U.S. Presidential Election Day Megathread [Official]

[Spectral]

I don't know, I don't share the desire of some people to laugh at others for their mistakes. I see the appeal though.

Fair enough. I don't begrudge pollsters missing by 2 points. I do laugh at smug assholes that taunted people about victory prior to the election though.

[May90]

This was my reaction too. Having your side lose the election isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things - any voter is going to experience that plenty of times over the course of their lives. But man, what the fuck are the history books going to write about that idiotic generation that elected a goddamned reality show guy president?

I suppose this chapter in history books will be quite a read! Will Trump be mentioned in the same sentence, along with Caligula, Sulla and Duterte? Seriously though, I think he will just be mentioned as one more incompetent president leaving a mess for his successors to deal with. I hope...

[Spectral]

Hillary calling them deplorable is not what cost them the election. Their is a wealth of factors and very little of it has to do with calling those people what they are.

I said "one of the behaviors". I think there's good reason to believe that this among the reasons that she lost.

The main one is simply that she's the most unlikeable Democrat candidate ever and people couldn't much be bothered to show up to vote for her. That said, I'm fairly sure that repeatedly deriding her opponents as awful didn't help.

[jakeic]

paul ryan announced they are moving forward with removing medicare and forcing seniors to use private insurance instead after the repeal of obamacare

lots of seniors in my area were Trump supporters that use medicare and social security. they are about to get one hell of a shock.

LOL. Republicans are gifted a get out of jail free card, from the dumbest segment of the population (millennials), and now are promptly trying to shoot themselves in the head.

[Macaquerie]

Roughly the same things that they wrote about the generation that elected Reagan. It's kinda whatever historically. I don't like Reagan much as a President, but he's not that noteworthy.

If we're thinking about history, I'd be more concerned about the precedent of becoming more dynastic. Electing the spouse of a former President is weird. There's a tacit understanding that the First Lady (or Dude) has non-trivial influence, which runs afoul of the spirit of two terms and out. This is especially weird because Bill tried to give Hillary more than normal formal policy influence when he was in the White House.

Reagan is certainly noteworthy, or at the very least his administration was a distinctive era in American history with him as a symbolic figurehead of the culture of the times. Trump will likely have a similar role even if his actual policy influence is minimal, and that alone is enough to knock the country's prestige and reputation down several notches. The Chinese and Russians are already laughing at us over this result.

[Spectral]

i lol'd
But really, i made a decent argument on why Trump policies regarding minimum wage, deregulation and tax cuts are bad for the blue collar worker. it's (i think) a page or two behind

I find that plausible (more for some points than others - I'm not enthusiastic about high minimum wage, but I'm also not enthusiastic about tax cuts, but really, who gives a shit what I think?). I'm not really making an object level argument - keep in mind that I'm basically a centrist. My point is that reasonable people can disagree and that many non-stupid people do disagree.

[Thepersona]

I suppose this chapter in history books will be quite a read! Will Trump be mentioned in the same sentence, along with Caligula, Sulla and Duterte? Seriously though, I think he will just be mentioned as one more incompetent president leaving a mess for his successors to deal with. I hope...

i think that the book wil read a as this "after two terms of Bush junior, few believed that the US will be so dumb to elect someone that was even more umprepared for the job. boy they were so wrong"

I find that plausible (more for some points than others - I'm not enthusiastic about high minimum wage, but I'm also not enthusiastic about tax cuts, but really, who gives a shit what I think?). I'm not really making an object level argument - keep in mind that I'm basically a centrist. My point is that reasonable people can disagree and that many non-stupid people do disagree.

for me, minimum wage should be scaled with inflation at least,so their living standards doesnt get worse every year. with that alone, the min wage should be around 12 dollars/hour

[Glorious Leader]

I said "one of the behaviors". I think there's good reason to believe that this among the reasons that she lost.

The main one is simply that she's the most unlikeable Democrat candidate ever and people couldn't much be bothered to show up to vote for her. That said, I'm fairly sure that repeatedly deriding her opponents as awful didn't help.

She was a weak candidate and they've been smearing her for 20 odd years and she represents the establishment but those idiots who thought they were giving them the finger just voted for the same establishment albeit on the worse end of the spectrum. They are fucking stupid. Period. Full stop. End of fucking story.

[May90]

Roughly the same things that they wrote about the generation that elected Reagan. It's kinda whatever historically. I don't like Reagan much as a President, but he's not that noteworthy.

If we're thinking about history, I'd be more concerned about the precedent of becoming more dynastic. Electing the spouse of a former President is weird. There's a tacit understanding that the First Lady (or Dude) has non-trivial influence, which runs afoul of the spirit of two terms and out. This is especially weird because Bill tried to give Hillary more than normal formal policy influence when he was in the White House.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of politician dynasties either. Bushes, Clintons, Roosevelts... But then, it is probably natural, since strong politicians tend to raise strong politicians.

[Spectral]

Reagan is certainly noteworthy, or at the very least his administration was a distinctive era in American history with him as a symbolic figurehead of the culture of the times. Trump will likely have a similar role even if his actual policy influence is minimal, and that alone is enough to knock the country's prestige and reputation down several notches. The Chinese and Russians are already laughing at us over this result.

Could be, I don't want to guess too far ahead. My inclination is to think that the '80s-10s are a fairly unremarkable time in US history though. We have oddball President choices in a couple ways, but none have really done anything that weird by the standards of what people tend to give a shit about centuries later. Reagan matters now because he wasn't that long ago, but I doubt he'll be more significant than fairly random Presidents from the 1800s in the big scheme. I would guess (and hope) that Trump will be the same. Unless he really fucks up, of course. He's definitely the high variance option.

- - - Updated - - -

She was a weak candidate and they've been smearing her for 20 odd years and she represents the establishment but those idiots who thought they were giving them the finger just voted for the same establishment albeit on the worse end of the spectrum. They are fucking stupid. Period. Full stop. End of fucking story.

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to maintain the same level of smug certainty about the matter. Everything else is just kinda whatever.

On the bright side, I can be meta-smug.

[minteK917]

so europe wants to go back to 1930s era? yay! i hope that after another war that leaves them in the dust they'll finally learn that electing raving lunatics is not a good idea

Go to war with who? Europe goes to war with europe, but its not what this is about now. Its about the far right simply using the middle class that gets left behind to cleanse their country in Nationalism. Its not a war.

[Glorious Leader]

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to maintain the same level of smug certainty about the matter. Everything else is just kinda whatever.

On the bright side, I can be meta-smug.

Well yea because calling them deplorables was a non factor. Maybe those folks needed a safe space? I'm not sure but frankly it doesn't matter. On the scale of what they did that fucked up this campaign deplorables is so far at the fucking margin as to be non existent. In fact if you solve most of the other shit they did wrong deplorables goes away. I don't want to re litigate the primary but that's where you fucking start.

[Thepersona]

Go to war with who? Europe goes to war with europe, but its not what this is about now. Its about the far right simply using the middle class that gets left behind to cleanse their country in Nationalism. Its not a war.

yeah, but nationalism will get them to a nice war in the following years, and boy that would be epic. it's like humanity never learn from it's mistakes. really, this is like 1930s all over again, and i'm happy that i live thousands of kilometers away from the upcoming conflict.
that's why after a disaster of that proportions, the rest of humanity should learn, and shame every day, every hour the nationalists till they hide for ever

[Spectral]

Well yea because calling them deplorables was a non factor. Maybe those folks needed a safe space? I'm not sure but frankly it doesn't matter.

I don't think it's extraordinary claim that when you call people names with enough frequency, some of them will vote against your party out of spite. Maybe it is?

[Mormolyce]

Dude it really is funny. Honestly if you just think about it man. They seem to think or their voting would lead one to believe that they expect trade deals to be renegotiated in favor of labor with the house, senate and executive ALL DOMINATED BY REPUBLICANS. ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS AT THAT. Come on man if that isn't funny...

"I love the poorly educated!" Trump enthused in his Nevada caucus victory speech Tuesday

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...anics-20160224

- - - Updated - - -

Well yea because calling them deplorables was a non factor. Maybe those folks needed a safe space? I'm not sure but frankly it doesn't matter. On the scale of what they did that fucked up this campaign deplorables is so far at the fucking margin as to be non existent. In fact if you solve most of the other shit they did wrong deplorables goes away. I don't want to re litigate the primary but that's where you fucking start.

I love how after all the disgusting things Trump said, somehow "basket of deplorables" was an unacceptable trigger word.

[Deleted]

that woman!
oh yeah... i hope she doesnt win

Oh... why? She's a woman! You should support her.

[Glorious Leader]

I don't think it's extraordinary claim that when you call people names with enough frequency, some of them will vote against your party out of spite. Maybe it is?

Yes actually it is. People generally have very short memories especially in the 24/7 365 day a year news cycle. Especially in campaigns focused on NOTHING but scandals. The deplorables statement was made ONCE. ONCE.

[Thepersona]

Oh... why? She's a woman!

she's a raving lunatic lol!
and also, i dont want to go back to 1930s, its like a full cicle after a century

[Mormolyce]

The main one is simply that she's the most unlikeable Democrat candidate ever and people couldn't much be bothered to show up to vote

So your argument is that the Democrats lost the election because their candidate was so unlikeable people couldn't be bothered to show up to vote for her?

Now explain to me why Trump won the election when fewer people bothered to show up to vote for him.

[Glorious Leader]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...anics-20160224

- - - Updated - - -



I love how after all the disgusting things Trump said, somehow "basket of deplorables" was an unacceptable trigger word.

Right? Come the fuck on. How these people have the GAL to claim Hillary was the "bad" one.