Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Yeah, Clinton herself never visited Wisconsin even once, while Trump did at least three times. Up to labor day anyhow, doesn't show for the rest of the way to Election day.

[martinuzz]

My newspaper reports that Hillary passed the 1 million mark. She won the popular vote by more than a million votes so far.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19

[hector13]

CNN and BBC put it at not quite 950k.

Not that it really makes a difference.

[Frumple]

From labor day, smj, not up to. Tracks from september 5th till november 7th.

And yeah, last I checked it was over a million, with the continued potential to further widen a bit, I think. Though checking it does look like it might be a bit under, now. It's kinda' hard to tell because all these bastards are continuing the voting day behavior of not bloody agreeing with each other aarrrgh

[smjjames]

From labor day, smj, not up to. Tracks from september 5th till november 7th.

My mistake. Yea, I don't recall her (or any of her surrogates) ever visiting Wisconsin or Upper Michigan (the forgotten Michigan) other than maybe during the primaries.

[McTraveller]

My newspaper reports that Hillary passed the 1 million mark. She won the popular vote by more than a million votes so far.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19

Still less than 48% of the total vote anyway.  It's really something when neither major candidate got more than 50% of the vote. I had to look it up; this is the 14th time that has occurred.  Want to really blow your mind? Lincoln was elected with less than 40% of the popular vote.

And the concentration of the disparity in votes is really interesting from an anthropological standpoint; we've really got to try and address that issue as a society, I think.

[smjjames]

My newspaper reports that Hillary passed the 1 million mark. She won the popular vote by more than a million votes so far.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19

Still less than 48% of the total vote anyway.  It's really something when neither major candidate got more than 50% of the vote. I had to look it up; this is the 14th time that has occurred.  Want to really blow your mind? Lincoln was elected with less than 40% of the popular vote.

To be fair, that was when the country was already undergoing a hard split along a definete faultline, the Democrats contemporary to Lincolins time were also split between northern and southern groups. Other than there being divisiveness, the situation then really isn't comparable.

And the concentration of the disparity in votes is really interesting from an anthropological standpoint; we've really got to try and address that issue as a society, I think.

Yes, yes we do need to address it. There is a Rural vs Urban divide, but neither can live without the other, the rural farms and communities need the financial centers of the cities to fuel the economy and sell food to, the urban cities would starve without the rural farms and communities.

[sluissa]

My newspaper reports that Hillary passed the 1 million mark. She won the popular vote by more than a million votes so far.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19

Still less than 48% of the total vote anyway.  It's really something when neither major candidate got more than 50% of the vote. I had to look it up; this is the 14th time that has occurred.  Want to really blow your mind? Lincoln was elected with less than 40% of the popular vote.

And the concentration of the disparity in votes is really interesting from an anthropological standpoint; we've really got to try and address that issue as a society, I think.

Considering that third parties DO exist, despite what many try to pretend, under 50% is completely unsurprising.

[Sergarr]

My newspaper reports that Hillary passed the 1 million mark. She won the popular vote by more than a million votes so far.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19

Still less than 48% of the total vote anyway.  It's really something when neither major candidate got more than 50% of the vote. I had to look it up; this is the 14th time that has occurred.  Want to really blow your mind? Lincoln was elected with less than 40% of the popular vote.

And the concentration of the disparity in votes is really interesting from an anthropological standpoint; we've really got to try and address that issue as a society, I think.

Considering that third parties DO exist, despite what many try to pretend, under 50% is completely unsurprising.

Third parties are, however, completely ineffective at actually posing any kind of challenge to the main two, and they barely have any representation on the lower levels of governance, which is why it's only barely hyperbolic to state that they don't exist.

Unless all states follow the example of Mainiacs and switch to ranked voting, they'll continue to be so.

[Frumple]

Yeah, they... did better than they usually did this year, iirc. Still functionally nonexistent, but more of the country went 3rd party than usual! At least so far as the popular vote went. Can't recall them making much in the way of gains anywhere else, ha.

Who knows, another few elections and they might just end up politically relevant rather than a somewhat convenient pseudo-scapegoat and not much else.

[McTraveller]

Yes, yes we do need to address it. There is a Rural vs Urban divide, but neither can live without the other, the rural farms and communities need the financial centers of the cities to fuel the economy and sell food to, the urban cities would starve without the rural farms and communities.

I wouldn't be so sure - I would wager the rural can live just fine without the urban, but definitely not the other way around.  The rural "has to sell" to the urban only because of tax laws - if farmers didn't have to pay tax, they could very likely be subsistence easily enough, producing only enough for their own needs*. People are indeed wage slaves in this country, in that if you don't do something that can be traded, you aren't even allowed to keep what you have.  Now yeah you might be able to live off welfare or whatever, but you won't "own" anything.

Hence the big issues with automation and concentration of ownership of productive capital that was a factor in the election.

* That is, of course, in a dire scenario; farmers today do sell to urban areas because they can make a large profit off it.  Although there are other factors like how would a farmer defend land, etc.  But that kind of devolves into almost feudal estates or something.  Interesting how a lot of the founding fathers owned a lot of farmland, isn't it?

[DJ]

Cities could import food from abroad.

[DJ]

I guess if he really wanted to squeeze the cities, Trump could impose high import taxes on food. Should probably apply those taxes to tea as well, just for good measure.

[McTraveller]

Farmers don't even sell enough to make a profit- their profit comes almost entirely from government subsidies. This is done so that food costs as little as possible, and so that the government can have direct control over the market.

That's actually kind of proof right there that urban areas can't live without the rural - if farmers didn't have those subsidies, would they produce food in the quantities they currently do?

It's actually, in a way, surprising that the rural areas don't try to exert more power. It's amazing what "Hey, you like to eat, don't you?" can do in a negotiation.  You could probably write a lot of dystopian fiction based on that (that's of one of the many things that bothered me about Hunger Games - if you really don't want your oppressors to keep oppressing you, just stop making stuff for them! Yeah, you might have to sacrifice yourself for that, though).

Granted, it would have to take *enough* farmers to strike for this to work.  Kind of interesting how I've never heard of a farmer strike...  kind of a cruddy article (yay for keyboard smashing in the middle of it!) but apparently this happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Agriculture_Movement

[DJ]

Good luck getting the farmers in other countries to strike, especially when food prices rise in USA.