POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

For reference, took Gore a month. But hey since it's hypothetical, you can imagine whatever you want.

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.

[molson]

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?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

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?

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

After the presidential election, your governor prepares a “Certificate of Ascertainment” listing all of the candidates who ran for President in your state along with the names of their respective electors. The Certificate of Ascertainment also declares the winning presidential candidate in your state and shows which electors will represent your state at the meeting of the electors in December of the election year. Your stateÂ’s Certificates of Ascertainments are sent to the Congress.

The meeting of the electors takes place on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December after the presidential election. The electors meet in their respective states, where they cast their votes for President and Vice President on separate ballots. Your state’s electors’ votes are recorded on a “Certificate of Vote,” which is prepared at the meeting by the electors. Your state’s Certificates of Votes are sent to the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election. See the key dates for the 2016 election and information about the roles and responsibilities of state officials and the Congress in the Electoral College process.

Each state’s electoral votes are counted in a joint session of Congress on the 6th of January in the year following the meeting of the electors. Members of the House and Senate meet in the House chamber to conduct the official tally of electoral votes. See the key dates for the 2016 election and information about the role and responsibilities of Congress in the Electoral College process.

The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.

The President-Elect takes the oath of office and is sworn in as President of the United States on January 20th in the year following the Presidential election.

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.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

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.

[ISiddiqui]

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

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

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by rjolley

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.

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.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

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

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).

[Neuqua]

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.

[molson]

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.

[Arles]

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).

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

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.

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?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

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).

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).

[Arles]

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.

[Arles]

Here's an interesting take on the polls by 538:
The Polls Missed Trump. We Asked Pollsters Why. | FiveThirtyEight

But James Lee of Susquehanna Polling & Research Inc. said his firm combined live-interview and automated-dialer calls, and Trump did better when voters were sharing their voting intention with a recorded voice rather than a live one.

Women who voted for Trump might have been especially reluctant to tell pollsters, said David Paleologos of Suffolk University. The USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll corroborated that: “Women who said they backed Trump were particularly less likely to say they would be comfortable talking to a pollster about their vote.”

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:

Pollsters, and the media companies whose dwindling budgets have left them commissioning fewer polls, have to decide where to go from here. “Traditional methods are not in crisis, just expensive,” said Barbara Carvalho of Marist College, whose final poll of the race showed Clinton leading by 1 point, in line with her current lead. “Few want to pay for scientific polling.”

Berwood Yost of Franklin & Marshall College said he wants to see polling get more comfortable with uncertainty. “The incentives now favor offering a single number that looks similar to other polls instead of really trying to report on the many possible campaign elements that could affect the outcome,” Yost said. “Certainty is rewarded, it seems.”

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.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by rjolley

Is that due to White women being conservative in views overall or conservative in views towards a woman running the country successfully?

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This is purely anecdotal,

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

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).

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

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.

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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).

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.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

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.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Do Trump voters really care about crime in black 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.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by rjolley

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?

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.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

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.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

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

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

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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).

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

[Warhammer]

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.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

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.

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.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

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.

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

[cuervo72]

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.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

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?

[Dutch]

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.

[HerRealName]

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.

[thesloppy]

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.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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.

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

[molson]

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

[RainMaker]

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

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

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.

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?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You mean, like the butler and the gardner?

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

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

Has Kapernut taken a knee with them yet?

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by molson

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

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Do Trump voters really care about crime in black areas?

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)

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Just change the judges!

[miked]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

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.

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.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by molson

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

The concept of elections they lose.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

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

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.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

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.

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!)

[CrescentMoonie]

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.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Has Kapernut taken a knee with them yet?

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