Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

I watched the highlights of that, and the one here cracked me up:

So did the one about the size of the crowd being the biggest Hillary had been in front of.

At least all that's left is the election itself and the four years worth of fall out. You know, before we start all over again, but this time find out it actually can get worse.

So... Ah... Pretty much the 2000 election all over again?

I don't remember Al Gore going around in October 2000, saying that the system was rigged and the results would be invalid if he lost. Maybe I was drinking heavily that month though because that seems like something I would have remembered.

A lot of Gore people did though. You do remember that, right? People still insist today that Al Gore really won the election in 2000.


Edited, Oct 24th 2016 7:50pm by gbaji

For various definitions of "a lot".

Anyway, if you're honestly trying to compare the circumstances of the 2000 election to what's happening now, I'm just going to laugh and move on. Come back when Clinton wins 335 EVs and Trump people are saying it was rigged and tell me all about how it's just like 2000

Well, if you ignore that, and the razor thin polling leading into the 2000 election, and that even conservatives are vocally claiming they're voting liberal. You know, as long as you ignore all the differences it's totally the same.

Just yesterday Rasm had them tied; +2 Trump in the fourway polling.

Kuwoobie didn't clarify, so...?



Nope. I'm commenting on the human nature of clinging to your "side" regardless of outcome. The fans who think their team can still come back from a 15 point deficit with 1 minute left to play kind of people (which, frankly, if you're playing against my freaking home team isn't actually that crazy). All I was saying was that this isn't magically restricted to just one "side". The specifics of the circumstances aren't remotely the point I'm making.

The fact that people do actually vote for third party candidates (every election cycle in some cases) somewhat supports my point. They know their guy has zero chance of winning, yet they vote anyway. Trump has a vastly higher chance of winning this election than they do, so it's not like it's that crazy for them to argue every possible reason why he should or could win, and yeah, some of that's going to involve a belief that if he doesn't, it's because of some nefarious action. Kinda exactly like the Gore folks who railed about voter fraud, voter suppression, unfair recounts, etc, etc. The scope is different, but the concept and frankly emotional motivation on the part of the people is the same. It's not about reality, it's about what they want to have had happen.

Hey. It's almost like there's no need to even have a vote then! Yay!

Would be funny as hell though.



The margin for acceptability as the lesser of two evils is scary enough already IMO. I wouldn't crow too much about that one. When your best case scenario is "the one who only most likely committed multiple felonies", that's just not something to celebrate.

I think this election has been a case study in the reasons for a shift to ranked choice voting. Reasons for the public, i mean. For the parties; it's been a reassurance that their mechanical advantage is quite well designed to minimize the impact of the public on their power transition process.

The public's impact was fine. The two most popular candidates from their respective parties became the nominees. That's, you know, how it works.

That Sanders or... whoever from the GOP side... didn't win is because they failed to garner enough support. Believe me, Sanders' campaign had plenty of issues without needing to fall back on "minimized public impact" as an excuse for losing.