|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 10, 2016 0:18:56 GMT
California is reporting just 8.9 million votes at the moment compared to 13.0 million in 2012.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 10, 2016 0:48:13 GMT
California is reporting just 8.9 million votes at the moment compared to 13.0 million in 2012. California always take ages to count the postal ballots as they check every signature with that on the file. It will be several days before we get their final numbers and they will be much higher that 8.9 million.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 10, 2016 1:06:30 GMT
I'm surprised just how sorry I'm feeling for Hillary Clinton following her defeat as a matter of fact, more so than other defeated political leaders of the past both in the UK and across the pond. At some point or another Trump is going to meet Theresa May. It will be interesting to see how they get along! You are on your own there mate. Why on earth be sorry for her of all bloody people? While I don't like her I can feel a bit of sympathy on the basis that she has worked her whole life towards a goal and that when it was seemingly in her grasp it was snatched away at the final moment in a manner that must feel utterly humiliating. She also has some good reasons to feel bitter as the controversy over he e-mail server is honestly one of the most over blown political scandals ever and the way if has been portrayed is utterly ludicrous. Obviously many people have felt such disappointments in the past as it is the nature of politics and while I some certainly not going to shed tears for her I can empathise with her plight. Actually the person I feel most sorry for at the moment is Merrick Garland. He is a distinguished judge and by all accounts a fine man who had the an appointment that would have been the ultimate honour for a man of his profession dangled before him and through no fault of his own he was denied the chance to grasp the prize.
|
|
nitory
Conservative
Posts: 931
|
Post by nitory on Nov 10, 2016 1:19:57 GMT
Actually the person I feel most sorry for at the moment is Merrick Garland. He is a distinguished judge and by all accounts a fine man who had the an appointment that would have been the ultimate honour for a man of his profession dangled before him and through no fault of his own he was denied the chance to grasp the prize. Spare a single tear for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who probably planned to retire within the next 2 years and will now have to try to stay on until 2021 at the earliest.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 10, 2016 1:31:48 GMT
I wonder when the petition for a second presidential election will materialise... The second presidential election is wjhen the Electoral College votes in mid-December. I'm cautiously crossing my fingers that they will elect Hillary anyway. Or perhaps Roberta McCain.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 10, 2016 1:43:17 GMT
Actually the person I feel most sorry for at the moment is Merrick Garland. He is a distinguished judge and by all accounts a fine man who had the an appointment that would have been the ultimate honour for a man of his profession dangled before him and through no fault of his own he was denied the chance to grasp the prize. Spare a single tear for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who probably planned to retire within the next 2 years and will now have to try to stay on until 2021 at the earliest. Looking around a lot of left wing leaning US websites there is a mixture of people wishing Ginsburg good health and those angry with her for not retiring in the summer of 2014 when Obama and a Democratic Senate majority could have replaced her.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,533
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Nov 10, 2016 1:49:50 GMT
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwzIwNoXUAEBXwo.jpg) Swings by county. Standout for me is that the Midwestern D (DFL in MN) farming vote collapsed utterly. The rural DFL congressmen that held on did very well to given the headwinds. Note also the lack of large swings to Clinton in THE EDUCATED SUBURBS that were supposed to happen; this in the end decided the election and I think is the source of the polling failure.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 10, 2016 2:00:44 GMT
The rural DFL congressmen that held on did very well to given the headwinds. Note also the lack of large swings to Clinton in THE EDUCATED SUBURBS that were supposed to happen; this in the end decided the election and I think is the source of the polling failure. The rural Democrats in Minnesota all survived by pretty narrow margins. Peterson won by 5 points against a nobody while Waltz and Nolan (his district isn't classic rural by any means) both won by less than 1 point. In neighbouring Wisconsin Ron Kind might have been in trouble but for the fact that the GOP didn't run a candidate against him. On the second point I have been saying this all day. Trump's surge with non-college whites was factored into the polls and the assumptions of most pundits and people like myself. Alone it wouldn't have been enough but Trump holding up pretty well with educated suburban whites was the big shock.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 6:05:37 GMT
My reading of the various data was that the "Democratic" vote just stayed at home. Or the swing vote couldn't be arsed to troop down to the polling centres. Thus the turnout. I see people are chuntering about wasted votes on Twatter re Johnson and Stein, but if you (the Democrats) can't get your vote out in the first place that's your problem. This has been a good thread to read and thanks to richard Allen et al I am much more enlightened regarding US politics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 6:28:31 GMT
My reading of the various data was that the "Democratic" vote just stayed at home. Or the swing vote couldn't be arsed to troop down to the polling centres. Thus the turnout. I see people are chuntering about wasted votes on Twatter re Johnson and Stein, but if you (the Democrats) can't get your vote out in the first place that's your problem. This has been a good thread to read and thanks to richard Allen et al I am much more enlightened regarding US politics. Hillary Clinton was unable to energise Democrat voters, despite the vast sums of money she spent. I suppose the lesson that no amount of marketing will sell a product that people don't want to buy is a positive one, in a way.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 10, 2016 7:23:12 GMT
On board Hillary Clinton's plane on election day:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 7:37:38 GMT
Smartest observation of the campaign from @salenazito who wrote of Trump back in September "The press takes him literally but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously but not literally."
|
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 49,443
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 10, 2016 8:21:12 GMT
You are on your own there mate. Why on earth be sorry for her of all bloody people? While I don't like her I can feel a bit of sympathy on the basis that she has worked her whole life towards a goal and that when it was seemingly in her grasp it was snatched away at the final moment in a manner that must feel utterly humiliating. She also has some good reasons to feel bitter as the controversy over he e-mail server is honestly one of the most over blown political scandals ever and the way if has been portrayed is utterly ludicrous. Obviously many people have felt such disappointments in the past as it is the nature of politics and while I some certainly not going to shed tears for her I can empathise with her plight. Actually the person I feel most sorry for at the moment is Merrick Garland. He is a distinguished judge and by all accounts a fine man who had the an appointment that would have been the ultimate honour for a man of his profession dangled before him and through no fault of his own he was denied the chance to grasp the prize. Why would a very experienced politician with a great deal of precise advice, holding the sensitive role of Secretary of State which implies a massive amount of important information of which a proportion is very sensitive indeed, use a personal server system lacking the sophisticated scrutiny, protections and overview provided by the official systems, and despite repeated warnings and requests? Could it be that she had strong reasons to need to avoid scrutiny and achieve complete personal control because of the nature of some of the traffic through that server? If so what was the nature of that traffic and the need for ultimate secrecy? When all that blew up we were presented with a cycle of denial. then lies, then bluster and then apology of a sort. When the authorities demanded to see and monitor all that traffic there was denial, bluster and obfuscation, followed by a legal direction to turn over access to all traffic and the hardware, it was met by a determined rush to delete and destroy all of the vast quantity of traffic using some staffers over some days to do so, in a deliberate attempt to pervert the cause of inspection and probably the course of justice? The authorities connived in this by failing to act promptly by arriving at her premises with a court order and a mob of agents to lift everything as would normally be the case. That can only be because of her connections and because she called in favours and used her powers as former First lady to deny actions long enough to destroy all evidence. This was followed by no sanctions of any sort and what was the mildest of rebukes. Most people would by now be in the midst of embroilment within the legal system, but she contrived to avoid all of that so as not to stall and/or wreck her campaign for POTUS. Then there are a raft of financial infractions to do with commissions and premiums earned from insider moves and matters associated with her various offices held; of trusts and special manipulations to avoid scrutiny and tax and to deny any type 'follow' using sophisticated means to do so; all going way back to an early very murky deal in the Whitewater series of deals. Yes, she comes from that semi-dynastic set (Bush-Clinton-Kennedy) where there is a general expectation of 'entitlement' to not just serve but to achieve the very highest offices whatever their quality may be (Ted Kennedy, George W Bush?) in a near monarchical manner calculated to deny access to much better qualified persons. This plus the need for vast funds has virtually assured a small coterie of very similar inter-connected people sole access to the levers of power, where entry is moderated by a very small group dominated by wealth, the military/industrial complex, and global capitalism, and run in the interests of that nexus rather than of the nation and with little concern with or recourse to the ordinary people. So, no concern with her bruised feelings of undeserved entitlement and expectation. This cycle needed to be broken and to do so was going to have to be by a brutal ham-fisted, self-willed outsider, as no-one else would be permitted to scale the walls outside of their hermetic system. It is a pity it had to be Trump but it was always going to be a tough outsider with his own rules using blunt means to achieve the success as that was the only way it could be done.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,613
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 10, 2016 8:40:50 GMT
A 53% turnout is not the sign of a healthy democracy. Add to that the number who aren't registered and those prevented from voting such as those with criminal convictions and we could be talking less than half.
And we are heading in the same direction. Turnout has settled for the time being at 62% or thereabouts. I think that should be a concern.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 8:44:44 GMT
|
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 49,443
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 10, 2016 8:59:59 GMT
A 53% turnout is not the sign of a healthy democracy. Add to that the number who aren't registered and those prevented from voting such as those with criminal convictions and we could be talking less than half. And we are heading in the same direction. Turnout has settled for the time being at 62% or thereabouts. I think that should be a concern. At least a quarter of the population have the greatest difficulty of even half running their own lives and coping with day-to-day normality. They have a bare understanding of how to function at all and bumble through a life needing support at every level for them to even survive. They have no knowledge at all of politics and current affairs and zero interest in them. Do we really want to in effect pollute the system by sucking in their votes to the dilution of sensible votes made by engaged people with some actual knowledge and involvement? In effect that sector would never come to any valid and independent judgment on anything, but would be a target for a communal group leader or tribal party or demagogue to groom them and harvest their votes as a personal fiefdom. Far better they are not engaged at all or some of us will have even less belief or trust in this fragile thing termed democracy.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,613
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 10, 2016 9:03:30 GMT
A 53% turnout is not the sign of a healthy democracy. Add to that the number who aren't registered and those prevented from voting such as those with criminal convictions and we could be talking less than half. And we are heading in the same direction. Turnout has settled for the time being at 62% or thereabouts. I think that should be a concern. At least a quarter of the population have the greatest difficulty of even half running their own lives and coping with day-to-day normality. They have a bare understanding of how to function at all and bumble through a life needing support at every level for them to even survive. They have no knowledge at all of politics and current affairs and zero interest in them. Do we really want to in effect pollute the system by sucking in their votes to the dilution of sensible votes made by engaged people with some actual knowledge and involvement? In effect that sector would never come to any valid and independent judgment on anything, but would be a target for a communal group leader or tribal party or demagogue to groom them and harvest their votes as a personal fiefdom. Far better they are not engaged at all or some of us will have even less belief or trust in this fragile thing termed democracy. The problems they have are indicative of the way the system doesn't work. And if they are not part of the process there is absolutely no reason for those who are to bother about them - other than containment. The social consequences of that are obvious.
|
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 49,443
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 10, 2016 9:59:37 GMT
At least a quarter of the population have the greatest difficulty of even half running their own lives and coping with day-to-day normality. They have a bare understanding of how to function at all and bumble through a life needing support at every level for them to even survive. They have no knowledge at all of politics and current affairs and zero interest in them. Do we really want to in effect pollute the system by sucking in their votes to the dilution of sensible votes made by engaged people with some actual knowledge and involvement? In effect that sector would never come to any valid and independent judgment on anything, but would be a target for a communal group leader or tribal party or demagogue to groom them and harvest their votes as a personal fiefdom. Far better they are not engaged at all or some of us will have even less belief or trust in this fragile thing termed democracy. The problems they have are indicative of the way the system doesn't work. And if they are not part of the process there is absolutely no reason for those who are to bother about them - other than containment. The social consequences of that are obvious. As with many things I agree with you Mike. All parties have to an extent been relatively happy to contain such people. The right see them as a problem, an expense and a cross to bear. The left see them as a cause to embrace, a vehicle with which to lambast the right and a contributory source of power through votes and influence. Neither side has shown much desire to actually convert them into useful, involved, productive members of society. We might differ as to why the sector has grown quite so large and so quickly since the late 50s? I am convinced that the primary reason is the extension of the underpinning nets of the Welfare State which permitted people to become permanently dependent and outside the word of work and general necessity. It removed any absolute imperative to self-help and to work, with the stark reasoning of incipient starvation and homelessness, and for a surprisingly large number of people that was quite enough for them to opt out and to subsist in a near feral life of utter pointlessness and complete dependence for everything. That must be a problem and a concern to most of the left? It is often seen to be an insupportable outrage on the right. Latterly a rather unbalanced economy (reasons for this could fuel a dozen other threads) has done well enough to need to suck in a lot of low-level, unskilled and semi-skilled labour, and people like me have been disappointed through to enraged that it has not been a way of turning these people round, by compulsion as well as exhortation, instead of what I might term 'the Boogie effect' of cheerfully importing millions of foreigners to do it instead, still leaving that sub culture to fester in a half-life of feral obscurity, because it was 'easier' and global capitalism is solely interested in a quick buck and has no interest at all in people as people or the structure and problems of society, because it lives in a short-term bubble of immediate gratification through bonus and share option. That is all to be deplored but is at least understandable. What is difficult to accept is the casual manner that the great parties show so little concern for breaking up this cycle of dependency and class non-aspiration because of reluctance to be involved and the perceived difficulty in making the initial rather authoritarian directives to those people, to move, to train, to improve and to work. We just have to admit that those lives will only be turned by a real desire to do so and to back it with coercion for their own sake. That is rather alien to many but nothing else will work. It is a crusade that is not just 'worth it' but necessary in itself.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Nov 10, 2016 10:29:58 GMT
I was attempting to show that it was not just one side that had been 'seen through' as certain sections seem to paint Trump as a monster and Clinton as a saint. In fact I don't think Trump was 'seen through' at all because he was just accepted for what he is, warts and all, for the blunt instrument that served their purpose. But Hilary really was seen through on many levels and found very, very wanting. I think that's very sound. If your main motivation is to vote against the status quo, then Trump's flaws don't matter much - he is just very obviously not the current political establishment in either his own or the other party, and that is all that matters. (Given that he has inherited huge wealth, and then exploited the state of the USA over 5 decades to become much wealthier still, and that his vaunted "ability to make deals" seems to involve doing business with utterly corrupt individuals such as Putin, I think it is an utterly flawed approach; but then, I would.) Conversely I think any Democrat leader has to be able to stand for progress, and Clinton was as you say very flawed in that respect. I think she would have been a very capable President, certainly better than Trump, but as an agent of radical change she doesn't pass muster. And, given that 8 years ago she lost to Obama on pretty much that point, and damn near lost to a rank outsider in the form of Sanders (only being saved by the Party establishment) the alarm bells perhaps should have rung louder than they did. I still think Trump ought to have been unelectable, and before we all decide the USA is now Trumpland we ought to remember that he failed to win the popular vote. But the failure of the Democrat establishment to test her out was a big error I think.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,613
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 10, 2016 10:31:16 GMT
I don't agree that it's down to benefits. Most people who receive them are working.
I think it's far more about the decline in basic unskilled work which simply isn't there. We assume that somehow the population will alter to be able to step up to the higher jobs available. It's not that simple.
And remember that employers offer jobs. People don't get them - and if employers decide they want one sort of person as opposed to another that's what will happen. Employers want short term and flexible people without family commitments wiling to do menial tasks when required. He last people they would want are people who find life hard to cope with who have 'baggage'. And I think modern life itself brings baggage a lot of people just can't handle.
I also think society has changed in terms of its speed, the pressures of everyday life - and we assume that everyone can cope with these. It's easy to say that things were harder many years ago but of course the vast majority were in that boat. And there was a degree of community solidarity and support which doesn't exist now in much more isolated and private styles of life. The expectations of what it means to be a functioning individual are to those who can cope unproblematic. But that does nothing to enable who those who really can only just function to survive. And I think that will never change as we head down the hi-tech, fast moving competitive route. It's just not designed with humans in mind.
I suppose the paternalistic postwar politics of the welfare state did cushion this too. The traditional Tories who believed it was their role to look after those beneath them as well as Labour. But as I have said before a very competitive system needs losers to survive. And if those people are then treated as pond life and badged as failures the consequences are obvious. It's even more damaging when there are other minorities who have different sets of challenges and where those at the bottom can be very easily used against each other and that's what I see Ukip and Trump doing
|
|