| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On November 12 2016 09:00 GreenHorizons wrote: Where are you getting that 2012 number from? That looks really wrong? Indeed it was, here are the correct ones: Obama 1,755,396 votes or 56.16%, Romney 1,290,670 votes or 41.29%. The same applies though, Washington wasn't close and it wasn't closer than in 2012. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On November 12 2016 09:15 Thieving Magpie wrote: I still feel very angry, I'd like to request another 2 day ban before I fuck up Wishing you the best in your recovery. I know your heart was really in this election too T_T | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Exxon Mobile know has officially more of a conscience than the future US administration lol. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24059 Posts
On November 12 2016 09:05 kwizach wrote: Indeed it was, here are the correct ones: Obama 1,755,396 votes or 56.16%, Romney 1,290,670 votes or 41.29%. The same applies though, Washington wasn't close and it wasn't closer than in 2012. At the county levels it really was. Particularly in the counties near me, Pierce, Thurston, and in Lewis county (Trump expanded on Romney's performance). I read my area correctly (north of me based on reports from other delegates, not as much), Hillary outperformed by margin in King county (Seattle) but is still likely to get less votes there than Obama in 2012. For reference to 2016 results I'd caution people from using the "percent reported" and extrapolating too much for turnout, because they don't know how many people actually voted, so it's just an estimate, based on the same flawed model as the polls or based on number of precincts not proportion of the vote counted. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 12 2016 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Practically ever other candidate, Johnson (his support actually tripled), Stein, The socialist party, all ~doubled their votes, write-ins are up, and we don't know what turnout was yet. That Hillary performed as well as Obama is an illusion, it's likely far more votes went against her than Obama and the two of them generated less voters in general like many other states. It also doesn't account for the fact that Trump was a way shittier candidate. If 2016 Trump ran against 2012 Obama, the vote margin would have been way higher than 17%. That the vote margin was the same despite the Republican candidate being a lot shittier means the Democratic candidate was that much shittier too. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On November 12 2016 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote: At the county levels it really was. Particularly in the counties near me, Pierce, Thurston, and in Lewis county (Trump expanded on Romney's performance). I read my area correctly (north of me based on reports from other delegates, not as much), Hillary outperformed by margin in King county (Seattle) but is still likely to get less votes there than Obama in 2012. For reference to 2016 results I'd caution people from using the "percent reported" and extrapolating too much for turnout, because they don't know how many people actually voted, so it's just an estimate, based on the same flawed model as the polls or based on number of precincts not proportion of the vote counted. If the gap was closer in some counties, it wasn't in others, since overall the gap is currently wider than it was in 2012. Also, the NYT indicates only 77pc of precincts have reported their results, and Clinton's absolute numbers will therefore still go up by a sizeable extent. In any case, the point is that it wasn't a close race in the state. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4999 Posts
I'm more curious about the supreme court. He got a LOT of conservative votes on this issue. Even a liar like Trump must know he has to do a bare minimum of what he promised. | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
Every single thing they bring out all the bad aspects of it,painting it in a very bad light. Just a few examples. -rally on wallstreet:rich people already profiting from trump presidency and the man in the street will be left behind with less resources (article earlier today about who is profiting from trumps election) but keep in mind:everyone did warn for a stock market sell off incase trump got elected. if the stockmarket would have sold off then the article would have been "president trump tanks wall street, made 1 trillion evaporate. Or something along that line. No matter what would have happened here,the media would have brought it in a negative way -trumps childcare plan:highlighting all the negative aspects and nothing positive. And there where a few more articles today,all very one sided and negative. There have been a few good reports and articles,specially the first day,but now its back in full swing on bashing everything trump does or says. Now I personally don't even support trump but this is just ridiculous. If I was in usa I would have voted trump just out of spite about the crap the media has been serving us. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
On November 12 2016 11:12 Introvert wrote: Might just be Trump talking out of his backside again. The House will have significant influence on what they do. That being said, I'm sure government involvement in healthcare will still be much larger than it was pre-Obamacare. I'm more curious about the supreme court. He got a LOT of conservative votes on this issue. Even a liar like Trump must know he has to do a bare minimum of what he promised. Inb4 he nominates Garland lol. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
On November 12 2016 11:04 Blisse wrote: Given that Trump spent 1.5 hours talking with Obama and then supposedly reversed his views on repealing Obamacare, I'd be sooo happy if Trump made Obama his advisor. :D I can dream. Pence scares me. pence,i don't know him at all but I have to say:he scares me as well somehow. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
Trump is all over the place anyway, nobody knows where he is going to lead the US. Might even collectivize the banking system who the fuck know (lol). | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
In comparison my impression of the 2008 GOP is that they made no effort to understand why they had lost so convincingly, or to find common ground with liberal voters. Instead they declared all-out war on Obama's policy agenda and more or less did the best they could to paralyze the federal government. It's hard to argue that this approach wasn't effective. The GOP won yugely in 2010, 2014, and 2016 in large part because of bitterness about dysfunction in DC. Now they will soon control all three branches of government, and will be able to more or less enact their policy agenda at will. To what extent are my impressions stated above accurate? Should the Dems adopt a similar strategy of all-out obstruction? Will it be bad for our democracy if they do? Why do the parties handle catastrophic defeats so differently? Assuming the United States is around long enough for the Dems to regain control of the federal government, will the GOP use the same approach again? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On November 12 2016 11:18 pmh wrote: Well,the media obviously didn't learn from their mistakes. The amount of crap regarding the plans of the new president is unprecendented. (just looking at what yahoo news had to say during the day) Every single thing they bring out all the bad aspects of it,painting it in a very bad light. Just a few examples. -rally on wallstreet:rich people already profiting from trump presidency and the man in the street will be left behind with less resources (article earlier today about who is profiting from trumps election) but keep in mind:everyone did warn for a stock market sell off incase trump got elected. if the stockmarket would have sold off then the article would have been "president trump tanks wall street, made 1 trillion evaporate. Or something along that line. No matter what would have happened here,the media would have brought it in a negative way -trumps childcare plan:highlighting all the negative aspects and nothing positive. And there where a few more articles today,all very one sided and negative. There have been a few good reports and articles,specially the first day,but now its back in full swing on bashing everything trump does or says. Now I personally don't even support trump but this is just ridiculous. If I was in usa I would have voted trump just out of spite about the crap the media has been serving us. you've still yet to prove the media made a mistake, rather than that simply being an unjustified perception on your part. it's easy to cherry-pick examples to support your case. it's also very easy to simply say "the media", which is a very vague claim, and hard to counter, because we don't know which media you're tlaking about, we can't look at them and see for ourselves. we don't know how representative a sample it is. also, bad news sells. | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
I think the GOP just got ridiculously lucky. They are only on top because of Trump, because people clicked on all GOP buttons on their voting terminal while trying to select Trump. They didn't plan what happened. It looked like they tried their best to not have Trump as their candidate and then later didn't help in winning the presidential election. I wouldn't think of their actions as the best strategy. The whole thing is actually ridiculous. It makes no sense really. They shouldn't have those majority House+Senate seats. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 12 2016 11:12 Introvert wrote: Might just be Trump talking out of his backside again. The House will have significant influence on what they do. That being said, I'm sure government involvement in healthcare will still be much larger than it was pre-Obamacare. I'm more curious about the supreme court. He got a LOT of conservative votes on this issue. Even a liar like Trump must know he has to do a bare minimum of what he promised. I'm hoping the news is true in it's best case; that Pence gets power to appoint the right people to make the more conservative changes in the Trump platform. I figure the government will have an even bigger role in healthcare than Obamacare under Trump. He's a big government type that just wants to craft and run the program. I'm guessing a huge subsidy program with guaranteed issue and better plan choice ("minimum essential coverage") and maybe more market reforms (Paul Ryan-esque). That is all if he succeeds in repealing the current system over threatened philibuster. McConnell isn't a fighter in the senate. The Court and the Wall will be Trump's true tests. You might add tax reform/Obamacare, but I peg him as willing to compromise heavily. Nobody knows if Trump will wage long wars and pull out all the stops. Reagan had to go over the heads of the Democrats in the House to their constituents to exert pressure, and Trump does have the advantage of having won many blue states. Nothing he's done in the past shows he's in it for the long run when the talk stops and he faces entrenched interests and RINO obstruction. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Bombastic Starleague
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
