Election 2016

Shatner · Post by **Shatner** » Tue Nov 22, 2016 2:32 pm

virgil wrote:Personal fantasy of mine: sufficient numbers of faithless electors put Hillary into office. While in office, she then channels the expectant rage from the GOP to dismantle the electoral college; all the while surreptitiously undoing all sorts of voter suppression.

This times all the numbers.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:03 pm

The EC upset scenario has always seemed too faint a hope to even see, but there's been some encouraging murmurs from that front. I don't think there could be any happier irony than having our undemocratic EC uphold the democratic popular vote, but if even a bunch of Trump electors conscientiously abstain and force the House to 12th Amendment Trump in as President, that would be a good step towards delegitimizing him.

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:12 pm

Koumei wrote:In Russian democracy, everyone is corrupt. Putin and his stooges are particularly corrupt, and remarkably are not targeted nearly as much as their opposition. I'm sure there's some kind of simple reason for this. Like corruption.

I don't want to turn this into a Russia thread, but there's no opposition in Russia since Nemtsov was murdered (and he was a regional deputy, one step up from anime club president). Protesting is illegal, even solitary protesting, because if you approach a govt building with a poster, someone else will join you just in time for the cops to arrest you "both". "Opposition" parties announce they've sent their political programmes to Putin for approval. News anchors seriously say, "Those dumb Americans are so backward they can't be sure who'll be President until an election happens". The batshit Crimean neko-chan brought an icon of tsar Nicholas to the WWII remembrance v-day march. Russia is basically a Schindler's List remake by the studio which made Scary Movie.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Nov 22, 2016 4:42 pm

Shatner wrote:What are these "rainbow agencies" people are talking about?

They are fucking up the term "alphabet agencies." Classically the FBI, CIA, and NSA. But also including the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), the BIR (Bureau of Intelligence and Research), the OIA (Office of Intelligence and Analysis), the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency), the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agency), and literally more than ten other intelligence and/or law enforcement agencies of various sizes and missions that were created in response to some thing or another and just fucking stagger on because the United States is a ridiculous and decadent empire that never throws anything away.

DSM wrote:I think Frank is defining down democratic legitimacy.

I don't know what you think I wrote.

The United States is about to go to the point where every branch of government has no democratic legitimacy and the enforcement agencies have abandoned any pretense of being dispassionate, nonpartisan, or even particularly following the rule of law. The established norms for filling vacant Supreme Court seats have been blatantly not followed such that instead of having a Democratic appointment as per custom there simply won't be. And the House, Senate and Presidency will all go to Republican control despite the Republicans getting less votes for House, Senate, and Presidency.

I gave an 80% chance that democratic legitimacy is never restored. I don't think that sounds outrageously optimistic or requires the defining down of democratic legitimacy.

-Username17

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:31 am

Huh, looks like there was actual vote tampering in Wisconsin. So that's a thing.

edit: Looks like it might not be just Wisconsin.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:04 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:Huh, looks like there was actual vote tampering in Wisconsin. So that's a thing.

edit: Looks like it might not be just Wisconsin.

Explanation of first link

I really hope she fights.

Hiram McDaniels · Post by **Hiram McDaniels** » Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:36 am

Maj wrote:
angelfromanotherpin wrote:Huh, looks like there was actual vote tampering in Wisconsin. So that's a thing.

edit: Looks like it might not be just Wisconsin.
Explanation of first link

I really hope she fights.

That would be nice, but so far the Dems have proven themselves to be a bunch gutless cowards who whimper and present their asses everytime a Republican raises his voice. They're utterly toothless, incompetent and tone deaf. They completely missed a right wing coup in 2010 because they were too busy making the oval office their alamo, and now the diet republican neolibs in the DNC are doubling down on not learning a damn thing. The only thing that's going to beat the republicans now is some savant level skullduggery and media manipulation, and the Dems have absolutely no game in that area. I think that party is done for.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:52 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opini ... AudDevGate

It's hard to not feel like this is some kind of victim-blaming or a circuitous route to #alllivesmatter.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:59 pm

It's pretty fucking stupid. This election is honestly really fucking simple.

Relative to Obama, Clinton's margin of victory among millennials decreased by 5% nationally and by up to 20% in swing states. Trump didn't pick those voters up, they went third party. Who the fuck thinks millennials are turned off by identity politics? Millennials got behind Sanders in the primary, and when he lost they protest voted third-party. And it wasn't really a policy-driven protest vote, because, again; millennials still love Obama even while he tries to shove TPP up our asses and largely do all the other shit Sanders railed on Clinton for (you may recall that being a bit of fuss in the primaries). Her underperformance really boils down:

1) Sanders refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the primary during, and the perfect example of that is Nevada. They had a three stage caucus; the people at the first caucus vote on representatives for the second caucus, the representatives at the second caucus vote on different representatives for the third caucus, and the representatives at the third caucus award delegates. Clinton won the first caucus. Sanders pulled a surprise upset at the second caucus because a bunch of Clinton supporters didn't show up. And then Clinton pulled a surprise upset at the third caucus because a bunch of Sanders supporters stayed home, putting everything back the way it was projected to go from round 1. And Sanders supporters lost their fucking shit. "We stole it fair and square! Give it back!" And the great Sanders in chief... "well, mumblemumble, it's very suspicious, you know." So fuck him. I voted for him in Ohio because he was pulling the party further left, started regretted shortly after when I realized he was an asshat who was going to play rough with his own allies, and ended up being instrumental to Trump's victory.

2) Media coverage during the general election was almost exclusively Clinton scandals, particularly in the run-up to the election itself. The media gave millennials (and everyone else, but millennials are the notable weakness) every opportunity to distrust her for... emails emails emails Clinton Foundation? The fact is that basically every major media outlet falls into one of these two categories; centrist shitheads who want to talk slightly more shit about Democrats or Republican propagandists who want to talk shit exclusively about Democrats. That's it. That's the whole spectrum.

It doesn't look like the media is going to pull their head out of their ass now that they've given us President Trump. They're going to "see the error of their ways" and help him drown our democracy in a bathtub. No one is going to put together a liberal media empire quickly enough to matter. It would also help to have Democrats who played the game like they were playing against people who want to steal the fucking government and run away with it, as opposed to still treating the Republican party like a legitimate partner in governance instead of an existential threat.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:06 pm

It's extremely and bizarrely racist to talk about "identity politics" when you really mean "treating black people like they matter." Rich white people voted for fucking Trump despite the fact that he is evil and obviously grossly unqualified. Anyone who claims that we are going to pry back more white votes by kicking black people out into the outer darkness is just fucking wrong. And people who pretend that caring about black people is identity politics and caring about white people is not is pulling a racist shell game and probably a right wing concern troll.

-Username17

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:17 pm

As I said. Media is going to act like abused spouses. "We will ignore black people and only talk about white people, if you just love us Daddy Trump."

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:11 pm

Have there been studies/statistics concerning media election coverage? I've only ever heard anecdotes, and they've been near-universal in opinion that the media broadly supported Clinton; and some have claimed they were her lapdogs, giving her positive coverage and heavily biased negative coverage toward Trump.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:18 pm

virgil wrote:Have there been studies/statistics concerning media election coverage? I've only ever heard anecdotes, and they've been near-universal in opinion that the media broadly supported Clinton; and some have claimed they were her lapdogs, giving her positive coverage and heavily biased negative coverage toward Trump.

They spent more time discussing Clinton's emails than all policy issues combined. By really a lot.

Considering that Trump's weak issues were all the issues, having the media completely avoid talking about any of them was in essence a giant love letter to Trump.

-Username17

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:38 pm

virgil wrote:Have there been studies/statistics concerning media election coverage? I've only ever heard anecdotes, and they've been near-universal in opinion that the media broadly supported Clinton; and some have claimed they were her lapdogs, giving her positive coverage and heavily biased negative coverage toward Trump.

Well for example, Clinton's emails was on the NYTimes front page about as many times as all Trump scandals combined, and the Times is probably the least biased in favor of trump. So basically, people's ancedotes are normally something like "I only read brietbart, so when I saw the nytimes briefly mention on page 3 that Trump actually broke actual election laws by lying in his filing documents, I was really mad, and also, when the front page said 'Shadows are cast over the Clinton campaign, as many people say she is a sercret nazi murderer who killed people to keep them from telling her secrets' I get mad, because it sounds like they don't believe she's a murder with all that 'allegedly' stuff."

Hiram McDaniels · Post by **Hiram McDaniels** » Thu Nov 24, 2016 1:24 am

So even with the possibility of vote fuckery, Hillary Clinton is not going to pursue a recount in states where the vote count are suspect (MI, WI, PA), because of the fuss she made (though rightfully so) about Orange Hitler not conceding if he lost the election.

However, Jill Stein is not concerned with those optics at all and is calling for a recount herself.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/ ... story.html

There's a go fund e page and everything. Looks like Tofu Palin did something good afterall.

I do wonder why FL isn't on the list though, since Clinton's early vote lead should have been insurmountable.

If this process did prove fruitful for the democrats though, couldn't the GOP just tie up the system by demanding recounts in a number of other states? If it turns out that those EV's go to Clinton, does that make her the president then? Or does congress choose the President in that instance? If it's the former, would she even accept? And what are the odds that any sort of election skullduggery took place at all (I mean besides the usual republican tactics of disenfranchisement and voter intimidation which are apparently somehow OK)?

Shatner · Post by **Shatner** » Thu Nov 24, 2016 3:06 am

Hiram McDaniels wrote:So even with the possibility of vote fuckery, Hillary Clinton is not going to pursue a recount in states where the vote count are suspect (MI, WI, PA), because of the fuss she made (though rightfully so) about Orange Hitler not conceding if he lost the election.

However, Jill Stein is not concerned with those optics at all and is calling for a recount herself.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/ ... story.html

There's a go fund e page and everything. Looks like Tofu Palin did something good afterall.

I do wonder why FL isn't on the list though, since Clinton's early vote lead should have been insurmountable.

If this process did prove fruitful for the democrats though, couldn't the GOP just tie up the system by demanding recounts in a number of other states? If it turns out that those EV's go to Clinton, does that make her the president then? Or does congress choose the President in that instance? If it's the former, would she even accept? And what are the odds that any sort of election skullduggery took place at all (I mean besides the usual republican tactics of disenfranchisement and voter intimidation which are apparently somehow OK)?

I don't understand the restraint on display by Hillary and the rest of the Democrats. This was not a fair election, the cost to the Democratic party of 4+ years of Trump is enormous, and the cost to the country and the world will be even larger.

I mean, I get that maybe they aren't as good or accustomed to partisan bullshit as Republicans, but this seems like a pretty clear, existential threat. And with the majority of the nation's voters being upset and/or scared, being visibly angry on camera seems like the easiest, most no-brainer way to score political points currently available.

And yeah, go Jill Stein. I, uh, never thought I'd be typing that sentence.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Nov 24, 2016 3:25 am

I'm just glad that Jill Stein stayed true to her homeopathic principles by trying to win with .2% of the vote. She just hasn't diluted it enough!

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Nov 24, 2016 4:57 am

Looks like the Jill Stein kickstarter is just a way to grab some quit cash for "election integrity efforts" if she gets more or less than the amount by the deadlines. (Or even the exact amount, since she promises to demand recounts, but not to actually pay for them, or that they will occur.)

So let's not get too far ahead of ourselves on praising anything Jill Stein ever does ever.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Thu Nov 24, 2016 5:35 am

Facts in this election have not been very helpful this election and Hill's team shaking an angry fist about the results right now probably wouldn't score them many points. Sure some might welcome it but it'll be drowned out in allegations about the DNC being crooked, and they stopped Bernie so she can't complain, blah blah. I mean we just had Lago AND PL talking up how the DNC should've had Bernie be their nomination despite him losing the primaries completely.

Even if they wanted to score points I doubt that they'd raise a big fuss because I don't remember them even following through where the Bush reelection was concerned. I'm not even sure what they could do that wouldn't toss the nation into further chaos. If, by some miracle, they decided to go ahead and follow the will of most of the people and install Hillary instead of Trump, what would the consequences of that be?

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:25 am

MGuy wrote:I mean we just had Lago AND PL talking up how the DNC should've had Bernie be their nomination despite him losing the primaries completely.

Don't you go doing that. It's important that you be clear about what I've been saying and where the blame for this mess lies. I think the DNC was clearly not neutral, but they neither installed Hillary against the will of the primary voters (though they probably would have if they both had to and could have) nor should they necessarily have defied that vote.

It was the democratic primary voters themselves who ultimately made the giant idiot mistake of listening to pressure from the DNC and the rest of the centrist establishment and agreeing to run the most unpopular democratic candidate in history at a time when they really could not afford such a stupid and needless risk.

The fault lies ultimately with Hillary supporters. They voted for the stupid choice, they had an objectively better alternative. It is the democratic primary voters who risked Trump winning, the democratic voters who refused to objectively reduce that risk, they instead increased the risk and it resulted in Trump winning.

Korwin · Post by **Korwin** » Thu Nov 24, 2016 7:51 am

FrankTrollman wrote:It's extremely and bizarrely racist to talk about "identity politics" when you really mean "treating black people like they matter." Rich white people voted for fucking Trump despite the fact that he is evil and obviously grossly unqualified. Anyone who claims that we are going to pry back more white votes by kicking black people out into the outer darkness is just fucking wrong. And people who pretend that caring about black people is identity politics and caring about white people is not is pulling a racist shell game and probably a right wing concern troll.

-Username17

This sounds like you do have many, many rich white guys in America...
Somehow I got the impression the poor white guys voted for him, more than the rich ones...

Shatner wrote:I don't understand the restraint on display by Hillary and the rest of the Democrats. This was not a fair election, the cost to the Democratic party of 4+ years of Trump is enormous, and the cost to the country and the world will be even larger.

Maybe, she thinks it would not matter / change anything?

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:01 am

Korwin wrote:
Shatner wrote:I don't understand the restraint on display by Hillary and the rest of the Democrats. This was not a fair election, the cost to the Democratic party of 4+ years of Trump is enormous, and the cost to the country and the world will be even larger.
Maybe, she thinks it would not matter / change anything?

I'm wondering if they're in cahoots with Jill Stein's recount efforts. If the DNC or Hillary did the recount and got Trump out, the Trumpettes' rage would know no bounds. If they got the Green Party to do it, that takes some of the heat off the Dems, making the proceedings look less rigged, and gives the Green Party some favors they could call in, maybe Hillary would appoint some Green Party folks to positions or put some of their legislative wants on the priority list.

The recount being pushed by a third party would also make Hillary look blameless. She didn't demand a recount, it was someone else and it just happened to come out in her favor, she could claim.

However it goes, I hope it works.

maglag · Post by **maglag** » Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:02 am

Korwin wrote:
Shatner wrote:I don't understand the restraint on display by Hillary and the rest of the Democrats. This was not a fair election, the cost to the Democratic party of 4+ years of Trump is enormous, and the cost to the country and the world will be even larger.
Maybe, she thinks it would not matter / change anything?

In related news it seems like Trump won't arrest Hillary after all.

So clearly a deal of sorts has been cut between white people behind the scenes. Clinton bows down and obeys without causing any more ruckus, and in return Trump does not get her arrested or Guantamo's or droned.

sendaz · Post by **sendaz** » Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:33 am

Korwin wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:It's extremely and bizarrely racist to talk about "identity politics" when you really mean "treating black people like they matter." Rich white people voted for fucking Trump despite the fact that he is evil and obviously grossly unqualified. Anyone who claims that we are going to pry back more white votes by kicking black people out into the outer darkness is just fucking wrong. And people who pretend that caring about black people is identity politics and caring about white people is not is pulling a racist shell game and probably a right wing concern troll.

-Username17
This sounds like you do have many, many rich white guys in America...
Somehow I got the impression the poor white guys voted for him, more than the rich ones...

You have to remember that Trump is first and foremost a businessman.
Granted perhaps not the best one given some of his flops over the years, but he knows how to punch buttons to sell his product, which this time around happened to be himself.
He promised the silent majority almost everything, from keeping immigrants out to bringing back jobs, while keeping actual details on how he could do it vague enough that you couldn't really nitpick it apart because there was damn few details to go against.
Now you would think that sort of lack of details would be a red flag to most, alerting someone that something was amiss, but for many they just filled in the blanks themselves with wish-fulfillment and voted for him assuming that he would somehow make it all work out in the end.

Korwin · Post by **Korwin** » Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:46 am

sendaz wrote:
Korwin wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:It's extremely and bizarrely racist to talk about "identity politics" when you really mean "treating black people like they matter." Rich white people voted for fucking Trump despite the fact that he is evil and obviously grossly unqualified. Anyone who claims that we are going to pry back more white votes by kicking black people out into the outer darkness is just fucking wrong. And people who pretend that caring about black people is identity politics and caring about white people is not is pulling a racist shell game and probably a right wing concern troll.

-Username17
This sounds like you do have many, many rich white guys in America...
Somehow I got the impression the poor white guys voted for him, more than the rich ones...
You have to remember that Trump is first and foremost a businessman.
Granted perhaps not the best one given some of his flops over the years, but he knows how to punch buttons to sell his product, which this time around happened to be himself.
He promised the silent majority almost everything, from keeping immigrants out to bringing back jobs, while keeping actual details on how he could do it vague enough that you couldn't really nitpick it apart because there was damn few details to go against.
Now you would think that sort of lack of details would be a red flag to most, alerting someone that something was amiss, but for many they just filled in the blanks themselves with wish-fulfillment and voted for him assuming that he would somehow make it all work out in the end.

I have nothing to disagree here... Not shure why you quoted me.
I just wanted to comment on Frank's claim that the rich white guys voted for him. (They might have, but I doubt they are the majority in the USA.)