Linky First Tuesday After The First Monday Of November

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

448 Responses

  1. Murali says:

    H3: Clearly the writer of the article hasn’t read Stephen Donaldson’s Gap Cycle. And more clearly (or it would be amazingly coincidental) the guy who translated Brevik’s writings did.Report

  2. Brent F says:

    Classics hottake: Thermopylae was an irrelevant skirmish in the Greco-Persian wars, all the Spartans accomplished there was to be a road bump in the Persian advance towards Attica. Leonidias also massively cocked up the whole thing by allowing himself to get outflank after only a few days. He had the good grace to die fighting as a consequence of his failure so the thing got spun as a propoganda victory rather than a tactical slaughter and a strategic defeat.Report

  3. LeeEsq says:

    C1: This seems decidedly unfair.

    C2: China has been one of the most hostile countries to curbing global warming. This makes Trump’s belief that global warming is a hoax created by China odd.

    E1: Saul noted that the right has spent decades portraying many decidedly non-Elite people like artists working as bar tenders to pay the bills as part of the elite because it suits their purposes. Now they know what it feels like.

    E3: A multi-party system would be a disaster without big changes to the American political system. There would be no incentive for the different parties to work together in Congress or with the Presidency and their would be more gridlock on everything. You need a parliamentary system to make multiparty systems work because it creates incentives to form coalitions to control the government. Scott Lemieux on LGM is skeptical and whether multi-party systems are inherently more favorable towards liberals than two party systems.Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to LeeEsq says:

      C1: Sounds like every salaried professional out there. What is unfair, if anything, is a salaried position being treated like it’s hourly. Pick one & stick to it.Report

      • switters in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

        Not sure i agree why salaried or hourly are the only options. With respect to those agents hired after the cap was in place why was their accepting a hourly with a cap option problematic. Even with respect to those who it was sprung on after they started, employers change pay all the time, they certainly have the option of securing other employment. But I’m guessing there aren’t a lot of law enforcement positions that pay over $160K a year.Report

        • Oscar Gordon in reply to switters says:

          What I wonder about is why the cap in the first place if they are paid hourly? The cap strikes me as a way to control personnel costs by not allowing a person to work crazy amounts of overtime, except most people don’t actually want to work crazy amounts of overtime as a matter of course. People want to have family and other leisure time, so typically large amounts of overtime are worked because the employer needs it (like during an election cycle).

          So the fact that a cap was passed into law tells me that either A) Federal managers/supervisors are operating perpetually understaffed* (and thus require lots of overtime), or B) Federal managers/supervisors had gotten into the habit of allowing employees to work overtime as desired as a way to pad paychecks**. Both reasons strike me as bad management, but as usual, the employees have to bear the cost of that.

          *Or management is really bad about making sure the staff they have is actually working.

          **Usually with little in the way of oversightReport

  4. LeeEsq says:

    E4: A related link from the Atlantic about Trump’s appeal. The best you can see about Trump supporters is that they are heavily influenced by a fantasy of America that partially was and partially was not.

    E5: The crucial test of liberal democracy is trying to create a peaceful society that consists of people and groups with mutually inconsistent beliefs and goals.

    I5: This makes sense. The Far Right is making gains by combining their issues, a desire to keep Europe more monocultural, with the concerns of people anxious about economic security and globalization.

    H3: Th nationalist right always imagined itself as the defenders of Western tradition over groups perceived as the enemies of Western tradition. The Battle of Thermopylae in its mythological form is very appealing for them for that reason. As the article points out, actual history is much more complicated. The Spartans were not particularly democratic and actual serve as a template for some of the worst aspects of Western civilization, a sort of proto-fascism of antiquity. The Persian Empire wasn’t particularly despotic. It was the Persians that allowed the Jews to return to Israel and rebuild the Temple. The empire tended to be run in a very decentralized manner because of its seize and the level of communications available in antiquity.Report

    • Richard Hershberger in reply to LeeEsq says:

      Has the nationalist right always revered Thermopylae? i don’t know, but I wonder if it isn’t a secondary effect of Victor Davis Hanson becoming a right wing pundit. Hanson (whose early academic and semi-academic work was superb) woke up one day and realized that Muslims doing inscrutable (Mid)East stuff is just like the Persian Empire invading Greece. He took this idea and has been running with it ever since. The fascination with Thermopylae would naturally follow from this.Report

    • notme in reply to LeeEsq says:

      You conveniently overlook the fact that the Spartans didn’t want to be forced at spear point to be part of the Persian empire, however beneficent, it was. Not to mention that the Spartans were still more democratic than the Persians.Report

      • Mike Schilling in reply to notme says:

        Most parts of the Roman Empire became so via military conquest, but few people fetishize their resistance.Report

        • notmme in reply to Mike Schilling says:

          Maybe b/c a Spartan loss would have had significantly hindered the development of western culture. Whereas a few dead gauls was no big loss.Report

          • Mike Schilling in reply to notmme says:

            Gaulish Lives Matter!Report

          • J_A in reply to notmme says:

            A- The Spartans did indeed lose. The Persians were stopped by the Spartans’ mortal foes, the Athenians

            B- The Persians did conquer Ionia (The Asiatic coast of modern Turkey) which was the area of Greece were most of what we now call Greek culture developed (Athens was the only Ionian enclave in European Greece, the rest being mostly Doric). Without Plutarch we wouldn’t even remember the Spartans. Ionia continued flourishing uninterruptedly under Persian suzerainty, and afterwards in Hellenistic and Roman times. It’s not likely a Persian conquest of European Greece would have stopped Western Civilization.

            C- The Gauls gave us trousers. Roman conquest of Gaul stopped the diffusion of such an important sartorial development. The Romans considered trousers a sign of effeminacy, because they were better as keeping you warm, and made horseback riding “easier”. Real manly men don’t complain about the cold and don’t need things to make riding easier. Hopefully today will see the implantation of trousers as the only acceptable way for world leaders to cover their legs, and the Roman skirt will be confin d to the dustbin of history.Report

            • Richard Hershberger in reply to J_A says:

              My understanding is that by the fourth century A.D. trousers were pretty standard Roman military dress. This undoubtedly explains their failure to stop the barbarian onslaught.Report

            • notme in reply to J_A says:

              A: Yes the Spartan sacrifice gave the Athenians time to organize and prepare. That’s why their sacrifice is important and is remembered.

              B: If the Athenians had lost we wouldn’t have a history of democracy nor probably all those other western liberal values liberals love so much.

              C: So what.Report

              • Richard Hershberger in reply to notme says:

                A: Well, that’s the narrative. No one knows if it’s really true. Military history is full of headlong advances that peter out to a slow crawl. There is always the temptation to create a narrative of the heroic defenders, when often it is actually a prosaic matter of the invaders outstripping their supply lines. See also: The Miracle of the Marne. You can find people claiming that Lee would have marched on Philadelphia had he not been stopped at Gettysburg. I point and laugh at these people.Report

              • J_A in reply to notme says:

                “B: If the Athenians had lost we wouldn’t have a history of democracy nor probably all those other western liberal values liberals love so much.”

                Why not?

                The Romans did not copy democracy from the Athenians, nor were the Athenians a beacon of Democracy (ha!!) in a sea of absolute monarchs.

                Even the Germanic barbarians were fairly democratic, and not because they had read PlatoReport

              • Brent F in reply to notme says:

                The Spartans earned a whopping 3 days that the Athenians didn’t particularly need by dieing. That small amount of time gained wasn’t at all relevant to the later campaign. If the opperation was a holding action to buy time, it was to shore up the fortifications on the Corintian ismuth, which didn’t end up being a significant factor in the later war.

                The heroism of their last stand was that it bought time for the allies they brought to the gates to make their withdrawl. Noble as all get out sure, which is why they were remembered, but not strategically important. Thermopylae didn’t do anything to help the Athens and Aegina and all the others beat the Persian fleet at Salamis, which was the victory that actually mattered.Report

              • notme in reply to Brent F says:

                The benefit of the sacrifice is easy to call into question with hindsight. We are all so much smarterReport

              • Mo in reply to notme says:

                Wait, you’re the one that was saying, with hindsight, that the Spartans helped buy the Athenians time. You don’t have an issue with hindsight, you have an issue with someone pointing out that you’re full of it.Report

          • dragonfrog in reply to notmme says:

            If the Spartans had been defeated and the Gauls had not, then “Western culture” would have been different – more Persian and Gaulish, less Spartan and Roman. Not “less”, not “hindered”, but different. Which would have been the case had pretty much any major historical event come out differently from how it did.

            And alternate-history folks would be making this same point about how a Gaulish loss would have “significantly hindered the development of western culture, whereas a few dead Spartans was no great loss.”Report

          • Burt Likko in reply to notmme says:

            Every Gaul counted. Especially when you intended on capturing them alive and selling them to the slave markets. At least, that’s how Caesar got rich.Report

        • People pilgrimage to Masada.

          The French (and some Belgians) make a national hero out of Vercingetorix.

          There is a statue of Boudica across the street from Parliament in Westminster.Report

          • Richard Hershberger in reply to Burt Likko says:

            Don’t forget Hermann the German, though he won a big battle before his inevitable ignominious death at the hands of his own tribesmen. More to the point, he got both a statue and a hard candy.Report

  5. Saul Degraw says:

    E1: I’m not sympathetic. The right-wing has spent decades lambasting low-income left voters as being elitists while praising the Koch Brothers as salt of the earth regular joes. So fuck them. Fuck the pompous National Review.

    E3: The problem is how we split our government. Multi-party systems work well when you have spoils to split. One party gets to be PM. The coalition joiner gets to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer (which is cooler sounding than Treasury Secretary.) The US system gives all or nothing in the branches. You can’t exactly split a Senate majority. There is no reason to. Same with the House and Cabinet appointments for the Executive. Lots of Democrats are currently angry that Democratic Presidents still like to appoint Republicans to positions in the wake of the Comey e-mail scandal.

    I2: I think this story is insane but fascinating. It says something about our economy, Macedonia’s economy, and our political anger that Macedonian teens can make money making inflammatory clickbait for the GOP die-hards.Report

  6. Damon says:

    [C1]: Cry me a river. Welcome to my world. Only I make substantially LESS than 160K. I had 100 hours 6 days once.

    [C2] Obama may not have created it, but the US did have a hand in it and currently is funding it, whether that’s directly or through our Saudi “friends”.

    [C6]: Gotta agree. Never understood the “my opponent is the devil” before the balloting when then turns to “congrats to my worthy opponent”. Trump may disappear, but the elements of his movement will linger on…..and likely build strength. HRC is not a aisle crosser or team builder.

    [E1]: Well, his is part of 8.7% that has a graduate education. That’s pretty damn rare, or “elite”.

    [E5]: We do not have to live together, and frankly, most of us don’t. That’s the fundamental background to “I can’t believe you think like that”.That is the fundamental difference between red and blue states. Sure, there’s some mixing in the coasts, and other than an occasional campaign sign being stolen off someone’s yard (and the parental inability to condemn it (zing)) most people live separate untangled lives.

    [P4] When I was married, I didn’t care who she voted for. I don’t care who my girlfriend is voting for, nor any of my friends. My relationship to them is greater than some minor political differences.

    [I1] Because it’s better to claim the ruskies are doing it….proof? pff. Propaganda don’t require no proof.Report

  7. Mo says:

    C1: I suspect it will be hard to gin up sympathy for folks earning $160K getting extra overtime. There are a ton of people who make less than half that who don’t earn overtime.Report

    • fillyjonk in reply to Mo says:

      Yup. I made a good bit less than half that and I work lots of weekends even though I technically shouldn’t “have” to. I work until the work is done. And I dealt with a pay cut (but no work cut) this spring.

      Though it would well and truly suck to be a Secret Service agent this campaign season.Report

  8. Pillsy says:

    C4: The American two-party system has been a feature of our politics for the vast majority of our history, and in that time there have been wide swings in terms of how polarized and ideologically sorted the parties are. This makes it very hard to credit Mr Faust’s argument that attribute current high levels of polarization to the fact that we have a two-party system. Indeed, the gun control legislation Jeb! passed in FL, which he praises as an example of bipartisanship, was also passed as part of a two-party system.Report

  9. Michael Cain says:

    E3: I’m curious about why no one ever suggests trying a large increase in the number of members in the House. IIRC, using district sizes comparable to those of other developed countries would have a US House of about 3,000 members. Those districts are small enough to get people elected on the basis of single topics even within the two-party structure, rather than having a batch of (essentially) single-topic parties.Report

  10. Will Truman says:


    • I got no sympathy for you. You wanna go out to those polls tonight and vote. Vote! It’s yours. If not, you’re gonna be shinin’ my shoes. And you know what you’ll be sayin’, a bunch of losers sitting around in a bar: ‘Oh yeah, I used to be informed. It’s a tough racket.’ These are the new ballots. These are the good ballots. And to you, they’re gold, and you don’t get them. Why? Because to give them to you is just throwing them away. They’re for high-information voters. I’d wish you good luck, but you wouldn’t know what to do with it if you got it. And to answer your question, pal: ‘Why am I here?’ I came here because Jefferson and Madison asked me to. They asked me for a favor. I said, the real favor, follow my advice and fire your f–kin’ asses because a loser is a loser.Report

  11. Doctor Jay says:

    I2: Rick Pearlstein has been talking for a few years about the strong thread of hucksterism that runs through the Republican Party since the direct-mail days of Richard Viguerie. When hucksters from Macedonia are getting in on the act with clickbait titles meant to be shared on social media, and with the sorts of things described in C2 being espoused by one of the candidates, along with that candidate’s endless self-dealing even with regard to the actual campaign, we may have reached Peak Huckster.

    I sure hope so.Report

  12. Pillsy says:

    E4: Just for a change, I’d love to see a piece written for a center-right or right-wing outlet that tries to explain sympathetically to a center-right or right-wing audience why any of the segments of the electorate that reject the Republican Party at least as overwhelmingly as blue collar white voters reject the Democratic Party do so.

    I’m not even saying they aren’t out there. Perhaps they are. But I haven’t seen one this election cycle, and I’ve seen dozens of versions of that article John Cassidy wrote for the New Yorker.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Pillsy says:

      I concur. I don’t think it will happen.Report

    • J_A in reply to Pillsy says:

      I was going to say something similar

      Rod Dreher continuously points out that the working class abandoned the Democratic Party and supported the GOP for cultural reasons, and even though they acknowledge that the Democrats would be better for the working class from an economic point of view, the cultural issues are a bridge too far.

      Of course, for Dreher, “culture” is code for religion. But he has a point. I just think he has the wrong point.

      Because it’s not the working class that has abandoned the Democratic Party. It’s the White working class. Blacks and Latinos are very religious. Blacks are probably the most religious ethnic group. So religion is not the cultural issue that drives the White working class away.

      I’m not saying that Race and Racism are the critical cultural markers. It is totally possible that the White working class that supports Trump and the GOP in general are not personally racist and are perfectly comfortable with black colleagues and supervisors. But they pine for the “traditional” America. And The Traditional America they see in their mind is full of wives baking apple pie, children chasing a ball, husbands toiling in the garage talking football, and only lily White people, hey, they probably don’t even realize that in their dreams there is nothing but white people.

      But that America is gone for ever, for various reasons, economic as well as cultural. And that America was built over a substructure that hurt many people. People that, for “cultural” reasons do not want to vote for a party that would bring it back, even if it comes with $15 minimum wage and Medicare for allReport

      • DensityDuck in reply to J_A says:

        “I’m not saying that Race and Racism are the critical cultural markers. ”

        uh. Yeah you fuckin’ are, bro.

        “People that, for “cultural” reasons do not want to vote for a party that would bring it back, even if it comes with $15 minimum wage and Medicare for all”

        Democratic voters rejected Medicare For All when they overwhelmingly voted for Clinton, who said straight out that she didn’t want it and never would.

        “…they pine for the “traditional” America.”

        The traditional America of strong worker unions and well-funded pensions and high-paying jobs for unskilled laborers and tradesmen? The traditional American that was, as you describe it, “built over a substructure that hurt many people”?Report

    • DavidTC in reply to Pillsy says:

      Just for a change, I’d love to see a piece written for a center-right or right-wing outlet that tries to explain sympathetically to a center-right or right-wing audience why any of the segments of the electorate that reject the Republican Party at least as overwhelmingly as blue collar white voters reject the Democratic Party do so.

      It’s not going to happen, for two reasons.

      One is that reasons to support the Democratic party *aren’t complicated*. You have to do all sorts of handwaving and justifications and stuff for why certain people support Republicans. (Unless you just want to say ‘Well, the real answer is just that they’re a bit racist’, which we’ve recently figured out from Trump was rather a large percentage.) You don’t have to do that for people supporting Democrats.

      I’m a liberal. I’ve been a liberal a while. But let’s pretend I hadn’t been, that I was an independent leaning conservative. But I’d probably have voted for (To remove Trump from this) Obama instead of Romney, though. Why?

      Well, the Democrats made it where I can (Well, in 2012, ‘would eventually be able to’) buy health insurance for the first time in my life, and the Republicans ran on the explicit promise to undo that law, without actually providing any *alternate* means for me to get insured.

      Um, duh. Not a particularly complicated issue. And when people write an article about politics, they want something really complicated so they can make up a bunch of nonsense.

      The other reason is…those articles exist. Hell, the Republican party itself wrote something after 2012 that was basically that, saying ‘Where are we screwing up? Here, here, and here.’ The thing is, *Republicans don’t read them*.

      Democrats will read nice, polite explanations of Republicans that mildly criticize Democrats for failure to do things. The majority of Democrats think Republican voters are being dumb, and will entertain the idea that they, themselves, are *also* dumb, as long as they are *less* dumb than Republicans.

      Republicans…won’t read the inverse of that. The majority of Republicans, as far as I can tell, thinks Democratic voters are *evil*, and will not entertain the idea that they might also be evil at all. (Or dumb.)Report

    • Mo in reply to Pillsy says:

      What’s funny is that you’ve seen it, but published on center left sites like Vox.Report

  13. North Carolina GOP brags about suppressing the African American vote, parties like it’s 1899.Report

  14. Teckelvik says:

    Both links in [E3] go to the same article.Report

  15. Will Truman says:

    I’m going to be adding links through the day under the “Update” Section.Report

  16. Jaybird says:

    Anecdote from Colorado Springs:

    I showed up at my polling station, the DMV on Powers (this is the nice DMV, not the crappy one) and there were 3 people ahead of me in the line.

    There was a situation where every person had to spend 5ish minutes with a person at the counter before being given a paper ballot (I soon found out that the person at the counter was voiding your mail-in ballot, if any).

    When I got to the front, I asked the nice gentleman pointing people to various counterpeople how busy they were today. “Long line or slow and steady or what?”

    “Oh, I’d say it’s been steady. When we got here this morning we expected a long line around the building but there were just three people!”

    I got my mail-in ballot voided (not that I sent it in) and proceeded to fill out my paper ballot and then get the sticker.

    If the nicest El Paso county voting area did not have a long line around the building, El Paso county will not make the state competitive.

    Which means that Clinton wins Colorado.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

      Hmmm. If CoSpringers ain’t voting, Clinton will beat the spread in the polls by a wide margin. Maybe the majority of folks did early voting/mail in?Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Stillwater says:

        El Paso County’s early voting numbers are:

        120,000 Red,
        75,000 Unaffiliated,
        60,000 Blue.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

        I thought about that but my prejudices tell me that conservative voters are more likely to show up on election day itself, want to fill out the paper ballot with which they are already familiar, so on and so forth.

        I did see a truck drive up to “MAIL-IN BALLOT DROP OFF” and hand a ballot over to the nice people standing there, but I didn’t see two vehicles do that.Report

    • Kolohe in reply to Jaybird says:

      We had 200 people in the first 45 minutes when we opened (6 am) then a bit more relaxed, a steady pace but no line more than about 5 at a time at check-in after that. 955 out of about 2200 people have voted so far (1145 am) in the precinct I’m working at.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Kolohe says:

        955 out of 2200… I guess the main thing I’d wonder is the extent to which you exceed 50% (because it seems that you’ll have hit 1100 by 1ish).Report

        • Kolohe in reply to Jaybird says:

          There’s either 300 or 500 additional absentee ballots out there too in our precinct (the system doesn’t make it clear, on our end, which are the mail in type and which are the persons that have voted in-person absentee (the Virginia version of ‘early voting’*))

          * it’s not early voting because you need to state a reason to use it. The reasons though, are somewhat permissive.

          (Geographic note – my precinct is inside the Capital Beltway)Report

      • Troublesome Frog in reply to Kolohe says:

        Thank you for your service.Report

        • Kolohe in reply to Troublesome Frog says:

          Thank you for your thanks. I feel better about this thanks than the thanks for my service I got for making sure the karoke bars of the Western Pacific were maintained on a level consistent with US National Security.Report

          • Troublesome Frog in reply to Kolohe says:

            Not to denigrate military service at all, but with the logistical challenges of voting being what they are, anybody who takes any of their own time to make elections happen smoothly and fairly is doing us a service that we should all be grateful for.

            Seeing the photos of long lines at so many polling places, it’s easy to guess how much worse things could get without people who step up and keep elections running. It’s nice to have system to choose our leaders without killing each other. The easier it is for people to use that system, the less we have to worry about the other option.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird says:

      Big turnout in Jefferson County (west Denver suburbs) — fourth by population, first so far in returned ballots. Jeffco has drifted steadily left over the 30 years I’ve lived here — big turnout here is another good sign for Clinton. Probably for passing the assisted suicide and minimum wage initiatives as well. Looks like the state will go over 70% participation by registered voters this year, maybe over 75%.Report

      • More Jeffco anecdata… When I went out to lunch I went by the vote center at the library near where I live. Lots of people putting the mail ballots into the return box. About 20 people in line inside to vote. Appeared to skew younger than me (not that that’s all that hard these days). I spoke with one of the librarians I know and asked if the line had been like that all morning. “Oh, this is short. It’s been much longer at times.”

        Something’s got the west Denver suburbs coming out this year.Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird says:

      I mailed my ballot in early last week, after spending 2+ hours going over every choice and doing some research into the person or issue. This is why I love mail in balloting, I appreciate being able to see the choice, do some research, and not have to arrive at the polling place with a cheat sheet.Report

      • If the state/county puts out a sample ballot in advance, you can do the same thing and take notes into the polling place. This is what I used to do before Colorado introduced its permanent no-excuse absentee ballot list. Which I jumped on when it was created, as my employer was known to tell me on Friday that they needed me to be in New Jersey for a meeting Tuesday AM.Report

  17. I4:

    Russia’s chief weapon is lies, lies and money. Its two chief weapons are lies and money. And espionage. Its three chief weapons … I’ll come in again.Report

  18. dragonfrog says:

    [I1] How would you prove that emails are forged? They’re just files, some bytes in a specific order. You can’t readily prove anything about their origin.

    You have to prepare well in advance to prove stuff like that – say, make a complete archive of each day’s email, add a newspaper article from that day, sign the whole thing with a PGP key, store in perpetuity. Then if someone produces a forged email you want to repudiate, you are forced to reveal everything from the whole day, a much greater intelligence breach than the fake email would have been if it had been real – but you could at least theoretically do it.

    Almost nobody does that. So, in any normal organization, it’s impossible to prove that an alleged email is forged.Report

    • Morat20 in reply to dragonfrog says:

      Why would you do that rather than use the DKIM?Report

      • dragonfrog in reply to Morat20 says:

        Excellent point.

        And oh look, it seems there’s been a bit of non-NPOV editing on that wikipedia page

        “It has proven useful to news media sources such as WikiLeaks, which has been able to leverage DKIM body signatures to prove that leaked emails were genuine and not tampered with, definitively repudiating false, defamatory claims by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 US Presidential Election running mate Tim Kaine, and DNC Chair Donna Brazile. [29]”

        (emphasis mine)Report

        • Morat20 in reply to dragonfrog says:

          Forging DKIM probably isn’t past the abilities of any modern state, but I’m not sure a relative handful of hackers could do it.

          Then again, most people won’t read emails from a large dump, they’ll read headlines — and you can selectively dump easily enough, handle it O’Keefe style.

          Headline spin is how you got #SpiritCooking — which neglected to mention the “performance artist” bit, or the fact that Podesta didn’t actually attend (verified in a later email).

          Probably the best is to selectively release emails to fit the narrative, and then forge (or edit) the ‘hacked documents’. If you don’t release the emails they were attached to, you can’t validate them via DKIM, and if you’re released legitimate hacked emails, that makes any forged documents that can’t be validated seem more trustworthy.

          Basically you social engineer the lie. Give them stuff that can be validated, but selective, truth (emails) and then slip stuff that can’t (documents) in and use the trust from the first to cover the second.Report

        • DavidTC in reply to dragonfrog says:

          It depends on *how* the emails were obtained.

          If the *server* was hacked…well, the server has the DKIM private key, so the attacker can sign any damn thing they want. (The way a mail server works is that to compromise it, you usually have to compromise the entire server. They technically run as specific users, and it is hypothetically possible just that user could be compromised, although it’s unlikely unless the mail software has some serious bugs in it…but whatever user the mail server is has to access the DKIM keys anyway!)

          Wasn’t the DNC server itself hacked? If so…the attackers probably have the private key, so can forge anything they want.

          OTOH, if just an account was hacked, like Podesta’s was, any DKIM is harder to forge…although I will point out that you *actually sending the emails you want signed* through the mail server.

          The problem is you’d have to do this in real time, because DKIM includes a timestamp. And you’d also want to immediately delete them from the recipient, so you’d need to hack *their* account also.

          But it’s not rocket science. Give someone the passwords of two different email account, and they can ‘forge’ signed messages between those two accounts…by literally just sending messages between those two accounts and quickly deleting them before the actual account owners see them.

          Or if you just want to send it to *yourself*, you can do that. That would work almost as well:

          If Alice wants to discredit Bob, she simply emails an email about a scandal or something to Bob, and CC’d to a bunch of others, asking about it. And then Alice forges the *reply*, sending it through Bob’s email to be signed, confessing the crime, and making it look like Bob was *trying* to just send an email to one co-conspirator to discuss their evil plans, but accidentally sent a Reply-All.

          Now Alice has a signed copy…as does Carol, the totally-without-reproach woman Alice included on the original CC. As far as Carol can tell, it’s legitimately signed by Bob’s server…because it is. If Alice plays it right, she doesn’t even have to do anything!

          (Originating IP might give Alice away, but that just means Alice needs to pick a plausible source IP, like a library near Bob, or even hijack his computer…which might be how Alice got his email password in the first place.)Report

          • DavidTC in reply to DavidTC says:

            Answering part of my own question:

            Considering that the DNC hack also included *files*, and because file sharing and mail would always operate as separate users….the only plausible intersection of ‘mail’ and ‘files’ is root access.

            Or the hackers hacked the server *twice*, in two different ways. Or maybe were different servers.

            But the easiest answer is that the DNC server was totally owned by hackers, from top to bottom.

            So, yes, the hackers have the DKIM keys, assuming they were not idiots, and can sign whatever message they want. (Unless that message is later included in some message that was signed by someone else, and anyone bothers to check *that* signature.)Report

            • Kim in reply to DavidTC says:

              As you quite rightly assume, the DNC hack got away with the entire server.
              Of course, it’s nowhere near as fun to release forged e-mails.

              Pity the poor guy who now needs to read Every Single E-mail Again (so he knows what’s been released, and what hasn’t).

              I am totally tempted to post that Microsoft racist-as-all-fuck advertising that 4chan had posted. (This was real, kids. Done by an intern who got his ass fired the next day.) Hackers don’t gotta bullshit, because real life is Weird Enough.Report

          • dragonfrog in reply to DavidTC says:

            That particular DKIM-signed email was sent from an address – which domain uses Google for its email.

            Yes it’s possible the Russians hacked Google’s email servers. They’re certainly a high profile target.

            It would also be a heck of an operation to burn up that resource on.Report

            • DavidTC in reply to dragonfrog says:

              Yeah, that doesn’t make sense. That email is almost certainly real.

              Well, just to check, having never used google’s email like that before…is the DKIM key generated by *google*, or is it something whoever is paying for service can put in?

              I assume the former, mostly because there’s no reason for google to do the second. DKIM isn’t like SSL certs, you just make it up, you don’t need it signed, and you can have multiple DKIM per domain by using different…erm, prefixes or whatever the term is. So logically Google should be generating those keys. (And giving you the public key to put in the DNS, but not the private key)

              But I’d like confirmation of that.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to dragonfrog says:

      So…their accusations are unproveable bloviating, then?Report

      • dragonfrog in reply to DensityDuck says:

        It looks like I was wrong above. Wikileaks is claiming the emails were DKIM-signed, and the signatures check out – which, if true would mean that the emails were legit.

        At least in part, this seems to be true – the single email that seems to have gotten the most discussion here, in which Jennifer Palimieri forwards the question about the death penalty, and that Donna Brazile claimed was falsified, apparently checks out (see

        So, Brazile’s accusation of email forgery, in that instance anyway, is provably false.Report

        • DavidTC in reply to dragonfrog says:

          At least in part, this seems to be true – the single email that seems to have gotten the most discussion here, in which Jennifer Palimieri forwards the question about the death penalty,

          The oddest part of the discussion is that, while the *lead up* was indeed, very close, clearly someone working off the same notes as the moderator, the actual *question* asked was entirely different.

          If you read the email, it continued with a weirdly misleading sentence that ‘That’s 11% of Americans who were sentenced to die, but later exonerated and freed.’ Erm, no. Bad grammar alert. The correct statement would be something like ”Of the Americans who were sentenced to die, 11% were later exonerated and freed.” 11% of Americans have not been sentenced to death.(1)

          And then said the actual question was: Should Ohio and the 30 other states join the current list and abolish the death penalty?

          But, in the debate, the actual question: I came perilously close to my own execution, and in light of that, what I have just shared with you and in light of the fact that there are documented cases of innocent people who have been executed in our country, I would like to know how can you still take your stance on the death penalty in light of what we know right now.

          (Okay, that’s not technically a question, but whatever.)

          And her answer, likewise, had *nothing* to do with whether states should abolish it. She said that states have proven they can’t do it fairly, that she would be relieved if the *Supreme court* abolished it, but, OTOH, she felt it might should be held in reserve for terrorists.

          I.e., this leaked question *in no way prepared her for the actual question and the answer she gave*!

          At best, the only information the leak gave her was ‘Hey, a question about the death penalty will be asked.’.

          1) Mocking my own grammar: That means that 89% of Americans *have* been sentenced to death.Report

      • dragonfrog in reply to DensityDuck says:

        Looks like I was wrong above. The domain does use DKIM, and at least some of the Wikileaks emails have DKIM signatures that check out.

        In particular, the one in which Jennifer Palmieri forwards a debate question to a number of people including Donna Brazile, and that Brazile has apparently specifically claimed was forged – that one checks out. (

        It’s not entirely impossible for the email to have been forged – but it would require the hackers to obtain a copy of Google’s DKIM private key, a much taller order than tricking someone on the Clinton campaign into typing their password into the wrong place in a moment of inattention.

        So, it looks very likely indeed that Brazile’s claim that that email was forged, is false.Report

      • dragonfrog in reply to DensityDuck says:

        I’m trying to reply to you but I’m not sure where my comments are going. Maybe the link I was trying to insert is flagging something.

        Short version: it looks like there is quite good evidence that Brazile’s claim of forgery w.r.t. the specific email in which she received debate questions in advance, is false.

        Falsifying the DKIM signature would take hacking Google’s servers and getting a copy of their DKIM signing keys, a considerably harder feat than getting one’s hands on real emails.Report

  19. DensityDuck says:

    [I1] Romney: “Russia’s gonna be a problem.”
    Dem: “LOL you old man and your conspiracy theories!”

    Wikileaks: “Emails!”

    • Kim in reply to DensityDuck says:

      Wikileaks didn’t get their e-mails from Russia.
      Someone left the barn door open on their way out (with everything, of course), and the Russians just danced in gay as you please.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

      Now that I think about it, I have no idea why in the hell the second one has 230K retweets.

      Of all his other tweets, they’re hovering around 11K.

      Maybe don’t meditate on those.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

          All I have are tea leaves that I do not know how to read.

          Is anybody watching the television? What is the general mood of Fox? Of CNN? Of MSNBC?

          Not “what are they reporting?” but, if you turned the sound off and had to guess what mood the newsreaders were in, what mood would they be in?Report

          • Will Truman in reply to Jaybird says:

            Right now, it’s looking like a Clinton victory but not at the margin I am hoping for. But the situation, as they say, is fluid.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Will Truman says:

              There are so many weird things going on.

              No matter how much data I get, it feels useless.

              I know that all I have to do is wait 7 hours or so…

              But it’s not enough.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

                And 538 is *SLAMMED*.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

                Was it destroyed?

                I’ve been mulling over the 538 formula for a while, because of an Elizabeth P tweet, actually. She wondered why Sam W was going with a 98% Hillary win prob. vs only a Nate Silver 64% (and that was before Nate copied Sam Wang and posted Florida as Hillary leaning…). IF you ran that game a hundred times, given the point margins in the polls and the starting position of each candidates “sure things”, there’s simply no way Trump wins 1 outa 3 games. Trump would basically have to win 6 (I think, at the time) states in which he’s trailing to actually win. That’s basically running the table, in my book, which doesn’t happen 36% of the time. More like, or closer to, well, 2% of the time.

                My prediction? Sam *destroys* Nate.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Stillwater says:

                Nate has really been emphasizing the level of uncertainty this year. So it is possible that he has the same map as Wang or someone else but is simply saying, “I’m just not too certain.”

                I saw a friend post an article that stated Silver was taking a more cautious approach than in previous years because he wanted to avoid being wrong. Basically, that he was hedging his bets. I am not informed enough to know if that theory holds any water.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Kazzy says:

                That’s cuz he got the GOP primary disastrously wrong.

                Which doesn’t necessarily mean there’s high volatility all on its own, tho. It may just mean Silver’s model was in serious need of revision…Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Stillwater says:

                True. Though, is one election enough to revise the model?Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Kazzy says:

                According to the report you refer to regarding Silver, the answer is apparently “yes!”Report

              • Burt Likko in reply to Stillwater says:

                That was my understanding as well — and it may be that he overcompensated, especially in his polls-plus modeling, which as we saw in the past few weeks became very inelastic after reaching about 85% certainty. A few bad turns for Clinton in the past week and a half, and the inevitable narrowing as the actual election closed, seemed to be a precipitous drop in the odds for her, but with one day excepted, Trump has never been forecast as the frontrunner even in Silver’s model.

                One thing that it looks to me that Silver modeled for that seems to prove true: partisan identity is really powerful. If you’re inherently a Republican, your mind is capable of doing backflips in reasoning to find a reason to justify voting for the Republican no matter who it is, even Donald Trump. Mutatis mutandis for Democrats. So I think Silver is right to take into account that presumptively, an electorate that has voted for any one given party in the past is more likely to do so again now than it is to switch.Report

              • Kim in reply to Stillwater says:

                70/30 Trump/Clinton odds, for WEEKS. From the only model that actually got everything right. (And got paid out in full from PaddyPower).Report

              • Will Truman in reply to Kazzy says:

                This is correct. From what I recall, both Silver and Wang had pretty similar maps and pretty similar popular vote differentials. (As opposed to Huffington Post, which had a larger popular vote differential.) It’s just that Silver was more gun-shy.

                It’s worth pointing out, I think, that what Silver got most wrong in the primary wasn’t due to the polls. It was that he incorporated other data, such as endorsements, the very same election we found out how little such things matter.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

                We’ll see. New Hampshire appears to be Trumpy.

                Silver had New Hampshire as Clintony.

                But, of course, we don’t know yet.

                This is too stressful. I’m going home.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to Jaybird says:

                Silver was the only one to call Indiana senate for Young.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to Stillwater says:

                This touches on what I was talking about with my “Election Is Probably Over” post and my “Thin Blue Wall” post.

                Basically, running the table is not as difficult as it seems. It doesn’t require six better performances. It requires a better national performance, which will then change those six states. As I say in the Blue Wall post, if Trump has a 40% chance here, a 30% chance there, and a 20% chance in another place, his likelihood of winning is actually closer to 20% than to 2%, because if he does well enough to get that 20% state, then he probably has the other two.

                And as I say in the Election Probably Over post, we’re not gauging the likelihood that something happens in this state or that state. We’re gauging the likelihood of a systemic polling error.

                35%-ish seemed way too high to me and allowed for way too much uncertainty, but I think Wang’s 2% was too low. The goldilocks was Nate Cohn, in my opinion, at about 7% or so.

                (Personally, I thought 7% was too high. But I thought it was too low for non-data reasons: Faith in my country, GOTV, and Trump being Trump. I just… couldn’t see it. But that’s not empirical. In another circumstances, give me a similar set of polls, and I think 7% sounds about right.)Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Will Truman says:

                Trumwill, I get that. From a stastical pov, tho, the argument can be reversed: if Trump, in states X, Y, and Z, is .4, .3, and .2 likely to lose, then what’s the probabality that he’ll achieve a national level polling sufficient to carry all those states? It’s a function of national polling increase given the gain necessary to win all those states, which necessarily includes the margins of each particular state, yes?

                Or no? I don’t know what I’m talking about anymore.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to Stillwater says:

                If the odds of the last state are 20%, then I would argue that they’re closer to 20% than 2%. It’s possible that there is some X-factor (the Zoroastrian vote specifically swung in a big and unexpected way!) that makes the 20% considerably more volatile, but that’s not the most likely thing. The most likely thing is just that the 20% state has more roadblocks, and that if the candidate can clear those roadblocks, he’s probably also cleared the roadblocks of the other two. (Or, if not the 30% state, then maybe in that state nobody is looking at where his likelihood is 12%).

                Silver’s hedging was mostly looking out for a national systemic polling error or a huge national shift. I don’t think there was a 30% chance of that, but under non-Trump circumstances I wouldn’t expect a 2% chance either.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Will Truman says:

                Woah. It looks like Trump’s gonna win Florida.

                Add: I had a different comment queued up but got a little rattled…Report

              • Will Truman in reply to Stillwater says:

                Getting a mixed read on Twitter right now. Broward votes not counted yet. Kraushaar (who has always been Trump-favorable) says Clinton should win easily. Others are mum.


              • Morat20 in reply to Will Truman says:

                Florida’s absolutely decisive — if Trump loses it, he has no path left. I suspect that the media will be loathe to call it (and it is legitimately close, as it has been) until it’s really obvious.

                Because calling Florida for Clinton ends the race, really. Which is not a call they want to make too soon (lest they get it wrong, among other reasons).

                From what I’m reading, the remaining counties are all Democratic strongholds (the urban districts are always slower to report) and I don’t think Trump’s lead is even close to what he needs.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

                But NPR on the way home was saying it was Clinton’s! Clinton’s HQ was cheering!Report

              • Burt Likko in reply to Stillwater says:

                We ought not be hugely surprised if he does win Florida. It’s been rated a toss-up for some time now.

                I will be curious to see how voters who self-identify as being of Cuban descent will break down.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Burt Likko says:

                Yeah, I would have thought that re-opening relations with Cuba would have flipped the people of Cuban descent.

                But bad blood is bad blood and Castro still lives.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to Stillwater says:

                Clinton ahead in Texas with 46% reporting. (Downhill from here, is the vibe I get.)Report

              • Burt Likko in reply to Will Truman says:

                Yeah, I think you and I and @chip-daniels corresponded about this the other day — this may be the year Democrats build up some machinery in Texas, but it isn’t going to be the year they flip it.Report

              • PD Shaw in reply to Jaybird says:

                Mark Halperin saying don’t worry about the exit polls, they aren’t that good anymore. That always used to bother me — do these talking heads know something? And do they actually know what they think they know?Report

              • Stillwater in reply to PD Shaw says:

                Oh, they know something alright. And they’re absolutely certain about what they think they know.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to PD Shaw says:

                I was trying to figure out a way to say “I don’t trust exit polls” without sounding like I was saying “I prefer to confirm my priors”.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

            Caught a few minutes of “The Five”. Not paying strict attention but heard talk of what Trump should do if he loses, what Hillary should do if she loses, and what Hillary must do if she wins. Did not hear talk of what Trump out to do if he wins. For what that’s worth.Report

  20. Burt Likko says:

    Thanks to Reason Foundation for this, which really does capture a big portion of my sentiments right about now.

  21. Kazzy says:

    Just voted in Yonkers. A predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhood. Polling place was somewhat disorganized and some folks were being turned away. Multiple wards or districts voting in one location but in separate areas. Confusion and miscommunications about who votes where. ID was not required but seemed to be expected and at least one woman turned away because ID had an old address; the person would not even look her up in the register. Another was told he was in the wrong area even though other poll workers insisted he wasn’t; were insisting that the person holding the ballots look him up. I left before it was resolved.Report

  22. Slade the Leveller says:

    C1: It would be nice to hear a bit from the Service regarding how much presence was actually necessary for all of these people. They are loath to talk about their work, citing security concerns, so how do we know the job being done is actually worth doing?Report

  23. Kazzy says:

    I saw Trump followed a lawsuit in Nevada that was denied. From what I see, the question is whether early voters were allowed to vote after polls were supposed to close. They want those votes kept separately so that if further legal action is pursued, they can identify which votes came in after the closure. The argument against was that this is already done.

    But I’m trying to understand the thinking here. I mean, the precincts in question are heavily Latino so I understand the strategy. But, logically speaking, why should someone who voted early but “late” for that day be excluded?Report

    • Aaron David in reply to Kazzy says:

      Procedure. It may still be illegal if done that way. Which, if within the margin of error, makes them worth pursuing.

      Just a guess though.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to Kazzy says:

      Nevada law says that if you’re in line to vote when the official closing time comes, you get to vote. This has been the law everywhere I’ve ever lived and voted (and on at least one occasion I stood in the rain for an hour after closing). The Trump side had affidavits from assorted people saying that the officials allowed people to join the queue after closing time. The action they asked for, at this point, was for a court order to preserve the voting records — something that Nevada law already requires. The judge said she wasn’t going to issue an order that just said “follow the law”.Report

      • Trump’s attorneys also wanted the names of the poll workers in question. The judge told them where to stick that.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Michael Cain says:

        @aaron-david @michael-cain

        I understand all that. But zooming out… if the question is, “Should these people be allowed to have their votes counted?” and the answer is “No, because they were late. Not really late. Just late on an early day,” isn’t that just a little silly? How does counting those votes undermine the process? Besides a general appeal to “because rules”.Report

        • Mike Schilling in reply to Kazzy says:

          Martin Luther King died so that black people could vote, and these guys couldn’t even show up on time? It’s so disrespectful!Report

        • Aaron David in reply to Kazzy says:


          The rational? Winning Nevada.Report

        • nevermoor in reply to Kazzy says:

          As I understand what happened, this was the County’s point too.

          They said you can always join a line at an early voting location after it “closes” so long as the people keep it open.Report

        • Michael Cain in reply to Kazzy says:

          From a practical perspective, I am of two minds about this question.

          The OCD part of me, honed during the time I was part of legislative staff and had to worry about picky details in statute, says no. We’re not going to leave it up to how the local election volunteers feel. Polls close at X o’clock on Friday. If you’re present at X o’clock and stay there, you can vote. Otherwise, no. Certainly not “If voting place Y has people in line at X o’clock they stay open, and so long as the queue length doesn’t go to zero, they stay open.” After all, how do you deal with the case of the zealous volunteer who asks someone, “I know it’s 2:00 AM, but do you mind waiting to vote for another 20 minutes in case someone else shows up?”

          The rest of me says that we ought to work really hard to be sure that everyone who meets the basic criteria of “citizen 18 or older” ought to get to vote. (Should felons still in prison get to vote is outside the scope I’m debating here.) Oregon showed us the way, and Colorado refined it. Every registered voter gets a ballot in the mail, three weeks early. Fill it out. Mail it back. Or drop it off at a convenient drop-off box. During that three weeks there are vote centers open where you can vote, and register if necessary. If you can’t cast a ballot given those opportunities, you’re not even trying.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Michael Cain says:


            I agree that zero bounds is problematic. Though it sounds as if the people here followed the rules. I guess that remains to be seen.

            But if the idea is that, “Well, if you came an hour earlier or 12 hours later we’d count your vote but you didn’t so tough nuts,” that just seems kinda nuts to me. Especially if these people walked away thinking their votes counted and only found out otherwise when it was too late to go back and vote again.

            What harm would be wrought by a polling station open 24 hours?Report

            • Michael Cain in reply to Kazzy says:

              What harm would be wrought by a polling station open 24 hours?

              None — if those conditions are spelled out in advance. But none of this “If you show up at the right station under the right circumstances it will be open, but the next one over will not.” Rural counties will hate you, though, because it will be expensive for no benefit.

              Which is why I’m an advocate of “everyone’s kitchen table is open whenever they want to fill out the ballot”.Report

  24. I voted around 1:00. No wait at all, only saw one other voter while I was there. No good way to compare this to previous elections, since I usually vote in the evening.Report

  25. Kazzy says:

    On CNN: “KEY RACE ALERT! Ohio… too early to tell.” Polls closed 30 seconds prior.Report

  26. Jaybird says:

    Okay. Looks like Rand Paul won Kentucky.

    Tanned, rested, and ready for 2020!Report

  27. Burt Likko says:

    The thread is already on point for tonight’s election, so rather than try a liveblog or figure out how to set up a livetweet, I propose we all simply post here. I may be active on Twitter for a while also.

    So first, I have a serious issue to confront for election night, y’all. Hoping you can help me out here:

    Decision 2016

  28. Jaybird says:

    Well, my goal for any given election anymore is for the amount of votes between the winner and 2nd place to be smaller than the amount of votes gotten by the 3rd parties.

    Having it do that in individual states?

    I’m getting the vapors.Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to Jaybird says:

      In Portland you reminded us all to be wary of the Bradley Effect in this race. I’m going to have to give you props for that, @jaybird , as it appears there was a lot of Clinton up-polling getting thrown in to all of the aggregators.

      Nevertheless, there’s a 78-vote backstop of four out of the five states that have Pacific Coast shorelines at the end of the night. 192 votes for Clinton before 11:00 p.m. eastern time and we can still avoid President Trump. Plus I’ve seen calls of Virginia for Clinton, which is helpful.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Burt Likko says:

        I still predicted a Clinton win earlier, though.

        I based that on the mood around me in town rather than on what I thought was true back then.

        And this morning at the DMV did not disabuse me of my newfound Bradley skepticism.Report

  29. Will Truman says:

    Comstock wins in Virginia, which still hasn’t been called for Clinton. (Trump’s ahead, but a lot of Clinton votes out there.)Report

  30. Autolukos says:

    What’s the over/under on memory holings of “Nate Silver just wants to create drama” pieces?Report

  31. Aaron David says:

    So, outta curiosity, who is looking at what? I am keeping an eye peeled to RCP, as that has been my go to for the election. Where is everyone else parking their eyeballs?Report

  32. Dan d says:

    The CNN exit polls show a tie in MinnesotaReport

  33. Kolohe says:

    This would be the biggest You Had One Job of all time. (I still don’t think it will be).Report

  34. Jaybird says:


  35. Will Truman says:

    Democrats hold governor’s mansion in West Virginia.Report

  36. Saul Degraw says:

    Looks like a long night.

    Trump had a late surge in the Florida panhandle and Josh Marshall thinks he is outperforming recent Republicans in rural areas.

    Urban locations tend to get their results later but Democrats like myself are on edge.Report

  37. Will Truman says:

    Cohn’s model has this at 50/50… but with Clinton still winning the popular vote.

    Looks like Michigan is the current thing.Report

  38. Kazzy says:

    What the F is happening?Report

  39. Kolohe says:

    If you’re feeling feisty, buy the Dow futures on the dip. (This is not financial advice)Report

  40. Autolukos says:

    Whether or not the race turns around, it seems to me that we can call some meta-winners and losers:

    * Poll skeptics
    * Nate Silver’s fat tails
    * Bill Mitchell

    * Sam Wang
    * Campaign consultants

    EDIT: Scott Adams, of course, is a winnerReport

    • Stillwater in reply to Autolukos says:

      * Sam Wang
      * Campaign consultants
      * American and world citizens Report

      • Autolukos in reply to Stillwater says:

        Those are real losers, not meta-losersReport

      • North in reply to Stillwater says:

        Well Trump hasn’t won yet though looks like the Senate is right out and Trump is way closer than I’d like. Le sigh.Report

        • Burt Likko in reply to North says:

          Now that you’ve finished gorging yourself on popcorn, please tell us that Minnesota at least is secure for Clinton.Report

          • North in reply to Burt Likko says:

            Minnesota is secure for Clinton. No way in hell is Trump going to win here. Reagan couldn’t carry MN for fish’s sake.Report

            • Burt Likko in reply to North says:

              So here’s how I’m counting it right now (7:49 p.m. Pacific time):

              Clinton has or will very likely have: CA, CO, CT, CD, DE, IL, HI, MA, MD, ME+ME1, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VA, VT, WA. 242 votes.

              Trump has or will very likely have: AL, AR, AK, FL, GA, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME-1, MS, MO, MT, ND, NE, OH, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY. 249 votes.

              Which leaves AX, MI, NC, NH, NV, and WI. 62 votes left. But pro-Trump early numbers at this moment in all of them. I’m particularly discouraged by Wisconsin, which has basically counted all of the votes from Milwaukee and Madison and Trump is still up by 3%: excepting some rural blue areas to the southeast, pretty much all of upstate Wisconsin is Republican territory.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Burt Likko says:

                Fox has called NC for Trump. 10:55Report

              • Burt Likko in reply to Marchmaine says:

                So that means basically Clinton needs to sweep AZ, NH, NV, and MI. That’s basically all that’s left in play.

                Unless one of the west coast states does something screwy, which I doubt.Report

              • Morat20 in reply to Burt Likko says:

                All hail President Trump.

                With Pence as his VP and complete control of Congress, I’m sure this will go well.

                By the way, I’m not even gonna look at my 401k anytime soon. The markets appear to be committing suicide.Report

              • North in reply to Morat20 says:

                Assuming Trump doesn’t get into office and immediately default on bond payments I’d imagine the market will regress to its default numbers in a few weeks.Report

              • Kim in reply to North says:

                Yes. Big readjustment to the Neocons, though. Halliburton gonna Crash!Report

              • North in reply to Burt Likko says:

                Alaska, a terrified nation and a despondent North turn their eyes to you!Report

              • greginak in reply to North says:

                Don’t even waste hope on that.Report

              • North in reply to greginak says:

                Honestly, it was a joke.Report

              • greginak in reply to North says:

                Yeah i sort of thought that.Report

              • North in reply to Burt Likko says:

                Yeah, if he wins it’ll be fascinating to see how the numbers shake out. Higher turnout from his peeps or lower turnout from the Dems.

                Also the Senate is basically set for GOP control. So it’s a disappointing night for team blue however the Presidency turns out.Report

              • Morat20 in reply to North says:

                I know Florida saw Clinton gain 200k voters over 2012 Obama.

                Trump gained 700k over Romney.

                It looks like the “shy Trump voter” is real.

                Now it’s arguable whether Clinton hatred or Trump love dug up 700k new Republican voters, but I’m gonna go out on a limb and say they hated Obama just as much but didn’t bother to vote.Report

              • Kim in reply to Morat20 says:

                nope. You lost the whole fucking midwest. People who gladly voted for Obama. Iowans, for god’s sakes!Report

              • greginak in reply to North says:

                Oh yeah. The D’s are going to have a super sized helping of sadness even if H. wins along with a real need for a hard look at the details of what happened.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to North says:


                This election will make everyone look at everything.

                Dems being Dems, tho, I don’t expect much in the way of proactive change.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

                So far I have “Democrats did nothing wrong, it’s just that they didn’t understand how sexist, racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic the country truly is, deep down.”

                I suppose I could write a paragraph about each and pad it out a little.Report

              • Kolohe in reply to Jaybird says:

                There’s also those already laying the blame on Jill Stein and/or Gary Johnson voters.

                (And again Mcmuffin can’t catch a break)Report

              • KenB in reply to Kolohe says:

                And don’t forget Comey.Report

              • Burt Likko in reply to Kolohe says:

                No, no, no. Stein doesn’t seem to have commanded enough votes in any state to have made a difference. Johnson voters, to the extent they drew from one of the two major candidates at all, were likelier to have drawn from Trump than from Clinton.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kolohe says:

                You know, it feels like, in 2012, Gary Johnson was all over everywhere.

                This time, it feels like the Aleppo thing happened and then *WOOSH*, he disappeared.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

                I’d change that a bit:

                “Democrats did nothing wrong, it’s just that they didn’t understand how sexist, racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic the country truly is, deep down assumed that other folks who they viewed as wrong would inevitably lose.”Report

              • greginak in reply to Stillwater says:

                That is the story of every election loss isn’t it.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to greginak says:

                Sure. This is just a blip in the road. Nothing to see. Move along.

                No, this is (or so I hope) a massive earthquake that shakesthe foundations of what the Democratic party is actually all about.

                Same for the GOP, but that, at this point, goes without saying.

                I have less faith in the Democratic party readjusting from this tectonic shift than the GOP. (Assuming Trump wins, that is, but really, the same applies either way.)Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Stillwater says:

                Dems can say, “We underestimated the deplorables.”
                Dems can say, “We couldn’t appeal more to the “deplorables” than a man whose policies would be awful for them.”

                Those aren’t mutually exclusive. But skewing towards one will be much more productive than the other.Report

              • Gaelen in reply to Stillwater says:

                Why should the Republicans readjust? They just dominated a presidential election cycle with a reality tv star as their nominee.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Gaelen says:

                Heh. I hear ya.Report

              • greginak in reply to Stillwater says:

                I’ve just never really grasped how that line of reasoning works. It’s not like any party can appeal to every single voter. Certainly the R’s wrote of plenty of voters because they were “wrong.” It’s looking good for Trumpy which is going to suck hard but the various prescriptions for the D’s are all over the place. I’m not sure they will get it either but what concrete policy suggestions are there for them. I get people think they should have abandoned a major plank of their platform of decades ( Health care) but they made sense.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

                You want to see what a consensus looks like?

                Look at the 1984 electoral map.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to greginak says:

                I hear ya. I just remember Saul (D – San Francisco) writing a post detailing what a weak candidate Hillary is/was, and how shutting out competition in the primary did a disservice to both her (as a candidate) and the party in general.

                And here we are.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Stillwater says:


                In the end, I don’t think that there was anyone who could beat HRC in the primaries. Maybe Warren but probably not. She had the deference of the party (unlike the GOP clown car.)

                Trump had his pulse on something that I wish was not there but is. There are a lot of white populist types still in the United States and they came out for Trump in ways that they did not come out for Romney. If the polls are correct, Trump won 700K more votes in Florida than Romney did and it looks like the upper midwest is going red.

                I’m sick to my stomach. Unlike North, I suspect there will be a backlash of anti-LBGT legislation after Trump appoints the 5th Supreme Court Justice. A lot of my friends who are immigrants, who are LGBT, and other minorities are in despair right now. I don’t blame them.Report

              • Troublesome Frog in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                Unlike North, I suspect there will be a backlash of anti-LBGT legislation after Trump appoints the 5th Supreme Court Justice.

                I think that’s overly pessimistic. We can’t be sure of how Justice Hulk Hogan will vote on those issues.

                Then again, maybe I’m being optimistic about it being Hulk Hogan.Report

              • The five vote majority from Obergefell is still intact. Old, but intact.Report

              • North in reply to Michael Cain says:

                Do we honestly think RBG is going to last four more years?
                Let’s face it, the GOP played for all the marbles and they won em. Supreme court, Senate, the lot. It only cost them their principles and their soul. All that remains to be seen is if they can get the latter back and what exactly the former is going to be rewritten as.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to North says:


                Did it cost them the principles and their soul? I think that Trump showed how impotent the small government conservatives are. Where is the Commentary and National Review set going to go from here? Where is Dreher going to go?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                Where is the Commentary and National Review set going to go from here? Where is Dreher going to go?

                Out for cocktails, I imagine. A place with tapas.Report

              • North in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                Dreher has already made peace with Trump. All he wants is conservative justices who’ll keep the imaginary SJW’s who want to police his orthodox church away.

                And yes it cost them the lot of it. What exactly is left of the Reagan principles? Neocons are utterly out, economic libertarianism is out, the man is a living repudiation of social conservatism. All that’s left is paleoconservativism. Now maybe Trump will not give a fish and the existing GOP just gets to do what they want to do. The odds aren’t bad for that. But what will their voters think of that?Report

              • Autolukos in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                Dreher may not like Trump, but he’s an archetypal Trumpist. He’ll come around.

                The others will probably write encomia to Paul Ryan while awkwardly skirting the identity of the man signing his bills.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to Autolukos says:

                I would not put much stock in Paul Ryan’s speakership going forward.Report

              • North in reply to Will Truman says:

                From your lips to God(ess?)’s ear. Ryan is far too capable and ideological to be Speaker.

                I’m turning in. Oh man, I did think of one YUGE winner tonight: PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
                Now there is gonna be one happy paleo.

                Oh and as one last grumble: I’m still perversely glad Trump won rather than any of the other GOP candidates. At least we’re not 100% certain what Trump’s gonna do, though I grant that includes a possibility of cataclysmic stupidity.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to North says:

                Man, I feel ya North. I’m feelin it too, buddy.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to North says:

                Oh and as one last grumble: I’m still perversely glad Trump won rather than any of the other GOP candidates.

                The problem with that is I’m fairly certain that Trump will not make it to the next election, and we’ll have *Pence* in there.Report

              • Autolukos in reply to Will Truman says:

                Eh, he bent the knee without losing the support of most Trump skeptical and outright #NeverTrump Republicans. He’ll be a loyal foot soldier, and even if he gets pushed out, the movement cons will back his successor.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to Autolukos says:

                Ryan was already on shaky ground even given a Trump loss. Now? Not only do I think he might be displaced, if I’m advising Trump I’m probably telling him that needs to happen. It’s up to congress to push back, and I don’t think they will.Report

              • Burt Likko in reply to North says:

                She’s been illin’ that’s for sure. But, hey, she’s already made clear that she’s going to go out feet first. We simply don’t know when that’ll happen. She’s kind of a hero of mine so as long as she wants it, and she can actually do the job, there we go.Report

              • North in reply to Burt Likko says:

                I share your sentiment. I’m just being realistic.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Stillwater says:


                Despite performing well with the under-30 crowd, I suspect Bernie Sanders would be doing just as well or worse than HRC this election eve because hi is still a self described democratic Jewish socialist from Vermont by way of Brooklyn. I can only think of the ways that he could have been vilified and despite what you and Conroy said, I think Trump has been flirting and later embraced old school anti-Semitism through out the campaign.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                So much the worse for the Democratic party, that he was our second best option.

                On the other hand, his Jewishness (which isn’t selfdescribed, btw) woulda been an issue. Not necessarily by Trump (Idon’t think) but by his surrogates and supporters. That part woulda been ugly.

                On the third hand, Bernie might – MIGHT – have motivated Dems to actually show up to the polls. Sadly, we all knew that Hillary would do no such thing.

                On the fourth hand, I think you were absolutely correct way back when (what was that, a year and a half ago?) when you wrote that post about the problems inherent in anointing Hillary without a competitive primary. Sadly, we knew then that what we’re experiencing tonight was not only on the table, but served as the entre*.

                *OK, not necessarily the entre, but a superdelicious side dish.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Stillwater says:


                Democrats did turn out. HRC received more votes in Florida than Obama did in 2012. She might even narrowly win the popular vote.

                The problem is that Trump got far right social cons to come out in ways that Romney did not.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                Here is a lesson I learned over the last year or so:

                Does your explanation for a phenomenon give you endorphins?

                If the answer is “yes”, then you are lying to yourself and you are very probably wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

                Find an explanation that is endorphin independent. That one at least has a shot at being right.Report

              • greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

                That’s fine advice. It applies to everybody including the winners tonight. I doubt they are going to listen to you.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                You have the causal agent wrong.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Marchmaine says:

                You have the causal agent wrong.

                +1 This may be the best comment on the thread.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                Hillary most assuredly had her flaws and Trump has clearly tapped into a bigger vein than most people, myself included, gave him credit for.

                If he wins big losers:
                -Centrist Liberals
                -Libertarians (partially- on FP he’s libertarianish sometimes but he basically defenestrates the most libertarian part of the GOP)
                -The voter turnout industry (big big time, like yuge)
                -Me (though I suspect Trump won’t take a run at SSM so there’s that).
                -The Clintons (natch)

                Oh, though an interesting winner: Speaker Ryan- He’ll most likely get to do whatever he wants legislative wise. Oh and Mcconnel too, that stunt with the Supreme court will look very sage.Report

              • Morat20 in reply to North says:

                The question is: Will Pence?Report

              • North in reply to Morat20 says:

                Lose? He’ll probably be running the White house.

                Oh and the big big winners? The media.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                When it comes to weed, I’m hoping that he sees an opportunity for Hoi Polloi to love him even more as he pushes for bread/circuses to be handed out to the American people.

                I imagine that his indifference to gay marriage will be monumental… which means that sheer inertia will keep it where it is. (Though I also appreciate that that is easy for me to say… but he doesn’t give a shit about the gay thing. It radiates off of him that he doesn’t give a shit about the gay thing.)

                When it comes the other hot button of abortion, I don’t see him playing around with that either. (Though, again, easy for me to say.)

                Cosmotarians, it seems to me, have reason to hope… well, except when it comes to immigration.

                Also the full transition to “Empire”, thing.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                Trump isn’t going to be a culture warrior on weed. I can’t even imagine. Worst case scenario is he’s going to ignore it and it’s entirely possible if it wins big along with him then he may embrace it.

                Agreed on SSM.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

                @north @jaybird

                Trump won’t be a cultural warrior on weed but he will go with whatever Attorney General Guiliani or Christie wants.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                Mrmmm. I am uncertain.

                Then again, I knew a lot of stuff yesterday that turned out to have been wrong today, so take that home with you.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

                At this point, I just hope I’m wrong about Trump being a vile, tantrum-prone buffoon.Report

              • This is where I am, at the moment.Report

              • greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

                Trump may not care but what about the senate and house. They might care a little bit and i doubt Trumpy is going to trying to restrain them.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

                My belief these last few years is that Republicans didn’t actually *CARE* about those things but used them as fundraiser fodder.

                Is the argument that Republicans actually care about those things?

                I submit: meh. Not really.Report

              • greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

                Some care a lot and they feel, correctly it seems, emboldened. Pols often do try to push the agenda their voters want especially the big symbolic ones. So if are socially liberal this may not be a good thing.

                I know the line about all D’s talk about is R’s are racist etc etc. I agree people use the R word to often. But do you hear the palpable fear of all the various minorities? Do you think they don’t know what they should be afraid of?Report

              • greginak in reply to greginak says:

                And to add on, there is that Alt Right thing. Do you think Trump’s likely win will embolden them or lead them to shuffle off?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

                I’m sure that they’ll see Trump’s win as a mandate.Report

              • Burt Likko in reply to Jaybird says:

                Without a popular vote win it’s difficult to claim a mandate from the election.

                But remember 2001. George W. Bush really didn’t have a mandate to claim in January either. He claimed it in September, and used the ever-loving crap out of it.

                Shit is going to happen. Here’s hoping President Trump has good advisors nearby when it does.Report

              • Burt Likko in reply to greginak says:

                That’s a rhetorical question, right?

                The better question is how do Republicans, with their newfound majority and nearly-untrammeled control of the government, find a way to shunt them off to the “noisy but harmless” corner of the room. My prediction, and fear, is that they won’t have the guts to do anything meaningful in that respect because they are well aware that 2016 was a razor-thin vote and care about winning more than the moral evaluation of the members of their coalition.Report

              • greginak in reply to Burt Likko says:

                There is no reason to think they will shunt them off. They got, metaphorically, a fist full of credit cards and a full tank of gas.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Burt Likko says:


                Even if 2016 was razor thin, it was razor thin with Trump proving there was enough rable out there to win an election and peel away some key blue states.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

                I imagine the media has reason to fear as well. Oooh! And the IRS! We can probably kick cleaning house at the FBI down the road a ways too!

                But I was talking about weed, gay marriage, and abortion with regards to the cosmotarians.Report

              • greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

                The media will be fine. I was talking about the fear POC feel. Have you been reading Elizabeth’s tweets and Daniel’s. They seem to be somewhat ruffled and concerned. Of course they are cosmotarians so ….

                But weed is doing well. Do you think any prison reform is on the horizon now with a strong Justice and Vengeance guy liek Trumpy. Will some decidedly none elite working class folks be losing health care is some way?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

                Man, is this what I sounded like when I was a libertarian?

                I would like to apologize to the community.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                The media? They look at the future and see one unending all you can eat buffet. They’re easily the biggest winners tonight.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                They’ve kind of been exposed as having been in a bubble.

                Like a “I don’t know anyone who voted for him!” bubble.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to North says:

                Billions of dollars of free publicity. Imagine if the media had ignored Trump as hard as they ignored Stein.Report

              • North in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                Well sure Trumps victory has many fathers. Imagine if Comey hadn’t put out his email? Imagine if Hillary was more likable. Imagine if every pollster internal and external in the country hadn’t been blindsided by the Midwest… I think I’m gonna go ta bed.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                Don’t forget Weiner!Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                Weiner is slotted under Comey.Report

              • Kim in reply to greginak says:

                Yes, when fucking caucasian college students insist on being referred to as people of color, and are scared to go out of their dorm, I think they DON’T KNOW a damn thing.
                (See my local paper for details.)Report

              • Morat20 in reply to Jaybird says:

                Welp, since the poll errors seem to be correlate nicely with the share of white, non-college voters…..

                There’s two reasons they could have been driven to the polls in such high numbers: They really like what Trump is selling, or really hate Clinton.

                I could go either way, really.

                On the other hand, they still had to actually vote FOR Trump, so….

                Anyways, I freely admit being wrong. I didn’t think there were enough white, non-college voters to swing an election. At least, not enough that would actually vote.

                On the bright side, any chance I had of taking an evangelical seriously just evaporated.

                And on a personal note: Boy, my brother better be done with his cancer treatment by January, because they’re about to take his healthcare out back and shoot it.Report

              • North in reply to Morat20 says:

                It’d take them a little while to enact it. The GOP will actually have to decide if it’s going to just repeal it and regress to pre-ACA status; they’d have to throw out the filibuster; legislation can move slow so say June-December 2017?Report

              • Kim in reply to North says:

                GOP will not just repeal Obamacare. That would completely bankrupt all insurance companies currently in the markets. 16% of our GDP is health care.

                The insurance companies will show up with guns to prevent this from happening (okay, maybe not literally guns. piles of cash).Report

              • Kim in reply to Stillwater says:

                I’m hopeful, actually, that the left is going to purge itself of the Astroturf and identity politics.
                The left in this country used to be really fucking awesome (say, four years ago). Did you see what a fun time Acorn was doing??Report

        • Autolukos in reply to North says:

          The mythical Midwestern breakthrough that some Republicans were passing around at least as early as 2012 (and I think had some Bush II era predecessors?) seems like it may be happening. State errors are correlated.Report

        • KenB in reply to North says:

          I’m not sure we shouldn’t be blaming you for this turn of events, North — did your wish for Trump to be the GOP candidate come true thanks to a monkey’s paw?Report

          • Will Truman in reply to KenB says:

            The story of Trump has been that just about everybody saw in him a tool that could be used to their advantage.

            The Democrats may yet be right, as far as their narrow self-interest goes.Report

            • North in reply to Will Truman says:

              Setting aside the small possibility the man will actually start a devastating war out of pique or do some other titanically terrible thing I still dunno if I wouldn’t rather him win than any other of the GOP clowns. He’s certainly going to wreck the GOP or perhaps turn it into something fundamentally new. And if HRC loses tonight the Clintons will be done, most likely forever. Not that they were likely to go on past a HRC presidency anyhow.Report

          • North in reply to KenB says:

            It’s possible, I certainly wish I knew I had a monkeys paw stashed somewhere. That power would definitely be useful to know about.Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to Autolukos says:

      Holy shit Scott Adams and Bill Mitchell are going to be awful to read.Report

  41. Kazzy says:

    538 giving Trump 55% chance of winning with Ohio now called.Report

  42. Kolohe says:

    At the end of this we’re going to be one (well, two) states away from the Mcmuffin scenario.Report

  43. Autolukos says:

    This is basically the OSU-Nebraska game from the weekend (sorry, @michael-cain), with Trump playing the Nut role.Report

  44. Kazzy says:

    I’m struggling with the math here. How did Broward County go from 25% returns to 95% returns and maintain a strong Clinton edge while the Florida margin got wider?Report

  45. Will Truman says:


  46. Jaybird says:

    Dear England,

    You may want to re-think the whole “hey, I know, we’ll say that Brexit has to go through Parliament!” thing.


  47. Kolohe says:

    That’s great, it starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes and airplanes, Lenny Bruce is not afraidReport

  48. Kolohe says:

    Johnson over Feingold is the real shock for me, the only bigger (but still theoretically plausible) upset would have been Kirk over Duckworth.Report

  49. Kolohe says:

    I never thought I would see an election with a GOP boomlet that would also kick Sheriff Joe out of office.Report

  50. Dan d says:

    washtenaw county’s results aren’t in yetReport

  51. Saul Degraw says:

    I am in Reno and depressed. Looks like the networks are giving HRC a narrow electoral college lead. Lots of anxious democrats here.

    Lots of my friends are feeling fear and anxiety right now.

    The GOP is changed forever no matter what happens. Things are going to go badly for a lot of people I care about if Trump wins. Maybe myself. I have dread.Report

  52. Jaybird says:


    We’ve been living in a freaking bubble.

    That’s bad.Report

  53. Kolohe says:

    Pence may have bet his entire political life savings on green on the roullette wheel, and it will wind up with ball hitting double zero.

    And Reince may have double parlayed a craps yo bet.Report

    • North in reply to Kolohe says:

      And who bet on double zero? Chris fishing Christie!Report

      • Kolohe in reply to North says:

        It slipped my mind until just now that Christie was named the chair of the Trump administration transition, making him de facto the most powerful person in America right now. (as reports have outright said that Trump has had no interest in that activity)Report

        • Autolukos in reply to Kolohe says:

          Seems worth making some McDonald’s runs forReport

        • Troublesome Frog in reply to Kolohe says:

          That’s actually a pretty big relief to me. Agree or disagree with his politics and personality, he’s probably one of the most capable Trump associates when it comes to managing government operations.

          I had assumed it would be one of his close personal friends. The type of person he liked to put in place after firing competent, experienced casino managers.Report

  54. North says:

    Oofda, 538 says it looks like Trump won non-college educated women 62-34%. That’s the big one right there I suspect.Report

  55. Kolohe says:

    Bethesda really had a incredibly short development cycle on this Fallout 5 release.Report

  56. Autolukos says:

    The interesting thing is that this currently seems to be an Electoral College phenomenon; Clinton should win the popular vote by a percent or so.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Autolukos says:

      If that is the case, it will mean that Dems won 6 of the last 7 popular votes but will only hold the White House for 16 out of 28 years between 1992 and 2020.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

        Time to read The Big Sort again.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

          I never read it the first time.

          I’m on record (regarding 2000) that pointing to the national popular vote in an electoral college system isn’t very useful. It’s like saying that a football team who got outscored should be declared the winner because they racked up more yards: the point of the game was to score points, not rack up yards; racking up yards is just a good way to score more points but not a guarantee.

          But it seems worth considering how well a system is working when we have a majority of voters for most of 30 years preferring one party and yet that is in no way reflected by how our federal government has been led.

          Which is what is. Complaining is sour grapes. So I won’t complain. But I will continue to wonder if a better system might be out there.Report

        • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

          One thing I noticed from John King’s maps is that urban centers and corridors vote overwhelmingly Dem, and that everybody else (what the rednecks call “ruralia”) vote overwhelmingly R. Which means to me that the Big Sort isn’t geographically or economically based, but primarily – like fundamentally – urban/rural.

          Add: which means to me that people aren’t sorting, but rather, that where you live increasingly determines your ideological views of gummint. So, sorta like anti-sort sorting.Report

  57. DavidTC says:

    Does anyone know why the NYT seems to think Pennsylvania will go Trump?

    Clinton is ahead by 40,000 and Allegheny Country, at 25%, probably has a 100,000 more votes for her, and i’m having trouble figuring out where any more Trump votes could come from.

    The only counties that aren’t way up there in reporting percentages are Bucks (Which is tied, so probably won’t give anyone anything.) and a bunch of really tiny ones…and Lebanon and Lawrence which have none in at all. But those two counties, put *together*, have a population of 250,000, which means they can’t possibly have a voting population of more than 80,000.

    So I’m totally baffled as to why they are saying ‘Trump’.Report

  58. j r says:

    No matter what happens, it’s fair to say that this ought to lead to a bit of epistemic humility for partisans on both sides of the aisle. I don’t think that’s going to happen though.

    If I wrote science fiction, I’d be working on a book about the not-too-distant future where virtual reality and other technology allows people to literally live in their own world. So, if you’re a Clinton supporter, you go to bed and wake up in a world where Clinton won and assumes the Presidency. There is not insignificant chance that this is the future towards which we are heading.Report

  59. Jaybird says:

    Motion: Remove Sam Wang as the official Ordinary Times numbers guy.Report

  60. DavidTC says:

    If HRC wins, BTW, Gary Johnson will be the one to thank for that.Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to DavidTC says:

      Also bullshit. Although now, at 9:40 p.m. Pacific time, I’m pretty much done hoping that Clinton can somehow pull it out, so it’s kind of a moot point.Report

      • Will Truman in reply to Burt Likko says:

        He might be right. We’d need to ascertain what their second choice was, in the hypothetical scenario. Unfortunately, hypothetical scenario exit polls were cut from cash-starved news outlets.

        Actually, the real exit polls were hypothetical, it turned out.Report

        • Burt Likko in reply to Will Truman says:

          The argument that third party voters swing a state from column A to column B is based on the faith-based notion that we can know how those voters would have voted given only two choices.

          We might have faith that a Johnson voter might have preferred Trump to Clinton in a forced-choice situation. But the fact is, a Johnson voter preferred Johnson to all other available alternatives and that’s all we can really know about that voter.

          Even in a runoff, they would have a third choice: not voting at all. Is it so hard to call “reasonable” the faith that a third-party voter would absent in a forced-choice situation?Report

          • Will Truman in reply to Burt Likko says:

            The argument isn’t that Johnson supporters would have preferred Hillary but for Johnson, but that they would have preferred Trump and Trump lost the votes.

            I’m 2000, polls showed that 60% of Naderites supported Gore, 10% Bush, and the rest wouldn’t have voted. I think that tells us what we’d need to know there.

            A similar poll could shed some light on 2016 in a hypothetical Clinton comeback.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to DavidTC says:

      I voted for Gary Johnson!

      With that said, I’d say “no, not really” because the margin between R and D in:


      Is smaller than the vote for “other”.

      It’s arguable that Gary Johnson gave those states to Trump rather than that he’ll have given, what? Arizona? Alaska? To HRC?Report

  61. Stillwater says:

    OK, it’s over. And I just wanna say, for the record, that I, personally, won’t accept any nonsense about how Comey turned this election. That only happens – could only happen – if the Candidate has so much baggage that the implication actually sticks. If she wanted to run the country, she oughta been cleaner or been a better politician. Can’t be bad at both.

    Right now, tho, I gotta get my head around four years of Trump as leader of the free world. Which is a bit of a mindfuck right before bedtime.Report

    • Hoosegow Flask in reply to Stillwater says:

      I blame Jon Stewart. If he hadn’t retired right before primary season, he could have pilloried Trump on a national stage night after night and we might have completely avoided this whole thing.Report

    • InMD in reply to Stillwater says:

      I think it’s important that progressives acknowledge that in order to regroup. They fell behind a very compromised candidate and all the identity politics and appeals to establishment credentials weren’t enough, even when the opponent was a demagogue and buffoon. Loss of those upper Midwest states and Pennsylvania speaks volumes.Report

      • Brent F in reply to InMD says:

        American pundits have gotten into the bad habit of treating the white working class as a monolith because that’s what they have exit polls on, but its one thing to do poorly with Dixie white working class and quite another to do poorly with the ones from the Great Lakes states.

        Obama by contrast to H. Clinton, seemed to do alright with the Great Lakes whites, his bad numbers tended to be more with whites from “red America”Report

  62. Jaybird says:

    The NYT has called Wisconsin for Trump.

    Mathematically impossible for Clinton to win there.

    Pennsylvania has not yet been called, but it appears that Clinton will need to get north of 90% of all remaining votes cast to beat Trump. Could be north of 95%.

    Those two alone put him at 274.

    Edit: That’s *WITHOUT* counting Michigan.Report

  63. Jaybird says:

    Good news, everyone!

    Podesta just came out and told everyone at HRC Central to go home, this wasn’t over, they were going to fight this.Report

  64. Will Truman says:


  65. Kolohe says:

    Owen Ellgckson’s last Trump Leaks tweet is bit Grand Moff Tarkin-esqueReport