2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[Crown]

I mean when you see what he did in the primaries wasn't there a moment when you looked at his crowds and then her crowds and then the polls and thought; somethings not quite right?

Not really, though maybe I should have. Crowd sizes are easy to manipulate, whether it's gross numbers, enthusiasm or how the footage is shot. A small but loud crowd shot from the ground can be made to look like huge baying horde, and a huge crowd of ho-hum attendees shot from the stage (so you can really see how big the crowd is). There is also of course this phenomenon where people bullshit about crowd size.

Is it possible that you were in a bubble? The eye opener for me was Trump's performance in the primaries, Brexit and well Reddit. The energy coming out of /r/The_Donald and the nauseating fakeness of the CTR brigaded /r/politics was like chalk and cheese.

[Elfdart]

I mean when you see what he did in the primaries wasn't there a moment when you looked at his crowds and then her crowds and then the polls and thought; somethings not quite right?

Not really, though maybe I should have. Crowd sizes are easy to manipulate, whether it's gross numbers, enthusiasm or how the footage is shot. A small but loud crowd shot from the ground can be made to look like huge baying horde, and a huge crowd of ho-hum attendees shot from the stage (so you can really see how big the crowd is). There is also of course this phenomenon where people bullshit about crowd size.

Is it possible that you were in a bubble? The eye opener for me was Trump's performance in the primaries, Brexit and well Reddit. The energy coming out of /r/The_Donald and the nauseating fakeness of the CTR brigaded /r/politics was like chalk and cheese.

Dude, I live in Texas. Outside of Austin, there is no "bubble". I thought Trump had a shot as late as September, and right up until "Grab 'em by the pussy!" and accusations of molesting women and creeping on underage girls came out. I thought that would make up for Hillary being such a useless candidate.

[Tvpnbb]

Personally, I thought he had a shot (due to Brexit, etc.) but the fact that 1) polls were against him, most of the time wth a big margin, 2) polling had been pretty accurate during the primaries and 3) Clinton had a substantial field operation, something in which in my understanding the Remain camp in UK failed miserably led me to thinking that he would probably lose. But yeah, the polls were completely fucked at state level.

[The Romulan Republic]

One thing I do think is that, for better or for worse (and their is a real possibility that it will be for worse), the Democratic establishment has been utterly discredited by this defeat.

I believe that their will be a powerful push to adopt Bernie Sanders' vision as the cornerstone of the Democratic Party, and that if it fails, their is a danger that the party will split. I do not want that, because now of all times we need a united front to block Donald Trump's hateful agenda and regain the ground that we have lost.

But the Democratic establishment must be willing to admit their failure, to make substantial primary reforms, and to continue to follow a progressive platform.

[Crown]

But the Democratic establishment must be willing to admit their failure, to make substantial primary reforms, and to continue to follow a progressive platform.

Yeah, I'm gonna be the sky is falling pessimist here; that will never happen.

[Iroscato]

Personally I think we're going to see the DNC go through a sort of mirror-image of what the GOP went through during Obama's tenure - trying the same thing over and over, until maybe they get a hit. That means establishment candidates all the way.

I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong on this, though.

[The Romulan Republic]

I suspect that what will happen if they do that is millennial and progressive voters will increasingly say "fuck it" and walk away.

Which would, ironically, only make things worse, unless they managed to somehow get enough support to form a viable third party, in which case, they'd probably find it easier to simply win Democratic primaries.

But their is going to be a lot of "we told you so" from Sanders supporters.

[ArmorPierce]

One thing I do think is that, for better or for worse (and their is a real possibility that it will be for worse), the Democratic establishment has been utterly discredited by this defeat.

I believe that their will be a powerful push to adopt Bernie Sanders' vision as the cornerstone of the Democratic Party, and that if it fails, their is a danger that the party will split. I do not want that, because now of all times we need a united front to block Donald Trump's hateful agenda and regain the ground that we have lost.

But the Democratic establishment must be willing to admit their failure, to make substantial primary reforms, and to continue to follow a progressive platform.

This is not going to happen. The democratic party officials is more interested in supporting their own allies than winning.

They actively alienate new potential members by many states having a early deadline to sign up to vote in the primaries with their stated goal being that they wish to cater to long term members rather than new members.

The democratic party has had repeated and recurring opportunities since their defeat to Bush to learn from their prior mistakes but have failed to do so.

I project that the democratic party will not change until the current crop of leadership retires and a new generation takes its place.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think you are overly generalizing, and being overly pessimistic.

Bernie Sanders got over 45% in the primary. He even got the support of a few Democratic officials (most notably, perhaps, Tulsi Gabbard and that Senator from Oregon). After this election, their will be a strong push for primary reform.

The danger is that too many young and progressive voters will have simply given up on reforming the Democratic Party and walked away. But barring that, their is no reason that progressives cannot soon take control of the Democratic Party.

[Thanas]

One thing I do think is that, for better or for worse (and their is a real possibility that it will be for worse), the Democratic establishment has been utterly discredited by this defeat.

I believe that their will be a powerful push to adopt Bernie Sanders' vision as the cornerstone of the Democratic Party, and that if it fails, their is a danger that the party will split. I do not want that, because now of all times we need a united front to block Donald Trump's hateful agenda and regain the ground that we have lost.

But the Democratic establishment must be willing to admit their failure, to make substantial primary reforms, and to continue to follow a progressive platform.

So you are basically wanting to tea party the democratic establishment. This always happens, people think the candidate that failed was not progressive or conservative enough. But maybe Hillary Clinton as a women with a progresssive agenda was just not good enough for white voters who got nothing out of it? Adding the trade protection part will not change that as I think it is just the same thing the other side is already offering.

The sad fact is that America is just not ready for a progressive agenda right now and unless the groundwork is laid in society right now, through education, dialogue and a better information campaign this will not change.

[Crown]

The sad fact is that America is just not ready for a progressive agenda right now and unless the groundwork is laid in society right now, through education, dialogue and a better information campaign this will not change.

When American's are polled up and down, yes or no on questions like death penalty, abortion, gay rights, etc, etc they always come out as majority 'progressive' (what an obnoxious term), maybe just maybe no one believed Hillary would deliver?

To quote a young go-getter-whipper-snipper from 2008 called Barack Obama; "Hillary will say anything and change nothing".

I mean are we forgetting Obama? He ran on a progressive platform and destroyed McCain. Seriously.

[Simon_Jester]

It occurs to me that all the same Senate seats that Bush lost in 2006 (creating a Democratic majority in the Senate that lasted until 2010) are up for re-election in 2018, which means they will be part of a Senate election that is likely to be in large part a referendum on Trump.

[Flagg]

One thing I do think is that, for better or for worse (and their is a real possibility that it will be for worse), the Democratic establishment has been utterly discredited by this defeat.

I believe that their will be a powerful push to adopt Bernie Sanders' vision as the cornerstone of the Democratic Party, and that if it fails, their is a danger that the party will split. I do not want that, because now of all times we need a united front to block Donald Trump's hateful agenda and regain the ground that we have lost.

But the Democratic establishment must be willing to admit their failure, to make substantial primary reforms, and to continue to follow a progressive platform.

This is not going to happen. The democratic party officials is more interested in supporting their own allies than winning.

They actively alienate new potential members by many states having a early deadline to sign up to vote in the primaries with their stated goal being that they wish to cater to long term members rather than new members.

The democratic party has had repeated and recurring opportunities since their defeat to Bush to learn from their prior mistakes but have failed to do so.

I project that the democratic party will not change until the current crop of leadership retires and a new generation takes its place.

That's not entirely accurate. Howard Dean came in and cleaned the Republicans clocks in 2016 with his 50 state strategy and as soon as they could they ousted him. I still can't figure out why. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has been a goddamned disaster, yet no matter how much they lose, she stays in as head. She's the Reince Priebus of the Democratic Party.

[The Romulan Republic]

One thing I do think is that, for better or for worse (and their is a real possibility that it will be for worse), the Democratic establishment has been utterly discredited by this defeat.

I believe that their will be a powerful push to adopt Bernie Sanders' vision as the cornerstone of the Democratic Party, and that if it fails, their is a danger that the party will split. I do not want that, because now of all times we need a united front to block Donald Trump's hateful agenda and regain the ground that we have lost.

But the Democratic establishment must be willing to admit their failure, to make substantial primary reforms, and to continue to follow a progressive platform.

So you are basically wanting to tea party the democratic establishment.

That is not what I said. It is a cheap cliche and a straw man.

Bernie Sanders's progressivism is not like the Tea Party, although some of his opponents have tried to push that false equivalency. The problem with the Tea Party is two-fold: their horrid, corrosive policies, and their fanatical and undemocratic rhetoric and tactics.

The former are basically the polar opposite of Sanders' positions in most respects.

The latter is also very different from the kind of campaign Sanders ran. He did not advocate or incite violence. He did not say to never compromise. He did not try to restrict his opponents' ability to vote (quite the opposite).

What I am saying is simply that we need a real Left wing party, like most of the western world has, instead of a Centre Left corporatist-dominated party. I'd think that that would be something that you would support.

One can be principled without being fanatical. That is the distinction between what I want, and what the real Left wing Tea Party types like the Bernie or Busters want (you did note that I said a Democratic Party split would be a bad thing, I trust?)

This always happens, people think the candidate that failed was not progressive or conservative enough. But maybe Hillary Clinton as a women with a progresssive agenda was just not good enough for white voters who got nothing out of it? Adding the trade protection part will not change that as I think it is just the same thing the other side is already offering.

While I don't doubt that sexism played a role, you cannot honestly suggest that Clinton's defeat was down simply to her being a woman.

And considering Sanders' support among white working class voters, it wasn't necessarily an opposition to progressivism.

Frankly, more than anything else, I think Clinton's failure to get more votes was a backlash against the establishment (with a heavy element of bigotry), combined with a relentless three-decade-long smear campaign against the Clintons.

Sanders would have countered two of those reasons, though he would obviously not have won the die hard bigots.

The sad fact is that America is just not ready for a progressive agenda right now and unless the groundwork is laid in society right now, through education, dialogue and a better information campaign this will not change.

I agree that we need to lay the groundwork for long term change, but would point out that Clinton actually (narrowly) won the popular vote.

Trump does not represent the majority of Americans, or even the majority of those who voted.

[The Romulan Republic]

One thing I do think is that, for better or for worse (and their is a real possibility that it will be for worse), the Democratic establishment has been utterly discredited by this defeat.

I believe that their will be a powerful push to adopt Bernie Sanders' vision as the cornerstone of the Democratic Party, and that if it fails, their is a danger that the party will split. I do not want that, because now of all times we need a united front to block Donald Trump's hateful agenda and regain the ground that we have lost.

But the Democratic establishment must be willing to admit their failure, to make substantial primary reforms, and to continue to follow a progressive platform.

This is not going to happen. The democratic party officials is more interested in supporting their own allies than winning.

They actively alienate new potential members by many states having a early deadline to sign up to vote in the primaries with their stated goal being that they wish to cater to long term members rather than new members.

The democratic party has had repeated and recurring opportunities since their defeat to Bush to learn from their prior mistakes but have failed to do so.

I project that the democratic party will not change until the current crop of leadership retires and a new generation takes its place.

That's not entirely accurate. Howard Dean came in and cleaned the Republicans clocks in 2016 with his 50 state strategy and as soon as they could they ousted him. I still can't figure out why. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has been a goddamned disaster, yet no matter how much they lose, she stays in as head. She's the Reince Priebus of the Democratic Party.

Schultz hasn't been DNC chair since the convention- one of the few good things to come out of this shit hole of an election.

[Flagg]

One thing I do think is that, for better or for worse (and their is a real possibility that it will be for worse), the Democratic establishment has been utterly discredited by this defeat.

I believe that their will be a powerful push to adopt Bernie Sanders' vision as the cornerstone of the Democratic Party, and that if it fails, their is a danger that the party will split. I do not want that, because now of all times we need a united front to block Donald Trump's hateful agenda and regain the ground that we have lost.

But the Democratic establishment must be willing to admit their failure, to make substantial primary reforms, and to continue to follow a progressive platform.

Will you stop it with Bernie Sanders? Dollars to donuts he goes back to being an independent. And even if he doesn't, he got trounced in the Primary because most Democrats didn't like his "vision".

[Crown]

That's not entirely accurate. Howard Dean came in and cleaned the Republicans clocks in 2016 with his 50 state strategy and as soon as they could they ousted him. I still can't figure out why. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has been a goddamned disaster, yet no matter how much they lose, she stays in as head. She's the Reince Priebus of the Democratic Party.

Schultz hasn't been DNC chair since the convention- one of the few good things to come out of this shit hole of an election.

Yeah Donna Brazile has, what an improvement! /sarcasm

Re: Howard Dean, just spit balling it would have to come down to one of the few things;

• The donors didn't like him
• He lost an internal struggle with other Democrats (I'm guessing Clintonites)
• Nothing too nefarious, he just wasn't easy to work with

[The Romulan Republic]

One thing I do think is that, for better or for worse (and their is a real possibility that it will be for worse), the Democratic establishment has been utterly discredited by this defeat.

I believe that their will be a powerful push to adopt Bernie Sanders' vision as the cornerstone of the Democratic Party, and that if it fails, their is a danger that the party will split. I do not want that, because now of all times we need a united front to block Donald Trump's hateful agenda and regain the ground that we have lost.

But the Democratic establishment must be willing to admit their failure, to make substantial primary reforms, and to continue to follow a progressive platform.

Will you stop it with Bernie Sanders? Dollars to donuts he goes back to being an independent. And even if he doesn't, he got trounced in the Primary because most Democrats didn't like his "vision".

Well, we saw how well the preferred candidate of "most Democrats" did.

Granted, its not "Bernie or nobody". Progressivism obviously is, and needs to be, bigger than Bernie Sanders personally for it to have long-term viability*. But the policies he espoused and the campaign machine he put together form a good potential basis for an alternative to the current Democratic Party establishment.

*For the record, I'm already leaning Tulsi Gabbard 2020.

[Thanas]

That is not what I said. It is a cheap cliche and a straw man.

Bernie Sanders's progressivism is not like the Tea Party, although some of his opponents have tried to push that false equivalency. The problem with the Tea Party is two-fold: their horrid, corrosive policies, and their fanatical and undemocratic rhetoric and tactics.

At the core, it is the same thing though - the feeling that you lost because you were not progressive enough etc. Sure, the tactics are different and all but still, it is always the establishment vs the outsiders.

While I don't doubt that sexism played a role, you cannot honestly suggest that Clinton's defeat was down simply to her being a woman.

Funny that you complain about strawmanning and then stop erecting huge ones immediately in the next paragraphs.

Frankly, more than anything else, I think Clinton's failure to get more votes was a backlash against the establishment (with a heavy element of bigotry), combined with a relentless three-decade-long smear campaign against the Clintons.

Maybe. Nobody knows.

[The Romulan Republic]

If the tactics and policies are radically different, I'm not buying that its the same thing, unless in a sense so broad and vague as to be somewhat meaningless.

[phred]

I also saw something about California passing a tax on ammo? Which will likely get bitch slapped down if the Supreme Court goes the way it is likely to go in the next 4 years.

not a tax. Basically you now cannot have "large capacity' magazines and if you do you need to turn them in. Also it requires ID and a background check for ammo purchases

[Block]

I'm curious to see how many of the voters that the Dems got purged from the rolls in the primary came back to bite them in the ass during the general.

[Crown]

I'm curious to see how many of the voters that the Dems got purged from the rolls in the primary came back to bite them in the ass during the general.

Not the dead ones that's for sure!

[Zaune]

I doubt it- no Federal government would be likely to want to set that precedent, or take the hit to America's prestige and wealth.

And its just as well. As I said, their are very, very few circumstances where I might support secession, and in the US in particular... well, we saw what happened last time someone opened that Pandora's box.

The hit to the USA's prestige and wealth from allowing states to leave voluntarily would pale in comparison to the hit it would take if those states won a popular vote on the issue with a big enough majority and turnout to be totally unambiguous, went through all the proper legal procedures and went out of their way to conduct the process in a civilised manner, and Congress refused to let them leave anyway. Insurgencies are bad for business.

[Dominus Atheos]

That is not what I said. It is a cheap cliche and a straw man.

Bernie Sanders's progressivism is not like the Tea Party, although some of his opponents have tried to push that false equivalency. The problem with the Tea Party is two-fold: their horrid, corrosive policies, and their fanatical and undemocratic rhetoric and tactics.

At the core, it is the same thing though - the feeling that you lost because you were not progressive enough etc. Sure, the tactics are different and all but still, it is always the establishment vs the outsiders.

That depends on how you define progressive. Most people are saying she lost because she never had a good message for how she would help the lower and middle classes; white, black and hispanic (aka populism). No one is saying that she should have talked about gay marriage or the environment more.

Edit: I may be agreeing with you, I'm not sure.

Double edit: Yeah, I think the problem is that Thanas and TRRl have different ideas of what "progressivism" means. Thanas is talking about "Social Liberalism" and TRR is thinking of left-wing economic populism.