jerseyhoya wrote:Not that there's any real groundswell to pass some legislation that overturns the electoral college, but if we get to that point I hope whatever uniform national election procedures we adopt are the opposite of what happens in California because the fact that they've got millions of votes uncounted 10 days after the election is effing pathetic. Like, in other states if it came down to a recount close margin we might be stuck, but California just takes forfuckingever to count its votes.

jerseyhoya wrote:Not that there's any real groundswell to pass some legislation that overturns the electoral college, but if we get to that point I hope whatever uniform national election procedures we adopt are the opposite of what happens in California because the fact that they've got millions of votes uncounted 10 days after the election is effing pathetic. Like, in other states if it came down to a recount close margin we might be stuck, but California just takes #$!&@ to count its votes.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Not that there's any real groundswell to pass some legislation that overturns the electoral college, but if we get to that point I hope whatever uniform national election procedures we adopt are the opposite of what happens in California because the fact that they've got millions of votes uncounted 10 days after the election is effing pathetic. Like, in other states if it came down to a recount close margin we might be stuck, but California just takes #$!&@ to count its votes.

Yeah, I'm pretty confused by that. Absentees were counted here in Virginia within 48 hours. I realize it's a bigger state, but good god.

Monkeyboy wrote:I'm still a bit confused about the vote count. At first I heard it was fantastic turnout, but that seemed to be mostly anecdotal. Then I heard that both parties had less voters, but the dems lost more voters than the gop. Now I'm hearing again that the turnout was the highest ever.

What gives?

Also, I still feel like something isn't quite right. Shenanigans?

Monkeyboy wrote:I'm still a bit confused about the vote count. At first I heard it was fantastic turnout, but that seemed to be mostly anecdotal. Then I heard that both parties had less voters, but the dems lost more voters than the gop. Now I'm hearing again that the turnout was the highest ever.

What gives?

Also, I still feel like something isn't quite right. Shenanigans?

jerseyhoya wrote:The Clinton Campaign Was Undone By Its Own Neglect And A Touch Of Arrogance, Staffers Say - there will be better stories with either more on the record sources or off the record sources specifically detailing what the internals were showing, but an awful lot of my belief here in Clinton being extremely likely to win was due to thinking the Clinton campaign was the only outfit that had a real data/polling operation and following their actions. It seems the Dems fucked up significantly worse than Romney's people in 2012 - at least there wasn't anything they suggested that cost him the election. So much for thinking we're miles behind them.

JUburton wrote:they ran on 'demographics are destiny' and 'donald trump is unfit' and it failed them miserably.

The Dude wrote:Fantastic. Happening a little quciker than i thought

Trumphttp://6abc.com/news/trolley-car-d ... -/1611301/

drsmooth wrote:

JUburton wrote:they ran on 'demographics are destiny' and 'donald trump is unfit' and it failed them miserably.

let's see, 1M+ popular vote margin = "miserable failure".

Hmmm.

No. No, that equation is faulty.


roll 100k votes in 3 states, and a completely different narrative is necessary. See the problem?

Just because a more accurate summary requires more thought to concoct, does not mean it would not be more valuable to anyone trying to make sense of the outcome than "zomg, the D strategy was ALL WRONG!!1!"

because really, it wasn't.

drsmooth wrote:

JUburton wrote:they ran on 'demographics are destiny' and 'donald trump is unfit' and it failed them miserably.

let's see, 1M+ popular vote margin = "miserable failure".

Hmmm.

No. No, that equation is faulty.


roll 100k votes in 3 states, and a completely different narrative is necessary. See the problem?

Just because a more accurate summary requires more thought to concoct, does not mean it would not be more valuable to anyone trying to make sense of the outcome than "zomg, the D strategy was ALL WRONG!!1!"

because really, it wasn't.

drsmooth wrote:

JUburton wrote:they ran on 'demographics are destiny' and 'donald trump is unfit' and it failed them miserably.

let's see, 1M+ popular vote margin = "miserable failure".

Hmmm.

No. No, that equation is faulty.


roll 100k votes in 3 states, and a completely different narrative is necessary. See the problem?

Just because a more accurate summary requires more thought to concoct, does not mean it would not be more valuable to anyone trying to make sense of the outcome than "zomg, the D strategy was ALL WRONG!!1!"

because really, it wasn't.

drsmooth wrote:

JUburton wrote:they ran on 'demographics are destiny' and 'donald trump is unfit' and it failed them miserably.

let's see, 1M+ popular vote margin = "miserable failure".

Hmmm.

No. No, that equation is faulty.


roll 100k votes in 3 states, and a completely different narrative is necessary. See the problem?

Just because a more accurate summary requires more thought to concoct, does not mean it would not be more valuable to anyone trying to make sense of the outcome than "zomg, the D strategy was ALL WRONG!!1!"

because really, it wasn't.