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]
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.