2016 Presidential Election (General Election)

Who do plan to support for President in the 2016 Election?

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 38 62.3%

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 6 9.8%

  • Gary Johnson

    Votes: 11 18.0%

  • Jill Stein

    Votes: 3 4.9%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 4.9%
  • Total voters
    61
Status
Not open for further replies.
We are a nation of 320 million people. On any given day, there are probably 1600 vile acts committed by people who voted for Hillary and 1600 vile acts by Trump voters, and an average of 1.6 per day go viral for their extreme vileness.

You are 99.9999% wrong to think a vile story you saw today is representative of either side. All it really shows is the media's bias for reporting outliers as news and our own bias to consume & share things that outrage us.
 
statler said:
CFvZ4Mu.png
Click to expand...

First of all, we shouldn't be fanning the flames of class warfare at all, but certainly not based on that graphic. Take a look at those numbers, they don't support any sweeping conclusions! Trump took those higher income brackets with 1-4% margins. It isn't like 90% of any group is for or against him.

Lower-middle class and poor skews a few points into the blue - just barely over half voted Clinton. The middle class proper went just barely to the right - again only half actually supporting Trump. The upper income brackets are near enough to a coin toss, though they nudged just enough to the right to put Trump into the White House.

I look at that chart and I see a country divided down the middle almost completely independent of income level. People voted for Trump for all manner of (incomprehensible to me) reasons, but class clearly has nothing to do with it.

I wonder - if we could replay Nov 8th over and over Groundhog Day style I bet you'd see Clinton eek out a win about half of the time and Trump about half the time.
 
That "Blame the Rich Whites" chart is completely meaningless. Here's the chart that matters:

TOGIbcP.jpg


What this shows (and yes I realize this is the popular vote not electoral vote, but still):

A) Voter turnout was way way down. People don't show up to vote for candidates they greatly dislike.

B) Specifically, very few came out to support HRC. Fewer than half the number of voters who voted for Obama in 2008 voted for her this time. That is a complete rejection of her candidacy by the democratic base. Exit polls and anecdotal evidence seems to show this across the spectrum, from blacks and Latinos to white males to women of all stripes.

C) Based on the chart, Trump might look like he had steady Republican support, consistent with prior elections. But: we know that many white working class voters in states like the Midwest and North Carolina switched from having supported Obama to supporting Trump. So, what you can deduce, is that a good fraction of Trump's bar in 2016 isn't actually even the Republican base. A good part of that bar may, in fact, be the Democratic base. Which is mind-boggling - but goes to show how tonedeaf the DNC was in coronating HRC when, very clearly, Bernie was turning out the crowds and hitting both the millennial and white working-class demographics.

My takeaway: Trump won only because Hillary lost. Voters NEVER like "third-term" presidencies. After a two-term president, elections more often than not seem to go to the candidate for change, not the candidate of continuity. (Again: what the hell was the DNC thinking?)

I'll also add one more important point. I myself voted for the candidate who I saw as the lesser of two evils. I think many many others did the same, but unlike me, they saw Trump as that person. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. In other words, the important point I'd make is that Trump did not win on account of having revved up the racists and misogynists in society. He won in SPITE of that, only because he faced Hillary in the general election. I actually believe that if Trump had been a more "Presidential" candidate - more respectable, more hinged, just a little bit more policy-specific - he would have absolutely blown this out of the water. It wouldn't even be close. My hope is that Trump realizes this - that he realizes the race-baiting and erratic behavior didn't help him in the end. If he realizes that, then he will know to moderate himself in office.

I think everyone should go out and hug a Trump voter today - whether in person, or on Facebook, or by email, etc. I believe that many of them made a very difficult choice and are probably now equally nervous about what this all means. Living with uncertainty, as we all are now, is quite awful.
 
^^^^
The system will never allow a Trump type scenario to succeed into the presidency again.
He is the only hope of real change unless we get a systematic failure. I'm really not sure if he will change the core problem but I do believe he will do his best to keep his promises on Illegals, Wall, and Jobs.

These are real problems against the productive class
#1 Get money out of politics (Supreme Court Ruling concerning corporations money and super pacs was outright EVIL)
#2 Term Limits
#3 Federal Reserve Bank (destroying the American Working class buying power)
#4 Bailouts/unlimited amounts of Tax incentives to the corporations
#5 Illegals
#6 Trade Agreements
#7 Mid-East Wars
#8 IRS/SEC/DEA (All need to be revamped)
#9 Dept of Education
 
Last edited:
Shepard said:
That "Blame the Rich Whites" chart is completely meaningless. Here's the chart that matters:


What this shows (and yes I realize this is the popular vote not electoral vote, but still):

A) Voter turnout was way way down. People don't show up to vote for candidates they greatly dislike.

B) Specifically, very few came out to support HRC. Fewer than half the number of voters who voted for Obama in 2008 voted for her this time. That is a complete rejection of her candidacy by the democratic base. Exit polls and anecdotal evidence seems to show this across the spectrum, from blacks and Latinos to white males to women of all stripes.

C) Based on the chart, Trump might look like he had steady Republican support, consistent with prior elections. But: we know that many white working class voters in states like the Midwest and North Carolina switched from having supported Obama to supporting Trump. So, what you can deduce, is that a good fraction of Trump's bar in 2016 isn't actually even the Republican base. A good part of that bar may, in fact, be the Democratic base. Which is mind-boggling - but goes to show how tonedeaf the DNC was in coronating HRC when, very clearly, Bernie was turning out the crowds and hitting both the millennial and white working-class demographics.

My takeaway: Trump won only because Hillary lost. Voters NEVER like "third-term" presidencies. After a two-term president, elections more often than not seem to go to the candidate for change, not the candidate of continuity. (Again: what the hell was the DNC thinking?)

I'll also add one more important point. I myself voted for the candidate who I saw as the lesser of two evils. I think many many others did the same, but unlike me, they saw Trump as that person. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. In other words, the important point I'd make is that Trump did not win on account of having revved up the racists and misogynists in society. He won in SPITE of that, only because he faced Hillary in the general election. I actually believe that if Trump had been a more "Presidential" candidate - more respectable, more hinged, just a little bit more policy-specific - he would have absolutely blown this out of the water. It wouldn't even be close. My hope is that Trump realizes this - that he realizes the race-baiting and erratic behavior didn't help him in the end. If he realizes that, then he will know to moderate himself in office.

I think everyone should go out and hug a Trump voter today - whether in person, or on Facebook, or by email, etc. I believe that many of them made a very difficult choice and are probably now equally nervous about what this all means. Living with uncertainty, as we all are now, is quite awful.
Click to expand...

There are still 4.6 million votes to be counted in California, per the CA SoS yesterday. There are also at least 725,000 votes in Washington state too. That popular vote number is going to go up, especially for democrats. The chart (I've seen it circulating too) is misleading & incomplete.

It was still a bit lower, yes, but what we currently have is an incomplete picture of who actually voted right now.
 
Last edited:
Data - yes, there are still votes to be counted. No, it won't change the picture here. Really, the only plausible interpretation I can think of for the results is that HRC's support didn't materialize at the polls, and, that Trumpty Drumpy won at the polls largely based on "lesser evil" thinking.

I know that you're part of the LGBT community and that these results are incredibly scary to you in a very personal way (not that they aren't to me, either!) but I'd really urge you not to assume every Trump voter is a Nazi. In fact, I think, very very very few were. When the NYT did its video on Trump rallies, where they focused on skinheads and crazies, I think it did a MAJOR disservice to discourse in general, and to understanding where the electorate was. Sure those people existed and they were "media-genic" to the utmost. But the bread and butter of Trump support wasn't at all as "media-genic" and went largely undiscussed - until now, once it's too late.
 
Shepard said:
I'd really urge you not to assume every Trump voter is a Nazi.
Click to expand...

Where the fuck did this even come from? I never said this, nor do I believe it. I'm deeply involved in politics & have been tracking the rise of this nationalist movement for years. This has nothing to do with Trump voters and everything to do with the words & actions by Trump himself. In the end, it doesn't matter what the voters believe because they don't legislate. It does matter what the candidate & his running mate believes.

The key Democratic voter deficiencies did happen in the midwest and is primarily what enabled this victory. The flipping of counties in PA also contributed. The DNC is looking at a 50 state strategy for the next round. This was the wake up call we needed.
 
^Agreed. Well intentioned people saw job moving to China and thought that Trump could legitimately bring some of those jobs back. I believe that is the base of Trump's support, not racists. Demeaning all of his supporters as racists and homophones is detrimental to the national discussion (and honestly the deplorables comment might have lost Hillary the election). Instead of demeaning Trump she should have focused on how she would help the working class.

Even if trade with China diminishes I hold out hope that US companies will innovate and create more automated US manufacturing. For example sneaker manufacturing might become more advanced without cheap foreign labor.
 
tysmith95 said:
Instead of demeaning Trump she should have focused on how she would help the working class.
Click to expand...

SHE DID at every single freaking speech. The media didn't carry it & only cut in for the 5 seconds she might be discussing the latest email or Trump controversy.
 
datadyne007 said:
SHE DID at every single freaking speech. The media didn't carry it & only cut in for the 5 seconds she might be discussing the latest email or Trump controversy.
Click to expand...

Most Hillary commercials that I saw on TV were anti Trump without a positive message. Instead of saying that Donald Trump is unfit it should have painted Trump as an out of touch billionaire and Clinton as a fighter for the middle class.

The average voter is not watching rallies. They see the commercials, debates, and the media. Hillary did do well in the debates but I guess that didn't matter much. But I still believe that Bernie would have won this election in a landslide.
 
tysmith95 said:
Most Hillary commercials that I saw on TV were anti Trump without a positive message. Instead of saying that Donald Trump is unfit it should have painted Trump as an out of touch billionaire and Clinton as a fighter for the middle class.
Click to expand...


Are you serious? Yeah and the Liberal Media is calling him a rapist, groper, racist and every other name in the book.

That is who was doing Hilary dirty work to make herself look like a professional.
 
datadyne007 said:
Where the fuck did this even come from? I never said this, nor do I believe it. I'm deeply involved in politics & have been tracking the rise of this nationalist movement for years. This has nothing to do with Trump voters and everything to do with the words & actions by Trump himself. In the end, it doesn't matter what the voters believe because they don't legislate. It does matter what the candidate & his running mate believes.
Click to expand...

Hey - sorry - I shouldn't have put words in your mouth and didn't assume you believed that. But it does seem to be the logical extension of the argument you're making. Personally, I don't know what Trump believes. His actions were reprehensible, but his real beliefs are very very obscured now. Nobody knows what's going to happen. That uncertainty is the part of this that, for me, is the most dreadful (that and Chris Christie).
 
TheRifleman said:
Looks like TRUMP is more of the same- I hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

So.....exactly what I've telling you since day 1 of this thread? Huh.

Edit:

Leaders in his transition include former Rep. Mike Rogers, former Reagan Attorney General and Heritage Foundation fellow Edwin Meese, former President of Heritage Edwin Feulner, former Bush administration official and lobbyist Christine Ciccone, former Dick Cheney adviser Ado Machida, former Senate Budget Committee staffer Eric Ueland and Sen. Jeff Sessions' former chief of staff Rick Dearborn. The effort is chaired by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Trump counts former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Sessions as close advisers.
Click to expand...

The system is self healing. You can come at it with the sharpest ax or the bluntest object and it will quickly close the wound.
 
 
Justin7 said:
Hillary won. The person who receives the most votes should be president.

https://www.change.org/p/electoral-...make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19
Click to expand...

They both ran under the same set of rules. The campaign strategies would have been different if it was popular vote instead of electoral college, and voter turnout may have been different as well. Trump effectively targeted the swing states he needed to win, and Hillary blew it. You don't get to change the rules just because your candidate lost.

I do agree the country SHOULD use popular vote instead of an electoral college. However, under the current parameters, Trump won fair and square. (ugly, but fair) A future change to the system would be welcome, but try making it retroactive and we'll end up with a second Civil War.

This whole thread is just a bunch of sour grapes and should be shut down for good.
 
Here are some problems with a nationwide "most votes wins" plan:
- In a 3-way race, the top vote getter might only get 43% (as Bill Clinton did), is that really a better mandate?
- It lets you pile up big margins in the big cities and win without the consent of most places and states (which is essentially what Clinton did, unable to win outside of urban centers)

The Electoral College is not great, and most of the time agrees with the popular vote anyway.

The Electoral College comes into play in close elections (this is the most-unfair it has ever been and we're still only talking a 2% margin--the votes of 1% of the people).

For now, the Electoral College is essentially a rule that says "close elections go to the candidate whose support is best geographically distributed" It's weird but not *crazy*. It is actually less unfair than the Senate, and about as unfair as the House of Representative (or any Parliament) which are have a tough time dealing with tight margins and odd concentrations of support (gerrymandered, states, or just Urban/Non-urban)
 
Arlington said:
- It lets you pile up big margins in the big cities and win without the consent of most places and states (which is essentially what Clinton did, unable to win outside of urban centers
Click to expand...

I hate this argument. So does my vote count less if I live in a city. Why should rural voters have more power just cause they happen to live in the middle of nowhere?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top