Agreed. They called it and had a better sense of what was going on that we were just not seeing or able to believe.

I know. But still the Psalms are filled with lament. For a reason.


Listen to Van Jones on CNN after it was obvious Trump was going to win. At least the Obama Administration's Justice Dept was taking on racist police forces - now even that is lost for them. And they are scared as to what will be done against the BLM movement that they strongly support and feel is necessary. All of them are scared. I think they have every right to be scared. And I'm not sure it's helpful to tell another racial minority that they shouldn't be scared when I don't face what they face.

Good illustration from Wisconsin of what went wrong for Hillary:
Milwaukee County
Obama 2012: 328,090 votes
Clinton 2016: 288,986 votes

Obama won my county (Sauk) 59-40 in 2012.
Hillary won my county by less than a percentage point. While not huge numbers in my county, it is reflective of Trump's appeal in the western part of the state that decides elections here.

Not sure if Hillary showing her face would've helped, but she probably would have stayed in the safe confines of Madison or Milwaukee. On the statewide level, Democrats have proven they can't win elections with lukewarm turnout in Madison/Milwaukee (Scott Walker, anybody?). That usually means that Western Wisconsin will go more Red than they normally do.

Clinton also got destroyed in Green Bay. Not surprising, but it's an area that a Democrat needs to be competitive.

Feingold getting absolutely destroyed by Ron Johnson was probably more shocking to me than Trump winning.

From outside the country I have to say this result was pretty terrifying. The view here is that we hope that Trump realizes he doesn't know much so he hires really smart people to run the government. Kinda like what Reagan did. The difference being Reagan was a kind person.

Is there a sense that electing Trump was a vote for fear? Fear in how the country is changing, how quickly world views are changing?

I have been meditating on Psalms 56 these past few months, for things that are happening at work and in my life. There is an answer when one cries out:

Whenever I am afraid,
I will trust in You.
In God (I will praise His word),
In God I have put my trust;
I will not fear.
What can flesh do to me?

That's the spin in my neck of the woods.

I often just jump into conversation and don't make it clear where I am coming from. Saw someone posted Clinton getting hammered in betting in this thread and I wanted to warn people. Said things that didn't make it clear why I was posting. Trump supports are not all assholes. Was trying to get people to get along better..... Media is corrupt. Tell you what makes them money or their agenda. For example, the horse that won the breeders cup. The race before he got a new jockey. Espn said the previous jockey was mad at not picking that horse after it won by a ton. I was reading a horse forum and guy mentioned how the jockey had to ride for different owner that race and he rather ride the winner for sure.That he knew it was a special horse. Told my uncle this, he said the newspaper also said the jockey was mad he made bad choice as he had his picks of horses. The jockey had an agreement with another owner and why he had to honor that agreement. Media just tries to sell things or slant things, can't even tell how trump is because of it. People weren't voting for Trump, they were voting against Clinton.

I think sometimes we need to be in Good Friday first for a while before we can think of the hopes of Easter. This would be one of those times. I have plenty of church friends posting Scripture on their Facebook walls, but abiding in the grief and pain and allowing Christ to be with us in that pain (the Theology of the Cross) is important too.

Yeah, I somewhat agree with this. I think the Dems learned a very painful lesson here about needing someone who energizes their base, not someone who is slightly less unpopular than the other candidate and campaigns almost exclusively on that fact. I couldn't really tell you many of Hilary's campaign positions, as much as I disagree with most of them I could definitely tell you Trump's. I don't think I saw a positive Hilary advert talking about her positions the entire campaign. Then she comes out with basket of deplorables and spends a decent chunk of the debates at Trump's level slinging insults back and forth, I can understand why she lost.

Well, I did listen to Van Jones. It was extremely dramatic. Van Jones is scared and telling other via CNN to be scared. People will believe it because Van Jones says it. There is no denying that TV people have generated much of our fears one way or the other. Mostly scary anti-right wing because they are vastly left-wing ideologues.

Anyway, back to the point, I don't see any plausible way where Trump is going to go all 1940's racist. It's a left-wing fearongering talking point, not reality. So tell your friends to relax. They will be fine.

I think the internal data and intelligence of both Trump and Clinton had told a different story, judging by where and how they campaigned in the last few weeks. My gut kept telling me that Trump was somehow going to pull it off. I can't say that it points to anything other than just a feeling that the polls were misleading, even in the Rust Belt. I don't know why, but Bernie's upset win over Hillary in the Michigan primary to me, was a telling sign at the time.

I agree with this 100%. Scare tactics are used by both sides this campaign.

No, it's what African-Americans around the country feel. It's not dramatic. It's based on how Trump spoke about the BLM movement. How Trump has spoken about cops shooting black people. So stop trying to tell black people how they should feel. Especially when they feel they are finally getting a voice in our society and then to find a President-elect who is completely against that voice being expressed or heard.

Apparently the Trump campaigns internal polling showed him losing Wisconsin and Michigan - they were telling networks early in the day that they expected 240 Electoral Votes. This was a complete surprise to them... maybe not the candidate himself, but to the campaign most definitely.

It's not a left-wing fear mongering talking point. It was words from Trump himself. He struck a bit of a conciliatory tone in his victory speech last night, but when he has basically spent the entire campaign talking about the danger of brown people, it's more than a little disingenuous to say now that he won, those same brown people "will be fine". Trump ran on a platform of division, so it's a reasonable reaction to be afraid of what his leadership will bring in that regard.

https://www.wired.com/2016/11/trump-polling-data/

Good article from Wired.

Just based on where this thread is going, what is going to be the left's equivalent of "The elite not listening to the common man" on the right?

The Trump campaign had been playing the long con all along. They were playing with house money, and there was no need to change the dialogue. It just so happened that they get to look really smart now, because that bluff worked.

Interesting. Almost like a "Moneyball" if you will of polling(ish) data. So while the internal polls showed a top limit, these analysts were saying we may still have a chance based on early voting numbers. And they did.

In other words running a political campaign?

Look, the problem with the all-or-nothing voting block called African-Americans is when their party loses they all feel they aren't having their voice heard. There is no escaping that truth. It's still a battle between Republicans and Democrats, remember that. It's simply not a battle between racists and non-racists. That's the fear-mongering that we have heard all along in the MSM. White people arent nearly as bad as you think.

As long as you agree with them and conform to their standards.

:party:

More than that I think. Yes, to an extent each candidate has to be over riding in their positivity to project success. But never has a candidate been so secretive with his own assets and public policy positions and been able to carry that all the way to the White House. Any other election the sheet is pulled away long before now and he's got to actually start putting his shit together. He never really had to here, all he kept saying was Trust me. That's it. He won on Trust Me.

For instance?

No. Sorry, you don't get it at all. Any other Republican would not have resulted in this fear. The fact that you can't see it indicates your massive blinders.

You could say this about any group (at least ones with strong positions on anything). To conservatives, liberals don't exactly seem like open-minded people that respect their values. People don't see the BLM movement as something that's tolerant to those who criticize it about anything.

I think it was a couple things.

1) I think we're seeing that a segment of the population felt ignored. These would be working class white folks. Parts of the country that have seen jobs leaving on a regular basis along with no action from government. The media has completely ignored them and when they speak up they're told to sit down and shut up because they aren't a minority.

So you have this group that is struggling while simultaneously being told they are priveleged. They are grasping for any kind of change. Clinton barely acknowledges them during her campaign. She's hosting concerts with Katy Perry and other Hollywood celebrties. On the other hand, Trump is going out there giving them some hope. He told them he'll get jobs back, that he'll punish the companies that are taking those jobs, and so on. Sure his plan could all be bullshit, but he's acting like he gives a shit which is something new. So they're going to latch on to that.

This was typically an area that Democrats did well in. Obama got 63% of the union vote in Ohio 4 years ago. Hillary got 46% this election. Hillary lost because poorer, working class people who typically voted heavily in the Democrat's favor decided not to show up or vote Trump instead.

2) I really think the outrage culture hurt the left. Years of the job lynch mobs roaming around trying to get people fired for an off-color joke or holding a differing political opinion. Seeing protests at colleges over Halloween costumes or cultural appropriation in the dining hall. Blocking busy roads at rush hour. Every time I saw one of these things I knew a chunk of the population saw it as an overreach. I feel like Trump is kind of a reaction to that.

One thing to also remember is Trump actually did slightly better percentage wise with African Americans and Hispanics than Romney did according the national exit poll from NBC News (6 to 8% for African Americans; 27% to 29% with Hispanics). I'm not saying this delivered anything, but the data and science behind the data is pretty interesting.

Hillary seems like she had a natural ceiling that reflected in the polls, where Trump, like during the primaries, didn't. One thing I also heard--can't remember--that Trump supporters, or at least voters, weren't as willing to engage in polling and even the exit polls as much.

It's an irrational fear stoked by charlatans profiting off faux activism.

All these people who are paralyzed with fear and some people internationally need to take a step back from the edge of the cliff. Most Americans who voted for Trump truly held their nose as they did so. Holding the irrational belief that Trump is going to act like a dictator now that he is in office doesn't give credit to the 300+ million rational people in this country that will keep him in check (or toss his ass out quickly) if he does so.

Much like the fear mongering that occurred when Obama was elected, most of this fear will simply amount to little more than needless worry.

I thought the celebrity concerts over the last few days were a really bad optics mood (and another thing that kind of had me worried that she was pulling in all of these people right at the end). One thing I think Democrats need to do is detach themselves from Hollywood in campaigning and messaging. Just do your job (music, act, ect.) and get out of my face with the holier-than-thou preaching.

Life Outside the Liberal Bubble

By J. D. VANCE

Good read.

They did it in Pennsylvania and North Carolina too. How out of touch can you be to hold concerts with Katy Perry and Lady Gaga in two blue collar states? Who are they trying to connect with?

I also do think this was a referendum on Obama's Presidency as well in addition to Hillary.

Choices of music, clothing, hair styles, baby names...

I'm not sure it was. I voted for Johnson because I couldn't stomach either candidate. With that said, and this even shocks me, I think I would have voted for Obama if he was running against Trump in this election. He is 10x the better candidate over Hillary IMO.

Obama is still at 55% in approval. I think the republican base rallied against Obama, but they were voting republican no matter what. Millions of people who voted for Obama did not feel the need to vote for Hillary. I think her campaign took certain voting blocks for granted (union members, African Americans, young people, states like Wisconsin and Michigan) and tried to keep hammering Trump instead of giving reasons to believe in her.

Yeah I think this was all about Democratic turnout.

Oh, okay.

@Thomkal

Your basement space is all ready and the games are all set up. We'll play to the end of eternity which should be by next week Thursday?

I generally liked Obama.

Right on again, IMO. Who ever would have had me agreeing 100% with Arlie in a political thread :p

I feel that dems might want to avoid doubling down on the "Trump only won because white male's are racist."

So, Hillary gets pardoned now for sure, right?

In fairness they are also saying white women are racist too now.

Yeah, I wouldn't doubt it. Can't wait until the list of pardons and commutations come out.

Jacobin had an interesting article and I wanted to highlight part of it:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/t...ocratic-party/

The basic idea being that the Democrats have been losing rural areas for a long while based on neo-liberal policies and Obama is popular now, but it wasn't all that long ago when he was under 50% and, as pointed out, the Democrats have lost a ton of lower level seats under Obama. It could be that his personal charisma is what is bolstering those numbers.

Jacobin, of course, suggests the Democrats go back to working-class politics. Basically strong pro-union, anti-trade - like Bernie Sanders.

Which makes me wonder if they'll take that advice and another party is going to be leaving me behind. Guess being an independent isn't all that lonely these days.

I still believe the Republican Party is the one with a massive overhaul. We may see it from within. This is an anomaly victory where establishment R's like myself joined forces with non-establishment R's to win. I wouldn't count on us being this unified forever.

This viewpoint tends to mirror an article I read last month that attempted to explain the appeal of Trump. In hindsight, it seems like it was pretty spot on with its assessment.

How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind

*shrug* that email thing was all a stunt, nothing more.

They'll just forget about her.

They never cared about emails. They just needed a negative talking point.

Hillary was -550 going into Tuesday, Trump was +375. I should've made some money.

That's pretty rich given the last 8 years of Executive Leadership.
I think we have all lived through the definition of divisiveness. Once the narrative started that Obama wasn't black enough, it seemed that he went out of his way, at every opportunity to ensure his legacy was never one of an Uncle Tom. Evan at the expense at times, in my opinion, of his own personal beliefs.

When a video surfaced from the Charlotte riots showing an uninvolved white teen being beaten for being white in a protest area, and Obama responds "You have to understand how oppressed african americans have felt" that is neither leadership nor inclusive.

Look I have stated here publicly I would vote for Obama over Trump. But that wasnt the election choice. To me this was a major swing and miss by the DNC. The republican party was as weak as it has been in my lifetime. It was cracking and in fighting threatening its very foundation. And the Dems run out likely the only candidate in existence that could galvanize the opposition in defiance. It is clearly one of the biggest political blunders of all time.

That said, I never thought there was any chance that Trump would be elected. I'm not crazy about the fact that I live in a country that Donald Trump will preside over. I am thankful, and said a prayer of thanks last night, that I will not be forced to face the choice of living in a country that HRC presided over.

Regardless of how you feel about Obama, dismissing any people of color's nervousness over a Trump presidency is highly cavalier.

And no other Republican would have won last night. He was the only one willing to say a lot of things that needed saying. And that's what brought people to the polls, the ones who were the tipping point between victory & defeat anyway.

Honestly, the BLM crowd/backers SHOULD be afraid today, their fifteen minutes is just about up ... IF Trump is the guy he portrayed himself to be.

And, really, maybe even if he isn't. A whole lot of Americans woke up today to realize that, by golly, maybe we can things around. Maybe, just maybe, that'll give them their balls back and a whole lot of foolishness will be coming to an abrupt halt. BLM, transbathrooms, "free" health care, "amnesty zones", it's a very very very long list.

Four years won't be enough to get everything done in D.C. but perhaps this is what emboldens citizens to stand up & finally say enough is enough, no more.

Are you putting off plans for that secluded island in the middle of nowhere? :)

And here is where I'll say that JIMG gets it (Trumpism in general) more than the others that responded to my quoted post.

That reminded me of something

Not if the right lottery numbers come in I'm not :)

The state wide races are fair game, but you can't look at legislature seats without mentioning redistricting. In several states where Dems do well statewide the GOP dominates the Congressional races because of redistricting in 2010.

The same author also wrote this article (a counter piece if you will), which was also spot on. The combination of two pieces together really paints a solid picture of the sentiment and it's one of the few times I truly thought someone got it, all of it.

I grew up in the midwest, small town, it wasn't like we had a lot in our town. I remember the first time I was in Williston back in the 80's. The first oil boom fizzled out and this town of a few thousand was essentially a ghost town. I don't recall any anger about it, it just was what it was. I don't remember a rural backlash at the loss of drilling jobs (although I was far to young to grasp such a thing). Still, even in the decades that followed that sentiment never came back up.

Williston was a sad, sad town. Many others like it in Western NoDak were the same, but that was the one that stuck with me.

IIRC, I saw that article via an FB friend around the time it came out. (I know I'd seen it previously, just not sure of the source). He missed a few things here & there as I recall but overall, yes, it's pretty darned good stuff.

0.5 and I'll take the under. To get that job you need to be someone who loves and spends a lot of time doing party things, and what's the.point of throwing away all that when the EV count isn't close?
Been saying this for months during the Dem.Primary thread, though singling out Millenials is a mistake because many blocs did not come out. Bernie is not the answer in 2020. I don't think Joe Biden is. Gillibrand would be the torchbearer if they want revenge for HRC, but maybe it's a Booker or Castro or even my dark horse Michelle Obama (though I think it's way too early for her.) But the Clinton machine setting things up for a coronation since 2008 has prevented the Democrats from having a real bench and nationally known candidates.
Disagree. This wasn't a repudiation of Democratic policies, just as it wasn't sexist opposition. It was a repudiation of a specific, incredibly polarizing candidate who has had the highest unfavorable ratings of any politician for 20+ years.
People said this when Bush got elected, and the flip side when Obama got elected. He gets 1 for sure, but SC justices hold on longer than people think, and there's a solid chance the Republicans lose at least one chamber in 2018.
Yep, keep blaming it on misogyny. It couldn't possibly be animus against a specific woman, or a failure of the Democratic party to understand what issues matter to "working class white people" or inspire their own base. Kristen Gillibrand, Michelle Obama, Nikki Haley, I can think of several women who would likely have won last night.
This is what I was saying to my liberal friends who think the sky will fall. Obamacare will be gone, NIH and EPA budgets will be cut, but the tea party are such basket cases and the House Republicans are so split I doubt they'll be proactively enacting much legislation, and there's a good chance of the chambers flipping in a Democratic wave in 2018. A united Republican government under a Trump presidency is probably the best bet the Democrats had of regaining House control for a decade.
I couldn't care less if political commentators show a personal agenda, but Wolf desperately trying to find more Dem votes in toss up states was an ongoing joke where I was last night. My favorite was when they were looking for an HRC path to victory if Hillary lost Wisconsin & Wolf said "Let's give North Carolina to Clinton too." and King just got completely flustered and flabbergasted. It's like no, that one's been called.

That's fair. But legislatures are responsible for redistricting. Losses in 2010 hurt them (and will continue to hurt them) the rest of the decade.

Regardless of anything else, one would be insane to think Kristen Gillibrand would have won last night. Maybe Representative Gillibrand (who would never have gotten out of the Primaries), but Senator Gillibrand is a completely different politician.

I haven't actually paid attention to her since Obama's election. What's she done poorly?

(I did forget to list Elizabeth Warren with Bernie as people who are definitely not the answer.)

EDIT - to save a little face, I do think this backs up my point some ;) I don't pay attention like I used to but I still check in from time to time, and you have someone who was a rising star in 2008 that has basically had no national attention since.

Also, I know nothing about her positions, but Tammy Duckworth is another woman who I could see in contention down the line.

A couple of things:

1. In October, I went on the site that matches you with a candidate based on a set of questions. I matched with Clinton over 90%. However, even with the high match, I was not voting for her because I didn't trust her to actually hold to those positions and I don't think she's a good person. I voted for Obama not because I agreed with everything he did, but because I thought he was a good family man and the kind of leader we needed at the time. And yes, him being African American helped a lot. I don't think there were enough people who felt Clinton was a good leader instead of felling she was just a better choice than Trump. You don't energize your people by just being the better of 2 bad choices. Trump at least had his fear machine moving his base.

2. Clinton's biggest mistake was trying to sling mud with Trump. She should've stayed on the high road more often and pushed her views as much as possible. I always heard that Trump didn't have a plan for this or that, but honestly, I never felt Clinton had one either.

3. I agree with what Ben and others have said. Trump's campaign, while negative and divisive, can end up being very good for the country. It really depends on how we as a nation build from here. Do we keep the conversations going to evoke changes and inclusion, or do we go back to pretending that people aren't afraid of and hate other people simply due to race, sexuality, gender, or insert difference here and sweep in back under the rug?

4. People in this country are very afraid of the way the world is changing. I understand it. They are afraid of being able to survive. For me, after 19 years of working in IT for my career, there's a massive change coming to move work to "the cloud." It's everywhere you look and every email about the future of the company mentions it. It's a scary thought that if I don't adjust, I could be passed by for advancement or even let go. I'm sure there are people where technology is making their jobs more and more obsolete who feel the same way. They are the ones that probably held their noses and voted for Trump.

It wasn't just about being racist or sexist or anything else. It was about that group feeling that Trump would change the way the country grows it's economy. The question is can he change the economy from growing with technology like it is now to growing with more "old school" jobs that are leaving the country. Making more products here in the US and diminishing trade with other countries can have a very bad impact on differentiation and overall cost of the products, which can also cause new business growth to stagnate. It's a problem of a transitioning economy that may not be solved until the older workforce is replaced by the more technical-savvy one that we're raising.

Edit: How did Clinton lose with White women? That's like Obama losing with African American men. I could see her losing them for a second term, but in the first term against a person who seemed to revel in sexually attacking women, has multiple rape charges pending, and basically did the same things Bill Clinton did, whom they hate? That would be an interesting study.

So what's the future for Hillary? Is her political career done for?

She doesn't have to smile anymore.

In the long run this could be good for Democrats. If the Trump presidency goes badly, they will be set up for a wave in 2018 and 2020, Just in time to influence redistricting

:eek:

I get it too. There are a lot of scary things about this. A lot. I don't think people should be dismissive of your or your friends/families fear even if I were a minority. You have a right to your fears.

I don't think Trump can end the BLM movement anymore than he can invent flying unicorns, but that is MY opinion. I hope everything goes well for you and your family.

Yes. I think Obama's biggest failure was the way they disengaged before 2010.

edit: If Trump doesn't dismantle NATO and our Pacific alliances, I expect 202 will be brutal for the GOP. If it was any other GOP candidate I probably would be fine today knowing that the next redistricting will be more likely to favor the Dems.

edit: or what Ryche said.

At the same time, 7 out of 10 people think the country is moving in the wrong direction. Don't these two things conflict a bit? I'm not sure how the read into these two things.

Of course, a 2020 Democratic wave is a big if at this point. Sounds great, but we can't predict things correctly the day of the election, much less 4 years out.

And Bill doesn't have to care anymore.

In the Gallup poll, since it began in 1981, the wrong track has led over 80% of the time.

Turns out Trump has less total votes than Romney and less white voters than him too. Makes pinning the loss on the DNC even more devastating.

Great read about all the times where Trump advisors said one thing and he did another.

Doggedness and Defiance: How Trump won | Fox News

source

And the next re-redistricting will slightly favor the Republicans (Texas will gain the most seats/votes, along with the southern states picking up most of the new seats/votes at the expense of the northern, more blue states).

Gillibrand basically went pretty left after becoming Senator. She'd quite easily be targeted by charges of flip flopping, which of course a lot of folks would be. But it seems like to beat Trump you needed to reach the old Reagan Democrats. And Gillibrand left that area as soon as she reached the Senate.

Also her husband is a venture capitalist... which would have played quite poorly. And before being a Congresswoman she was a big time attorney who was defense counsel for Phillip Morris (maybe not the worst thing in some of those areas).

One can, perhaps, argue that she is basically a younger Hillary Clinton clone without the Clinton baggage, but that also comes without as much experience (she entered Congress in 2006) while also seeming part of the establishment.

And as you stated, she hasn't really made much of a splash lately.

(in 4-8 years, who knows... but I imagine most in the Democratic Primaries will reject a Hillary mini-me)

Maggie Hassan leads Kelly Ayotte for the New Hampshire Senate seat by 716 votes out of over 730,000 cast. Presidential race is within 1,337 votes with Clinton ahead.

Trump is probably going to win Michigan with a 12,000 vote margin out of about 4.7 million votes cast.

McMullin pulling 21% of votes in Utah with 25% of the vote still to report... looks like he will finish 3rd there.

Gary Johnson didn't even make 10% in New Mexico.

Roy Cooper leads NC governor's race by under 5,000 votes with over 4.5 million votes cast.

Yeah even though Trump won NC, at least Roy Cooper is going to be the new governor.

There's usually a loss in the midterm for the president's party in congress. Happened to Clinton, W and Obama. In this election, People didn't shift from Obama to Trump - they just didn't vote. Democrats rely a great deal on traditional voting blocks that just don't vote as regularly as the old white republicans (young people, african americans, latinos,...). So, the candidate needs to inspire those people to get out and vote. Bill did that, Obama did that, but Hillary did not. As I said months ago, elections are about who people like more. Trump was fairly unlikable, but he had a more disciplined and dedicated voting block to pull from. Hillary was unlikable and had a very flaky voting block in certain areas.

Still, she had a chance if she would have tried harder to get the blue collar factory worker and the non-liberal white woman. But, her entire platform was on trying to scare people from voting against Trump instead of convincing them to vote for her. That's a tactic that gets a lot of "attaboys" from the liberal elite, but doesn't really swing a union guy in Wisconsin or a somewhat religious 30-year old wife in Michigan. In the end, she just didn't inspire young people to vote or make a strong effort to convince the stronger voting blocks (blue collar, women, disgruntled republicans) on why she was the better choice.

Apologies if this has been posted already.

231,556,622 eligible voters
46.9% did not vote

That's about the same as 2012.

edit:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php

Michelle Obama? I think we've learned thst people don't want relatives of former Presidents. They want something new. A younger version of Bernie or Biden is what they need. Those two would have beaten Trump. They wouldn't have gotten destroyed in the rust belt. Bernie could have offset Trumps outsider appeal.

I stand by what I said back in March:
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

I read through this and wondered if anyone looked at State of PA website during vote count. Was looking at Florida site and they seem couple minutes ahead. Then went to PA and they had Trump up 10k votes when cnn, fox site had him down 200k. Said 73 percent reported. But on PA site had 93 percent report. They were 45 minutes ahead for long time. Then suddenly cnn showed trump 2555000 aND hilary 2553000. 2k gap. But when pa site had trump at that total he was 40k above her. Just strange. Both ended with about 65k gap.

I blame that on Russian hackers.

Dems putting Clinton up lost Missouri a chance at a fair Dem Governor. Koster should have won. And he would have done right by the state. But the Dems throwing up the most unlikable candidate in history blew a lot of Dems chances.

We are stuck with an unknown in MO. But this guy may kill our state.

I'll toss in the same thing I point out every time Rasmussen (who does this topic to death) brings up the figure:

the problem is that 35% think it's becoming too liberal and 35% think it's becoming too conservative. The majority ain't happy but the reasons they're unhappy are completely different.

eligible by age (and criminal status, etc etc), or registered?

Okay, explain to me -- in 4th grade language if need be -- how these two stories can both be true.

Voter turnout (*in counties reported by 1am) up 4.7%
Voter turnout up 4.7% around the country

Voter turnout down to lowest level since 2004.
Voter turnout in 2016 looks low so far — and that may have helped Donald Trump - Vox

Assuming both are accurate, is the difference
a) registered voter percentage vs age-eligible percentage?
b) what happened after 1am?
c) something,uh, else?

D) Dead democrats started coming out of the grave to vote

Might happen in the House, but have you LOOKED at the Senate map?

Something like 75% of the seats up for re-election are held by Democrats. Making any Senate gains would essentially require a wave election that not only holds the Democratic seats in Republican territory, but also picks off the few Republican-held seats up for re-election.

Oh, and it would have to do that in a midterm election, for which Republican voters reliably show up and Democratic voters do not.

Good luck.

2008
Obama: 69,498,516
McCain: 59,948,323

2012
Obama: 65,915,795
Romney: 60,933,504

2016 (as of 1:31pm EST, Nov 9th)
Clinton: 59,602,634
Trump: 59,396,462

Hypothetically, would Trump concede knowing he won the popular but lost the electoral?

Sorry to revisit, but I think this is good reading for the discussion about minorities being scared (brings up the point that maybe not for him, but for who he'd put at Attorney General):

Fear is a totally rational reaction to the Donald Trump presidency - Vox