Hillary Clinton

[Conan71]

I'm telling you, there's a lot of anger out there now. People feel they have lost their country (sound familiar?)

Not really because I'm not wired that way.  It's one thing for a few celebrity blowhards to blow off steam after a loss.  What was happening in LA and Oakland is more like anti-America rallies in Tehran.

I'd truly be curious to know how many of the vandals are even registered to vote in the first place.

And thank you for expanding on what the anger is your daughter and her friends feel over this.  I hope they take this experience and use it in an active role in helping to find and support dynamic candidates in the future.

I voted for Bernie too, I really thought he had a chance against Trump.  I actually did believe he'd be capable of working with the House and Senate if he'd have gone all the way.

Trump wasn't my guy but my parents taught me long ago you have to respect the office and give the person in office a chance even though you may not like the office-holder.

[Bamboo World]

I got to thinking about this more and more.  Perhaps an allocation system rather than winner takes all would get more people to the polls because they feel their vote would really matter in deeply red or deeply blue states.  I don't know that it changes the fact that our country seems split down the middle now, but I could see where it might encourage more people to show up on election day.

An allocation system within individual states is possible with our current electoral system, if that's what you mean.  4% of the states have already adopted allocation systems in lieu of winner-takes-all.  Allocation is an option.  That's okay.  But states shouldn't be forced to change from winner-takes-all to any other method.
 

[Conan71]

An allocation system within individual states is possible with our current electoral system, if that's what you mean.  4% of the states have already adopted allocation systems in lieu of winner-takes-all.  Allocation is an option.  That's okay.  But states shouldn't be forced to change from winner-takes-all to any other method.
 

Exactly.

[erfalf]

Exactly.

Considering about a quarter of the states considered a system where all their votes went to the eventual winner, I don't see a completely allocated system ever being put into place. It waters down the states power.

[erfalf]

I'm telling you, there's a lot of anger out there now. People feel they have lost their country (sound familiar?)

It does sound familiar, and I vaguely recall those people saying those things being "put in there place" by people like you.

Funny, when the R's guy loses their voters are racist. and when they win, they are also racists (and stupid). I have no earthly idea why there is such a divide in this country. Can someone please enlighten me?

[Conan71]

It does sound familiar, and I vaguely recall those people saying those things being "put in there place" by people like you.

Funny, when the R's guy loses their voters are racist. and when they win, they are also racists (and stupid). I have no earthly idea why there is such a divide in this country. Can someone please enlighten me?

Because most people simply will not take the time to educate themselves on policy anymore.  You get one guy with a following like Chris Matthews or Harry Reid saying opposition to Obamacare was a symptom of racism, and suddenly that became true.

It's like how children on the playground end arguments: "You are just a poo-poo head!"  You can't refute someone else's position with facts so you resort to the old personal attack.

[swake]

Because most people simply will not take the time to educate themselves on policy anymore.  You get one guy with a following like Chris Matthews or Harry Reid saying opposition to Obamacare was a symptom of racism, and suddenly that became true.

It's like how children on the playground end arguments: "You are just a poo-poo head!"  You can't refute someone else's position with facts so you resort to the old personal attack.

How can you discuss policy? Trump never articulated a single coherent policy position.

[swake]

It does sound familiar, and I vaguely recall those people saying those things being "put in there place" by people like you.

Funny, when the R's guy loses their voters are racist. and when they win, they are also racists (and stupid). I have no earthly idea why there is such a divide in this country. Can someone please enlighten me?

Factually this election was about race and racism. That is how the numbers split out:

Older, less educated rural evangelical white voters are the core Trumpers. And their main issues involve race. Their number one issue is Immigration and second is Terrorism. Neither of which has a sizable impact on people in rural areas. Clinton's more urban voters that live among immigrants communities much more often found those issues to be the least important.

58% of white voters voted for Trump.
88% of black voters voted for Clinton, only 8% voted for Trump
65% of Hispanic voters voted for Clinton, 29% voted for Trump
65% of Asian voters voted for Clinton, 29% voted for Trump
78% of LGBT voters voted for Clinton, 14% voted for Trump


Age mattered:

Trump got 53% of voters over 45 years old.
He got only got 37% of voters 18-29 and 42% of voters 30-44

Lack of education mattered too:

72% of white men without a college degree voted for Trump
62% of white women without a college degree voted for Trump

Evangelicals voted for Trump too, 81% of white evangelicals voted for Trump
The most important issue to Trump voters was immigration, 64%, second is Terrorism.
Rural voters voted for Trump, 62%. Urban voters only at 35%


https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...on/exit-polls/

[LeGenDz]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...on/exit-polls/

Link was broken.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/exit-polls/

[heironymouspasparagus]

It does sound familiar, and I vaguely recall those people saying those things being "put in there place" by people like you.

Funny, when the R's guy loses their voters are racist. and when they win, they are also racists (and stupid). I have no earthly idea why there is such a divide in this country. Can someone please enlighten me?

Nothing new.  It has ALWAYS been this way.  Since before we became a nation.  Less than half the people in this country wanted the Revolutionary War to succeed - they wanted to stay British.  So this has a long tradition.  

Election of 1800 was probably worse, just without the social media we have.  And 1860 led to all out war, killing more than 600,000 before it was over.  We have been divided MUCH more than we have been united.

[Hoss]

I got to thinking about this more and more.  Perhaps an allocation system rather than winner takes all would get more people to the polls because they feel their vote would really matter in deeply red or deeply blue states.  I don't know that it changes the fact that our country seems split down the middle now, but I could see where it might encourage more people to show up on election day.

I know that Nebraska and Maine do this.  Why can't the rest of the states?

[Conan71]

How can you discuss policy? Trump never articulated a single coherent policy position.

Huh?  Is my name Donald Trump?  Did I vote for Donald Trump?

What has Trump's incoherence on policy got to do with my ability to think and speak on it?

I'm sorry you are struggling with the results Tuesday night, but you picked the wrong guy to take it out on.

[Conan71]

Factually this election was about race and racism. That is how the numbers split out:

Older, less educated rural evangelical white voters are the core Trumpers. And their main issues involve race. Their number one issue is Immigration and second is Terrorism. Neither of which has a sizable impact on people in rural areas. Clinton's more urban voters that live among immigrants communities much more often found those issues to be the least important.

58% of white voters voted for Trump.
88% of black voters voted for Clinton, only 8% voted for Trump
65% of Hispanic voters voted for Clinton, 29% voted for Trump
65% of Asian voters voted for Clinton, 29% voted for Trump
78% of LGBT voters voted for Clinton, 14% voted for Trump


Age mattered:

Trump got 53% of voters over 45 years old.
He got only got 37% of voters 18-29 and 42% of voters 30-44

Lack of education mattered too:

72% of white men without a college degree voted for Trump
62% of white women without a college degree voted for Trump

Evangelicals voted for Trump too, 81% of white evangelicals voted for Trump
The most important issue to Trump voters was immigration, 64%, second is Terrorism.
Rural voters voted for Trump, 62%. Urban voters only at 35%


https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...on/exit-polls/

It is truly interesting how the stats are spit out.  I asked multiple people Tuesday night if they ever remember education of voters being such an up-front metric as it was on Tuesday.  Age, race, and gender yes.  Certainly education levels have been looked at as a minor stat, but this was the first time I've seen them used so blatantly to make it look like only people who looked like Joe Dirt were Trump voters.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls

Do you see what you are missing in all this?  What is the education level of the Hispanics and Blacks who voted for Hillary?  Try looking it up, you will be hard-pressed to find that information.  Good luck extrapolating it from Wa-Po, CNN, NYT, or even The Guardian's data.  We can generally assume many of the blacks and Hispanics supporting Hillary do not have college degrees either, but either no one appears to ask them because that would appear racist or it spoils the meme that only uneducated people vote for Trump.

Hispanics and blacks did what they always do- they supported the Democrat that is nothing new though they didn't support Clinton to the extent they did Obama in 2012.  This is nothing extraordinary.

"People without college degrees" can be either complete losers in life or they might be farmers, factory workers (we do know Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin all swung to the right this time- lots of skilled workers without college degrees who perhaps don't like the Democrats handling of trade and the economy.

Stats are what you make of them.  If you choose to use them to make the president-elect look like Stalin or Hitler that's on you, but you only help feed the divide.  You keep on focusing on differences when we all need to be looking at our similarities.

[swake]

Huh?  Is my name Donald Trump?  Did I vote for Donald Trump?

What has Trump's incoherence on policy got to do with my ability to think and speak on it?

I'm sorry you are struggling with the results Tuesday night, but you picked the wrong guy to take it out on.

No, you misunderstand. I'm not saying you can't discuss policy, that people in general could not discuss police with regards to this election because one side had none.

[Bamboo World]

I know that Nebraska and Maine do this [apportion electoral votes].  Why can't the rest of the states?

The rest of the states can, if their state legislatures changed their laws.  A majority of Oklahoma state senators went well beyond a call for simple apportionment in February 2014 when they passed SB 906, approving the National Popular Vote.