Election 2016

[Mechalich]

I think it depends on domestic policy versus foreign policy. Either one will be horrible on domestic policy, because they'll basically approve everything committed Objectivist Paul Ryan comes up with. Pence would probably be worse, marginally, because he's liable to put much more energy into restrictive social policy, but the Supreme Court represents at least a modest limit there.

Pence would run conventional Republican foreign policy. some warmongering, heavy defense spending, some belligerence, but mostly status quo. Trump is much more variable. He could break from NATO and let Putin conquer the Baltics, or actually nuke something, or who knows what.

The key variables are delegation and energy. How much energy Trump actually puts into being President and how much work he delegates to Pence, Ryan, and whomever he stuffs into the Cabinet. The existing campaign evidence suggests that Trump really doesn't like to work all that hard, so in the best case scenario he just...doesn't do much as President. That still means the Ryan budget and probably some sort of border wall (a border wall's not a big deal actually, it's a modest stimulus and if we have to knock it down in 2026 life will go on). If Trump proves sufficiently egotistical that he doesn't let Pence pull a Cheney and half run the oval office that could potentially mitigate the damage slightly.

[DSMatticus]

I would expect Pence to toe the Republican line. The Republican line is horrible.

No one really knows what Trump will actually do. He could spend his entire time as president fighting other Republicans for control of the party. Or he could start off strong, riding rhetoric about voter fraud in a push for a federal Department of Elections - in an attempt to consolidate all that pesky vote-counting into one central, easily riggable location controlled by Trumplicans. I don't even want to talk about foreign policy, but the tl;dr is we might as well start betting on which country Russia invades first. I would almost rather have Pence, because:

1) I'm sure there are enough Republicans and enough Democrats to help Trump do some real damage politically. Democrats will probably help Trump get his infrastructure spending even though it increases the likelihood of his surge turning into a permanent coalition because they have this weird tendency to put governance before politics. We're in "block it for eight fucking years, slap some tax cuts on it, then take credit for it" territory. It's pretty goddamn politically self-destructive to let one party do nice things while they prevent you from ever doing the same.

2) He'll almost certainly take a harder stance with Russia, just because Republicans like waving America's dick around - gets their voters nice and hard.

3) There's no way Pence - or any suit they could find to replace him - could repeat Trump's surge in 2020/2024.

And I'm sure there are a lot of Republican senators thinking the exact same things I just said, and considering whether or not impeachment proceedings would be worth it to get the devil they know and trust and can control.

[Username17]

Obama's misguided attempt to be conciliatory and Lincolnish and surround himself with people he disagreed with will go down as his greatest blunder since he allowed himself to be betrayed so flagrantly and so completely by Comey. Now his entire legacy will be destroyed in a few days next February.

He spent eight years working to get the rate of the uninsured down to less than 9% - the lowest it has been in American history. But because he conferred legitimacy on his opponents that they did not deserve and which they did not afford him in return - twenty million Americans will lose their health insurance in the next two years. The Obama years will go down in history as a tragedy, and "pulling an Obama" will come to mean being the frog in the Scorpion and the Frog. You might get caught by a phishing scam and say "I pulled an Obama," or you might hire a shady guy to work on your yard only to have him run off with your tools and people will say "Damn, you pulled an Obama."

-Username17

[Koumei]

And just like post-Brexit, already people are spraying swastikas on walls and abusing black people at every opportunity, because they have the thing they've been waiting for (but it's not about racism, guys, it's about disenfranchised... racists).

On the plus side, is this the most realistic path forward for the end of humanity, and for global annihilation to move forward? What with the most powerful country in the world suddenly getting some extra hardcore "fuck the environment and also health, and also nuclear proliferation is AWESOME" in charge, I can't think of a better* way without specifically funding some kind of apocalypse project.

*Better "for wiping our own species out", not better "for people at large".

Edit: also, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party (the crazy racist anti-intellectual party even compared to all of the other crazy racist anti-intellectual parties, of which there are like nine) have been celebrating this triumph for people of their ilk. Even our conservatives are going "Well fuck, this is going to be a tough ride."

[DSMatticus]

Well, we are going to eventually hit a very boring point of no return on climate change, and we'll kick off a positive feedback loop that results in most of the planet being unsuitable for agriculture or... standing in. It's not clear when that point of no return actually is, and we probably won't even know for years after we've hit it. So in the sense that we are currently holding a bomb and the timer is a bunch of question marks, yes, we are closer to the apocalypse, possibly with a small band of eskimos-turned-Mad Max-survivors to carry on our legacy. Even if we do see the start of the feedback loop in our lifetime, we won't be around to see it topple civilization - it's a pretty slow thing.

As for whether or not the world ends in nuclear hellfire, uhh... Who knows? The US is not the only nuclear power capable of being pissed off at Russia, but we are quite possibly one of the only powers capable of checking Russian aggression without nuclear force. So if we really do pull out of our commitments in Europe, Putin can probably do whatever the fuck he wants while daring someone else to escalate to nukes. If I were Japan right now, I would be scrambling to put together a nuclear weapon capable of being fired into China. Without U.S. presence, every nation in the region is under threat of being strangled to death by China's sea claims. I would rather not have China and Japan pointing nukes at eachother, mostly because every extra pair of countries we have pointing nukes at eachother brings us closer to our first real nuclear exchange, but if we aren't going to serve as a deterrent they very much need - and are frankly entitled to - their own. The U.S. has a well-earned reputation for being dicks on the global stage who meddle in everything, but it has for the most part genuinely served to keep nuclear proliferation to a minimum. If the U.S. isn't going to participate in the same theaters as Russia and China, then the people in those theaters need nukes.

But who the fuck knows. Trump has changed his mind twice on everything he's ever said.

[Username17]

So... Hillary actually got more votes than Trump apparently. That is a thing that happened. Trump is going to be president because arcane 18th century procedures are going to give more electors to the person who got less votes. And even that is only possible because of voter suppression efforts.

I am not inclined to accept this election as legitimate. Hillary doesn't want to start a civil war over it, but it definitely seems like it would be a mistake not to. Rolling over for fuckery on this scale will not lead to anything good.

-Username17

[Chamomile]

I think Grey might be drinking something stronger than coffee.

[maglag]

The U.S. has a well-earned reputation for being dicks on the global stage who meddle in everything, but it has for the most part genuinely served to keep nuclear proliferation to a minimum. If the U.S. isn't going to participate in the same theaters as Russia and China, then the people in those theaters need nukes.

India already has nukes.

So does Pakistan.

And they've been pointing those nukes at each other for quite some time now with a lot of border incidents.

But since they're both glorious "democracies" backed by the USA, that rarely shows up in the front news.

Anyway it's pretty funny how history has been reversed.

It was never a matter of USA containing Russia's nuclear arsenal.

It always was a matter of Russia preventing the USA from keep using nukes to solve all their "problems". If Russia hadn't got their hands on the design so fast, then there wouldn't have been nothing stopping the USA from nuking everybody that displeased them.

Aka the USA has already shown a willingness to nuke civilian targets, and to the day they insist it was the only and best way. It's Russia and China that have yet to nuke another country.

If somebody's gonna start throwing nukes at other countries again, chances still are that it will be somebody from the USA.

[deaddmwalking]

The system has problems. They've been known for a while. This is pretty horrid, but living with the system is better than trying to tear it down right now - especially when the other side has all the power of the institutions on their side.

People who believed that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya are terrible people. And for eight years they've lived peacefully in a country that they didn't think represented them. Fighting a war over it justifies all of the racist assholes who started the Civil War in 1861.

The only way out is through. And maybe relocating to a swing state if you can. I live in Tennessee and I can see what's happening to turn Georgia purple. It's happening here, but Knoxville is no Atlanta.

The 2020 elections are going to be the most important in our lifetimes. It's after that census that redistricting occurs. Fixing the system isn't going to happen, so taking advantage of the 'unfairness' is the way to go.

[Longes]

So... Hillary actually got more votes than Trump apparently. That is a thing that happened. Trump is going to be president because arcane 18th century procedures are going to give more electors to the person who got less votes. And even that is only possible because of voter suppression efforts.

I am not inclined to accept this election as legitimate. Hillary doesn't want to start a civil war over it, but it definitely seems like it would be a mistake not to. Rolling over for fuckery on this scale will not lead to anything good.

-Username17

So why hasn't US changed those systems to better ones? Has there been any progress in that direction?
Honest question, no sarcasm or trolling intended.

[RobbyPants]

The only way out is through. And maybe relocating to a swing state if you can. I live in Tennessee and I can see what's happening to turn Georgia purple.

I'd thought of that earlier; moving from a blue state to a pink one where my vote would matter more. Then Michigan went red, so maybe I am in a swing state. I joked yesterday how my vote turned out to matter much more than I'd thought. I think Trump took it by something like 0.5%.

On a side note, I shouldn't be surprised. Michigan has had GOP control over the House, Senate, and Governor for a while, now. How does a state like that consistently go blue for presidential elections? Is it just Democrats not getting out the vote for other elections?

[deaddmwalking]

Updating the Constitution requires a difficult process.

Whichever side is hurt by the electoral college suggests direct popular election; the side that benefits refuses.

The system where Wyoming gets more 'votes' per capita is deliberate. If they didn't there would be no reason to care about the population of the state more than, say, the Knoxville Metro Area. Effectively, issues that affect an entire state could be ignored. People that are spread out geographically are harder to affect with infrastructure; their over-representation in National politics helps address that.

Remember, it's not just electoral votes. California (most populous state) has 2 Senators as does Wyoming. Each State has equal representation in the Senate, even though states are far from equal...

Now, within the system, there is some things that could happen. California has talked about splitting into two or three States. If California were divided into three States, what was California would have 6 Senators and possibly pick up at least two additional House seats. But even that is difficult and it's been floated for decades (not to increase representation on the National stage so much as to make governing such diverse regions easier).

[Voss]

The only way out is through. And maybe relocating to a swing state if you can. I live in Tennessee and I can see what's happening to turn Georgia purple.

I'd thought of that earlier; moving from a blue state to a pink one where my vote would matter more. Then Michigan went red, so maybe I am in a swing state. I joked yesterday how my vote turned out to matter much more than I'd thought. I think Trump took it by something like 0.5%.

Yeah, I'm actually glad I voted, even though it turned out poorly- this was ridiculously close. Had I not, I would have felt somewhat guilty about it, unlike living in Mass. during Obama's 2nd term election. I'm intensely curious about turnout and voting patterns this time, as they seem... unusual at first impression.

I'm actually a little annoyed at my mother- she couldn't stomach either candidate, so left the presidential vote blank, which i guess is better than just blindly voting Republican like she did in the past, but not by much.

[Chamomile]

So why hasn't US changed those systems to better ones? Has there been any progress in that direction?
Honest question, no sarcasm or trolling intended.

Getting rid of the electoral college would require a two-thirds supermajority of Congress. It's really hard to get 2/3s of Congressmen to agree to that when half of Congressmen are in a party that benefits from it. There is a way of circumventing it, which is a pact signed into law by several states in which they will instruct their electors to vote for whoever won the popular vote nationally, regardless of who won the popular vote in their state specifically. This compact does not go into effect until at least 50.1% of the electoral college has signed onto it, and so far that number is somewhere around 30%. Another 10%-ish have a bill to add themselves to the compact in the legislature, but no guarantee it'll pass. Basically everyone who's signed onto it are Democratic Party strongholds, and for obvious reasons. Swing states like being disproportionately important, and Republican strongholds want a stronger Republican Party and will not vote such a compact into effect even if, like Texas, they're big enough to benefit from a more straightforward popular vote.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Well.

[nockermensch]

Well.

I think Putin is a pretty cool guy. Eh influences the American election, is posed to extend Russia's influence all over middle east and eastern Europe and doesn’t afraid of anything.

[Maj]

I'm actually a little annoyed at my mother- she couldn't stomach either candidate, so left the presidential vote blank, which i guess is better than just blindly voting Republican like she did in the past, but not by much.

My mom voted for Stein, and at first, I was kinda annoyed with her, too. And then I realized that my conservative mom voted liberal for the first time ever, and when she told me that most of the other peeps she voted for were Democrats, too, I sung her praises to high heaven. Positive reinforcement and all that.

She also said that if they repeal the ACA and leave people in the lurch (I'm really worried about this), she's gonna be wearing the suicide vest and lighting the fuse. So that was kinda awesome, too.

[Kaelik]

So why hasn't US changed those systems to better ones? Has there been any progress in that direction?
Honest question, no sarcasm or trolling intended.

Any path to constitutional amendment requires state legislatures or state conventions to overwhelmingly support it. Since the electoral college gives disproportionate power to more than half the states at the expense of less than half of the states, that is never going to happen. Also two thirds of the house, which also won't happen, but is at least theoretically possible.

The Popular Voter Interstate Compact, that I mentioned early is a popular state work around, it is a pledge to give all the votes of all participating states to whomever wins the popular election. So it's easier than for example, 3/4ths of the states agreeing, because Wyoming is only worth 3 of 500whatever votes towards the interstate compact, instead of 1/50. So you can bypass the fact that all the shitty middle states are against it.

But of course, no Republican will ever vote for it, because every single one of them is reminded that Bush and Trump exist, so if they did work to change our unrepresentative system, then filthy fucking Democrats would win, and like any fascist, maintaining political power is more important than representative systems to them, that's the express reason they keep gerrymandering and instituting voter suppression of minorities in the first place.

[Grek]

Somebody please explain the particulars of the voting suppression that went on during election day.

[Kaelik]

Somebody please explain the particulars of the voting suppression that went on during election day.

Following the Shelby County v. Holder decision, the states of Texas, North Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi pushed ahead with photo ID laws, which had been blocked previously due to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

“Undisputed ... evidence demonstrates that racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty, and (that the ID law) will weigh more heavily on the poor.”

Trump won Wisconsin by 27,000 votes. For perspective, 300,000 registered voters in WI lacked strict voter ID.  Wisconsin was at its lowest levels in 20 years and decreased 13 percent in Milwaukee, where 70 percent of the state’s African-American population lives

On Election Day, there were 868 fewer polling places in states with a long history of voting discrimination, like Arizona, Texas, and North Carolina.  In 40 heavily black counties, there were 158 fewer early polling places. North Carolina had no Sunday early voting, because the state legislature noticed that Sundays were predominately black and Democratic, so they just canceled all Sunday voting.

On election day itself, there were many fewer polling locations, guess where they were closed? Could it be predominately black and Latino areas? And who passed those laws? All Republican Legislatures? Weird man.

[Leress]

https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_in_Mississippi

Mississippi has extra levels of fuck you when it comes to voting besides the ID law.

1. No online registration (in a state that is largely rural)
2. No early voting
3. No No-excuse absentee voting
4. No Same-day registration (see 1)

[hyzmarca]

And just like post-Brexit, already people are spraying swastikas on walls and abusing black people at every opportunity, because they have the thing they've been waiting for (but it's not about racism, guys, it's about disenfranchised... racists).

On the plus side, is this the most realistic path forward for the end of humanity, and for global annihilation to move forward? What with the most powerful country in the world suddenly getting some extra hardcore "fuck the environment and also health, and also nuclear proliferation is AWESOME" in charge, I can't think of a better* way without specifically funding some kind of apocalypse project.

*Better "for wiping our own species out", not better "for people at large".

Edit: also, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party (the crazy racist anti-intellectual party even compared to all of the other crazy racist anti-intellectual parties, of which there are like nine) have been celebrating this triumph for people of their ilk. Even our conservatives are going "Well fuck, this is going to be a tough ride."

Perhaps I'm a bit to weary and cynical, but I really can't see Trump as being anything particularly special or actually making sweeping policy changes. Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss, you know. Other than the ACA, Obama's tenue wasn't that much different than Bush's. I don't expect Trump's to be that much different from Obama's. It's too easy to just coast on institutional inertia.

[RobbyPants]

You don't see him signing away every one of Obama's executive orders on immigration on his first day?

[Pixels]

...if they repeal the ACA and leave people in the lurch...

That's not an "if." That's happening, and fast. Trump and the now fully Republican-controlled Congress are on the same page about the ACA. Good as gone.

I do find it amusing that term limits topped Trump's 100-day action plan. That will never happen.

[hyzmarca]

You don't see him signing away every one of Obama's executive orders on immigration on his first day?

Not all of them. I expect he'd take a more measured approach, roll back some of them.

I also expect him to leave the ACA mostly intact, because for all of his repeal talk, it's simply easier to keep its skeleton, and a few new touches that are almost exactly the same, and take complete credit for it.

The ACA itself is basically identical to Romneycare. The only reason the Rrepublicans hate it is because it has Obama's name on it. I'd bet that Trumpcare would be basically identical to Obamacare, with just enough changes to pretend that it's different, and the Republicans will love it.