• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Retromelon

Member
So what's the problem with all this fcc hulabullo, won't the free market gravitate towards the isp's that don't partake in the creation of extra fees :)))
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
whyamihere said:
I think it's okay that Obama abides by our institutional norms even when Republicans don't. That's why I never loved this EC plan, despite the fact that it would never work.
Click to expand...
There's a massive difference between what people were proposing with the EC and Biden getting Garland in before the new senate

Like the process of how an unelected judge can be confirmed is a lot different than "who gets to decide who is in control of everything"

The senate waived its right by making up a non existent rule to deny a qualified judge a hearing. He has every right with all things considered to at least attempt this.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
So let's say you were going to assign electors purely proportionally.

California has 55 Electors.

Hillary: 61.73%
Trump: 31.62%
Johnson: 3.37%
Stein: 1.96%
Bernie: 0.56%
La Riva: 0.47%
McMullin: 0.28%

This would assign Electors as:

Hillary: 33.95
Trump: 17.39
Johnson: 1.85
Stein: 1.08
Bernie: .31
La Riva: .26
McMullin: .15

Rounding would give you (since Electors are whole numbers):

Hillary: 34
Trump: 17
Johnson: 2
Stein: 1
Bernie: 0
La Riva: 0
McMullin: 0

But that's only 54 Electors. Who would get the 55th?
 
M

madstarr12

Member
whyamihere said:
So let's say you were going to assign electors purely proportionally.

California has 55 Electors.

Hillary: 61.73%
Trump: 31.62%
Johnson: 3.37%
Stein: 1.96%
Bernie: 0.56%
La Riva: 0.47%
McMullin: 0.28%

This would assign Electors as:

Hillary: 33.95
Trump: 17.39
Johnson: 1.85
Stein: 1.08
Bernie: .31
La Riva: .26
McMullin: .15

Rounding would give you (since Electors are whole numbers):

Hillary: 34
Trump: 17
Johnson: 2
Stein: 1
Bernie: 0
La Riva: 0
McMullin: 0

But that's only 54 Electors. Who would get the 55th?
Click to expand...
Maybe candidates need a minimum percentage to get any electoral votes, anything extra goes to the winner of the state vote. ;)
 
M

mackaveli

Member
madstarr12 said:
Maybe candidates need a minimum percentage to get any electoral votes, anything extra goes to the winner of the state vote. ;)
Click to expand...

I was also thinking of alternatives and why not weight voter participation % with the EC? Like if a state has lower turnout they get a reduced EC count that they had assigned per their state. And then the total 538 EC votes would be reduced depending on turnout?

I haven't thought about it too long so there could be holes. But this would result in states trying to increase voter turnout and participation and could try and combat the voter ID laws, and restrictions that the GOP place?
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
mackaveli said:
I was also thinking of alternatives and why not weight voter participation % with the EC? Like if a state has lower turnout they get a reduced EC count that they had assigned per their state. And then the total 538 EC votes would be reduced depending on turnout?

I haven't thought about it too long so there could be holes. But this would result in states trying to increase voter turnout and participation and could try and combat the voter ID laws, and restrictions that the GOP place?
Click to expand...

You'd have to argue somehow that it's okay to reduce the representation of those who didn't vote since the act of not voting is still considered a vote (just against all the candidates). This system essentially says that those non-voters aren't counted as part of the state.
 
M

mackaveli

Member
AntraxSuicide said:
You'd have to argue somehow that it's okay to reduce the representation of those who didn't vote since the act of not voting is still considered a vote (just against all the candidates). This system essentially says that those non-voters aren't counted as part of the state.
Click to expand...

That's true. Not sure how you would account for that.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
Okay, so:

- Let's say you need 1% of the vote to get an elector.

- All totals are rounded down to the nearest whole number.

- All extra votes go to who won the state.

CA:
Hillary: 36
Trump: 17
Johnson: 1
Stein: 1

FL:
Hillary: 13
Trump: 16

NY:
Hillary: 19
Trump: 10

TX:
Hillary: 16
Trump: 21
Johnson: 1

PA:
Hillary: 9
Trump: 11

IL:
Hillary: 13
Trump: 7

OH:
Hillary: 7
Trump: 11

MI:
Hillary: 7
Trump: 9

NC:
Hillary: 6 (just barely missed a 7th EV)
Trump: 9

GA:
Hillary: 7
Trump: 9

VA:
Hillary: 8
Trump: 5

NJ:
Hillary: 9
Trump: 5

WA:
Hillary: 8
Trump: 4

MA:
Hillary: 8
Trump: 3

WI:
Hillary: 4
Trump: 6

MN:
Hillary: 6
Trump: 4

MO:
Hillary: 3
Trump: 7

MD:
Hillary: 7
Trump: 3

CO:
Hillary: 6
Trump: 3

IN:
Hillary: 4
Trump: 7

AZ:
Hillary: 4 (juuuuuust missed out on a 5th)
Trump: 7

TN:
Hillary: 3
Trump: 8

AL:
Hillary: 3
Trump: 6

SC:
Hillary: 3
Trump: 6

LA:
Hillary: 3
Trump: 5

OR:
Hillary: 5
Trump: 2

KY:
Hillary: 2
Trump: 6

CT:
Hillary: 5
Trump: 2

IA:
Hillary: 2
Trump: 4

OK:
Hillary: 2
Trump: 5

MS:
Hillary: 2
Trump: 4

KS:
Hillary: 2
Trump: 4

UT:
Hillary: 1
Trump: 4
McMullin: 1

AR:
Hillary: 2
Trump: 4

NV:
Hillary: 4
Trump: 2

NE:
Hillary: 1
Trump: 4

NM:
Hillary: 3
Trump: 2

ME:
Hillary: 3
Trump: 1

NH:
Hillary: 3
Trump: 1

RI:
Hillary: 3
Trump: 1

WV:
Hillary: 1
Trump: 4

ID:
Hillary: 1
Trump: 3

MT:
Hillary: 1
Trump: 2

DE:
Hillary: 2
Trump: 1

HI:
Hillary: 3
Trump: 1

SD:
Hillary: 0
Trump: 3

ND:
Hillary: 0
Trump: 3

VT:
Hillary: 3
Trump: 0

AK:
Hillary: 1
Trump: 2

DC:
Hillary: 3
Trump: 0

WY:
Hillary: 0
Trump: 3

Total:
Hillary: 267
Trump: 267
Johnson: 2
Stein: 1
McMullin: 1

A tie!
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
whyamihere said:
Man, I just got really sad about the election again.
Click to expand...
Just knowing that you supposedly have what, 55% of the country approving of Obama and they elected not only Trump but a GOP Congress to completely shit all over his legacy (and then some) is utterly shameful.

The fate of the nation being in the hands of a handful of wishy-washy GOP senators is pretty terrifying.

If there isn't some progressive tea party that comes out of all of this we're well and rightfully fucked.
 
T

Team Alucard

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Just knowing that you supposedly have what, 55% of the country approving of Obama and they elected not only Trump but a GOP Congress to completely shit all over his legacy (and then some) is utterly shameful.

The fate of the nation being in the hands of a handful of wishy-washy GOP senators is pretty terrifying.

If there isn't some progressive tea party that comes out of all of this we're well and rightfully fucked.
Click to expand...

The Tea Party was successful because it was bankrolled by billionaires.

The far left has no major financial banking.
 
P

Pixieking

Banned
Team Alucard said:
The Tea Party was successful because it was bankrolled by billionaires.

The far left has no major financial banking.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping that the millionaires/billionaires who poured money into Hillary's campaign and Super PACs actually take some time to look into politics for more than just an election campaign.
 
H

Hillary Clinton

Banned
pigeon said:
If you're really Hillary how did you get away with the cattle futures thing
Click to expand...
Well, I can certainly tell you what happened, and I appreciate your asking me about it, because I've tried to follow the accounting in the press about it, and I want to explain as clearly as I can what occurred.

Back in 1978 in October, one of our best friends, Jim Blair, who had been a friend of my husband's and mine for some time, talked to me about what he thought was a great investment opportunity. He is someone who has been an investor ever since he was a teen-ager, with usually very good results. And he had followed closely what had been happening in the cattle market. And I only knew a little bit about that, although living in Arkansas, particularly northwest Arkansas as I did, I was familiar with a lot of ranchers and people who were in the cattle industry.

And when Jim said, `I think there's going to be a great opportunity to make money,' and explained why and asked me what I thought we could afford to invest, I told him $1,000. So I opened an account at his very strong recommendation and proceeded to trade over the next months until July.

You know, not all my trades made money. Some of them lost money. I talked to Mr. Blair very frequently. In fact, Jim would call me on a regular basis and I would make a decision whether I would or would not trade, and then the trade would be placed. Often he placed it for me. And there was nothing wrong with that. He was on the spot. He was often in the offices of the broker.

I stopped trading in July of 1979, and I did stop trading in large measure because I could not keep up with it. It takes a lot of nerve to be in the commodities trading, and I had just found out I was pregnant. And so when he called again, I said, `You know, I just don't want to do this anymore.' And I think he may have even called a few more times, saying, `You know, it's really still doing well. Trade again.' And I didn't, and I'm glad I didn't because he and other friends of mine who were trading ended up losing money.

So it was a good investment offered by somebody who knew a lot, who could provide a lot of good advice, and I was lucky and made the decision to stop when I did.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I'm late to this, but just saw the whole faithless electoral votes thing, and holy shit, Hilldawg just can't fucking catch a break.
 
F

Foffy

Banned
Man, reading this from the White House, only to know in just a few weeks, people who will entirely ignore this reality to even entertain it are coming in breaks my fucking heart.
 
M

mo60

Member
TheLaughingStock said:
I hope for the sake of the GOP and Trump's presidency that he shifts the bias of the proposed tax cuts and reduces the Republican fetish of gutting social services. Republicans could be in power for a very long time if they changed tactics.
Click to expand...

Spoiler. They won't. Even though they will probably avoid cutting social services to the bone so they don't get kicked out in 4 years. Trump as president is going to give the everything they ever wanted when they got into power which may be good or bad for everyone in the US.
 
J

Joni

Member
So Clinton got 65.844.610 votes compared to 62.979.636 Trump votes. That means she is almost equal to Obama 2012's 65.915.795 votes.
 
The Chosen One

The Chosen One

Member
Team Alucard said:
The Tea Party was successful because it was bankrolled by billionaires.

The far left has no major financial banking.
Click to expand...

Speaking of the Tea Party, I recently was interested in finding out what happened to the Tea Party since they were ubiquitous from 2009 - 2014, but now we barely hear a peep about them.

This is a very good article on what happened to the Tea Party movement from someone who was involved around the edges:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/tea-party-pacs-ideas-death-214164

Quite a few factors lead to the demise of the Tea Party but one of the interesting tid-bits that article talks about is how basically the grassroots over time got completely juiced of all their money from PACs and vultures trying to profit off them. They would come up with some random petition like Sarah Palin for Alaska Senate even though she had no intention of running. But they would collect emails and other contact information, and create huge lists that they would either sell or use to solicit donations for things like "Stop Obama from conducting Midnight Raids on Gun Owners! Donate now!". These PACs would take anywhere from 90-100% of the money and give almost nothing back to the cause. They did this long enough where they essentially tapped the well dry.

I bring that part up because liberals/progressives are going to be really vulnerable to similar scams. With Trump now in power many people are a nervous wreck and may get preyed upon and start throwing money behind things that are essentially scams. The whole Jill Stein recount is a perfect example. There was no audit, just the same type of count that was done on election day, but Jill Stein preyed upon people's emotions and raised millions of dollars in just a few days. She got one recount, and failed to get the other two. The rest of the money will go toward Green Party initiatives whatever that is.

And how many donations were solicited for lobbying "faithless electors"? At the end of it, Hilary ended losing more elector votes... :lol

It's barely been a month and we've already had two major scams targeting progressives. So I just think progressives should be more vigilant because history is already repeating itself. I don't know if the Tea Party is really a model you guys should want to emulate. Democrats managed to regain the house in 2006 after the 2004 election loss without having to swing pitchforks and demonizing everything that moved. And it helped us get Obama in 2008. Yes the Tea Party brought on a massive win for the GOP in the 2010 midterms. But the Tea Party was driven by fear and the GOP PACs/consultants exploited it and devoured them from the inside. The Tea Party did manage to get a few candidates elected to Congress, but in the end I think they did a better job attacking establishment Republicans than actually accomplishing initiatives against Obama.


..... then again, when Tea Partiers melted back into the Republican party they voted for Trump in large numbers and got him elected President. So who knows, maybe they did win in the end.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
I mean, I don't think we need to be the tea party (the worst elements of both the business class and the fringe right), but I just mean some kind of organized public resistance movement from the left. I want progressives confronting GOP Congressmen, governors, senators etc at town halls and other public events, and blowing up their phone lines. Same for the Democrats - ensuring that every single one of them stays in line and doesn't give Trump an inch on his big ticket items.

Put guys like Flake and Heller on the defensive for the next election - and if they fold, keep hammering away at them anyway. The GOP wets itself at the prospect of beating Manchin, Heitkamp etc, we need to take this much more seriously.

Like I want a tied Senate, House majority and like 13 governorships after the 2018 elections. And state legislatures everywhere. This is what we need to fight for.

Looking at governorships, there's:

New Jersey (2017) - Open
Illinois - Rauner
Maine - Open
Maryland - Hogan
Massachusetts - Baker
Nevada - Open
New Hampshire - Sununu
New Mexico - Open
Vermont - Phil Scott

Notice anything about those states? They're all states that Clinton won. Some handily. That's nine, which would already give us a majority of governor's mansions if we swept them all.

By comparison, we're only defending one governor's seat in Trump territory, Wolf in Pennsylvania. Beyond that there's opportunities in Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida (ranked by order of closeness), as well as Arizona which ended up being a 3-point race or so this year (much like the 2012 Senate race). Also states that were much redder - Iowa and Ohio could swing back after two years of Trump's bullshit, and Texas and Georgia are still on the move even if they didn't flip just yet. Texas is supposed to gain like three Congressional seats in the next Census. Big reward if we can draw a compromise map!

State legislatures are a bit too in the weeds for my 6am ramblings but we can obviously make up a lot of ground there too. Point being: the left needs to get its ass in gear, starting with the very first special election anywhere. Like what, there's that seat in Georgia? The at-large seat in Montana? Let's swing those fuckers. Run as a check and balance on Trump so all those suburbanites go "Well gee, that sounds like a good idea, don't want the president to have TOO much power" while motivating the left. Bit us in the ass during Obama but the shoe is on the other foot now! (Maybe)

Ok. Just had to get that out of my system.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Looking at the final popular vote i grow more convinced by the day that this thing was Comey's fault.

Yes, Hillary fucked up in the rust belt but had Comey not thrown a grenade into the campaign's momentum 11 days before the general election, while it still would have been close, I think she she would have won enough states to win. Florida too.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Aaron Strife said:
I mean, I don't think we need to be the tea party (the worst elements of both the business class and the fringe right), but I just mean some kind of organized public resistance movement from the left. I want progressives confronting GOP Congressmen, governors, senators etc at town halls and other public events, and blowing up their phone lines. Same for the Democrats - ensuring that every single one of them stays in line and doesn't give Trump an inch on his big ticket items.

Put guys like Flake and Heller on the defensive for the next election - and if they fold, keep hammering away at them anyway. The GOP wets itself at the prospect of beating Manchin, Heitkamp etc, we need to take this much more seriously.

Like I want a tied Senate, House majority and like 13 governorships after the 2018 elections. And state legislatures everywhere. This is what we need to fight for.

Looking at governorships, there's:

New Jersey (2017) - Open
Illinois - Rauner
Maine - Open
Maryland - Hogan
Massachusetts - Baker
Nevada - Open
New Hampshire - Sununu
New Mexico - Open
Vermont - Phil Scott

Notice anything about those states? They're all states that Clinton won. Some handily. That's nine, which would already give us a majority of governor's mansions if we swept them all.

By comparison, we're only defending one governor's seat in Trump territory, Wolf in Pennsylvania. Beyond that there's opportunities in Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida (ranked by order of closeness), as well as Arizona which ended up being a 3-point race or so this year (much like the 2012 Senate race). Also states that were much redder - Iowa and Ohio could swing back after two years of Trump's bullshit, and Texas and Georgia are still on the move even if they didn't flip just yet. Texas is supposed to gain like three Congressional seats in the next Census. Big reward if we can draw a compromise map!

State legislatures are a bit too in the weeds for my 6am ramblings but we can obviously make up a lot of ground there too. Point being: the left needs to get its ass in gear, starting with the very first special election anywhere. Like what, there's that seat in Georgia? The at-large seat in Montana? Let's swing those fuckers. Run as a check and balance on Trump so all those suburbanites go "Well gee, that sounds like a good idea, don't want the president to have TOO much power" while motivating the left. Bit us in the ass during Obama but the shoe is on the other foot now! (Maybe)

Ok. Just had to get that out of my system.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%.

What I expect: a prolonged fight over DNC chair that hamstrings these efforts.
 
V

VRMN

Member
WaffleTaco said:
Illinois is probably going to stay with Rauner.
Click to expand...
Predicting anything about election results two years out is really hard. Fight. All we can do is work to try and be in a position to flip it when the time comes. Giving up now on any race guarantees a loss.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Crab said:
It has a set timetable. You can't prolong it beyond February 2017 regardless.
Click to expand...

Not the timetable--the lasting damage done when two sides are against each other. Democrats tend to hold on to that bitterness much longer than the GOP (see: Bernie fans).
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Trump jerking himself off on Twitter again.

We're going to have four years of a narcissistic egomaniac stroking himself over ever little thing that goes his way.
 
H

Holmes

Member
WaffleTaco said:
Illinois is probably going to stay with Rauner.
Click to expand...
Maybe under a Hillary presidency there would be a chance, but it'll be much easier to make the race national and about Trump than local and about the Democratic state legislature, which would really be the only strategy that would work for Rauner.
 
C

chadskin

Member
@Reuters:
JUST IN: Kremlin says nearly all communication channels between U.S. and Russia are frozen: RIA

Not for long. *wink wink*
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Plinko said:
Not the timetable--the lasting damage done when two sides are against each other. Democrats tend to hold on to that bitterness much longer than the GOP (see: Bernie fans).
Click to expand...

People keep saying this, but I'm reasonably sure it isn't true. Republicans often don't "fall in line", or whatever - where were all the Republicans falling into line for Romney in 2012? I know some Cruz people who are literally furious at Trump (they hate his populism and wanted a more constitutionally faithful candidate, blah blah blah) who sat out the election in 2016. Most of the polling evidence seems to show that Trump lost more primary voters than Clinton did - that is, people who voted Sanders in the primaries were more likely to then vote Clinton than people who voted Kasich were to then vote Trump. I feel like it is just an excuse to detract from the fact that Clinton lost because Trump won former Obama voters in several key areas. That's not Republicans falling in line, that's Democrats being persuaded to vote Republican. You don't have to face up to the fact that the swing vote in this election was poorer communities in the Rust Belt switching from Democrat to Republican, because you can blame it on young, white, millennials or whatever. They make a fantastic scapegoat!

And the whole argument that Democrats need to just line up like cannon fodder regardless of whether the candidate suits their needs is a pretty disturbing narrative, because the subtext to it is: you mustn't ever question that status quo. If the party were to elect a consciously racist but economically re-distributive candidate, I wouldn't be for a moment suggesting we fall in line. I'd be absolutely outraged and suggesting taking to the streets. So why, whenever the issue is insufficient care about class issues or income inequality or deindustrialization, does the other side have to take what they're given? It's Gramscian hegemony at its most base.
 
O

Odrion

Banned
Crab said:
People keep saying this, but I'm reasonably sure it isn't true. Republicans often don't "fall in line", or whatever - where were all the Republicans falling into line for Romney in 2012? I know some Cruz people who are literally furious at Trump (they hate his populism and wanted a more constitutionally faithful candidate, blah blah blah) who sat out the election in 2016. Most of the polling evidence seems to show that Trump lost more primary voters than Clinton did - that is, people who voted Sanders in the primaries were more likely to then vote Clinton than people who voted Kasich were to then vote Trump. I feel like it is just an excuse to detract from the fact that Clinton lost because Trump won former Obama voters in several key areas. That's not Republicans falling in line, that's Democrats being persuaded to vote Republican. You don't have to face up to the fact that the swing vote in this election was poorer communities in the Rust Belt switching from Democrat to Republican, because you can blame it on young, white, millennials or whatever. They make a fantastic scapegoat!

And the whole argument that Democrats need to just line up like cannon fodder regardless of whether the candidate suits their needs is a pretty disturbing narrative, because the subtext to it is: you mustn't ever question that status quo. If the party were to elect a consciously racist but economically re-distributive candidate, I wouldn't be for a moment suggesting we fall in line. I'd be absolutely outraged and suggesting taking to the streets. So why, whenever the issue is insufficient care about class issues or income inequality or deindustrialization, does the other side have to take what they're given? It's Gramscian hegemony at its most base.
Click to expand...
good post
 
E

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
The Guardian has an article about the Trump tape with the n-word.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
fantomena said:
Does someone have the pic with "BUT HER EMAILS" sign in water?
Click to expand...

zJ0HePT.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bringing Dune Awakening to the Xbox Series S will be a "challenge", according to Funcom chief product officer
News 2 3
100
5K
mdkirby replied
First time you realized Japanese devs were GOAT?
Drama Retro Game Dev 2 3
118
4K
Spukc replied
Modern Game Devs Suck at Community Support
2
60
3K
Reizo Ryuu replied
Players are now less "accepting" that games will be fixed, say Paradox, after "underestimating" the reaction to Cities: Skylines 2's performance woes
Game Dev
47
2K
Quantum253 replied
Get well soon, @Ultrazilla
37
2K
EviLore replied
Top Bottom