U.S Presidential Election 2016 Not Otherwise Specified

[Paladin]

My only last thoughts are that we should all get out and vote even if you're in a state that's bluer than blue or redder than red. It's a privilege to be able to have a voice in the election, and there's a lot at stake. If obstacles have been put in your way, that's even more incentive to vote.

Hopefully the next time I post here, we'll have just elected our first female president, who despite her pantsuits and awkward laugh, is a supremely competent and dedicated public servant.

...I cannot believe that so many people can be so stupid and hate-filled.

You mean annoying cackle.

Dedicated - yes, to enriching herself & slick willy.

Not stupid and hate filled, just tired of the lies and corruption going on the over 24 years.

On the market - It closed at a near record high! so much for the financial disaster the the pundits were (wrongfully) espousing.

[Paladin]

OMG.............. Congratulations on a well conducted election in the USA! How is this possible.....?????
Hillary led before the election, did she not?
He reminds me a bit about the German "Führer des Dritten Reich" in the thirties, hope he is more reasonable than he sounds in the media ....

Quit with the NSDAP analogies.

It's a terrible fit, and is insulting to those of us who's relatives fought to destroy that evil regime, and those of us (myself included) who have sacrificed much in the recent fight against terrorism.

She only led in the bent / lopsided, erroneous pools which are deliberately bent towards the left.

[blackchubby38]

I know it's difficult to think of this when you think of Americans. But you think of 59 million people who supported him....but also think of the 59 million people who were very invested in seeing him lose (who donated money, went to his opponent's rallies, voted, and encouraged others to do so).

We have no idea what we're going to get...there is the hope that he's more moderate in using power than he was in attaining it...but that doesn't even sound convincing. And yes he was behind in the polls, but there was a group of voters, mainly rural, in the midwest, who issued a primal scream on election night. What they want I have no idea.

What they basically want are the manufacturing jobs that disappeared over the course of 30 years to return. In the order for that to happen, they're hoping Trump will put an end to globalism and fair trade.

They see how much the country has changed over the past 30 years when it comes to the color of people's skin and the impact that has had on what jobs are left and society as a whole. So they want Trump to put an end to illegal immigration.

They feel the failed Middle East policies of both Bush and Obama have made us less safe. So they want a stronger war on terror or for the United States to leave the Middle East all together.

They feel political correctness has run amok (this is actually one of the few things that I agree with) and its having a negative impact on the American. When it comes to fighting the war on terror, policing, and education.

They get angry every time there is a mass shooting and their 2nd Amendment rights come under constant attack.

They see the violent reaction of some members of the BLM as an attack on law enforcement. I can guarantee that was one of the reasons why Hillary lost North Carolina.

The other and I want to preface what I'm about say with this: I am against any forms of bathroom laws and I'm glad that outside pressure from various people and groups tried its best to get North Carolina to re-appeal the law.

Having said that, Trump supporters in North Carolina were galvanized by that outside pressure. They viewed it as economic blackmail. It didn't help that North Carolina was hit pretty hard by the Hurricane Matthew.

As you said, we have no idea what we are going to get. I still don't know what Trump's agenda is. Hopefully the Republicans in Congress who didn't trust him will keep him in check.

[hippifried]

All props to blackchubby38 for seeing through the punditry bullshit. I was convinced that they knew something. Anything. I was wrong. So were they.

Oh well. At least CA prop 60 went down in flames. So did Joe Arpaio. The world's toughest sheriff was up to his eyeballs in lawsuits & federal charges for being an asshole. Cost Maricopa County millions to defend the indefensible. Republicans are like boils. Get rid of one & a bigger one infects you.

[bluesoul]

so, was at a bar last night in the prague when the results came in. and today i read that trump is "considering" ben carson as education secretary (ha- that's a laugh).

can't wait to get back home and wallow in depression with everyone else, but in the mean time, i'm off to have sex

[filghy2]

One thing that has been overlooked in most of the commentary is that Clinton has actually received about 230,000 more votes in total than Trump. The seemingly decisive outcome is really just a product of the electoral college system and the geographical distribution of the votes. That obviously doesn't change the reality, but it does suggest that the idea that Americans have endorsed the Trump view of the world and rejected Clinton is complete nonsense (though non-college-educated whites clearly did so).

In reality, the USA is split almost 50/50 into two apparently irreconcilable camps, who even seem to get their 'facts' from different sources. I can't see how this augers well for the future of the country. History shows that countries tend to go into decline when they lose internal cohesion - that is, some level of agreement on shared values and rules of the game (and not viewing politics a 'winner take all' game where anything goes to advantage your own side). The idea that American can be made great again through half the country imposing it's view on the other half is a complete delusion.

[Stavros]

I was asked by a friend to give figures on voter turnout and have discovered that votes are still being counted (half of them in California) and while it won't change the make-up of the electoral college, it does not look like the voter turnout will go beyond 60% as it appears to be around 57%.
Although this is in the area most elections have been in since the 1980s with the exception of 2008 when turnout exceeded 60% this seems a poor showing for such a large and vibrant democracy.
And thoughts on this?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...t-clinton-won/

[filghy2]

The USA is certainly towards the lower end among the developing countries, even where voting is optional http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...ped-countries/

I don't claim to have done a proper study, but I suspect the countries with high turnout have generally done better on social cohesion, ensuring the gains are widely shared etc. Cause and effect could go either way, but I think there's a reasonable argument that higher turnout tends to moderate the influence of the extremes (who have more strongly-held views) and push politics towards the centre.

I'm actually from Australia, which has compulsory voting (and >90% turnout). Actually, it's compulsory to turn up at the polling station and have your name crossed off - what you do with the ballot paper after that is your own affair (though only about 5 per cent of voters fail to cast a valid vote). The fine for not doing so is only A$20, so the high turnout seem to be explained by things other than the financial incentive.

Voting certainly seems to be much easier in Australia. I've seen pictures of long queues at US elections, but have never had to wait more than 5 minutes here. It helps a lot that voting in Australia occurs on Saturday rather than a weekday. It also helps that we have an independent electoral commission whose tasks is to encourage people to vote, rather than using tactics to discourage voting by certain groups as a political weapon.

[Stavros]

A few thoughts on the US elections to add to my earlier post about voter turnout and Filhgy2's response above.

1) Would the US indeed, other liberal democracies benefit from a 'civic duty' approach to voting, as in Australia? But if there are already complaints that Americans are being denied the right to vote if they cannot produce a 'valid' ID which may require money to be spent on, say, a photo ID card which they cannot afford, why impose a financial penalty on them if they don't vote and also can't afford to pay the fine? On any given day, for a poor person, even $10 is more than they have. I think the 'civic duty' is a good idea, but it has flaws, particularly in the US where each State has its own rules.

2) Should the US change its polling day from Tuesday to Sunday, or voting on both Saturday and Sunday, to give people more time to vote when they have free time, to avoid lengthy queues, maybe even to increase voter participation? It is something I would like to see in the UK where we vote on a Thursday in May.

3) Should there be universal, ie Federal reform to restore voting rights to citizens who have been in prison? 'Felony disenfrachisement' means that more than 5 millions Americans are denied the vote, it may be as high as 1 in 40 people, and even if you think prisoners should be denied the vote, once released surely restoring their right to vote would help make them better citizens?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony...rent_practices

4) Are ballot papers in the US too big? Would it make it easier for people to choose the President if there was a separate ballot paper for the Presidency rather than one huge ballot paper with the names of all the candidates for county-state-Congress-Presidential offices? (I assume this is how it is done from the Ballot Papers I have seen).

5) Should the boundaries of Congressional Districts be the right of each State to determine, or should there be an independent, Federal Boundary Commission to do the job? This may go to the heart of 'State's Rights' but it appears that district boundaries are in desperate need of reform, though this may not be a high priority item for the Trump administration. And, crucially, would it result in a fairer distribution of votes and of representation?

[blackchubby38]

@Stavros:

1. My view on voter fraud has always been this. If it truly is a problem like Republicans say it is, then non-driver photo ids should be made available to the public free of charge. Or since many states' benefit cards have the person's photo on them, those should be accepted as a form of identification at the polling place. But at the same time, Democrats need start to realizing that saying that poor people can't afford non-drivers photo id is a flawed argument. Here in NYC, you can get a valid id that is good for 8 years at a reasonable price. That covers two presidential elections right there.

2. I do think the time has come for Election Day to either be made a national holiday or moved to a Saturday. Having said that, a change like that needs bipartisan support and can't be brought up every time the Democrats lose an election. It just comes off as being a sore loser. Or the very least Republicans need to lose a close election and let them bring it up. I think the same applies for the calls to get rid of the electoral college.

3. I think a lot of it depends on the crime. If its a non-violent felony, then I could see restoring a person's right to vote as a part of the rehabilitation process. If the person commits a violent crime and/or is a repeat offender, I think they're showing that they don't want be part of civilized society and they're forfeiting all the rights that come with it.

4. I think the paper ballots are fine. The choices for President are the first ones on the ballot. So isn't like people have to go looking for them at the bottom or the back.

5. That's definitely a states' right issue and it can be seen as the federal government overstepping its bounds.

But I think the most important thing the Democrats could have done to prevented the low voter turnout in the 2016 election was to make sure their candidate didn't take it for granted and just assumed they were going to win it. Among other things.