Nov 9 2016
05:30 am

Or was it just a nightmare?

Oh, shit! It really happened? America elected an unstable, bigoted, fear mongering grifter to be Commander in Chief? And Congress is still controlled by Republicans?

Goodbye, Obamacare. Hope you don't get sick, even if you think you have insurance. Goodbye, 401K. Here are some shares in the next Trump casino. Enjoy your capital gains tax cut, too. (What's that you say? All your capital gains were just wiped out and trading is halted?)

Goodbye, public education. Here are some vouchers for the new Trump Kids' Academy. Goodbye, Social Security. Here are some cat food vouchers. Goodbye, Medicare. Here's a voucher for a free subscription to AARP magazine. It has some great healthy living tips for seniors.

Goodbye, Planet Earth. Will it be global warming or nuclear winter? Hell, let's double down and go for both!

On the plus side, we don't have to endure four years of impeachment hearings. Bill and Hillary are going straight to jail.

Happy days are here again!

bizgrrl's picture

Huffington Post

HuffPo_20161109 (Custom).jpg

bizgrrl's picture

Daily Kos We lick our wounds,

Daily Kos

We lick our wounds, we grieve, and then we fucking fight

R. Neal's picture

Y'all go ahead. I'm done.

Y'all go ahead. I'm done.

concerned's picture

best news yet

Your tears are delicious.

Factchecker's picture

Me me me me. You won--so what will that get you?

Enjoy them at your children's expense.

Kelly Sue 's picture

Great News

Yes they are quiet satisfying. Now real change can happen to rebuild America and undo the damage that has been done against the American people.

Andy Axel's picture

Check back in

once the wall hasn't been built, Clinton isn't in jail, and you're paying 2000% more for your healthcare.

Curly Bill's picture

Well Bye

Mike Knapp's picture

Keep organizing, learn lessons

I'll continue to teach my kids inside and outside of school not to be bullies. We need to learn from this.
Chait has another decent piece worth digesting.

But I do not believe they will win, at least not over the long run. As the shock of a Trump presidency set in, I told my children Tuesday night that I did not want to hear anything about fleeing. We are not going anywhere. And the America I have raised them to believe in will one day prevail.

bizgrrl's picture

NYT Opinion Writers Krugman

NYT Opinion Writers

Krugman -
We thought that the nation, while far from having transcended racial prejudice and misogyny, had become vastly more open and tolerant over time.

We thought that the great majority of Americans valued democratic norms and the rule of law.

It turns out that we were wrong. There turn out to be a huge number of people — white people, living mainly in rural areas — who don’t share at all our idea of what America is about. For them, it is about blood and soil, about traditional patriarchy and racial hierarchy. And there were many other people who might not share those anti-democratic values, but who nonetheless were willing to vote for anyone bearing the Republican label.

Maureen Dowd -

It is unthinkable to imagine the most overtly racist candidate — and head of the offensive birther movement — driving in the limousine to the inauguration with the first African-American president. What would they discuss? How Trump plans to repeal Obamacare? How Trump will appoint Supreme Court justices that will transform America into a drastically more conservative landscape over the next 20 years? How Trump plans to undo the Iran deal? When will Trump begin deporting Hispanics? When will Attorney General Rudy Giuliani pardon Chris Christie and put Hillary in jail?

R. Neal's picture

Also, goodbye to civil rights

Also, goodbye to civil rights and equality. Go to the back of the line, the back of the bus, back in the closet and back to the kitchen. Wealthy white men are back in charge and will no longer be the victims of political correctness.

traveler's picture

Not. I'll not stand by for

Not. I'll not stand by for any of those things, and I'm surprised any of you think so, much less lose sleep over such an absurd, phony non-issue.

Hillary's message was that half your fellow Americans are bad people. It's not true. But if you believe it, I suppose she and Barack have succeeded.

Knoxgal's picture

Like many others

Like many others here, I'm in shock, I'm sick to my stomach, I'm depressed and I'm terrified. The country will be set back for the remainder of my life. The only glimmer of hope I can see right now is that Obama makes a recess appointment of Garland in January. We have to convince him to do it.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


One thing I seized on in Trump's victory speech (in which he was exceedingly measured and calm, appearing even to be as shocked as we were) was something he said to the effect that great presidents aren't great presidents until the people said they were. He said that he hoped that "by two or three or four years, maybe even after eight years, he hoped the American people will think that he is a great president."

We've talked about it here before: Trump has never really offered any plans, never given any indication he wanted to serve so much as he just wanted to win.

So his words left me wondering if he just wants to try this "presidency" thing on for size for a couple of years???

If this is his plan, it would be a blessing, indeed.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

Clinton address forthcoming

CNN reporting Clinton will address supporters "in about an hour and a half."

Around 9:30 am, I guess?

Factchecker's picture

Very short, vulgarian hands

I can't bear to see or hear anything like this from either campaign. Okay, I just peeked at the WaPo site, but damn--I'm going to have to change my world to get away from politics. I'll be better for it, but our country is undoubtedly going to be in the worst hands imaginable. I don't know how to let that sink in.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


This is no time to "get away from politics," FC.

Get some rest, is all...

Factchecker's picture

Seriously wtf

Thoughts and prayers for what has been our country. I truly hope this expression has greater effect other times it's invoked, such as every time there's a mass shooting. (Disclaimer: I'm somewhere between agnostic and atheist. Maybe a deist at best.)

We do need to drain the swamp of "news" media that has utterly failed us. If you want to learn about who Trump really is, you'd have to look for a good journalist who has followed him. It's too hard to point average voters to absorb such exhaustive work done by Kurt Eichenwald or David Fahranthold. Also Mark Zuckerberg's enterprise and other social media has probably served to undermine everything we know and love. Mic drop.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


I find Tim Burchett's observations to be very much on target this morning. See what you think.

In the KNS, Tennesseans react to Donald Trump's Win.

(EDIT: Well, let me add just the disclaimer that I don't think Jimmy Duncan "listens"--Burchett's read--so much as he just panders. That distinction aside, Burchett makes sense to me.)

local citizen's picture


There are numerous RINOs in Tennessee and the country that will be paying for opposing Trump in their future political careers including Ryan Haynes, Lamar Alexander, Bill Haslem and Susan Williams.

Min's picture

Good luck draining the swamp.

After you reelected all the old Congressional alligators.

Stick's picture

What We Know So Far

Beyond being well and truly screwed... Link

The data is early and could change, but here are three points:

- Trump won the white vote big time. The only white demographic group Clinton won was white, college educated women (51%).

- Trump won 29% of the Latino vote. Let that sink in...

- Trump won the 18-29 year old vote 48% to Clinton's 43%.

And since we heard so much about the white working class this tidbit is interesting:

Broken down by income bracket, 52% of voters earning less than $50,000 a year – who make up 36% of the electorate – voted for Clinton, and 41% for Trump. Among the 64% of American voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, 49% chose Trump and 47% for Clinton.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


Yes, this election was about the white working class. No "establishment" candidate on either side of the aisle could have won.

It was not a rejection of Clinton, per se, so much as it was simply a rejection of "establishment" politics.

(Not unlike the coup we recently witnessed on our local school board, really--albeit its impetus was economic issues broader than just the travails of "fat cat" teachers.)

traveler's picture

In my case it most definitely

In my case it most definitely *was* a rejection of Clinton, and what I saw as her inherently poisonous, divisive, racist (yes, you read that right) vision of and for America.

On top of that, I view her as utterly corrupt, bought off, beholden; unprincipled, dishonest, and incompetent beyond belief (just look at her disasters in the Middle East, not to mention her laughable economics).

For what she did with her e-mails alone--compromising the security of the United States for her personal convenience, and to hide the extent of her illicit activities in office-- she belongs in federal prison. Not kidding here--I'm deadly serious. (Hundreds of violations of 18 USC 793(f) for starters, each a federal felony. You and I would be eating prison food already if we'd done it.)

I could go on, but you get the idea. I found her utterly unqualified and unfit.

Separately and apart from that, you cannot have a leader who thinks half the country is 'a basket of deplorables' and 'irredeemable' without ripping that country apart. You simply can't have that poison raining down highest office.

Bernie I disagree with, loathe his economic policies as disastrous for the country, but Bernie I respect--he has integrity, even if allied to beliefs I believe are wildly misguided.

Trump I did not like, felt he behaved abominably in the primaries, and resent him turning what should have been a serious public discourse on policy during the primaries into a circus. We *need* that discussion--it was a uuuge opportunity lost. But besides having an obnoxious New York-ness, he's fundamentally what we once called a 'Democrat.' He's a big-government can-fix-your-bad-choices guy, and government-can-run-your-life (peasant) guy. Same as Hillary, in that respect. Not my cup of tea. But he loves the country, and the old lunk really wants to make America great again. On policy he's about 60% right.

So there's an alternate view, having nothing to do with 'bigoted, racist homophobe' blah blah blah. That's a lame narrative, nothing more, for 98% anyway. FYI.

I hope my post is useful to you. I visit KV specifically to hear your views, unfiltered, and to share mine. I find if you want to know what someone else is thinking, it's better just to ask them. I hope it re-calibrates us all.

At bottom we all want America to prosper, to be a land of opportunity, a place where kids can be educated, parents can earn a living, and where people are free.

local citizen's picture


After the dismay performance of all of the polling organization on the presidential election, I would take any polling reports with a grain of salt.

Stick's picture

Perhaps a little reading

Perhaps a little reading comprehension is in order...

The data is early and could change

Tamara Shepherd's picture


And since we heard so much about the white working class this tidbit is interesting:

Broken down by income bracket, 52% of voters earning less than $50,000 a year – who make up 36% of the electorate – voted for Clinton, and 41% for Trump. Among the 64% of American voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, 49% chose Trump and 47% for Clinton.

Stick, I don't think that this stat should be interpreted to mean that the white working class was NOT lashing back for economic reasons in this election, that the election was about something else.

Yes, we see more lower income voters going for Clinton than for Trump--but recall that the vast majority of Sanders supporters (who also tended to be white and had lower incomes) are clearly buried within Clinton's numbers.

We know they're buried within Clinton's numbers because we see that the share of white lower income voters who migrated to Stein and other progressive candidates was miniscule.

I rather suspect that this demographic stayed with Clinton--even in states (like ours) that weren't in play--only because Trump scared them too much, not because they decided they had no economic fears, after all.

I'm not sure how to prove my suspicion beyond that, but I think there are legions of angry white working class folk buried in both candidates' vote results--although Trump's have been more vocal through the general election.

(All that if I understood correctly why you highlighted this stat...)

Stick's picture

Better Numbers Are Coming In


The 18-29 above is incorrect: Clinton won 55% to 37%

R. Neal's picture

Trump's America

Trump's America

bizgrrl's picture

Hope all those t-shirts,

Hope all those t-shirts, signs, flags, actions go back in the closet.

Michael Leon Daugherty's picture

The election of Trump is very

The election of Trump is very disturbing. How could that many people vote for an evil man like Donald Trump? In 1933, millions of hard working Germans supported a charismatic evil man that promised them a better life and to return Germany to greatness. The world survived the leadership of that mad man after about 60 million deaths. Surviving a Trump Presidency will be difficult for many. Trump is a mentally unstable man elected by over 60 million ignorant Americans.To him making America great again means returning to the "good ole days" when civil rights did not exist for many. Hopefully we will avoid another world war started by a crazy man, but no doubt, many in the U.S.and around the world will suffer and die from an unqualified baffoon as the U.S. President. I have no respect for anybody that voted for Donald Trump!

Kathy's picture

Surviving a Trump Presidency

The last debate is why. Trump told the American people that killing unborn children days before they were born is wrong. The ice cold stare in her eyes told the American people who she really was. Respect is something that has to be earned. Respecting life is not evil. Now without government paid abortions more people will have a chance to survive. You are here because someone cared about your life. Congratulations!

Michael Leon Daugherty's picture

Kathy, It appears you only

Kathy, It appears you only heard a few of Trumps words and ignored a great deal. Otherwise you would understand how unqualified he is.I think abortion is wrong in most cases.What you failed to mention is that Clinton only agreed that late term abortion was acceptable if the life of the mother was in danger. In comparing the two candidates, Clinton came from a middle class family and worked hard to be successful. She has worked most of her life to help children and adults in need. The same cannot be said about Trump. He was given a fortune by his dad and has worked most of his life tearing people down. You appear to be a person that is passionate about your beliefs. If you looked at the facts, it would surprise me if you would not be outraged at what Trump has said and done over his life. You do not have to look at Trump face to judge his character. All you have to do is look at his words and actions over his lifetime. Like many Republicans, he only takes a public stance against abortion to help his political career.
After being legal for 43 years it is unrealistic to think abortion will be outlawed. The Supreme Court has been controlled by conservative Republican appointees for over 30 years and the Roe v. Wade decision is still the law. Regardless of a person's view on abortion, all Americans should do what they can to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Republicans have contributed to the abortion rate by their opposition to provide needed birth control to women. Also, because of Republican opposition to affordable healthcare for all Americans, we have one of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized world. Trump and the Republicans opposition to the ACA will cause the death of many citizens. He wants to repeal the healthcare of 26 million people. My sister is a good example of what harm repealing this act will do. After having healthcare for many years, she lost coverage when she was divorced. She got cancer and was in a lot of pain. When I would take her to the doctor they would do as little as possible to get her out of office. She was treated like an animal and could not get decent care because she could not afford it. She died in 2007. She might be alive today if the ACA had been passed earlier. Trump thinks your wealth should buy your health. Kathy, I respect your anti-abortion passion, I just think you are misguided. Trump has not earned the respect of anybody. I cannot respect the opinion of you or anybody else that ignores the facts and supports Trump. I hope you will think and pray to eventually see the light.

Kathy's picture

Clinton only agreed that late term abortion was

Wrong. Go back and watch again.

Michael Leon Daugherty's picture

Nothing Clinton said changed

Nothing Clinton said changed the fact that she has done a great deal to make life better for American children and adults. She has consistently said that she favors allowing abortion in late term if the mother's life is in danger. That does not make her a monster.And whatever interpretation you have for her words at the debate does not change the position she has held. As a matter of fact, most Americans agree that saving a women's life is reason to allow an abortion. Nothing Trump said changes the fact that he has always been a self-centered ego maniac that is unqualified for President. A few dishonest words at the debate cannot change the many immoral actions he has taken in the past decades.Trump does not have a clue how to govern our country. He does not know a thing about domestic or foreign policy. The people that are being mentioned for his cabinet are people that will help him deny decent healthcare to millions, destroy the environment, destroy public education, make the rich richer and the poor poorer,and make us less safe in foreign affairs. The Republican House and Senate will not put a check on his terrible policies but will get behind them. We can thank Republicans and Democrats that decide their vote on one issue for the upcoming disaster. The one issue voter does not even consider the many important issues that effect our future long-term well being. Americans should be very scared for our future under a Trump Presidency.

Michael Leon Daugherty's picture

Since the only issue you are

Since the only issue you are mentioning is abortion, does that mean that you agree that Trump is unqualified to be President? You did not challenge that assumption. Are you saying no matter how unqualified he is or no matter how bad his past immorality and evil ways are, that does not matter, as long as he says he is anti-abortion. Apparently facts do not matter to you as long as he tells you what you want to hear about that single issue.

Dahlia's picture

And another thing, Kathy

if abortion is SUCH a huge issue with the GOP, then why in hell didn't they overturn it when given the chance? It wasn't even on the docket back when they had total control under George W.

Roe v Wade was voted in 7-2 with 6 of those voting for it were Republicans. On top of that, they've had the majority of the Supreme Court for 45 YEARS!!!!! Please, let that sink in.

Do not tell me they want to overturn Roe v Wade. Anyone thinking they do is just another one of their puppets. Grrrrrrrr!

Michael Leon Daugherty's picture

Thanks....I rest my case!

Thanks....I rest my case!

Dahlia's picture


That stare was disbelief that he would make such an untrue statement. Problem is, she didn't correct him and it stuck.

Here's one BIG problem with the Democrats. They assume too much. They assume the American people are smarter than they are. Their constituents know the facts, but the Republicans don't and things need to be repeated over and over again to them before they understand and 'get it'.

Kathy's picture

Assume the American people are smarter than they are.

Like it or not that statement about killing unborn babies went into the very heart of voters. When they pushed the red button and voted they only answered to themselves and God. American people are smarter than you assume. I think that God cares about truth not political parties. The truth is that you are only here because someone was smart enough to care about you. You get to have opinions and breath. You are your own success story. True success comes from lifting others up not killing them off. I have no anger with you. My hope is that the truth will set you free. Then you will not need your anger anymore.

Dahlia's picture

I keep hearing people say that God chose Trump.

If that's the case, then I guess that also means God chose Hitler. Interesting thing, I once read that Hitlers mother once contemplated abortion, and chose against it.

Michael Leon Daugherty's picture

The unreasonable and mindless

The unreasonable and mindless support of Trump is sad. For anybody, including Franklin Graham to suggest that it was God's will that Trump be elected is crazy. Franklin is an embarrassment to his dad. Trump's words, actions, and agenda is contrary to all Christian values that were taught by Jesus. His past actions and proposed government policies defy all religions based on the word of God. Anybody that voted for Trump is either a racist, sexist, or just plain ignorant. Any Christian that voted for Trump needs to have a mental evaluation!

Dahlia's picture

Yes, it's disturbing to see religious leaders

suck up to Donald Trump, but not really surprising. Unfortunately, too many of them haven't been following the words of Jesus in many decades.

My husband's whole family (except him) voted for Trump and they live and breathe church and the bible, praying before every meal. They also cheat on their wives, use the "N" word regularly, mooch off their parents, live on disability and/or spend every dime they make.

Kathy's picture


Politicians are politicians. You are angry and desire to put words in my mouth that may prove your anger is justifiable to you. Great truths will always be just that. You understand or you do not understand. In the end everyone answers for who they are. You have the free will to decide that. I leave you to your anger and a verse that you may ponder on.

Psalm 139:13-16

For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;.Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.

Dahlia's picture

Kathy, it appears you have no answers

Or valid arguments to what I've said, so you just keep accusing me of being angry. Sorry, but we see right through you. Michael and I have given very valid and true statements and you don't have a response other than insulting.

I'm sorry your party has played you like a rube. It happens, so maybe you'll learn from it in the future and actually vote for a person or party that has real values and concerns for human beings.

Treehouse's picture

And then

What does God say to the mother whose baby is deformed or dies in utero? Because your religion is so strongly affecting laws, I knew a mother who had to carry a dead fetus to birth even if it hurt her health. I certainly don't understand a God that would support such a law. What about "he breathed life into them?" And why would you want a baby born to a world that doesn't want him/her? And there are a bunch of those! Did you see the foster system statistics?

Michael Leon Daugherty's picture

Attempting to justify voting

Attempting to justify voting for Trump by quoting scripture makes absolutely no sense. Trump is a dishonest and evil man. His policies will reverse much of the progress we have made in recent years. Everybody needs to be angry at policies that kill people and make people suffer! Do you not get angry when people die needlessly? Do you not get mad when the government allows people to destroy the environment? Do you not get angry when a person dies because of the lack of adequate healthcare? Are you not angry because billionaires get away with paying no income tax and get richer and the rest of us pay our fair share? You can quote scripture all day but you know that the measure of a person's character is the way they treat those that are less fortunate. Trump's words are cheap and they change constantly. His actions speak much louder than his words. God did not choose Trump as our President. God gives people free will to choose the good, and in Trump's case, the bad. If it takes people getting angry to elect people that will end the suffering of millions of men, women , and children in America, let us all get angry and work to elect people that oppose Trump in the next election. Hopefully, the poor and misguided people that voted for Trump in the name of religion, will not make the same mistake again. God help us until he is replaced!

Sam Hatfield's picture

Do you read what you write?

Everybody needs to be angry at policies that kill people.

Michael Leon Daugherty's picture

A government healthcare

A government healthcare system that keeps tens of millions of Americans uninsured and without the healthcare they need and deserve to keep them alive is wrong. The U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other country.The spending on healthcare does not translate into quality care for all like it should. A big reason for that is that insurance companies benefit too much from the healthcare policy of the U.S. government. It has always been the case in America that wealthy individuals receive better care than the middle class or poor. Decent healthcare should be a right of every American. When our government's policy on providing decent healthcare denies people that cannot afford life saving treatment the care they need and allows them to die, this is a government policy that kills people.

M. L. Daugherty's picture

Yep Sam... I read it. You do

Yep Sam... I read it. You do not think people die as the result of the government's military policy or health care policy or policy regarding work place safety etc.? Donald J. Trump is racist and immoral and unfit for to be President. I can forgive the people that voted for him and hope that one day they will see the light. However.anybody that voted for him should be ashamed. They will be very sorry after he takes office for all the destruction he causes at home and around the world.

R. Neal's picture

Putin applauds Trump win

traveler's picture

David Duke is a nobody. He

David Duke is a nobody. He makes a living from being controversial once every four years, a worm who survives seemingly solely on this sort of liberal media attention / fixation.

Does anyone even know what he actually believes? I don't, and I'm not the slightest bit interested.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

Required reading

This morning, the WaPo has the best analysis I've read yet to explain "America's Brexit moment" last night.

And yes, we locals will immediately recognize it as an expansion on Burchett's observations.

How Trump won: The revenge of working-class whites

Knoxoasis's picture

As I write this at 10 am

The stock market is up slightly. Looks like this result was already baked in.

R. Neal's picture

Southern Beale... (link...)

Southern Beale...


Tamara Shepherd's picture


Why are you looking to Southern Beale for answers this morning when this person has clearly been wrong all along?

And this point (which isn't one) is something we can fact check against the election results, for Pete's sake:

Third parties were spoilers. Again. They always are, people. What have I been saying? We have a two-party system. That’s reality. Don’t like it? Move to fucking Britain where they have a Parliament. We don’t have one, so learn to count. Option one is the Republican candidate. Option two is the Democratic candidate. That’s it, folks. There is no third option.

In every blue state Clinton lost last night--as well as in the election overall--third party voting didn't hurt Clinton, it helped her.

Absent the effect of Gary Johnson taking from Trump a greater volume of votes than Jill Stien and others took from Clinton, Clinton would have lost by a wider margin.

This is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of mathmatical fact.

bizgrrl's picture

Many points I can agree with.

Many points I can agree with.

Roscoe Persimon's picture

Tell Ms. Rojero to find something else to do

There no job for her in Washington, D.C. next year, Ms. Clinton didn't get elected and this form over substance type of government just get rejected at the national level.

America nor government is not an academic exercise, we can't all work for the government, and the sooner the city of Knoxville figures that out, the better off the community will be.

fischbobber's picture

Mayor Rogero

Mayor Rogero will make a fine county mayor at the end of Burchette's term and her well-respected job as city mayor should help our county expand it's economic base well beyond our county borders. The nation's loss could well be our community's gain.

jbr's picture

Keeping Mayor Rogero is a big

Keeping Mayor Rogero is a big plus.

The county mayor role would be nice

Bbeanster's picture

There's a reason Democrats

There's a reason Democrats run in city raises.

bizgrrl's picture

Someyhing like the rural

Someyhing like the rural voters going R and the urban voters going D?

fischbobber's picture

You mean?

Like Tommy Schumpert? Or Earl Hoffmeister?

Bbeanster's picture

Like Tommy Schumpert? Or Earl

Like Tommy Schumpert? Or Earl Hoffmeister?

Hoffmeister, elected in 76.
Schumpert, elected in 98.

Name one currently serving countywide officeholder who was elected as a Democrat. Madeline's way too smart to throw her hat in that ring.

Susan S's picture


Fat chance of that happening. Keep dreaming.

Knoxoasis's picture

Nice thought. I've known

Nice thought. I've known Madeline for years and like her a lot, but if you think she can be elected county wide, you're dreaming. Just ask Chancellor Fansler.

fischbobber's picture

You're probably right.

That would be like Trump taking the rust belt. People will vote their best interests.

Rachel's picture

Please learn how to spell

Please learn how to spell people's names. It's the polite thing to do.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


Another bullshit alert in MSNBC's reporting this morning, here:

In Michigan — which was a must-win for Clinton, but was still too close to call as of Wednesday morning, according to NBC News projections — Johnson and Stein had collectively taken a little more than 222,400 votes, or about 5 percent of the vote there. Trump, in contrast, held just over a 15,600-vote lead over Clinton.

In Florida, which was crucial to Trump's victory, Johnson, Stein and two other third-party candidates on the ballot collectively drew over 293,000 votes — more than twice the 128,000-plus votes that Trump led with as of early Wednesday morning.

Of what possible purpose is this "analysis" that lumps together the total third party votes when they took votes variously from two opposing candidates?

Again, take a look at Florida's final results and Michigan's results to date to confirm that Clinton benefitted from third party voting in both races.

Gary Johnson had been polling at 3 or 4 percent of votes (and higher) to Jill Stein's less that one percent for weeks if not months before the election--and still was last night. Repubs suffered for it, Dems didn't. Period.

jbr's picture

Presidential Results

from nbc
Presidential Results

Anonymoushchchcu 's picture

Bernie wasnt electable

Bernie wasnt electable eh?
Bernie is too extreme eh?
The blame lies with the DNC and Hillary sycophants. Let this be a lesson learned for anyone with a Clinton fetish. I also echo the above- Gary Johnson didnt pull any votes away from Hillary.

You made your bed, now sleep in it for the next 4 years, you brought this on yourselves.

WhitesCreek's picture

I was for Bernie

But I have to look skeptically on the "Bernie could have won it" meme. If he couldn't beat Hillary, how could he have beaten Trump? It's complicated and I think the answer is in the 39% who voted for change in the system at any cost.

fischbobber's picture

I would tend to disagree.

Based on what I saw in person and read in the polls a significant number of Trumps supporters were voting against Clinton rather than for Trump. A Sanders candidacy would have tempered those numbers considerably. A huge percentage of voters are basically uninformed and following the pack.

For instance, both Trump and Sanders spoke of getting rid of Obamacare. Trump throwing it to the private sector and Bernie to a single payer. Many voters didn't get past getting rid of Obamacare. I asked a woman last night how she planned on paying for her 23 year old daughter's health insurance after Jan.21. She didn't know what I was talking about and cried when I explained it.

This was not an informed electorate. This was a motivated electorate looking for something to believe and someone to follow.

God help us all.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


This was a motivated electorate looking for something to believe and someone to follow.

This. It was an election that could have only been won by an "anti-establishment" candidate.

The Dem party reluctantly ran one, but ultimately succeeded in squelching his participation.

White's Creek, since you seem to have forgotten how they did that, it was via:

1. Breaching their own internal policy regarding the "neutrality" of the DNC during the party primary--to such an extent that the party chair had to resign in disgrace.

2. Soliciting nationwide the heads of allegedly "independent" think tanks to serve as campaign advisors.

3. Accepting from its superPAC financial donations raised among the very industries the preordained candidate vowed to better regulate or else put out of business altogether (private prisons, big pharma, Wall Street, etc.), and finally

4. Employing an elitist and undemocratic system for awarding delegates called "superdelegates" to transmute the primary's popular vote.

But I'm probably forgetting some stuff...

Anonymousdjdhdhdhd's picture

"This. It was an election

"This. It was an election that could have only been won by an "anti-establishment" candidate."

You are correct. Clean house with the DNC and any other "Days of Camelot" Clinton supporters.

Knoxoasis's picture

Worth reading

Saw this linked on Daily Kos. Worth a read: (link...)

R. Neal's picture

Joe Powell... (link...)

Joe Powell...


bizgrrl's picture



Mike Knapp's picture

Trump's data op helped close the deal w/undecideds

@Phil_Mattingly of CNN has an interesting take on the two camps' ops into the last week. One main takeaway is that Clinton simply did not hit her margins.

Phil Mattingly ‏@Phil_Mattingly 1h1 hour ago
One of the major driving forces of data success -- and a place where Clinton's op fell down -- was in turnout projections 8/...

Perhaps the most revealing pieces of data came in IA - where the RNC had Trump *losing* and Ohio. Their turnout # was mostly on point. 15/

Anonymous2's picture

I think there was clearly Clinton fatigue

Other reasons she lost.
The email server and the Clinton foundation.Obviously she should never have done the server.She should have put the foundation in a blind trust when she got the Sec State job and prevented BC from doing any hitting up donors for speeches stuff.
If you tell, a lie often enough people will believe it.The Repub hearings had a cumulative effect over time I think.Some independents started to believe HRC was guilty of something.
I think a lot of whites are unhappy.Some outright hate the govenment because they think it caters too much to minorities, gays and other groups the whites abhor.Some hated Obama because he is black and they could never accept a black man as President.Some years back I had heard some so called Christians here in Knoxville thought Obama was the AntiChrist.Yes they really thought that.I guess they thought a black man couldn't be President without some kind of evil isn't funny it is racist and pathetic.And yes some think the economy is bad and they no longer trusted the government to fix it/make it better so they thought an outsider a so-called successful businessman who has lost a billion dollars or so could fix it. The economy is what it is.The heavy duty manufacturing jobs aren't coming back to Ohio, Folks that live there.They aren't And Trump can't make them return.No one can.
Obama was right .Trump wont'change once he gets in the White House.He won't need those Breitbart people any more and I expect he will kick them to the curb.They helped Trump win so they think they can stick around and control him.Trump won't let himself be controlled.He will chafe at those people telling him what he can and can't do and he'll kick them out.
Ultimately Trump will revert back to his old ways and he will get in trouble.Serious trouble I think.
Plus he is in debt to Putin and Assange.they will expect payment.Assange will expect to get any charges, the rape charges as well as any spying charges dropped so he can get out of the Ecuadoran embassey.Putin will expect all sanctions lifted.He will expect no interference when he decides to act against other former soviet block countries.The Baltic Republics would seem to be next in line.
Nato itself is in danger and I expect Trump to try to abrogate the treaties.
Ultimately though I think Trump will do something that will force him out of office.Then we get stuck with Pence until the next election.
That one we must win.

Makes sense to me's picture

missing the point

What Trump did was record setting. He would have won over Barack Obama in 2012.


You missed the point. This was as big as Obama winning in 2008. It is a change event.

fischbobber's picture

Poor analysis

In neither of his races were Obama's numbers driven by people voting against a different candidate. They were voting for Obama.

Contrast that with Clinton's numbers as well as Trumps. Upwards of fifty percent of the total votes cast were cast against the opposing candidate rather than for the candidate being voted for. This was a race between two candidates with the highest negative ratings in modern political history.

We weren't voting for candidates, we were voting against them.

bizgrrl's picture

I was voting for a candidate.

I was voting for a candidate. I would guess there are millions that did the same.

Makes sense to me's picture

Deliberately obtuse much?

"We weren't voting for candidates, we were voting against them"

How does that matter? It doesn't change the numbers.

bizgrrl's picture

I'm guessing it is

I'm guessing it is speculation that if someone other than Clinton was on the Democratic ticket, someone the progressive liberals could have voted for, that the Dems could have won

Bbeanster's picture

'm guessing it is speculation

'm guessing it is speculation that if someone other than Clinton was on the Democratic ticket, someone the progressive liberals could have voted for, that the Dems could have won

That sword cuts both ways. I don't think you can assume that everyone who voted for Clinton would have stuck with a more left-leaning candidate.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


The single most compelling stat in the election results, though, is that a majority of whites doesn't like Clinton. We could debate all day whether that's "fair," but it appears to be true. Among whites, she won only among women with a college education.

Given that whites remain the majority voting bloc, that was her biggest problem.

Bbeanster's picture

I haven't studied the

I haven't studied the demographics, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Bernie had the same problem with blacks. If he'd had their support he would have beaten Clinton in the primaries.

You can't just concentrate on one side of the ledger.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


As to Bernie's relative weakness with blacks, true enough (in the primary). But I was trying to look at the majority voting bloc, whites, which mathmatically would seem to carry more clout?

Just speculating, here, but neither would I expect to have seen blacks migrate from Bernie to Trump in the general, either, as whites did when offered Clinton. Thinking about the size of his rallies, nor would I expect to have seen them stay home in the general.

Through speculating. I'll wait to read the authoritative speculating from the experts sometime soon.

Makes sense to me's picture

"Among whites, she won only

"Among whites, she won only among women with a college education."

Anything else is static.


"Though his rival, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, clinched 54 percent of the female vote, Trump was backed by 42 percent of women voters, which contributed to his stunning victory, according to CNN exit polls.

Some 53 percent of white women voters supported the Republican candidate, CNN said, the majority of them (62 percent) non-college educated."

It wasn't a conspiracy. Hillary couldn't get a message across to white women that they cared about.

After Obamacare rate increases and being married to Bill, how is that a mystery?

Tamara Shepherd's picture


I should correct my assertion that the "single most compelling stat in the election was that a majority of white voters doesn't like Clinton." That's probably the second most compelling stat.

The first most compelling stat is that too many Democrats of all types appear not to like her. Democrats simply failed to show up for this election.

Republican turnout was down, too, but not nearly so much. And over 11,000 people cast their votes for "Harambe," a dead gorilla. In any event, disgust and disdain were widespread on Tuesday.

OutdatedModel's picture

One thing we learned in this

One thing we learned in this election is that the Left/Right division is no longer the most useful framework. There are new dividing lines in western politics that pits the mainstream against the alternatives. Clinton and the mainstream was not able to comprehend this new divide and were shell shocked, just like Tony Blair was with the selection of Jeremy Corbyn to lead Britain's Labour Party, a "guy off the street" as Bill Clinton criticized. Assuming Bernie was "too left" to be elected is but one example of their naivety. After all, who in the world thought Trump could even smell the White House except Ann Coulter and a few outliers. Thus, you can't assume all the "anti-establishment" votes would have stuck with Trump over Bernie. Who knows how he would have done but Bernie was the stronger candidate by most indicators, at least in this election.

fischbobber's picture


That would be a different subject for a different day. There was no reason to think Hillary couldn't beat Trump last summer and in fact, I would argue that she controlled her own destiny and the decisions that lead to her loss were her own.

Furthermore, if Sanders campaign had the same combination of bad decisions and bad luck in the general, I doubt he would have won either.

Not a whole lot went Hillary's way after the convention.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


Point: We weren't voting for candidates, we were voting against them.

Counter-point: How does that matter? It doesn't change the numbers.

It matters because it was fear of the opposing candidate that led many voters to herd their votes in a manner that otherwise wouldn't have occurred. So yes, the numbers were changed because of it.

Makes sense to me's picture


"It matters because it was fear of the opposing candidate that led many voters to herd their votes in a manner that otherwise wouldn't have occurred."

You have to be kidding. That is really dumb.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


Think about it. Some level of angry Progressives was herded from third parties to Clinton out of fear of Trump winning and some level of angry Republicans was herded from Trump to Clinton out of fear ofhim winning, too. Late in the game, she had Jeb Bush and John Kasich (were there others?) out there stumping for her, for Pete's sake.

Yes, "herding."

Makes sense to me's picture


If there was any "herding" it was the 6 million Democrats who stayed home. How do you herd people into their houses? That word makes no sense.

A lot of those were disgruntled Bernie voters.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


If there was any "herding" it was the 6 million Democrats who stayed home.

Roger that.

Note my retraction directed to Betty: As you observe, low turnout was Clinton's biggest problem and failing to capture the white vote among those who showed up was her second biggest problem.

Anyway, both of those big problems specific to her inablity to excite.

traveler's picture

I agree with that (your)

I agree with that (your) analysis. And I think it telling that whichever side you preferred, that nearly all Americans were voting out of fear at what their federal government might do if the other candidate were elected.

That's wrong. The federal government was never supposed to be that powerful, the American people were never supposed to live in fear of it, and the fate of the entire nation was *never* supposed to hinge on the election of one official.

To me it underscores that the federal government has gotten far too big, too intrusive, the Presidency has gotten far too powerful, and the overall power has been dangerously concentrated in too few hands. That leaves you only ever one electoral mistake from disaster--I've been places where it happened and things went horribly wrong, oppressive. Very dangerous.

That was not the original design. The original design split limited functions across three federal branches, and left the rest spread across the states. That was better, freer, and safer.

jbr's picture

Electoral College Lesson: More Voters Chose Clinton, but...

from ...

The Founders didn't think ordinary people — even the white male property owners who were the only ones allowed to vote — were informed or responsible enough to choose the president. (Letting them do so, said Virginia's George Mason, would be like referring "a trial of colors to a blind man.")

So they created a double buffer. State legislators would choose presidential electors, who would be "most enlightened and respectable citizens," as John Jay put it. Then, these elites would come together at an Electoral College and use their superior wisdom and intellect to decide on a president.

Electoral College Lesson: More Voters Chose Clinton, but Trump Will Be President

MakeItGreat's picture

Sorry .. we're not letting 4

Sorry .. we're not letting 4 or 5 urban areas pick the President. If liberals want to pile on top of one another in cities that's their choice.

Min's picture

And one man, one vote, ought to mean just that.

If conservatives choose to live in the butt end of Wyoming, that's their choice, too.

bizgrrl's picture

KNS interviews people on

KNS interviews people on Market Square
, their reactions to the election.

R. Neal's picture


bizgrrl's picture

How awful. Surely it won't

How awful.

Surely it won't continue?

Concerned's picture

We are broken Democrats in a disfunctional party

Our party is in shambles and dysfunctional. Will it ever be able to overcome the fact that Wikileaks has exposed our leaders as lairs. The great 8 year experiment has exposed us as unable to create anything positive for the people. I lose my insurance the last day of December but it is just as well. I can not pay the increases and can't see my normal doctors anymore. I would never get past my ever-increasing deductibles. What have our policies done to us and the credibility of our party?

Dahlia's picture

The DNC did us no favors

They were determined that Clinton would be the nominee. They made fun of and belittled Bernie, DWS did everything in her power to squash the debates, limiting the numbers and putting them on at 10:00 pm Saturday nights. They were completely tone deaf to the huge crowds and responses he had.

Moving on, I'm actually somewhat relieved the Republicans took it all because this monster they created is ALL on their hands. Their bluff has been called and now, they have no Dems to blame or hold them back, so lets see if they stand up to their word of building a wall, getting rid of Obamacare, Roe v Wade, SS, Medicare and Medicaid, and let's see how their delusional supporters feel about all that. Go ahead Republicans, it's all on you, now. Good luck with that.

OutdatedModel's picture

Good points. I expect the

Good points. I expect the republicans will pay dearly in the next elections. Can the democrats get it right next time?

Reuters exit polls expose real grievances that Hillary couldn't counter::

-75 percent agree that "America needs a strong leader to take the country back from the rich and powerful."

- 72 percent agree "the American economy is rigged to advantage the rich and powerful."

- 68 percent agree that "traditional parties and politicians don’t care about people like me."

- 76 percent believe "the mainstream media is more interested in making money than telling the truth."

- 57 percent feel that "more and more, I don't identify with what America has become."

- 54 percent feel "it is increasingly hard for someone like me to get ahead in America."


Dahlia's picture

This could win in 2020 if the DNC gets their act together -

Elizabeth Warren / Corey Booker

Makes sense to me's picture

The Warren part, yes. Not

The Warren part, yes. Not sure Booker is the best pick. I will tell you the first thing that has to happen. Get the hell rid of the Clinton's. Now they want Chelsea to run in New York for US Rep. The Republicans were smart and voted the Bush's off their island and we need to do the same with the Clinton's. As long as they are involved we lose. If we want to keep losing think Chelsea in 2028 for President.

Dahlia's picture

If the DNC is pushing Chelsea

they are dumber and more tone deaf than I ever imagined. Give me a break. I'm thoroughly disgusted with their hubris. If she wants to get in the limelight in 10-15 years, so be it, but how ridiculous and arrogant of them to think she would be good now.

And I'm sorry, but when the p***y comment came out against Trump, the Clinton people had NO room to criticize. It was a non-issue for Trump lovers because Hillary was right there, standing by her man. Bill took 26 trips overseas with that convicted pedophile, Epstein, AFTER he left the presidency. Jesus, I'm so disgusted with the lot of them.

And I do think Corey Booker would be a fabulous VP.

bizgrrl's picture

Donald Trump just got elected

Donald Trump just got elected president and some people are worried about Chelsea Clinton running for office?!?!

Dahlia's picture

Believe me, it's the last thing on my radar.

I was only responding to someone else's comment, but if it IS on the DNC's radar, then we've got more problems than we can ever imagine. Head meet sand.

Makes sense to me's picture

sadly real, some people never learn

Min's picture

And yet...

They still sent the "elite" incumbents right back to Congress. The same people who've controlled Congress for the last 6 years and haven't done shit for the American worker.

Good luck, Trump voter. You're going to need it.

jbr's picture

Pence tells house GOP to buckle up

From CNN ...

Republican leaders told rank and file members at this morning's conference meeting that they intend to use a somewhat obscure statute -- the Congressional Review Act -- to nullify some of the most recent Obama Administration regulations, according to multiple GOP sources -- including a rule expanding who qualifies for overtime pay.

Pence tells House GOP to 'buckle up' for breakneck pace

jbr's picture

faithless elector

Knoxoasis's picture

Good luck with that too.

Good luck with that too. Maybe one or two, but 30 republican electors voting for Hillary? Dream on.

Anonymous2's picture

Harry Reid and others


Yes Trump is a sexual predator.However it is what it is.He is POTUS. MAYBE maybe the responsibilities of the office will awe him so much he will get treatment and turn around.I doubt that though.He is a Malignant Narcissist and those people are irredeemable.



The first of many such victory celebrations no doubt.



I expect the US portion of the sanctions to be lifted pretty quickly. The Europeans and asian countries who have sanctions will resist lifting theirs despite Trump asking them to do so.

The last line is telling:

"A senior diplomat also said the Russian government was in touch with members of Trump's political team during the U.S. election campaign."

As we thought.

Dahlia's picture

I think we could all learn from this -

jbr's picture

North Carolina GOP condemns KKK parade honoring Trump

from CNN ...

The Loyal White Knights of Pelham, North Carolina, announced on its website that its parade will take place on December 3. Details for the parade, including where it would take place, were not immediately available, and a message left with the group was not immediately returned Friday night.

North Carolina GOP condemns KKK parade honoring Trump

Anonymous2's picture

We are Rome...


That we are....

Dahlia's picture

My next prediction is

We will start seeing 20 foot portraits erected alongside Trump buildings. Our dear leader, Donald...

Mike Knapp's picture

Knox county 2016 Presidential Election by precinct


bizgrrl's picture

I'd like to expand that map.

I'd like to expand that map. Where can I get it?

Mike Knapp's picture


Lemme see what I can do; mobile right now. Got it from a D6 contact

Mike Knapp's picture

Reddit is source

Anonymous2's picture

Trump could destroy NATO


Would be funny if it happens.Repubs always have said dems were weak on defense.We were commie lovers, pinkos and the like.That if the bad guys won it would be our fault.The fault of the democratic party.Now it looks like it could be their fault.

To quote Alanis Morrissette:

"Ins't it ironic, dont you think ? "

Mike Knapp's picture

Worth a watch/listen

YouTube Mark Blyth and Wendy Schiller
at the Watson Institute International & Public Affairs at Brown University discuss Election 2016: What Happened. Blyth wasn't stunned at the outcome, Schiller mildly so.

Knoxgal's picture

Why I think Hillary lost

There's no doubt Clinton was a flawed candidate and an uninspiring campaigner, but I think she would have made an excellent president. I think she lost for many reasons, the main ones being:

1. The press treated Trump like a celebrity who boosted their ratings. Needing to appear even handed, they equated her emails to his numerous and much worse scandals. She didn't handle this well, especially in her Fox News interview with Chris Wallace where she was defensive. She was also hurt by her "basket of deplorables" comment, which was a stupid thing to say. Ultimately, though, the press didn't do its job, and - given how the media landscape has changed- may be incapable of ever doing it again.

2. Too many millennials and former Sanders supporters either didn't vote or voted third party "on principle". Many of these same non-voters are now demonstrating in the streets against a Trump administration. Well, guess what?

3. James Comey's FBI letter 8 days before the election sunk her. It sealed the deal for undecideds and caused enough wavering supporters to change their mind. It also made her change her campaign strategy in the final days, which probably wasn't wise in hindsight. This is the real story of a "rigged election". Only time and history will inform us of Comey's true motivation. I'm also not convinced the Russians didn't influence this election in more sinister ways than we know.

Could Sanders or Biden have won? Its certainly tempting to speculate, but we'll never know. Let's not forget she did win the popular vote, and Trump beat every single candidate he was predicted to lose to starting with the Republicans.

I have seen only two hopeful statistics in this whole, soul crushing fiasco. First, Trump isn't a true conservative and owes the Republican Party nothing. However, I don't think he has any interest in (or ability to) govern and might turn everything over to Pence. Pence at the helm is worse than Trump in my opinion.

Second, and most hopeful of all, is that Chris Buice pointed out in his KNS column yesterday that if you look only at voters 18 to 25, all but six states were blue.

Makes sense to me's picture

not so

"James Comey's FBI letter 8 days before the election sunk her."

So Hillary told her largest donors in a special conference call. It isn't so. You can choose to believe that. But it's only being in denial.

What took Hillary down was a poor candidate, a poor message, and dirty tricks against Bernie that later cost her the election. She had no love from Blacks, Latinos, white women, and Bernie millennials. Being a war monger didn't help either. She did very poorly with military voters because they thought she would get in a war with Syria. Which they had no love for. They are tired of nation building.

Her campaign energized middle white America. When she told coal miners she would end their jobs that was the beginning of the end. And the BLM farce pissed off Trump voters. It was so strategically stupid.

She essentially ran on Obama's legacy at a time when the largest health care premium increase in history were coming out, real unemployment was bad, the economy was sucking, and the stock market was nervous.

Hillary gave Trump talking point after talking point. She handed him Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Florida.

Comey protected Hillary. You won't know that from the MSM. NYPD wanted to arrest her and Huma over emails found on the perverts laptop. Comey moved to protect her not hurt her. There was evidence of money laundering. She would have been done. And on her way to a grand jury.

While she ran an elitist campaign Trump went populist. John Podesta is an idiot. Great at dirty tricks but not very good at seeing the direction of the country. She should have hired David Axelrod. Axelrod could have won it for her. And Robby Mook is an amateur who had no business in the big show.

It didn't help that the pervert Weiner got caught at the worst moment. Weiner was much more a factor than Comey.

It was a perfect storm. She couldn't have beaten anyone the Reds put up.

The final nail in the coffin was the MSM. They got caught lying for her. And Trump people hate the MSM.

Mike Knapp's picture

Not into singular explanations

From June Flip side: if Trump wins, why did the Democrats lose
Oldy but goody "Achieving Our Country" by Richard Rorty 1999 via Greenwald retweet
rorty on political crack up 1999.jpg

Knoxgal's picture

I agree this was a big factor

I agree this was a big factor, but if the press had done its job, more liberals had voted, and Comey hadn't tipped the election, she would have won. Some key blue states that went red were very close, and she won the popular vote. The population you cite above was with Trump from the beginning. The election would have been close, but it would have tipped in her favor.

How about you? Did you "vote your conscience"? Are you one of those people who think a Trump presidency will ultimately be good for the liberal cause?

Mike Knapp's picture

First crack...

Was assembling some thoughts on a longer post, will take a crack. First off we recognize that the idea of how it could've gone down differently is impossible to test. The entrails and trendlines nonetheless require critical dissection. We also recognize the argument/convo that would be happening presently if Bernie had lost to Trump.

but if the press had done its job, more liberals had voted, and Comey hadn't tipped the election

Of this imv the role of the media, not just in this election but over the course of since say 30+ years, is one major factor in the rise of Trump. The propaganda model is decent starting point. His sh*t simply sells and he knows it (funding filter). Here's the president of CBS lifting the curtain via the Hollywood Reporter. The other propaganda piece is the role of Fox in all of this.

Leslie Moonves can appreciate a Donald Trump candidacy.
Not that the CBS executive chairman and CEO might vote for the Republican presidential frontrunner, but he likes the ad money Trump and his competitors are bringing to the network.

"It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS," he said of the presidential race. Moonves called the campaign for president a "circus" full of "bomb throwing," and he hopes it continues.
"Most of the ads are not about issues. They're sort of like the debates," he said. "Man, who would have expected the ride we're all having right now? ... The money's rolling in and this is fun," he said.

Wrt to "more liberals" voting and the Comey effect the prior in my view should be the central point of analysis. The emerging bottom line imho at this juncture is that while Trump reached Romney-like levels Dem turnout suffered bigly. Her margin was way down from Obama's esp with WWC in key battleground states. The Democratic Party, and by extension I think the "left", has to grapple with this clear phenomenon.

Look at these (via Liam Donovan who is outstanding on the data election numbers like a deceased friend of ours)
kerry v o.jpg

o v trump.jpg

Re: turnout - Ari Berman has simply been indispensable analyzing the GOP's playbook on voter supression. Notice btw the absurdist comedy of the GOP complaining that voter fraud is an issue precisely when it is not while "the liberal media" doesn't even begin a careful analysis of voter supression conducted by those complaining about fraud. This is another entrail that needs further reading. What happened in WI and MI for example, understanding this is vital moving forward.

Are you one of those people who think a Trump presidency will ultimately be good for the liberal cause?

I need to know exactly what the liberal cause is. I'll also say my own reaction to Trump is more personal as someone who has had personal, pernicious experiences with both narcissistic personality disorder and listening to Nazi remnant convo about race in Germany during the '80's. Dog whistles seem to have an international ring for humans... For someone to have NPD and be the president of the most powerful nation on earth with vast domestic spying capabilities is potentially one of the most disturbing developments in human history. I'm not kidding on this.

As far as the "ultimately" part I see multiple dimensions, right now clearly it is too soon to tell. Was/were the civil war/WWII/French & American revolutions good for the "liberal cause"?

Finally - we must take heart about what I believe you stated about who the preferred candidate was for younger groups and that- yet again - the Democratic Party won the electoral vote count and more Senate votes yet lost both. Electoral blocks like the RAE/EDM need to be assembled and maintained by good policies and politicians. Not just taken for granted.
PS - I appreciate the fire that you and Randy keep burning for us here. It's critical. Regardless of political persuasions I will never let politics get in the way of personal friendships, even with my dear friends who voted for you know who. If anything I for one dislike the borg almost as much as I do fascism.

Knoxgal's picture

Thanks Mike

Thanks Mike. I appreciate your contributions here, too. You bend me out of my comfort zone. I hope you caught that when referring to "voters of conscience" I said I didn't respect the position. I deliberately didn't say I didn't respect the person.

I need some time to read your links and digest the information you provide. Right now I need to go dig in the dirt and enjoy my camellias which are in full bloom. Gardening soothes my soul.

It's just all so horribly, horribly, depressing.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


From 1999?! Eerily predictive.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


I just re-read the June link you provided to conversation here at KV back then. It's well worth re-reading in its entirety.

Comments from fischbobber, Min, Dahlia, Stick, 36 years a Democrat and yes, me did prove to be predictive. And your own comment (below) was also spot on.

We have to admit we've got a problem. If the Democratic party continues the direction of neoliberal policies dressed up as Republican lite while steering clear of a careful analysis of its internal contradictions then the drift will continue. Why don't people turn out? Why did they vote in such large numbers for Sanders/Trump?

We as a political party must turn out attention to this...

OutdatedModel's picture

Maybe we can finally start addressing the real issues.

We are caught up in a global phenomenon: politics in the absence of "progressive social movements."

Kenan Malik provides some analysis:

"...if the rise of Trump to the White House represents anger and disaffection with the elite, it is no popular revolt. It is rather an expression of the absence of real revolt. Four out of five Trump voters saw the ability to bring change as his most important quality. Trump can be seen as an agent of change only because real agents of change, progressive social movements that can truly transform people’s lives, have largely eroded.

What we are witnessing is a crisis both of the political class and of progressive opposition to it. The political elite is so disengaged from the electorate that it failed to recognize the depth of anger and disaffection from mainstream institutions and its party machines have become so rusty that they could not check the Trump surge. And oppositional movements are so weakened that Trump can be seen by many as an agent of change.

It is this dual crisis that is unstitching politics, and not just in America. The same phenomenon is at play in Europe, driving the success of the reactionary populist groups from the Sweden Democrats to the Front National in France. And globally, too, from Turkey to India, from Egypt to South Africa, the old order is coming unstitched while opposition movements that have emerged to give voice to that disaffection are often rooted in religious or ethnic identity, and are often sectarian or separatist in form. As in Europe and the USA there is a hole where progressive social movements should be.

There have been many apocalyptic prognostications in the wake of Trump’s success. His victory, many claim, will lead to everything from the rise of fascism to the end of the West. The real issue lies less with Trump himself, than with the dual crisis of the elite and of opposition movement. It is how we address this, and in particular whether we are able to build real movements for change, that will shape the future, and not just in the USA."

Tamara Shepherd's picture


Thanks for that excerpt from the Kenan Malik piece citing "disengagement" of the political elite and a corresponding "populist" reaction to it. That's certainly my perception of what's happening (and needs to happen).

Do you possibly have a link to the entire opinion piece?

OutdatedModel's picture

If you haven't found it yet,

If you haven't found it yet, here it is:

Malik is very good.

fischbobber's picture

I just re-read the thread.

Creepy, wasn't it? What was weird/sad for me, as someone whose been doing this stuff for years, is that 35 years ago I could have brought that sort of published analysis to an editor and expected my next gig to pay more at a bigger publication.

Now? It more likely to get me censored.

People want the truth they want, not the reality of what exists. Truth-seekers are out of fashion.

Stick's picture

Good ol' Rorty

Labor historian Erik Loomis pointed that out the other day and is probably the source for Greenwald. Loomis' writing has been cathartic the past few days. This is worth your time: link

This is part of a larger massive failure of the entire political and economic establishment, which is five decades of indifference to communities decimated by globalization. Globalization has helped or hurt different parts of the nation in different ways. It has massively improved my home state of Oregon, which was really pretty poor as late as the mid-1980s and now is quite wealthy. Other coastal and urban areas have done as well. But we all know which communities have been the most left behind. They are the Democratic states that voted for Donald Trump. We need actual economic plans in the places people live. There are concrete political reasons for this–these states have a lot of electoral votes. Democrats have to pull enough white working class votes to win in those states. That means providing actual economic hope for people where they live. But that is not even close to being central to the national agenda, even on the left. Unfortunately, with automation likely to decimate even more jobs in the next years, even more white workers are probably going to be susceptible to racist appeals.

I now live in a rust belt city in NE Iowa that was decimated by globalization and the loss of manufacturing jobs. This area voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 08 and 12. A lot of desperate union members and folks who used to have union jobs switched to Trump this go around. Democrats can't win without them.

Waiting for the young'uns and changing demographics to save the party is a fool's journey.

Knoxgal's picture

One more thing: Voting your Conscience

I have one more thing to say. I have no respect for anyone's position that they "voted their conscience " by not voting or voting third party because they didn't like Clinton. Some on this board rationalized that TN was going to Trump anyway and they could afford to indulge their smug idealized view of themselves rather than deal in reality. YOU VOTED FOR TRUMP. Period. This happened across the country. If it hadn't, Clinton probably would have won, but even if she had lost, the popular vote in her favor would have been greater and collectively, we would now have a louder voice.

Still feel good about yourselves? The Muslim family across the street from me is scared.

OutdatedModel's picture

How dare people vote the way they want

"Maine Just Voted for a Better Way to Vote: And if we’d had it nationwide, it might have won Hillary Clinton the presidency.

On Tuesday, Maine became the first state to challenge America’s first-past-the-post voting system, as voters approved, by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent, a referendum instituting ranked-choice voting for state and federal elections. It’s by far the biggest victory for a reform movement that has attracted high-profile endorsements from politicians like John McCain and Howard Dean but had so far failed to gain traction beyond a few progressive American cities. For Maine, it’s a shift that could make third-party voting more viable overnight—by eliminating the ability of third-parties to play spoiler."


Of course, third parties didn't play spoiler in this election.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


Thanks, too, OutDated Model, for your link to the piece reporting that Maine has just adopted "ranked-choice" voting. It's interesting.

While I certainly don't dismiss the model out of hand, I did have some concern that critics say it can produce "results that tend to reward a kind of bland centrism." That's not anything we need, I know you'd agree, so I want to read up on it further.

But (groan) I have to take exception yet again to conflation here:

Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, the states that flipped from Barack Obama to Donald Trump, were all decided by a margin of victory smaller than the third-party vote in those states. Pennsylvania’s margin was 70,000 votes; 220,000 third-party votes were cast there. In none of those states did Donald Trump win a majority.

So I looked at election results for all four of these swing states. Again.

Pennsylvania election results now show Clinton down by 68,236. To back out the third-party vote, we would presumably give the conservative Johnson vote to Trump and let's just give ALL the other third-party votes to Clinton. That results in Clinton then being down by 141,081.

Florida election results now show Clinton down by 119,770. To back out the third party vote, we would presumably give the conservative Johnson vote to Trump and let's just give ALL the other third-party votes to Clinton. That results in Clinton then being down by 236,294.

Wisconsin election results now show Clinton down by 27,257. To back out the third party vote, we would presumably give the conservative Johnson vote to Trump and let's just give ALL the other third-party votes to Clinton. That results in Clinton then being down by 87,198.

Michigan election results now show Clinton down by a scant 11,837. To back out the third party vote, we would presumably give the conservative Johnson vote to Trump and let's just give ALL the other third-party votes to Clinton. Even in Michigan, that results in Clinton then being down by 115,012.

What's clear in results for all four of these swing states--and in results for the election nationally--is that conservative Johnson robbed from Trump far more votes than progressive Stein (even in combination with the remaining independents) robbed from Clinton.

Ranked-choice voting may well be worth our consideration, but I sure do object to how the author of this piece goes about trying to promote it.

OutdatedModel's picture

Yes, the Slate article is not

Yes, the Slate article is not the best endorsement of ranked-choice voting and the author provides no real evidence that it would have helped Clinton seal the election. I agree with your assessment, third parties were not spoilers.

However, ranked-choice voting would most likely have helped avoid the negative tension between Clinton supporters and those who backed alternate candidates. Greater civility is supposed to be one of its benefits and I would encourage the Clinton supporters to consider this reasonable solution before they lash out.

The League of Women Voters of Maine make their case in the Portland Press Herald:

"Like many of our sister leagues around the country, we endorsed ranked-choice voting as the best solution for Maine because it’s the only reform that gives voters the freedom to support their favorite candidate without worrying that their vote might be wasted or, worse, split with like-minded voters to unintentionally help elect the candidate you like the least.

We believe it will reduce negative campaigning and the money spent on negative advertising because candidates will need to appeal to a broader range of voters for first- and second-choice rankings to build a majority of support. As a voter, you are less likely to rank a candidate as your second choice if that candidate has launched personal attacks against your favorite candidate.

Ranked-choice voting also helps create a richer and, hopefully, more civil dialogue on the issues and increases the diversity of views available for voters to consider by allowing candidates from outside the two major parties to compete.

Under the current system, with more than two candidates in a race, politicians can win a primary and even a general election by talking only to a narrow base of supporters. Candidates appeal to their base and often engage in negative campaigning because it’s an effective strategy for winning elections. They remind their supporters why they dislike or fear the other candidate, rather than telling voters what they stand for themselves. Candidates who appeal to voters in a more positive way are more likely to govern as collaborative leaders.

Poll after poll tells us what we already know: Americans feel that our democracy is “out of balance,” that government is not addressing issues important to “us,” and that the power of wealthy special interests means we’re all not truly equal citizens. Americans want a fair, honest democracy and are hungry for ideas that move us toward more equal participation in civic life.

We fought to restore same-day voter registration in 2011 and to strengthen Maine’s first-in-the-nation Clean Elections law last fall because these policies, like ranked-choice voting, put more power in the hands of voters and move us toward the fairer, more honest democracy so many of us desire.

The implementation of ranked-choice voting in Maine’s state and federal elections will not be without challenges, but we have the right to determine how our democracy works and an obligation to our children and grandchildren to make the system work better. Ranked-choice voting is worthy of that effort for the civic benefits that it can bestow and will pay off many times over in a stronger democracy and a more responsive government.

— Special to the Press Herald"


FairVote also links to this article and much more.

Former Shelby County Commissioner and law professor, Steve Mulroy, is also an advocate.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

"Dealing with reality" (State Level)

I have one more thing to say. I have no respect for anyone's position that they "voted their conscience " by not voting or voting third party because they didn't like Clinton. Some on this board rationalized that TN was going to Trump anyway and they could afford to indulge their smug idealized view of themselves rather than deal in reality.

Tennessee's presidential election results in 2008 reveal that McCain beat Obama by 391,741 votes. Those same election results also reveal that the total third-party vote--for conservative and progressive candidates alike--totaled just 35,367 votes.

Even if we were to award all those third-party votes to Obama, we see that it would not have resulted in a win for the Democratic candidate in TN.

Tennessee's presidential election results in 2012 reveal that Romney beat Obama by 501,621 votes. Those same election results also reveal that the total third-party vote--for conservative and progressive candidates alike--totaled just 37,865 votes.

Even if we were to award all those third-party votes to Obama, we see that it would not have resulted in a win for the Democratic candidate in TN.

Tennessee's presidential election results in 2016 reveal that Trump beat Clinton by 650,292 votes. Those same election results also reveal that the total third-party votes--for conservative and progressive candidates alike--totaled just 100,179 votes.

Even if we were to award all those third-party votes to Clinton, we see that it would not have resulted in a win for the Democratic candidate in TN.

Election results for the last three presidential elections in Tennessee do not support a theory that the third-party vote prevented a win for the Democratic candidate, even if we award the totality of each election's third-party vote to that same year's Democratic candidate.

Mike Knapp's picture

Wisconsin reporting on HRC's WI loss

Craig Gilbert , Milwaukee Journal Sentinel November 12, 2016
Difference-makers in Trump's Wisconsin win

Blue-collar swing: Whites without college degrees are roughly half the electorate in Wisconsin. Romney won them by 8 last time. Trump won them by 28 this time.

Edison Research provided an exit-polling snapshot of these Wisconsin voters for this analysis.

It showed that “non-college” whites:

Were far more negative than other voters toward Clinton (68% had a negative opinion of her).
Had a bleaker view of the economy (67% called it not so good or poor).
Were much more negative about trade with other countries (61% said it takes away jobs).
Were more negative about immigration (45% said immigrants do more to hurt the country than help).
Many voters who had qualms about Trump set them aside. They didn’t do so in Clinton’s case. Those who had objections to both broke by large margins for Trump, the “change candidate.”

wisconsin results.jpg

Tamara Shepherd's picture

"Dealing with reality" (National Level)

National presidential election results in 2016 reveal that Clinton presently leads Trump in the popular vote (by 630,877 votes), as follows:

Clinton 60,981,118
Trump 60,350,241

Those same results also reveal third-party voting as follows:

Johnson 4,164,589
Stein 1,255,968
Others 840,260

If we were to award all third-party votes--conservative and progressive alike--to Clinton, obviously her margin of victory in the popular vote would widen.

However, no evidence exists to suggest that third-party votes cast for conservative candidates might have gone for Clinton, had the conservative third-party candidates not been in the race.

In the absence of any such evidence, a far more reasonable assumption is that third-party votes cast for conservative candidates would have gone to Trump and third-party votes cast for progressive candidates would have gone to Clinton, had no third-party candidates been in the race.

The absence of any third-party candidates at all in the race, then, would reasonably have resulted in a scenario looking like this:

Trump + Johnson equals
60,350,241 + 4,164,589 or 64,514,830 total

Clinton + Stein + all other third-party candidates (a gift, really) equals

60,981,118 + 1,255,968 + 840,260 (a gift) or 63,077,346 total

We see, then, that when we award third-party votes to the major candidates in a manner that may be assumed reasonable given the leanings--conservative or progressive--of those third-party candidates, Clinton's lead in the popular vote evaporates.

In fact, Clinton's resulting loss in the popular vote without third parties in the race (which becomes 1,437,484) would be greater than Trump's loss in the popular vote now being recorded with third parties in the race (which now appears to be 630,877).

This seems a reasonable analysis of how third-party voting has helped Clinton in her present popular vote tally.

In short, more third-party voters cast their votes for conservative Johnson than they did for progressive Stein and all others third-party candidates combined. Pull 'em out and Trump wins even bigger.

Mike Knapp's picture

Analytics n stuff

Joshua Green & Sasha Issenberg at Bloomberg 11/10/16

Trump’s Data Team Saw a Different America—and They Were Right

Inside his campaign, Trump’s analysts became convinced that even their own models didn’t sufficiently account for the strength of these voters. “In the last week before the election, we undertook a big exercise to reweight all of our polling, because we thought that who [pollsters] were sampling from was the wrong idea of who the electorate was going to turn out to be this cycle,” says Matt Oczkowski, the head of product at London firm Cambridge Analytica and team leader on Trump’s campaign. “If he was going to win this election, it was going to be because of a Brexit-style mentality and a different demographic trend than other people were seeing.”

Makes sense to me's picture

MTP and Sunday Morning This Week

After being completely wrong abut the election the talking heads continue their denial.

Speaking of denial. Why would anyone want Keith Ellison to head the DNC? We're just going to swear off the rust belt states forever? Did anyone learn anything this past week?

Mike Knapp's picture

Explain why Ellison is a bad choice

Who is a good choice and why

Makes sense to me's picture


How in the world is he a "good" choice? Did you pay attention last week?

Mike Knapp's picture

I didn't say he was or wasn't

I'm asking you to make the argument beyond saying he isn't.

Makes sense to me's picture

academia denial

"I'm asking you to make the argument beyond saying he isn't."

I don't have the time or patience to educate you on the obvious demographics last week proved.

EMILY's List President Stephanie Schriock or former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm would be far superior choices.

Too much time in the data can blind you to the obvious.

Average Guy's picture

I'll play

Whether you think Islam is great, benign or a problem - many Americans have an opinion on it.

Gallup shows it's unfavorable; (link...)

After just running a presidential candidate that started with higher negative ratings than positive, does having and Ellison take the helm of the party platform make sense?

I get that xenophobia should not have a place in American policy, but policy ain't politics.

29% of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. Does the Party think they'll get these people by putting an actual Muslim in charge of the Party?

Get the biggest champion of religious and civil rights you find, but from an optics standpoint, probably better done by somebody not starting out on defense.

Makes sense to me's picture

that wasn't so hard was it?

Academia cannot walk a mile in another person's shoes. They're too enveloped in the data.

Life long Democrats in the rust belt gave a clear message that the DNC refuses to hear. BLM and Soros protests hurt us badly. Our party has never been so fragmented. But Mike Knapp sounds just like the people on "Meet the Press". Oblivious. Our data shows otherwise.

The DNC wants not only Keith Ellison they want Chelsea Clinton too. How stupid can the DNC be? Apparently, pretty damned stupid. Why not make Shaun King the head of the DNC?

We can't win without the rust belt unless the Electoral College is done away with.

Donald Trump has a lot of kids. You have to think about a Trump dynasty that goes on forever. I really believe the first woman President will be Ivanka Trump.

Donald Trump was smarter than everyone else. He destroyed both political parties. He rules what is left of one of them.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is King. His name is Trump.

Makes sense to me's picture

announces run for DNC chair


Looks like the trend continues.

Average Guy's picture


screw Dean and all his winning.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


Per the Politico story you shared, it looks like Ellison has some broad support--from folks outside the Sanders camp, I mean--even three of four months out.


Ellison, who played a prominent role in Sen. Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, has already been endorsed for chairman by Sanders and Sens. Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, as well as Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Sen. Elizabeth Warren also said Ellison would make a "terrific" chairman.

A list of state and local endorsements followed that list, and there was this observation, too:

"I think there is a great deal to be said for putting an active Sanders supporter in there. I want to go into 2020 without these kinds of suspicions and paranoia," former Rep. Barney Frank, who backed Clinton, said Monday.

And Ellison has organizational support here:

Shortly after Ellison's announcement, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, endorsed him. The PCCC, a liberal outside group, aligns itself closely with Warren.

But the most important endorsement Ellison presumably has is noted here:

"I believe very strongly that the Sanders base is the future of our Democratic party, that is where the party's going between the millennials and Gen-Xers," (DNC Committeewoman Erin) Bilbray said. "They want new ideas and I think Ellison represents that. Dean is a good man but he comes from a different era."

If you were offering this piece as evidence of why we should not support Ellison, I'm not sure it worked!?

(We should be talking about this on the "DNC Housekeeping" thread, you know. This thread is long enough, already.)

Makes sense to me's picture


Has said some unfortunate things about Jewish people. So combined with losing the rust belts state the DNC wants to throw Florida away?

President Obama is a Methodist. He would not have been elected if he was a Muslim.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


For the benefit of anyone who (like me) has already used up their ten free page views at the NYT this month--likely this week--Politico also has updated election results here.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

Background: Obama's rule change on overtime pay

Pence is referring to the same overtime rule change I reported here at KV back in March, in the thread entitled Dept of Labor submitting its proposed overtime rule changes to Obama today.

From my text then:

Under badly eroded guidelines for when employers must offer overtime pay, just 11% of salaried workers and 18% of all workers were eligible for overtime in 2013. This was due primarily to the fact that only hourly paid workers and those earning $23,660 a year or less in salary have been guaranteed overtime pay in recent years.

Obama's plan, which I assume was the action taken, was to raise that threshold to $50,440 a year, thereby expanding the pool of eligible workers by more than five million people.

All of which came about too late to have helped my household. My husband had worked for 18 years for a local engineering firm that had paid his overtime at straight-time rates.

And not only that, they had also followed a policy of sitting on those wages for up to three months and paying them out just quarterly at straight-time rates.

And not only that, they had also followed a policy of taxing them for FIT purposes at a flat 25% (whether or not the employee might be in a lower FIT bracket) AND sitting on those wages for up to three months AND paying the overtime at straight-time rates.

That is, they did this until they decided they could save even more money by just laying off half their staff and outsourcing the work to temps, at lower rates with no employee benefits.

Sure, I'm ticked off at Repubs, but where were Dems during those 18 years? Thanks for nothing, you collective of establishment pols.

fischbobber's picture


This may be the break unions need to get people to take a long, hard look at where profit really comes from and who has actually earned it.

And Tamara, we're right here, screaming into the wilderness, same as always.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


Over the course of 18 years, my household lost many tens of thousands of dollars to those policies.

And I neglected to mention that this same firm routinely lands contracts with both the City of Knoxville and Knox County governments, effectively getting the taxpayers to subsidize their employment practices.

But no, I'm not content to "scream into the wilderness." I'm headed back to my progressive Facebook chums in 3, 2, 1...

jbr's picture

Rural America looks to Donald Trump for revival

from Tennessean via ...

Barnett and Staggs were more concerned about Clinton’s possible U.S. Supreme Court appointees, people they thought would have taken their guns and loosened immigration restrictions.

“I’ve been stressed for eight years,” Staggs said.

Rural America looks to Donald Trump for revival

jbr's picture

Trump takes credit for saving Ford jobs that weren't going to Me

from CNN ...

In September, when Trump wrongly claimed Ford was planning to move all production to Mexico, Ford CEO Mark Fields came out and said he was flat out wrong about company plans.

"Absolutely not. Zero. Not one job will be lost. Most of our investment is here in the US. And that's the way it will continue to be," Fields said in September. "It's really unfortunate when politics get in the way of the facts."

Trump takes credit for saving Ford jobs that weren't going to Mexico

bizgrrl's picture

Of course, those that voted

Of course, those that voted for him will believe him. The truth doesn't matter, it is illusive.

Mike Knapp's picture


Gabrielle Sherman in NY Magazine
Experts Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results in 3 Swing States

The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000. While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review — especially in light of the fact that the Obama White House has accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee.

bizgrrl's picture

Due to the weird things that

Due to the weird things that have been happening with this election cycle, e.g. email hacking, it might be a good idea to challenge these results to ensure nothing went wrong with these e-voting machines. How in the world anything could be determined could be interesting.

However, as showed up in the comments to that article, will Trump or his administration or someone else then pursue "using the full force of the Federal legal machine to prosecute and imprison this ignoble couple along with their buffoon sidekick Podesta"?

The threats are quite ridiculous but I wouldn't want someone with that much money after me.

jbr's picture

If there is a reasonable

If there is a reasonable amount of evidence it seems like it would have to be investigated. Whether the Clinton campaign challenged or not.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


This from someone whom you know was not a Clinton supporter: Given the several unusual circumstances in this election, particularly the allegation of Russian interference, I would support an independent review of the vote in these three (I've also read four) states.

(I read last night that in one of these states, the deadline for making such a request is TODAY. In another of these states, the deadline is Friday. I also read that Obama opposes any inquiry. In any event, this would have to happen very, very quickly.)

fischbobber's picture


It appears Gloria Stein is calling for a recount. Looks like she may end up winning the election for Hillary.

jbr's picture

Green Party Candidate Calls for Recount in Key Swing States


The Green Party did not single out any specific evidence of fraud, nor does it need proof of irregularities to call for a recount. Instead, Stein said, "After a divisive and painful presidential race, reported hacks into voter and party databases and individual email accounts are causing many Americans to wonder if our election results are reliable. These concerns need to be investigated before the 2016 presidential election is certified. We deserve elections we can trust."

Green Party Candidate Calls for Recount in Key Swing States

fischbobber's picture

Sorry, Jill Stein.

Peak season at UPS. I'm getting old. Frazzling early this year.

bizgrrl's picture



bizgrrl's picture

Stein tells supporters she

Stein tells supporters she needs to raise "over $2 million by this Friday, 4 p.m. central" in order to put her plan to action.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


Good on Stein (although I'm not sure I understand why she or the Green Party would have to pay for any recount?).

All I know is that any breach of our country's electronic voting methodology has implications for every election, this one and the ones to come.

Now and always, we just have to be sure.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

Stein recount request

Well, apparently states do charge the party making the request for a recount (maybe you knew, but I didn't).

Here is CNBC's coverage as to the costs of the three recounts.

Here is how to donate to Stein's effort to cover those costs (via her website).

jbr's picture

Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win

from Washington Post ...

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Agency briefers told the senators it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

bizgrrl's picture

This is so outrageous. If we

This is so outrageous. If we are the most powerful country on earth, then why can't we figure this out and do something if it did happen? It's like no one is really doing anything.

The emperors new clothes."no one dares to say that they don't see any suit of clothes on him for fear that they will be seen as "unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent".


Moscow is launching a similar effort to influence the next German election, following an escalating campaign to promote far-right and nationalist political parties and individuals in Europe that began more than a decade ago, the official said.

jbr's picture


My vocabulary is expanding. First "malefactors" now this


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is used to make sure you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.


TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

State .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Monthly archive