US Gen. Election Thread FINALE - Votegeddon

[Geilinor]

So. Who gains seats in 2018? The Democrats or the GOP?

Dems is my first bet considering Trump's great resumé

If that was the case, then shouldn't of Clinton win the election in a "landslide" like the pundits predicted?

That doesn't mean Trump will be a popular president.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I am very wary of this kind of thinking.

For two years now, we have had people saying that Trump is a joke, that he can't possibly win. Again and again I warned people about complacency regarding Trump (though I admit I succumbed somewhat at times myself).

And now, he's won the election.

We cannot just assume Trump will screw up and hand the next couple races to us on a silver platter. And if we do, we may be bemoaning our shocking yet entirely predictable defeat again in two years, and four.

Trump won because of FBI Director Comey's vague but perfectly timed letter which was only possible bc Hillary never answered her email problem adequately. She had flaws and they were exploited masterfully in the last two weeks whereas Trump's flaws were not. I had said all along that this race was Hillary's to lose and dammit she found a way to lose it.

There was a lot more at play than just Comey.

[Ebliania]

So. Who gains seats in 2018? The Democrats or the GOP?

Dems is my first bet considering Trump's great resumé

A gain of 3 for Dems in the Senate isn't likely, given the 2012 class which is up in 2018. They'd have to hold some quite red states for starters, then win 3 more.

It sounds odd after years of Democrats despairing of ever winning the House, but if Trump and the Republican Congress are really dreadful, the House is a better bet for Democrats than the Senate!

I haven't looked at the new House, there's not much point until the counting is finalized. But in the old one, Democrats would have needed a swing of 15% across the board to take the majority.

Honestly the Dems would have to win the Rust Belt back as a first step. Go for a more populist approach and while in Congress start doing something about their grievances.

But will the DNC start adopting their strategy now that progressives have been vindicated? idk

[Ebliania]

Trump won because of FBI Director Comey's vague but perfectly timed letter which was only possible bc Hillary never answered her email problem adequately. She had flaws and they were exploited masterfully in the last two weeks whereas Trump's flaws were not. I had said all along that this race was Hillary's to lose and dammit she found a way to lose it.

There was a lot more at play than just Comey.

Haven't only 8% of voters decided in November or something?

[Jamzmania]

I'm talking about the Electoral College, not the federal government.

The House is "the People's House" and the Senate is "the State's House" right?

The electoral college favors small-population states since there are 2 extra electors per state (corresponding to Senators), beyond the number of House districts in the state. But the Electors corresponding to House districts outnumber those extras ... by 435 to 100. There are 3 others for DC which isn't a state and doesn't have a (voting) Representative.

The Electoral College is "the people's" more than "the states'" by a factor of more than 4 to 1.

If the Electoral College was "about states, period" then a voter in Wyoming would have 67 times more influence than a voter in California.

Thankfully, it fucking isn't.

I was just trying to say that it wasn't about rural vs. urban.

[The Portland Territory]

If that was the case, then shouldn't of Clinton win the election in a "landslide" like the pundits predicted?

That doesn't mean Trump will be a popular president.

Of course, doesnt mean the Democrats will automatically win the House because of it either

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump won because of FBI Director Comey's vague but perfectly timed letter which was only possible bc Hillary never answered her email problem adequately. She had flaws and they were exploited masterfully in the last two weeks whereas Trump's flaws were not. I had said all along that this race was Hillary's to lose and dammit she found a way to lose it.

There was a lot more at play than just Comey.

Unfortunately, Comey provides an easy scapegoat, avoiding the need to do some serious soul-searching and reevaluation of the party's leadership, strategies, and tactics.

That could set us up for another defeat.

[Ebliania]

That doesn't mean Trump will be a popular president.

Of course, doesnt mean the Democrats will automatically win the House because of it either

Let me make it clear to you: fix shit fast before your time runs out and we swoop in with a new populist platform. Bernie Sanders would've won the Rust Belt, and you won't like it if we go in that direction.

[AiliailiA]

There was a lot more at play than just Comey.

Haven't only 8% of voters decided in November or something?

8% is easily enough to change the result. Even if only a quarter of them "decided" differently to how they were leaning, that's 2% ... still enough to change the result.

The Comey fiasco probably also affected turnout, which is easy enough to measure among party-registered voters, but difficult to measure among independents. Exit polls are no help, since they don't get the opinions of people who didn't turn out.

[Jerzylvania]

Trump won because of FBI Director Comey's vague but perfectly timed letter which was only possible bc Hillary never answered her email problem adequately. She had flaws and they were exploited masterfully in the last two weeks whereas Trump's flaws were not. I had said all along that this race was Hillary's to lose and dammit she found a way to lose it.

There was a lot more at play than just Comey.

You betcha. But that fucking letter was what put Trump in a position to eek out a victory of only 112,000 votes combined to win the decisive states of MI, PA & WI totaling 46 Electoral Votes. In MI alone 90,000 ballots were cast with every issue voted upon but President was left blank. That was bc many became unsure about HRC bc of the Comey letter and never felt they could vote Trump or anyone else but a Dem. They just left it blank. Trump leads or won MI by less than 13,000 votes. Similar things have likely occurred in the other close states as well but have yet to be reported.

[Jerzylvania]

There was a lot more at play than just Comey.

Unfortunately, Comey provides an easy scapegoat, avoiding the need to do some serious soul-searching and reevaluation of the party's leadership, strategies, and tactics.

That could set us up for another defeat.

Nominating flawed candidates is more likely to lead to defeat. You search your soul. I already searched mine and that's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. I don't need to be led by any weird group think.

[The Romulan Republic]

Unfortunately, Comey provides an easy scapegoat, avoiding the need to do some serious soul-searching and reevaluation of the party's leadership, strategies, and tactics.

That could set us up for another defeat.

Nominating flawed candidates is more likely to lead to defeat.

All candidates have flaws.

But yes, you want good candidates, without a lot of baggage. That's why Clinton was such a poor choice.

You search your soul. I already searched mine and that's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. I don't need to be led by any weird group think.

So I take it you are one of the "stay the course" establishment Democrats?

[The Portland Territory]

Of course, doesnt mean the Democrats will automatically win the House because of it either

Let me make it clear to you: fix shit fast before your time runs out and we swoop in with a new populist platform. Bernie Sanders would've won the Rust Belt, and you won't like it if we go in that direction.

Copycats

But seriously, I doubt it. Bernie Sanders would've done better in the Rust Belt than Clinton, obviously, but Trump's Populist message would relay much better than one's of a Democrat. It's Right-Wing Populism growing all over the world and the US is too Conservative/ Centrist to effectively elect a Democratic Socialist

Not to mention, I doubt that the DNC will go Populist. Likewise for the RNC

[Jerzylvania]

Nominating flawed candidates is more likely to lead to defeat.

All candidates have flaws.

But yes, you want good candidates, without a lot of baggage. That's why Clinton was such a poor choice.

You search your soul. I already searched mine and that's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. I don't need to be led by any weird group think.

So I take it you are one of the "stay the course" establishment Democrats?

Clinton had the damn nomination won on nods and winks before it began. The Clintons have now fucked up enough.
Course? Like a fucking golf course where deals are made out at the sixteenth hole? That's the only course I saw.
I'm staying with the progressives where I've been all along. Sanders could have been POTUS if the shit had been done honest from the git go. Yep, goddamned Clinton shit gone and fucked up another one. Shit.

*throws beer bottle across room, smashes through bayview window*

[Senkaku]

There was a lot more at play than just Comey.

Unfortunately, Comey provides an easy scapegoat, avoiding the need to do some serious soul-searching and reevaluation of the party's leadership, strategies, and tactics.

That could set us up for another defeat.

It is worth pointing out that Hillary was within a hundred or two hundred thousand votes in pretty much every key state, and millions of ballots were cast after Comey's fuckery. Obviously it's not the only thing at play and the party would still have to do some soul searching after what would have been a very tight margin, but saying that Comey shoulders quite a bit of the burden for this isn't scapegoating him unfairly.

[Gauthier]

Unfortunately, Comey provides an easy scapegoat, avoiding the need to do some serious soul-searching and reevaluation of the party's leadership, strategies, and tactics.

That could set us up for another defeat.

It is worth pointing out that Hillary was within a hundred or two hundred thousand votes in pretty much every key state, and millions of ballots were cast after Comey's fuckery. Obviously it's not the only thing at play and the party would still have to do some soul searching after what would have been a very tight margin, but saying that Comey shoulders quite a bit of the burden for this isn't scapegoating him unfairly.

As opposed to people who were rallying behind Clinton during the campaign blaming her entirely for the loss.

[The Romulan Republic]

Let me make it clear to you: fix shit fast before your time runs out and we swoop in with a new populist platform. Bernie Sanders would've won the Rust Belt, and you won't like it if we go in that direction.

Copycats

But seriously, I doubt it. Bernie Sanders would've done better in the Rust Belt than Clinton, obviously, but Trump's Populist message would relay much better than one's of a Democrat. It's Right-Wing Populism growing all over the world and the US is too Conservative/ Centrist to effectively elect a Democratic Socialist

Not to mention, I doubt that the DNC will go Populist. Likewise for the RNC

It would have only taken a relatively small shift in each of a few key rust belt/midwestern states for Clinton to win.

Though I'm skeptical that Bernie would have faired any better in Florida or NC.

However, if he'd won Iowa/Michigan/Wisconsin/Ohio/Pennsylvania, he could have lost NC and Florida, and VA too, and come out well ahead.

[Ebliania]

Unfortunately, Comey provides an easy scapegoat, avoiding the need to do some serious soul-searching and reevaluation of the party's leadership, strategies, and tactics.

That could set us up for another defeat.

It is worth pointing out that Hillary was within a hundred or two hundred thousand votes in pretty much every key state, and millions of ballots were cast after Comey's fuckery. Obviously it's not the only thing at play and the party would still have to do some soul searching after what would have been a very tight margin, but saying that Comey shoulders quite a bit of the burden for this isn't scapegoating him unfairly.

I don't know if he affected things in PA. There is no early voting there.

Unless his clearing of Clinton the first time did any damage...?

[New Werpland]

Ok, who gave Harry Reid that much vodka?

"I have personally been on the ballot in Nevada for 26 elections and I have never seen anything like the reaction to the election completed last Tuesday. The election of Donald Trump has emboldened the forces of hate and bigotry in America. White nationalists, Vladimir Putin and ISIS are celebrating Donald Trump’s victory, while innocent, law-abiding Americans are wracked with fear – especially African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Muslim Americans, LGBT Americans and Asian Americans. Watching white nationalists celebrate while innocent Americans cry tears of fear does not feel like America."

"I have heard more stories in the past 48 hours of Americans living in fear of their own government and their fellow Americans than I can remember hearing in five decades in politics. Hispanic Americans who fear their families will be torn apart, African Americans being heckled on the street, Muslim Americans afraid to wear a headscarf, gay and lesbian couples having slurs hurled at them and feeling afraid to walk down the street holding hands. American children waking up in the middle of the night crying, terrified that Trump will take their parents away. Young girls unable to understand why a man who brags about sexually assaulting women has been elected president."

Yep, that's Harry Reid attempting to sound coherent. Knowing Trump's and Putin's popular stance, I wouldn't rule out a race between them, about who can eliminate ISIS faster - Putin in Syria or Trump in Iraq, which makes ISIS a winner in Reid's book. Nothing makes you a winner quite like being eliminated, just ask the Carthaginians! So apparently these Asian Americans and Latino Americans are more scared of Trump than of any other Republican nominee, like, say, Mitt Romney, right? NBC says: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-ameri ... ns-n682491

If these numbers are accurate, Donald Trump had another magic trick up his sleeve beyond his astonishing triumph in the election. These numbers tell us that Trump outperformed Mitt Romney among Asian Americans and Latinos.

Ouch! Talk about an inconvenient truth! It's also interesting how Harry Reid didn't mention White Americans, but rather, White Nationalists. Way to stir up some hatred Harry! When we need to unite, you divide us with bullshit. And people wonder why some think that Democratic Leadership has some stupid old farts. Law abiding Americans are wrecked with fear, like those who illegally crossed the border. Hey, if being eliminated = winning, then violating the law = law abiding. Just ask Harry Reid.

And being a sexist is the only thing that Trump apologized for in the entire campaign. "I'm going to encourage others to be sexist, by saying it's wrong!" How much vodka did Harry have? So let's see here, the past five decades, that would place us in 1965. So there are more slurs hurled at gays and blacks now than in the 1960s? Muslims are more scared now than in the immediate aftermath of 9/11? Ok, who gave Reid crack with vodka? Who did it? It was Hillary, wasn't it?

The opposite: someone's been restricting Harry's access to alcohol if he's still that pessimistic about the dark ugly truth.

[AiliailiA]

The biggest non-event of the Presidential election was McMullin. He totally didn't win Utah, eh.

However, he kept Trump under 50% which has only happened to a Republican once since the time of FDR (Utah went for FDR every time). In 1992 GHW Bush got only 43.4% and won. There was a significant vote split, with 27.3% to Perot.

[Blakk Metal]

The biggest non-event of the Presidential election was McMullin. He totally didn't win Utah, eh.

However, he kept Trump under 50% which has only happened to a Republican once since the time of FDR (Utah went for FDR every time). In 1992 GHW Bush got only 43.4% and won. There was a significant vote split, with 27.3% to Perot.

Did you forget 1964?

[The Romulan Republic]

All candidates have flaws.

But yes, you want good candidates, without a lot of baggage. That's why Clinton was such a poor choice.





So I take it you are one of the "stay the course" establishment Democrats?

Clinton had the damn nomination won on nods and winks before it began. The Clintons have now fucked up enough.
Course? Like a fucking golf course where deals are made out at the sixteenth hole? That's the only course I saw.
I'm staying with the progressives where I've been all along. Sanders could have been POTUS if the shit had been done honest from the git go. Yep, goddamned Clinton shit gone and fucked up another one. Shit.

*throws beer bottle across room, smashes through bayview window*

Then we must have misunderstood one another, because we're pretty much in agreement.

[AiliailiA]

The biggest non-event of the Presidential election was McMullin. He totally didn't win Utah, eh.

However, he kept Trump under 50% which has only happened to a Republican once since the time of FDR (Utah went for FDR every time). In 1992 GHW Bush got only 43.4% and won. There was a significant vote split, with 27.3% to Perot.

Did you forget 1964?

Seems I did. Goldwater didn't win much anywhere though.

[UED]

Unfortunately, Comey provides an easy scapegoat, avoiding the need to do some serious soul-searching and reevaluation of the party's leadership, strategies, and tactics.

That could set us up for another defeat.

It is worth pointing out that Hillary was within a hundred or two hundred thousand votes in pretty much every key state, and millions of ballots were cast after Comey's fuckery. Obviously it's not the only thing at play and the party would still have to do some soul searching after what would have been a very tight margin, but saying that Comey shoulders quite a bit of the burden for this isn't scapegoating him unfairly.

^^^
Clinton definitely needed to do more and the Dems needed more soul searching cause they basically abandoned the working class in favor of neoliberalism but I'm pretty sure Wisconsin and Michigan would have narrowly held for Clinton (they were lost like 13,000 votes and 27,000 votes respectively) given how Comey made Clinton tank by several percentage points in all the polls. I know the polls were off except for USC/LA Times, and they showed that Clinton was winning right before Comey came out, and afterwards she tanked. I'm sure Penn would have had the same outcome too (80,000 votes, but less than a percentage point). Maybe Clinton would have narrowly won 279-254 on the electoral college and like get maybe between 1.5-3 million more votes overall.

[Arlenton]

There are voters on both sides in every state. The EC essentially means the votes of the losing side are irrelevant.

Also- I'm confused as to why, in an urbanized, post-industrial era where our agriculture is mechanized and we import and export food to and from distant lands, we continue with the whole fanciful bullshit about rural areas needing to be represented more than cities, and also why we assume urban voters would seek to fuck them over or why their local governments would prove incapable of protecting them.
If you're so afraid of the people from the Capitol oppressing the Districts or whatever, why not re-organize the entire system of states? Urban areas can become state-level entities, and rural areas can become their own things.

Because, as a person from a rural area, urban politicians (especially liberal ones, republicans are often out of touch with what is or isn't beneficial but they try to give a shit, democrats more or less say "be glad you have you're privilege and that you aren't this urban black person who may or may not be worse off than you") often fuck us over and the highest level of government that have any real understanding is township level (as county seats are urban most often, and if not are corrupt anyway) which is incapable of doing anything to protect us.

Plus, even though you say we are in a "post industrial society", or "post agricultural" or whatever, that's all rural areas ever had. Hamburg PA, where I am from had farming, the broom factory, and the slight service industry of the downtown. Whether you think that a town like that is relevant or sustainable in a modern world is irrelevant, because the people who live there don't want to abandon their home and their values because a liberal in a distant land reading dispatches from the provinces says they aren't relevant. Our farming industry has become mechanized and centralized - I'll accept that. Nobody really liked hand farming anyway. But I refuse to accept that we can do nothing to try fix the dead manufacturing industry and rural service industry, to replace what was once the largest broom factory in the world with a gadget plant and to fill the empty storefronts killed by walmart (and an unemployed workforce with no disposable income) with, if not stores, at least offices and startups.

In short: we feel screwed over and unrepresented, because we kind of are.

Democrats: "You don't understand how bad it is for minority communities in cities! You are actually privileged! Shut up, you bitter, straight, white, bigot! Nobody cares about your stupid broom factory and corn fields!"

^Expect this stereotype to be drilled into the heads of rural voters, especially those in Pennsylvania by the Southern strategy 2.0.

Or call it the Midwestern strategy?