Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Breaking News
posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday November 09 2016, @12:10PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-the-people dept.

And the winner of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, as reported by the major mainstream media outlets is Donald Trump. It has also been reported that Hillary Clinton called President-elect Donald Trump to concede.

Electoral vote count (so far): 279 for Donald Trump, 218 for Hillary Clinton. 270 electoral votes are needed to win.

Popular vote: 57,227,164 votes (48.0%) for Donald Trump, 56,279,305 votes (47.2%) for Hillary Clinton. Update: Now it is closer to 59,085,795 votes (47.5%) for Donald Trump and 59,236,903 votes (47.6%) for Hillary Clinton.

Yell, scream, gnash teeth... but please keep it civil.

Results at CNN, NYT, FiveThirtyEight, Wikipedia.

takyon: Republicans have retained control of the House and Senate.

Here's some market news:

Dow futures plunge nearly 750 points as investors warily eye electoral map
Asian markets plummet on likelihood of Trump victory
Bitcoin price soars as Trump pulls ahead
Opinion: How to profit from a Donald Trump victory

Ballot measure results will be covered in an upcoming story. Some initial results can be found at Ballotpedia and CNN.

[TMB Note: Stop breaking stuff, cmn32480]

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday November 09 2016, @08:41AM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday November 09 2016, @08:41AM (#424418) Journal

    There are reasons to be optimistic about Trump or believe that the negatives are overstated. We've never seen a Republican President that has been so at odds with his party's leadership, particularly on issues such as the TPP. However, Trump believes himself to be a great negotiator and we could see the divisions disappear fast. Watch what happens in the first year closely and decide for yourself whether Trump is the one calling the shots, or his White House staff, perhaps his Vice Prez, or some other elites somewhere.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 09 2016, @09:52AM

    by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 09 2016, @09:52AM (#424475) Journal

    If Trump shuts down the TPP permanently, he will have justified every vote for him. The TPP is the death knell of middle America. Everyone knows it. Every other incitement, every other reflexive utterance, is purely secondary to that. It's not often that a policy initiative should be so pivotal, but the TPP is such a one. Hillary's second, Kaine, had already hinted before the election that Hillary would reverse her "public" stance on TPP. People in the industrialized Mid-West read that exactly as it was meant, that Hillary would immediately cut their throats upon election. Once again, Hillary was figuring that she could "triangulate" her way out of it. Thank god she has not, and that there remains a chance that she might finally answer for her crimes.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday November 09 2016, @11:11AM

      by Nerdfest (80) on Wednesday November 09 2016, @11:11AM (#424517)

      I've read something about another similar deal already being worked on to replace it.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @11:33AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @11:33AM (#424536)

      > The TPP is the death knell of middle America. Everyone knows it.

      Which specific terms of the TPP make it so noxious to middle america? Not copyrights or patents or corporate sovereignty, specific policies that will be bad for middle america which I presume is either manufacturing or agriculture.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @02:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @02:43PM (#424632)

        Which specific terms of the TPP make it so noxious to middle america?

        The fact that it was created and negotiated in total secret, with anyone thinking about leaking any details being under threat of imprisonment.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @08:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @08:28PM (#424833)

        The thing was pretty much designed as 3 agreements. The idea was to have 'free trade' then basically do the same thing they did with NAFTA and the US/Mexico/Canada. They consider NAFTA a good deal. Oh and it is for the 1%rs. A few 1%rs showed up and said 'hey you know that is a really bad deal for you right?'. They got laughed out of the room, Ross Perot and Donald Trump were one of the few saying it. They saw exactly what the 'opportunity' meant for them and others. They then went on and took full advantage of it themselves when it passed. They knew.

        It is basically the car salesman saying 'hey this nice looking car is a lemon but I will sell it to you for a million dollars' then you turning around and saying 'well how about two million'. They are going to say sure.

        TPP is fairly much DOA now. But it was shapping up to be NAFTA 2.0 but with the Philippians and Africa. China saw it for what it was. An end run around the economy they had setup with Nixon. The idea was to also rope in Europe. Like they did with Canada last time. That way it does not look one sided. It would just do the same thing Mexico did to Canada. Canada is not the manufacturing gem it used to be. Everything went to mexico then china.

        You can read the full text on wikileaks. It is rather dull and dry. The idea is to remove trade barriers. Those barriers exist to balance out trade partners who do not play nice. But get rid of those and slave labor is not out of the question. Just 'something to be concerned about'.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by gidds on Wednesday November 09 2016, @03:01PM

    by gidds (589) on Wednesday November 09 2016, @03:01PM (#424648)

    We've never seen a Republican President that has been so at odds with his party's leadership

    Up to now, maybe; but once the bigwigs accept the result and see the ugly popular mood, they'll realise the danger in being seen to go against it, and they may go along with Trump out of fear and/or self-preservation.

    I'm afraid this seems like one more in a long line of self-deceptions I've seen this year:

    • “There's a lot of publicity about Trump, but he's not going to actually run for President.”
    • “OK, he's running, but it's OK: there's no way he can possibly win the nomination.”
    • “Maybe he won the nomination, but that's a good thing: it just makes sure that Hillary will win.  After all, no-one will vote for him.”
    • “And even if they do vote him in, the other party will have the House and the Senate, so he won't have any real power.”
    • And now: “OK, so he has the Presidency, the House, and the Senate; but lots of people in his party will be against him, so he won't have any real power.”
    --
    [sig redacted]
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday November 09 2016, @03:33PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday November 09 2016, @03:33PM (#424679) Journal

      Many newspapers that traditionally endorse the Republican endorsed Hillary, Gary Johnson, or nobody instead.

      Many mainstream Republicans refused to endorse Trump, endorsed Hillary, or kept their mouth shut. Jeb Bush is a notable example.

      Trump battled publicly with the Republican Speaker of the House and infuriated the Republican National Committee Chairman. These people are expected to be on the same page.

      Several of his positions have been widely rejected by his party's politicians. Notable examples are the TPP, and his stance on Muslims entering the U.S. He also doesn't appear to share many of the traditional Republican social positions, aside from opposition to abortion.

      Trump's own running mate, an establishment pick, openly repudiated Trump's comments or positions in some cases.

      There is a lot of bad blood between Trump and other Republicans. It won't simply vanish, and I doubt we have seen the last policy clash.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday November 09 2016, @06:31PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday November 09 2016, @06:31PM (#424786) Homepage Journal

        While it may seem to some (or even many) that the election of Donald Trump is some sort of bellwether for some sort of real change, you're about to be disappointed, IMHO.

        The Presidential Election:
        The played out pretty much along the lines of 2012, with Trump replicating the Ritt Momney coalition. But Clinton did not hold together the coalition that Obama had then.

        The polls were, for the most part, pretty good, with results that were almost all within the margins of error.

        The "swing" states were very close in terms of actual votes [politico.com]. For example, in Wisconsin, out of 2,944,126 votes cast, Trump beat Clinton by 27,390 votes, or 0.9%. In Pennsylvania, out of 5,969,446 votes cast, Trump beat Clinton by 67,951 votes, or 1.1%.

        What this shows me is that this was a a typical R vs. D election. Trump turned out the R base, and Clinton did not turn out the D base.

        The Congressional Elections
        To my mind, these are even more evidence that the "drain the swamp" or "throw the crooks out" or "Washington is hopelessly broken/corrupt" rhetoric was nothing but hyperbole.

        With the exceptions of Russell Kirk (IL) and possibly Kelly Ayotte (NH), every incumbent senator up for re-election won.

        In the House, with a very few exceptions, incumbents won re-election, most quite easily.

        So. The folks who inhabit "the swamp" and make up the "corrupt Washington elites" will go back to work for their corporate/special interest masters.

        tl;dr: All-in-all, Nothing of consequence has changed. We're a tightly divided electorate and It's back to business as usual in DC. Perhaps one day, the hacks we send to Washington will stop jockeying for filthy lucre and work for the good of those they're supposed to be representing. I won't hold my breath.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr