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.

Noooooooooooooooo! Evan lost Utah. Oh, the humanity.

 SickSix wrote:
Oh man all the tears taste so sweet. It's going to be fun time in the near future watching all the meltdowns.

I know, right? I'd buy you a drink if I lived anywhere near you, that is if we weren't already full from DRINKING EVERYONE'S TEARS!!!

By my rough math, as things lay now, I think Trump is going to win with 293 EV.

I did not see this coming.

 Ouze wrote:
By my rough math, as things lay now, I think Trump is going to win with 293 EV.

I did not see this coming.

You, me both.

Plus looks like the GOP retain control of the Senate.

o.O

Turns out that you don't need experience or credible policy positions to be president, you just need an angry mob of deplorables and a promise to hate all the right people.

 djones520 wrote:
Yeah, I said it earlier, I'd say it again. Had Mitt Romney thrown in, he'd have won with Obama 08' numbers.

Maybe, but also likely not. Trump is winning because he's brought in great results in rural areas and areas affected by the decline in manufacturing jobs. These are things Romney would not have achieved.

4 (or 8) years of Trump are bad enough. But the potential damage a Trump-filled SCOTUS can do is much more terrifying for me.

I won a £100

 d-usa wrote:
4 (or 8) years of Trump are bad enough. But the potential damage a Trump-filled SCOTUS can do is much more terrifying for me.

If you're a religious person now seems to be the time to start praying for the continued health of the left-leaning justices.

 shasolenzabi wrote:
the Left is out in the cold concerning the Democratic party and the shenanigans of this current years' primary.

Yes, the outrageous shenanigans of winning an election by getting 3.5 million more votes. Truly shocking.

 d-usa wrote:
4 (or 8) years of Trump are bad enough. But the potential damage a Trump-filled SCOTUS can do is much more terrifying for me.

Well, I know many people who voted for Trump felt the exact same way about Hillary making SCOTUS choices. It was the only reason they voted for him.

 Peregrine wrote:
Turns out that you don't need experience or credible policy positions to be president, you just need an angry mob of deplorables and a promise to hate all the right people.

Sounds like the 2008/2012 Presidential election.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
By my rough math, as things lay now, I think Trump is going to win with 293 EV.

I did not see this coming.

You, me both.

Plus looks like the GOP retain control of the Senate.

I had no presumptions of a Trump victory but I was genuinely nervous about the Senate.

The NY Times is suggesting Trump may take Pennsylvania. o.O

 Breotan wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
By my rough math, as things lay now, I think Trump is going to win with 293 EV.

I did not see this coming.

You, me both.

Plus looks like the GOP retain control of the Senate.

I had no presumptions of a Trump victory but I was genuinely nervous about the Senate.

The NY Times is suggesting Trump may take Pennsylvania. o.O

PA is the biggest GOP cocktease... I shan't believe it.

 Peregrine wrote:
Turns out that you don't need experience or credible policy positions to be president, you just need an angry mob of deplorables and a promise to hate all the right people.

Sounds like Obama's run in 2008.

My parents were re-modelling their house in the suburbs in order to sell it off and move closer to my brother and I in the city. Given the city I reside in would probably be in the single digits on nuclear strike lists, I should convince them to reconsider. Also, I was never one to be frivolous with my vacation days, but I may have to get used to the idea of taking extended leaves of absence in times of international crisis.

This site may be quite helpful:

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Well if Hillary wins NV Washington Michigan and Wisconsin she wins it all.

 whembly wrote:
Sounds like the 2008/2012 Presidential election.

I don't recall Obama winning the primaries on a platform of "I hate Muslims and Mexicans", and then nominating a "don't worry, we're not too busy hating them to also hate the LGBT people too" vice president.

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
4 (or 8) years of Trump are bad enough. But the potential damage a Trump-filled SCOTUS can do is much more terrifying for me.

If you're a religious person now seems to be the time to start praying for the continued health of the left-leaning justices.

I would balance that against likelihood of more foreign wars under a Trump presidency at about a hundredth of what it would be under Hillary. Hillary is demonstrably hawkish.

 SickSix wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Turns out that you don't need experience or credible policy positions to be president, you just need an angry mob of deplorables and a promise to hate all the right people.

Sounds like Obama's run in 2008.

This. So much this. After all, if you didn't vote for Obama, you must be a racist KKK-loving bastard.

 djones520 wrote:
Hence my "at last look" part of the statement seb.

Your 'at last look' is a cover to what is a nonsense statement. The popular vote count right now is meaningless, when the most populous state in the country, a heavily Democratic leaning state, isn't part of the total.

 Ustrello wrote:
Well if Hillary wins NV Washington Michigan and Wisconsin she wins it all.

The majority of Michigan's urban area's are counted, and Trump still has the lead.

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
4 (or 8) years of Trump are bad enough. But the potential damage a Trump-filled SCOTUS can do is much more terrifying for me.

Well, I know many people who voted for Trump felt the exact same way about Hillary making SCOTUS choices. It was the only reason they voted for him.

Except out of the justices most likely to die in the next presidential term, they're mostly left-leaning. So it's either clinton making it 5:4 left:right or trump making it 2:7, which is infinitely worse.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Welp, that appears to be that.

I have no words.

Weeks ago, before Hillary started her surge, I thought a few things weren't good for her - a general lack of enthusiasm for her, Trump setting the tone for the race, and a Kerry-like failure to simply articulate why *she* should be POTUS instead of demonizing the other guy.

We should also remember that the Dems have had 8 years, and it's natural for some to feel it's time for a change. Also, there are many people who really, really, really dislike Obama and this was their chance to send a message.

I'm going to be seriously considering adjusting my portfolio to a more conservative position. Normally I don't act in a reactionary way, but the markets are already telling us how they think this presidency is going to go. Buckle in folks.

 sourclams wrote:
I would balance that against likelihood of more foreign wars under a Trump presidency at about a hundredth of what it would be under Hillary. Hillary is demonstrably hawkish.

How many times do I need to post this quote in this thread?

ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because of the oil that they took away, they have some in Syria, they have some in Iraq, I would bomb the gak out of them.
I would just bomb those suckers, and that's right, I'd blow up the pipes, I'd blow up the refineries, I'd blow up ever single inch, there would be nothing left.
And you know what, you'll get Exxon to come in there, and in two months, you ever see these guys? How good they are, the great oil companies, they'll rebuild it brand new... And I'll take the oil.

But somehow it's Clinton that's the hawk, not the guy running on a platform of "bomb the out of them". Unbelievable.

 Goliath wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
4 (or 8) years of Trump are bad enough. But the potential damage a Trump-filled SCOTUS can do is much more terrifying for me.

Well, I know many people who voted for Trump felt the exact same way about Hillary making SCOTUS choices. It was the only reason they voted for him.

Except out of the justices most likely to die in the next presidential term, they're mostly left-leaning. So it's either clinton making it 5:4 left:right or trump making it 2:7, which is infinitely worse.

Not if you are of a conservative mindset. An American conservative, not European one.

 Peregrine wrote:
Turns out that you don't need experience or credible policy positions to be president, you just need an angry mob of deplorables and a promise to hate all the right people.

Well, hey, it worked for Obama for 8 years.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Well if Hillary wins NV Washington Michigan and Wisconsin she wins it all.

The majority of Michigan's urban area's are counted, and Trump still has the lead.

HE's also leading WI bigly...

 Peregrine wrote:

 sourclams wrote:
I would balance that against likelihood of more foreign wars under a Trump presidency at about a hundredth of what it would be under Hillary. Hillary is demonstrably hawkish.

How many times do I need to post this quote in this thread?

ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because of the oil that they took away, they have some in Syria, they have some in Iraq, I would bomb the gak out of them.
I would just bomb those suckers, and that's right, I'd blow up the pipes, I'd blow up the refineries, I'd blow up ever single inch, there would be nothing left.
And you know what, you'll get Exxon to come in there, and in two months, you ever see these guys? How good they are, the great oil companies, they'll rebuild it brand new... And I'll take the oil.

But somehow it's Clinton that's the hawk, not the guy running on a platform of "bomb the out of them". Unbelievable.

Well, we do have an actual record of Clinton being involved in US military ventures. We just have Trump's huffed up words. I guess those have more weight though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Well if Hillary wins NV Washington Michigan and Wisconsin she wins it all.

The majority of Michigan's urban area's are counted, and Trump still has the lead.

HE's also leading WI bigly...

Michigan is tight. A number of red counties haven't turned in numbers yet, so they may hold the lead. I think it's to close to call at this point though.

Granted, this is the closest I've ever seen Michigan go to red since I've started voting, and that alone has me a bit excited.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Well if Hillary wins NV Washington Michigan and Wisconsin she wins it all.

The majority of Michigan's urban area's are counted, and Trump still has the lead.

Not really Lansing and Detroit still have a bit to go