View Topic

"Many," not a majority. I seem to recall him having no support among black people.

In case this is sounding like an attack on his character, it's far from it. I'm just not in the mood to even attempt to sugarcoat shit today.

To be fair Clinton did have better support among black voters at the start. However there is some evidence that the narrative you are using isn't exactly correct...

That's not entirely certain...we talked about it in the IRC some, and Bernie would have generated much more enthusiasm in a similar way that Obama did in 2008. Looking at the data as it came in, it's clear that Clinton under-performed everywhere, even in Democratic strongholds. She didn't run up the margins she needed in the cities, and she didn't get the voters out the way she needed to. That speaks to a lack of enthusiasm from liberals voters...even worse, it allowed Trump's rust-belt strategy to work and he carried several states that hadn't voted Republican in decades.

I don't think it's that Trump was a particularly strong candidate, I think it's that Clinton was a particularly weak one. Unfortunately for her she's just that person that people love to hate, and while both candidates had a number of controversies, hers seemed to stick to her for the entire election. Of course it's possible that Bernie would have lost too, but I think he would have had greater success in liberal strongholds...I'm sure he would have kept Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in Democratic hands, at least.

But that's poor comfort to the many people who are fearful of a Trump presidency, both within and outside America. I have to admit that I'm one of them...I'm fearful of what this means for LGBTQ rights and other civil rights, I'm fearful for the minorities that Trump has insulted and bullied on his way to the White House, and I'm fearful of where this might lead our government. Trump has openly admired authoritarian leaders and outright dictators...people who oppress their opposition, often violently...with no check on his party's power, will Trump seek to emulate them?

But perhaps it doesn't matter...regardless of outcome, this election has been a reflection on the breakdown of American civics and the erosion of respect for the principles, values, and ideals that this country was founded on. We now find our political institutions weakened, our ability to compromise for the sake of unity diminished, and our respect for the rule of law greatly undermined. We have two political parties which have a duopoly on power and care more about winning elections than just governance, and which increasingly attempt to impose their faction's ideological purity over the spirit of national compromise which our nation was founded and built upon.

We must be destined to reap the whirlwind at some point. The only question is whether it is now.

YEAH TRUMP WINS, LOSERS!!!! PRAISE KEK!!!!

Anyone need help moving to Canada?

Singapore tied itself to the USA at great cost to it's own regional standing. The Philippines are antagonising us. The Malaysians are cooling relations. The Indonesians are already hostile to us. We did this to help America during a time where they asked for it. And now you've elected a man likely to abandon us to the wolves. Thanks.

I'm sorry, but if a majority of Americans have fallen so low as to vote Trump, then Bernie could just have forgotten about it. Bernie would have been a common sense candidate, something that is clearly lacking in modern America.

EDIT: If the argument is that Sanders supporters themselves were so dishevelled that they spitefully went and voted for Trump, then they can just go jump off a cliff, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sorry, but if a majority of Americans have fallen so low as to vote Trump, then Bernie could just have forgotten about it. Bernie would have been a common sense candidate, something that is clearly lacking in modern America.

EDIT: If the argument is that Sanders supporters themselves were so dishevelled that they spitefully went and voted for Trump, then they can just go jump off a cliff, as far as I'm concerned.

The election was proof that populism, no matter which side of the spectrum, will always beat corporatism.  Which is both comforting and scary at the same time...

And the Sanders supporters themselves didn't vote for Trump.  In fact, they voted for Clinton.  It's just that they didn't donate, they didn't volunteer, they didn't mobilise support, knock on doors, talk to everyone about the issue(s) that matter (because neither candidate's platform was aggressive enough with climate change), etc. 

Long story short—the DNC forced Clinton down the throats of the party activists.  And, very shockingly, that pissed them off. 

Enough to vote for literally the worst candidate?

Enough to vote for literally the worst candidate?

No, just enough to convince them not to work their asses off for the Clinton campaign to convince the undecideds.

I'm sorry, but if a majority of Americans have fallen so low as to vote Trump, then Bernie could just have forgotten about it. Bernie would have been a common sense candidate, something that is clearly lacking in modern America.

Well actually, according to Google, as of the vote counts right now, the majority voted for Clinton. Trump just got more electoral college votes.

Can someone please explain this madness?

Can someone please explain this madness?

Gonna link a few videos my CGP Grey incase my explanation is still confusing:

The US votes based on the Electoral College. It's a system that means that the votes are divided by state.
There are 538 electoral college "votes" to elect the president which are divided amongst the states based somewhat on population but not exactly, as their is a slight bonus to smaller-population states. The President needs to win so many of these electoral college "votes", many states opt for an all-one-way system, where the candidate that gets the majority of public votes in that state gets all the electoral college "votes", no matter how small the majority.

Thus under certain conditions even though the majority of the absolute vote is for in favour of one candidate the electoral college "votes" are differently reflected. This only happens if the winning candidate has got a lot of support from the smaller population states with a slight advantage and not from the larger population states with a slight disadvantage. They still need a lot of support so it only happens in really close elections but it can happen.

There can also be the case were a state say votes 100% in favour of 1 candidate; that doesn't grant the candidate any more electoral college "votes" than they would have if it had been a 51% / 49% split. so that can skew the popular result as well.


On a very important side note we won't know the exact numbers of votes for a few days and it is still pretty close, but Gerrick is right in saying that right now the count looks like Hillary received more of the public vote, but lost out on the electoral college.

This is far for the first time this has happened as well, it happened in 2000 with Bush and Gore; and has happened a few other times as well, in total about 7% of the time the US votes, the popular vote isn't the winning one.

Who first decided to use this hare-brained system? They should be dug up, reanimated, and taken out back to be shot.

Who first decided to use this hare-brained system? They should be dug up, reanimated, and taken out back to be shot.

That would be US Congress in 1803 who made the 12th Amendment to the US Constitution, which was then ratified by all the (at the time) 17 states governments...