American Elections

[Earniel]

Congratulations to our American mooters with their new president. I'd love to hear your reactions. How surprising was the final result for you?

[Valandil]

Very surprising to me. I really thought Hillary Clinton would win it. It was such an odd campaign though.

I'll comment more later.

Thanks for bringing it up.

[Earniel]

Odd? That's not quite the word I would describe for this campaign. But my first choice of words would beeped so at best I would describe the election campaigning that filtered through to my part of Europe as 'degrading'.

I've been briefly looking, but I can't find how much of the voting populace actually voted in this election. Anyone knows? Was the voting turn-out higher or lower compared to the previous presidential election?

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Rebecca Harrington and Skye Gould

The data available on Monday show nearly 134 million ballots had been counted, according to the United States Elections Project. This sets a new overall record, surpassing the all-time high of 132 million Americans in the 2008 contest between Barack Obama and John McCain.

While results are still trickling in, that total suggests that only 58% of the country's 232 million eligible voters actually voted this year.

I was disappointed in the choices for president. Of 300+ million people this was the "best" the country could do.

I could not justify voting for either major party candidate, although I am glad Clinton is not in charge. Hopefully Trump will be better than he sounds.

The campaign was one low point followed by another. Adding insult to injury was that it lasted until November 8. (1st Tuesday after the 1st Monday)

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Odd? That's not quite the word I would describe for this campaign. But my first choice of words would beeped so at best I would describe the election campaigning that filtered through to my part of Europe as 'degrading'.

I've been briefly looking, but I can't find how much of the voting populace actually voted in this election. Anyone knows? Was the voting turn-out higher or lower compared to the previous presidential election?

[Earniel]

Thank you for those numbers and the link, Mithrand1r.

For someone like me who comes from a country with mandatory voting, it is kinda mindboggling that in the 'biggest democracy on earth' one can become president with maybe only 25% of the eligible voting populace behind you.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Both options were horrible I wore black on election day. It's so sad - it's gotten so that honest, decent people can't get through the process; you have to be a corrupt millionaire willing to lie and backstab to get rid of the actual good people

At least you went to vote. (So go you!) Too many couldn't be bothered.

While I can intellectually understand why Clinton would be a horrible political choice for some, what I can not comprehend -CANNOT- simply. Cannot. Understand is that follows that Trump is in ANY way a suitable candidate for presidency. Did anyone actual LISTEN to that guy and still vote for him? What does that say about his followers? No, cannot understand.

Originally Posted by Mari

On this side of the pond, no one was charmed by the choices either, but we all thought Hillary would win. But hey, we all thought the British wouldn't vote leave and they did anyway, so...

Yeah, I think maybe the Brexit should have taught us to know better. After all, we saw the same things there: big lies, poorly understood consequences, and wrong poll results.

Originally Posted by Alcuin

Polling before the US election was deliberately skewed to show Hillary with a commanding lead to build a “bandwagon effect�: Democrats were oversampled, while Republicans and independents were systematically undersampled. This was done by “professional� polling firms, particularly those working for the television networks, nearly all of whom Wikileaks revealed to be working closely and (they thought) clandestinely with Clinton. Not only was this patently dishonest – after this, who’ll trust a US pollster or news network for a generation going forward? – it was foolish: Hillary’s supporters expected an easy win, so many of them stayed home. I expect this same polling tactic was employed leading up to the Brexit vote.

Sounds a little too simple, though. But conspiracy theories always make for better stories, but not necessarily right ones. Something we saw enough of this election, methinks.

I actually lost a lot of respect for Wikileaks on this one. With so openly trying to manipulate the elections, wikileaks have shown their anti-establishment bias is more important to them that getting out the truth. I can sort of get it, if the rape-charges against Assange really are political as he claims, but still, if you're going to be a whistleblower, get information out, do not curate it to inflict the most damage to your opponent.

I did have my worries about the polling mechanisms used because it seemed , more so than with previous elections, that new polls were coming out almost several times a day. With so much constant polling, how does one keep your polling groups statistically viable? (on a eligible population of 120 millions, your sample needs to be big too) I mean, you can't be calling the same people several times aday with the question 'And who would you be voting for now?' People would go spare after a few calls.

According to one expert over here, the polls suffered from an effect that we see in our own elections too: That the people polled will lie about who they will vote for if the candidate they intend to vote for is deemed morally undesirable by society.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

If anything the election was rigged the other way. I'm looking at you, Mr FBI man, Russian hackers, mysteriously dropped child rape charges after death threats, etc etc.

Not sure if you can call that rigging but we sure saw quite a bit of manipulation techniques trotted out this election. My guess is that in elections to come this will be ramped up because if this election and Brexit have shown us anything then it is that lying and manipulation works. And that the liars get away with it relatively painless, something which, personally, drives me up the wall.

It seems people just like being lied to if they're the sort of lies they want to hear. "We'll make America great again!" "Without Europe we have millions more to pour in our healthcare!" "Voter fraud is real!" "Nations will now be waiting in line to sign international treaties that will be only in our favour ever!" "Clinton is criminal!" "We can totally kick out anyone we want to! But of course we won't use that power against you..."

Yeah. Right.

[mithrand1r]

My response is in blue below:

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Thank you for those numbers and the link, Mithrand1r.

For someone like me who comes from a country with mandatory voting, it is kinda mindboggling that in the 'biggest democracy on earth' one can become president with maybe only 25% of the eligible voting populace behind you.

Technically the US is a Republic and not a direct democracy. (I think you probably knew that ) Actually, I do not think there are any democracies in the world today. There are several representative forms of government.

If people are uninformed on the issues they are probably better off not voting. If one is cynical, one might think that there is little reason to vote.

Unfortunately most if not all types of government tend to attract those who wish to dominate and control others. These busybodies and others obsessed with controlling others make life difficult for many.


At least you went to vote. (So go you!) Too many couldn't be bothered.

While I can intellectually understand why Clinton would be a horrible political choice for some, what I can not comprehend -CANNOT- simply. Cannot. Understand is that follows that Trump is in ANY way a suitable candidate for presidency. Did anyone actual LISTEN to that guy and still vote for him? What does that say about his followers? No, cannot understand.


I think one reason that many people chose Trump is due to being fed-up wit typical politicians. People are tired of the way they have been treated by politicians (both Democrats & Republicans) over many years. Trump is a way to give the figurative middle finger to the political system. May not change things, but people are not happy. Might be part of reason why Bernie Sanders did well against Clinton.

Yeah, I think maybe the Brexit should have taught us to know better. After all, we saw the same things there: big lies, poorly understood consequences, and wrong poll results.


Sounds a little too simple, though. But conspiracy theories always make for better stories, but not necessarily right ones. Something we saw enough of this election, methinks.

I actually lost a lot of respect for Wikileaks on this one. With so openly trying to manipulate the elections, wikileaks have shown their anti-establishment bias is more important to them that getting out the truth. I can sort of get it, if the rape-charges against Assange really are political as he claims, but still, if you're going to be a whistleblower, get information out, do not curate it to inflict the most damage to your opponent.

There are probably many that would like to influence the outcomes of elections. One can always ask "cui bono" to try to make sense of the actions of others. May not always work 100% of time, but it is a good indicator of motive.

I did have my worries about the polling mechanisms used because it seemed , more so than with previous elections, that new polls were coming out almost several times a day. With so much constant polling, how does one keep your polling groups statistically viable? (on a eligible population of 120 millions, your sample needs to be big too) I mean, you can't be calling the same people several times aday with the question 'And who would you be voting for now?' People would go spare after a few calls.


If a proper sample is chosen that is representative of the population in question then the sample size does not need to be too large relatively speaking.

Of course the larger the sample, the more confident one can be with data found.
example from website:
99% confidence level
±3 Confidence Interval
150,000,000 votors
only needs a sample size of 1849 people.


According to one expert over here, the polls suffered from an effect that we see in our own elections too: That the people polled will lie about who they will vote for if the candidate they intend to vote for is deemed morally undesirable by society.

Agreed. Basically conclusions reached are only as good as the data used for the conclusions. garbage in -- garbage out.


Not sure if you can call that rigging but we sure saw quite a bit of manipulation techniques trotted out this election. My guess is that in elections to come this will be ramped up because if this election and Brexit have shown us anything then it is that lying and manipulation works. And that the liars get away with it relatively painless, something which, personally, drives me up the wall.

It seems people just like being lied to if they're the sort of lies they want to hear. "We'll make America great again!" "Without Europe we have millions more to pour in our healthcare!" "Voter fraud is real!" "Nations will now be waiting in line to sign international treaties that will be only in our favour ever!" "Clinton is criminal!" "We can totally kick out anyone we want to! But of course we won't use that power against you..."

A catch-22, people do not want to be lied to, but they tend to vote for those that promise the most for them, regardless of their honesty.

Yeah. Right.

Interesting reads for anyone interested:
The Law -- Frederic Bastiat
(pdf file)

Henry Hazlitt -- Economics in One Lesson (pdf file)

Lysander Spooner
No Treason I --1867
No Treason II--1867
No Treason VI--1870

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Congratulations to our American mooters with their new president. I'd love to hear your reactions. How surprising was the final result for you?

Both options were horrible I wore black on election day. It's so sad - it's gotten so that honest, decent people can't get through the process; you have to be a corrupt millionaire willing to lie and backstab to get rid of the actual good people

I thought Clinton would win. She got the popular vote but not the electoral college vote, which is the thing that counts. I thought it was a higher turnout than normal, but it looks like it started that way (because of our differing timezones, the eastern states' results come in first) but then dropped off and was lower than normal.

[Mari]

On this side of the pond, no one was charmed by the choices either, but we all thought Hillary would win. But hey, we all thought the British wouldn't vote leave and they did anyway, so...

[Alcuin]

Polling before the US election was deliberately skewed to show Hillary with a commanding lead to build a “bandwagon effect�: Democrats were oversampled, while Republicans and independents were systematically undersampled. This was done by “professional� polling firms, particularly those working for the television networks, nearly all of whom Wikileaks revealed to be working closely and (they thought) clandestinely with Clinton. Not only was this patently dishonest – after this, who’ll trust a US pollster or news network for a generation going forward? – it was foolish: Hillary’s supporters expected an easy win, so many of them stayed home. I expect this same polling tactic was employed leading up to the Brexit vote.

[Insidious Rex]

So "rigged" polling for Hilary allowed Trump to win? What garbage. Can we stop looking for conspiracy theories constantly? Especially when you win? If this election proved anything it was that you cant rig an election no matter how hard you try (or a primary for that matter) and no matter how much money you throw at it and that the most unlikely (nightmare) scenario can come true when theres enough people willing to elect a womanizing unqualified hate mongering buffoon despite ALL the terrible horrible things he did and said. They dont care because either they are stupid enough to believe it when he says he will magically regenerate steel and coal jobs that have been extinct for over a generation or they just wanted to screw up the system and knew Donald Trump would certainly be the best candidate for that. So they voted for a brick through the window. Not caring if he was qualified or competent or had any idea what he was doing at all. They voted to crown the pig as king feeling it was the ultimate way to thumb their noses at and show how little they think of Washington and the Federal Government. Get ready world, our insistence that everything in life must play out like the worst most unbelievable story line for a terrible reality TV program is now about to explode in the highest office on earth. Are you not entertained?

[The Gaffer]

If anything the election was rigged the other way. I'm looking at you, Mr FBI man, Russian hackers, mysteriously dropped child rape charges after death threats, etc etc.

Lots in common with Brexit - brick through the window, blatant lies, xenophobia, false equivalence, utter failure of the media to scrutinise any of it in a meaningful way.

The one additional thing at play is plain ol' misogyny. Seems like for a lot of folk, it was bad enough they had to have a black man as president for 8 years. No way were they going to let a woman in.

All in all, hard to say what's more depressing. The specific policy idiocy (e.g. climate change), the long-term harm to Americans (e.g. packing the Supreme Court with radges) or what it says about values generally.

[Mari]

What are 'radges'?

[Mari]

Valandil, thanks for your post. I'm glad I got to read an educated view on Donald Trump.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Mari

Valandil, thanks for your post. I'm glad I got to read an educated view on Donald Trump.

With IR's response, I hope you're not being sarcastic.

IR - I'll get through your post and reply to at least some of it - but it's got to be later.

And everyone please know - I'm not a big fan of Donald Trump. I just think Hillary Clinton was worse. And the worst thing about this election was - I think a good chunk of people thought both of our two major party candidates was awful - but voted for the one they could stomach the most. Which isn't the best way for us to be choosing our President. Unfortunately, that's what it came to.

[Mari]

No, I wasn't sarcastic. I still think if people wanted change, they should have found a better candidate, but it is good to read why people object to hillary so much.

[Butterbeer]

I just feel sorry for Val's children... he wrestles away control of the computer with the promise..."wont be long kids, just going to write a quick comment on Entmoot"
Now i know why there hasn't been a quote game post for so long

Interesting read.
Maybe America just had a blonde moment? You can imagine the film treatment:

*deep trailer voice*:

"2 dumb blondes, one great nation divided...
from the creators of the twilight zone,
and the multiple Rasberry-winning director of "you just couldnt make this (beep) up"
and the heart-wrenching classic soul-destroying Horror "Politics 2016"...
comes a modern day tale of Misogyny and Mexicans, Corruption and crookedness"

I'm curious, since everyone tends to agree its the two worst candidates of all time, who our American Mooters would have liked to see run (be nominated by the Donkeys and the Elephants) instead and why?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Besides my disappointment with Trump, I'm even more disappointed in our media. They were in the tank for Clinton. They've been trending that way for years, always favoring the liberal/progressive/Democratic Party candidates and agenda. To the extent that they have given up on unbiased reporting and have become a mouthpiece for the Left. [...] And... they did their best to report anything bad about Trump (most often out of context) and to avoid reporting anything bad about Clinton. Anything about Trump has been presented in a biased way.

Funny, I've had a different experience: I've seen a media that Would. Not. Could. Not. Shut. Up. about those bloody emails, even when there was no new information and they STILL kept going on and on about it, trying to drum up drama where there was little to be had. IMO they certainly milked it until it created a 'no smoke without fire' effect that people started to really think there was far more foul play in the email-thing than there really was, resulting in hurting Clinton's credibility. Comey played right into that.

I think the biggest problem the media has is not being the Mouth of the Left but being too invested in drama. If an election isn't dramatic enough, they'll find something to make it dramatic and that's what we see here. If the news they bring is boring, then people aren't interested, so it must be livened up, even if that's digging up drama where there isn't any. Trump, now Trump is a drama-generating machine all on his own. The media love Trump, he will always say something divisive they can put on the newspaper headline. Trump knows this too, most of his money comes from perpetuating his own brand of Trumpishness.

Also, RE this specifically:

[...] they did their best to report anything bad about Trump (most often out of context)

No. Just no. There is NO context possibly in which some of Trump's quotes about women are not horrible. None of that 'just locker room talk' excuses as if that makes it okay in any way. No to the nth.

This guy is advocating rapist views on primetime, and I bet he has made a lot of fans in that area. Loudly threathening to sue all the women who have accused him of abuse? Pretending it couldn't have happened because they're not pretty enough for him? Classic rapist tactic and that's not the only one.

It's shown time and time again that sexual assault is one of the hardest things to prove, and one of the fields in which the least prosecutions and convictions happen, people like him thrive on that.

As I said, I don't like a lot of things about Trump. He is NOT of the character I want to see in a President of the United States. However - Bill Clinton is guilty of doing everything (with women) that Donald Trump is. Maybe more. Bill isn't running this time - Hillary is, right? Well... Hillary didn't just "stand by her man" - she attacked any woman who accused Bill of taking liberties, abuse, rape - whatever it was. Even from before their White House days, when he was governor of Arkansas. Yet Hillary talks like we need to protect women from abuse. And you know what - Bill gets a pass, and Hillary gets a pass, both from the media and the American people (at least, the Left). But - not Trump. Fair?

Fair? Let's look a litte closer here, because IMO there is some covert social misogyny at the bottom here. A wife of a cheater is always the loser. Why? Because there is NOTHING she can do or say that will not make her a target for criticism and besmearchment. Nothing.

She stands by her cheating husband? Shame on her, the spineless [expletive], does she have no will of her own? She denounces her husband? Shame on her, the treacherous [expletive], doesn't she know any loyality? She remains silent? Shame on her, the two-timing [expletive] she should take a stand! She defends him? Shame on her, the betraying [expletive] she must be lying, bet she was in on it from the start!

Think about it, what is a woman in that position to do? The reaction of the wife is always critisized much worse than the actual crime of the husband because, well, 'boys will be boys, right?' His crime will always be thrown in her face. Never the other way around. Is that fair, hell no, but that's society for you. I will have no part of shaming women for the crime of others.

All this hubbub about the Electoral College. I still think it's a good system - better than direct popular vote. If we change it, and the Democrats lose the next election by popular vote and would have won it by electoral vote - they'd want to change it right back. This is about sour grapes, and about winning. But to me - the electoral college keeps us from have voter fraud determine our President.

Again, my experience is different. I hear no one complaining about the elector-system or even the winner-takes-all-principle of some states. But I do hear a lot of grumbling about gerrymandering and I don't think that's entirely unfounded. The very process seems to be designed to distort the democratic process rather than accentuating it.

Do you have this in Europe? Voting without an ID? Does it seem crazy?

Heh, I've always been told that our current ID system was set up during the German Occupation and that subsequent Belgian authorities thought it too useful to ditch, even though it technically was a tool of the Oppresser. Puts IDs in a bit of different light, eh? Anyway, I have Opinions about the Belgian ID-system (ooh yes), but I have to say it has advantages for the people as well as the politicians and so it should.

So I don't think voting with ID should be much of a problem, (heck, I've been doing it for years) but only if it isn't used as a weapon to deny people of legal voting standing the chance to vote. IDs too should be IMO obtainable without Kafka-like mechanisms or pricy pricetages (pointed look at Belgian officials) that leave the poor, migrants or less-informed without legal papers and no representation. And the issues with who controls the voter rolls and how they can be changed also plays a part. And IMO that seems where most of the fear against letting the GOP handling ID for voting comes from, rather than the actual principle of voting on ID.

Trump expressed concern in advance about the election being "rigged" - and was ridiculed for it.

And is now backpeddling like mad to prevent recounts. I guess the election was only rigged if it wasn't in his favour, right? Or as long as he doesn't actually have to prove anything.

I am rather interested in the recounts now, though I don't think it'll change the outcome. But it would be interesting to see if the process could was rigged. I mean, everybody's been opining away about potential rigging to high heaven these last weeks, well let's stop whining and nuckle down to find out once and for all so we can stop guessing. Shouldn't everybody now be interested to know whether the system is sound? Was it all hot air? Or should a lot of democracies that use computer voting be wanting to check their own systems?

Some are worried that Trump will get us into a war with his perceived recklessness, but Hillary seems like she would lead us right into conflict with Russia.

You know, if European history is anything to go by, appeasement of war-hungry strong neighbours often turns out to be a really bad move for most people... And then I mean people, common people, not necessarily nations or governments.

And the Russians are notoriously bad at reading maps, too.

Then - as fringe-crazy as this sound, there are a LOT of Clinton enemies, especially Hillary Clinton enemies, who meet mysterious deaths.

Ooookay, then why isn't Trump or Bernie buried like ten feet under now?

Originally Posted by mithrand1r

The debt is astronomical. Bush II doubled the debt from the end of Clinton, and BHO more than doubled the debt from the end of Bush II.

I do not know how the debt can keep increasing without everything shutting down. I wish I was able to personally run up debt like this without issue. (instead I would get everything repossessed and put in jail for fraud)

As long as someone is still willing to lend you money, you can wrack up any debt you want. I believe at the moment, China is bankrolling most of the USA. May have something to do with those eerily similar stealth fighters, eh Val? (Just kidding!)

Originally Posted by mithrand1r

Sometimes I wonder if there is any significant difference between a monarchy and what we have as a representative republic.

With a quote like that I wonder whether you've ever lived in a monarchy, because if you had, you would immediately know the significant difference: the extended, costly, mostly-good-for-nothing, Royal Family, of course!

At least most republics have the opportunity to get rid of those once and a while! Monarchies usually need a honkin' fullblown revolution for that...

At least with a monarchy, there is no illusion of the general public having a say in how things are run.

Uh, yes there is. Not all monarchies are ruling monarchies. You can have everything from absolute rulers to purely ceremonial figureheads in monarchies.

[Butterbeer]

I suspect mithrand1r has watched one too many Walt Disney movies...
Shrek isn't representative of most Modern day Democratic Monarchies...

now, if you will excuse me, Snow White and I have to go bow/curtsy to Queen Grimhilde, repress some Dwarves and stamp out silly illusions.

@ Eärniel wish you'd stop sitting on the fence all the time

This is one of those threads where if you start ...you'd find yourself writing for ages. Frankly it's far too early in the morning for such Tookish tom-foolery.

The one thing i will say from reading the different (largely) partisan views on both sides ref 'THE Media' is... that's a misnomer and an increasingly out of date one too. If y'all mean the 'mass media' then its slightly more accurate but again id say increasingly out of date - media has diverged, mass media is out of touch- a hidebound unchanging beast slowly throttling and choking itself that is quickly becoming a dodo, and knows it. But even then there is much more divergence than ever there was- you can pick and choose what mass media you prefer to be irate at...

That's liberal Humanism meeting free markets for yah- via new technologies - a rather combustible combination eh wot?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

@ Eärniel wish you'd stop sitting on the fence all the time

Funny, it looks like a nice comfy chair from where I'm sitting...

This is one of those threads where if you start ...you'd find yourself writing for ages. Frankly it's far too early in the morning for such Tookish tom-foolery.

Yes but Tooks have all the fun and adventures!

[Mari]

Thanks Earn, most of the things you said was what I was thinking, but I'm not that good at expressing myself.