The US Presidential Election 2016

From: fixrman17 Nov 2016 23:54
To: ANT_THOMAS 61 of 85
I didn't visit here during the "event" because I figured it would be you lot against me.
 
Quote: 
Is it really just a giant douche vs a turd sandwich?
From: ANT_THOMAS18 Nov 2016 09:49
To: fixrman 62 of 85
You're probably right there, but it still good to see the opposite view if it's properly justified.
From: Manthorp18 Nov 2016 17:21
To: fixrman 63 of 85
One thing is for sure: the next four years will be fascinating. I think he may stabilise relationships with Russia (though at the expense of the people of Syria, Georgia and the Ukraine).  I think he will increase domestic inequality, which is good if you are in the higher income brackets. Having said that, if he does actually introduce international trade barriers it's just possible that he may raise blue-collar pay packets, though at the cost of higher prices and inflation.  Russia notwithstanding I think he will be a disaster for the international standing of the US.  I'm sure that he will erode the rights of any citizens who aren't male, heterosexual and/or white.

Buckle in! 
From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)18 Nov 2016 19:16
To: ALL64 of 85
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)18 Nov 2016 19:55
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 65 of 85
Quote: 
Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people.



I think this is (or may be) misleading. From what I understand the black voter turnout was considerably less than for Obama, so although Trump may have got a higher percentage of votes cast by blacks than Romney, this in itself does not indicate heightened black enthusiasm for Trump (don't know about Latinos/Asians).

Most voters vote straight along party lines regardless of the candidate(s), so the key to winning elections is to get your side to actually turn out and vote. Hillary failed at this, but perhaps the outcome was preordained anyway:
 

Quote: 

Allan Lichtman says he can predict the outcome of any U.S. presidential election. He often does it months or even years ahead of time. Oh, and his predictions have been right in every presidential election since 1984.

But Lichtman, a distinguished professor of history at American University, doesn’t use polling, demographics or sophisticated analysis of swing states. He makes his predictions based on 13 true/false statements that he says indicate whether the incumbent party will retain the White House or lose it in a given election.

Lichtman and Russian scientist Volodia Keilis-Borok came up with the keys — a series of true/false statements — in the early 1980s. The idea is that if more than half of the keys are true, the incumbent party will stay in power, and if more than half are false, the challenging party will win the White House.

The keys, which are explained in depth in Lichtman’s book “Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House 2016” are:

  1. Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
  2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
  3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
  4. Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
  5. Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
  6. Long-term economy: Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
  7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
  8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
  9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
  10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
  11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
  12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
  13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.



 

From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)18 Nov 2016 20:46
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 66 of 85
>the key to winning elections is to get your side to actually turn out and vote. Hillary failed at this

I agree with that, yeah.
From: fixrman22 Nov 2016 02:23
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 67 of 85
OK, so what about Hillary Clinton?

Is it possible that the problem with Hillary Clinton is that she is Hillary Clinton? For all of the Trump analysis, how about some good analysis on HRC as a candidate, person, politician.

For all the support she got from the media and the star-power types, she should have been a shoo-in. Katy Perry, Bruce Springsteen - hell, Madonna promised oral attention to males who voted for Clinton (she swallows and maintains a lot of eye contact, according to her).

For those who criticise Trump on having no plan: Well, Hillary has no plan, because her plan is Obama's plan and the Obamas and the Clintons HATE each other.

Isn't it possible that Hillary's loss is all her own fault?
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)22 Nov 2016 14:32
To: fixrman 68 of 85
I blame Putin, Assange, Comey, and ~60-million idiots who, due to acute and irreparable mental impairment induced by bad education and the media, can't really be held responsible.

Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate, no question.
EDITED: 22 Nov 2016 14:32 by DSMITHHFX
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)22 Nov 2016 16:13
To: ALL69 of 85
Also
Quote: 
Hillary has received more votes for president than any white male in the history of the United States. Including Donald Trump.
From: Chris (CHRISSS)23 Nov 2016 11:33
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 70 of 85
I heard on the radio last week that she received about 500k more votes than Trump but just looking now and it could be as much as 2.5 million more than him.
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)23 Nov 2016 21:56
To: Chris (CHRISSS) 71 of 85
Yep some folks are calling for a recount/audit -- there's also been allegations of vote tampering.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/index.html
EDITED: 23 Nov 2016 22:23 by DSMITHHFX
From: fixrman24 Nov 2016 15:45
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 72 of 85
It will really only be a valid story if Martha Raddatz reports it.
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)24 Nov 2016 18:13
To: fixrman 73 of 85
Why?
From: fixrman25 Nov 2016 04:24
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 74 of 85
It was mostly a joke. Did you happen to see Raddatz's sobbing election night? Ridiculous. 
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)25 Nov 2016 11:45
To: fixrman 75 of 85
I don't watch tv.
From: ANT_THOMAS17 Feb 2017 08:34
To: ALL76 of 85
USAians of Teh
How do you feel now about the Trump Presidency?
From: milko 8 Mar 2017 17:04
To: ANT_THOMAS 77 of 85
nobody rushed back to answer that, did they?

From where I'm sitting it seems like a complete farce, but one where Trump's supporters are largely staying supportive and ignoring any criticism as "fake news". They've just revealed their (shit) replacement for ACA is called "World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017". Even North Korea might think that was a bit too silly.

Meanwhile I'm seeing much of the same collective dumbfuckery on this side of the Atlantic over Brexit so hey, it's not like I want to throw stones or anything.
From: Kenny J (WINGNUTKJ) 8 Mar 2017 17:08
To: milko 78 of 85
Quote: 
World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017

 (fail)  (fail)  (fail)  (fail)  (fail)  (fail)  (fail)  (fail)  (fail)  (fail)

From: ANT_THOMAS 8 Mar 2017 17:29
To: milko 79 of 85
I came back to this thread the other day to ask that question, forgetting I'd already asked it. Very quiet.

But her email server!!

US Vice President Mike Pence 'used a private email to discuss security issues – and it was hacked'

From: milko 8 Mar 2017 19:56
To: ANT_THOMAS 80 of 85
Ha, if that ever wasn't clearly an excuse, there's been enough from the new administration to prove it a few times over.

I don't really understand how we collectively managed to get this stupid.