Jump to content


U.S. Election Day, 2016


  • Please log in to reply
151 replies to this topic

Poll: U.S. Presidential Election, 2016 (38 member(s) have cast votes)

Did you vote in the 2016 United States presidential election?

  1. Yes (23 votes [60.53%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.53%

  2. No (not an American citizen) (9 votes [23.68%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.68%

  3. No (citizen, but not eligible) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. No (abstained) (3 votes [7.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.89%

  5. No (other) (3 votes [7.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.89%

Whom did you vote for, or would have voted for, in the 2016 United States presidential election?

  1. Hillary Clinton (Democratic) (22 votes [57.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 57.89%

  2. Donald Trump (Republican) (5 votes [13.16%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.16%

  3. Gary Johnson (Libertarian) (1 votes [2.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.63%

  4. Jill Stein (Green) (2 votes [5.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.26%

  5. Other (3 votes [7.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.89%

  6. Nobody (2 votes [5.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.26%

  7. Don't know (3 votes [7.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.89%

What is your political affiliation in the U.S., or what would be your affiliation?

  1. Democratic Party (13 votes [34.21%])

    Percentage of vote: 34.21%

  2. Republican Party (3 votes [7.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.89%

  3. Independent / Nonpartisan / Unaffiliated (13 votes [34.21%])

    Percentage of vote: 34.21%

  4. Libertarian Party (1 votes [2.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.63%

  5. Green Party (1 votes [2.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.63%

  6. Other (3 votes [7.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.89%

  7. Don't know (4 votes [10.53%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.53%

Which of the following most closely matches your opinion of the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton?

  1. Very Positive (2 votes [5.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.26%

  2. Somewhat Positive (7 votes [18.42%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.42%

  3. Neutral (7 votes [18.42%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.42%

  4. Somewhat Negative (9 votes [23.68%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.68%

  5. Very Negative (13 votes [34.21%])

    Percentage of vote: 34.21%

  6. Don't know (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Which of the following most closely matches your opinion of the Republican candidate Donald Trump?

  1. Very Positive (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. Somewhat Positive (2 votes [5.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.26%

  3. Neutral (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. Somewhat Negative (7 votes [18.42%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.42%

  5. Very Negative (29 votes [76.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 76.32%

  6. Don't know (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote
Owenmoz Owenmoz

Shadowwalker

  • Member
    • Member ID: 17,190
  • 459 posts
  • LocationNairobi, Kenya

Posted 11 November 2016 - 03:06 AM #36 U.S. Election Day, 2016

Not smart. if enough people don't vote there has to be a re run with different candidates. I think most countries need at least a 30% voter turnout. And that enforces democracy.

The Almighty Doer of Stuff The Almighty Doer of Stuff

Heart of Avadon

  • Member
    • Member ID: 72
  • 4,403 posts
  • LocationMassachusetts

Posted 11 November 2016 - 03:25 AM #37 U.S. Election Day, 2016

View PostOwenmoz, on 11 November 2016 - 03:06 AM, said:

Not smart. if enough people don't vote there has to be a re run with different candidates. I think most countries need at least a 30% voter turnout. And that enforces democracy.


Good point, but as an alternative to needing 71% of the population to stay home, include, for each race (President, Senator, School Council, etc.), a checkbox. You are required to vote for every race and question, but you are also allowed to select the "I object to all candidates" box, to show that while you made a decision about which candidate is best, you still don't even want them. Should the box be checked enough times, then the election is conducted again, but you are still required to make a decision in case the threshold is not crossed.

The mandated vote will be enforced with a scanner machine. You scan your ballot, and it spits it back out if you did not complete it. To protect the institution of the secret ballot, this is not recorded and your name is not associated with the results of the machine, and the ballots are still counted by hand. Nobody knows how you voted but they do know whether you have actually voted.

EDIT: Or perhaps the scans are recorded anonymously and shuffled to prevent associating the vote with the voter, in order to verify that the machines are working and have not been tampered with.
The unofficial Blades of Exile merchandise shop: No markups, cheap prices, quality printing! Spread the word!

Owenmoz Owenmoz

Shadowwalker

  • Member
    • Member ID: 17,190
  • 459 posts
  • LocationNairobi, Kenya

Posted 11 November 2016 - 04:03 AM #38 U.S. Election Day, 2016

That could work but in this case abstainers would vote blank as well. Its a moot point. Right now just ostracising fellow liberals wont help. I suppose being united is more important.

Edgwyn Edgwyn

Avernite Dervish

  • Member
    • Member ID: 10,154
  • 738 posts
  • LocationHome

Posted 11 November 2016 - 04:39 AM #39 U.S. Election Day, 2016

The voter turnout was close to 52%.  Not fantastic, but certainly acceptable.

Karan S'jet Karan S'jet

seiðmaðr

  • Member
    • Member ID: 3,440
  • 4,253 posts
  • LocationInvisible Cities

Posted 11 November 2016 - 06:03 AM #40 U.S. Election Day, 2016

"everyone that doesn't do what i have decided is best for them to do is a coward and they must be forced to do what i want them to, because it's better."

using force to compel people to political action is: bad.

refusing to participate in a system that quite deliberately has no place for you is a real and valuable position.

refusing to legitimize the functions of a state that has no interest in your priorities is a real and valuable position.

refusing to throw in with groups that want you as a manipulable, unquestioning source of power and nothing else is a real and valuable position.

refusing to engage with a political system that is bent in every way towards continued domination by the venal and power-hungry is a real and valuable position.

there will always be something dreadfully important at stake in some election or other. there will never be a safe time to break ranks. cowardice is clinging to those you know are wrong because you're too afraid of going without and facing the consequences. too afraid to accept systemic failure as a compulsion towards systemic improvement.

fear of the opposition, fear of the future, fear of what you'd do without them, and fear of your own weakness are known tools of both ruling parties. to succumb to them is cowardice. if all a candidate ever needs to be is marginally better than someone they are only too happy you help you villianize, then that's all they'll ever be and those are the only leaders you'll ever have. but no, keep feeding the lesser evil. wouldn't you rather be sacrificed to thor than to ba'al ammon?

voting is visible. it is undeniably visible: it determines who wins an election. those who need voters -notice- when people don't vote for them, a lot more than they care to notice demonstrations. demonstrations don't cost them power like voting costs them power.

starve power at the root.
The mutilation of the self is the only path towards real personal growth.
WHAT DO YOU SEE?
I MUST KNOW WHAT YOU SEE
TELL ME. . .
WHAT AM I?
I CANNOT SEE

Lilith Lilith

in before the apocalypse

  • Global Moderator
    • Member ID: 669
  • 19,828 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 11 November 2016 - 06:17 AM #41 U.S. Election Day, 2016

There's already been one mod post in this thread reminding people to stay friendly, and it doesn't seem to have worked very well. I really, really don't want to have to lock this thread, but that's the direction it's going in if people can't dial it back and stop implicitly calling each other cowards for disagreeing with each other.

Karan S'jet Karan S'jet

seiðmaðr

  • Member
    • Member ID: 3,440
  • 4,253 posts
  • LocationInvisible Cities

Posted 11 November 2016 - 06:34 AM #42 U.S. Election Day, 2016

to be clear: i wasn't trying to suggest that voting for anything less than my personal ideal is cowardice, i was saying that for me to do what ADoS suggested would be cowardice on my part. vote with your conscience. there is space between good enough and ideal. but that space is an individual determination. whether or not to vote is as much an individual determination as who to vote for, and neither should be compelled.
The mutilation of the self is the only path towards real personal growth.
WHAT DO YOU SEE?
I MUST KNOW WHAT YOU SEE
TELL ME. . .
WHAT AM I?
I CANNOT SEE

Triumph Triumph

Wrapped in Light

  • Global Moderator
    • Member ID: 6,248
  • 3,007 posts

Posted 11 November 2016 - 06:59 AM #43 U.S. Election Day, 2016

I didn't vote for Donald or Mrs. Clinton. I voted for a third-party candidate because I thought both Donald and Mrs. Clinton were horribly unqualified. What disappoints me in this thread is the uncharitable-ness and lack of empathy shown toward people who did vote for Donald.

How many Donald voters do you know personally? I know a lot. They are people I went to school with years ago. They are people I've gone to church with. They are good friends and people I respect. Let me emphasize something: I think they were wrong to vote for Donald! (I was one of those conservative "#NeverTrumpers" that Breitbart and Fox and Han Seannity spent so much time reviling for supposedly handing the election to Mrs. Clinton. Look how that turned out.) I spent many, many hours over this past year trying to talk various friends and acquaintances out of voting for Donald. I also spent that time listening to them and their reasons for voting for Donald. And I'd like to think I know these people well enough to say that NONE of them voted for Donald because they are misogynists, or white supremacists, or any other kind of bigot. Many of them are actually some of the kindest people you'll ever meet. They weren't using coded language and dog whistles to disguise their virulent hatred of women or non-whites or whoever. I think they were mistaken to vote for Donald and I tried my best to convince them not to do so.

Some of the people who voted for Donald are legitimately awful people. But a great many of them aren't. They made a bad choice (voting for Donald) because of any of number of different reasons, none of which involved hate. Please don't everyone who voted for him into the "alt-right" fringe. Don't legitimize a fringe minority by assuming Donald voters are all white supremacists (or any kind of bigot). I understand that it's hard, when you are hurting or scared, to stop and say "Oh, I need to be empathetic to people who voted for Trump." But please try. Get to know them, develop relationships with them, and come to understand them better. You'll find they are not your enemies! Don't think of these people as your enemies unnecessarily. The truth is that a lot of people who voted for Donald were as terrified of Mrs. Clinton as you are terrified of Donald. And not because of racism, but because they were convinced she was going to take away all guns, or close down churches, or mishandle foreign policy so badly the country would get destroyed by foreign enemies, or...or... Are those fears entirely reasonable? NO! But if you lump all Donald's voters into that big ol' "basket of deplorables," you're setting yourself think a lot more people are your enemy than is really case.

There's a maxim about not attributing something to malice when stupidity will do.  That kind of applies here, although I think it was more stupiditiy + fear / anger / etc.

I don't want this to come across merely as a rebuke. I hope this can be encouraging. I can't tell you to feel better Donald because he truly is an arrogant, greedy, corrupt liar. I'm sad that he's been exalted to the highest office in the land. But a lot of his voters aren't nearly so bad as you might think based just on the fact that they voted for him. Try not to delegitimize that their feelings and concerns as a simple matter of racist white folks.

Thanks for listening.

"Dikiyoba didn't know what to say for your negatives, Triumph. Dikiyoba supposes you must just be that awesome." - Dikiyoba
"Triumph == Santa Claus? This explains... nothing." - Dintiradan
"Per usual, Triumph said it better." - Slarty


Owenmoz Owenmoz

Shadowwalker

  • Member
    • Member ID: 17,190
  • 459 posts
  • LocationNairobi, Kenya

Posted 11 November 2016 - 07:35 AM #44 U.S. Election Day, 2016

On the haters' side triumph, that mistake whatever reason it had to be. May cost a lot of people a lot. Not to be dramatic but people actually killed themselves rather than to face the very unsure future ahead of them, millions will lose rights and services, in consequence some might lose their lives. Not only that but the social effect of having trump as president is actually alt right people feeling more comfortable with their views(i've seen it happen, e.g. russia was walking slowly toward acceptance of the lgbt community, but when the bill was passed, there was a spike in hate crimes against all minorities, and its still going on to now, the more it lasts the more people accept it as status quo and discrimination becomes normalised), so in a way the agressive hate might help surpress that. I might empathise with someone that made a mistake but i am entitled to hate if that mistake costs me a leg. Of course i'll hate you more if you did it on purpose. But your not doing it on purpose wont get me my leg back

Triumph Triumph

Wrapped in Light

  • Global Moderator
    • Member ID: 6,248
  • 3,007 posts

Posted 11 November 2016 - 07:58 AM #45 U.S. Election Day, 2016

You are "entitled to hate" if someone's actions hurt you? No. No one ever is entitled to hate others. Hatred of those who hurt you will only move them to fear you, and so the downward spiral will continue. Forgiveness is the answer. Forgiving is HARD. I know from experience. But justifying hatred, clinging to hate, is even worse, in the long run. It hurts you, keeps you from healing inside. Please don't give in to hate.

"Dikiyoba didn't know what to say for your negatives, Triumph. Dikiyoba supposes you must just be that awesome." - Dikiyoba
"Triumph == Santa Claus? This explains... nothing." - Dintiradan
"Per usual, Triumph said it better." - Slarty


Owenmoz Owenmoz

Shadowwalker

  • Member
    • Member ID: 17,190
  • 459 posts
  • LocationNairobi, Kenya

Posted 11 November 2016 - 08:18 AM #46 U.S. Election Day, 2016

I don't give in to hate, luckily i almost always have a choice. And i never said hatred is the best option, life is complicated enough without it. i said they are entitled/justified in the hatred. Which they are. And i really hope you get to understand that. In any case, by now its too soon maybe to ask people to forgive. No shade but i doubt not alt right trump supporters regret their actions yet. Same as if you make a mistake in real life, first you gotta know you did it, then you must at least feel bad for it, then ask for forgiveness, then never do it again/begin reparations, the last parts are in no particular order. And even then it is justifiable not to forgive. Besides its not like humans are known for their huge control over their feelings. Even if as you said they hurt them. Might as well tell a depressed person to snap out of ut. Sometimes even when you try even if you want. You can't.

sylae sylae

Wisebottom

  • Global Moderator
    • Member ID: 5,482
  • 3,321 posts
  • LocationToledo, Ohio, United States

Posted 11 November 2016 - 12:23 PM #47 U.S. Election Day, 2016

if we're making voting mandatory, we might as well go all the way and "simplify" the ballot for citizens by providing them with a single party to vote for

if you want to get people to vote, maybe fix the underlying system's problems (why are we using the electoral college and fptp) instead of forcing people to participate in the theater when they'd rather not

also are you really calling people who said "hey, i'd like a third choice rather than choosing between a hugely corrupt turd in existence and this sentient demon-possessed cheeto" cowards or is that just people who didn't (or couldn't?) vote

Edited by sylae, 11 November 2016 - 12:25 PM.
oh hey there's a page two where everything i was trying to say has been said, better than i have said it, this is awkward


Pliant Giant Pliant Giant

The Demon of Good Taste

  • Global Moderator
    • Member ID: 223
  • 13,732 posts

Posted 11 November 2016 - 01:35 PM #48 U.S. Election Day, 2016

This election is the third in four for the Democrats.  Three of their last four candidates lost a very, very close election.  In each case, the candidate was a "safe" choice: an extreme moderate, well-connected in Washington, the preferred choice of the party elite.  And in each case (slightly less so in 2004) the candidate was criticized by some (not all) as being boring, hard to relate to, or "robotic."

What happened to Hillary should not have been such a big surprise.  Yes, the polling was off; but even before the Republicans had settled on a nominee, a majority of Democrats were utterly convinced that Hillary was the most electable choice.

And maybe she was: Bernie and the other candidates are not without their weak points.  We'll never know what would have happened with a different candidate.  What we do know is that the party -- a majority of primary voters, and an even stronger majority of the party elite -- were hugely overconfident in what they could accomplish by cleaving to the conservative, unexciting New Democrat path.  Thanks, Obama -- you were so good at giving speeches, and so new to the world of politics, you made it same like anyone could succeed with that ideology.

All of this is just to say: when you pick a candidate like that, and you fail to adjust your campaign significantly to account for the huge chunk of the primary electorate that didn't support your candidate in the first place -- it really shouldn't be a surprise that you fail to excite your base, and fail to turn them out to vote.  I find it ridiculous to then turn around and criticize the voters whose best interests the party is going out of their way not to serve, for not voting or for going third party.  You want their votes?  Give them something to vote for.
"I, for one, prefer to believe that the forums are dead and that Lilith, Slarty, and I are all ghosts haunting the forum." -- Triumph

"I think we all have days where we feel like a Displacer Iguana." -- Slarty

Pliant Giant Pliant Giant

The Demon of Good Taste

  • Global Moderator
    • Member ID: 223
  • 13,732 posts

Posted 11 November 2016 - 01:42 PM #49 U.S. Election Day, 2016

View PostTriumph, on 11 November 2016 - 07:58 AM, said:

No one ever is entitled to hate others.
I think hate sort of teeters between anger and malice.  You are definitely entitled to be angry at people, whenever you need to be angry.  Having malice towards people, maybe not so much.
"I, for one, prefer to believe that the forums are dead and that Lilith, Slarty, and I are all ghosts haunting the forum." -- Triumph

"I think we all have days where we feel like a Displacer Iguana." -- Slarty

Tyranicus Tyranicus

Dollop of Whipped Cream

  • Member
    • Member ID: 4,151
  • 4,536 posts
  • LocationShadowvale

Posted 11 November 2016 - 02:41 PM #50 U.S. Election Day, 2016

View Postkarchériser, on 11 November 2016 - 01:35 PM, said:

And in each case (slightly less so in 2004) the candidate was criticized by some (not all) as being boring, hard to relate to, or "robotic."

I definitely remember people saying those things about Kerry too.
"There are less fortunate people out there who can't sit in a chatroom and complain about privilege. You should check your privilege-checking privilege." —Dintiradan
BoA Scenario DatabaseSpiderweb Music DatabaseNethergate Graphics RewindAvernum Side Quest ListExile & Avernum for Intel Macs

Dintiradan Dintiradan

Eye of Argon

  • Member
    • Member ID: 4,273
  • 3,693 posts

Posted 11 November 2016 - 04:03 PM #51 U.S. Election Day, 2016

The discussion about whether to vote at all, coupled with ADoS's chess analogy made me wonder: is it possible for voting to be zugzwang? I'd say it certainly is in situations where you hold all candidates in equal enough esteem that it isn't worth the effort to vote. Personally, I don't vote for school board trustees in municipal elections: I've never been in the public school system(s), the children I don't intend on having won't be attending the public school system(s), and I'm simply not informed enough about the candidates. But in all other cases, I feel it would be in people's best interest to vote. Especially in the States, where aside from voting for presidential candidates (whom you might hold in equal (lack of) esteem), you're voting for other representatives and perhaps even some referendum items. Maybe I'm being too much the game theorist, but tough, terrible choices are still choices, and one will be the best one for you.

Of course, there are different viewpoints to take, and reasons you might have to abstain. This is democracy we're talking about, after all. But navigating (and changing) broken systems is a part of life. Is withdrawing from a broken system more likely to fix it than reform from within? I have my doubts in this case.

Ideas about adding ways to track disengaged voters (adding "none of the above" to ballots, etc.) are interesting, but I don't think they would be too effective. After all, most disengaged voters just stay home. In Alberta, you have the option to decline your ballot, but no one at my poll took that option. It's possible that people aren't aware of this option, but for the last provincial and the last federal election, I could count the number of rejected (or spoiled, or informal, or whatever) ballots my poll had on the fingers of one hand. (Though it would seem this number goes up in places with mandatory voting. A quick Google search tells me that the number of informal ballots in Australia goes anywhere between 5% and 25%.)

As for mandatory voting: in the end, I'm against it, because freedom of expression includes the freedom to not express yourself. Though I have to say the idea is tantalizing. Mandatory voting could succeed in decreasing the amount of negative advertising, which is less about convincing voters to change sides as it is about convincing voters to just not vote for their most desired candidate. I'm curious what people from places with mandatory voting think about it.

Finally, re: Sanders having a better chance: Really? A lot of people up here thought he was too far to the left. Yes, Sanders would have fared better against the rhetoric Trump used, but then, Trump's rhetoric was tailored to Clinton. Had he been running against Sanders, Trump would have conducted his campaign differently, just as Clinton would have conducted hers differently had she been running against Cruz, Rubio, Bush, etc.
^<@<: Pronounced exactly as it's spelt.
Design Tutorial (incomplete) | The Metagame | AIMhack Crack Pairings
Artemis (Planning Thread)
Last ten games. What have you been playing lately?

Randomizer Randomizer

Tormented Battle Mage

  • Global Moderator
    • Member ID: 4,341
  • 15,889 posts

Posted 11 November 2016 - 04:43 PM #52 U.S. Election Day, 2016

Plus we've seen that polls are becoming increasingly inaccurate because they no longer can get a representative sample.  More people are either not making the sampling group or like myself refusing to answer.
"I don't know how we can ever repay you!" - Rescued damsel in distress
"Oh, I'm sure we can think of something .... How much gold do you have?" - "Hero"

"We're all screwed if Cthulhu shows up. Try to enjoy life in the meantime." - Adam Rawnsley

Pliant Giant Pliant Giant

The Demon of Good Taste

  • Global Moderator
    • Member ID: 223
  • 13,732 posts

Posted 11 November 2016 - 07:57 PM #53 U.S. Election Day, 2016

On paper, Sanders was better positioned than Clinton.  The Democrat elites have problems with his economic policies, but few actual Democrat voters would skip voting because of them, just as the same is true for Clinton's policies and Sanders voters.  However, his policies excited the base; Clinton's didn't.  There's also no question that the base found his personality more engaging -- likely at least in part due to sexism against Clinton, but that doesn't change the impact.  Finally, and most importantly, he did not have a 25 year history of nationally known scandals (I'm not judging the accuracy of claims nor the culpability of HRC here; what matters is that they colored voters' associations with HRC) nor any current prominent scandals that the Republicans had spent the previous year dragging back and forth through the media spotlight.  HRC just had such high negatives in polls that rated them.  "But people won't vote for a socialist", OTOH, is no longer true of most of the electorate, especially when the alternative is so stark; I doubt it would have described many HRC voters in this election.

However, I put "on paper" in bold because there's plenty of room for things to play out differently.  Who knows what avenues of attack might have been launched against Sanders (or any other candidate) and how effective they might have been?  Hillary Clinton's Emails are perhaps the most comical scandal to derail a candidacy, but they aren't the only one.

So it's not that I'm saying Sanders would have done better.  He might have done better and might have done worse, but I think that in theory the analysis favors him.
"I, for one, prefer to believe that the forums are dead and that Lilith, Slarty, and I are all ghosts haunting the forum." -- Triumph

"I think we all have days where we feel like a Displacer Iguana." -- Slarty

Owenmoz Owenmoz

Shadowwalker

  • Member
    • Member ID: 17,190
  • 459 posts
  • LocationNairobi, Kenya

Posted 11 November 2016 - 09:10 PM #54 U.S. Election Day, 2016

Hmm, on paper Bernie Sanders would definitely do better(if maybe not win) because his votes wouldn't have been split. When Hilary was nominated for the DNC and Sanders lost the voter base split into people that chose "the least of the worst" and people who simply would not settle for "less". I think leaked e-mails are such a non matter here. Trump had rape and assault cases against him, discrimination in the open, also im yet to see an e-mail saying something as crass as grabbing women by their parts, i am sure a person as rich as him would have tax evasion too. Yet all of that didn't even shake the campaign, so how the e-mails mattered in any way is beyond me. I would go as far as to blame DNCs percieved elitism for the loss though. Maybe, as Flower of Susquehanna has said, they'll learn not to make that mistake next time and actually listen to their voter base.

On the other side, now that all the ugly and rot has surfaced people know  and can openly see the scale of it in America(i mean many can choose to ignore or downplay KKK in the dark corners of 4chan or redit, but you have to be a next level of(im lacking the proper adjective) to do the same with them walking the streets) so, *MAYBE* next election, real plans can be made to adress those social issues. Not to sound bitter, but *most* dnc policies on minorities seemed to be there as a favour not out of realisation that there is a significant problem that needs to be addressed. But im confident that a good person will be in power in 2020.

As to why im interested in American politics to the point on participating in something that is none of my business. In short i have friends there, also most of the world future is tied to yours(i.e. rn i believe other countries will take it as a free voucher to crack down on human rights because the moral high ground usa had is kinda lost) and finally i sorta like speculating how i'd act had i a choice in politics, both my countries have a pervasive lack of choice in politics.

Which reminds me, i thought of making a poll on Russian or Mozambican elections for the lolz. So i was wondering if anyone would participate. If anything it gives a better notion of the affairs of the world. I'd find it very educational myself. OTOH, it might quickly derail onto a fight on "commies" so i'm leaving it up to the mods and users to decide. I'd add links with the parties, candidates and policies for convenience. Oh, since im in Kenya right now, i could  do for the 2017 elections here. But... Making a poll on Kenyan politics would be kinda pointless because the voting is *mostly* based on tribalism not on merit unfortunately. So notion of left right or green disappear.

The Almighty Doer of Stuff The Almighty Doer of Stuff

Heart of Avadon

  • Member
    • Member ID: 72
  • 4,403 posts
  • LocationMassachusetts

Posted 12 November 2016 - 03:47 AM #55 U.S. Election Day, 2016

Regarding the "I have no confidence in any of the above candidates" option and whether it will actually be used, it would be part of the overall reform I suggested involving mandated voting and abolishing the electoral college, and much more. I don't believe in simple solutions where you change one thing and see how it goes, and change it back if it doesn't work, because that would be like filling a pothole with tar instead of fixing it (as we do here in Massachusetts) and would only color the perception among the public. Much like the Affordable Care Act. It didn't fix EVERYTHING because it was a compromise, so therefore progressive medical systems are inherently bad and we should repeal it and never try it again, according to far too many. So yes, with mandated voting AND that option, among other reforms, I expect that an election like this would be thrown out

As for Kenya, my visiting nurse is Maasai. She voted Sanders and then she voted Clinton. Coming from a third world country where people like Trump are always trying to take power (and then killing people indiscriminately, enabling poachers who try to destroy any chance of a brighter economic future for the country, and generally ruining things), she said America should be horrified, and that not said as hyperbole. She's considering fleeing back to Kenya if things go too far south around here, and that's saying something because she once was chased out of her house by marauders and forced to live in a refugee camp. People outside America can see just what went on here this election, and seem, from those I've talked to about it, to be baffled and frightened that Trump took hold at all and that voters were so apathetic. I want to emphasize again: Clinton is a career politician with interventionist, war-hawk tendencies. That's bad. Trump threatened to NUKE EUROPE and as of January will have the keys. I still don't understand at all how it could be "not much of a choice" with the candidates being "equally bad". NUKES. They're not child's play. They're not just regular bombs. They will sicken the entire planet if used, not just wipe out where they're dropped.
The unofficial Blades of Exile merchandise shop: No markups, cheap prices, quality printing! Spread the word!

Edgwyn Edgwyn

Avernite Dervish

  • Member
    • Member ID: 10,154
  • 738 posts
  • LocationHome

Posted 12 November 2016 - 05:59 AM #56 U.S. Election Day, 2016

Slartibus, I don't think that sexism against Secretary Clinton was much of an issue in the judging of her personality.  The reality is that she has never been very engaging which is among the reasons why she lost in the primaries to President Obama (a "community organizer") and in the election to President-Elect Trump (a salesman).  Both men she lost to made their entire careers on selling ideas/things to people. Secretary Clinton was more focused on the technical side of the law during most of her career.

The E-Mail scandal was major mis-handled by the FBI and DOJ in multiple ways, both big ways in favor of Secretary Clinton and big ways against Secretary Clinton.  What makes it interesting is that most of the mis-handling seems to have come from political appointees of President Obama and not from the career employees.  This provides at least a little bit of hope that the FBI/DOJ's objectivity were not destroyed by President Obama's administration.  It is likely that I know a lot more about the rules for treating classified material in the US than the majority of people on these forums.  While only a small percentage of people have been prosecuted for what Secretary Clinton did, most have been fired or seen their hopes for any further advancement terminated.  Ultimately, Secretary Clinton was given a pass on the basis of incompetence since her actions did not seem to be a deliberate attempt to harm anything.

I think that had Senator Sanders been the nominee he would have fared even worse.  While a portion of the Democratic party has no issues with a socialist president, the middle of America still does.  Campaign commercials linking Senator Sanders visions of America to Venazuela's downward spiral would have been so incredibly easy to make (accuracy is not important to either party).

President Elect Trump's scandals would have hurt him more against anyone who wasn't Secretary Clinton.  Rightly (she is at least an enabler) or wrongly (they are two different people), Secretary Clinton ends up being associated with President Clinton's scandals in addition to her own.  So you end up with the bad behavior seeming remarkably similar.  Trump has potentially sexually assaulted women, well so has Clinton (Bill not Hillary), Trump has built his wealth in a less than ethical manner well so has Clinton (both), etc, etc.  There was essentially scandal fatigue.

Personally, I did not want Senator Sanders, Secretary Clinton, Mr. Trump or Senator Cruz to win.  Both political parties need to have a serious look at themselves. I think that one of the major turning points was when Secretary Clinton stopped pushing her ideas and changed her messaging to "at least I'm not Trump".  You don't win anything by saying that at least I am not the other person, but that is the strategy that she went for in the final push up to the election.

Finally (and i know this is too long for most to read), the cynicism and corruption of the Democratic party was well exposed this election, but it seems like it is being ignored.  The Republican party is not much better, but at least it does not have the holier than though attitude.  Expanding on Owenmoz, the history of the Democratic party is one of tossing token items to a minority without any actual interest in the minority.  That is not new behavior, it goes back at least to the wave of Irish immigration. The Democratic party does want everybody to forget that the majority of the opposition to the foundational 1964 Civil Rights act came from them.

Pliant Giant Pliant Giant

The Demon of Good Taste

  • Global Moderator
    • Member ID: 223
  • 13,732 posts

Posted 12 November 2016 - 06:53 AM #57 U.S. Election Day, 2016

View PostEdgwyn, on 12 November 2016 - 05:59 AM, said:

The Democratic party does want everybody to forget that the majority of the opposition to the foundational 1964 Civil Rights act came from them.
I agree with much of what you wrote; other parts I disagree with but still think there is value in what you observe; here, though, you have gone completely off the rails, making this statement outside the context of the Southern Realignment.  Surely you know that the two parties underwent a huge shift in that time period, with the Democratic politicians and voters who were staunchly opposed to civil rights legislation ultimately leaving the party and becoming Republicans?

I agree with your overall assessment of the Democratic party waiting opportunistically until after the 50% tipping point to get on board supporting the rights of suspect classes.  The Gores and Feinsteins of the world are no friend to the disenfranchised.  But painting them with the same brush as Thurmond and company is just strange.
"I, for one, prefer to believe that the forums are dead and that Lilith, Slarty, and I are all ghosts haunting the forum." -- Triumph

"I think we all have days where we feel like a Displacer Iguana." -- Slarty

Tevildo Tevildo

Watcher

  • Member
    • Member ID: 12,857
  • 192 posts
  • LocationBoston, MA, United States

Posted 12 November 2016 - 07:08 AM #58 U.S. Election Day, 2016

Edgwyn, I think it's not realistic to deny the role of sexism, considering the rhetoric both from Republicans *and* from anti-Clinton guys on the left. Even if it ultimately played second fiddle to racism.

I agree about the foibles of the Democratic party, but also think that's mostly irrelevant now. Once Trump is in office, with his buddies ruling Congress and a friendly judicial branch, the bigots will have carte blanche to oppress whoever and however they like. Now is not a good time for retrospective analysis paralysis.

Edgwyn Edgwyn

Avernite Dervish

  • Member
    • Member ID: 10,154
  • 738 posts
  • LocationHome

Posted 12 November 2016 - 09:41 AM #59 U.S. Election Day, 2016

Yes, it is true that the Dixiecrats became Republicans and ended up joining the party that had supported the Civil Rights act.  It is one of the stranger acts of political alignment in our history.  While the usually given explanation is racism, that doesn't make a great deal of sense at the time (Why did Strom leave a party that at the time had a bunch of open racists to join a party that at the time had fewer open racists?).  While race was certainly a factor, big government versus small government/states rights certainly played a factor with the FDR and LBJ administrations having both pushed an increase in federal power while the Dixiecrats want to tell you that the civil war was about States Rights.  

If the democratic party and its supporters continue to believe that racism and sexism is why they lost the election to a candidate that most of country views negatively, then they are setting themselves up for failure.  There are plenty of female politicians who are seen more positively than Secretary Clinton (pretty much everyone of them who is currently in office with the possible exception of Nancy Pelosi).  Secretary Clinton attracted a smaller percentage of the Hispanic and African American vote than President Obama did.  The increase in the portion of white voters voting for Trump was almost negligible over the number of white voters who voted for Romney.  The Republican party presented a more racially diverse set of primary candidates than the Democratic party did.  While certainly some percentage of the white people who voted for Trump are racists, some percentage of the African Americans who voted for Clinton are racists also.  The facts is that the vast majority of Trump supporters (of which I am not one) are not "deplorables" and that speech hurt Secretary Clinton.

Finally, changes to civil rights are extremely unlikely in both directions.  With a Trump presidency an expansion of rights in unlikely to happen, but a contraction of rights is equally unlikely.  Trump can say what he wants about deporting Muslims, but that is simply not going to happen, it does not pass constitutional muster in any modern version of the Supreme Court.  The closest parallel that I can think of is the internment of US citizens of Japanese decent during WWII, which was a temporary measure, made it through a Supreme Court with 8 Democratic Appointees (FDR a Northern Democrat) for and 1 Republican Appointee against, and has since been seen as a complete injustice with a formal apology made.  The Supreme Court deliberately avoids quick reversals, so I do not foresee losses in the recent gains for the LGB community.  On the other hand, I do not see a lot of hope of gains for the T community, which of course does impact several regulars on these boards.

Owenmoz Owenmoz

Shadowwalker

  • Member
    • Member ID: 17,190
  • 459 posts
  • LocationNairobi, Kenya

Posted 12 November 2016 - 10:34 AM #60 U.S. Election Day, 2016

Sexism played a role even if not the only role. People more readily turn blind eyes to other candidates' character or professional flaws than to hers.
Honestly it's easier to explain it with statistics. Most men voted for trump, and about half women voted for him. You can't exactly call a woman misogynistic(even though some exist). Statistically if we are to see men and women as equals in social views the votes would be Split equally. So since only about half women voted for trump, only half the men would have voted for trump based on merit(however misguided) alone. The rest, could be easily attributed to mysoginy. That is of course only if a certain amount of assumptions hold true.
Slartibus could probably do a better more consise and clear analysis. I suck at math.



googoogjoob googoogjoob

Mercenary

  • Member
    • Member ID: 9,876
  • 50 posts
  • LocationIowa

Posted 12 November 2016 - 11:39 AM #61 U.S. Election Day, 2016

View PostEdgwyn, on 12 November 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

Yes, it is true that the Dixiecrats became Republicans and ended up joining the party that had supported the Civil Rights act.  It is one of the stranger acts of political alignment in our history.  While the usually given explanation is racism, that doesn't make a great deal of sense at the time (Why did Strom leave a party that at the time had a bunch of open racists to join a party that at the time had fewer open racists?).

Uh. Hm. Strom Thurmond split to form the Dixiecrat party in 1948, 16 years before the Civil Rights Act. After the 48 election, he returned to the Democratic party until leaving in 64 to join the Republicans, a few months after the Civil Rights Act was passed. Both parties had a significant number of racist members at the time, but the Democratic Party had a firm hold on the extra-racist "Solid South" ever since the Civil War. Thurmond left the party because, as the Civil Rights Act (and then the Voting Rights Act) were championed by LBJ (the de facto party leader), and much of the party leadership favored more civil rights legislation. This wasn't a sudden thing, but part of an ongoing realignment in the parties going back to the 50s, with the previously-solid South drifting away from the New Deal coalition over racial issues. They didn't go Republican because the Republicans were especially more racist, but because they were no longer able to prevent the Democrats from moving towards civil rights. The end of the New Deal coalition was cemented by Nixon's "Southern Strategy" in 1968. Contrarily, Blacks, who had supported the Republican party, generally, since the time of Lincoln, were drifting towards the Democratic party.

I don't think it's quite fair to blame either party (as opposed to individuals) for opposing the Civil Rights Act at the time, but the people who opposed it who weren't already in the GOP generally joined the GOP after it had passed, and the GOP proved itself perfectly willing to accommodate racists if it helped them and hurt the Democrats.

In general too, the American political parties are both so old that I think it's unfair to criticize either party as a body for its positions outside the current party system: they're both so entrenched that political realignments tend to happen inside the two-party system, rather than via the formation of new parties.

Tevildo Tevildo

Watcher

  • Member
    • Member ID: 12,857
  • 192 posts
  • LocationBoston, MA, United States

Posted 12 November 2016 - 03:43 PM #62 U.S. Election Day, 2016

Edgwyn - I'm just going to link this.

http://www.nytimes.c...fusal.html?_r=0

If you think the country will come through okay when left to its own devices, you are rationalizing. Please try not to let the normalization get to you.

... I think I'm gonna stop posting in this thread for a while. Need to actually be functional, which has suddenly become a lot harder than it sounds.

Dikiyoba Dikiyoba

Heart of Avadon

  • Member
    • Member ID: 4,222
  • 8,999 posts

Posted 14 November 2016 - 12:08 AM #63 U.S. Election Day, 2016

View PostEdgwyn, on 12 November 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

The facts is that the vast majority of Trump supporters (of which I am not one) are not "deplorables" and that speech hurt Secretary Clinton.
Clinton, of course, identified two baskets of Trump supporters. The fact that people only remember the deplorable basket and entirely forget about the second one is hardly Clinton's fault.

(Link to Clinton's full speech here, for anyone who hasn't seen it before.)

Dikiyoba.

Pliant Giant Pliant Giant

The Demon of Good Taste

  • Global Moderator
    • Member ID: 223
  • 13,732 posts

Posted 14 November 2016 - 05:17 AM #64 U.S. Election Day, 2016

I dunno.  Communication is definitely a two-way activity: the speaker has to make a good faith effort to communicate their intended meaning, and the audience has to make a good faith effort to interpret it correctly.  But in politics (and advertising, and some other areas) everyone who communicates is very aware of how their words may or may not be interpreted.  (And very, very aware of the potential for sound bites to be taken out of context.)  Saying things that hit the right notes and don't hit the wrong ones is clearly part of the job.  If Clinton's point got lost and a lot of people interpreted it as her dumping on a large part of the country, I wouldn't hold it against her as a person, but I absolutely would blame her (and her team) as a professional politician.

I might look at it differently if it were something she said in the course of actually doing something -- at an office meeting, or trying to get legislation passed, or just in a conversation at the supermarket.  But these were prepared remarks that were part of an election campaign, i.e., their primary purpose was to hit the right notes and not hit the wrong ones.

tl;dr -- you can't blame crowds for behaving in predictable ways.  (You can encourage the individual to get out of the herd, but we are no longer talking about politics at that point...)
"I, for one, prefer to believe that the forums are dead and that Lilith, Slarty, and I are all ghosts haunting the forum." -- Triumph

"I think we all have days where we feel like a Displacer Iguana." -- Slarty

TriRodent TriRodent

Mercenary

  • Member
    • Member ID: 8,173
  • 90 posts

Posted 14 November 2016 - 02:26 PM #65 U.S. Election Day, 2016

If there is any good to come from this election cycle, hopefully it will be the multiple case studies on how NOT to run an election.

Coming out of the primaries it completely befuddled me as how, in a nation of 320ish million people we wound up with pretty much the two most disagreeable candidates possible (of those available) to select from.  When each candidate is polling at +/- 60% very unfavorable feelings towards them within their own party, there is a serious problem going into the election.  Essentially we were being offered two slightly different feces flavored sandwiches & told that we MUST eat one.  Do you vote for Mrs. Clinton & perpetuate the absolute corruption that seems to follow her around like a lonely puppy wanting a belly rub? Or do you vote for the narcissistic blowhard of a reality tv 'star' who seems bent on trying to say the most outrageous things possible just because? That's it, those are the choices, you are going to have one of those vile sandwiches as President of the US.  We knew for months that we'd have one of those, dare I say, deplorable people as President.  It really shouldn't come as a surprise that lots of people are unhappy when, in both parties, the majority of people thought that the candidate that they were putting forth was a lousy choice.  Combine that with a campaign season where each candidate is trying to hide themselves in ketchup, mustard, relish & most anything else to disguise their own flavor of  sandwich all the while trying to convince you that the other 'sides' sandwich was oh so much worse. If either of the parties had stepped back, realized that they were offering voters a vile [censored] sandwich, scraped off the [censored] & replaced it with a piece of reasonably acceptable lunch meat, they could have had the election in a landslide.  However at the end of the day, the fact remains that all we were offered & forced to eat was a [censored] sandwich.

Third parties?  Here's where I start to really cry.  In an election cycle that was tailor made for a 3rd party to come along, not to win, that would be impossible at this point in time, but to take a big bite out of the traditional two parties.  This was THE time for them to make major gains, never again will both major parties put up such abhorrent candidates at the same time.  So what do the Libertarians (& to a lesser extent the Green, Constitution, etc parties) do?  They trot out the same worn out politicians & worn out party platforms to run off of. It makes me beat my head against my desk, it really does.

So, here we are, roughly one week after choking down the preferred flavor of crap sandwich that suits you only to find that the narcissistic blowhard flavored one turned out to be the winner in the end.  So be it, the Constitution is strong & there are plenty of checks & balances built into the system to either gum up the works or provide enough time for cooler heads to prevail.  We as a country have survived much worse than this.  It may not/probably won't be a fun four years but we'll get through it all.  What's going to be really interesting though is to see if either party learns something from this & in four years we actually get something edible to work with....

****

(the only thing scarier than the two miserable choices that were put in front of us is the idea that voting should be something mandatory for all.  I consider myself a reasonably informed voter but last Tuesday I had NO idea who many of the people on the ballot were (local judges, state rep, city council, etc).  Do you really want someone who doesn't want to be there to begin with randomly choosing names because 'that one sounds cute' or against someone because 'there's too many vowels in his name'?  Voter turnout may be abysmal most of the time but that just means that your vote is all the more important)

Randomizer Randomizer

Tormented Battle Mage

  • Global Moderator
    • Member ID: 4,341
  • 15,889 posts

Posted 14 November 2016 - 02:54 PM #66 U.S. Election Day, 2016

I'm surprised there hasn't been the Democratic Party condemnation of the third parties drawing away the votes that would have given Clinton a few states like Pennsylvania.
"I don't know how we can ever repay you!" - Rescued damsel in distress
"Oh, I'm sure we can think of something .... How much gold do you have?" - "Hero"

"We're all screwed if Cthulhu shows up. Try to enjoy life in the meantime." - Adam Rawnsley

Karan S'jet Karan S'jet

seiðmaðr

  • Member
    • Member ID: 3,440
  • 4,253 posts
  • LocationInvisible Cities

Posted 14 November 2016 - 03:30 PM #67 U.S. Election Day, 2016

maybe they're learning that blaming everyone but themselves for everything just makes everyone else not like them.
The mutilation of the self is the only path towards real personal growth.
WHAT DO YOU SEE?
I MUST KNOW WHAT YOU SEE
TELL ME. . .
WHAT AM I?
I CANNOT SEE

Pliant Giant Pliant Giant

The Demon of Good Taste

  • Global Moderator
    • Member ID: 223
  • 13,732 posts

Posted 14 November 2016 - 03:42 PM #68 U.S. Election Day, 2016

Their supporters sure as heck aren't learning that.

(Also, that would be a very strange conclusion to come to this year, Randomizer, given that by far the most third party votes went to Gary Johnson, who pulls more Republicans than Democrats.)
"I, for one, prefer to believe that the forums are dead and that Lilith, Slarty, and I are all ghosts haunting the forum." -- Triumph

"I think we all have days where we feel like a Displacer Iguana." -- Slarty

Randomizer Randomizer

Tormented Battle Mage

  • Global Moderator
    • Member ID: 4,341
  • 15,889 posts

Posted 15 November 2016 - 07:31 PM #69 U.S. Election Day, 2016

View PostMistress of the Elephants, on 14 November 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

Their supporters sure as heck aren't learning that.

(Also, that would be a very strange conclusion to come to this year, Randomizer, given that by far the most third party votes went to Gary Johnson, who pulls more Republicans than Democrats.)
But you have Republican voters that dislike Trump.  There were a huge number of people, that at least claimed to pollsters, that they were disliking the candidates.  It may be that they didn't vote or voted against their party's nominee.
"I don't know how we can ever repay you!" - Rescued damsel in distress
"Oh, I'm sure we can think of something .... How much gold do you have?" - "Hero"

"We're all screwed if Cthulhu shows up. Try to enjoy life in the meantime." - Adam Rawnsley

ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε דארת ערני ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε דארת ערני

Hand of Avadon

  • Member
    • Member ID: 2,577
  • 1,120 posts
  • Locationstuck on my Möbius staircase

Posted 16 November 2016 - 06:06 PM #70 U.S. Election Day, 2016

There were also alleged votes that may or may not have gone for Harambe. If true then I assume it was from the college age bracket.
Behold! The Drizzle......of DEATH!!!!!! . . . . . . .-visual effect of using powerful spells in Avadon 2 (they're a bit of a letdown compared to their damage)

When they eventually find a piece of ash that they think was you, they bury it with great honor........ -A2CS ending script from portal explosion




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users