United States Presidential Election 2008 - Official Discussion Thread

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I love how you didn't actually make any arguments in this post.

I'm glad I'm making you experience feelings of love, I know these past few days would have been hard for a narcissist like yourself.

I mean, you didn't make any arguments either. I was commenting on how this behavior is wrong. You just say a bunch of stupid shit like it's somehow okay because people in power acted this way?

If we really took that "well people in power act this way so it's okay" thing to it's extremes this country would be in even worse shape. I mean, the Hilary Clinton campaign acted racist behind closed doors. Awesome, that would have been acceptable behavior for a Clinton win. Corruption on a massive scale would have been okay too, because reasons.

But it's time for me to shop bro. Keep those tears fresh for me.

Let me simplify this for you.

Trump calls for a "revolution" following Obama's victory -> you want him to be president, control nuclear codes

Mostly peaceful protests with a level of violence not much higher than in a sports celebration -> they're abhorrent protesters

You can keep trying to denigrate my intellect, as if you could have done well on the math Olympiad. But you're still not even close.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
For one thing, Trump was calling for people to do the same thing four years ago, on the grounds that he thought Obama was gonna lose the popular vote but win the election.

MORE LIBTARD LIES...oh wait, you're right.

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-twitter-obama-election-rigged-results-2016-10

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Let me simplify this for you.

Trump calls for a "revolution" following Obama's victory -> you want him to be president, control nuclear codes

Mostly peaceful protests with a level of violence not much higher than in a sports celebration -> they're abhorrent protesters

You can keep trying to denigrate my intellect, as if you could have done well on the math Olympiad. But you're still not even close.

Let me try to simplify this for you: I was talking about the behavior of protesters and their non peaceful protests.

The shit you just spewed doesn't negate that. Do you understand this? Yes or no?

I don't need denigrate your intelligence, you do it for me.

Originally posted by Surtur
Let me try to simplify this for you: I was talking about the behavior of protesters and their non peaceful protests.

The shit you just spewed doesn't negate that. Do you understand this? Yes or no?

I don't need denigrate your intelligence, you do it for me.

So what food did you get when you went grocery shopping?

Yes, I'm serious. Be specific, please.

Originally posted by Surtur
If they don't figure it out until it is too late for them then it just shows us both sides are way out of touch.

After all, this happened in the first place because one side of this was very very out of touch with the reality of the situation.

Clinton was leading by 2% going into election day, and she won the popular vote by that very margin. That is not out of touch, that is completely in line with the available data. What was unexpected is that she would lose the electoral vote, which was hard to predict based on a confluence of factors. When more people voted for the other candidate, they are hardly out of touch.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So what food did you get when you went grocery shopping?

Yes, I'm serious. Be specific, please.

I got me some pumpkin pie poptarts. Some eggs and other essentials. Some green grapes. Some gatorade.

But my prize possession is a Gino's East deep dish pizza. In fact I'm about to go have me a nice smoke while it cooks.

So keep Elminist posting because I'm going to have some killer dry mouth when I get back and I need to remedy that with his tears. They taste like liquid jolly ranchers.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Clinton was leading by 2% going into election day, and she won the popular vote by that very margin. That is not out of touch, that is completely in line with the available data. What was unexpected is that she would lose the electoral vote, which was hard to predict based on a confluence of factors. When more people voted for the other candidate, they are hardly out of touch.

We can fact check those...

Popular vote:

Clinton: 60,427,245
Trump: 60,071,650

Percentage difference: 1%

No, she did not win the popular vote by 2%...based on the current available data I obtained from here:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/2016-election-results/

And was she leading the polls by 2% leading into election day?

CBS says it was 4 points the day before the election day and even stated it was the same the week prior:

"With just one day left in the 2016 presidential race, Hillary Clinton holds a four-point lead over Donald Trump nationally, 45 percent to 41 percent -- similar to last week. Few voters say their minds could change."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-state-of-the-race-the-day-before-election-day/

Here, here is a poll roundup the day before the race and all but 2 had Clinton ahead by 3 or more and most had her ahead by 4:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/07/poll-roundup-clinton-has-edge-one-day-before-election/93414738/

Lastly, as that chart clearly shows, they were out of touch because they showed several states, which Trump won, as leaning towards Hillary. Those very same states destroyed Hillary's chance at winning the campaign. That seems very out of touch. What was out of touch was the polling methods used and the media who was clearly had a Hillary-leaning Bias. Research leading up to the election showed a shit ton of negative coverage for Trump and hardly any for Hillary. Clearly, the media and many political pundits were out of touch. The electorate, the ones who were sure Hillary would win, were also out of touch (that includes me). What was actually shocking was how many votes Trump got and how many states he won.

So where are you getting your false or misleading facts from?

Originally posted by Surtur
I got me some pumpkin pie poptarts. Some eggs and other essentials. Some green grapes. Some gatorade.

But my prize possession is a Gino's East deep dish pizza. In fact I'm about to go have me a nice smoke while it cooks.

So keep Elminist posting because I'm going to have some killer dry mouth when I get back and I need to remedy that with his tears. They taste like liquid jolly ranchers.

😆

The pizza sounds the most delicious.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Clinton was leading by 2% going into election day, and she won the popular vote by that very margin. That is not out of touch, that is completely in line with the available data. What was unexpected is that she would lose the electoral vote, which was hard to predict based on a confluence of factors. When more people voted for the other candidate, they are hardly out of touch.

Whatever way you want to spin it, everyone was wrong. On the radio someone said that pretty much none of the polls ever showed Clinton losing Wisconsin, for example.

Originally posted by dadudemon
😆

The pizza sounds the most delicious.

Indeed it is. They had the great idea to freeze some of their famous deep dish and sell it in stores. The deep dish I bought is tiny but thick and weighs 2 lbs.

http://www.ginoseast.com/

Plus in all seriousness, I'm not approving of this type of behavior from Trump. For some reason people seem to think I'm aware of everything the man has said during his time in the public eye, which is a thing that spans decades.

If Trump supporters did this if Hilary won, I'd call them on it too. But I wasn't really paying attention to shit Trump said or did 4 years ago. What he did in the past doesn't change what people are doing now. They are behaving in pretty much the exact same way they were afraid Trump supporters would.

Originally posted by Surtur
Whatever way you want to spin it, everyone was wrong. On the radio someone said that pretty much none of the polls ever showed Clinton losing Wisconsin, for example.

Individual state-wide polls do not have a lot of predictive value. That is why pollsters use poll averages.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Individual state-wide polls do not have a lot of predictive value. That is why pollsters use poll averages.

Given the fact it seems that a lot of younger people who are in college voted for Clinton, would it be a good strategy for the Democratic party to maybe get behind a much younger candidate?

It's possible that might have gotten more young people to come out and vote. I'd like to see someone under the age of 40 become president. From what I remember I think the minimum age is 35 if you want to run.

They need to start thinking outside the box.

Originally posted by Surtur
Given the fact it seems that a lot of younger people who are in college voted for Clinton, would it be a good strategy for the Democratic party to maybe get behind a much younger candidate?

It's possible that might have gotten more young people to come out and vote. I'd like to see someone under the age of 40 become president. From what I remember I think the minimum age is 35 if you want to run.

They need to start thinking outside the box.

If a lot of younger people voted for an older candidate, that is an argument for an older candidate, not a younger one.

Not that I think the age of the candidate is at issue here.

Voter turnout was down nationwide. Many voters probably thought it was a foregone conclusion Clinton would win, and did not vote.

Third party candidates split the progressive vote. In trying to differentiate himself from Clinton during the primaries, Sanders poisoned his supporters against her with innuendo.

Third parties interfered with the election. From the cyber warfare division of the Russian government colluding with Julian Assange; to Trump supporters within the New York bureau of the FBI influencing the election for the Trump campaign; to a complicit media that was too afraid of accusations of bias, or so lazy it created a false equivalency narrative, the Clinton campaign was damaged in a way from which it was difficult to recover.

I do not think the problem with the Democratic party is its choice of candidates, it is its inability to successfully campaign. Democrats have won the popular vote in the last seven election cycles, but only won the office in four. That says that the problem is not that Democrats do not pick candidates the people want, it is that they are not navigating the system successfully enough to secure a win.

They picked Clinton, of course their choice of candidates is part of the problem.

Originally posted by Surtur
Let me try to simplify this for you: I was talking about the behavior of protesters and their non peaceful protests.

Yeah, I know. And you think that you can just isolate this criticism from everyone else that these people can be compared to. It doesn't work that way. I've already had several friends who've been actively harassed and bullied for either being Muslim or of a minority descent, and this is in a state pretty far from Trump's base. But what do we hear from you about this? Crickets.

You complain so f*cking much about SJW's, but the recent spike in hate crimes following Trump's victory kind of proves them right.

Yeah, yeah, violent protests are bad - we get that. I'd also love to see how many actual reported instances of violence there have been, and whether the proportion is greater than what you'd find in, say, a sports or new years celebration. Somehow I doubt that you'll even respond to this part of my post.

The shit you just spewed doesn't negate that. Do you understand this? Yes or no?

The fact that you're excited about a president who plans to gut all of this nation's climate change combating efforts, deport millions of children of undocumented immigrants, and reign in even legal immigration is enough to understand about you.

I don't need denigrate your intelligence, you do it for me.

Sick burn.

How was he supposed to comment about what happened to your friends, when he's never met them or even knew that it happened?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
You complain so f*cking much about SJW's, but the recent spike in hate crimes following Trump's victory kind of proves them right.

How so? Out of maybe dozens or hundreds of bad people acting out, there are hundreds of millions still left who haven't. So why is it appropriate to consider this to be a Social Justice issue worthy of attention beyond local law enforcement and local lawyers?

I could understand if this was 1967, though. We'd need literal social justice warriors to come help move tens of millions of humans along to more civility.

Originally posted by Silent Master
How was he supposed to comment about what happened to your friends, when he's never met them or even knew that it happened?

Obviously the friends are anecdotal cases of the broader trend of hate crimes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
How so?

While I don't have hard data yet, the proportion of people I know who've gone through this in just the past few days is high enough for me to think that this isn't just a series of isolated cases.

Out of maybe dozens or hundreds of bad people acting out, there are hundreds of millions still left who haven't.

You could say the same thing about Muslims, undocumented immigrants, etc.

But in this case, you don't need a large minority to act like this; given how many people you pass in a given day, you just need one.

So why is it appropriate to consider this to be a Social Justice issue worthy of attention beyond local law enforcement and local lawyers?

Because you're kind of assuming that this type of harassment is something that a small fraction of people experience like once in their lifetime.

I could understand if this was 1967, though. We'd need literal social justice warriors to come help move tens of millions of humans along to more civility.

It's not 1967 anymore; the Left changed things, and in the response the modern Republican party literally branded itself as the party of the white man.