Essentially he won voters who disliked both candidates 3 to 1. This suggests that anyone but Clinton could have won for the democrats.
Not necessarily. I suspect many of those 'pox on both their houses' voters would have voted against any political establishment Democrat (or Republican) candidate.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
In the modern era of presidential politics, no candidate has ever won the popular vote by more than Hillary Clinton did this year, yet still managed to lose the electoral college. In that sense, 2016 was a historic split: Donald Trump won the presidency by as much as 74 electoral votes (depending on how Michigan ends up) while losing the nationwide vote to Clinton by 1.7 million votes and counting.
But there's another divide exposed by the election, which researchers at the Brookings Institution recently discovered as they sifted the election returns. It has no bearing on the election outcome, but it tells us something important about the state of the country and its politics moving forward.
The divide is economic, and it is massive. According to the Brookings analysis, the less-than-500 counties that Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America's economic activity in 2015. The more-than-2,600 counties that Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country's economic activity last year.
Clinton, in other words, carried nearly two-thirds of the American economy.
I can't decide if Alex Jones is playing a part or is really that guy. I lean towards playing a part, because someone can't stay that red all the time without having a heart attack, but I'm still not sure.
If you want to know more about Alex Jones then I would recommend this short book by Jon Ronson. I haven't read it yet, but I will. Jon believes that, for the most part, Alex is playing an act.
In The Elephant in the Room, Jon Ronson, the New York Times-Bestselling author of The Psychopath Test, Them, and So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed, travels to Cleveland at the height of summer to witness the Republican National Convention. Along the way, he reunites with an old acquaintance—the influential provocateur and conspiracy talk-show host Alex Jones—who draws him, unexpectedly, into one of the most bizarre presidential campaigns in American history.
So this should probably deeply concern Trump supporters, but all it took was about 2 minutes of conversation to flip Trump off torture. Which of course shows how easy it'll be to manipulate him off other issues. Still my biggest concern about a Trump win is how the cultists react when he turns out to be W part 2.
That is eye opening and tells a story about how divided the country really may be. One thing I find interesting in that map - Dallas County and Tarrant County in Texas are next to each other and both are major urban centres (Dallas and Ft. Worth) yet one went Clinton while the other went Trump.
So this should probably deeply concern Trump supporters, but all it took was about 2 minutes of conversation to flip Trump off torture. Which of course shows how easy it'll be to manipulate him off other issues. Still my biggest concern about a Trump win is how the cultists react when he turns out to be W part 2.
It should concern everyone. This time a two minute pep talk changed his mind to the right decision, next time it might be the other way around.
Or is it a sign he was intentionally lying all of the time and never sincerely held these positions in the first place and said them because they were popular. It's still concerning, but in general a buffoon or defers to experts is better than a buffoon who charges ahead with what is popular with his base.
I think the media should celebrate when Trump returns to reasonable positions and not ridicule him for breaking his promises.
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Agreed...if flipping to a reasonable position is the worst we see from Trump I would feel very very fortunate. Although it does just reset the snooze button on the population that wants significant change. So in the long run it may have unintended consequences.
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
Or is it a sign he was intentionally lying all of the time and never sincerely held these positions in the first place and said them because they were popular. It's still concerning, but in general a buffoon or defers to experts is better than a buffoon who charges ahead with what is popular with his base.
I think the media should celebrate when Trump returns to reasonable positions and not ridicule him for breaking his promises.
There's definitely been more examples thus far of him flipping away from more extreme policy stances to more moderate ones thus far. We really don't know if this is just a coincidence so far though. Plus, if he's deferring to the people behind him and the Republican congress, that's not exactly a comforting thought.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
There's definitely been more examples thus far of him flipping away from more extreme policy stances to more moderate ones thus far. We really don't know if this is just a coincidence so far though. Plus, if he's deferring to the people behind him and the Republican congress, that's not exactly a comforting thought.
In the other thread I postulated the best case for a Trump presidency is he is a puppet of a republican congress. I agree its not great but given his campaign its the least worst outcome.
I'd actually take that as an encouraging sign as it suggests he's much less sure of his own ideas than "I know more than the generals" would lead one to believe, or he wasn't really committed to them beyond using them for political advantage.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.
Last Thursday, the activists held a conference call with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias to make their case, according to a source briefed on the call. The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000. While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review — especially in light of the fact that the Obama White House has accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee.
According to current tallies, Trump has won 290 Electoral College votes to Clinton’s 232, with Michigan’s 16 votes not apportioned because the race there is still too close to call. It would take overturning the results in both Wisconsin (10 Electoral College votes) and Pennsylvania (20 votes), in addition to winning Michigan’s 16, for Clinton to win the Electoral College. There is also the complicating factor of “faithless electors,” or members of the Electoral College who do not vote according to the popular vote in their states. At least six electoral voters have said they would not vote for Trump, despite the fact that he won their states.
Proposition One: The only CP posters who are posting negatively about Trump about his apparent changes in direction since being elected, were also against him during the campaign.
Proposition Two: Not even one poster who was for him has posted against his change in tone other than to acknowledge it.
Expected Result: The Clinton supporters are mad. Not the Trump supporters.
