That's not at all what happened and you know it. Gore took a month because he was asking for recounts in a state that would've put him ahead in the electoral college.

What is the legal significance of someone not currently in office refusing to concede? It's not like he'd be able to break into the White House and start doing stuff. Unless he had the military on his side, I guess. Or does the law require a concession for election results to count?

It does not. The votes are counted, certified, and the elector slate for the winner is empowered to vote in the Electoral College.

Neither Clinton nor Trump have any legal duty to concede. It's political tradition meant to restore "unity" after an election.

Mercy no. The legalities are all about the individual states certifying their election results afaik. Once that's done, then the electoral college process rolls along.

from archives.gov

HRC,Trump, and/or John Q.Public can stomp their foot or hold their breath til they turn blue, it has no bearing on the process at all that I can see.

If someone truly thinks that who the elected President is has one iota of influence on the actions of a local police officer in small town USA, I'm just not sure that any rational thought experiment is going to be worth engaging in. I mean the entire premise of BLM is that LEOs have been unfairly treating minorities under the Obama administration. Do we seriously think they are going to start handing out "colored hunting permits" like segregationist south did in the 60s?

I know 2 good friends who listed their small businesses for sale with b2b brokers within a week of Obama being elected. I called them ridiculous and drama queens at the time. I think the same applies here.

Yes, because the Administration has absolutely no impact on local Law Enforcement Agencies... oh wait...

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...ice-department

I think that

** First woman president is not even as close to as big of a deal to women as a whole, compared to first black president to African-americans as a whole
** White women tend to be more conservative, making Hillary less acceptable to them.

So you basically think that Trump is going to close down the Civil Rights Division of the US DoJ? A division that has been in place since 1957? That would be a pretty bold move in this political climate.

I think people are making Trump out to be a much bigger boogeyman than he can be (or would choose to be).

On a policies basis I agree, I don't think Trump is going to be nearly as bad as people think.

My issue comes from a situation I experienced two weeks ago. At a gas station, a "gentleman" next to me went inside to tell the Indian owner his pump wasn't working. The owner tried fixing it but then he couldn't get it to work so he suggested the guy move to a different pump. The guy's reaction was livid "Give me this gas for free then, can't even do your jobs, can't wait for Trump to take care of y'all after the election."

Those people feel empowered now. That's what frightens me personally. My every day life got a little more uncomfortable.

I see Colin Kaepernick thinks it doesn't matter who the president is, and in fact, didn't vote. If he's one of the faces of his movement, I guess that's a small representation of Clinton's poor turnout. But I do wonder what the gameplan is for change then, if it doesn't matter who's in office (either the presidency, or state and local offices). It's a message that is emboldening rural white conservative people, and getting them to the polls, but its discouraging minorities from doing the same. That's not good.

Neuqua, All I can say is those people are going to extremely let down with Trump a year into his presidency (that is, if they even follow how he acts on the issues they are excited about him impacting).

Totally agree on the first point. The second one surprises me a lot. Is that due to White women being conservative in views overall or conservative in views towards a woman running the country successfully?

One does not have to shut down a division as opposed to determining its priorities. I don't think people realize just how much a government agency can change its mission and focus depending on who is the President and Cabinet Secretary. I work for the Department of Labor - our focus is far different now than it was 10 years ago in the Bush Administration (and not just because of Obamacare, though it did have a major major impact).

I agree, but if you think that suddenly the Civil Right division of the DoJ won't investigate situations like the one in Baltimore under Trump, I think you are grossly underestimating the public pressure that will be on them. With Trump in charge, groups will have press releases ready to go before any event happens and ready to pounce if he even blinks publicly. The angst Comey was under in the Clinton investigation would be a tea party compared to what the DoJ would face if they drop the ball on this issue.

Here's an interesting take on the polls by 538:
The Polls Missed Trump. We Asked Pollsters Why. | FiveThirtyEight
There's some irony here if this were the case. Essentially the "media shaming" done against Trump voters may have caused many to either not be honest or even answer at all polling questions. Which, in turn, caused many to be overconfident on Tuesday. I'm not sure I buy it as I think there just wasn't the turnout many forecasted for Hillary, but this answer isn't something I had really considered. That's why I like this answer the best:
It's not cheap to really figure out turnout and the correct sampling rate in each precinct. I'm guessing a lot of pollsters joined the group think and didn't do as much scientific polling as they made it seem.

Well, stereotyping is a bad thing and I want to try to avoid that as much as possible. There are different individuals within each group, I'm not trying to make a racial statement, etc.

Having said that, whites are in general more conservative in their views overall. Historically, Hillary's negatives have been(I can't source this, but I recall reading data on it) actually quite high among women -- they basically either love her or hate her type of thing. There is some of it due to religious views about a woman being in charge, but most is a combination of general conservativism and blowback on Hillary specifically over things that have been part of her career. This is purely anecdotal, and I don't want to get sidetracked on a different issue, but by far the most ardent, uncompromising abortion opponents I have ever met have been women. There can be a mindset that basically looks at women who don't do what they think a woman should as 'betraying their gender'; similar to an aggressively feminist woman, but coming from the other side. Some are the SAHM crowd but it goes deeper than that. The ones who don't like Hillary aren't ambivalent about it. They REALLY, REALLY don't like her. Some of the most pro-Trump, anti-Hillary people I've known over the past year have fit into this kind of category. I expected more of them to favor her than did, but figured it was just the relatively limited circle of people I know. Perhaps it's a broader phenomenon.

That's probably about as much as I can usefully say on the subject.

On the other hand of the anecdotal stuff, I knew 2 male nevertrumpers that either went HRC or Johnson (1 each). I knew at least 15-20 female nevertrumpers, nearly all changed parties & voted for Hilary, several voting D for the first time in their lives.

You think a Guiliani DoJ is going to care about the public pressure? Or will focus on the same things that a Lynch DoJ would have (a lot of the points of focus come down from the top and can get pretty interestingly specific)?

Heck, a bunch of Trump's voters would love it if Guiliani told those protesters that they can go fuck themselves and the cops did things right (esp since, for instance, the stop, searches, and frisks that the DoJ cited in Baltimore are things that Guiliani believes dropped crime in New York City).

Makes sense. Knew she was disliked, but never expected it in that context. Kinda makes it impossible for a woman to win anytime soon. Unfortunate, but not surprising.

Anything less & a lot of Trump voters will be very disappointed.

A properly focused DoJ that has some credibility would be a wonderful thing to see for the first time in a long time.

Do Trump voters really care about crime in black areas?

You could certainly make the argument that the hard line literalists, like JiMGA, care more than most of the residents of those areas.

I would think they care as much about crime in black areas as blacks care abut crime in the Kuntry.

That being said, I think the vast majority of Americans would rather see crime reduced everywhere.

My take, women as a whole care more about someone getting the job done rather than the person's demographics being right.

My wife voted for Trump, and she does not typically talk politics. I asked her why, I thought she might lean towards Hillary, especially after Trump's comments about women. She did not feel Hillary ever succeeded at anything. The email flap showed, if nothing criminal, an utter lack of judgement. She was also unhappy about Obamacare and hopes Trump will get it repealed. Hillary being a woman did not enter into her decision process at all.

Was listening to pollster from Trafalgar group who predicted PA and MI to Trump, and he said they found the hidden Trump voters by asking who someone was voting for, if they were undecided or not Trump, they would ask who their neighbors were supporting. Most of these would then answer Trump. Taking these into account as Trump supporters provided the hidden Trump supporters.

This fallacy that people in redlined neighborhoods don't care about crime is a bold faced lie.

I passed on a Giuliani/nationwide stop and frisk joke this morning, probably should have gone ahead.

Legitimate question for the Clinton supporters out there, how do you view a Trump supporter?

I ask because I travel the East Coast from Virginia to Maine selling wastewater equipment. Many of the people I meet are either industrial workers, or government employees that work at the wastewater treatment plants. Most of these guys are your classic blue collar union worker. They by and large voted for Trump not because of Mexicans, not because of Obamacare, but because of jobs. Many of their family members work in factories, and they are afraid that the jobs are going to go away. In PA, they were worried about jobs going away due to the energy policy being pursued by left.

These same people felt that the party elites, for both sides, were not in it for them, but for their own gain. They felt Trump actually did care about them, and being a businessman, might institute a plan to bring jobs back to America. Additionally, any questions about taxes paid by Trump did not matter to them. They want to pay as little tax as possible themselves and felt that if there were laws to take advantage of, why not, and he might even try to close some of the same loopholes he was exploiting. Also, since Trump was not indebted to any current government officials he might actually try to get stuff done, rather than take care of buddies.

The whole xenophobic Neanderthal stereotype the media has portrayed is just wrong in my experience, not to say it is not out there, because there were a few that were extreme, but most just wanted there to be better opportunities for their friends and family to make a living.

Anecdotal after speaking to a couple women, middle aged and up, white, one was pretty senior professional - believed Trump/Republican would do a better job of protecting the country, didn't trust Hillary.

It wasn't about Obama, abortion position, ACA, wars etc.

I live in the South and Trump won it. I have white collar, professional male colleagues who make good money, well educated etc. that voted Trump.

There certainly exist a group of xenophobic, Neanderthal Trump supporters but there is definitely more than that supporting Trump. For my male colleagues it was a mistrust of Dems/Clintons

Most of the Trump supporters I know work blue-collar jobs and were the kids who weren't exactly the best in school. I don't know that they are xenophobic, but they are white and grew up in a very white setting.

You mean, like the butler and the gardner?

So left-wingers were all about the "Trump won't accept the results" yet....here they are...

Thousands protest Trump victory across nation - CBS News

Not accepting the results.

I grew up in the reddest of the red part of rural Ohio. A LOT of my friends voted for Trump. This is my guess on motivation by order of importance:

1. Manufacturing jobs
2. Religion - Abortion, basically
3. Dislike of the Clintons

Most would have supported any Republican but I think Trump addressing trade concerns definitely improved his margin of victory. The area has been hit hard by the loss of manufacturing jobs and I do think they're voting for their best interests by supporting Trump. It's a long shot but I don't see anyone else throwing them a lifeline.

I saw a piece on BBC (I think) that was interviewing some cattle ranchers in Texas, and to them the crucial issue was immigration. They'd had people from both sides of the border die on their land, and to them all of the stuff that sounds like delusional racist ranting to me is very real. One of the crusty old dudes answered the question of how he could reconcile voting for Trump and he said that all he cared about was the border and that "Trump might do something about it, but Hillary was certain to do nothing". For whatever reason, that explanation stuck with me and broke through my confusion about Trump voters (despite hearing hundreds of variations of pretty much the same reasoning). Although the Dems/media wanted to make this race hinge on personality and "presidential fitness" I think most conservative voters have some crucial issue that they absolutely know Clinton will ignore, but Trump might not, and that was enough to make them look past literally any personal problems.

You'd think they would listen to Obama and just try to accept it already.

I wonder how many of these protesters voted. And what are they protesting? The concept of elections?

Stop & Frisk was ruled unconstitutional.If you don't like how your police department handles things, get out and vote.

I thought Hillary ran a terrible campaign. It focused almost exclusively on bad things Trump said. The problem with that is people decided long ago whether that stuff bothered them or not.

Obama's campaign in the Rust Belt actually talked to voters about issues they care about. Here are some ads that Obama ran in Ohio.

Brian from Ohio - Obama for America 2012 Television Ad - YouTube
Made in Ohio - Obama for America TV Ad - YouTube

Now here is what Hillary was running.

"Roar" —hillary clinton and Katy Perry nostalgic ad and hit song. - YouTube

What the fuck is that?

Jim Gardner?

Trying to figure out where the witticism is supposed to be here.

I mean, like the guy who sells concrete or the guy who works on a road crew or the guy who (like my dad did) works construction. Grew up in white, working-class suburbs and basically stayed there.

Has Kapernut taken a knee with them yet?

My thoughts exactly and I for one did not vote for Trump

As a rule I'd say Trump voters oppose property crime & drug crime pretty much anywhere & everywhere. It never seems to just stay put (as my old hometown is currently figuring out)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Just change the judges!

I live Georgia, and know many Trump supporters. The majority of them were voting because Hillary was going to take their guns and let ISIS refugees in to the country. I spoke with one girl (who actually had no idea what the electoral college is) that felt as a woman she should have the right to defend herself with her guns. I reminded her that Obama has not come for guns, Bill Clinton did not come for her guns, and Hillary was unlikely. She then told me that she just did not trust Hillary being a career politician.

I only spoke to one who mentioned jobs or the economy, but reminded that him that he was on social security, owned his house and 2 cars, and seemed to be doing ok. He commented that he wanted less money spent on Syrian refugees and the savings could go to his cost-of-living increase for social security. Most just seemed concerned with guns, abortion, and terrorism...ironically 3 things that haven't changed in decades and won't change.

The concept of elections they lose.

My personal experience is that the people I know who voted for Trump are the people who share blatantly false fearmongering memes from conservative groups on facebook and believe them blindly. They literally think its a miracle of god that the country still exists after 8 years of Obama.

I don't think there are enough people out there like this to make up 49% of the nation to win an election, but if I personally know any Trump supporters amongst my high tech, intelligent, rational friends/coworkers/gaming groups, they aren't speaking up. And fair enough, I wouldn't blame them for not doing so.

I'm really not in circles where I deal with a lot of blue collar folks, so, that's what I see.


My sister doesn't pay attention to politics. She's not eductated past high school, she manages a Dominos and is looking at driving trucks as a way to advance into a higher pay grade. We don't talk politics unless she asks me about something she saw on facebook. But I knew she got really excited about voting for Obama in 2008 so I suggested Monday night that North Carolina is very close and if she had time before work Tuesday she might consider voting. She said ok and that she'll probably vote Trump. I asked why, and she said because she's been told that if Hillary wins she will lose the right to carry her legal, licensed handgun by the end of Hillary's first year.

I have a great aunt on facebook who posted "THIS IS FOR BENGHAZI" after the results were in. There were many responses containing bible verses.

That's my personal exposure to Trump supporters. I know its not all Trump supporters. The cracked article posted a few pages ago that was rural vs urban perspective was a very good read, I'm very glad that was posted.

While I empathize with this plight and agree that somebody should do something to combat this, I find it a little ironic that the small-government, states rights folks consider this to be a federal issue that they need federal funds and resources for (meanwhile in Arlington, the Texas Rangers need $1.675 billion for a new stadium. Priorities!)

Sorry, uncovering America's racist underbelly wasn't why Trump won.

This seems to jibe well with what some of you have said here already. Ignore the working class/lower middle class and you'll get a surprise when someone speaks to their concerns.

No, but Michael Moore has! Calling for never ending "resistance" until Trump is removed. Not sure if he's suggesting assassination or not.

Protests Flare Against Donald Trump's Election | Huffington Post

The Trump supporters I know are a little bit of each. They discuss jobs and regulations. However, they were also more than ok voting for someone who was brazenly racist and xenophobic if he mentioned he was against NAFTA and would bring the jobs back (but how?). They also tended to be very much against Obama and thought the country was in terrible shape (one of the Trump supporters I know is the father of a friend of mine - him and his wife cried on their couch when Romney lost to Obama because they feel Obama was ruining the country that much). I wouldn't say they were racist per se, but they definitely said some racially suspect stuff at times (isolated) and sexist stuff (a little less isolated) and took all the racism and xenophobia in stride and didn't think it was a big deal.

The question is: Does the average citizen care much about crime in places other than where they live?

I would hope that overall everyone would like to hear that crime is down everywhere but what I care about the most is that crime is down where I live and where my friends and family live. I suspect that is generally everyone's basic take on the issue.

I agree.

How is national border security a state's issue though?

Or, alternately, stay the hell out of the way of states & citizens that have tried to deal with it but encountered federal interference.

I'll give Michael Moore credit, he called this result months ago. Much more in tune with what working class people are thinking than the DNC.

You need to get out more. I know plenty of white folks (if you can believe that!) and none of them were huddled up on their couch crying when Obama was elected. Hahaha! You are so dramatic, ISiddiqui. :)

Meanwhile: Crisis Help Lines Have Been Inundated Following The Election | Huffington Post

Oh, I think the border should be a federal issue. This is more just a dig at the "we're big and bad and don't need anybody and could be our own country if we want to because TEXAS ! YEEHAH!" attitude, vs hey, feds? little help here! (Or the "leave us alone to our own devices! (except in the case of funding for projects or natural disasters)" attitude some states give off.)

I'm not entirely sure if you are being sarcastic here or not. This person LITERALLY did that. I know THIS PERSON.

Cry, no -- but they bitched about it for eight years, and questioned the legitimacy of it for at least half.

I was gonna have to back you up on this. I know several people who were in tears, both rounds. Some for days.

Just keep the feds out of the way & let the states & citizens handle it, that works fine for me. But pro rata reduce the taxes going to Washington accordingly.

Do the job or stop sending bills,either or.

And lets be honest - these days people are so invested in their candidates and against the opponent, I'd be shocked if a good number of people weren't in tears after Presidential elections if their candidate lost.

Come on. You were(are?) a tea party supporter. How is this any different?

Besides, there is quite a difference between supporters protesting the accepted results (Clinton has conceded) and the candidates' themselves refusing the accept the results.

I don't recall even having an opinion of the tea party other than perhaps as a counter to left-wing rhetoric.

In any event...How are the liberal protests, the calls for resistance, the chants of "Fuck Donald Trump" and "Not My President" different than 8 years ago under similar circumstances? Vastly different, I'd say.



Ahhh...here are my "substantial" references to the tea-party.

The Tea Party actually went out and voted.

And they protested in between.

And this is different from GWB how?

Among several thoughts I had today there's at least one I'm gonna share.

A lot is made of -- and I suspect the most-written about aspect of this election might eventually be -- "how the heck did he break so many 'rules' and succeed".

I think what Trump did for many voters was remind them of who Americans are,and how Americans ultimately behave. Our very origin is in rebellion, and particularly in being the one who faces whatever enemy confronts us with a sneer & a middle finger. And to a large extent, I think that's what Trump played on,he reminded a lot of people of the best of us.

I thought about General Anthony McAuliiffe, acting commander at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge. Those who remember the story are nodding already most likely. Encircled & outnumbered, the Americans received surrender terms from the Germans. McAuliffe's legendary answer was one word: "Nuts" A subordinate (reportedly) eventually translated that to the confused German by telling him it meant "go to hell" (or stronger,depending upon the version you've heard).

THAT is the American way,the American spirit. Somehow,some way, I believe Trump really gets that. And he played on it,hard. He knew, somehow, it would work and it did. It's not what he said, it's the attitude he brought along when he said it. And that resonated.

Fair point.

You mean, Al Gore?

His campaign slogan also resonated with these same voters. While I didn't get it at first, for those that are not optimistic or are uncertain, it is a show of confidence. We can be great again. We can be exceptional. Which is something we have not heard for the last 8 years.

I'll add another nuance to that slogan too: we deserve to be great again.

That's also a far cry from the message of recent years.

What are these idiots protesting? It's over, deal with it. It's like a 5 year old that didn't get their way.

This has been weirding me out too. Because I'd love the narrative to be that Trump didn't reach any new voting bloc or receive more support, it was just Democrats failing to show for an uninspiring candidate. But the only plausible explanation I can see is that California's turnout fell from 13m to 8.5m? How can one states turnout fall by 40% in one cycle (it wasn't like 2012 was any closer there.)

California's 2012 vote total doesn't even sync up in different places. Politico and the NYT don't match the total California's SoS published. What am.I missing here?

That part is probably a case of media sites simply not updating with an eventual final official number. There's stuff like provisional ballots that have to be approved/rejected and so forth, but in cases where those take a long time I believe states can certify their result (for electoral college purposes) once the number of outstanding ballots cannot change the outcome.

I'll take a stab at this. Not really a Clinton supporter, but I side more left-center than anything.

Early on, I felt a Trump supporter was racist and wanted things to be like they were in the 60's w.r.t race relations. As I started to read more and as Trump spoke more, that was backed up with a more sexual predator feel in the mix.

However, as the process went on and I started trying to understand why people were supporting him, it started to make sense. He was running on fear, hate, bringing back manual jobs, protecting our borders, and getting rid of foreigners. Those items are right in the wheelhouse of complaints from not only White Americans, but Americans of other races as well. He played those notes like the master con artist (or businessman if you want to be more PC) he is.

Late last week, my view of Trump supporters changed to be a person who is afraid of or very concerned about one or more of the following:
1. Technology and the way it's changing labor
2. Immigration
3. The economy not growing in the right way, whatever that is
4. National security

Unfortunately, I don't think Trump will do a lot for #1. The economics of moving those jobs onshore has problems. The others, maybe he will.

And I think repealing the ACA was just a way to get people on his side. I think they'll end up modifying or repealing and replacing it, not just a straight out repeal.

My wife and I talked about that tonight. It's too late for that. It's over. He won.

If you have a problem with what happened, then you should've voted and/or gotten others out to vote. And, you're protesting in states where she won, so what are you actually protesting?

If you are protesting the voter suppression in other states, then work to get that corrected. Maybe they're not protesting the outcome, but at this time, it is what it is. Like it or not, barring some out of this world event, Trump is our next president.

And yes, that is ours. All of us. Just as Obama has been our president for the last 8.

I wanted to reply to this before and forgot to. I think this is pretty much true and is an example of the tragedy of the situation, because this(manufacturing economy) is not coming back. The third wave and everything associated with it, globalization, automation, etc. are economic realities. To the extent Trump is successful in implementing isolationist policies, it will make the eventual, inevitable transition that much more difficult and painful and put the US at a competitive disadvantage in the world. It's the exact wrong direction, which doesn't at all mean I dismiss the fears of those who want it; you just can't close Pandora's box.

I think you hit the nail on the head. People care about their own lives and how government works for you. A lot of Trump voters that I know weren't exactly rabid Trump voters--and even cringed at the thought of him--but they felt that DC was ignoring them, selling them out to foreign, corporation, and elite interests. ACA didn't help in terms of the prices people were paying.

I do think there is a bit of a cultural battle as well of liberalism vs. non-liberalism that is playing out. The safe spaces and trigger warnings, the issues of tolerance if you don't agree with someone from both sides (I see a lot of utter contempt from one side to the other, and no one is really taking time to actually listen and respectfully understand to WHY the believe or a feeling what they do.), the urban vs. rural cultural, and even the religious (which isn't exactly a R Vs. D issue) debates. I find FOFC rather respectful and engaging to other people's views compared to most of the debates I have and see, even with my own friend, which is refreshing.

Clinton lost because she couldn't get the left-wing voters to go out and vote for her. Why don't any of the media address this? They never admit it was the fault of her campaign. She got millions of less voters than Obama did and Trump managed to flip states Obama previously had won because of that.

For example Wisconsin, the state Trump won that Obama previously had won. During the primary back in April Bernie beat Hillary in that state because she never campaigned much there and continued to not give a flying fuck about that state until October. I assume by that point the Bernbots weren't going to be convinced at all because it was too late.

Trump's votes were less than Romney's so it's not like he convinced more people to come out and vote for him. This totally falls onto the DNC's incompetence and complacency but the media will never admit to that.

Because the left-wing stance has been that everything that goes against them is because of racism, sexism, etc. This chart sums up the election.

That position may be his single biggest failure and hindrance to a second term besides age. If he succeeds in bringing back jobs and dissolving trade agreements, and the costs of products go up to account for the higher cost to make it while differentiation goes down due to costs, he'll lose. If he doesn't bring back jobs or doesn't renegotiate the trade agreements, he'll lose.

He's got a shot, but some of the things he promised aren't going to be easy. People expect politicians to not follow through with campaign promises, but a percentage of the people who elected him aren't expecting a politician.

How much did Trump pull in the Rust Belt states from the traditionally blue-collar Democratic base?

Calling this an election referendum on liberal douchiness is probably pretty close to the truth. People spent far too much time talking down to others, throwing out "bigot" at everyone. And the Clinton campaign did a pisspoor job of convincing millions of Americans why they should evenget out of bed in the morning.

Oh, and this is how I imagine her reaction was in the campaign room.

Guys, you should check out Van Jones' videos on The Next Civil War. Haven't had a chance to watch all of it yet, but it's talking about coming together after such an intense and vitriol-filled campaign on both sides.

I'd link the clip here if I could, but it's on his facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/vanjones

I kind of wonder how much Clinton's "Deplorables" comment hurt her.

One thing to remember is low-income white voters in PA voted for Obama 2008, then flipped to Trump in 2016. I wouldn't be surprised if it holds in other Rust Belt states.

It was the same with Brexit.

The so called intelligentsia and elites protesting because they they found that the rest of the country didn't agree with them. Even started a petition to redo the referendum which meant that parliament had to waste time debating.

Some people these days are over-entitled.

TBH as an outsider I find it amazing that Trump is to be President given his personality, history and campaign, but entirely conceivable that people wouldn't vote for HRC. But unless it's found that he in fact committed some sort of massive election fraud (which I think is extremely unlikely) there's nothing to protest: the system worked, gave everyone and every state a voice

I see petitions on FB going around to abolish the electoral college and the whole #NotMyPresident cute "sit-my-chair" social media protests. Sorry, but that's how the system works. It worked against you this year, but it worked for you for the last two cycles. Blame the DNC for what the outcome was.

one of my friends went through and reallocated the electoral votes based on state populations. Lots of states went from 3 to 1, wyoming, etc. Some picked up a few EV's.

What do you think the result was? I will spoiler it.

They are already discussing the elimination of the Electoral College. Which is fine, as long as each state can ratify individually.

You hit the nail on the head as far as how I would have answered the question, maybe even word for word if I could have typed it so well. Only problem was, I didn't realize how many people felt this way until about 8PM on Tuesday night.

This is pretty much my experience. I live in a very red county with poor employment opportunities. I work in a very blue county (at a university). So I'm regularly associating with people on both sides of the ticket and hearing their gripes. I lean Dem. I'm registered Dem. I'm actually pretty Purple, but people gotta have a box, you know?

It was the constant (daily, multiple daily) barrage of stuff like Radii talks about above that completely turned me off Trump (other than, I mean, the basically ludicrous position of voting for a reality TV star for president in the first place). It was "Bring on the Second American Revolution if we lose!" It was how seamlessly my Republican friends turned the Iraq war into a Democrat thing and Republicans had been against it from the start...with literally not a single hint of irony. I might understand it if it had been like a century ago, but that was less than 15 years ago. We were all alive then, when Democrats were obstructionists who just didn't want to defend America and whining about WMDs.

So, it wasn't even so much that that I wouldn't be willing to vote for Trump as much as the fact that there's no way that I can support anything these people think is a good idea.

And then Galaxy says this later:


And I also couldn't vote for Hillary. Partly because I've never trusted her, but mostly because of shit like this. (Like I said, I work at a university, so I see *this* sort of stupid shit every day.) People who want to change pronouns and want to shout down professors who argue that legislating that sort of change -- to something as fundamental as how people use pronouns -- is foolhardy, as is expecting people just accept it.

And I think about the RFRA/gay wedding cakes issue and hear entirely too much social activism planning. It's not just that people want the right to gay cakes, they want to punish people for not crossing some magical line of tolerance into approval. When you start describing your personal social justice struggle in terms of a vendetta or teaching someone else a lesson, you've gone too far. When your solution is to start cramming social change legislation down people's throats without giving them a chance to adapt before you've moved on to the next extension of your social change agenda, you're not being very wise or empathetic or compassionate.

All of which is why I voted third party.

And why I cast these election results as something of a market correction rather than a complete mandate or a repudiation.

History seems to indicate to me that on social issues, progressives always win eventually. And I'm okay with that. But we shouldn't demean the value of conservatives slowing down the march of progress. Most of us live in the tension between the preserved traditional values of previous generations and the inexorable march into a Star Trek future. I wouldn't want to give unbridled freedom to the idiot extremes leading the progressive march any more than I would the idiots masturbating to the awesomeness of the 1950s.

Everybody loses sometimes, and I'm okay with that.

(Do have to admit that I'm curious to see how my nutball conservative friends pin congressional obstructionism on the Democrats when a completely Republican congress exercises its muscle to shoot down various Trump ideas. On Trump himself, I'm actually cautiously optimistic. I'm willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt in the meantime, at least.)

On moving technology jobs onshore (from offshore), I've always had an issue with outsourcing our intellectual capital (I know, its broad and subject to interpretation but you get the gist of it) which I believes helps other countries more than it helps us.

Bring it back to the US and the smart, well educated immigrants will follow.

I'll admit thought that I am enjoying fruits of cheap labor in other, non-technology stuff which I don't view as strategic (yeah, somewhat hypocritical).

On ACA, I sure hope so. Okay that he doesn't like ACA and okay if he wants to fix it. I feel this election has shown he does have a mandate but I sure hope he has a good alternative that I can live with.

Van Jones has lost all credibility IMO after his 'white-lash' comments on CNN. Easiest litmus test for this is, what if a white former Republican cabinet member after Obama was elected complained about the election by saying the election results were a 'black-lash'.

Van Jones and comments like that are the reason that the Democrats lost this election. I'm still not sure that liberal leaders get that yet.

I think, or at least hope, we can both agree that each party has a lowest common denominator that isn't really beneficial to strawman as the prototypical party rep. For every "thank God I get to keep my guns" the other side can counter with "praise Jesus free phones and no need to work again" .... both sides have their crazies.

When we spend our time debating that minority, we miss the true worthy adversary in each party.

I think Hillary's campaign sure fell victim to that.



I'm quoting you but responding more to the bigger point of contest. Id love to see, but haven't yet seen it available, the demographic break down of voter turn out. I think there is a large racist component at work here, but not the one so many point to. I think many African Americans didn't vote this time that did the last two, because neither candidate was black.

Sample size is tiny and anecdotal, but I have 6 employees on my team. 2 of which are African American. Neither voted Tuesday. One I am extremely close to, and I asked him why (our current project has work hours that make it obvious who does and who doesn't.... we are working 15s so you had to leave, vote and come back...I made sure everyone knew the option was open and they didn't have to clock out to vote. 3 voted 3 didnt) he jokingly said, "Obama can't run again.".... but I think a lot of truth is spoke in jest here. There is a very large continent of multiple demographics that voted in the last two elections because they got the chance to vote for a black president. It's not PC to say that, and I expect to get some snarky retorts... but I think it's true.

That would be pretty comparable if small things like "decades of history" are ignored.

Anyone with the tiniest slightest bit of common sense knows its true.

I will acknowledge however that it isn't anything entirely new. Like votes for like.

My mother has voted only once in her lifetime: for Carter way back when, because she wanted the experience of voting for a fellow Georgian

It's inflammatory and accomplishes nothing other than handing an election to a candidate who most people had to hold their nose while voting for him. The quicker the liberal leadership realizes that, the better off they are in 2020.

Hard to lose what you never had.