2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[Battlehymn Republic]

So, some time ago I made a thread critiquing "Global Peak" for having an unrealistic storyline. Its hyping of peak oil aside, I apologize. As it turns out, you could have Western nations descend into nativist near-fascism again. Mea culpa and I hope Duchess revisits that series and creates a spiritual successor.

[Zaune]

There is no "proper legal procedure" for secession. You can hold a plebiscite and get 100% of the vote in an open and fair election and it's still treason and the Feds can, will, and should move in to remove the traitors from office and put down any resistance with deadly force.

Go down that route and you make a civil war basically inevitable. Apart from the question of whether the federal government has a moral right to force a state to remain part of the union against its will, if merely asking Congress to pass a law it doesn't like constitutes treason then Congress has ceased to so much as pay lip-service to the notion of consent of the governed.

[mr friendly guy]

Comedian Jimmy Dore (who went for third party btw) gives his message on why Clinton lost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyBMhmK79tg

Essentially
1. People didn't vote more for Trump (compared to Romney), its that people hated Clinton

2. Clinton did not appeal to the declining middle class, and when he talks about declining he means this.

3. The democrats chose Hillary rather than someone else because of how it benefits the establishment (which was obvious to people even before the election).

[His Divine Shadow]

Mark Blyth & Wendy Schiller discuss the election result:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWMmBG3Z4DI

[K. A. Pital]

Many interesting details, this just in:

Rejecting the candidate who had aimed to be America’s first female president, 53% of white women voted for Trump, according to CNN exit polls.

White women without a college degree supported Trump over Hillary Clinton by nearly a two to one margin. White women with a college degree were more evenly divided, with 45% supporting Trump, compared with 51% supporting Clinton.

What happened here? I thought Trump was unelectable among women.

And where is that Q99 person from the Election Thread? I really want to see him/her post a bit more on the glorious Hillary Rodham Clinton. He could've also added "Diane", why not...

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, as it turned out, it was a bad choice Flagg.

Exactly.

I respect the result insofar as I accept that it was a legal and legitimate result, and that it should not be overturned by illegitimate means.

But this might be the first time I've been told that I'm undemocratic simply for saying that I think the voters made a mistake.

Is Flagg and practically everyone else here, myself included obviously, "undemocratic" because we think the voters made a mistake on Tuesday? Of course not.

But for some reason some people have this hangup about Bernie Sanders.

[Knife]

Yup, the Democratic party needs to do their own version of a soul search. Granted, the initial bit seems to be to blame anyone but themselves but it is early. Yes, those who voted republican are to blame, those who voted 3rd party share some, but so does the establishment Democrats for a very poor choice. At some point they need to swallow that pill, that independents and unaffiliated rather voted for 3rd party and/or orange Hitler. The Democratic Party holds some blame in that.

[jwl]

For people who are navel gazing and asking 'how did this happen and the pollsters got it so wrong?' I have a no-shitpost question for you guys; how did you see a typical Trump rally turnout versus a typical Clinton rally turnout (you know the ones minus JayZ and Beyonce) and then look at the polls showing Clinton with a 12 point lead and it didn't occur to you that something was off about this?

Like I'm sincere here, she was almost as low energy as Jeb! for crying out loud. Do you not have eyes?

The polls didn't get it wrong. Clinton was three points ahead in the polls and got one point ahead in the actual election. A two point difference between prediction and result isn't all that bad, all things considered.

[Tsyroc]

I keep saying that people who voted for Trump new he was a despicable asshole but voted for him anyway, and thought maybe he might make that work for the country. It'll be interesting to see how much they end up regretting that. From what I hear about some of his proposed cabinet gurus it's going to be a fucked up few years.

People who voted for Hillary kept dismissing all of her issues as nothing or just her enemies coming after her. At least that's the interpretation I get and the one I get from people who voted Trump. For example, Bill Maher was essentially writing off the original email/server issue as something Hillary was exonerated from. Did he listen/read what Comey said? The FBI basically punked out on sending the case to the Justice Department because Hillary was who she is. If any of the rest of us had done what she did we'd be all kinds of fucked. Personally, I'm not one to think she should be shot or in prison but the private server showed that she was more concerned with covering her own ass than keeping things safe and secure for other people serving this country. I understand why she thought that was a good idea, since she and her husband have been constantly hounded (maybe he should have just copped to getting blown and dealt with the consequences, whatever they would have been) but she was the Secretary of State. Did she think that she would have more protection than fucking Nixon?

It's too bad the ballots didn't have boxes for people to check as to why they were voting for Trump or Hillary. I'd be curious as to how many voted for either one because they hated and/or feared the other one.

When I was in the military most people didn't have much of an issue with Bill, but a lot of people felt that Hillary had a bit of disdain and contempt for the people serving in the military. Maybe it was just an early short term thing, a bit of gloating, from someone who came from the anti-Vietnam era of Democrats. If she changed her stance or opinion it certainly wasn't helped by the clusterfuck that was Mogadishu. She had nothing to do with that but to me that scenario (under Bill) seems similar to the Benghazi bs that people won't let go off. Essentially, the Clintons will hang other public servants out to dry if planning to prevent such a problem would make them look bad politically. It's probably an inaccurate conclusion and perhaps I should just go with the more likely (as in pretty much anything) incompetence. I don't think it was laziness, which is also one of my go tos when humans fuck shit up. Greed is another one but I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply.

Anyway, I for one have been "enjoying" the bitching about Comey coming out with more emails late being one of the various reasons she lost. I feel for that guy. He obviously felt a ton of pressure previously to basically blow off legitimate security complaints about Secretary Clinton and then, when the later shit came out, he was getting pounded from the other side and released some shit from the Wiener emails. He should have just turfed the original shit to the Justice Department and let Obama's administration take it in the ass for deciding not to prosecute her.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yup, the Democratic party needs to do their own version of a soul search. Granted, the initial bit seems to be to blame anyone but themselves but it is early. Yes, those who voted republican are to blame, those who voted 3rd party share some, but so does the establishment Democrats for a very poor choice. At some point they need to swallow that pill, that independents and unaffiliated rather voted for 3rd party and/or orange Hitler. The Democratic Party holds some blame in that.

Pretty much.

While I do think Clinton had some strong points in her favour, and that her loss (which happened despite a narrow popular vote win) was due in part to factors outside of her control, the bottom line is that the Democratic establishment got their candidate, and then they lost to a bigoted confessed sexual predator/reality TV show host.

Their are no words for that level of failure, and at some point, the Democratic leadership has to own their responsibility for that.

[Tsyroc]

Yup, the Democratic party needs to do their own version of a soul search. Granted, the initial bit seems to be to blame anyone but themselves but it is early. Yes, those who voted republican are to blame, those who voted 3rd party share some, but so does the establishment Democrats for a very poor choice. At some point they need to swallow that pill, that independents and unaffiliated rather voted for 3rd party and/or orange Hitler. The Democratic Party holds some blame in that.

I voted third party in my state. Hillary would have need all of Johnson's votes plus most of Steins to beat Trump. I highly doubt that if it were only a two party race that she would have pulled all of those. Maybe it would have worked out better in other states, or overall.

I saw something that showed Democratic turnout way down and the Republican turnout was also down but much less so.

[Knife]

Yup, the Democratic party needs to do their own version of a soul search. Granted, the initial bit seems to be to blame anyone but themselves but it is early. Yes, those who voted republican are to blame, those who voted 3rd party share some, but so does the establishment Democrats for a very poor choice. At some point they need to swallow that pill, that independents and unaffiliated rather voted for 3rd party and/or orange Hitler. The Democratic Party holds some blame in that.

I voted third party in my state. Hillary would have need all of Johnson's votes plus most of Steins to beat Trump. I highly doubt that if it were only a two party race that she would have pulled all of those. Maybe it would have worked out better in other states, or overall.

I saw something that showed Democratic turnout way down and the Republican turnout was also down but much less so.

I held my nose and voted for HRC for the long shot of flipping Utah. My initial knee jerk was 3rd party but really none of those clowns were much better. Anyway, flipping Utah was a LOOOOOOOONG shot that didn't work.

[Tsyroc]

I held my nose and voted for HRC for the long shot of flipping Utah. My initial knee jerk was 3rd party but really none of those clowns were much better. Anyway, flipping Utah was a LOOOOOOOONG shot that didn't work.

Was Utah's homegrown Third Party candidate better than Johnson or Stein? Both of those were not so good. At least Johnson was interesting and honest, even if he came across as a doofus.

I still would have enjoyed the shitstorm that would have happened if no one got 270 and some third party candidate managed to win a state. What would the Republican do? Would enough of them vote for either of the third party candidates (former Republicans) to give it to them or throw it to HIllary?

I'm thinking the Hillary hate and concern would have led to them all sucking it up and voting for Trump. Still, the Senate could have chosen Tim Kaine or someone else to be VP. Bill Weld maybe? I mean if we're going to have a trainwreck we might as well go all in and buy all the bells and whistles.

Would the country then be united enough to pass a constitutional amendment so we wouldn't end up with a president and vp from different parties? I'm kind of thinking they wouldn't. Too much work to get amendments passed.

[Knife]

Was Utah's homegrown Third Party candidate better than Johnson or Stein? Both of those were not so good. At least Johnson was interesting and honest, even if he came across as a doofus.

McMullian was just bog standard right wing conservative. Nothing special or out of the norm except no name recognition, no real history to see, nothing.

I still would have enjoyed the shitstorm that would have happened if no one got 270 and some third party candidate managed to win a state. What would the Republican do? Would enough of them vote for either of the third party candidates (former Republicans) to give it to them or throw it to HIllary?

That was the long shot, if McMullian and the other 3rd party peeps pulled enough votes out of Trump. Didn't happen though.

m thinking the Hillary hate and concern would have led to them all sucking it up and voting for Trump. Still, the Senate could have chosen Tim Kaine or someone else to be VP. Bill Weld maybe? I mean if we're going to have a trainwreck we might as well go all in and buy all the bells and whistles.

Would the country then be united enough to pass a constitutional amendment so we wouldn't end up with a president and vp from different parties? I'm kind of thinking they wouldn't. Too much work to get amendments passed.

lol

[The Romulan Republic]

Relating back to the discussion on the direction of the Democratic Party going forward, Clinton Labour Secretary and Bernie-turned-Clinton supporter Robert Reich has posted this on Facebook.

As a first step, I believe it necessary for the members and leadership of the Democratic National Committee to step down and be replaced by people who are determined to create a party that represents America -- including all those who feel powerless and disenfranchised, and who have been left out of our politics. The Party has become a giant fundraising machine, too often reflecting the goals and values of the moneyed interests. This must change. The election of 2016 has repudiated it. We need a people's party.

What do you think?

Personally, I think demanding the resignation of every member of the DNC is fairly excessive, though I agree that the leadership should resign (and then slink off with their tails between their legs and their heads bowed in shame).

But the battle lines are certainly being drawn over the future of the Democratic Party.

[Crown]

CNN are projecting that the GOD EMPEROR will indeed win the popular vote; screencap and live reporting link.


...

...

...

[Q99]

Many interesting details, this just in:

Rejecting the candidate who had aimed to be America’s first female president, 53% of white women voted for Trump, according to CNN exit polls.

White women without a college degree supported Trump over Hillary Clinton by nearly a two to one margin. White women with a college degree were more evenly divided, with 45% supporting Trump, compared with 51% supporting Clinton.

What happened here? I thought Trump was unelectable among women.

And where is that Q99 person from the Election Thread? I really want to see him/her post a bit more on the glorious Hillary Rodham Clinton. He could've also added "Diane", why not...

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

[Crown]

And where is that Q99 person from the Election Thread? I really want to see him/her post a bit more on the glorious Hillary Rodham Clinton. He could've also added "Diane", why not...

Hi. In short, Hillary is actually quite good on policy and past efforts, further left than given credit for too.

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?

Clinton lost because the vaunted 'Blue Wall' (states that hadn't gone Democrat since the 80's) collapsed to Trump, so perhaps your 'swing states' narrative might need re-examination?

P.S. I don't have beef with you for what it's worth.

[The Romulan Republic]

CNN are projecting that the GOD EMPEROR will indeed win the popular vote; screencap and live reporting link.


...

...

...

I clicked on the second link, and saw Clinton .2% ahead, same as before.

First link does say projected winner Trump, but also has Clinton .2% ahead.

I suppose its possible that if all the outstanding votes come from red areas or something, she could lose it. But since I'm not seeing anyone else saying this, I'm not sure where they're getting that projection from.

Could be as simple as an error by some intern at CNN for all I know.

Either way, it'll be very close, of course. And Trump will not have an actual majority of the popular vote.

[Q99]

And where is that Q99 person from the Election Thread? I really want to see him/her post a bit more on the glorious Hillary Rodham Clinton. He could've also added "Diane", why not...

Hi. In short, Hillary is actually quite good on policy and past efforts, further left than given credit for too.

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?

Clinton lost because the vaunted 'Blue Wall' (states that hadn't gone Democrat since the 80's) collapsed to Trump, so perhaps your 'swing states' narrative might need re-examination?

P.S. I don't have beef with you for what it's worth.

True enough.

[Crown]

CNN are projecting that the GOD EMPEROR will indeed win the popular vote; screencap and live reporting link.


...

...

...

I clicked on the second link, and saw Clinton .2% ahead, same as before.

First link does say projected winner Trump, but also has Clinton .2% ahead.

I suppose its possible that if all the outstanding votes come from red areas or something, she could lose it. But since I'm not seeing anyone else saying this, I'm not sure where they're getting that projection from.

Could be as simple as an error by some intern at CNN for all I know.

Either way, it'll be very close, of course. And Trump will not have an actual majority of the popular vote.

They both say projected winner; Trump. And I included the live link and screengrab to give you an idea of how slow the counting is going. They're projecting Trump because of which counties are still being counted most likely going red.

[Simon_Jester]

Anyway, I for one have been "enjoying" the bitching about Comey coming out with more emails late being one of the various reasons she lost. I feel for that guy. He obviously felt a ton of pressure previously to basically blow off legitimate security complaints about Secretary Clinton and then, when the later shit came out, he was getting pounded from the other side and released some shit from the Wiener emails. He should have just turfed the original shit to the Justice Department and let Obama's administration take it in the ass for deciding not to prosecute her.

While I get that, I think that every time the Trump administration leaves a smoldering mass of burning garbage on the table and calls it "policy to make America great" or whatever, in the next four years...

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!"

I imagine that it'll end up something like: "We may not have health insurance, we may have handed half of Eastern Europe over to the Russians. The president may have pardoned himself for two rapes, six instances of fraud, and eight years of tax evasion. We may have outlawed The Pill, we may have ongoing ethnic cleansing campaigns in five states, we may have suppressed three million voters off the rolls for spurious reasons... but by God our president isn't abusing his personal email server! Oh, and he isn't an abrasive jerk to his subordinates like Clinton would have been... oh wait he is. Nevermind. At least we won on the email thing, and that's what's truly, profoundly important to America."

Basically, I really, really hope that every American voter who looked at the email scandal and decided "this here, this is the matter of principle that is important to me, this is the hill I want to die on" winds up deeply, deeply regretting that decision.

Maybe we'll learn a lesson about why the word 'scandal' is not identical to the word 'disaster.'

There is no "proper legal procedure" for secession. You can hold a plebiscite and get 100% of the vote in an open and fair election and it's still treason and the Feds can, will, and should move in to remove the traitors from office and put down any resistance with deadly force.

Go down that route and you make a civil war basically inevitable. Apart from the question of whether the federal government has a moral right to force a state to remain part of the union against its will, if merely asking Congress to pass a law it doesn't like constitutes treason then Congress has ceased to so much as pay lip-service to the notion of consent of the governed.

Bluntly, Congress is simply going to say "no."

I'm not sure you quite grasp this, but the US government simply does not consider secession negotiable. It probably wouldn't charge you with treason for trying (there are several state secession movements already in existence). But the US does not see itself as "united states" in the same sense that the UK is a "united kingdom." The Scots, the Irish, the Welsh, they have distinct cultural identities that are at least somewhat separate from that of the English. The reason that these first groups are in the United Kingdom is because, literally, the kings of England inherited/conquered their way into the titles of being the kings of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. In a real sense, the UK is a well-integrated, miniature 'empire' even on its own home islands.

And where there are distinct ethnic/cultural nations that happen to be united into a single country because they just happened to have shared the same monarchs in the 18th and 19th century... It is much harder to discount the concept of secession.

...

The US is not like that. It is not a heterogeneous empire hammered together by conquest and inheritance claims on the part of a dynastic monarchy.

The vast majority of our states were 'created' by what amounts to reproduction by fission: Americans traveling from the existing states colonized other land, and created new governments in the image of the ones they'd left behind. Each new state voluntarily integrated itself into the overall union, while adopting legal structures and policies highly compatible with being tied as a single province into the larger, federal whole.

There is no group like the Scots which can point to its distinct regional culture and pre-unification history as an independent state and say "we were brought in without our permission, we can be let back out."

While there are cultural differences between different parts of the US, the differences have more to do with things like econoimc status and lifestyle that transcend regional lines. Rural Vermonters may have, in some ways, a lot more in common with rural Alabamans than either do with the population of the nearest major city.

The last time anyone tried to stage a meaningful secession in the US, it wasn't because they were a conquered ethnic minority like the Irish. It was over slavery, which due to a combination of political and economic forces had become concentrated in the southern states. This kind of spoiled the political popularity of secession in general, and left a stigma that lasted to this day.

While the US government tends to tolerate talk of secession on at least a minimal level, it does not recognize the validity of the concept even in principle, and would be highly unlikely to recognize it in practice.

[Q99]

Well, Hawaii was a distinct nation before. But just them.

[The Romulan Republic]

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

[Wild Zontargs]

Edit: already posted upthread. Derp