give a shit about people.

But saying "oh, well, the Tea Party is the real American moderate right, so we need to 'triangulate' by being halfway between our current positions and theirs" is a bad idea. That lands you in the same general political territory as, oh, Marco Rubio... and honestly, Rubio got his butt kicked by Donald Trump a lot more forcefully than Clinton did.

You can't fight fascists by being a half-fascist-but-iffy-on-the-brutality person. It does not work, as the history of basically every fascist nation ever has amply demonstrated.

[And yes, I'm calling Trumpism a fascist movement, because it shows the cultural signs. That is WHY it appeals to frustrated middle-class Reds who feel like their country is being stolen from them by a bunch of effete weirdos, because that is how fascism works.]
The Dems are successfully appealing to the Blues, and the Reds increasingly see the Blues as elite enemies of their side. Since the Dems are the Blue party, that makes them the elite enemy party. A broader appeal would likely reduce this tendency. I don't think decreasing this Red-Blue tribalism is likely to happen on any politically-relevant timescale (generations vs election cycles), so staying left/Blue and converting the voters isn't going to be a winning strategy for the Democrats.
The trick is that there are a tremendous number of Blue voters and potentially Blue voters, and they live in some surprising places. The Reds don't actually outnumber the Blues. This election certainly doesn't prove that they do, because even if we just pour down the memory hole all the results about the popular vote total, Trump won due to a couple of hundred thousand votes very strategically placed. He won by the skin of his teeth; had the Democrats concentrated more of their resources on Michigan and Pennsylvania and one or two other states, he'd have lost the election.

Furthermore, the Democrats don't have a prayer of somehow convincing people who are truly Red to vote for them in numbers that would offset the loss of loyalty among deep-Blue supporters they rely on. The people who thought Obama was a secret Muslim illegal immigrant for eight years, and who think Hillary Clinton's the Antichrist because of how she handled her emails, aren't going to vote Democrat. Ever. It's pointless to even try.

The real competition here remains one over the 'purples.' People who have a foot in both camps, and who haven't drunk too much Red Kool-Aid. Not the ones that are incapable of even viewing the Democrats as anything other than drunken Satanists out to destroy America* or whatever.

Thing is, the Democrats can't win those purples over unless they have a flag to wave, a reason for existing other than "we're a lot like Republicans, but we're the lesser evil!" If that were going to work, Clinton would have mopped the floor with Trump, because she's very much a lesser evil. By contrast, Obama would have mopped the floor with Trump had he been able to run again, and he would have done it because he knows how to wave a Blue flag.
____________________________

*That's my favorite political cartoon- from 1800. That's Thomas Jefferson. :D
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
FireNexus
Cookie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:10am

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by FireNexus »

Tribble wrote:Snip
You seem to believe for some reason that Hamilon and Madison were the guys who came up with the Electoral College alone. Or at least you're acting as if their explanations in the federalist papers are the basis for the system. Again, the federalist papers were drafted after the constitution was created and served as a rationalization for it, to get it ratified. This includes a political compromise designed to appease the South when their own plan to have Congress do it fell apart. It was designed by a committee Madison was on, but it was a compromise between Congress and the popular vote, and about numbers rather than lofty ideals.

Madison is even on record as saying a popular vote would be best but couldn't be squared with slavery. I'm not saying the Federalist can't be a resource for the intentions of the framers, but where the Federalist is contradicted by other information from the time regarding intentions, or just ignores and downplays the obvious and immediate contemporary political consequences of some constitutional provision, we should probably assume that they were full of shit.
I had a Bill Maher quote here. But fuck him for his white privelegy "joke".

All the rest? Too long.
User avatar
Civil War Man
NERRRRRDS!!!
Posts: 3790
Joined: 2005-01-28 03:54am

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Civil War Man »

In non-Presidential election news, the North Carolina legislature met in a hastily assembled special session to take away as much power from the governor's office as possible, reduce the authority of the state's Supreme Court, and rig the state election board in their favor, all because the next governor (along with a majority of the NC SC) is going to be a Democrat.
In a surprise extra special session on Wednesday called with just hours notice, the Republican-led North Carolina state legislature introduced measures that would reduce the power of the incoming Democratic governor.

Legislators had convened to address disaster relief, but when the session called by lame duck Gov. Pat McCrory ended on Wednesday, the General Assembly quickly called a new special session to pass additional initially unspecified legislation.

Republican lawmakers' last-minute attempt to limit the state governor's powers comes after McCrory conceded in a tight re-election race to his Democratic challenger, state Attorney General Roy Cooper. McCrory dragged the race out for nearly a month beyond Election Day, using a flurry of ballot complaints to decry widespread voter fraud. But after complaints filed by Republicans were largely dismissed, McCrory finally conceded.

Republicans already have a supermajority in both houses of the General Assembly, empowering them to override vetos. But if the legislation introduced on Wednesday becomes law, Cooper will have even less power as governor.

Legislation introduced in the state House on Wednesday would mandate that the governor's cabinet appointees be approved by the state Senate and would cut the number of political appointees that serve under the governor from 1,500 to 300. This comes after the legislature drastically expanded the number of "exempt positions," which are often political in nature, under McCrory in 2013.

The bill would also eliminate the governor's ability to appoint members to the board of trustees for the University of North Carolina System and to the state education board.

Republican legislators are also pushing for changes to the state elections board. Legislation in the state Senate would merge the State Board of Elections with the ethics commission, giving the new board subpoena power. It would also expand the board from five to eight members, with four members from each party.

This will eliminate Democrats' control over the state election board. Currently, the state board is made up of five members, three from the governor's party and two from the minority. So the new legislation would prevent Democrats from taking control over the state elections board when Cooper takes office. Legislation would also change the make-up of county boards, eliminating power from the governor's party and making the boards completely bipartisan.

The new state elections board would be chaired by Republicans in even years — when most elections take place — and by Democrats in odd years, as Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UC-Irvine School of Law, noted on his blog.

The legislation would also make state Supreme Court elections partisan and shift some power from the state Supreme Court to the state court of appeals. In the November election, the state Supreme Court flipped to Democratic control, but there is still a Republican majority on the court of appeals.

House Rules Committee Chairman David Lewis (R) told local reporters on Wednesday that lawmakers wanted to "work to establish that we are going to continue to be a relevant party in governing this state," according to the News and Observer.

Lewis acknowledged that Republicans introduced some of the legislation because of the 2016 election outcome.

"Some of the stuff we’re doing, obviously if the election results were different, we might not be moving quite as fast on, but a lot of this stuff would have been done anyway and has been talked about for quite some time," he said, according to the News and Observer.

State Democrats were up in arms over the last-minute attempt by Republicans to curb Cooper's power.

"This is why people don't trust us, this is why they hate us ... because of this right here — using hurricane relief as the reason to come back to Raleigh to do a lot of things because you lost an election by 10,000 votes," Rep. Darren Jackson (D) said Wednesday night, according to the Associated Press.
If you can't win, cheat.
User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3131
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Tribble »

You seem to believe for some reason that Hamilon and Madison were the guys who came up with the Electoral College alone. Or at least you're acting as if their explanations in the federalist papers are the basis for the system. Again, the federalist papers were drafted after the constitution was created and served as a rationalization for it, to get it ratified. This includes a political compromise designed to appease the South when their own plan to have Congress do it fell apart. It was designed by a committee Madison was on, but it was a compromise between Congress and the popular vote, and about numbers rather than lofty ideals.

Madison is even on record as saying a popular vote would be best but couldn't be squared with slavery. I'm not saying the Federalist can't be a resource for the intentions of the framers, but where the Federalist is contradicted by other information from the time regarding intentions, or just ignores and downplays the obvious and immediate contemporary political consequences of some constitutional provision, we should probably assume that they were full of shit.
Obviously they weren't the only ones who came up with the system, and compromises were made compared to what each framer was looking for (Hamilton for example had wanted the President to be elected for life) but I disagree with your assessment that the whole thing was designed solely to screw people over, and in particular your apparent belief that the framers had absolutely no intention of following through with an independent elector system. Both Madison and Hamilton were opposed to the increasing interference of the elector's decision making and the "winner take all" well after the Federalist Papers and the Constitution was signed, and they attempted to change it (albeit unsuccessfully). If they were full of shit and "winner take all" was what they were really aiming for the whole time, it strikes me as rather odd that they would continually oppose it well after the fact. What evidence is available to suggest that the electoral system was specifically intended to be a winner take all from the outset? Are there other constitutional framers who stated they believed that the electors were not supposed to be independent, and that they would vote solely according to state wishes? Not intending to be sarcastic, I just haven't found any evidence to directly suggest that "winner take all" was what any of the constitutional framers were thinking of when they setup the EC. Bear in mind that when the constitution was being drafted official political parties were not firmly entrenched.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
User avatar
Borgholio
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6297
Joined: 2010-09-03 09:31pm
Location: Southern California

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Borgholio »

LaCroix wrote:I'm not sure what to make of this...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 74416.html
Elon Musk joins Donald Trump’s advisory council despite criticising President-elect

Elon Musk has joined Donald Trump’s advisory council despite having dismissed Mr Trump as “not the right man for the job” during the election.

The President-elect’s transition team announced the appointment of the Tesla executive alongside Travis Kalanick, the chief executive of Uber, on Wednesday.

Musk’s appointment comes weeks after he warned the election is not “the finest moment in our democracy in general”.

So either Trump is just picking names out of a hat and managed to snag a good one, or he really thinks he has a plan. I can't wait to see what will happen when a pro-environment visionary like Musk is in the same company as the Exxon CEO and climate deniers.
You will be assimilated...bunghole!
User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3131
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Tribble »

Maybe he's planning on throwing them all into a cage match just see who comes out on top. Trump is into wrestling :D
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6853
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Soontir C'boath »

Well at the end of the day, do we truly want Trump to stockpile his cabinet and what not with only cronies and selfish bastards?
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Flagg »

Tribble wrote:Maybe he's planning on throwing them all into a cage match just see who comes out on top. Trump is into wrestling :D
Yeah, but only 115lb women.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
FireNexus
Cookie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:10am

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by FireNexus »

So, Obama has a press conference today. Russia will probably come up. Today is also pretty much the deadline for dropping a bomb big enough to derail Trump in the Electoral College. Probably not coming, but I'm going to look at it in the way I check the powerball after I've bought a ticket, just in case.
I had a Bill Maher quote here. But fuck him for his white privelegy "joke".

All the rest? Too long.
User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Master
Posts: 1047
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Khaat »

Tribble wrote:Maybe he's planning on throwing them all into a cage match just see who comes out on top. Trump is into wrestling :D
Sadly, Trump is one of those "different opinions have some merit (if only to be strip-mined for exploitation later)" folks, so a climate change denier opposite the climate change science proponent makes it look balanced, even if he's already all-in with an Industry Money ME First agenda.
Image
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule #4: Be outraged.
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises.
User avatar
jwl
Jedi Master
Posts: 1137
Joined: 2013-01-02 04:31pm

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by jwl »

Can I repeat that you can only be impeached if you committed a crime whilst in office. Trump isn't in office yet, he couldn't possibly have done that.
Tribble wrote:IMO it was the opposite problem. The Democrats were running an establishment figure with establishment politics despite it being apparent (at least to me) that the voters were not interested in establishment politics. Playing for the centre was what backfired because it muddled any messages Democrats were trying to send. What did the Democrats really stand for in this election apart from "Not Trump" and "Meh, more of the same?" Even though both were good arguments to vote Democrat, they weren't exactly inspirational.

And it should be remembered that the old-guard Republican candidates were wiped out just as badly. They were obviously aiming for "Bush / Romney 2.0" and that didn't get them anywhere either.
Well, this article isn't really talking about "centralist" in an economic sense. It's talking about a hodgepodge of random polices which the republican party seems to support more than the democrats and, according to this guy, most of the american population supports too. The democrat party could pick up all of the policies suggested in this article and still be to the left of Bernie Sanders. In fact my impression is that by this guy's understanding Bernie Sanders would be more "centralist" than Hillary Clinton, as she seemed more concerned about sexism and gun control than he did.
User avatar
FireNexus
Cookie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:10am

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by FireNexus »

jwl wrote:Can I repeat that you can only be impeached if you committed a crime whilst in office. Trump isn't in office yet, he couldn't possibly have done that.
Care to show the source of your assumption? Because the text of the constitution doesn't say so, and what little precedent I can find shows that crimes committed before holding office have been involved in some non-Presidential impeachment proceedings.

You've just repeated this multiple times without being called on it. So please back up the claim.
I had a Bill Maher quote here. But fuck him for his white privelegy "joke".

All the rest? Too long.
Locked