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]
Yes, I agree with you. I grew up in the Rockies, a storied- and robust region of the country that was settled by people who are tougher than I'll ever be. Those people forded rivers, fought bitterly cold winters, withstood the intense isolation of threatening, unsettled lands. Growing up, I was proud of them and proud to be descended from them. In a couple of generations those hard-bitten folk had turned wilderness into a global force for good. Pretty awesome in any book.
Then I went to college in Chicago and met my roommate from Philadelphia. He dismissively referred to everyone between the East Coast and the West Coast as "Flyover Country," and my reaction was, "fuck you, you sheltered simpering elite."
"Flyover country" is incredibly insulting to the people who make the pampered lives of the coasts possible. They don't ever seek fame. They are stolid and want only to do their work and have that work be useful. They believe in God, and in freedom. Every time they see those values mocked in popular culture it drives a wedge between their daily reality and the country they live in. I suspect that the people who voted for Brexit experienced the same.
See also: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/ [cracked.com]
Holy cockslaps? WTF?
But, basically anyone who wants to understand US politics ought to read that page. Vulgarity aside, he's got it figured out.
That is a fascinating article; and it explains why people in the "Red states" didn't vote for Clinton.
But IMHO it still doesn't explain why they voted for Trump. I can't understand why those voters believed him.
I truly believe people were not so much voting for Trump as against the globalist, crony-capitalist plutocracy. If Peewee Herman had run as an anti-establishment firebrand he might have won too.
Yes, but how did they arrive at "the Republican party is anti-establishment" ?????
You are both right and wrong.
Jeb and the other 14 to 66 low T level, low energy neocucks were the establishment candidates. Jeb had like $100M raised if I remember correctly? The entire establishment hates Trump so its pretty hard to argue he's establishment. The entire media, all of academentia, the more cucked corporations...
You are correct in that the party in general has too many legacy neocuck traitors who will be liquidated shortly.
So, when are the gas chambers open for business? Or will Trump make a deal and sell his soul to the establishment?
Have to remember Trump used to buy and sell those same politicians before he became one, and he can still afford it, and his brand is ascendant at this time. Imagine what a guy like Trump could do to in the midterm primaries to a legislator on his bad side...
Or working the other angle, he has to sell out to the establishment because...
The part where Trump basically told the Bushes, Bill Krystal, et al to go to hell.
Makes you wonder what could have happened if they hadn't thrown Bernie under the bus.
bernie would have won, but i'm sure glad he didn't. socialists need to leave before it's too late.
If the Democrats hadn't been so blind, they would have found *some* way to run Bernie. An election between two old white guys would have emphasized the difference between "nice old coot with idealistic ideas" and "obnoxious asshole".
Then, the right-wing media would have slipped appropriate synonyms of "commie" and "jew" into the debate.
I truly believe people were not so much voting for Trump as against the globalist, crony-capitalist plutocracy.
So instead of voting for a politician that has good intentions in mind but sometimes doesn't deliver to expectations, you voted in the most egocentric, crooked and self-centered elitist? The guy that made deals with the New York mafia? Seriously, WTF?
If this doesn't spell *elitist*, I have no fucking idea what does. I guess let the deportations begin?? I would grab popcorn, if only this idiocracy would not affect the rest of the world.
So instead of voting for a politician that has good intentions in mind but sometimes doesn't deliver to expectations
You must be talking about third party candidates. Or were you talking about Clinton, who supports mass surveillance, supports the TSA, supports the drug war, wants to censor the Internet to fight terrorism, and generally supports a lot of unconstitutional nonsense? Trump agrees with Clinton on many of these issues. She might have good intentions (I doubt it; there's no way a politician like her doesn't understand how those policies destroy freedom and violate the Constitution.), but she, like Trump, is a wicked, authoritarian human being.
>...not so much voting for Trump as against the globalist, crony-capitalist plutocracy.BINGO!
The 'Out with the old, in with the new. Anyone but the typical who's who!'
It's an understandable viewpoint, and one that will hopefully be tempered with experienced cabinet members. Trumpster is after all, only one person.
So basically, as Mr. Trump completely tossed the Republican platform out the window, we have just seen the first third-party in disguise victory. It took a loud, crude, totally unlikable individual to do it. And he did it basically because no one took him seriously because he was a loud, crude, totally unlikable person. He didn't act or sound like a politician. He played on fear and anger. He didn't play by the rules.He was different. A cult of personality put up against a brick. Obama promised hope and change, we got little of either, Trump promised change with a really big megaphone and got more free airtime than any candidate I can recall just by being Donald.Both parties should be shitting their pants right now. They must realize just how thin their support has become. I dislike DT, but he has shaken the establishment to it's roots. And that is a good thing.
Well, maybe not totally unlikable, as there was Ted Cruz in the mix at one time.
What will we name this new party? Donpublican, Trumpinstein, Godzilla?
Seriously though, he doesn't seem to support the Republican nor the Democratic platforms nor have support of the parties. Doesn't that make him third-party in disguise? Bernie Sanders was basically this, and may of gotten all the way if not for being screwed. We have witnessed actual interest and desire for more options from both sides of the isle in the population. I hope this trend continues and delivers some real choice in four years.Yeah, I smoke too much weed, keeps me from getting too cynical.
See this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald-trump-why-americans-support [theguardian.com]
Trump was the only candidate pretending to represent the "jobs going away" bunch. Other than Sanders: http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Free_Trade.htm [ontheissues.org]Not Johnson, who thinks it will lead to more jobs: http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Gary_Johnson_Free_Trade.htm [ontheissues.org]OK maybe Stein but would she even get a quarter of the support Sanders got? http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Jill_Stein_Free_Trade.htm [ontheissues.org]
Sanders would have got more of those votes than Clinton. But the DNC didn't like him - he wasn't truly one of them (which was another plus point for him among some voters).
Go look at all those laid-off workers and their families in the eye and tell them that free trade creates more jobs in the USA.
I'm not sure that Trump would actually try to solve that problem. But the fact is Clinton was not even pretending that she'd do that. She was doing stuff like calling the TPP the "gold standard": http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/11/200565.htm [state.gov]
As Euripedes said: "When a man's stomach is full it makes no difference whether he is rich or poor.". In America do those voters and their families get fed well after they've lost their jobs? Do they get their bread and circuses? They remember a time when America was great, there was hope. And which of the candidate gave them the most hope where they were? Not Clinton. Clinton would be a guaranteed continuation of their nightmare.
I did not make it through the article, (its buzzfeed top-10 level laziness) but the top part basically posits that since red-state folks live in most of the land mass, they should have most of the vote population density be damned.
Yes. I've been sharing that cracked article around everywhere I can for the last week. I grew up on the ragged edge of suburbia, spent a lot of time in the country, summer jobs on farms and what not. This brought back a lot forgotten truths for me. Once I read this and fit it in with the larger context of what's going on, along with some deconstruction help from Scott Adams, and I knew, for sure, that Trump was going to take it.
Great article. I live in a small city surrounded by farmland. Not quite flyover but not big city either.We see a lot of both sides here.Seems odd though, that the most accurate article I have now read on the election came from Cracked. I love it.We could look at it this way. Trump threw out the political platform, running on his own opinions and making up his platform as he went along. Does that not make him a third-party in disguise?
I shared in August after taking the family on an 8,500 mile roadtrip around America (we didn't go through the deep South, but went everywhere else) that we saw Trump signs everywhere, more than we could count, and not a single sign for Hillary, even in the heart of the bluest of the blue (Madison, WI, Chicago, IL, Seattle, WA, Portland, OR, Eugene, OR, San Francisco, CA, etc). It was clear there was a huge enthusiasm gap.
Toward the end, though, I wasn't sure that would be enough to overcome the weight of the entire Establishment working in concert against him.
This is true. I live in Seattle. During primary season I saw MAYBE 1 Hillary Sign for every 10+ Bernie signs. Considering the state when like 70% Bernie during the caucus this was not surprising. Even after the primary though, those Bernie signs were never replaced with Hillary signs. By this past weekend, honestly you were just as likely to see a Johnson or a Stein yard sign as you were a Hillary sign.
Damn girl - that little speech can't really be improved on. It really can't. This is the part of the country where you find real men, and real women. This is where hard work means something. It's where stuff gets done.
Our rejects go running off to New York or Los Angeles, to become prostitutes and dope heads.
Flyover country, indeed.
Jesus, Runaway, this is fundamentally why nothing real and lasting will happen under President Trump. You simply cannot, cannot resist insulting the people who agree with you on certain issues. You must insult them.
Calling me 'girl' is one such example. I disagree with you often, but I never call you 'bitch' or 'pansy,' though others might think you have more than earned such epithets.
Let me couch my comments on 'flyover country.' Young people in 'flyover country' migrate to places like Los Angeles, Atlanta, and New York because their home towns don't recognize or reward their impulse to do something new. LA and NYC and other urban centers at least afford them the chance to break out. Des Moines, and places like it, never will. That doesn't mean that those places have no value, which I wrote about earlier, but it also doesn't mean that urban centers like LA and NYC don't have any value either.
Um, it's just an expression.
You're making way too much over this.
You're right, Cocksucker. Oh, wait, that's just an expression. I didn't mean you literally suck cock. Don't make too much of it.
See how that works? I can debase you to no end, then claim I didn't mean it, and get to both deliver the insult and pretend that I shouldn't face the consequences.
Here the ink on the election results isn't even dry, and you're already hard at work erasing any potential good from the result through sheer dumbfuckery. ProTip: shut the fuck up and let any positive consensus following from this election proceed, because it will benefit you and everyone else.
I think the most interesting thing about this comment thread is the logic leap that took you from someone using a fairly common exclamation (one with a positive meaning, no less; it's used as a compliment) to you being insulted because it had the word "girl" in it. You just automatically assumed that because there's a feminine word there, that the remark just had to be an insult. Worse still, after someone tried to explain it, you doubled down on the outrage and equated it to being debased and called a cocksucker.
That says more about your mindset than the commenter's. Taking the exchange as-is without outside context, it looks like you're either doggedly searching for something to be offended about, or you have a piss-poor opinion of women and are projecting that. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think it's more likely that you're just on edge because of the election tension. Tempers have been running hot for months and a lot of people just seem ready to snap. Take a few deep breaths and relax.
(In case it's still not clear, Runaway's comment seems to be commending you for your well-stated (in his opinion) rant about people dismissing "fly-over country", and your reaction was to get pissed off and pick a fight over him agreeing with you. Chill.)
Taking the exchange as-is without outside context, it looks like you're either doggedly searching for something to be offended about, or you have a piss-poor opinion of women and are projecting that.
It also occurs to me that maybe Phoenix is female and objects (as a woman) to being called a girl? Forgetting that by posting as Phoenix we dont know that and so an unintended insult occurred. Hmmm. Must admit Phoenix being female hadnt occurred to me before but now I look at their posts again, its plausible. Not that I care either way, just greatfull for all his/her posts!
No, very much male. My reaction was born of frustration at trying very hard to give even the most vituperative members of the SN community their due on an emotionally charged subject, only to have it repaid with churlish, sophomoric quips.
The other possibility is maybe you're an asshole?
Just putting it out there.
Des Moines, and places like it, never will.
Oh please, the "magic dirt" mythology at work.
Right up there with SV only exists because SV is built on magic dirt such that nobody anywhere else can program, there's something in SV dirt, you know, like LSD or something.
"Magic coastal dirt" theory doesn't apply for music, programming, commodities trading, engineering, science, real estate, frankly anything industry or corporate in general ... I'll give you it does apply for shit tier "modern art" which is mostly trash, and broadway musicals and its showtunes, so there's about 0.0001% of the population that's gonna have to move to the coasts.
I will say jobs are unevenly distributed. More commodities jobs in Chicago than rural Oklahoma and more petroleum engineering jobs in New Orleans than anywhere in Michigan.
It's not a question of geography. There are no such barriers to innovation in the Internet Age. But different communities develop local cultures that lend (or do not lend) themselves to experimentation and innovation, do they not? Take Austin, TX as an example. "Silicon Prairie," I believe they have dubbed it. It has Google Fiber and a robust start-up scene. Yet it's smack-dab in the middle of "Flyover Country." Is that a function of "magic dirt?" No. It is a function of intentional policies to encourage creativity.
This is the part of the country where you find real men, and real women. This is where hard work means something. It's where stuff gets done.
That is total nonsense: "Real men" and "Real women" aren't a matter of geography. Neither is hard work, nor is stuff getting done. You can find plenty of good and courageous people that work their butts off in both the inner cities and the most rural areas of Wyoming. You can also find bums and criminals and the worst kind of scum in both the inner cities and the most rural areas of the country.
That's all a matter of character. Not population density, not race, not religion, not gender, and not sexual orientation.
He simply listens to too many contemporary country song lyrics.
nope, there is a qualitative difference in the people and their capabilities...city mice may have (MAY) various urban skills that have ZERO value outside the context of a cancerous blight on yhe landscape known as cities...country mice have generalized knowledge and skills that are ACTUALLY useful for living ANYWHERE; but city mice disparage them for having dirt under their fingernails and knowing how to skin a deer, etc...stupid city mice, when the hard rain comes, our dogs will be cracking your bones for the marrow...(note, OF COURSE there are SOME FEW city mice who can snare a rabbit, grow a crop, etc; but there are both FAR MORE country mice who can do the same tasks city mice can do, PLUS a FAR wider population who can do canning, repair a tractor, raise a barn, etc, that are REAL skills for survival...um, when the hard rain comes, 'social media' "skills" won't mean shit...)
There are some city-mice skills that country-mice lack, though, that are also pretty valuable. For instance:- When is a loud "bang" a car backfiring, a gunshot, a gunshot close enough that you need to duck for cover, or the wind knocking over a trash can?- Which beggars are legitimately in need of help, and which ones are the professionals who actually live quite comfortably?- What's the best way to get from point A to point B during rush hour? City travelling is very different from country driving.
And the country skills that you value so highly are just as useless in a high-density city as the things I just mentioned are in the country. For example, you aren't going to go deer hunting in New York.
And for the record, I've been both a city mouse and a country mouse. They both have their challenges, and their advantages.
As a fellow former-country mouse and current city mouse I'd agree. The country mouse skills he was talking about can be practiced in the city, too, it's just that the local culture thinks they're weird.
I took my kids walking in Prospect Park, in Brooklyn, last summer. My neighbor came along with his two kids, who are the same age as mine. On the walk I was teaching my kids how to identify useful plants and trees, what their uses were ("chew willow bark to cure a headache"), how to built a lean-to, and how to harvest wild edibles. My neighbor, born and raised in Brooklyn, looked at me like I was from Mars. He wouldn't let his kids touch the willow trees or anything else because they might be dirty.
For example, you aren't going to go deer hunting in New York.
I noticed this a few days late, but whatever. There are plenty of places you can go deer hunting in New York, because there's an entire state with that name, and most of it is nothing like NYC. The mistake is rather fitting given the topic, since many NY residents -- especially on the western side of the state -- tend to be rather touchy and even bitter about being ignored and treated like the only part of NY that matters is NYC.
People's general attitude is that, once you leave NYC, everything else in the state is just "flyover country" that nobody gives a fuck about, and there are a lot of pissed off residents because of it. In fact, there's a lot of built-up resentment over NYC because the rest of the state is crumbling and they feel like nobody cares because NYC has a disproportionate amount of control over the entire state, most of which is nothing at all like NYC.
That's the kind of building tension that's been a big part of this election.
Disclaimer: this is just my personal observation of attitudes in the state. I've lived in the NYC area before and I have relatives in other parts of the state, so I've seen both sides of this disconnect.
And now that you've lived in NYC for decades, just how often have you heard the term used by anyone who wasn't already a giant dickweed?Be honest.
I don't hear it from people here who are from "Flyover Country." I do hear it from people who grew up on the East Coast. Most often I have heard it from East Coast natives who are not actually wealthy. They use it to put down people from the MidWest and West as stupid, lesser. The wealthy don't use those terms for people from Flyover Country because they have general contempt for anybody who would identify as "American." They are God's gift, you see, and every other human is equally dreck to them.
Once in a while when somebody from Flyover Country breaks out, they fawn because they know that they themselves have never done anything to deserve their wealth and status.
Those are my observations. There are things I love about the East Coast, but its entrenched classism is definitely not one of them.
Did it ever occur to you that the "coastal elites" are tired of subsidizing your way of life, while giving your votes more influence over politics?
So...we should be grateful to the coastal elites for letting us dwell in their shadow?
That's an interesting take on lickspittle-ism.
did it ever occur to how much of a city's food, water, energy is produced OUTSIDE your rat-infested shithole ?country mice stopped feeding you, there would be full scale zombie breakout in the city within weeks...
It is delusional to believe in a god.