Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → Do you even really care at this point?
123456789101112
Do you even really care at this point?
2016-11-08, 6:36 PM #281
Trump is crushing swing states. NY times has him currently at a 54% chance to win.
2016-11-08, 7:31 PM #282
Now even 538 is projecting a win for Trump, 55% chance. NY Times currently at 88% chance. I'm afraid things are looking bad right now in this election.
2016-11-08, 7:56 PM #283
Originally posted by Reid:
Now even 538 is projecting a win for Trump, 55% chance. NY Times currently at 88% chance. I'm afraid things are looking bad right now in this election.


NYT Says 94% now... I think it may be over.
Nothing to see here, move along.
2016-11-08, 8:04 PM #284
Wait 30 minutes for western states to begin reporting and it will go down.
2016-11-08, 8:30 PM #285
Quote:
I haven't encountered likely Democrat voters saying they wouldn't support Clinton if she won the nomination. Like I said though, that doesn't mean much. There are a lot of people excited to vote for Trump, but nobody seems excited to vote for Hillary Clinton. All rhetoric aside, including the dishonest and unfair attacks of the GOP over the past 25 years, her actual record pins her as a socially progressive but otherwise boring neoliberal schmoozer. At this point it also doesn't seem like a contest so much as a coronation, which is never ever good for turning out the vote.


Something I said in March. Case in point, people in this thread skipping or casting protest votes.
2016-11-08, 8:46 PM #286
I would definitely have gone out of I lived in a swing state.

538 is saying 80% chance of Trump presidency. It's really happening. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
2016-11-08, 9:01 PM #287
He's gonna win Arizona and Michigan, the only states he needs to win the Election.

It's over, WELCOME PRESIDENT TRUMP.
Nothing to see here, move along.
2016-11-08, 9:04 PM #288
The internet is going to ****ing explode.
2016-11-08, 9:15 PM #289
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Probably not. Why? What makes you ask?


A nightmare has become reality.
Nothing to see here, move along.
2016-11-08, 9:29 PM #290
I am looking forward to the White House's brass and marble reno
2016-11-08, 9:33 PM #291
Wow, it's really going to happen. Donald Trump vs. Kanye West 2020.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2016-11-08, 10:19 PM #292
Originally posted by Nikumubeki:
Seeing as these results did completely surprise everyone, it's safe to say that Round Two for collective human idiocy will take place in November 2016.


The new era of Burgerboys is unfolding in front of our eyes.

I WIN.
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2016-11-08, 10:30 PM #293
Is Idiocracy worth watching?
2016-11-08, 10:47 PM #294
It's over. PA went Trump. I cant ****ing believe it. Red all over.
2016-11-08, 10:51 PM #295
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Is Idiocracy worth watching?


Yes.
2016-11-08, 11:03 PM #296
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Is Idiocracy worth watching?


we're pretty much living it now
eat right, exercise, die anyway
2016-11-08, 11:32 PM #297
What the actual ****. Seriously?? This is what I wake up to here in merry ol' snowy Finland?
Looks like we're not going down after all, so nevermind.
2016-11-08, 11:37 PM #298
Originally posted by Reid:
It's over. PA went Trump. I cant ****ing believe it. Red all over.


I find it odd that Fox News isn't calling PA for Trump, while NYT is.
Nothing to see here, move along.
2016-11-08, 11:41 PM #299
Clinton has conceded.
Nothing to see here, move along.
2016-11-09, 12:00 AM #300
Sooo, you guys ready for the 21st century Andrew Jackson?
2016-11-09, 12:07 AM #301
What the ****.
2016-11-09, 12:21 AM #302
So it'll be four years of explicit white nationalism then.

Looking forward to being the newest Canadisassian.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2016-11-09, 12:22 AM #303
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Sooo, you guys ready for the 21st century Andrew Jackson?


Despite the kind of a man/President he was, that's still insulting to Andrew Jackson.

Here's your new Warren G. Harding.
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2016-11-09, 12:45 AM #304
Maybe!

Nevertheless, Jackson received little formal education, and kicked Native Americans off their land in order to make a killing on real estate, and then won on a populist platform against a corrupt elite.

Fred and Donald Trump made a fortune off of apartment complexes, which broke fair housing laws, and staunchly fought federal government discrimination lawsuits. Donald Trump beat Clinton by winning over poor, uneducated whites, on a populist platform against a corrupt elite.

I could say that both candidates were white supremacists, but the equivocation is probably unfair to Trump.
2016-11-09, 12:54 AM #305
I honestly didn't think Trump would win, but I'm not surprised that he did. Whether or not most Americans realized it, and whether or not it translates into actual reform, this election was a referendum on economic inequality and the legitimacy of the current ruling class. It's a devastating outcome for everybody on the inside, from GOP policy wonks and their financiers, through to Wall Street and DNC staffers. This election was pretty much a plurality of Americans saying the system isn't working for them, that it can't be fixed, and they're ready to tear the whole thing down.

There'll be a lot of navel-gazing about this, but basically, like I've been saying for months:

Originally posted by Jon`C:
No, it isn't [too late for the Republicans to win]. For starters, Trump isn't really unelectable; Clinton and Trump are both deeply unpopular, only polling within 5% of each other in a general contest. Trump, though, has 15% of the US population actively supporting him. Clinton seems to have 0%: swing voters are disgusted; Sanders supporters aren't going to vote for her (and may even vote for Trump in protest); she only polls well with black voters, and while I honestly don't know their reasons for supporting her, it's probably safe to assume they won't turn out any better in the general election than they did for Gore or Kerry. Trump will never have broad popularity, but in the US that's nether necessary nor sufficient to win. What really matters is whether Clinton can successfully convince more people to vote for her, which is distinct from convincing people to prefer her.


Originally posted by Jon`C:
[Why wouldn't Sanders supporters vote for Clinton?] Because Hillary Clinton is an unapologetic advocate of the financial industry. Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have publicly excoriated bankers during their campaigns, and many of their supporters consider degenerate capitalism a greater threat than either of their respective down-sides.


Originally posted by Jon`C:
Trump and Clinton have been polling the same recently. General election polls don't have a lot of predictive power this far out, but it isn't a good sign.


Originally posted by Jon`C:
Trump actually does better under withering criticism.

I'm not saying he's going to win, but I think it's going to be much more difficult for Clinton than anybody on the left seems to acknowledge.


(On this day I also posted that Trump would probably run a 'clean' campaign, pivoting out of the primaries like traditional candidates. lol, my bad. Turns out you can look unhinged and still beat Clinton.)

Originally posted by Jon`C:
Early general election polls have a high variance, but the central limit theorem always holds. In ordinary terms, those polls aren't individually good at predicting the election outcome, but when a lot of them say [Trump will win], it means there is a problem.


Originally posted by Jon`C:
On the subject of alt universe fantasy lives, though, who exactly is "they"? The Democrats want Clinton because she plays ball, sure. But the Republicans want Clinton, too, because she is their best chance at winning; an indictment would probably send the nomination to Sanders or Biden, and both poll stronger in a general election. So I'm not really sure who is the "they" that needed to "get to him".


(Clinton was a really freaking bad candidate.)

Originally posted by Jon`C:
See, nobody really likes Trump or Sanders or Ron Paul. The whole point of that game is to send a message to the political insiders and the economic elites that the public deems them unworthy, and are ready to tear down the whole system. And now here's Hillary Clinton, who is shown as immune from prosecution, whose own party is shown ready to subvert democracy in order to coronate her.


Originally posted by Jon`C:
But if you think the economy is a uuge problem, [...] Hillary Clinton absolutely will not help. It doesn't really matter how she campaigns today; she has made her opinions on these subjects very clear in the recent past.

Depending on your personal priorities, it is quite credible that someone would not consider Hillary Clinton a significantly better option than Donald Trump, let alone a good option. For many people she really is just a vote against Trump - the rich New Yorker who hates Muslims, vs the rich New Yorker who is the candidate mostly because the DNC decided she is "due".



Bonus round:

Quote:
When the social crisis takes on an intolerable acuteness, a particular party appears on the scene with the direct aim of agitating the petty bourgeoisie to a white heat and of directing its hatred and its despair against the proletariat. In Germany, this historical function is fulfilled by national Socialism (Nazism), a broad current whose ideology is composed of all the putrid vapors of disintegrating bourgeois society.


Leon Trotsky, Sept. 1932, only a few months before the burning of the Reichstag and the appointment of Chancellor Hitler.
2016-11-09, 12:59 AM #306
More on Andrew Jackson.

Quote:
It’s also well known that Jackson was involved in expelling American Indians from their homelands, which is how he made room to create so much of the modern South. But it’s not well understood why Jackson made Indian removal a central theme of his career. Jackson was making space for the spread of white settlers, including those who practiced slavery. And he was enabling real estate development, in which he participated and profited.



Quote:
What motivated him to treat natives unfairly at times was less racism than real estate. He would stop at nothing when he saw an opportunity to advance his financial interest or that of his friends. Land was the way to wealth on the frontier, and that drove Jackson’s elaborate scheme to capture immense Indian lands south and north of the Tennessee River.
2016-11-09, 1:11 AM #307
If we think of #BlackLivesMatter representing the result of long festering of economic crimes against Blacks, I guess we could say that the other (white) shoe has dropped.

If only Sanders hadn't polled so miserably with non-whites. :-/
2016-11-09, 1:15 AM #308
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
If we think of #BlackLivesMatter representing the result of long festering of economic crimes against Blacks, I guess we could say that the other (white) shoe has dropped.

If only Sanders hadn't polled so miserably with non-whites. :-/


Clinton probably lost the black vote, too. Hilarious.

Shared on SA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsbBTm40YVc#t=3072s
2016-11-09, 1:17 AM #309
Jon`C is exactly right and its what Ive been hinting at with my leftist posts. There is effrctively zero political representation for working people. Thst just got Trump elected, who was LITERALLY put there because of democrats thinking they could trash the GOP and get an easy win.

We need a new left. And fast. The win for Trump is a huge surprise and indicates exactly that Western politics is broken. And this is a rapid and bad and fast change. And we should be scared because the future looks bad.
2016-11-09, 1:27 AM #310
It's not a huge surprise though. I mean, the polls all said Trump would lose, so it's a surprise in the sense that it wasn't accurately forecast, but it's not a surprise that Clinton was able to lose the election.

Also: consider this my official prediction that the DNC will react to this loss by moving further to the right.
2016-11-09, 1:28 AM #311
I mean, when ""the left"" tells working-class people to shut the **** up, and their only mechanism to explain anything is a long list of -isms, youve detached into liberal fantasy land.
2016-11-09, 1:31 AM #312
Well exactly the same happened in Brexit. Polls are determined by historical trends. The political climate is ahistorical. We are rapidly shifting the political sphere in the world and none of us are ready for it.
2016-11-09, 1:34 AM #313
538 predicted double digit probability of a Trump victory--it was always a non-trivial possibility. Just not the most likely outcome according to their model.
2016-11-09, 1:36 AM #314
I'll advance another theory for Clinton's loss,

Rather shortly before the election there was some new noise about that Wikileaks DNC dump containing explicit admissions that Clinton and the DNC were only hitting up the labor unions for money and votes, but had no intention of passing pro-labor legislation or even just making public statements of support. Union members are a surprising percentage of some swing states (e.g. Ohio at 12.4%, Iowa at 10.1%, Michigan at 14.5%) so I wonder if that late-breaking "**** you" contributed to her loss. I know that if I were a member of a union, and I found out that my union was pissing away my money on a candidate who literally hated me, I would think twice about voting Democrat.
2016-11-09, 1:42 AM #315
Thank you, Jon, for that video. I am watching well beyond your time stamp.
2016-11-09, 1:52 AM #316
2016-11-09, 2:08 AM #317
Originally posted by Jon`C:


I saw this (and about a million videos with this audio) and I wondered how many people would be inspired by this. I really wonder if Michael Moore helped Trump get elected.
Nothing to see here, move along.
2016-11-09, 2:12 AM #318
Yeah. Liberalism and labor dont mix. Clinton is just a republican in democrat makeup.
2016-11-09, 2:15 AM #319
And yet this is not the full version, with some very important qualifying remarks following the widely shared audio....
2016-11-09, 2:15 AM #320
Trump's worse. But. Clinton is the prime example of a fake-leftist. She is all about ****ing labor while pretending to be for them. All i can say is thank you wikileaks for playing the long game
123456789101112

↑ Up to the top!