2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

FA Hayek

Sanders would not have lost the rust belt, that is for sure. Remember he won states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin during the Democratic Primary when he was polled to lose them. If he would have won over all, not sure, but at least people could have looked at him and said, 'there is change right there' and at least people would know he was genuine and a man of integrity. He earned excitement and enthusiasm. Unlike Clinton who was establishment and dull through and through.

Biden would have won, do doubt about that but then again, Hillary was always going to get the nomination. It was a done deal done in some back room back in 08 after Obama got election and she got Sec. of State. Shows why she lost. People are tired of backroom deals. The US is a Republic, not a monarchy where the powers that be anoint the next President. The people gave them a big F... Y..

Manic Moran

As a bit of a tangent, I was having a think about an FB post which crossed my feed, comparing the 'value' of a California voter to that of a Wyoming voter, by the simple act of dividing population by electoral college vote. The implication being that the biggest states have the least 'worth' per citizen. So I decided to do some maths, with the following result:

---

The simple analysis is flawed as it is not dependent upon actual voter turnout or results. Note that Clinton received about 10% of her popular vote from California, but California provided her almost 25% of her electoral college score. Obviously Californians voting for Clinton are weighing disproportionately heavily compared to someone, despite being the biggest state.

In this recent election, according to CNN, Wyoming tallied 246,294 votes. (Wyoming allows election-day registration). Trump got 174,268 of them. So, it took 58,089 Wyomingites to result in a 'value' of a single EC vote for Trump.

Clinton currently shows 6,621,898 votes from California, according to CNN. Granted, there's a bit more to come in, but it's the figure we have right now. Split 55 ways, it takes 120,398 Californian Democrats to result in a 'value' of a single EC vote for Clinton. Thus, last week, a Wyoming Republican was worth 207% of a California Democrat, not 362% (We are, of course, ignoring the 3.5 million California Republicans, and 55,000 Wyoming Democrats, but you can feel free to hypothesise a disenfranchisement counter-argument).

As far as that goes, then the point, if not the mathematics, of the posted image is correct. Yet somehow California proved disproportionately powerful compared to other States. Go to Massachussets. Divide the Clinton vote by the 11 EC votes, and you'll see it takes 178,615 Massachusetts Democrats to equal one EC vote's 'value'. This makes a California Democrat worth 148% of a Massachusetts Democrat (Massachusetts Republicans, of course, are worthless).

Similarly, we can compare the results from some other Red states, where, using the above process, a California Democrat's electoral college 'weight' has proven to be some 110% the weight of an Iowa Republican, or 117% that of a Wisconsin Republican.

I think you get the point. These 'weight' things are entirely dependent upon the question of who shows up, and who they voted for.

The argument over whether the States should be electing the President or the People should be is another matter entirely. The idea of winning the popular vote but losing by the rules is not unique to the US. Ask the British, where it most recently happened in 1974, and they don't even have equal States

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Republicans deserved to win they fielded more candidates than the Democrats and if you look at the Democrats they are hardly known by anyone. Someone like Jessie Jackson or Joe Biden or Ron Paul campaigning as a Libertarian would have been far more liked by the people.

Fail to see how running more candidates in your primary means a whole lot. If anything it shows a lack of unity in the GOP, too many factions and caucuses that can't agree on who to run under.

Billy86

FA Hayek wrote: »

Sanders would not have lost the rust belt, that is for sure. Remember he won states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin during the Democratic Primary when he was polled to lose them. If he would have won over all, not sure, but at least people could have looked at him and said, 'there is change right there' and at least people would know he was genuine and a man of integrity. He earned excitement and enthusiasm. Unlike Clinton who was establishment and dull through and through.

Biden would have won, do doubt about that but then again, Hillary was always going to get the nomination. It was a done deal done in some back room back in 08 after Obama got election and she got Sec. of State. Shows why she lost. People are tired of backroom deals. The US is a Republic, not a monarchy where the powers that be anoint the next President. The people gave them a big F... Y..

If he won the rust belt or a good chunk of it, he would have won the election full stop. Cities will always got for Dems, just as the Bible Belt will always go for Republicans.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

Biden would have won, do doubt about that but then again, Hillary was always going to get the nomination. It was a done deal done in some back room back in 08 after Obama got election and she got Sec. of State. Shows why she lost. People are tired of backroom deals. The US is a Republic, not a monarchy where the powers that be anoint the next President. The people gave them a big F... Y..

Nope. It was a done deal when she campaigned a won the majority of votes. Her running was a certainty, nothing more. She won the nomination on the back of campaigning.

BorneTobyWilde

So many many democrats thought they would take the moral high ground and not vote for Hillary, just so they could hold their head up high and say '' I did not make her President ''
They thought they had the luxury , they thought they had the margin to do that.
The media the polls told them they had that margin, that luxury to do that.
Those people thought it was over, they didn't want her to lose or for Trump to win, all they wanted was the moral high ground.
Those people are in turmoil now, they are on the streets they are distraught . I think the media and polls had a lot to do with Trumps victory.
My reaction to the FBI coming out on Sunday to clear Hillary again was '' if I could vote ten times now I would'' It was a real rally cry to Trumps supporters, it helped him.
So while 1000's of democrats were taking the moral high ground 1000's of Trump supporters were filling their cars with friends and family to go vote for trump.

alastair

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

So many many democrats thought they would take the moral high ground and not vote for Hillary, just so they could hold their head up high and say '' I did not make her President ''
They thought they had the luxury , they thought they had the margin to do that.
The media the polls told them they had that margin, that luxury to do that.
Those people thought it was over, they didn't want her to lose or for Trump to win, all they wanted was the moral high ground.
Those people are in turmoil now, they are on the streets they are distraught . I think the media and polls had a lot to do with Trumps victory.
My reaction to the FBI coming out on Sunday to clear Hillary again was '' if I could vote ten times now I would'' It was a real rally cry to Trumps supporters, it helped him.
So while 1000's of democrats were taking the moral high ground 1000's of Trump supporters were filling their cars with friends and family to go vote for trump.

And yet 1.3 million more people did vote for Hillary. That's quite a few cars full, wouldn't you say?

BorneTobyWilde

alastair wrote: »

And yet 1.3 million more people did vote for Hillary. That's quite a few cars full, wouldn't you say?

Yes but California would make up a lot of that number.
In Florida , WI and MH she was down votes in states where the polls and media said she was ahead . The numbers show that a lot of Democrats did not come out to vote in these states, and polls show a lot of people said they could not vote for either, but we all know a vote not placed for Hillary was a huge help to Trump.
A lot of people had that attitude that they were not voting for her, they did not need to, they wanted the moral high ground, they thought she was a shoe in anyway, and they could hold their head high. Now their head is in their hands .

Manic Moran

Someone else can check the other two states listed, I have to head home, but a quick check of Florida indicates she got more votes in that State than Obama did in either 2008 or 2012.

alastair

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Yes but California would make up a lot of that number.
In Florida , WI and MH she was down votes in states where the polls and media said she was ahead . The numbers show that a lot of Democrats did not come out to vote in these states, and polls show a lot of people said they could not vote for either, but we all know a vote not placed for Hillary was a huge help to Trump.
A lot of people had that attitude that they were not voting for her, they did not need to, they wanted the moral high ground, they thought she was a shoe in anyway, and they could hold their head high. Now their head is in their hands .

The polls were, in the main, within the margin of error when it came to Hillary's figures, and they actually stack up pretty closely to her actual vote percentages in all three states you mentioned. She certainly didn't underperform compared to most of the polls.

Florida. Last 4 Hillary polls: 46%, 45%, 45%, 48%. Actual vote: 47.8%
Wisconsin. Last 4 Hillary polls: 46%, 49%, 47%, 47%. Actual vote: 46.9%
Michigan. Last 4 Hillary polls: 46%, 44%, 47%, 46%. Actual vote: 47.3%

FatherTed

Interesting that Clinton got a half million more votes in Texas compared to Obama in 12. That's a 6.7% swing to the democrats, I think there is a demographics shift there.

FatherTed

alastair wrote: »

The polls were, in the main, within the margin of error when it came to Hillary's figures, and they actually stack up pretty closely to her actual vote percentages in all three states you mentioned. She certainly didn't underperform compared to most of the polls.

Florida. Last 4 Hillary polls: 46%, 45%, 45%, 48%. Actual vote: 47.8%
Wisconsin. Last 4 Hillary polls: 46%, 49%, 47%, 47%. Actual vote: 46.9%
Michigan. Last 4 Hillary polls: 46%, 44%, 47%, 46%. Actual vote: 47.3%

In the states that swung from Dem to Rep, Hillary's counts compared to the Obama counts in 2012:

Florida +263,699
Iowa -169,724
Michigan -296,376
Ohio -510,709
Pennsylvania -145,569
Wisconsin -238,775

eire4

FA Hayek wrote: »

Sanders would not have lost the rust belt, that is for sure. Remember he won states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin during the Democratic Primary when he was polled to lose them. If he would have won over all, not sure, but at least people could have looked at him and said, 'there is change right there' and at least people would know he was genuine and a man of integrity. He earned excitement and enthusiasm. Unlike Clinton who was establishment and dull through and through.

Biden would have won, do doubt about that but then again, Hillary was always going to get the nomination. It was a done deal done in some back room back in 08 after Obama got election and she got Sec. of State. Shows why she lost. People are tired of backroom deals. The US is a Republic, not a monarchy where the powers that be anoint the next President. The people gave them a big F... Y..

Could not agree more with you on both Sanders I am biased there I admit but Biden also. The Corporate Democrats are reaping the seeds they planted when they all but forced Clinton onto the US as the Democratic nomination for president.

eire4

Moving off the US presidential election but related to it there is something very few people have been talking about here but which is perilously close to actually becoming reality. After Last weeks election the Democratic party is not just a minority party at the federal level it is even more so one at the state level. In 25 states out of 50 the Republicans have total control of both chambers and the governorship. Most of the rest of the states are divided. The Democrats only control 7 states. Overall 33 of 50 states have Republican governors while overall the Republicans control also 33 states in terms of their state legislatures. If the Republicans get to 34 states in terms of control they can pass legislation to call for a convention of states and re write the constitution. Now when you consider how disgustingly full of hate the modern Republican party is this is pretty scary stuff that they are this close to being able to call a convention of states.

Now the only caveats that push back on this a little bit are that firstly all 34 states would have to pass the exact same legislation with the exact same subject matter. Not a big hurdle to climb but maybe limits the extremists a bit in that they would have to show their hand up front. The best safety valve we still have is that at the convention to alter the constitution 38 states would have to ratify any changes so the Republicans are still some way off of that.

aloyisious

eire4 wrote: »

Moving off the US presidential election but related to it there is something very few people have been talking about here but which is perilously close to actually becoming reality. After Last weeks election the Democratic party is not just a minority party at the federal level it is even more so one at the state level. In 25 states out of 50 the Republicans have total control of both chambers and the governorship. Most of the rest of the states are divided. The Democrats only control 7 states. Overall 33 of 50 states have Republican governors while overall the Republicans control also 33 states in terms of their state legislatures. If the Republicans get to 34 states in terms of control they can pass legislation to call for a convention of states and re write the constitution. Now when you consider how disgustingly full of hate the modern Republican party is this is pretty scary stuff that they are this close to being able to call a convention of states.

Now the only caveats that push back on this a little bit are that firstly all 34 states would have to pass the exact same legislation with the exact same subject matter. Not a big hurdle to climb but maybe limits the extremists a bit in that they would have to show their hand up front. The best safety valve we still have is that at the convention to alter the constitution 38 states would have to ratify any changes so the Republicans are still some way off of that.

Now that is scary.

Coincidentally I saw a Prager University video on the Electoral College on a friends's F/B page a few minutes ago explaining how important it is. If you're interested just go to Prager Uni video of electoral college and it'll pop up.

Now this is for US folk here or experts on the college system. The woman doing the narrating says almost at the start that the electoral college 538 voters elect both the President AND the V/P. Is that actually correct, that both persons are voted on by the electoral college voters?

StewartGriffin

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

A lot of people had that attitude that they were not voting for her, they did not need to, they wanted the moral high ground, they thought she was a shoe in anyway, and they could hold their head high. Now their head is in their hands .

Agreed, and very well put.
And a lot of these people are now blaming her for not"engaging" them, not"connecting" with them enough to deserve their vote. Their refusal to behave like adults and accept the hard fact that the only way to stop Trump was to vote for Clinton has led to the position they now find themselves in.
I imagine those who are anti-Trump and didn't vote will harbour a secret shame for many years to come.

Billy86

eire4 wrote: »

Could not agree more with you on both Sanders I am biased there I admit but Biden also. The Corporate Democrats are reaping the seeds they planted when they all but forced Clinton onto the US as the Democratic nomination for president.

One thing they really need to look at in my opinion are superdelegates, or more to the point handing out these superdelegate votes right at the start. Most voting populations are pretty dumb about following whatever the trend is rather than looking at the actual candidates probably because they want to think of themselves as better on a winner etc, which is a big reason why momentum is seen to be such and important thing in elections... sheep mentality, etc.

By saying 'this is a race to 2,300... but we're giving a 500 vote head-start to this candidate from the get go' the implications are huge, far beyond just the very obviously massive 500 vote difference that meant Clinton only needed to get about 75% of what Sanders did off the actual voting public.

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

One thing they really need to look at in my opinion are superdelegates, or more to the point handing out these superdelegate votes right at the start. Most voting populations are pretty dumb about following whatever the trend is rather than looking at the actual candidates probably because they want to think of themselves as better on a winner etc, which is a big reason why momentum is seen to be such and important thing in elections... sheep mentality, etc.

By saying 'this is a race to 2,300... but we're giving a 500 vote head-start to this candidate from the get go' the implications are huge, far beyond just the very obviously massive 500 vote difference that meant Clinton only needed to get about 75% of what Sanders did off the actual voting public.

The opposite of this could easily be portrayed as worse.

Candidate X leading by 200 delegates with the superdelegates to be announced, then ends up losing by 300 would be just as if not more divisive and difficult.

Other option is do it all at once. No lead/lag issues between delegates and super delegates. However that is more expensive amongst other problems.

marienbad

Billy86 wrote: »

One thing they really need to look at in my opinion are superdelegates, or more to the point handing out these superdelegate votes right at the start. Most voting populations are pretty dumb about following whatever the trend is rather than looking at the actual candidates probably because they want to think of themselves as better on a winner etc, which is a big reason why momentum is seen to be such and important thing in elections... sheep mentality, etc.

By saying 'this is a race to 2,300... but we're giving a 500 vote head-start to this candidate from the get go' the implications are huge, far beyond just the very obviously massive 500 vote difference that meant Clinton only needed to get about 75% of what Sanders did off the actual voting public.

I bet the GOP wish they had a super delegate mechanism - one way to stop the take over of the party .

nc6000

FA Hayek wrote: »

Sanders would not have lost the rust belt, that is for sure. Remember he won states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin during the Democratic Primary when he was polled to lose them. If he would have won over all, not sure, but at least people could have looked at him and said, 'there is change right there' and at least people would know he was genuine and a man of integrity. He earned excitement and enthusiasm. Unlike Clinton who was establishment and dull through and through.

So even though Clinton lost these states in the primaries she still thought she could win them in the general election without doing much campaigning?

alastair

nc6000 wrote: »

So even though Clinton lost these states in the primaries she still thought she could win them in the general election without doing much campaigning?

She did plenty of campaigning in those states.

johnp001

marienbad wrote: »

I bet the GOP wish they had a super delegate mechanism - one way to stop the take over of the party .

The GOP did change the rules to prevent Ron Paul from becoming their candidate in 2012 but it worked to another insurgent candidates advantage in 2016:
GOP panelists eager to scrap rule that helps Trump

Ron Paul says GOP deserves convention rule controversy

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

The opposite of this could easily be portrayed as worse.

Candidate X leading by 200 delegates with the superdelegates to be announced, then ends up losing by 300 would be just as if not more divisive and difficult.

Other option is do it all at once. No lead/lag issues between delegates and super delegates. However that is more expensive amongst other problems.

It might make most sense to give them out on a per state basis in tandem with public voting, as all 712 are assigned to a particular state. I would say it would be better to ensure it is done in private (e.g. not announcing who will be given them before voting closes) then announce who got them along with who won the state the next day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

Christy42

Billy86 wrote: »

It might make most sense to give them out on a per state basis in tandem with public voting, as all 712 are assigned to a particular state. I would say it would be better to ensure it is done in private (e.g. not announcing who will be given them before voting closes) then announce who got them along with who won the state the next day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

They aren't given out till the end Afaik. However it is easy to gauge their preferences.

I would also scrap the caucuses. They seem incredibly undemocratic. I get the primary has no obligation to be democratic but it sends out a nice message imo. I also get removing the caucuses would have helped Hillary but it is the system I care about. Not what would have helped either candidate.

Manic Moran

aloyisious wrote: »

eire4 wrote: »

Moving off the US presidential election but related to it there is something very few people have been talking about here but which is perilously close to actually becoming reality. After Last weeks election the Democratic party is not just a minority party at the federal level it is even more so one at the state level. In 25 states out of 50 the Republicans have total control of both chambers and the governorship. Most of the rest of the states are divided. The Democrats only control 7 states. Overall 33 of 50 states have Republican governors while overall the Republicans control also 33 states in terms of their state legislatures. If the Republicans get to 34 states in terms of control they can pass legislation to call for a convention of states and re write the constitution. Now when you consider how disgustingly full of hate the modern Republican party is this is pretty scary stuff that they are this close to being able to call a convention of states.

Now the only caveats that push back on this a little bit are that firstly all 34 states would have to pass the exact same legislation with the exact same subject matter. Not a big hurdle to climb but maybe limits the extremists a bit in that they would have to show their hand up front. The best safety valve we still have is that at the convention to alter the constitution 38 states would have to ratify any changes so the Republicans are still some way off of that.

Now that is scary.

Coincidentally I saw a Prager University video on the Electoral College on a friends's F/B page a few minutes ago explaining how important it is. If you're interested just go to Prager Uni video of electoral college and it'll pop up.

Now this is for US folk here or experts on the college system. The woman doing the narrating says almost at the start that the electoral college 538 voters elect both the President AND the V/P. Is that actually correct, that both persons are voted on by the electoral college voters?

In fairness, outside of maybe a tweak with firearms, I am having some difficulty in coming up with any change to the Constitution that they may want to, and have the votes to, make. 38 States is still a lot, and there isn't much that everybody agrees on. It's why amendments are so rare to begin with.

Yes, the electors cast their votes for President and VP separately

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness, outside of maybe a tweak with firearms, I am having some difficulty in coming up with any change to the Constitution that they may want to, and have the votes to, make. 38 States is still a lot, and there isn't much that everybody agrees on. It's why amendments are so rare to begin with.

Yes, the electors cast their votes for President and VP separately

Right to life amendment?

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

Right to life amendment?

I really don't think there are enough States which would support it. Yes, it's viewed as a 'Republican' issue, but, shockingly, there are a number of Republicans who aren't so hot on the idea, with something akin to 80% of voters saying it should be legal at least in some circumstances, and I don't think even all the legislators and governors are on board with the idea. There have been, what, a half-dozen states trying some odd tricks to try to make abortions really, really difficult? That leaves a fair few Republican states which haven't.

Same with gay marriage. It's a rallying cry for the religious types, sure, but I suspect it won't fly in a lot of the States outside of the bible belt. There more reasons to vote for a Republican than just abortion and dislike of homosexual.

TheOven

Overheal wrote: »

Right to life amendment?

Would this not cause problems with the pro death penalty crowd?

Suryavarman

FA Hayek wrote: »

Sanders would not have lost the rust belt, that is for sure. Remember he won states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin during the Democratic Primary when he was polled to lose them. If he would have won over all, not sure, but at least people could have looked at him and said, 'there is change right there' and at least people would know he was genuine and a man of integrity. He earned excitement and enthusiasm. Unlike Clinton who was establishment and dull through and through.

Biden would have won, do doubt about that but then again, Hillary was always going to get the nomination. It was a done deal done in some back room back in 08 after Obama got election and she got Sec. of State. Shows why she lost. People are tired of backroom deals. The US is a Republic, not a monarchy where the powers that be anoint the next President. The people gave them a big F... Y..

He won those states because he was never attacked. He wouldn't have had much hope of winning those states in the general election when the Republicans started working through their two foot thick oppo research folder on him.

nc6000

alastair wrote:

She did plenty of campaigning in those states.

She didn't visit Wisconsin.

alastair

nc6000 wrote: »

She didn't visit Wisconsin.

Yes she did, as well as Bill, Chelsea, Tim Kaine, and Bernie Sanders campaigning there on her behalf.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness, outside of maybe a tweak with firearms, I am having some difficulty in coming up with any change to the Constitution that they may want to, and have the votes to, make. 38 States is still a lot, and there isn't much that everybody agrees on. It's why amendments are so rare to begin with.

Yes, the electors cast their votes for President and VP separately

Ta for both those. I don't know if the Pence election was much reported on or just sailed by in the shadow of Don's election. I don't recall hearing much about it, and just assumed (wrongly) that he was like any other person selected by the nominee over here and not really a REAL running-mate needing voters approval.

There seemed to be mention during the election period of a surge by folk of christian belief to vote for Don, a few of which were on TV news and topical affairs shows here to show the varied make-up of US voters. They were definitely against legal abortion, it's left me wondering how much input they will have in Admin decisions on abortion law nationally in the US, given how Mike Pence and some of the advisers reportedly chosen by Don are strongly against abortion, and if these people will push for an amendment on abortion making it illegal across the US, knocking out USSC decisions and laws governing it's use.

nc6000

alastair wrote: »

Yes she did, as well as Bill, Chelsea, Tim Kaine, and Bernie Sanders campaigning there on her behalf.

She was the first major party candidate since 1972 to skip the state:

http://http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/donald-trump-makes-a-play-for-wisconsin-as-hillary-clinton/article_d51fd3be-2793-50ed-8c98-e103873cd0f4.html

alastair

nc6000 wrote: »

She was the first major party candidate since 1972 to skip the state:

http://http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/donald-trump-makes-a-play-for-wisconsin-as-hillary-clinton/article_d51fd3be-2793-50ed-8c98-e103873cd0f4.html

She campaigned there twice before the DNC.

nc6000

alastair wrote: »

She campaigned there twice before the DNC.

Here's another link reporting she didn't visit Wisconsin during the general election campaign.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/09/how-clinton-lost-blue-wall-states-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin/93572020/

Manic Moran

That was the primary election, not the Presidential.

Aloy, I may have misunderstood. Us normal voters don't get a choice, we are presented with the running mate. As a matter of formality,the 538 state electors vote in two separate ballots. I am unaware of any time that they have rejected (or even voted against in any numbers) a president's choice of vice president

Manic Moran

That was the primary election, not the Presidential.

Aloy, I may have misunderstood. Us normal voters don't get a choice, we are presented with the running mate. As a matter of formality,the 538 state electors vote in two separate ballots. I am unaware of any time that they have rejected (or even voted against in any numbers) a president's choice of vice president

alastair

Manic Moran wrote: »

That was the primary election, not the Presidential.

It's the same campaign, same job, same platform pitch.

TheDoctor

Different electorate

alastair

TheDoctor wrote: »

Different electorate

Well, if you're suggesting that registered Republicans were a key target in Hillary's campaign, then yes, but otherwise, it's the same electorate she was pitching to: Democrats and independent/unaffiliated voters.

Overheal

Speaking of State visits: Trump plans to do a victory lap around the country (too busy to deal with his Trump University lawsuit though) but he only seems interested in visiting States that he won. A true president for all Americans right there.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/donald-trump-will-reportedly-go-on-victory-tour-in-states-he-won/

According to The Hill, the Trump campaign’s advance team director, George Gigicos, has told reporters that the mogul has plans in store for after Thanksgiving.

“We’re working on a victory tour now. It will happen in the next couple of weeks,” said Gigicos. In terms of where Trump would go, Gigicos said “obviously to the states that we won and the swing states we flipped over.”

ECO_Mental

This is just a sad state of the world we live in now this is a guy saying that he just made news stories up for the laugh and most of the stuff was pro trump or anti clinton. Hillary didn't stand a chance when you get this type of stuff thrown at you all the time and people are gullible enough to believe it. Although he does say that he doesn't like trump. It make me angry

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-election-facebook-fake-news-creator-paul-horner-claims-responsibility/

"According to BuzzFeed, among the top 20 fake election-related articles on Facebook, most had a political bent that favored the Trump campaign; all but three were anti-Clinton or pro-Trump. Facebook users engaged with them more than 8.7 million times."

Sad sad sad

InTheTrees

ECO_Mental wrote: »

This is just a sad state of the world we live in now this is a guy saying that he just made news stories up for the laugh and most of the stuff was pro trump or anti clinton.

The Pandora's box has certainly been opened.
I'm looking forward to trump getting the same treatment.
He's already shaping up to be the worst US president in a long time.

oscarBravo

ECO_Mental wrote: »

This is just a sad state of the world we live in now this is a guy saying that he just made news stories up for the laugh and most of the stuff was pro trump or anti clinton. Hillary didn't stand a chance when you get this type of stuff thrown at you all the time and people are gullible enough to believe it. Although he does say that he doesn't like trump. It make me angry

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-election-facebook-fake-news-creator-paul-horner-claims-responsibility/

"According to BuzzFeed, among the top 20 fake election-related articles on Facebook, most had a political bent that favored the Trump campaign; all but three were anti-Clinton or pro-Trump. Facebook users engaged with them more than 8.7 million times."

Sad sad sad

There's a tweet quoted in that article that's bang on point: "Fake news is just a symptom. The disease is the atrophying of due diligence, skepticism, and critical thinking. "

Ain't that the truth.

K-9

It seems skepticism of the msm has transferred to swallowing any ould crap on "alternative" sites.

Amerika

Last week the Presidential Democratic candidate got thumped, Senate Democrats got thumped, House Democrats got thumped. Democratic governors got thumped. And Democratic state legislators got thumped.

And now Senator Elizabeth Warren, the presumptive Democratic to run for president in 2020 is committed to doubling down on the reasons Democrats got thumped. She says Democrats lost because they didn’t go big enough, that they didn’t spend enough, that they didn't regulate enough, and they didn’t socialize health care enough.

Good for Liz... Keep thinking that way. :rolleyes:

My prediction... Another big Republican all around win in 2020.

First Up

Amerika wrote:

My prediction... Another big Republican all around win in 2020.

I'd wait to see how the next few years pan out before making any such predictions. I think there may be a lot of trouble ahead.

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

Last week the Presidential Democratic candidate got thumped, Senate Democrats got thumped, House Democrats got thumped. Democratic governors got thumped. And Democratic state legislators got thumped.

And now Senator Elizabeth Warren, the presumptive Democratic to run for president in 2020 is committed to doubling down on the reasons Democrats got thumped. She says Democrats lost because they didn’t go big enough, that they didn’t spend enough, that they didn't regulate enough, and they didn’t socialize health care enough.

Good for Liz... Keep thinking that way. :rolleyes:

My prediction... Another big Republican all around win in 2020.

Amerika , how is that 'draining the swamp ' project going

PopePalpatine

marienbad wrote: »

Amerika , how is that 'draining the swamp ' project going

Don't you know that nothing drains a swamp better than sticking tons of oil rigs in it? :rolleyes:

Hank Scorpio

Isn't it a bit rich people are nitpicking Trumps picks when Obama's entire cabinet was chosen by Citigroup's bank. Or are you telling me the same thing wouldn't happen with Saint Hillary.