Vince wrote:I think people are conflating two different issues. Russia hacked a bunch of stuff they shouldn't have. That should be investigated. That hacking had nothing to do with Hillary being unlikable, her setting up a private email server for State Department business (and then playing stupid about it) or any other of her long list of questionable decisions.
I guess I'm one of the rare ones that think Hillary lost because she was a horrible candidate, and Russia isn't our friend. Both of these things can be (and are) true.
This. And it's possible that the Russia hack influenced the election, but I'm very, very doubtful that it swayed the election. The emails mostly fed the paranoid delusions of the far right anyway.
I guess I'm one of the rare ones that think Hillary lost because she was a horrible candidate
Dude, I think 60M people thought she was a horrible candidate. Hell, I'll go at least 100M because I think 40M of her own supporters hated her.
People were apparently still willing to vote for bullshit, but they wanted the new and fresh bullshit. Bullshit with a different flavor and mouth feel from the bullshit they were used to having to eat.
That's the part that baffles me. Imagine you're Kyle in the middle of this situation:
It feels like the country picked cuttlefish and asparagus because they all thought, "You know, I've never had cuttlefish shit into my mouth before. It could be better than having the vanilla shit into it."
According to AP, Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) said electors should have the chance to receive "all information relevant to this interference."
Whoa, Congress wants to wait to do something until after they have all the info? What's with the break in tradition?
Re: 2016 General Election Thread
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 3:23 pm
by GORDON
I've had BBC America on today as background noise.... Star Trek, yo. And over and over I have seen a commercial with a bunch of actors urging the electors to not vote for Trump.
Re: 2016 General Election Thread
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:20 pm
by Malcolm
A channel no longer in my cable package, but hilarious nonetheless.
Re: 2016 General Election Thread
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:23 pm
by GORDON
Here it is. They seem pretty sincere about it.
Re: 2016 General Election Thread
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 7:02 pm
by Malcolm
Opening with a suspected child molester, nice.
Re: 2016 General Election Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:45 am
by TPRJones
If they're trying to advertise specifically to Republican electors, shouldn't that have been played during Matlock reruns?
Re: 2016 General Election Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:46 am
by GORDON
...... so are there different electors for dems and repubs, and whoever wins, those specific people vote?
Re: 2016 General Election Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:23 am
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:...... so are there different electors for dems and repubs, and whoever wins, those specific people vote?
Basically.
Re: 2016 General Election Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:43 am
by GORDON
Pardon my ignorance...
But how is that sort of thing written into the Constitution? I remember someone... Washington? Condemning the party system, saying it was fucked up and stuff. How did we write party-based electors into our laws?
Re: 2016 General Election Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2016 12:04 pm
by TPRJones
As far as the Constitution is concerned, it's the states that are selecting and sending the electors. The specific details of how the electors are chosen are up to the states to decide, and in most states that means the winning party gets to decide.
Re: 2016 General Election Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:27 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:Pardon my ignorance...
But how is that sort of thing written into the Constitution?
That's how it's always been. The founding fathers, on purpose, didn't want some populist douchebag roiling up the rabble and running the country. It's why the popular vote doesn't count directly towards the prez election. It's why electors aren't split based on popular vote. Those old, powdered wig-wearing political gods that everyone looks up to didn't trust the general populous for the most part to run their own shit. It's why we have a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy.
I remember someone... Washington? Condemning the party system, saying it was fucked up and stuff.
Absolutely. That's why he's the only US prez without a party affiliation. Unfortunately, there were already several factions that had formed during:
(i) the writing of the Declaration of Fuck You, George
(ii) the Revolutionary War, leading up to, during, and after
(iii) the Articles of Confederation, that hilarious little experiment we had that threatened to recreate in North America the heady days of Peloponnesian League
How did we write party-based electors into our laws?
Because back in the day, the founding fathers perhaps didn't envision their crappy, crappy election system not getting updated due to extreme political corruption and sloth, nor the whittling of the party choices down to the equivalent of the two assholes you see on every ep of "Judge Judy." Hell, back in the day, runner-up in the prez election got to be vice prez.
Re: 2016 General Election Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:01 pm
by Vince
Is it not hilarious that the only faithless elector so far switched from Hillary to Bernie Sanders?
Re: 2016 General Election Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2016 8:24 pm
by TheCatt
Trump received 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton's 227. Seven "faithless" electors voted for other candidates, costing Trump two votes and Clinton four. Hawaii's votes -- three for Clinton and one breaking from the state's results and supporting Bernie Sanders -- were the last to be counted.
..
In Washington state, four electors opted for other candidates, instead of backing Hillary Clinton. Three cast ballots for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and one backed Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American activist who's been involved in the North Dakota pipeline fight.
Re: 2016 General Election Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:19 pm
by Malcolm
He would've needed about, what, 40ish electors to switch their votes? Let's put that in perspective with some highlights:
7 faithless electors: 2016
8 faithless electors: 1912
63 faithless electors: 1872, 63 of 66 electors refused to vote for a defeated candidate who had literally died in between an unsuccessful election and the electors voting
If I recall, a couple elections in the 1830s produced 2-3 dozens faithless electors. Prior to that, you have to go back to 179-fucking-6 before you hit double digits again. 40 would be unprecedented.
