Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Smacks wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
...is it time for the Democrats to recalibrate and moderate a bit?

The democrats are already moderate. They're only left in comparison to the sheer raving lunacy of the republican party, by the standards of the world as a whole they're a pretty centrist party. And even by the standards of the US they're not all that far left, given how much support Sanders got with a platform of "the democrats need to move left". The democrats didn't lose because they aren't far enough right, they lost because the US is full of deplorables and people who are gullible enough to believe things like "they're both equally bad".

This is true, from the perspective of the rest of the world, the US a right wing party, and a really fething flying rodent gak insane right wing party.

It looks like we're about to see how far that rabbit hole goes.

 Smacks wrote:
There is a book called The Keys to the White House, which I came across while I was researching this election. It claims that election results are dictated primarily by the performance of the party already controlling the White House. I wasn't sure if the system was reliable, or if it would apply this time, but it actually seems to have been incredibly accurate in gauging the voter's mood.

Obama has stronger approval ratings now than when he ran in 2012. I think the theory is solid, but it doesn't seem to apply to this election.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
...is it time for the Democrats to recalibrate and moderate a bit?

The democrats are already moderate. They're only left in comparison to the sheer raving lunacy of the republican party, by the standards of the world as a whole they're a pretty centrist party. And even by the standards of the US they're not all that far left, given how much support Sanders got with a platform of "the democrats need to move left". The democrats didn't lose because they aren't far enough right, they lost because the US is full of deplorables and people who are gullible enough to believe things like "they're both equally bad".

Can we cut the 'deplorables' bit? Yes, there ARE deplorable people who support Trump. Clinton too. But being willfully ignorant, blind, and/or plain dumb does not mean someone is actually a deplorable person. Many people honestly believe Trump is the better choice, despite copious evidence to objectively prove the opposite. That belief doesn't make them deplorable, just illogical.

This guy here... gets it.

 djones520 wrote:
They backed Reagan.

Oh my apologies. I must confess I'm perhaps less than 100% perfectly acquainted with their endorsement records. Thanks for the correction. As part of their voting coalition I appreciate you being able to use your expertise to correct me. Congratulations, by the way. Kudos on your shared victory with them.

 whembly wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
...is it time for the Democrats to recalibrate and moderate a bit?

The democrats are already moderate. They're only left in comparison to the sheer raving lunacy of the republican party, by the standards of the world as a whole they're a pretty centrist party. And even by the standards of the US they're not all that far left, given how much support Sanders got with a platform of "the democrats need to move left". The democrats didn't lose because they aren't far enough right, they lost because the US is full of deplorables and people who are gullible enough to believe things like "they're both equally bad".

Can we cut the 'deplorables' bit? Yes, there ARE deplorable people who support Trump. Clinton too. But being willfully ignorant, blind, and/or plain dumb does not mean someone is actually a deplorable person. Many people honestly believe Trump is the better choice, despite copious evidence to objectively prove the opposite. That belief doesn't make them deplorable, just illogical.

This guy here... gets it.

I think a lot of that kind of talk and the thought process behind it is a part of why Trump is doing so well.

 Chongara wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
They backed Reagan.

Oh my apologies. I must confess I'm perhaps less than 100% perfectly acquainted with their endorsement records. Thanks for the correction. As part of their voting coalition I appreciate you being able to use your expertise to correct me. Congratulations, by the way. Kudos on your shared victory with them.

I voted for Johnson buddy. Maybe you should chill out a bit.

I mean seriously, I provide some historical information, and you feel it warrants throwing me in with the KKK? You need to take some Motrin to help out with that butthurtitis.

Fun fact if it hasn't been mentioned; At about 110,000,000 votes cast, 2016 is set to have the lowest voter turn out since 1824 (34% 2016 vs 27% 1824).

 sebster wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
There is a book called The Keys to the White House, which I came across while I was researching this election. It claims that election results are dictated primarily by the performance of the party already controlling the White House. I wasn't sure if the system was reliable, or if it would apply this time, but it actually seems to have been incredibly accurate in gauging the voter's mood.

Obama has stronger approval ratings now than when he ran in 2012. I think the theory is solid, but it doesn't seem to apply to this election.

Well one of the important keys is if the current president is standing down, which of course he was this election. The theory is that that is one of the factors that triggers a change of government.

Wow... PA!
http://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/ENR_NEW

Drumpf is leading by over 40k votes /w 94% in!

 djones520 wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
They backed Reagan.

Oh my apologies. I must confess I'm perhaps less than 100% perfectly acquainted with their endorsement records. Thanks for the correction. As part of their voting coalition I appreciate you being able to use your expertise to correct me. Congratulations, by the way. Kudos on your shared victory with them.

I voted for Johnson buddy. Maybe you should chill out a bit.

Oh I stand corrected. I'd love to chill. Isn't it traditional we watch some Netflix first though?

Clinton has Nevada.

 djones520 wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
They backed Reagan.

Oh my apologies. I must confess I'm perhaps less than 100% perfectly acquainted with their endorsement records. Thanks for the correction. As part of their voting coalition I appreciate you being able to use your expertise to correct me. Congratulations, by the way. Kudos on your shared victory with them.

I voted for Johnson buddy. Maybe you should chill out a bit.

You voted for Trump.

You might have voted for Johnson, but that's the end result. Man up to it.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
He won't, there'd be mass protests & rioting over dictator-level actions like that.

Trump's business history is full of examples where he'd say or do anything during the contest, including direct personal threats, and then as soon as it was over, win or lose, he'd be all buddy again.

The guy doesn't work like human beings with their values and integrity. He actually thinks you do stuff like sue people in hopeless libel cases, and publicly say you did it just to make the other person spend money on a legal defense, and then walk away afterwards with everyone being friends.

So he'll probably have forgotten all about Clinton by the morning. Maybe not though, and I wonder if there's enough true believers among the Republicans in congress to keep that nonsense going.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

Trump now up 20k votes in PA, 91% reporting.

http://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/ENR_NEW

Michael Moore was right about Pennsylvania and Michigan, so that's fething annoying.

Man, Morton should hire Dakka out right now. The amount of salt they could collect here...

The Rust Belt effect seems to have been underestimated.

God! I can't wait for the next John Oliver...

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
They backed Reagan.

Oh my apologies. I must confess I'm perhaps less than 100% perfectly acquainted with their endorsement records. Thanks for the correction. As part of their voting coalition I appreciate you being able to use your expertise to correct me. Congratulations, by the way. Kudos on your shared victory with them.

I voted for Johnson buddy. Maybe you should chill out a bit.

You voted for Trump.

You might have voted for Johnson, but that's the end result. Man up to it.

You voted for Clinton.

You might have voted for Johnson, but that's the end result. Man up to it.

 LordofHats wrote:
The Rust Belt effect seems to have been underestimated.

That's a big part of why this is happening.

Honestly, people on both sides need to cool it with the rampant ad hominem. It's actually pretty rude to decide that the entirety of those of a certain political affiliation are insane, unintelligent, evil, etc. Do you know me? What about whoever posts above me? Below me? No, you do not.

Calling everyone on the right racists and misogynists, or else gullible, is (ironically) intolerance at its finest, and calling everyone on the left socialists, communists, or freeloaders is a perfect display of ignorance. So just knock it off.

 Smacks wrote:
The polls for Brexit also put the Remainders ahead by a comfortable margin, but apparently old people, and people who have a beef about immigration don't get polled very well.

It isn't unusual for polling aggregates in the US to miss the mark by 2 points, even 3. Anyone who thinks the polls are more reliable than that is making the mistake.

There will be an endless amount written about how white people decided this election, but the bigger story is that black voters and latino voters didn't show up to vote for Clinton like they did for Obama. That's at least as much of a story.

 Chongara wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
They backed Reagan.

Oh my apologies. I must confess I'm perhaps less than 100% perfectly acquainted with their endorsement records. Thanks for the correction. As part of their voting coalition I appreciate you being able to use your expertise to correct me. Congratulations, by the way. Kudos on your shared victory with them.

Well, in all honesty the California chapter of the KKK endorsed Clinton, so they would have won either way.

Still a chance for a tie if hillary gets New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Michigan

 Smacks wrote:
God! I can't wait for the next John Oliver...

I know, right?

 Ustrello wrote:
Still a chance for a tie if hillary gets New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Michigan

She ain't getting New Hampshire. I honestly don't know why it hasn't been called already.

 whembly wrote:
Uh... the Ds are extremely vulnerable in the Senate.

Now the House? Coin flip it.

No, 2014. See the date? That's the one I got wrong, I was trying to pull back on my arrogance in my last comment.

 Ustrello wrote:
Still a chance for a tie if hillary gets New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Michigan

Neither would get 270, so then the vote goes to the House. You think they'll elect Clinton?

Hell, that would probably ensure Trump doesn't get elected either. It's not going to happen though. He's going to take PA, MI, and NH.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Honestly, people on both sides need to cool it with the rampant ad hominem. It's actually pretty rude to decide that the entirety of those of a certain political affiliation are insane, unintelligent, evil, etc. Do you know me? What about whoever posts above me? Below me? No, you do not.

Calling everyone on the right racists and misogynists, or else gullible, is (ironically) intolerance at its finest, and calling everyone on the left socialists, communists, or freeloaders is a perfect display of ignorance. So just knock it off.

Have an exalt Sir!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Can we cut the 'deplorables' bit? Yes, there ARE deplorable people who support Trump. Clinton too. But being willfully ignorant, blind, and/or plain dumb does not mean someone is actually a deplorable person. Many people honestly believe Trump is the better choice, despite copious evidence to objectively prove the opposite. That belief doesn't make them deplorable, just illogical.

Not every Trump supporter is a deplorable, but to deny the relevance of that group is just willful ignorance. As is trying to suggest that Clinton is just as bad about this. Clinton wasn't out telling racists "we hate the same people you hate" and talking about "taco trucks on every corner", talking about banning all members of a religion from coming into the country, etc. Trump was.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Uh... the Ds are extremely vulnerable in the Senate.

Now the House? Coin flip it.

No, 2014. See the date? That's the one I got wrong, I was trying to pull back on my arrogance in my last comment.

Oops... my bad.

Also, Cheeto Jesus is up by 60k votes at 95% in.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Still a chance for a tie if hillary gets New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Michigan

Neither would get 270, so then the vote goes to the House. You think they'll elect Clinton?

Hell, that would probably ensure Trump doesn't get elected either. It's not going to happen though. He's going to take PA, MI, and NH.

I'd prefer Mcmullin over trump

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
They backed Reagan.

Oh my apologies. I must confess I'm perhaps less than 100% perfectly acquainted with their endorsement records. Thanks for the correction. As part of their voting coalition I appreciate you being able to use your expertise to correct me. Congratulations, by the way. Kudos on your shared victory with them.

Well, in all honesty the California chapter of the KKK endorsed Clinton, so they would have won either way.

Well hot damn. Everything is coming up bedsheets.