U.S. Presidential Election Day Megathread [Official]

[derpkitteh]

She is definitely a likely candidate. Her being a veteran helps. The fact that she is Hawaiian and Hindu, not so much.

hawaiian and hindu doesn't hurt, imo. unless you mean she's not a born citizen?

[Celista]

I'm already tired of the weeping and gnashing of teeth. People knew what was at stake in this election; if you cared about the future of this country you should have voted.

If you did vote and did not get your first pick candidate, then this should be a wakeup call for you to participate in the political process and not just simply cast a vote every four years. This includes participation in the political process at the local/grassroots level.

Honestly, I think voter apathy was a real problem this election. Practically everyone hated both the candidates. Hillary might have been viewed as the lesser of two evils, but not many people actually wanted her in office. They just wanted to keep Trump out.

Combine that with the media portraying a Clinton victory as inevitable, a lot of people probably just couldn't be arsed.

Yes. Also white, uneducated voters showed up to the polls 15% higher than expected.

[Deletedaccount1]

hawaiian and hindu doesn't hurt, imo. unless you mean she's not a born citizen?

It hurts because a lot of Americans won't vote for someone who isn't Christian, not to mention someone who is a practitioner of such a foreign religion.

Being Hawaiian hurts because it is one of the least relevant states in the country. Her base of support from people who already know her is small.

[Deleted]

Nah Americans are just extremely lazy in terms of voting. It's time people see it as a duty and not a right.

I never get it why Western countries don't just force people to vote, give them a day off as a reward, I'm sure they wouldn't object then.

Why would you force people to vote? Especially when they have only 2 choices, neither of them are any good and votes don't actually count at the end because of whole electorates mess. Many people are probably disillusioned by fake democracy.

[Kellhound]

Nah Americans are just extremely lazy in terms of voting. It's time people see it as a duty and not a right.

I never get it why Western countries don't just force people to vote, give them a day off as a reward, I'm sure they wouldn't object then.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah but read on Trump's website, he'll be trying to undo all of Obama's executive orders.

Forcing people to vote removes their right not to vote.

[papaz]

Trump is a good wake up call for everyone.

I hope he is a man of his words and does half of the things he said he would do.

The average Joe doesn't know what he voted for and is about to find out. Unfortunately climate chagne is affecting the planet and not only the US, else I would be all for that the US government shits on their own land.

I mean whenever I come across religious people on the Internet I always tell them to stay strong and true to their beliefs. For example if they ever get cancer I recommend them praying a little bit harder than usually, go to church one extra time and it'll all be good.

Don't go to hospitals, God got your back. If you pray enough you will be healed.

At least in that way some of the stupid ass people will go away a bit sooner than later.

I just wish climate change just affected locally in the same way as cancer.

[derpkitteh]

It hurts because a lot of Americans won't vote for someone who isn't Christian, not to mention someone who is a practitioner of such a foreign religion.

Being Hawaiian hurts because it is one of the least relevant states in the country. Her base of support from people who already know her is small.

it is true, it would be hard to sell a non-christian. but honestly, i think maybe policy would win out in the end. her policies would likely please independents, young voters, and anyone that's just fed up with war. you win independents, and you likely win the presidency.

she'd win the democratic base and a lot of young voters because she is, speaking in unsavory terms, a "progressive" candidate, IE not white, not christian, and not male.

[Flarelaine]

we have a university in our county as well but it votes consistently red.

A few weeks ago I've read an article about how a city clerk went out of his way to hinder university students attempting to vote. Would this explain your county's results?

[Macaquerie]

Blair distanced himself from the left wing fringe groups, as they were not appealing to the majority of people, but the Labour Party (British left wing) had long been pandering to them to increase their voterbase.

Blair realised the way to increase the voterbase was not to go further left, but to go more central, as that is where most people sit. Go where the people are, not try and unite disparate loonies under your banner.

That's exactly what Clinton and her husband have been doing their whole careers, and she certainly went full on centrist, third way, rise above the mess, Stronger Together (tm) for this election. And the result was that she ended up alienating people both on the right, who hate her anyway, and on the left, who think she was giving too much ground and either stayed home or voted third party. Any other Democratic candidate who tries that same strategy is going to lose just as badly.

[I Push Buttons]

That's exactly what Clinton and her husband have been doing their whole careers, and she certainly went full on centrist, third way, rise above the mess, Stronger Together (tm) for this election. And the result was that she ended up alienating people both on the right, who hate her anyway, and on the left, who think she was giving too much ground and either stayed home or voted third party. Any other Democratic candidate who tries that same strategy is going to lose just as badly.

She didn't alienate anyone (who mattered) by going to the center. She alienated people because her name is Hillary Clinton.

[Kalis]

That's exactly what Clinton and her husband have been doing their whole careers, and she certainly went full on centrist, third way, rise above the mess, Stronger Together (tm) for this election. And the result was that she ended up alienating people both on the right, who hate her anyway, and on the left, who think she was giving too much ground and either stayed home or voted third party. Any other Democratic candidate who tries that same strategy is going to lose just as badly.

When did she distance herself from BLM, SJWs, etc.? BLM are still associated with the Democrats in the US, as shown by Democrat politicians negative reaction to a memo suggesting they distance themselves from BLM.

Therefore every time BLM did something that didn't play well with the centre, Trump criticising it made him look more favourable and impacted adversely on Clinton's favourability.

Trying to go to the centre without throwing out the fringe, is not going to appeal to the centre, as the fringe are still associated with them, those elements need to be tossed and publicly so.

In the article I linked and from the responses of some posters here, instead of cutting ties with those divisive groups, people are advocating closer ties/bringing more under the umbrella and all that will do is drive moderates further away.

[jimboa24]

Riots and protests over this election...and people were worried about violence erupting from Trump supporters if he LOST. Somehow, I think that a lot of libs worrying about that were projecting, big time, because this sorry display is absolutely pathetic. People gave right-wingers shit for saying stupid shit like Obama is "not my president," and rightfully so. But it's nice to know that complete and total hypocrisy knows no party or ideology lines - it's something everyone will happily indulge in no matter what their politics!

These protesters are fucking children. What are they protesting? Reality? Didn't South Park publicly execute Reality already?

You know what would have happened if Trump lost? The same thing that happened in 2008 and 2012 - a lot of bitterness, anger and disappointment, but no fucking protests and no Goddamn riots. Liberals sure as shit can dish it when they're the ones who get to gloat, but they sure as fuck can't take it.

It makes sense, I guess, if you look at it from the perspective that the average age of the protesters out there are mid 20's to early thirties. Assuming most of them weren't of voting age when Kerry lost to Bush, then for the majority of them, Democrats haven't lost a single presidential election in their adult life and they quite simply don't know how to handle it. It just plain does not compute for them - Democrats are supposed to be the righteous do-gooders, the political good guys, and everyone knows the good guys aren't supposed to lose, right?

They've had more than eight years of left-wing dominance in the media, in colleges and in the presidency, and with this huge upset that wasn't supposed to happen (according to the mainstream media), well, considering all of that, they just don't know how to handle it. The only conclusion their fragile little minds can come to is that reality is wrong, and somehow, protesting Trump and his victory will make it all better. Cause of course, the "good guys" can't ever lose, right? Right, guys?

[Macaquerie]

When did she distance herself from BLM, SJWs, etc.? BLM are still associated with the Democrats in the US, as shown by Democrat politicians negative reaction to a memo suggesting they distance themselves from BLM.

Therefore every time BLM did something that didn't play well with the centre, Trump criticising it made him look more favourable and impacted adversely on Clinton's favourability.

Trying to go to the centre without throwing out the fringe, is not going to appeal to the centre, as the fringe are still associated with them, those elements need to be tossed and publicly so.

In the article I linked and from the responses of some posters here, instead of cutting ties with those divisive groups, people are advocating closer ties/bringing more under the umbrella and all that will do is drive moderates further away.

BLM/SJW are associated with Democrats because the kind of people who are always bringing up BLM/SJW as the root of all evil also tend to blame the Democratic party for being behind everything they don't like. In fact, the party itself always tried to distance itself from BLM for the exact reason of attracting more moderate white voters, and this arguably backfired on them, because all it did was alienate black voters who mostly stayed home on election day.

What you are advocating is that Clinton, who is already considered by any reasonable metric to be a center right candidate, move even further to the right so that Americans are essentially choosing between an establishment conservative and a lunatic wingnut, leaving progressives, activists, and feminists with nobody to speak for them in the election. And no matter how much you hate SJWs, if they are as numerous and influential as the internet leads me to believe, then they deserve candidates that will speak up for their interests, regardless of whether the other side approves or not.

[Gestopft]

[[CITATION NEEDED]]

Also, lol, defensive.

All the data you need

Just pointing out that your stereotype of the "millennial with the useless degree" is wrong, because people 10, 20, 30, and 40 years ago were choosing those same degrees at the same rate. You're not the first person to bring up that worn-out assumption- so I do enjoy dispelling incorrect narratives.

[Mayhem]

The Electorial College is one of several "fail safes" built into the system. Say voters elect a crazy person, another Hitler. The EC can exercise their right and not elect this Hitler like person. When the system was created democracy was untested so they put a lot of fail safes in.

So it´s a democracy by name only and people of that time didn´t knew about history and the past, gotcha.

Do you really think the US invented democracy?

So if the EC are a one of several "fail safes" what rules do apply to them? I mean, can they just decide who´s a crazy person? How are they voted into that position of power?

[jimboa24]

So it´s a democracy by name only and people of that time didn´t knew about history and the past, gotcha.

Do you really think the US invented democracy?

So if the EC are a one of several "fail safes" what rules do apply to them? I mean, can they just decide who´s a crazy person? How are they voted into that position of power?

It's a representative democracy, not a pure democracy. As in, the people vote, and their chosen representatives act according to their vote. It's not a foreign concept, and in fact it's one that's been around since the age of the Roman republic. It's also the same concept that our Congress is based on.

[Dentelan]

Just wanted you guys to see it, roflmao

[Kalis]

BLM/SJW are associated with Democrats because the kind of people who are always bringing up BLM/SJW as the root of all evil also tend to blame the Democratic party for being behind everything they don't like. In fact, the party itself always tried to distance itself from BLM for the exact reason of attracting more moderate white voters, and this arguably backfired on them, because all it did was alienate black voters who mostly stayed home on election day.

What you are advocating is that Clinton, who is already considered by any reasonable metric to be a center right candidate, move even further to the right so that Americans are essentially choosing between an establishment conservative and a lunatic wingnut, leaving progressives, activists, and feminists with nobody to speak for them in the election. And no matter how much you hate SJWs, if they are as numerous and influential as the internet leads me to believe, then they deserve candidates that will speak up for their interests, regardless of whether the other side approves or not.

Except they didn't try to distance themselves from BLM, Democrat politicians actively refused to do so, I linked an article earlier showing this.

SJWs are influential, they are not numerous though, one of the major issues is that their influence extends far beyond what their numbers should merit. The Democrats should throw those groups to the dogs and if those groups want their own representation, then they can make it themselves and battle it out with Gary Johnson and Jill Stein for irrelevancy.

[NED funded]

When did she distance herself from BLM, SJWs, etc.? BLM are still associated with the Democrats in the US, as shown by Democrat politicians negative reaction to a memo suggesting they distance themselves from BLM.

Therefore every time BLM did something that didn't play well with the centre, Trump criticising it made him look more favourable and impacted adversely on Clinton's favourability.

Trying to go to the centre without throwing out the fringe, is not going to appeal to the centre, as the fringe are still associated with them, those elements need to be tossed and publicly so.

In the article I linked and from the responses of some posters here, instead of cutting ties with those divisive groups, people are advocating closer ties/bringing more under the umbrella and all that will do is drive moderates further away.

But Clinton was barely criticized for not condemning BLM. She was heavily criticized for the shady stuff she did, the emails, the DNC hack, Podesta, etc. You are overstating the role of BLM and PC/SJW crowd in why the Dems failed. They failed because:

1) Hillary Clinton's baggage
2) Their message did not resonated with the working class.

[Macaquerie]

Except they didn't try to distance themselves from BLM, Democrat politicians actively refused to do so, I linked an article earlier showing this.

SJWs are influential, they are not numerous though, one of the major issues is that their influence extends far beyond what their numbers should merit. The Democrats should throw those groups to the dogs and if those groups want their own representation, then they can make it themselves and battle it out with Gary Johnson and Jill Stein for irrelevancy.

Who exactly would your version of the Democratic party actually represent? Republicans already own the upper crust and in this election completely dominated the working class white vote. You now want the Democrats to disclaim feminists, minority activists, and college campus liberals, so who the hell is going to vote for them?