Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help

Recommended Posts

Ken Burnside 65.9 million for Obama in '12
59.8 million for Clinton in '16

Two states in particular, Wisconsin and Michigan, are illustrative.

Wisconsin: Margin of Victory: 27,000 votes.
Voting delta between 16 and 12: Clinton: -235,000 votes, Trump: -2,000 votes
Number of campaign stops by Clinton: 0

Michigan: Margin of victory: 12,000 votes
Voting delta between 16 and 12: Clinton: -400,000 votes, Trump +1,200 votes.
Number of campaign stops by Clinton: 2

Pennsylvania isn't quite as stark; she was down by 300,000 votes and lost by 130,000 in Pennsylvania.

It looks a lot like efforts by Rove, Adelson and the Ricketts to save the downticket gave just enough float to put Trump over the top of those three states, and either Pennsylvania or Michigan would've rendered Florida moot.

Couple this with Trump getting the rural vote that the Democratic Party has increasingly referred to as "dumbfuckistan." by simply pulling a Bill Clinton "I feel your pain..."

I'll lay it out for you:

Trump had a positive message that outweighed every single negative he had.

That positive message is "Both parties don't give a flying fuck about the fact that you haven't had a pay raise since the 1990s, that a lot of your friends lost their homes in 2008 due to stupid mortgage backed derivatives, and when you're worried if that plant you work at is going to close and kill your town, they're selling you More Globalization Is Better."

Trump got unprecedented percentages of rural white voters, by, well, treating them as a racial voting bloc all their own and telling them what they wanted to hear.

Clinton ignored that voting bloc, and treated Wisconsin and Michigan as "safe" (her campaign mocked Trump for campaigning in those two states, late)...and it cost her the election.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shit, there's going to be a March Against Trump in Fort Collins. Awesome. 


Because fuck democracy. 

When candidates are able to win despite having fewer votes than their opponent, democracy is already fucked.  I say fill the god damned streets with people.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

When candidates are able to win despite having fewer votes than their opponent, democracy is already fucked. I say fill the god damned streets with people.

That is an intellectually dishonest stance, neither candidate campaigned for the popular vote.

And they haven't finished counting.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

When candidates are able to win despite having fewer votes than their opponent, democracy is already fucked. I say fill the god damned streets with people.

I know you're not thrilled with the outcome, but I think this is a silly thing to say, not the least reason for which is because the popular vote count hasn't been finalized yet and is very close.

But, also, because democracy is one abstract system for selecting rulers or policies, and the electoral college is another. Direct democracy is not "morally right" any more than the college is, and the people chosen by direct democracy are no more anointed by God than those chosen by the college.

Throw in the corruption in the Democratic primary, the possibility of large-scale DNC-backed voter fraud initiatives, and Hillary's incredibly low numbers relative to Obama in '08 and '12, and I really don't feel comfortable crowning her "the people's candidate".

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have friends who did analytics for the Hillary campaign (they also worked for Obama's campaigns) and they agree that the game was the DNC's to lose, and that they should not have picked Hillary (or Kaine, for that matter)



Still pissed that [name redacted] and I had been warning people about working class white people for half a decade and all the righteous indignation we got from everyone.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do they think choosing Kaine was wrong?

Kaine didn't seem to bring any demographic or ideological group closer to Clinton's campaign. He didn't even seem to be too helpful in Virginia. 


Many seem to think that Pence's credibility among many conservatives helped them vote Trump or something along those lines. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

That assessment is correct.

Hillary wanted a cipher, an irrellevant VP who wouldn't outshine her.

Trump is secure in himself to pick the best man for the job, even if Pence disagrees with him on issues. This bodes well for his leadership style.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey everyone, remember that QB Colin Kapersnickerdate?  


The one who made a big stink a few months back? 


He didn't vote. And the ESPN anchor has a meltdown. 



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic thing my friends said is that the Democrats basically paid too much attention to Hispanics to the detriment of the white working class, which was a traditional Democrat base. The problem with that strategy is that Hispanics are not very reliable voters, and it cost them in this election.

They are hopeful for a purge in the DNC, but that remains to be seen, They appear to still be in shock.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one am most appreciative of all the liberal anti gun types screaming for revolution.

The irony is delicious.


What I found especially hilarious was seeing some facebook post about someone in Commiefornia wanting to riot and fight against the system to the point I imagine they'd want a few guns.  It wasn't just protests, since they were telling you how to avoid government tracking, to wear masks and gloves, and never to name other members in public.  Sucks when you already took those guns away from yourselves, doesn't it? :^)


I'm kind of worried about Trump's environmental policies, since he apparently is going to appoint a climate skeptic to the EPA


I'm taking comfort in the fact that we won't see TPP happen, which in the long run likely would have been worse I think.


I don't recall his specifics at all, but from what I recall hearing in a speech of his, he wants to cut money used to work on global environmentalism and spend more in the states instead.  Depending on the size of the cuts and how much money is moved home, how much this matters could vary a good bit.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Similar Content

    • By T___A
      Reposting for those that didn't see it the first time around:

    • By Tied
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?
    • By Xoon
      Colonization Of The Solar System

      This thread is for discussing the colonization of the solar system, mainly focusing on Mars and the Moon since they are the most relevant. 
      Main topics include transportation, industry, agriculture, economics, civil engineering,  energy production and distribution, habitation, ethics and politics. 
      First order of business, our glories tech messiah Elon Musk has set his eyes on Mars:
      Reason stated? Because being a interplanetary species beats being a single planetary species. 
      How does he plan to do this?
      By sending two cargo ships by 2022 to Mars for surveying and building  basic infrastructure, then two years later in 2024 sending 4 ships, two cargo ships and two crewed ships to start the colonization. First thing would be to build fuel refineries and expanding infrastructure to support more ships, then starting to mine and build industry. 
      This could mark a new era in human history, a second colonization era, this time without the genocides. The economic potentials are incredible, a single asteroid could easily support the entire earths gold, silver and platinum production for a decade. The moon holds a lot of valuable Helium 3, which right now is worth 12 000 dollars per kilogram! Helium is a excellent material for nuclear reactors. 

      Speaking about the moon, several companies have set their eyes on the moon, and for good reason.
      In my opinion,  the moon has the possibility of becoming a mayor trade hub for the solar system.  Why is this? Simply put, the earth has a few pesky things called gravity, atmosphere and environmentalists. This makes launching rockets off the moon much cheaper. The moon could even have a space elevator with current technology!  If we consider Elon Musk's plan to travel to Mars, then the Moon should be able to supply cheaper fuel and spaceship parts to space, to then be sent to Mars. The Moon is also rich in minerals that have not sunk to the core yet, and also has a huge amount of rare earth metals, which demands are rapidly increasing. Simply put, the Moon would end up as a large exporter to both the earth and potentially Mars. Importing from earth would almost always be more expensive compared to a industrialized Moon. 
      Now how would we go about colonizing the moon? Honestly, in concept it is quite simple.When considering locations, the South pole seems like the best candidate. This is because of it's constant sun spots, which could give 24 hour solar power to the colony and give constant sunlight to plants without huge power usage. The south pole also contain dark spots which contains large amount of frozen water, which would be used to sustain the agriculture and to make rocket fuel. It is true that the equator has the largest amounts of Helium 3 and the best location for rocket launches. However, with the lack of constant sunlight and frequent solar winds and meteor impacts, makes to unsuited for initial colonization. If the SpaceX's BFR successes, then it would be the main means of transporting materials to the moon until infrastructure is properly developed. Later a heavy lifter would replace it when transporting goods to and from the lunar surface, and specialized cargo ship for trans portion between the Moon, Earth and Mars. A space elevator would reduce prices further in the future.  Most likely, a trade station would be set up in CIS lunar space and Earth orbit which would house large fuel tanks and be able to hold the cargo from  cargo ships and heavy lifters. Sun ports would be designated depending on their amount of sunlight. Year around sunlight spots would be dedicated to solar panels and agriculture. Varying sun spots would be used for storage, landing pads and in general everything. Dark spots would be designated to mining to extract its valuable water. Power production would be inistially almost purely solar, with some back up and smoothing out generators. Later nuclear reactors would take over, but serve as a secondary backup energy source. 
      The plan:
      If we can assume the BFR is a success, then we have roughly 150 ton of payload to work with per spaceship. The first spaceship would contain a satellite to survey colonization spot. Everything would be robotic at first. Several robots capable of building a LZ for future ships,  mining of the lunar surface for making solar panels for energy production, then mining and refinement for fuel for future expeditions. The lunar colony would be based underground, room and pillar mining would be used to cheaply create room that is also shielded from radiation and surface hazards. Copying the mighty tech priest, a second ship would come with people and more equipment. With this more large scale mining and ore refinement would be started. Eventually beginning to manufacturing their own goods. Routinely BFRs would supply the colony with special equipment like electronics, special minerals and advanced equipment and food until the agricultural sector can support the colony.  The colony would start to export Helium 3 and rocket fuel, as well as spacecraft parts and scientific materials. Eventually becoming self sustaining, it would stop importing food and equipment, manufacturing it all themselves to save costs. 
      I am not the best in agriculture, so if some knowledge people could teach us here about closed loop farming, or some way of cultivating the lunar soil. Feel free to do so.
      I found a article here about the composition of the lunar soil and the use for it's main components:

      In short, the moon has large amounts of oxygen, silicon, aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium and titanium in it's soil.
      How do we refine them? By doing this.
      Aluminum could be used for most kinds of wiring to requiring high conductivity to density ratio. Meaning power lines, building cables and such. Aluminum is not very suited for building structures on the surface because of the varying temperatures causing it to expand and contract. Iron or steel is better suited here. Aluminum could however be used in underground structures where temperatures are more stable.  Aluminum would also most likely end up as the main lunar rocket fuel. Yes, aluminum as rocket fuel. Just look at things like ALICE, or Aluminum-oxygen. Aluminum-oxygen would probably win out since ALICE uses water, which would be prioritized for the BFRs, since I am pretty sure they are not multi-fuel. 
       More on aluminum rocket fuel here:
      Believe it or not, but calcium is actually a excellent conductor, about 12% better than copper. So why do we not use it on earth? Because it has a tendency to spontaneously combust in the atmosphere. In a vacuum however, this does not pose a problem. I does however need to be coated in a material so it does not deteriorate. This makes it suited for "outdoor" products and compact electrical systems like electric motors. Yes, a calcium electric motor.  
      Lastly, a few articles about colonizing the moon:
      NASA article about production of solar panels on the moon:
      Map over the south pole:
      Feel free to spam the thread with news regarding colonization.