2016 US Presidential Election and Fallout

[Warks]

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Clearly 50% of the American population is crazy. You decide which 50%

(mine's the half that doesn't bother to vote)

 

[Quickstatus]

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

True democracy = optional voting.

Wonder what effect did Obama's relaxation of Cuban embargo did to Hilary's prospects.
Lots of Cuban Americans did not like it.

 

[Pushka]

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Share market is no better than gambling. I wonder who sold off big yesterday? Hopefully not managers of Superannuation Funds.

 

[OATEK]

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

There is a lot of discussion about "True" democracy on here, and none of it seems to relate that to an intellectual or theoretical base.

When the Demos was summoned to make decisions in Ancient Greece, they were given a certain amount of time to turn up and then a popular vote was taken. Seem fairly similar to the US election?

The thing about democracy is that there is no one clear model, some are constructed by formal constitutions, some by informal constitutions, some have presidents, some have monarchs. A few have compulsory voting, many do not. Some have preferential voting, most do not. All seem have political elites, and occasionally they fail. Ah, the joys of trying to understand democracy - a bit like trying to grab a hold of jelly.

 

[Pushka]

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

I think preferential voting is the antithesis to democracy. That and poorly constructed electoral boundaries - a plague in SA.

 

[Warks]

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Having elections on work days is anti-democratic in my opinion. But that's how they do it most places, missing out on the all-important sausage sizzles.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

You started it - ref: Coles bay / Freycinet. Despite that, the reality is I am opinionated and like it when I am proved correct!

"You started it"

Well, that's always a winning debating point. I'm sure we all like it when we are correct, but some have less success in this regard than others.

But back on topic. Interesting to see the market prices this morning; banks and golds mirror images of each other since the open yesterday, but both almost back to their morning prices yesterday which for the banks included an expected-Clinton-win premium. BHP also well up this morning. Might be a good opportunity to cut the apron strings there (held 'em for over 20 years) as I don't think they'll be doing much divvie-wise in the next few years.

 

[RAM]

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Does anyone know how many Americans voted?

What is it about having a Clinton run for president, once they have a known presence, to stop voters turning out? See what Bill did to the turnout before Monica...



Interesting to see which 2nd term presidents (won naturally to be 2nd term) AND had a larger voter turnout AND larger victory.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

What is it about having a Clinton run for president, once they have a known presence, to stop voters turning out? See what Bill did to the turnout before Monica...

View attachment 83923

Interesting to see which 2nd term presidents (won naturally to be 2nd term) AND had a larger voter turnout AND larger victory.

That is a fascinating graph, but for turnout % not only the winner but also the opposing candidate would be handy to have there.

 

[TheRealTMA]

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Share market is no better than gambling. I wonder who sold off big yesterday? Hopefully not managers of Superannuation Funds.

I bought yesterday afternoon

 

[BettyB]

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Share market is no better than gambling.

That's usually the comment from someone that has recently lost a lot of money on the market.

For me, yesterdays over reaction was very obvious. I always knew the market would bounce back, but I didn't expect it to be this quick.

I also bought big around 3.30pm yesterday. Have dumped everything today for between 3 and 10% profit. Money for jam

 

[moa999]

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Same here. Bought GEAR (a geared ETF). Sold most out this morning for a 7% gain.

 

[Pushka]

2016 US Presidential Election

That's usually the comment from someone that has recently lost a lot of money on the market.

For me, yesterdays over reaction was very obvious. I always knew the market would bounce back, but I didn't expect it to be this quick.

I also bought big around 3.30pm yesterday. Have dumped everything today for between 3 and 10% profit. Money for jam

Only lose when you sell. Haven't sold shares for some months except for the Telstra buy back. So not applicable.

Our shares are in an SMSF and so require an investment strategy to ensure long term growth. Day trading is seen as 'running a business' and which is prohibited.

 

[penegal]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Something like a 53% voter turnout in USA election - is USA home of democracy or home of apathy?

Is a personal decision to participate or not in a Federal Election a reflection of TRUE democracy?

Both. If you tell an American that we have compulsory voting they can't believe how "un-democratic" that is.

To win any position at any level of government in the US, you only need 25% to 30% of the public to come out and vote for you.

 

[OATEK]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Both. If you tell an American that we have compulsory voting they can't believe how "un-democratic" that is.

To win any position at any level of government in the US, you only need 25% to 30% of the public to come out and vote for you.

Much the same in the UK, so quite representative of the major democracies.

 

[burmans]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Much the same in the UK, so quite representative of the major democracies.

It seems ironic to me that we as the people are so ready to accepts the thought that "this is the way it is therefore we would accept it". There are many different democratic models in the world, and in my view some work way better than others. In my view a good change would be to have a "none of these" vote. I.e. in the latest election you could have said, actually both of these are rubbish, go back to the drawing board. Ignoring the stupidly long time it takes to elect a president I actually think this would have been the best result from yesterdays election and if offered the opportunity Americans may have actually voted that way.

 

[Pushka]

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

But 'none of these' might win! Then what?

 

[RAM]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

It seems ironic to me that we as the people are so ready to accepts the thought that "this is the way it is therefore we would accept it". There are many different democratic models in the world, and in my view some work way better than others. In my view a good change would be to have a "none of these" vote. I.e. in the latest election you could have said, actually both of these are rubbish, go back to the drawing board. Ignoring the stupidly long time it takes to elect a president I actually think this would have been the best result from yesterdays election and if offered the opportunity Americans may have actually voted that way.

In many ways 'compulsory' voting aka 'forced' voting falls right into the thrust of George Orwell's "1984".

There is a wide body of research dating back to the late 60s that showed just how powerful the media is when it comes to election outcomes. Not that the media is an accurate predictor but that when the media (print and free-to-air TV and radio which never gets mentioned) are overwhelmingly in favour of one side - then there is about 8-12% of the vote that supports the candidate(s) declared by the media to be the near-certain winners.

A large enough (to change the outcome of many elections) proportion of voters 'like' to be able to say they voted for the winner AND they do not care what political party the winner represents. What drives them is their 'desire' to be part of the winning group.

Exactly the same issue that drives much advertising spend.

So in this latest example where there were 80x the adverts against Trump/for Clinton (see Pew for full info and very interesting graphs showing different demographic support over time). 100% of print and free-to-air TV mainstream media also declared for Clinton - that should have resulted in a very significant increase in the Clinton vote.

That Trump won is even more intriguing (alarming for the establishment players and donors).

Back to '1984' 100% media support for one candidate is exactly what Big Brother was all about.

BTW - did you know that the TVs described in '1984' have been available for around 2 years now? The 'smart' (for whom?) TVs with web interfaces and personal detection (can detect difference between different people through their motion sensors) which can tailor what program reminders get displayed and other not necessarily specified uses - are watching you very closely.

Anyone see the announcement (not well publicised) that one 'free' app for Firefox and others was secretly (aka without permission nor disclosure) compiling data on every search you did, page you looked at, how long, content type etc - and selling the information?

Mozilla announced in the last week or so that they had withdrawn it from their site for use with Firefox. They did not make it obvious though...

 

[Warks]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Did anyone see on TV how there were ads which said "To vote for Hillary, text HILLARY to this number"? - makes you wonder how many were fooled by that (and if it was real, of course).

 

[burmans]

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

But 'none of these' might win! Then what?

You'd have another election. I've forgotten which country but there is actually one which has this option.