Election Day Thread

[jvikings1 40]

Hillary has conceded the election.

[Patine 467]

4 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Hillary has conceded the election.

Well, that's that. Tomorrow I will begin a new custom election scenario that will have NOTHING to do directly with the 2016 US Presidential Election.

[jvikings1 40]

@Kauai

How does it feel?

[Reagan04 658]

@Kauai I hear the crow is lovely this time of year.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

Amazing night!! 

[Edouard 121]

I like you!

But for a good part of the Occidental people, the people of USA has never been so close of Russia of its history.

We're really shocked in Europe ^^.

[TheMiddlePolitical 98]

How does it feel remember I said see me on election day  ? 

@Kauai

[Harris/Ernst 2020 0]

Congratulations to Donald J. Trump President-Elect

[Jaster 0]

@vcczar The results weren't EXACTLY like any of my Trump win-predictions, but I was surprisingly close with my "Silent majority roars" scenario, eh?

[Edouard 121]

I think nobody was able to predict such a Trump moment in Wisconsin.

We're talking about blue states since...Clinton, the Bill.

But as in 2000 the President has not the popular vote.

[VanMav 0]

15 hours ago, Patine said:

What's most sad is the hoodwink behind this election as a whole. So many Americans are absolutely convinced, perhaps just by party labels alone, or they're actually convinced by the insincere flip-flopping and pandering, that Donald Trump is REALLY a conservative and Hillary Clinton is REALLY a liberal. It's apparent if you view it from a detached, unemotional, and rational point of view (one you don't find at rallies or on the campaign trail, as a rule) that BOTH of them are in fact lying, deceptive, manipulative, flip-flopping, fairweather-idealogues-of-convenience centrist "crooks" - much more in the mold of the infamous Richard Nixon. The wool has been pulled over so many people's eyes it's not even funny, and those who aren't convinced, and are vocal about it, are called traitors to their parties and disloyal to the nation...

I don't think most of the irregular white voters think Trump is "really" a conservative. 43% of the electorate were working class whites and they split for Trump by over 20 points. I can almost guarantee you that for them it had nothing to do with the Supreme Court (and for many in the rust belt it wasn't even to do with immigration, a majority of the demographic in the exit polls said immigration was a net positive for America). It was almost certainly to do with trade, the economy and a vote against the establishment.

[Patine 467]

I will say, though, in contrast to his fiery, bombastic, and vitriolic rhetoric on the campaign trail, the grace Trump showed Clinton in his victory speech took me aback and surprised and even, just a little, disarmed me.

[VanMav 0]

 

At least it's not going to be a months long court battle. Trump won the EC fair and square. 

 

Guess there's going to be a renewed call to change the electoral system. The problem for Clinton is the states she did better in, not many swing states in the list: 

 

[Reagan04 658]

Well, looks like we lost the NH Senate race.

[Reagan04 658]

AZ REJECTS MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION!!!

[Patine 467]

5 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

AZ REJECTS MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION!!!

I suppose a victory for unnessecary and intrusive involvement in private citizen's lives (and I happen to even be someone who has never touched and never will touch the stuff). But I forgot, you believe in such government intrusion and stripping of justifiable liberties - and long as it follows the traditional social conservative line.

[VanMav 0]

27 minutes ago, Patine said:

I will say, though, in contrast to his fiery, bombastic, and vitriolic rhetoric on the campaign trail, the grace Trump showed Clinton in his victory speech took me aback and surprised and even, just a little, disarmed me.

I don't like either of them, but I will say his victory speech was the best speech he's given. Nancy Pelosi almost immediately said let's pass an infrastructure jobs bill. Let's hope.

[Jayavarman 128]

Clinton did not lose "that bad."  Forget Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, etc.  All she had to do was barely cling (by 1%) to the usually Democratic Rust Belt States (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin), and she would have won the Electoral College. (Clinton won the popular vote!)  Instead, her campaign realized the Rust Belt threat too late and only started seriously competing in those states (just MI+PA) the final few days.  The battleground list of states has expanded (good!), but all this post-election hand-wringing and over-analysis would be having vastly different assumptions and conclusions if just some votes went the other way in those three states.

 

 

 

Now, we must also begrudgingly admit that what was originally seen as quixotic sustained visits by Trump to the Rust Belt ended up paying off.  Physically, Trump out-campaigned Clinton.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

6 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

Well, looks like we lost the NH Senate race.

Damn I like Ayotte very much. Would have voted her...

[VanMav 0]

Not to get ahead of everything, but if Trump can galvanize that coalition have a look at the states up for the Senate in 2018.

 

[Jayavarman 128]

2 minutes ago, VanMav said:

Not to get ahead of everything, but if Trump can galvanize that coalition have a look at the states up for the Senate in 2018.

 

Democrats will get slaughtered in the 2018 midterm elections unless a recession or major Republican scandal occurs the next two years.

[Edouard 121]

The most important will be the mandate of Trump.

I am not American but I could probably make you smile, for me you're a people which changes its majority in presidency every 8 years and its majority in the Congress every 4 years. (the Congress after 2 years of new presidency and the Senate after 6 years of the new presidency)

It was less the fact before the crisis and the Irak War, but now...

I still believe that the Democrats can win in 2020 because Trump gained by a less vote and it is probably sure that if Bush had not got the 9/11 and the momentum of the "War revenge" in 2004 he would have probably loosed.

Hence, Trump has interests to have good advisors now, because he can't loose any vote he gained unlike Obama in 2008.

[VanMav 0]

President Obama was the first president to be reelected with a lower share of the vote than when he was first elected. The incumbency advantage has just proved too much, usually.

[Patine 467]

28 minutes ago, VanMav said:

President Obama was the first president to be reelected with a lower share of the vote than when he was first elected. The incumbency advantage has just proved too much, usually.

Not true. Madison and FDR (two times in his case) also had that statistic.

[Herbert Hoover 199]

3 hours ago, VanMav said:

President Obama was the first president to be reelected with a lower share of the vote than when he was first elected. The incumbency advantage has just proved too much, usually.

1. Grover Cleveland

2. This does not take into account all of the president's that did not win reelection. Who says his popular vote percentage will go up instead of down?

(Note: While I did not prefer the results, I will keep an open mind to President Trump and hope that he can fulfill bipartisan policy for all Americans. As unlikely as it may be, perhaps he could be a great President. I will reserve my judgement.)