2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[houser2112]

Texas was briefly an independent nation too, wasn't it?

An independent nation of American settlers, yes.

[Q99]

Fun fact: On election day I was at the Smithsonian watching a movie on how the Hawaiians were screwed out of their fully functional allied country.

It was oddly good preparation.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Hi. In short, Hillary is actually quite good on policy and past efforts, further left than given credit for too. Further left than the president with 56% approval right now, so that is not the problem.

But, an election is about messaging, and if people don't believe she's as left as she is or as good as she is in swing states, then it doesn't matter to the results, does it?


People believed she was chosen for being 'more establishment' not track record, and that hurts even if her policies themselves are popular. Hillary's perception was, to many people, the former and not the latter, and her policies were hidden under narrative

I'll make it even shorter. Hillary Clinton has a serious public perception issue. Public perception is of greater influence than actual fact. If the public believes something to be a fact, you're gonna have a hard fucking time convincing them they might be wrong. If you keep repeating the lie, even in an attempt to debunk it, it just further reinforces it in people's minds.



As to people who think "It's early yet, maybe the Democrats will realize where they went wrong instead of pointing blame elsewhere"... Just look at comments about Nader and Gore from the 2000 election. It's been sixteen years and Nader still gets a finger jabbed at him. And now 3rd party voters are again being blamed for a candidate that had public perception issues losing. They're repeating history, and doing so in a way that will push people away instead of rallying them under one banner.

Trump saw a higher share of the Hispanic, black, and Asian vote than Romney did. He saw 1% less support from whites. He saw 2% more from registered Democrats. 3% less from registered Republicans. 2% less from independents. Hillary, on the other hand, saw a 4% decrease in support from Democrats. 3% decrease from independents. 5% decrease in support from blacks. 8% less support from Asians. 6% drop in the Hispanic vote. It isn't so much that Trump overperformed as it is that Hillary completely and totally failed to motivate her base.

[Terralthra]

It isn't so much that Trump overperformed as it is that Hillary completely and totally failed to motivate her base.

Well, and voter suppression. It's not coincidence where turnout was most down, and which states previously had to have any voting restrictions pre-cleared. The SCotUS overturned preclearance, many of their (GOP) legislatures passed specifically Democratic-targeting vote-restricting laws (narrowing early voting, closing polling places, requiring strict ID, etc.), and surprise, Democratic turnout went down in those states.

[Q99]

Perception is vital, yes.

A thing about pointing a finger at Nader, and extending that to this race- in a close race there can be a lot of factors to blame *all of them right*. Gore should've likely used Bill for support more, should've campaigned differently in this and that way... and if Nader hadn't been there he'd have been there anyway. Hillary should've done this and that and if it hadn't been for X she'd have won anyway.

People who say 'the democrats need to learn their lesson' and mean 'they should've run my far left candidate' are often ignoring a lot of factors in doing so,
plenty of ways to win, and often theirs is chancier than they give credit for.

"Well if they all just fell in line to my view..." is frankly ironic coming from people who show major weaknesses primaries and don't like falling in line when pointed at people who did support the out of nowhere newcomer last time. Going further left is not a magic strategic bullet- it is not that simple to get who they want in charge.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its not just about going further Left.

What it comes down to is that despite having less experience, less organization, less money, and being behind in the polls, Trump won. Because he was able to tap into, and manipulate, the emotions of the electorate.

We have to counter that. Not by embracing hate and fear and demagoguery, but by offering a bold, inspiring vision that people can be passionate about.

People want change. Let's give it to them, on our terms.

Progressivism excites people, especially young voters, and it appeals to the anti-establishment voters and struggling workers who this year supported Trump.

The Democratic Party must stop being the party of cautious incrementalism and defeatism, and starting thinking big.

[Tsyroc]

I am going to say "Well, we don't have XYZ, and we do have ABC, but by God we don't have to worry about the president abusing his personal email server!"

To me besides being something massively illegal that most people would be screwed for it was another example of her getting special treatment to not even have a chance to move on to prosecution.

She also got special treatment when New York said, "come on down (or up) and be our senator". Granted they voted for her twice but to me that was a sketchy move by the Democratic "elite". At the time it was New York's problem.

Then she was supposed to be the next president, except that as soon as people saw a better candidate they went for him. She got the old school traditional president in waiting job of Secretary of State, which seemed a bit like a pay off (it was traditionally, I'm thinking Henry Clay) and I've never got the impression that Obama likes her all that much which re enforces my opinion of pay off. She didn't do anything spectacularly good there and then there's the Benghazi thing which reminded me too much of Somalia under her husband. I'm not entirely sure why she gets the blame for that and not Obama but then I don't spend my days listening to right wing radio.

After that, she really really is going to be the next president. Oh wait, a better candidate who connects better with a broader swath of voters comes along but no. This time it is her time so he's finagled out. So more special treatment. She's gotten a lot of help from some part of the Democratic party that seems to be totally blind to her faults and issues. Unless all the shit said about her is true she's still better than Trump but that's a damn now bar and the Democrats can do better than that.


I guess, I think that in general she would probably have been a decent president. Its doubtful she would have been allowed to do much of anything with the house and senate going the way they are going. At least she wouldn't fuck away our civil liberties and it's highly unlikely she'd be able to mess with the second amendment like she wanted to. She'd probably be the vetoeingist president ever and likely the one to have the most vetoes overridden in history too.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Perception is vital, yes.

A thing about pointing a finger at Nader, and extending that to this race- in a close race there can be a lot of factors to blame *all of them right*. Gore should've likely used Bill for support more, should've campaigned differently in this and that way... and if Nader hadn't been there he'd have been there anyway. Hillary should've done this and that and if it hadn't been for X she'd have won anyway.

People who say 'the democrats need to learn their lesson' and mean 'they should've run my far left candidate' are often ignoring a lot of factors in doing so,
plenty of ways to win, and often theirs is chancier than they give credit for.

"Well if they all just fell in line to my view..." is frankly ironic coming from people who show major weaknesses primaries and don't like falling in line when pointed at people who did support the out of nowhere newcomer last time. Going further left is not a magic strategic bullet- it is not that simple to get who they want in charge.

I think you missed my point. Hillary Clinton came in with enough baggage to live in a hotel room for a year straight, wearing a new pantsuit every damn day. It's not that she wasn't far enough left. The biggest issue she had was that the public perceives her as being untrustworthy, as a liar, as someone who let 4 Americans die, as someone who can't handle a damn email server. It wasn't her actual positions that turned people off. It was the decades of continued character assassinations that had managed to stick.

[Starglider]

but by offering a bold, inspiring vision that people can be passionate about.

Liberal news sites were papered wall to wall with stories about how bold and inspiring Hillary was, right under how Trump was the secular equivalent of Satan. I can only conclude that you have no idea what most of the US population actually finds bold and inspiring. Your personal desires are an outlier and thus irrelevant to election strategy.

[Simon_Jester]

Texas was briefly an independent nation too, wasn't it?

Yes, and so was California (the Bear Flag Republic). It doesn't make any difference. They followed the same pattern (Americans move into new land, displace former inhabitant culture, apply to join the Union).

The only difference is that the culture in question was the Mexicans, not the Native American tribes. Which meant that displacing them entailed war with Mexico, and that to apply to the Union they had to first secede from Mexico and declare themselves as independent nations which then very rapidly joined the United States. The other states didn't have to do that.

Even Hawaii basically followed this pattern- American plantation interests took over and displaced former culture, deposed the monarchy and appealed to the Union for membership. The differences are such that Hawaii has a better claim of secession on the grounds of "you conquered us" than any state on the North American continent, though, because at least there is an 'us' to make the claim in Hawaii. There is no such 'us' that exists in recognizable form in Texas or California, because the natives were effectively destroyed, and the Latino population that used to live there has been so thoroughly intermingled with both gringos and new Latino immigrants that they cannot credibly claim to be a conquered population.

---

I am going to say "Well, we don't have XYZ, and we do have ABC, but by God we don't have to worry about the president abusing his personal email server!"

To me besides being something massively illegal that most people would be screwed for it was another example of her getting special treatment to not even have a chance to move on to prosecution...

After that, she really really is going to be the next president. Oh wait, a better candidate who connects better with a broader swath of voters comes along but no. This time it is her time so he's finagled out. So more special treatment. She's gotten a lot of help from some part of the Democratic party that seems to be totally blind to her faults and issues. Unless all the shit said about her is true she's still better than Trump but that's a damn now bar and the Democrats can do better than that.

I guess, I think that in general she would probably have been a decent president. Its doubtful she would have been allowed to do much of anything with the house and senate going the way they are going. At least she wouldn't fuck away our civil liberties and it's highly unlikely she'd be able to mess with the second amendment like she wanted to. She'd probably be the vetoeingist president ever and likely the one to have the most vetoes overridden in history too.

I get you. I really do understand why the email issue is objectionable, and considered it a strike against her compared to, for example, Sanders.

But I'm going to keep harping on the email issue. Because for all I know, without the email 'scandal' she might have won.

It's like "the next four years are going to stink in every imaginable way, but by God we don't have a vaguely less than desirable Democratic Party favored-daughter in the White House! Instead, we got a guy even his own party loathes!"

I cannot imagine any sane person, who is in possession of the facts, considering this a good trade.

[The Romulan Republic]

but by offering a bold, inspiring vision that people can be passionate about.

Liberal news sites were papered wall to wall with stories about how bold and inspiring Hillary was, right under how Trump was the secular equivalent of Satan.

Sure, they said that, but Clinton herself evidently wasn't.

I can only conclude that you have no idea what most of the US population actually finds bold and inspiring. Your personal desires are an outlier and thus irrelevant to election strategy.

So because some of the media got it wrong about what people found inspiring when they supported Clinton, that means I got it wrong when I said Clinton wasn't?

Um... okay.

[Starglider]

So because some of the media got it wrong about what people found inspiring when they supported Clinton, that means I got it wrong when I said Clinton wasn't?

Distinction between the plural 'you' and the singular 'you' aside, you personally have shown zero ability to understand or emphasise with the majority of Americans or even most of this board. When you were cheerleading Bernie Sanders, your electability arguments were nothing more than 'I like him' and 'slightly more popular than Clinton in polling'; very early polling that was shown to be worthless in predicting the election outcome. You did not then and will not now explain how the average American voter can be sold on 'full speed globalisation and liberalism and maximum immigration but it won't be hijacked by corporations but there will be lots more regulation but you will have more jobs... somehow but it won't be communism I swear'. You can't even sell people on this very liberal leaning message board on that.

[The Romulan Republic]

Their were any excellent reasons for supporting Bernie Sanders, which I have expounded on in great detail. In terms of electability, I have offered two at least since Tuesdays vote:

1. Bernie excites and inspires enthusiasm from voters, particularly young voters, in a way Clinton didn't.

2. Bernie is opposed to neoliberal trade deals and wants to improve conditions for working class families, which was a major issue Trump exploited.

If you insist on ignoring the arguments I make so you can straw man and put words in my mouth, that is not my fault.

Also, if you wish to argue that more regulation=less jobs, I expect you to prove that assumption. Or rather, I expect you to fail as hard as every other libertarian who takes it for unthinking gospel.

Lastly, Bernie Sanders is not remotely a communist. If you're going to ask me to debate against the Red Scare straw man, I won't even bother.

[Flagg]

Bernie Sanders is a loser. Get over it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Alright. I've put forward my case for Bernie Sanders time and again (although at this point I'd probably prefer Tulsi Gabbard as our next nominee). You're free to disagree of course, though I still don't know what complaint you have against Sanders other than "he's not a real Democrat".

But who would you prefer? What direction do you think the Democratic Party should take, since the old guard establishment has so utterly failed in this election? Is it Bernie Sander's policies you object to, or just him personally?

[FireNexus]

Alright. I've put forward my case for Bernie Sanders time and again (although at this point I'd probably prefer Tulsi Gabbard as our next nominee). You're free to disagree of course, though I still don't know what complaint you have against Sanders other than "he's not a real Democrat".

But who would you prefer? What direction do you think the Democratic Party should take, since the old guard establishment has so utterly failed in this election? Is it Bernie Sander's policies you object to, or just him personally?

Sandersism (left populism with an anti-globalist bent, and less emphasis on the particular problems of minorities and women without totally discounting them) probably is the best option. But someone like Sanders was dead on arrival. He was going to energize anti-Clinton right wingers as much or worse than she did. He was going to perform as poorly or worse among blacks and Hispanics. He lacked Clinton's strengths in policy and his debate performance against Trump was almost certain to make Trump look better than he did. His performance among white women was likely to be worse.

Sanders policy agenda showed deep ignorance, which has admittedly been shown not to be a deal-breaker for a Presidential candidate. But he was someone who could not claim most of the advantages Clinton had against Trump, and whose own disadvantages were never tested in a way that makes he claim of Sanders being a better candidate all that credible.

Personally, I am of the opinion that Joe Biden's son dying is the most consequential death of the past 20 years. Because Uncle Joe could have won the primary. And he also could have erased Trump's advantages among workin class white voters.

[Q99]

The hope was Hillary's history of allies and support among many major liberal groups would counteract the negative. And... it didn't, not quite.

Progressivism excites people, especially young voters, and it appeals to the anti-establishment voters and struggling workers who this year supported Trump.

The Democratic Party must stop being the party of cautious incrementalism and defeatism, and starting thinking big.

Here's the thing: Progressivism can excite people and be phrased in a firing-up way... but it's not inherently so, not to non-progressives. If you're progressive and fired up, that's good for people like you but it's not representative.

"The system is rigged!" is no 'Hope and Change,' and it ended up exemplifying his campaign more than "A Future To Believe In" did. Might've hurt the overall view of the election.

And in the primaries? It excited anti-establishment and young voters... and left other parts of the Democratic base cooler, doing quite poorly among black voters. Indeed, Gallup had a poll in March that Hillary voters were more More Enthusiastic. Not the common perception, eh?


A firing-up positive Progressive banner is a great idea. Something I hope we have in 2020, heck 2018. That's not Bernie, though, and I don't know if it's even Elizabeth Warren, but the point is, if you want a progressive message boardly appealing, it needs to be something that fires up non-progressives, and you can't simply assume that a message or candidate is firing-up because it's Progressive, and that's what I see progressives claim a lot. It's not that easy. It's not near that easy.

I think we also need it in someone who knows the whole job too. They need to break out the homework and not just be on their issues, but that's a side thing to the perception/firing up thing and more for making sure they get a second term by not following on the follow through.

[The Romulan Republic]

Alright. I've put forward my case for Bernie Sanders time and again (although at this point I'd probably prefer Tulsi Gabbard as our next nominee). You're free to disagree of course, though I still don't know what complaint you have against Sanders other than "he's not a real Democrat".

But who would you prefer? What direction do you think the Democratic Party should take, since the old guard establishment has so utterly failed in this election? Is it Bernie Sander's policies you object to, or just him personally?

Sandersism (left populism with an anti-globalist bent, and less emphasis on the particular problems of minorities and women without totally discounting them) probably is the best option. But someone like Sanders was dead on arrival. He was going to energize anti-Clinton right wingers as much or worse than she did. He was going to perform as poorly or worse among blacks and Hispanics. He lacked Clinton's strengths in policy and his debate performance against Trump was almost certain to make Trump look better than he did. His performance among white women was likely to be worse.

Sanders policy agenda showed deep ignorance, which has admittedly been shown not to be a deal-breaker for a Presidential candidate. But he was someone who could not claim most of the advantages Clinton had against Trump, and whose own disadvantages were never tested in a way that makes he claim of Sanders being a better candidate all that credible.

Personally, I am of the opinion that Joe Biden's son dying is the most consequential death of the past 20 years. Because Uncle Joe could have won the primary. And he also could have erased Trump's advantages among workin class white voters.

Sanders had his weaknesses, yes, but counter to all of that is that he would certainly have fired up young voters, and done a better job of addressing the concerns of white working class voters. He also lacked Hillary Clinton's massive baggage (even if some of it was manufactured by her opponents).

But I think we can both agree that progressivism is bigger than one man. So if we want Sanderism, but without Bernie Sanders, who should we look to as our next nominee? Who can keep the Sanders coalition and also inspire stronger support from old female, black, and minority voters (the weak points in Sanders' support)?

I put forward Tulsi Gabbard in part because I think she would appeal to young voters and the Sanders supporters, while (though I hate demographic politics) her identity as a non-white woman might inspire higher turnout from demographics where Sanders was weak.

But I'd be interested in discussing alternatives.

[FireNexus]

I don't want Sandersism. I think it's the most likely effective strategy for the Democratic Party, though. I think all the agitation for a Warren run might be sensible four years from now. She's popular, earnest and speaks to the working class. She's warm and caring, instead of old and robotic. And frankly, Trumpist is going to be such a disaster that someone vaguely like the friend's mom who always said nice things to you when you came over their house will be a. If selling point. I she wants the job, which she may not.

I wish Kander had been able to pull the W in Missouri. Because I think he may have represented a decent hope. Red state liberal with military service and a white male, too. Actually, it's almost certainly going to have to be a white male. Diversity hiring should be backburned until Demographic changes play out a bit harder.

Gabbard is too young. She lacks experience. She won't gain terribly much over the next four years. And she'd be the first person under 40 ever elected to the Presidency. Granted, talk of "experience" is pretty funny now. But after Trump fucks up everything it'll suddenly seem very important indeed.

As far as Sanders "firing up the youth vote"... He supposedly "fired up the youth vote" in the Democratic primary. And they proceeded not to turn out. And that was with basically no oppo gainst him. Your, and that of the left wing media in general, Sanders I told you soing is infuriating. It's "he could have beaten Hillary!" Except that he didn't. In The friendliest possible electorate for his brand of liberalism, he wasn't able to build a winning coalition outside of states where the fervence of your support is more important than the numbers of your supporters.

Honestly, with the Dem bench being what it is, I'm not so sure that they even have a 2020 candidate capable of beating an incumbent. The only way I see a Dem in office in 2021 is if Trump is such a massive train wreck that they successfully primary him or he refuses to run. Neither of which are out of the question.

[The Romulan Republic]

Eh, it seems to me like a poor strategy to give up on 2020 before the race even begins.

I think if their is one positive thing we can take from Trump's defeat, its that the unlikely is still possible, and the "conventional wisdom" does not necessarily dictate the outcome of an election.

I mean, if fucking Trump can become President, we ought to be able to find someone electable in the next four years.

I do agree that Warren might be a good choice.

[Elheru Aran]

Warren is about the only Democrat right now that looks like a viable candidate. But she shut down pretty conclusively talk of her running this time around. Don't know if she's interested in the position.

And, frankly, it's too soon. I don't think it's particularly realistic to be wondering about who's going to run when at the moment. Better to wait out the next couple of months... Trump still has two or three rather dramatic court cases pending. He's not President *yet*.

[Q99]

Warren is also a bit old. I don't know who it'll be, but it'll be someone.


Btw- Some minorities are rather pissed at the progressive left right now. Anecdotal but not alone. Which highlights the need for crossover appeal.

[Block]

Warren is also a bit old. I don't know who it'll be, but it'll be someone.


Btw- Some minorities are rather pissed at the progressive left right now. Anecdotal but not alone. Which highlights the need for crossover appeal.

That's because they don't want to look in the mirror. African American and Latino turnout was down, more than any amount of suppression could account for. They fucked themselves, hard, and I have no sympathy.

[Simon_Jester]

It is noteworthy that roughly, oh...

Fifty thousand more Democratic voters in a few key cities in Michigan, thirty thousand in Wisconsin, and seventy thousand or so in Pennsylvania...

Would have been enough to flip this election.

We can point fingers and snarl at each other about which group failed to supply those 150,000 voters in three key swing states, but I think it would be missing the point.

[FireNexus]

Eh, it seems to me like a poor strategy to give up on 2020 before the race even begins.

I think if their is one positive thing we can take from Trump's defeat, its that the unlikely is still possible, and the "conventional wisdom" does not necessarily dictate the outcome of an election.

I mean, if fucking Trump can become President, we ought to be able to find someone electable in the next four years.

I do agree that Warren might be a good choice.

I'm not in a decision-making position. So my strategy is kind of irrelevant. My only hope is that the Trump recession, if there is going to be one, hits by 2018. And the Democratic downballot initiative is successful. Otherwise, we're going to be spending a long time in the woods. Our only hope is a massive counter-reaction to Trumpism that starts earlier and gains momentum by 2020.

The speed with which Trump can undo all of Obama's accomplishments and lurch is hard right means that he could make this the last gasp of the regressive right. But I'm not so sure he can't weaken Democratic strengths through voter suppression and right-favoring court decisions fast enough to crash us. And the overall weakness of Democrats in the face of his advantage is very scary.

If he does even halfway ok, he could preside over a further strengthening of the Republicans at all levels of government, and a 2020 redistricting effort that once again favors them even if he doesn't serve two terms. Hell, even if he gets impeached (something many discount, but which I think is somewhat more likely than the conventional wisdom due to GOP antipathy towards him and Pence waiting in the wings) it might not be enough.

This is a dark time for progressivism in the United States. And while it's said to be darkest before the dawn, it's usually darkest right before you die.