• strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home1/buriedpl/public_html/drupal/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home1/buriedpl/public_html/drupal/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 607.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home1/buriedpl/public_html/drupal/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 607.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home1/buriedpl/public_html/drupal/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 159.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_validate() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_validate(&$form, &$form_state) in /home1/buriedpl/public_html/drupal/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 134.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_submit() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_submit(&$form, &$form_state) in /home1/buriedpl/public_html/drupal/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 134.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home1/buriedpl/public_html/drupal/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_field_user::init() should be compatible with views_handler_field::init(&$view, $options) in /home1/buriedpl/public_html/drupal/sites/all/modules/views/modules/user/views_handler_field_user.inc on line 47.

2016 Post Mortem

Looking like Michigan is Trump's (12000 votes) and New Hampshire Clinton's (2600 votes), to finish 306-232. Or much higher than I expected. Hell, I expected 2012 map to hold, or about flipped on the EV count. Even going into Tuesday evening, I thought P-E HRC was a fait accompli and figured it was a good thing Pens hockey was on to distract. Then we watched two hours off the DVR before turning on FNC about 1145pm, to quite the surprise of the results. Small vote margins: Looks like Ayotte lost in NH Sen by about 700 votes. Think she was one that distanced herself from Trump, but she got more votes than Trump or Clinton in NH, just that her opponent got more. FTR, we weren't enamored by Trump as much as we were voting against HRC. Not that it mattered in Virginia, where the Blue region in NOVA keeps expanding each election. (Think of Fairfax County as being Virginia's Philadephia - with the ring counties of Arlington/Loudoun/Prince William along with the independent cities appurtenant thereto acting like Bucks, Chester, Delaware, etc. in PA) The talk about the electoral college: recall that the first couple elections had no direct state elections. Each state is left to its own to detirmine their method of selecting electors. That is why Maine and Nebraska are allowed to, and have, shifted to split EVs by Congressional district. Is it a good idea? I'm not so sure. I think this election may be the first one where Maine has split their EVs with Trump taking one of the CD's - think they've had the system since 1972. (Nebraska, much newer, split one EV for Obama in 2012) If the whole country took that model, we'd essentially have a parliamentary system where the winner would mirror the majority in the House, with the Senate EVs going to the state's popular winner. In this case, it would still be a Trump winner, as Trump carried 30 states, Clinton 20 + DC. 239+60 = 299 for Trump, with 193+40+3 =236 for Clinton with a couple of uncalled house races. Sure, not every house district will mirror the top of the ticket, but the method yields similar results to the present winner-take-all model in total EV. It's more complex for sure. In the end, it's not up to Congress what method each state uses. It's up to each state. And neither party has a reason to push for that change in states they presently control and win as they only dilute their own vote. Why EV? The founders realized the need to have a President of all the people, and not just a regional one. Close PV races become not so close EV totals, 2000 notwithstanding, which was close in both. It also decreases the chances of fraud effecting the outcome by making it much harder to affect the entire result, requiring a concerted effort to sway multiple states instead of simply raw votes. See Virginia this year and McAuliffe's 60k felons. The EC keeps acts like that from influencing the national result. Instead it was limited to the single state, and while it did help Clinton win Virginia, Virginia could not win the election for Clinton. http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174 Interesting in the vote breakdown of the 14 Swing states (by Cook's definition), showing Trump bested Clinton in the Popular vote for those 14 states, by just under a point and a half, while losing overall by just 3 tenths. We'll see how the numbers bare out when remaining absentees are counted nationwide, remembering that all one needed for a military absentee was a day-of-election postmark. I'd wager at this point it will come out to about a 1% gap in favor of HRC when all is said and done but election-night talking heads thought it would already be a 2,000,000 vote gap on election night. Someone mentioned 6 of 7 GOP candidates not getting a PV majority... secret is, only 2 times (by 1 candidate) in that same span have the Dem got a PV majority. That's right - 4 out of 7, no one got a PV majority. 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2016. Gore's PV margin was about 450000 votes, about where we are now. Number of states won was the same - 30 to 20+DC. Nevada-Colorado-Virginia-New Hampshire replaced by Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Though one can wonder what the early errant call for Florida in 2000 for Gore did to western turnout, as it for sure cost the GOP several Senate races. Just be thankful our national elections don't have runoffs like Louisiana!

Theme provided by Danetsoft under GPL license from Danang Probo Sayekti