I'm guessing that pretty much everyone here already knows this, but in case anyone doesn't, I want to point out that Michael Moore was explaining why Trump will get elected, but he did not personally want to see it happen and thinks Trump's term will be disastrous. (Edit: looks like the good Reverend already covered this above. I was typing this message before I had seen his.)

Also, Moore is a great speaker. Watching that video, I truly felt the sentiment that he was talking about.

I wouldn't exactly call rolling the dice with the mad man himself a "long game", except in the outcomes that don't leave us irreparably damaged. I guess the difference is that this time the damage will be inflicted over the course of four years rather than several decades of neoliberal policy.

Clinton was not a zero-damage game. Remember she openly threatened war with Russia.

You know, somehow I'm even more bothered by the fact that your new veep seems like a fundamentalist Christian. I remember when Trump's son contacted another potential veep with the promise of great power in both foreign and domestic policy while Trump would focus on making America great again.

Never forget:

DNC rigged the primary to get Clinton nominated.
DNC got media to promote Trump, because they thought he would be an easy opponent.


So, I guess, congrats DNC, on running a successful campaign.

?!

Instead of paranoid Machiavellian tactics, she could have won by actually focusing on the issues and speaking honestly to voters, rather than resorting to accusations of bigotry. I think there's a real arrogance among educated liberals who think they've won once they've insulted their opponent without addressing their concerns.

It's almost like the internet and cable news have created a 24/7 circle-jerk of self-congratulation that we aren't as racist as those people, and can safely remain in our bubble.

Christmas is here soon
Bernie Sanders please come back
save us like Jesus

So I read a bit of the leaked memo about getting the media to prop up Trump, Cruz, and Carson.

The whole memo has a rather presumptuous tone to it, and fails to address the major weaknesses of Clinton, while at the same time trying to micromanage the public's image of the Republicans to incrementally steal votes.

It could be that in order to be in the Clinton campaign (or the political establishment as a whole), you would tacitly be expected to avoid bringing up (or ignorant altogether of) the more serious issues with the candidate, and her role in the corrupt establishment itself.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120

Click on attachments, download 2016ers.pdf (150407 Strategy on GOP)



There's more in the doc. TL;DR: Clinton and the DNC conspired to promote Donald Trump, and in fact frame other GOP candidates as even less suitable than he was. They literally created Trump.

Thanks,

One excuse I've read for the discrepancy between the polls and the election, is that people who were ashamed to admit their plans to vote for Trump, nevertheless did so anyway.

In other words, the Clinton campaign simply succeeded in getting people to feel ashamed of Trump. But, unless picking a candidate is like picking a shade of paint, you're not going to change just because everyone else is chastising you for picking something unsightly, right?

It really does seem like the media tried to rig this election.



I think there is still a fair amount of underlying sexism, even among educated democrats. Despite no good logical reason to vote for Trump there was just no way they could vote a woman, or specifically Hillary.

Then again, it appears that she did win the popular vote. Not by much, tho'.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-reaction-russia-idUSKBN1342FJ?mod=related&channelName=worldNews

Video footage of that better come up.

Pence is 100% pure ****nard ****dick ever polishing his armor of christ

he legit believes in curing gay people through counseling

I feel fully vindicated in supporting Sanders now. They threw an avalanche of bull**** at Sanders supporters for the past three months. The DNC and the Clinton campaign bear responsibility for everything Trump does.

Rural voters turned out in historically unprecedented numbers. Poll predictions and statistics are based on history. History repeats itself, except when it doesn't.

Simply, this was a completely unpredictable election and no polling model could have predicted an unprecedented event because that's not how these models work.

This is exactly what happened in Brexit, btw. White working class people are trashing western nations because they are being ignored and scorned. Are many of them racist, ****ty people? Yeah, but at a certain point, you can't keep blaming people for being people, which is why the liberal game has failed so spectacularly this year.

Actually yes, yes you can blame people for working/voting against their own interest. Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse.

Compared to Hillary "**** Unions" Clinton? She is better but many people felt, and I believe rightly so, that her interest in poor people is more token than sincere. And look at the damage that's doing.

The real problem is working-class people are alienated. When you poll people about what should be done they give answers not far from a Sanders-esque New Deal.

Capitalism has produced lots of tensions in western society. Fascism results when these tensions are externalized onto an encroaching enemy.

I was up watching the news until about 11PM Pacific last night. One thing they were talking about just before I went to bed (at this point trump was in the lead but they hadn't called it yet) was the market futures and how they had halted trading here or there and implemented a 5% drop floor on s&p 500 futures. I don't pretend to understand it all but they were totally doom & gloom, the markets are going to crash today, we're all going to die, etc., etc.

One thing I think really hurt Hillary Clinton's chances was the fact that just a couple of weeks ago everyone got notice that their government-mandated health insurance was going up at least double digits, and in some cases almost 100%. The government was quick to point out that a lot of the increase would be subsidized but I think taxpayers (the ones that actually pay taxes) are starting to see through that. There are articles and stories all over the news about why the premiums are going up; the main reason being that all the healthy people that were supposed to be signing up simply aren't. They're opting to pay the fine ($500/yr or something) instead of the insurance premiums (>$500/month for a decent plan, even with subsidies for a lot of people). There was a story on NPR about a lady who had insurance prior, a PPO, signed up for obamacare, also a PPO, and got a subsidy, but due to this years price increases she's forced to switch to an HMO. I grew up on an HMO and will not choose one if I actually have a choice.

I'm not sure people outside the US (or even outside their own states, if they've never been elsewhere) understand how different each state, or even areas within individual states are. Washington just passed a statewide minimum wage increase, I think up to like $14/hr over the next few years. The Seattle metro area passed huge gas, property, sales, whatever tax increases to build a huge transit system that will provide raised rail for a significant portion of the area. (it won't start for decades realistically) The county I live in just passed sales tax increases to subsidize fast ferry transit from the peninsula I live on over to Seattle, a trip that now takes 1 hour will only take 30 minutes. They passed a statewide "extreme risk protection" measure that allows the government to take legally-owned guns away from people if they are simply accused of having threatened somebody. There are whole cities, counties, states, coasts that are so liberal it feels like a different country.

It's a perfectly rational choice. The haute bourgeoisie hates Donald Trump and thinks he will be useless, so voting for him sends a powerful message.

If I can't have a government that will represent my interests, you can't have one, either.

Spend a decade or longer in a rural ****hole, never sure where your next meal will come from. Under those circumstances most won't be very keen to vote for status quo neoliberalism that has ignored them for decades.

Do I think it would be ignorant for a middle class liberal who lives in a city with economic opportunity to vote for Trump? You bet I do.

Do I think it would be ignorant for a working class conservative who lives in bum**** nowhere and has nothing to lose to vote for Trump? No, not at all.

If you ask me, this election sure seems like part of a larger global revolt against a failed economic doctrine. The whole "hours getting longer, pay getting lower, living getting more expensive" trend can only go on for so long.

Well i mean the average age of death is decreasing for the people who vote for Trump. People dont seem to realize thst their lives are really not very fun.

I do live in bum**** nowhere, and I don't see how that means I should be blind to the fact that Trump cares as little about poor people as Hillary. My comment wasn't specifically about the presidency though. Ultimately there's only so much damage anyone elected can do in 4 years and then we get to try again.

I do find it funny how people are worried Trump is going to revoke all of women's rights, ban gays, etc. He's not going to be any worse for those issues than any other elected Republican would have been. If anything, Trump cares less about the traditional Republican values and now that he's elected he's going to do what he wants and eschew typical party rhetoric. Basically we have an idea what kind of person Trump is but we have no idea how the presidency is going to turn out.

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/what-president-trump-could-mean-for-climate-change/507098/?utm_source=atlfb

The long game.

Ah that's the super-long game. We all lose that game. Or more like our grandchildren but whatever.

She could not have done that because she is not an honest person. She doesn't believe in the ideals she champions. Her's is an unquenchable thirst for power. Looks like she's going to need a lot of Gatorade.

I've heard and read some analysis today but I don't really find any of it particularly insightful. I don't think you really have to dig too deep to determine what really happened here and that would be that the Democrats nominated a terrible scandal ridden candidate. You only need to look at a few numbers to come to this conclusion.

First, we saw a similar result in the 2000 election. A virtual electoral and popular vote tie. Both candidates in the 50.x million vote range. Right now today it's about 59.x million votes each. At first it would seem that voter turnout must have been significantly higher, and perhaps the percentage will show that but let's look at some other elections.

In 2004 Bush won with a similar electoral vote to today but also by a three million vote margin 62.x million to 59.x million. In 2008 Obama overwhelmingly defeated McCain 69.x million to 59.x million and a huge electoral vote margin. 2012 saw Obama over Romney comfortably with 65.x million to 60.x million votes and a wide electoral margin.

As I looked at these numbers I found it interesting how many times 59 million votes came up recently and always associated with the loser. This year, of course more votes are being tallied, our winner is hovering at that level. This tells me there's easily ten million votes or more that never came to the table. Where did they go?

Statisticians and political scientists far more qualified than I can publish papers on it but I believe they hemorrhaged from both sides but far more from Hillary. She lost votes and they either never showed up or went to Trump. I'm sure he lost conservative votes but he picked up some of hers and the alt-right.

I don't see this election as a victory for Republicans. It should be a wake up call. Republicans have only won the presidency with the popular vote twice in the past EIGHT elections. If they don't get their crap together, or the democrats don't implode, they're on borrowed time.

Well, let's think about this.

[quote=New York Times]But according to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?

When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.

Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?

“Making America great again” was the casual reply.

Ultimately, Trump chose Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, not Kasich, to be his running mate.[/quote]
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/magazine/how-donald-trump-picked-his-running-mate.html

Who is Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, the most powerful vice president elect in US history? He is a self-titled conservative Christian ideologue.

Professionally, he strove for: generically debilitating austerity measures; massive tax cuts for the rich; the proscription of abortion, and of effective sex education; institutionalized persecution of homosexuals on the basis of religion; institutionalized persecution of blacks via public school defunding, and a statewide minimum wage ceiling; the privatization of Social Security; expansion of the Patriot Act; free trade agreements, including NAFTA; increased mandatory minimum sentences and expansion of the War on Drugs. His fiscal policies were a disaster for Indiana and would be a disaster for America.

Personally, he believes that Global Warming is a myth, that the Citizens United ruling was great, and that conversion therapy is effective and homosexuals should be forced to undergo it.

That's the guy who'll be setting policy for President "I didn't actually want this job" Trump.

How much damage can they do in "4" years? Pence is gonna get to appoint three supreme court justices, plus hundreds of federal judges. That means an actual worse-than-Trump prosperity gospel moron has direct control over congress, the executive, and the judiciary, and can therefore do basically whatever he wants for (statistically speaking, unless something goes catastrophically wrong for working-class whites) 8 full years. His fiscal policies destroyed Indiana's economy in less time than that. And the bad supreme court rulings will keep on coming for maybe 30 more years on top of anything else he accomplishes in 8 years.

Pretty much the best outcome you can hope for, assuming you prefer the status quo to... uh, the Tea Party president,... is if Koch can bribe Pence into being a normal Republican. That, or the Republicans can find a way to impeach Trump and Pence simultaneously.

It just got a lot shorter.

Yep this is my understanding of the situation too. Trump didn't win, Clinton lost. Labor didn't show up to vote for her. Black people didn't show up to vote for her. Nobody actually wanted her to win, they wanted Trump to lose. So when the polls all said "Clinton's gonna win!" they all decided to save themselves a wait.

And to be fair, Trump did perform better than expected. Apparently in the swing states about 20% of the union vote flipped Trump. 23% of non-college educated working class white males voted Trump despite being self-identified progressives. So, he didn't exactly not win. But 100% confirmed, Sanders would have swept it.

But really, Clinton lost. People just didn't show up to vote for her.

One has to wonder, how many people stayed home in large part because 538 told them the election was all but assured, with faux certainty?

Like looking up the answers in the back of the book, people who so focused on the consequences of the models which didn't take into account the effect of the models themselves, Clinton's voters "failed the test", despite memorizing "the answers".

Or at the very least, perhaps voted after all, but didn't bother to spread the gospel.

OTOH, one can't shoulder too much blame on smugness perpetuated by 538, given the sheer embarrassment people felt even mentioning Clinton, as a result of her own actions and affiliates.

Nate Silver was in constant Twitter wars in the past week over people claiming his model gave Trump too high a chance to win.

The funny thing is, I know someone who followed 538 religiously, despised Trump, and was all but sure that the Republican party would be destroyed beyond disrepair after this election. He genuinely thought we'd never see a Republican president again, sheerly based on demographics.

Be that as it may, the average voter has little enough understanding of probability to know that a 70% chance of victory means an expected 3 failures in 10 trials.

I think that when most people see a number above 50%, they assume it is all but guaranteed, similar to how elections work.

More amusing is the Princeton Election Consortium, who predicted a 99% chance of a Clinton victory. Talk about over-fitting to the data....

They said, over and over, that Trump had between a one-in-four and a one-in-three chance. They said he was within a normal polling error of taking the election. I really don't think it's 538's fault that people saw "70-30" and read that as an assured Clinton victory.

Huffington Post's "99% Clinton" model, on the other hand

edit: oops my post is now redundant

Basically how polls work: they ask which candidate you would prefer, and then weight your opinion based on the historical probability that you would have come out to vote. Historically this has given the US some of the best polling in the world, because your parties generally don't advance candidates which either get people super pumped (Obama in 2008, elected with larger margin than expected) or super enervated (Clinton in 2016, unexpected loss). This sort of thing happens in a lot of other countries, though, including Canada.

Welcome to the club, I guess.

Y'all probably won't make this mistake a second time.

Well, sure, a Trump victory was within the margin of error of 538's model, and there's not much 538 could do since it's just a meta-analysis. But people aren't wrong when they say the underlying polls were crap.

Look, I drove through rural Oregon and Washington a month ago, taking the scenic route on my way back to Canada. I saw the Trump signs. I mean, the signs were literally there, along with palpable despair and poverty. Holy hell, I thought San Francisco was a filthy, poor, run-down city "historic", but rural America is complete ****. The UN called the way Canada treats aboriginals genocide, and from what I've seen, rural Americans have it worse. So, yeah, maybe those folks were just a tad more motivated to vote than the polls assumed.