What's new
By:

Fake News

LogGrad98 said:
I usually post a simple snores link.
Click to expand...

raw
 
Russian propaganda organs greatly assisted in the spread of fake news during the 2016 election. My experience with the reaction of people regarding foreign power interference in our election is that it was really no big deal. Most people I've talked to about this just shrug their shoulders about it. That continues to surprise me. At any rate, foreign interference was not limited to the Russians providing Wikileaks with material to use against Clinton. It also included spreading fake news...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...3903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html
 
Ron Mexico said:
Buzzfeed and john oliver reported that, I just quoted above. They did not say 2X I just did the math.

Neither candidate wasted their efforts in places that had no chance unless they had time or were close by. Both focused most of their resources on swing states. Voter turnout was very very low in California because their vote didnt matter. If their numbers were up to usual election this would have been even more of a discrepancy in the popular vote.
Click to expand...

Conservative votes are more depressed in California than liberal ones for the same reason that liberal votes are more depressed in Utah than conservative ones. Despite being a big factor it doesn't all have to do with the presidential election. Unless a superstar like the Governator is running Cali is likely to have a dem for Governor and most offices will be dominated by dems. If Californians votes had mattered individually for the presidential election it seems to me that the gap between Trump and Clinton would have narrowed there not expanded. In a similar scenario in Utah it seems likely that democrats would have narrowed the vote gap.

If we look at swing states in this election, places where people feel that their vote carries weight in the presidential election, it is clear that Trump was able to motivate his supporters much more so than Clinton. Trump won swing states that could barely be called that. States that lean heavily toward the democrats. This turnout meant that the republicans were not only able to win the presidency but also both federal houses, and many local races that they may have otherwise lost.

Clinton supporters are looking at the national popular vote total that was gathered in a system in which it does not matter and drawing what I think are fanciful conclusions. The depressing truth may very well be that if we decided the POTUS election by national popular vote that Trump would have won anyway.
 
♪alt13 said:
Conservative votes are more depressed in California than liberal ones for the same reason that liberal votes are more depressed in Utah than conservative ones. Despite being a big factor it doesn't all have to do with the presidential election. Unless a superstar like the Governator is running Cali is likely to have a dem for Governor and most offices will be dominated by dems. If Californians votes had mattered individually for the presidential election it seems to me that the gap between Trump and Clinton would have narrowed there not expanded. In a similar scenario in Utah it seems likely that democrats would have narrowed the vote gap.

If we look at swing states in this election, places where people feel that their vote carries weight in the presidential election, it is clear that Trump was able to motivate his supporters much more so than Clinton. Trump won swing states that could barely be called that. States that lean heavily toward the democrats. This turnout meant that the republicans were not only able to win the presidency but also both federal houses, and many local races that they may have otherwise lost.

Clinton supporters are looking at the national popular vote total that was gathered in a system in which it does not matter and drawing what I think are fanciful conclusions. The depressing truth may very well be that if we decided the POTUS election by national popular vote that Trump would have won anyway.
Click to expand...
That might be true, it's hard to tell. Most polling numbers showed far more people who would have voted Clinton that didn't vote than Trump. But polling numbers have been a little off this year so who knows.

Either way this election showed how demotivating it is to live in a non swing state for voting.
 
Ron Mexico said:
That might be true, it's hard to tell. Most polling numbers showed far more people who would have voted Clinton that didn't vote than Trump. But polling numbers have been a little off this year so who knows.

Either way this election showed how demotivating it is to live in a non swing state for voting.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't know how it would go. How exactly that plays out in the POTUS election I think is anyone's guess.

I imagine that Cali would become more conservative while other states may become more liberal. This could end up being a good thing in its own right pulling us to the center resulting in more adult political dialogue or it could lead to the same sort of bitter deadlock we see in Washington becoming more prominent at the state level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top