The Election Night Thread - Part 2

[Legendver2]

I'll be honest, all this chaos is giving me a slight hard-on. Call me the Joker or an anarchist, idc, lol.

 

[SV Fan]

This election has prompted me to look into the electoral college and what it does...if I'm reading right, the EC is there to ensure that each voter's voice carries the same weight in the election? I'd seen where relying on popular vote alone would mean that the city votes would effectively decide the election.

Is that how it works? I will admit our system seems complicated...but the silver lining of this is that the 2020 election should be an ace in the hole for the Libertarians or Democrats. We just gotta make it through naranja diablo.

The EC is an outdated system from the late 1700s/early1800s that basically give each state a weighted value of votes that gives more power to smaller states using a weighted voting system. Originally people were supposed to be elected to be the person who represents the state who could vote for who they though would be the best president but states quickly realized there was strength in numbers so they combined all there electoral points and basically send people to blindly do the will of the state, thus negating it's original purpose

One major problem with a system like this is you can have a state like Wyoming which has 650,000 people and it get 3 electoral votes, then you have a State like North Dakota that has like 1M people but they also only have 3 electoral votes? How exactly is that fair

Now when you look at California they have 39M people and 55 electoral votes so while 1 electoral vote in Wyoming = 217k people, 1 electoral vote in California = 709k people.

States basically get award 1 electoral point for every congressman and Senator they have. This bring up another problem that when this country started they had ~100 congressmen representing roughly 4M people and that number increased while our population increased. That being said 100 years ago the population of the USA was roughly 100M people and we had 435 congressmen, since then the population has more then tripled but we still have the exact same amount of congressmen. We probably will get a better proportional representation of the people if we came out with a rule like 1 congressman per 500k people, that way a state like Wyoming can have 2 congressmen(4 electoral votes), North Dakota 3 congressmen(5 electoral votes) and California have 79 congressmen(81 electoral votes)

 

[Legendver2]

Well, the fact that this has only happened 4 times, I think that the Electoral College is not that bad of a deal.....BUT with population shifts, and population migration moving South with the jobs, every 10 years those Northeastern states will be losing Representatives and Electoral votes, while the South will be gaining...if Texas continues it track of moving to a toss up state along with gaining electoral votes, I have a feeling that what is usually a pretty easy, even boring Presidential Election in Texas is going to turn into a crazy circus....good times coming!

The problem with that is in it's 200+ year history, half of the 4 times that's happened, happened in the last decade and a half. It's close enough to say it's starting to build a problematic pattern. And both of those times, the GOP won the presidency. Of course a direct democracy of popular votes isn't going to work, but with the very fast change in demographic, the electoral college is beginning to be outdated too.

 

[hellified]

This election has prompted me to look into the electoral college and what it does...if I'm reading right, the EC is there to ensure that each voter's voice carries the same weight in the election? I'd seen where relying on popular vote alone would mean that the city votes would effectively decide the election.

Is that how it works? I will admit our system seems complicated...but the silver lining of this is that the 2020 election should be an ace in the hole for the Libertarians or Democrats. We just gotta make it through naranja diablo.

[YT]V6s7jB6-GoU[/YT]

 

[Shikamaru]

A new poll shows 23.24% of Trump voters would have voted for Bernie had they had the chance. That's one out of four Trump voters.

https://www.pollfish.com/dashboard/results/13230/-1818385646

This doesn't account for all the Sanders supporters that stayed home. Another poll brought up by MSNBC this morning said the Midwest states that were against the trade deals voted either overwhelmingly Bernie or Trump in the primary.

This needs to be drilled into the heads of the Clinton supporters: We warned you, we warned you, we warned you. You're doomed to give Trump another four years if you don't realize this.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, good job. Everything Bernie wanted will be destroyed.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

Again, if the pre-election polling was so bad, you have to take the post-election polling with a large grain of salt as well.

That being said, if you were someone who could easily flip between a democratic socialist and quasi-fascist nationalist in the course of 3 months, you may be schizophrenic, or just extremely short-sighted if it was motivated purely by spite.

All the "would've, could've, should've" with Sanders needs to stop already. He couldn't beat Clinton head to head, so it's pointless.

If you want to get technical about it, there's a large chunk of centrists that Clinton gets the vote from. She also clobbered Sanders with the African American community so this can go both ways. The fact that Sanders would've drawn more from the lot of people who voted for Trump is not something I'm sure you necessarily want to brag about?

 

[Alex Murphy]

 

[Kelly]

The problem with that is in it's 200+ year history, half of the 4 times that's happened, happened in the last decade and a half. It's close enough to say it's starting to build a problematic pattern. And both of those times, the GOP won the presidency. Of course a direct democracy of popular votes isn't going to work, but with the very fast change in demographic, the electoral college is beginning to be outdated too.

Oh, I agree with you, that is why I put the demographic information in my post as well.....BUT, as of now that is the system we got.

There are many things, however that must be looked at, one being how we conduct the census. We are basing the basic numbers that give us our # in the house as well as electoral votes on something that is done door to door in the hot summer by people with little training, paid semi ok and simply wanting to get their job done quickly. Some of it is digital, but for a good part of our census it is leg work....

 

[Kelly]

Again, if the pre-election polling was so bad, you have to take the post-election polling with a large grain of salt as well.

That being said, if you were someone who could easily flip between a democratic socialist and quasi-fascist nationalist in the course of 3 months, you may be schizophrenic, or just extremely short-sighted if it was motivated purely by spite.

All the "would've, could've, should've" with Sanders needs to stop already. He couldn't beat Clinton head to head, so it's pointless.

If you want to get technical about it, there's a large chunk of centrists that Clinton gets the vote from. She also clobbered Sanders with the African American community so this can go both ways. The fact that Sanders would've drawn more from the lot of people who voted for Trump is not something I'm sure you necessarily want to brag about?

When you have 2 demographics that with the polling could very well have said IDK, or Clinton even though they were pissed and knew they weren't voting...along with a demographic that had never voted before....add to that a demographic that probably honestly felt they were going to vote for Clinton until all the up until the end she paid them absolutely no attention, and Trump spent his last weeks speaking your language....well, you have skewed polls all the way around.

Bernie supporters
Black vote
Rural/Suburban White male/female first time voters
Blue Collar workers in the rust belt

Those all could have very easily skewed internal polls of the campaign, as well as external polls.

Trumps internal polls were showing the same thing as Clintons that he was going to lose and she was going to win. His speech showed that.....they hadn't written a speech because he won, they had prepared a speech crying rigged election, rigged election, rigged election....his face, his kids faces, all showed they were as shocked as everyone else.

 

[Shikamaru]

Again, if the pre-election polling was so bad, you have to take the post-election polling with a large grain of salt as well.

That being said, if you were someone who could easily flip between a democratic socialist and quasi-fascist nationalist in the course of 3 months, you may be schizophrenic, or just extremely short-sighted if it was motivated purely by spite.

All the "would've, could've, should've" with Sanders needs to stop already. He couldn't beat Clinton head to head, so it's pointless.

If you want to get technical about it, there's a large chunk of centrists that Clinton gets the vote from. She also clobbered Sanders with the African American community so this can go both ways. The fact that Sanders would've drawn more from the lot of people who voted for Trump is not something I'm sure you necessarily want to brag about?

You're failing to account for media bias and the similarities between Trump and Bernie: promising to not cut Medicare/Social Security, presenting themselves as anti-Establishment, anti-trade policies (polls show that was the determining factor for Midwest voters), and being "honest" (or selling himself as such in Trump's case).

Also the fact he was beating Trump by an average of 10.4 points during the primary while Hillary was beating him by the less than half. He was also beating every other Republican compared to Hillary.

Not to mention only 19% of Millennials voted while Bernie was hugely popular with Millennials. Not to mention the media tried to limit his voice at all costs while over 50% of the country agreed with his "revolution" policies in the first place, so who knows what the results could have been. And finally, not to mention that swing-state Democrats were asking for Bernie's help as late as August.

Sources:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10904988/bernie-sanders-political-revolution-poll
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/senate-bernie-sanders-226524

At the very least, I don't see how you could argue he'd do worse than Hillary.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Originally the electoral college was just supposed to be a group of white men sent who met to decide the president - unbound and without a state-wide direct election from the people to say who the president and vice president should be. That process has since evolved with state laws and other changes over the past two centuries into the "thing" that it is now. It's sort of a vestige of the original white guy real estate owner society that rewards geography but warped in other ways over time.

 

[SV Fan]

Originally the electoral college was just supposed to be a group of white men sent who met to decide the president - unbound and without a state-wide direct election from the people to say who the president and vice president should be. That process has since evolved with state laws and other changes over the past two centuries into the "thing" that it is now. It's sort of a vestige of the original white guy real estate owner society that rewards geography but warped in other ways over time.

This is why I don't get the people who claim our founders are great and they came up with this system for a reason. Basically they came up with a system for 4M people and States realized they can "rig" to their advantage within a 20 year period that went against the original intent of the Electoral College.

 

[Donner]

 

[redfirebird2008]

You have to give credit to Donald for destroying two dynasties in one election season. Bye bye Bushes and Clintons. HRC and her supporters were too arrogant. Donald campaigned hard with 5-6 or more events per day while she was doing one event per day, maybe 2 at most. She didn't go to Wisconsin even a single time. It's pretty much the biggest epic fail ever in Presidential politics. Very fitting end to HRC's career given all the self-inflicted baggage.

 

[hellified]

When you have 2 demographics that with the polling could very well have said IDK, or Clinton even though they were pissed and knew they weren't voting...along with a demographic that had never voted before....add to that a demographic that probably honestly felt they were going to vote for Clinton until all the up until the end she paid them absolutely no attention, and Trump spent his last weeks speaking your language....well, you have skewed polls all the way around.

Bernie supporters
Black vote
Rural/Suburban White male/female first time voters
Blue Collar workers in the rust belt

Those all could have very easily skewed internal polls of the campaign, as well as external polls.

Trumps internal polls were showing the same thing as Clintons that he was going to lose and she was going to win. His speech showed that.....they hadn't written a speech because he won, they had prepared a speech crying rigged election, rigged election, rigged election....his face, his kids faces, all showed they were as shocked as everyone else.

totally agree

 

[Fading]

I posted this in the trump thread but it applies here to..

Here's the problem..congress controls the purse and who controls congress?? THE ESTABLISHMENT...trumps going to get the rude awakening that Obama supporters got in 2009..that the president doesn't have that much leverage or control especially in domestic matters. This is why the DOW shot back up because they know trumps NOT going to start a trade war nor is he going to tear down wall street.

Heres the thing..I don't get the calculation of the rustbelt voters...they want someone who is supposed to be a middle finger to the system (understandable) so they install a born on third base plutocrat who IS the establishment. And what exactly is supposed to happen here? For ALL of hillary's faults (and she has many) trump has JUST AS MANY. In fact in a number of ways he's WORSE because he is a captain of industry who himself shipped jobs overseas and has history of NOT paying his contractors and bankruptcies.

I don't see how this person blows up the system or makes significant change. He's just an old white man in a long list of old white men who have led this country so how does that make a america great again??

Trump bragged, saying he was smart for avoiding paying taxes. Most Republicans want to accuse anyone who doesn't pay taxes, but lives in the country treasonous. Whether we agree or not, that's why we see people using SS, foodstamps, the poor, get mocked by the right. Trump openly admits to, and brags about it, and it gets glossed over as a non story.


IMO Trump supporters are purposefully ignoring his faults, or delusional. Much of the right didn't want Trump being their representative. Once he got it many tried to begrudgingly support him as he was the Republican candidate. Somewhere along the they became able to ignore anything anti-Trump, and focus only on what Hillary did wrong. Which IMO is why Trump having no policy substance didn't become a major issue. With Obama v Romney and McCain we debated over each word meticulously to see who had the better plan for the US here, and abroad. The delusional ones just bought into the media and Democrats rigging everything tinfoil hat conspiracies.

 

[Kelly]

Trump bragged, saying he was smart for avoiding paying taxes. Most Republicans want to accuse anyone who doesn't pay taxes, but lives in the country treasonous. Whether we agree or not, that's why we see people using SS, foodstamps, the poor, get mocked by the right. Trump openly admits to, and brags about it, and it gets glossed over as a non story.


IMO Trump supporters are purposefully ignoring his faults, or delusional. Much of the right didn't want Trump being their representative. Once he got it many tried to begrudgingly support him as he was the Republican candidate. Somewhere along the they became able to ignore anything anti-Trump, and focus only on what Hillary did wrong. Which IMO is why Trump having no policy substance didn't become a major issue. With Obama v Romney and McCain we debated over each word meticulously to see who had the better plan for the US here, and abroad. The delusional ones just bought into the media and Democrats rigging everything tinfoil hat conspiracies.

The vote FOR Trump is not what got him elected....it was the no shows at the poll. Everyone knew coming down the stretch that it could be very close, but that Clinton would in the end pull it out.......they had no clue that decade long Democrat voters would not show up at the polls....

In the end....Trump pulled new voters, a major (D) demographic in the "Blue Wall States" and a good number of likely voters that ended up no shows for Clinton. Had those (D) likely voters that always vote + the new Sanders followers, it would have been close but she would have won the electoral college as well.

 

[Fading]

Everything that he wants to do has a process to it....instead of freaking out, let the process work, and if it doesn't work to the benefit of the people, then you can freak out a little, but at the least let the process work.

I still remember Obama vs McCain on the Hype. The threads on here were having legit talks on how Obama would turn Bush's looming depression into a full on US is screwed wasteland. Some on here were 100% convinced we would be selling states off to other countries at this point in time. People may have forgotten that, but yes, we had serious threads about selling Claifornia to France, NY to China, ect because of Obama.


I don't like Trump as a person, let alone a candidate, but it is what it is. Stressing over it only causes you harm, not him. He's not even in the office for months, it's going to be a long 4 years if you're causing your hair to fall out as this point. I mean I understand initial shock, and venting does help, but remember to breathe from time to time too.

 

[Thundercrack85]

We should probably also pace ourselves. It's going to be 4 years of terrible policies targeting the most vulnerable.

 

[Fading]

The vote FOR Trump is not what got him elected....it was the no shows at the poll. Everyone knew coming down the stretch that it could be very close, but that Clinton would in the end pull it out.......they had no clue that decade long Democrat voters would not show up at the polls....

In the end....Trump pulled new voters, a major (D) demographic in the "Blue Wall States" and a good number of likely voters that ended up no shows for Clinton. Had those (D) likely voters that always vote + the new Sanders followers, it would have been close but she would have won the electoral college as well.

Sorry, wasn't saying that. I was making a statement to hellified saying he didn't get the rustbelt vote. I was saying it was in part due to overlooking qualities in Trump they'd hate in anyone else.


That said, I agree, and have said similar things, that this was as much Hillary losing it as Trump winning it. Plenty of people voted to keep Hillary out, rather than out of liking Trump.

 

[Legendver2]

Sanders and Hillary individually would not have beaten Trump. If Hillary were smarter, she would've picked Sanders as VP. Their overlapping demographic would've clobbered the opposition.

 

[DeadPresident]

Sanders and Hillary individually would not have beaten Trump. If Hillary were smarter, she would've picked Sanders as VP. Their overlapping demographic would've clobbered the opposition.

Sanders would've been able to beat Trump. The same way Trump used emotionally-loaded sophistry to appeal to people Sanders used somewhat spurious economic policies and the promise of a get-utopia-quick scheme type plan to appeal to the public. Clinton was like a robot and made zero emotional appeal to people, that's partly why she lost.

Sanders, despite concerted media efforts to keep him off the radar and a fraction of Clinton's budget generated a nationwide movement to support him. If the DNC didn't have their heads up their asses they would've lost a battle to win the war, picked Bernie who would've been able to engage a placid and apathetic voter base and the orange scumbag wouldn't be busy traipsing around the White House right now.

 

[ThePhantasm]

 

[cronosred]

It's almost worth having Trump be President just to watch the Clinton Cry-Babies go in complete meltdown, and to think they had and still have the nerve to knock other candidates supporters. What a complete bunch of self-righteous bigoted hypocritical trash her supporters have shown themselves to be. Trump may have his deplorables but it's become incredibly clear that Clinton has her despicables.