Re: Last one to post wins the internets
Finally, as a last takeaway, I cover the third party candidates. I was looking through the breakdowns in some of the states. If votes hadn't been thrown away to Johnson or Stein, neither of whom were ever viable candidates, most of those people would have voted for Clinton and the election would have turned toward her in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which would have gotten Clinton the electoral college votes she needed.
I'm making two major assumptions there. I think they're both reasonable assumptions though. As polarizing a figure as Trump has been, you were either definitely going to vote for him or someone else. The other assumption is that they still would have voted knowing they would be casting one for Clinton, and I think that's reasonable because they likely made the trip to their polling place to make conscientious votes on other positions and issues.
I've expelled most of my ire. I think I'm pretty much done with the topic because my disappointment is kind of overwhelming, and I need step away from it. I'd also just be preaching to the choir here.
Re: Last one to post wins the internets
Meaning, I'm going to just pretend for a little while that this never fucking happened and stay home and play video games. I don't want to go out and get into random conversations with people having to explain to them how this shit just happened like I'm the ambassador of stupid fucking round eyes.
Re: Last one to post wins the internets
In my stats hunt yesterday, I found it remarkable that there were almost four times the amount of votes cast for minor candidates as last time out. Over six times as many as the time before that.
I imagine that by now much has been made of that, but I reckon that influx of protest votes is more evenly attributed to the distaste of both main candidates than one might initially think.
He'd have won anyway, certainly in Florida, which was key as always.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mary
As polarizing a figure as Trump has been, you were either definitely going to vote for him or someone else
I was either going to comment upon this or do something else.
Re: Last one to post wins the internets
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gribley
Shite, Donald will be 'interesting' for the rest of the world but at least no Jap flag once a month I guess
I forgot to mention a 70's level of sexism
Oh, it was a reference to a burd having a period. A 69 year old burd. What a hoot.
I thought it may have been a reference to America no longer providing military protection to Japan, since Trump has referenced such a thing, that I was too uninformed to properly understand.
One lives and one learns.
Re: Last one to post wins the internets
This quote, if true, is incredible.
Quote:
20:Tokyo and Seoul should build up nuclear arsenals. He has said Japan and South Korea should not rely on the US so much and would benefit from having their own weapons. Nuclear war between Japan and North Korea may be "terrible" but it would be "pretty quick".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34903577
EDIT: Hmmm, yesterday it was "30 things Trump believes", now it's only 24. What's going on??
Re: Last one to post wins the internets
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barbarossa
This quote, if true, is incredible.
Quote:
20:Tokyo and Seoul should build up nuclear arsenals. He has said Japan and South Korea should not rely on the US so much and would benefit from having their own weapons. Nuclear war between Japan and North Korea may be "terrible" but it would be "pretty quick".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34903577
EDIT: Hmmm, yesterday it was "30 things Trump believes", now it's only 24. What's going on??
I wonder which ones were taken out.
I remember him saying that, it's a real quote. I pondered at the time how this idiot thought statements like that were going to get him votes.
:pinch:
As with a lot on that list, you just have to hope that it was just him spit-balling. That real politicians will block this from becoming an actual policy.
He's said a lot of things should happen. The language used gives an out so many of these statements will just hang there in the background and not come into force - like with the wall and deporting all muslims, for example. Probably.
Re: Last one to post wins the internets
Apparently this wall he is going to build is not a real wall but a metaphorical wall. :lol:
I think the wall may be his equivalent of the £350m Brexit bus...
Re: Last one to post wins the internets
Re: Last one to post wins the internets
Quote:
Originally Posted by
manker
In my stats hunt yesterday, I found it remarkable that there were almost four times the amount of votes cast for minor candidates as last time out. Over six times as many as the time before that.
I imagine that by now much has been made of that, but I reckon that influx of protest votes is more evenly attributed to the distaste of both main candidates than one might initially think.
He'd have won anyway, certainly in Florida, which was key as always.
That def plays a role. I'd dare to say that people's like/dislike of primary candidates is the most important factor in choosing a candidate. Few would admit it however. And it's impossible to ignore that the high disapproval ratings played a part in sending votes beyond the main two candidates. Another reason may be that despite the rhetoric surrounding Clintrump and the overwhelming amount of polarization they created, they weren't really much different on paper. When you remove the bits that a lot of people focused on (Clinton: woman, first woman president, blah blah) (Trump: controversial immigration, loudmouth, celebrity, orange, blah blah) and just looked at policy, they were almost the same candidate, focused on more war and more protectionist policies. Again I think that just goes to show that it was never about policy with most people, it was about him and her. People don't vote for some thing, they vote against someone.
Re: Last one to post wins the internets
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skiz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
manker
In my stats hunt yesterday, I found it remarkable that there were almost four times the amount of votes cast for minor candidates as last time out. Over six times as many as the time before that.
I imagine that by now much has been made of that, but I reckon that influx of protest votes is more evenly attributed to the distaste of both main candidates than one might initially think.
He'd have won anyway, certainly in Florida, which was key as always.
That def plays a role. I'd dare to say that people's like/dislike of primary candidates is the most important factor in choosing a candidate. Few would admit it however. And it's impossible to ignore that the
high disapproval ratings played a part in sending votes beyond the main two candidates. Another reason may be that despite the rhetoric surrounding Clintrump and the overwhelming amount of polarization they created, they weren't really much different on paper. When you remove the bits that a lot of people focused on (Clinton: woman, first woman president, blah blah) (Trump: controversial immigration, loudmouth, celebrity, orange, blah blah) and just looked at policy, they were almost the same candidate, focused on more war and more protectionist policies. Again I think that just goes to show that it was never about policy with most people, it was about him and her. People don't vote for some thing, they vote against someone.
To really debate all this Crap!!
Americans had 2 main nominees to choose from Clinton or Trump!!
Saying you can't choose, or putting someone else's name on your ballad, you should have had enough common sense that you wanted Trump, if not, you are pretty stupid!!
The media and the signs should have told you that the people voting for Trump were diehard and radical for him, so again who every voted for anyone else other than Clinton or Trump...
Welcome your new President elect Trump...
200 Million registered to vote.. Over 100 Million really voted, what happened to the all the people that didn't vote??
