Help! Electoral college?

[Clopin]

A minor quibble but since Canada has voter subsidies you should still vote even in safe ridings because your vote counts as a political donation to the party you support.

I was under the impression that the Harper administration had ended the pay-per-vote subsidies. Are there other subsidies beyond that? Or are they still active? I'm not totally up on it.

It's irrelevant to me even still because I dislike the conservative and liberal parties about equally (put a gun to my head and Harper was still my preferred candidate, even in 2015... and trust me, I hate him) and I think the NDP are absolute honking clowns who shouldn't have any seats in parliament whatsoever.

[prendrelemick]

Thank goodness for the electoral college system. Otherwise a Woman who used a private email server would've been elected. Think of the chaos then!

[YesNo]

What I found interesting about this election was not issues with the electoral college system, but why the polls were as wrong about the outcome as the Brexit polls. That is something that needs to be addressed. I suspect it has to do with the hostility of these two campaigns. People were afraid to admit to someone that they were voting for Trump or voting for Brexit. That assumes people are being directly asked who they are voting for either on the phone or in person. If they could have sensed they were anonymous I don't see how being afraid to admit who they were going to vote for would have mattered. However, I don't know how the polling was done.

Regarding the rural/urban issue it seems that it must have been changes in the urban population that allowed the upset to occur since there are more people there. I assume that counties with large populations that went for the Democrats still went for the Democrats but with smaller percentages.

I was looking at the two exit polls from 2012 and 2016 wondering if I could see in which demographics the shift occurred: 2012: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/res...ace/president/ and 2016: http://www.cnn.com/election/results A few areas stood out from a quick comparison.

In 2012 people aged 18-29 voted 60% for Democrats. This dropped to 55% in 2016.

In 2012, black and latino votes went 93% and 71% for Democrats. This dropped to 88% and 65% in 2016.

In 2012, people making less than $50,000 went 60% for Democrats. This dropped to 52% in 2016.

Although the Democrats won all these groups, they did so with a smaller base.

[Emil Miller]

What I found interesting about this election was not issues with the electoral college system, but why the polls were as wrong about the outcome as the Brexit polls. That is something that needs to be addressed. I suspect it has to do with the hostility of these two campaigns. People were afraid to admit to someone that they were voting for Trump or voting for Brexit. That assumes people are being directly asked who they are voting for either on the phone or in person. If they could have sensed they were anonymous I don't see how being afraid to admit who they were going to vote for would have mattered. However, I don't know how the polling was done.

Regarding the rural/urban issue it seems that it must have been changes in the urban population that allowed the upset to occur since there are more people there. I assume that counties with large populations that went for the Democrats still went for the Democrats but with smaller percentages.

I was looking at the two exit polls from 2012 and 2016 wondering if I could see in which demographics the shift occurred: 2012: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/res...ace/president/ and 2016: http://www.cnn.com/election/results A few areas stood out from a quick comparison.

In 2012 people aged 18-29 voted 60% for Democrats. This dropped to 55% in 2016.

In 2012, black and latino votes went 93% and 71% for Democrats. This dropped to 88% and 65% in 2016.

In 2012, people making less than $50,000 went 60% for Democrats. This dropped to 52% in 2016.

Although the Democrats won all these groups, they did so with a smaller base.

Basically, a lot of blacks voted in a black president: eight years later, whites had finally had enough of it and voted in a white president.

[Clopin]

What I found interesting about this election was not issues with the electoral college system, but why the polls were as wrong about the outcome as the Brexit polls.

Because they're liars, and they're manufacturing a narrative that they want to use to influence voters. The polls were fraudulently sampled in both cases; it's the only real explanation.

[Pompey Bum]

Basically, a lot of blacks voted in a black president: eight years later, whites had finally had enough of it and voted in a white president.

For some reason I've been a little skeptical about exit poll analysis lately. The "whitelash" argument has been floated by some democrats lately, but most conservatives I know are happy to watch the opposition go down on the Titanic of identity politics. My impression (anecdotally--it's just from having some family in the Midwest) is that Trump made economic promises to people who were suffering and who liked what they heard. Clinton told the same people they were doing better and that pissed them off. So much for hustling optimism.

[YesNo]

Basically, a lot of blacks voted in a black president: eight years later, whites had finally had enough of it and voted in a white president.

Both the Democratic and Republic candidates were white this time, so whites would get a white president regardless. Also the exit polls in 2012 showed whites splitting 39% to 59% for Democrat and Republican. That was a similar split this time 37% and 58%. The black voters did seem to move more from Democrat to Republican.

Because they're liars, and they're manufacturing a narrative that they want to use to influence voters. The polls were fraudulently sampled in both cases; it's the only real explanation.

I suspect some of that is going on, but I think the Democrats believed they were going to win based on polling so if it were all rigged they were only fooling themselves.

My impression (anecdotally--it's just from having some family in the Midwest) is that Trump made economic promises to people who were suffering and who liked what they heard. Clinton told the same people they were doing better and that pissed them off. So much for hustling optimism.

On various levels, the Democrats pissed off people this time around.

[Emil Miller]

It's true that both candidates were white, but for white voters Clinton was part of Obama's administration, so a vote for her meant a continuation of the discredited status quo.
If Clinton had been black, she would have won regardless.

[Clopin]

My impression (anecdotally--it's just from having some family in the Midwest) is that Trump made economic promises to people who were suffering and who liked what they heard. Clinton told the same people they were doing better and that pissed them off. So much for hustling optimism.

Indeed. Michael Moore actually accidentally made a pretty good piece of pro-Trump propaganda on this exact topic. If anyone hasn't seen it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY-CiPVo_NQ

Obviously Moore hates Trump and this video is edited from his speech, which ends with an elaboration on why a Trump presidency will be, more or less, the end of the world (lol).

[Pompey Bum]

Indeed. Michael Moore actually accidentally made a pretty good piece of pro-Trump propaganda on this exact topic. If anyone hasn't seen it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY-CiPVo_NQ

Obviously Moore hates Trump and this video is edited from his speech, which ends with an elaboration on why a Trump presidency will be, more or less, the end of the world (lol).

Thanks, Clopin. I hadn't seen that before, but I have heard post election interviews in which Moore says as much and more. I suspect he's the voice of one crying in the wilderness, and that the various self-interested factions of the Democratic Party are not going to abandon power without a messy intra-party fight. That will have to run its course, and who knows which side will prevail? But if the Democrats continue to alienate voters by racializing what has proved to be a politics of economics, they are not going to fare any better at midterms (not to think of 2020 for the moment). For now, the Democratic Party is decapitated in terms of leadership, and its spoiled children are running wild in the streets. Will the party learn from the stunning failure of self-righteous identity politics? The Republicans are sure hoping not. Revolution, man!

[YesNo]

It's true that both candidates were white, but for white voters Clinton was part of Obama's administration, so a vote for her meant a continuation of the discredited status quo.
If Clinton had been black, she would have won regardless.

Yes, there is the link with Obama, but also with her husband's administration. So maybe she's a mixture of something.

Hopefully Trump reopens the 911 investigation and releases those documents you mentioned in a different thread that are still unavailable to the public: http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/dona...on-if-elected/

[Emil Miller]

Yes, there is the link with Obama, but also with her husband's administration. So maybe she's a mixture of something.

Hopefully Trump reopens the 911 investigation and releases those documents you mentioned in a different thread that are still unavailable to the public: http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/dona...on-if-elected/

A couple of items from the above link includes :

CANADIAN MILITIA VOWS TO PROTECT BORDERS FROM ILLEGAL AMERICANS.

“It’s not just the rapists and the criminals, it’s also the liberals” explains Jerry Masborough, a 40-year-old militia veteran. “Those liberals, we don’t want anything to do with them. They will make our people weak, we don’t want none of them sissies corrupting our youth. We already got a wuss for a Prime Minister, we don’t need none of them Islam-loving, queer-embracing commies in our own country” he comments. “They can all burn in Hell for all I care” he adds.

I suppose that's what's known as plain speaking.




VOLUNTEER WORKERS GATHER NEAR MEXICAN BORDER TO START BUILDING WALL.

Thousands of Trump supporters have gathered in several cities along the Mexican border over the last two days, to start building a border wall between Mexico and the United States.
According to the various groups in charge of the project, more than $120 million have already been raised to pay for materials, and money keeps pouring in at an incredible speed.
“I’ve decided that I had to do my part, if we want America to be great again,” Mr Harris told NBC. “I bought $5 million worth of materials and came here with all my employees. I want to be able to tell my grandchildren that I funded and built a few miles of the wall myself.”

It seems that the once famous American 'get up and go' is about to make a return.

[Clopin]

All the idiots threatening to move should go on down to Mexico and finally experience their dream: a world without white people! I'm sure all those countries with a sub 10% white population are wondrous paradises of tolerance, freedom, and diversity! They'll probably really enjoy themselves there, once rid of the horrible, racist, monster society known as "white America".

[Pompey Bum]

CANADIAN MILITIA VOWS TO PROTECT BORDERS FROM ILLEGAL AMERICANS.

“It’s not just the rapists and the criminals, it’s also the liberals” explains Jerry Masborough, a 40-year-old militia veteran. “Those liberals, we don’t want anything to do with them. They will make our people weak, we don’t want none of them sissies corrupting our youth. We already got a wuss for a Prime Minister, we don’t need none of them Islam-loving, queer-embracing commies in our own country” he comments. “They can all burn in Hell for all I care” he adds.

I suppose that's what's known as plain speaking.

I think their real concern is Cher.

[Emil Miller]

I don't think Donald has has thought his wall project through because, no matter how high he builds it, the Mexicans will simply tunnel under it.