Well, my numbers may be complete bullshit. If so, I apologize–I haven’t had any goddamned sleep.
Supposedly, turnout was up, which doesn’t seem to add up. Maybe there are more outstanding votes (for either or both candidates) than I’m thinking?
The basic point of this thread–that Hilary Clinton is a lousy candidate who couldn’t even beat Donald fucking Trump–still stands.
Control of SCOTUS is a feature, not a bug, and one of the few bright spots I can see from here. If Trump nominates a conservative to the Court (a big IF) then that shifts the balance back to 5-4. If Ginsberg dies or moves to Guam like she said, a 6-3 balance isn’t going to shift in 2020. Supreme Court Justices serve for life.
Of course, Trump’s election means that the liberals will only leave the Court feet-first, but Ginsberg’s 83. Thomas is 68 - maybe he will retire, and hopefully Trump will nominate a conservative black to replace him.
And slap me hard for mentioning it, but the next set of elections is 2018, and the Democrats have a lot more of their Senate seats up for election than the Republicans do. The GOP didn’t lose much ground yesterday, and they are likely to gain it in the mid-terms.
Unless I maintain my near-perfect streak of political predictions.
Regards,
Shodan
Just saw something on the television–just a flash of a “chyron”–that 92% of the popular vote is in. So, doing the math, both candidates’ total popular vote totals could be up significantly from those numbers above.
[Emily Litella]Never mind.[/Emily Litella] (On that specific point, anyway.)
From this auto-updating AP map of election results, Clinton has 59.344 million, Trump has 59.179 million.
What we’re not seeing in that map, and what’s different this race than the others you mentioned, are the large number of 3rd party votes. Annoyingly, I haven’t found a good aggregated result for those votes.
I did look at some results in 13 swing states. SWAG-ing from those—which ranged from 2.76 percent in NC, and 3.14 in FL; to between 6-7 for NV, MN, and ME; to NM’s 11.7—I’d guess that about 5 percent of the votes went 3rd party. If we therefore assume that .95 of the pool equals 118.5 million votes, you get a third party total of around 6 and a quarter million.
I am guessing again that more than half of those would have broken for Clinton, given Jill Stein’s presence, Bill Weld practically endorsing Clinton, etc… Let’s call it .6 of the 3rd party pool. Then Clinton would’ve had about another 3.75 million votes, or about 63 million. Which isn’t Obama-like, but still should’ve given her the win.
So this says to us that you americans on the Left learned not one lesson from your 2000 election?
But now I realize also that the Democratic hard Left electors from that western state, it was the Oregon yes? They are spared the horror of having to vote for an impure person.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
If Ginsberg dies or moves to Guam like she said
[/QUOTE]
I think her brain is already there.
Look on the bright side: our enemies will now tremble. Trump will go through 'em like you-know-what through a canebrake!
And it’ll be interesting to see how he can improve on Bush’s greeting of Angela Merkel.
Aye.
Prolly.
Nope.
I don’t know. I try to imagine a Clinton who had more charisma, or one who blustered about her way through the election like Trump.
What if she said “Who cares about my emails? Its not against the law and you don’t deserve to see them! I’ll bomb ISIS to smithereens and you want to talk about emails?” Or, on Bernie, she called him a loser socialist who isn’t even a real Democrat, and said his supporters were dumbass college kids who didn’t know a thing about real life? Or on her ties to foreign countries, she claimed that she was building bridges through donations and ties? Or called Trump an orange goblin know-nothing who’s going to destroy America. Would that have won her more votes? I doubt it.
Apparently, couldn’t have hurt either.
And this is the problem that we are seeing. That it’s not the most qualified candidate that gets elected. It’s not the candidate with the best policies. It’s not the candidate that has worked their entire life for the betterment of others.
It is the candidate who wins the insult contest.
Holy shit … don’t you think Hillary feels bad enough right now … you’re Pitting her … talk about kicking someone when they’re down … that’s just nasty …
You’re missing the point; the baggage that Clinton brought to the party wasn’t a big deal… to Democrats. It was most certainly a huge deal to a lot of other people who didn’t like Bill, and see her as a continuation of what they perceive as their corrupt behavior.
Trump certainly brought his own baggage- nobody’s disputing that. But what he brought was baggage that was out in the open- verbal diarrhea, a certain 1960s style caveman mentality, and a refusal to really give a shit what the polls or media said. To a lot of people, that implies an inherent unsuitability for the presidency, but to others, it’s stuff that can be overlooked; a lot of people DO have that 1960s style caveman mentality, especially 50-something and older voters.
What it boiled down to as far as I can tell, is which candidate’s baggage was more easily overlooked by voters. This wasn’t an election of issues, or even of parties. It was an election of the candidates themselves, and I’m not sure Clinton realized that, as she ran a campaign of a more conventional sort, where the candidate is sort of like the pointy tip of their party’s legislative spear, while Clinton ran his in a totally self-centered, non-party focused way.
So everyone looked at the people, and not at the parties, policy proposals, etc…
There were Trump policy proposals?
Judging from the mailers I’ve received throughout the years, Republicans use scare tactics and Democrats use guilt. Scare tactics work better. Nobody likes guilt trips.
Hilary had to deal with her history during Bill’s tenure, as well as her massive oversight in security concerns while she was SoS. She also had contempt for police and military figures which came across to the public as unpatriotic. Those flaws were easily exploited by the GOP, who were able to channel eons of scare tactics practice.
This is similar to the election of Reagan. He was also considered an outsider who could flip off the political body and make crowds cheer, despite his flaws. His first day, Iran returned our hostages. Maybe we need a fucker in the White House again to give our enemies a good scare, since Obama was seen as week by our enemies and unwilling to strike back. This is about the only positive thing about President-Elect Trump I can think of. We survived Reagan, we survived W, we can survive Trump.
I know it’s socially unacceptable here to re-post Facebook memes … but this one from my neice tickles me to no end:
(I mean this largely in response to the OP. I’m quoting BPC to add to his post, not refute it.)
It’s a bullshit argument that people use to try to deflect blame. The idea is that one group has no choice in their actions; they are not free to think or act in any way other than what they do. And with no choice in their actions, it’s not fair to hold them to account for what results from their actions. But the other group has choices, and therefore blame. It follows that Trump’s election isn’t the fault of Trump, or the Republican Party, or the 50+ million people who voted for him, it’s the fault of the people who tried to stop him and didn’t.
I find it interesting that this idea is being put forward so quickly. It’s like everybody knows he’s going to be a shitshow and are trying to apportion the blame already.
I think there’s room for pitting for all concerned. I just hope we all make it through the next four years. My only hope right now is that Trump really is a RINO, so maybe he won’t rubber stamp Republican idiocies. But realistically, we’re probably looking at four years of climate change denial, rightwing Supreme Court nominations, and laissez faire for corporate interests. Which is why I’m drinking at 11:30 in the morning today.
Did you drop in from a different timeline, or what?
The Canadian Immigration website has been crashed off and on all morning …
Sure they do, up to a point. That point being the collapse of our economy (again), which, in concert with shattered international relations, 20 million people suddenly without healthcare, etc., will be the biggest election hangover in history that can’t possibly be blamed on the Dems, much as they will try to do so. The only weapon the Dems have at this point is the filibuster.