The US Election, Part XI

[Hurlshort]

 

 

 

WoD's mastery of logic rivals his knowledge of probability and statistics.

I was the best in my class for your information.

 

 

Magna **** Laude from Rice University!

 

Something you'll never get or have any possibility of getting.

 

 

Geez, I throw my support behind you and you stab me in the back.  Ouch.  

 

I'll always have my Trump University teaching credential to keep me warm at night, at least.  That and all the collections letters make good kindling.  

[Meshugger]

Clinton seem to have made history, by becoming as candidate that won with highest margin the popular vote and still lost the election.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/opinion/clintons-substantial-popular-vote-win.html?_r=1

 

By the time all the ballots are counted, she seems likely to be ahead by more than 2 million votes and more than 1.5 percentage points, according to my Times colleague Nate Cohn. She will have won by a wider percentage margin than not only Al Gore in 2000 but also Richard Nixon in 1968 and John F. Kennedy in 1960.

 

Is there anywhere where you can get pure numbers on each state without having to select it individually in a nice graph?

[Elerond]

 

 

 

The whole idea that the election of Trump is some sort of revolutionary act where people are fighting back against the direction this country is moving completely falls apart when you look at the actual votes.  What really happened is Clinton was a terrible candidate and couldn't get the people that elected Obama to back her.  

 

Both sides look ridiculous to me right now.  How many of these protesters actually voted?  

 

Both sides need to temper their expectations with some reality.

Hillary was an outrageously bad candidate but still nearly won. The large majority of the country still votes the party line no matter how awful their candidate. In general, the independents bounce back and forth every 8 years after they finally get tired of the failed promises of the current administration or are simply bored with it and want a different flavored bubblegum. But, I will say that Trump's victory, without any media support whatsoever, is pretty substantial. Will it revolutionize anything? Probably not, but it's still unique, to say the least.

 

 

Trump had media's support. There wasn't day during his campaign that media didn't speak about him. Media talked about him so much that his nearly non-existing plans to realize his promises were washed away by nonsensical  sensationalist headlines. His lack of candidates in government jobs was realized after he won his campaign. And press successfully made people forgot what kind policies people in Trumps inner circle have, people who will most likely play part in new government. So some of the media smeared him and some plainly supported him but nobody seem to actually really questioning his ability to lead the country, which made him equal to Clinton when it come in choice as leader and then people had to only decide which one they hate more.

 

In comparison to someone like Gary Johnson, Trump had media support, but I didn't expect to have to explain. Both the left wing and right wing media outlets were out against Trump from the start, and as others have pointed out, they're still slow to get why Trump was elected, doubling down on pro right or left talking points.

 

No such thing as bad news fits here. It's like the more the elites tried to slam Trump, the more the independents supported him. So yeah, he won without major media backing of any sort, which was my point.

 

 

But he had major media outlets that backed him, they didn't necessary promote him, but they did their best to villainize Clinton. Media outlets published articles after articles, how Clinton is traitor, criminal, distrustful, corrupt, old, sick, weak, woman, bad speaker, robot, lizard person, and so on. So major media didn't necessary promote Trump, but they did excellent job to make Trump look like lesser evil next to Clinton. Which is clear media backing even though it gives media houses excuse that they didn't directly supported Trump. When you add to this the fact that these same media outlets constantly release articles about Trump and his candidacy, and doing so making sure that people are aware that Trump exist and is the option for the Clinton. 

 

Of course there was also media organizations that demonized Trump and advocated Clinton as the lesser evil option, which is big part why there is now people protesting in the streets against Trump. Although Clinton did gather more media outlets that were willing to say that they support her presidency than Trump. 

[Elerond]

 

Clinton seem to have made history, by becoming as candidate that won with highest margin the popular vote and still lost the election.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/opinion/clintons-substantial-popular-vote-win.html?_r=1

 

By the time all the ballots are counted, she seems likely to be ahead by more than 2 million votes and more than 1.5 percentage points, according to my Times colleague Nate Cohn. She will have won by a wider percentage margin than not only Al Gore in 2000 but also Richard Nixon in 1968 and John F. Kennedy in 1960.

 

Is there anywhere where you can get pure numbers on each state without having to select it individually in a nice graph?

 

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VAcF0eJ06y_8T4o2gvIL4YcyQy8pxb1zYkgXF76Uu1s/htmlview

 

Although whoever made the sheet has not updated it with final numbers

Edited November 11, 2016 by Elerond

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

 

 

WoD's mastery of logic rivals his knowledge of probability and statistics.

I was the best in my class for your information.

 

 

Magna **** Laude from Rice University!

 

Something you'll never get or have any possibility of getting.

 

 

Geez, I throw my support behind you and you stab me in the back.  Ouch.  

 

I'll always have my Trump University teaching credential to keep me warm at night, at least.  That and all the collections letters make good kindling.  

 

I'm guessing you're joking. You used that to try to taunt me in the past, but if you actually meant it positively this time then I apologize.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

 

Because millions of illegal immigrants are voting... Sure, keep telling yourself that.

Hyperbole.

Ok, looking at your statement again you only implied a million illegal voters. I'm sure that's more reasonable.

[Volourn]

"By the time all the ballots are counted, she seems likely to be ahead by more than 2 million votes and more than 1.5 percentage points, according to my Times colleague Nate Cohn. She will have won by a wider percentage margin than not only Al Gore in 2000 but also Richard Nixon in 1968 and John F. Kennedy in 1960."

 

The last thing the US needs is for California itself to determine  the entire country's leader. It is bad enough it has the mostpoint. Do you really want surfer dudes and actors telling you how to live? We get enough of their holier than thou announcements like Dicpario and is   is climate change fearmongering while flying all over the world in a private jet. LMAO *shudder*

[Blodhemn]

But he had major media outlets that backed him, they didn't necessary promote him, but they did their best to villainize Clinton. Media outlets published articles after articles, how Clinton is traitor, criminal, distrustful, corrupt, old, sick, weak, woman, bad speaker, robot, lizard person, and so on. So major media didn't necessary promote Trump, but they did excellent job to make Trump look like lesser evil next to Clinton. Which is clear media backing even though it gives media houses excuse that they didn't directly supported Trump. When you add to this the fact that these same media outlets constantly release articles about Trump and his candidacy, and doing so making sure that people are aware that Trump exist and is the option for the Clinton. 

 

Of course there was also media organizations that demonized Trump and advocated Clinton as the lesser evil option, which is big part why there is now people protesting in the streets against Trump. Although Clinton did gather more media outlets that were willing to say that they support her presidency than Trump.

Fox news still hasn't fully accepted Trump. That should tell all. Don't get all OCD on me. I'm not going to pick straws. Of course media outlets are going to be negative, that's their m.o, it's not the same as openly supporting a candidate as is most often done. You're either lying to yourself or out of touch if you don't see the difference.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Because millions of illegal immigrants are voting... Sure, keep telling yourself that.

Hyperbole.

Ok, looking at your statement again you only implied a million illegal voters. I'm sure that's more reasonable.

It's at least twice as reasonable!

[Elerond]

 

But he had major media outlets that backed him, they didn't necessary promote him, but they did their best to villainize Clinton. Media outlets published articles after articles, how Clinton is traitor, criminal, distrustful, corrupt, old, sick, weak, woman, bad speaker, robot, lizard person, and so on. So major media didn't necessary promote Trump, but they did excellent job to make Trump look like lesser evil next to Clinton. Which is clear media backing even though it gives media houses excuse that they didn't directly supported Trump. When you add to this the fact that these same media outlets constantly release articles about Trump and his candidacy, and doing so making sure that people are aware that Trump exist and is the option for the Clinton. 

 

Of course there was also media organizations that demonized Trump and advocated Clinton as the lesser evil option, which is big part why there is now people protesting in the streets against Trump. Although Clinton did gather more media outlets that were willing to say that they support her presidency than Trump.

Fox news still hasn't fully accepted Trump. That should tell all. Don't get all OCD on me. I'm not going to pick straws. Of course media outlets are going to be negative, that's their m.o, it's not the same as openly supporting a candidate as is most often done. You're either lying to yourself or out of touch if you don't see the difference.

 

 

I would in counter claim that you are lying to yourself if you really believe that Trump don't have support of media outlets behind him. Media outlets know how to read their audience and they know that it is divided. Like where you see that Fox don't full heartily support Trump, you can also see media outlets that attacked him during elections now writing articles about people coming together in name of the country etc. pieces meant to make people that are against Trump, less against him and court those who supported Trump continue to read/watch/listen them. Media is excellent in the ways how they manipulate people and their goal is alway foremost their own profits. 

[Meshugger]

 

 

Clinton seem to have made history, by becoming as candidate that won with highest margin the popular vote and still lost the election.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/opinion/clintons-substantial-popular-vote-win.html?_r=1

 

By the time all the ballots are counted, she seems likely to be ahead by more than 2 million votes and more than 1.5 percentage points, according to my Times colleague Nate Cohn. She will have won by a wider percentage margin than not only Al Gore in 2000 but also Richard Nixon in 1968 and John F. Kennedy in 1960.

 

Is there anywhere where you can get pure numbers on each state without having to select it individually in a nice graph?

 

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VAcF0eJ06y_8T4o2gvIL4YcyQy8pxb1zYkgXF76Uu1s/htmlview

 

Although whoever made the sheet has not updated it with final numbers

 

 

After a quick look at just California and New York, she won those states with about 3,6 million votes, i somehow understand the point of the electoral vote per state now.

 

Btw, in column called "non-citizen", California stands out with 16,7%. That's 6,5 million in total, do they even pay taxes?

[Volourn]

https://twitter.com/...090239428825088

 

 

L0L Just saw a mother verbally attacking her young son for voting for trump and a mocke lection and throwing him out. LMAO evil.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Volourn

[Meshugger]

https://twitter.com/i/videos/tweet/797090239428825088

 

L0L Just saw a mother verbally attacking her young son for voting for trump and a mocke lection and throwing him out. LMAO evil.

 

Witness the creation of a future mass-shooter, gentlemen.

[Agiel]

 

 

But he had major media outlets that backed him, they didn't necessary promote him, but they did their best to villainize Clinton. Media outlets published articles after articles, how Clinton is traitor, criminal, distrustful, corrupt, old, sick, weak, woman, bad speaker, robot, lizard person, and so on. So major media didn't necessary promote Trump, but they did excellent job to make Trump look like lesser evil next to Clinton. Which is clear media backing even though it gives media houses excuse that they didn't directly supported Trump. When you add to this the fact that these same media outlets constantly release articles about Trump and his candidacy, and doing so making sure that people are aware that Trump exist and is the option for the Clinton. 

 

Of course there was also media organizations that demonized Trump and advocated Clinton as the lesser evil option, which is big part why there is now people protesting in the streets against Trump. Although Clinton did gather more media outlets that were willing to say that they support her presidency than Trump.

Fox news still hasn't fully accepted Trump. That should tell all. Don't get all OCD on me. I'm not going to pick straws. Of course media outlets are going to be negative, that's their m.o, it's not the same as openly supporting a candidate as is most often done. You're either lying to yourself or out of touch if you don't see the difference.

 

 

I would in counter claim that you are lying to yourself if you really believe that Trump don't have support of media outlets behind him. Media outlets know how to read their audience and they know that it is divided. Like where you see that Fox don't full heartily support Trump, you can also see media outlets that attacked him during elections now writing articles about people coming together in name of the country etc. pieces meant to make people that are against Trump, less against him and court those who supported Trump continue to read/watch/listen them. Media is excellent in the ways how they manipulate people and their goal is alway foremost their own profits. 

 

 

Mark Bowden, he of Black Hawk Down, Killing Pablo, and Guests of the Ayatollah fame, wrote a story for the Atlantic on the News Corp acquisition of the Wall Street Journal (unfortunately I think the change to the Atlantic's website kind of messed up formatting the piece; it's a little harder to read than when I first laid eyes on it). The key takeaway from that piece for me:

 

 

 

Murdoch is given credit for great business acumen, but he is less a pioneer and visionary than a wealthy and aggressive collector. He has vast resources and is constantly adding and subtracting companies to and from his empire. He identifies potential markets, and then, like a rich art buyer writing big checks for the work of artists who have already achieved critical recognition, he buys into companies that have demonstrated promise in reaching those markets

 

[...]

 

When it comes to running a newspaper, this combination of traits—buccaneering and collecting—makes Murdoch a throwback to the great journalism pirates, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, who reigned during the days when most major cities had multiple dailies duking it out on street corners for readers. Back then, the name of the game was street sales, and the way to outsell the other rags was to have something hot that they did not. Reporters vied to get out in front of a story, to be one step ahead of everyone else. The more sensational the scoop, the more copies you sold. Reporters weren’t so much writers as hustlers and con men. The very idea of serious social reform—or, perish the thought, literature!—was laughable. Reporting was about scooping the competition. Stories were to be written clearly and concisely. Sentences were short and simple, language plain. Editors prized the breaking front-page story that could be told without “jumping”—without forcing the reader to turn to an inside page.

 

This is how Murdoch understands journalism—as content, a word he uses all the time, rather than as a form of literature or public service, and as a commodity whose value largely derives from its instant retail malleability. A short, crisp scoop that dramatically advances a major developing story—Obama’s poll numbers down! Britney back in rehab! Steinbrenner to fire another manager!—can be neatly packaged for a dizzying variety of media: print, radio, TV, the Internet, or even cell-phone screens. It doesn’t matter much to a fully integrated media conglomerate like News Corporation how its customers choose to access this content, as long as the transaction pays.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Agiel

[Volourn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk55Ol83unI

[Wrath of Dagon]

Btw, in column called "non-citizen", California stands out with 16,7%. That's 6,5 million in total, do they even pay taxes?

Obola's IRS encourages illegal aliens to file tax returns with stolen Social Security numbers and claim billions in tax credits.

 

Edit: As a citizen of course I am expected to follow all the rules and pay all my taxes, and if I don't the feds will come down on me like a ton of bricks.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[HoonDing]

 

they really all look like J.R. Ewing

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, some of the Sheriffs still wear those hats, pretty much no one else does.

 

Edit: This will live through the ages:

 

Jon Lovett ✔ @jonlovett

Said it before, but it's a shame Trump is so pathetic because the Hillary campaign was built and ready for a far better, tougher opponent.

8:16 PM - 7 Nov 2016

 

Interestingly, this is the Obola speech writer who wrote Obola's relentless taunting of Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondent's dinner that supposedly cemented his decision to run.

 

Did Hillary's get out the vote operation actually turn out Trump voters? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clintons-vaunted-gotv-operation-may-have-turned-out-trump-voters_us_582533b1e4b060adb56ddc27?

 

Wouldn't surprise me, as a lot of her anti-Trump ads could equally as well be pro-Trump ads.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Deadly_Nightshade]

 

Btw, in column called "non-citizen", California stands out with 16,7%. That's 6,5 million in total, do they even pay taxes?

Obola's IRS encourages illegal aliens to file tax returns with stolen Social Security numbers and claim billions in tax credits.Edit: As a citizen of course I am expected to follow all the rules and pay all my taxes, and if I don't the feds will come down on me like a ton of bricks.

Ironically that might be a net-gain.

 

"Stephen Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, estimates that about 1.8 million immigrants were working with fake or stolen Social Security cards in 2010, and he expects that number to reach 3.4 million by 2040. He calculates that undocumented immigrants paid $13 billion into the retirement trust fund that year, and only got about $1 billion in benefits. “We estimate that earnings by unauthorized immigrants result in a net positive effect on Social Security financial status generally, and that this effect contributed roughly $12 billion to the cash flow of the program for 2010,” Gross concluded in a 2013 review of the impact of undocumented immigrants on Social Security."

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's only a net gain if they don't get amnesty and collect their benefits, otherwise it'll be a huge loss. Edit: Wait, those are some funny numbers there. He's claiming the low-skilled illegals paid $7222 on average just in Social Security taxes!?

Edited November 11, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Volourn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfJenokrmb4

 

Yeah. Gotta love those anti Trumpers who say 'love trumps hate'. HAHAHA!

 

LMAO

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf9w_yX21PQ

 

 

I LOVE  CRYBABY SJW NAZIS! They give me LOTS of entertainment.

 

It's also so sad that I tend to agree with lots of social issues (equality,  gay rights, etc.etc.) but they are so hypocritical, evil, naziish piece of crap extremists I have to EXTREMELY laugh at their moroncies!!!

Edited November 11, 2016 by Volourn

[Wrath of Dagon]

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog Nov 10

I'm telling lefties this as a favor: many people voted for Trump reluctantly and with a tinge of regret. 1/

 

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog Nov 10

What you're doing right now simply confirms they made the right choice. 2/

[Drowsy Emperor]

Is there no one to tell them that the election is over.

[Volourn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGDVp0IePFE

[Blodhemn]

I would in counter claim that you are lying to yourself if you really believe that Trump don't have support of media outlets behind him. Media outlets know how to read their audience and they know that it is divided. Like where you see that Fox don't full heartily support Trump, you can also see media outlets that attacked him during elections now writing articles about people coming together in name of the country etc. pieces meant to make people that are against Trump, less against him and court those who supported Trump continue to read/watch/listen them. Media is excellent in the ways how they manipulate people and their goal is alway foremost their own profits.

Mainstream media is laughably behind the times in comparison to what's available on the net. They're simply stuck in the warp of the mainstream narrative of giving people what they want in balance with an agenda. Trump wasn't on the agenda, wasn't supported by the elites, but he was good for ratings, so the TV coverage rode the wave, all the while not giving him a chance, all the way to election night. Now they have already started to turn an about face, because the right wing has been so dire as of late, they quickly bend their collective knees and want to be part of the action.

 

So yeah, Trump won pretty much single handedly.