2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

[0]

Can my eyes roll back further into my own skull from seeing more of these stupid variations of "poisoned skittles" arguments? Find out next time on JDJACKET-Z

Considering this thread already has links about muslim terrorist activity in relation to immigrants that pretty neatly throws that in the garbage where it belongs, what's next on the agenda?

"Anyone who likes Trump is a racist."
"Anyone who doesn't like Clinton is a retard."
"Wha... What? I'm not calling you a racist. But, if you support a racist, you are a racist, duh?"
- AlienCommander

 

[Sir Codin]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Third party voters and abstainers are largely responsible for this unfortunate turn of events imo.

Right because all of those third party votes would've gone to Hillary.........

 

[Aliencommander1245]

"Anyone who likes Trump is a racist."
"Anyone who doesn't like Clinton is a retard."
"Wha... What? I'm not calling you a racist. But, if you support a racist, you are a racist, duh?"
- AlienCommander

You caught me mid-post making so it's all wonky now but... uh? I never called all Trump supporters racist and have literally said the opposite continually and constantly over the course of this discussion.

You're... kind of right. I'm baffled as to how you could support the candidate who's policies are lalmost all either objectively bad for the country (his economic plans), nonexistent/vague (I'll do X) or worse than Clinton's in every way conceivable, Plus Trump really is an awful person, with his VP being worse

Yep, that's sort of the point i'm getting across. What's the functional difference between being racist, and voting/supporting someone you know will be racist in your stead? And enact racist laws/policies ect

Can we be fair and acknowledge that you keep dropping the rest of his bigotry to laser focus on race here, though, because that's fairly interesting

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Can my eyes roll back further into my own skull from seeing more of these stupid variations of "poisoned skittles" arguments? Find out next time on JDJACKET-Z

Considering this thread already has links about muslim terrorist activity in relation to immigrants and how strong/indepth the vetting process for refugees is that pretty neatly throws that in the garbage where it belongs, what's next on the agenda?

Perhaps I mis-wrote that. To rephrase "I have observed how the lesser beings of each population have acted, and their numbers, and compared to whites, the ratio of blacks being less civilized is pretty great." I would change population to race. Within the various races in society, I have observed more uncivilized blacks compared to whites. As in a bigger ratio.

You're lucky i'm fairly sure swearing is against the rules, because this is just as far removed from reality, racist and absolute nonsense as the "mis-written" one.

What do you even consider "uncivilised" so this can be debunked and put to bed with the civil war where it belongs (The joke is that racism didn't mainstream die after the civil war)

I don't know what that first quote or second quote is? I guess the first one is yours? Second mine? What genuine fear do black people still have of white people? 50+ year old history? All I see now is white people bending over backwards to appease blacks, and that's simply not how it should be.

First quote was what was said, second quote is what you said.

You... Wow. "What genuine fear do black people still have of white people"
Racism. Institutional racism. Violence. Targeted laws, like the voter ID laws struck down because they were directly intended to stop as many black people from being able to vote as possible. The KKK. Lack of social equity. Population creep.

"All I see now is white people bending over backwards to appease blacks, and that's simply not how it should be."

Is gross full stop. To start with, no one is doing this "bending over backwards to appease blacks" unless by that you mean... actually addressing issues concerning them? "That's simply not how it should be" carries a scary white supremacist tone. What's "The way it should be"? Because that is so close to actual rhetoric about "knowing their place" that i can't tell if it's a mistake or intended to be that

As to your second quote, I understand the history perfectly well. I am not fearful of and race or color. I simply am telling you that, from what I have observed, black people have a > percentage of uncivilized people compared to whites. That doesn't mean that I somehow hate all blacks or think they are all lesser or whatever. As I said, I have plenty of black friends, and I don't think they are lesser then me one bit.

Why the sudden surge of the "I have X friends!!!" thing, is my question to no one in particular

Anyway, you literally said a group of black people would scare you enough for you to cross the street and walk on the other side of the road from them. This IS racist, but we're talking about a different thing as the main focus, you are saying they're lesser as a whole because you're saying more are """uncivilised""", and this is some intrinsic trait native to african american people somehow

You misread my point, and I do hope the above points cleared this up.

I really did not misread it. But, those points don't change that it's just one minority you're laser focusing on here anyway.

And that's how civil wars are started.

Calling people out on their bigotry? Yeah i'd say that was the focus of THE civil war, so

I can see everything here but Buddhism. Out of all of the world religions I have ever seen and their scriptures, Buddhism happens to hold a special exclusion for me for being the one that says nothing negative. No stoning, no killing, no hating on infidels or whatever which all of those religions seem to blow over. Not a single scrap of that can be found in Buddhism or it's scripture(?), the Pali Canon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

Sort of

Atheism also has it's faults as well. I have seen many vehement atheists who staunchly advocate atheism. I've even seen some atheists who act more religiously then Christians.

Militant Atheism, presumably the "religious" atheists you're talking about, are actually a pain and i'd agree. But it's hardly fair to call people being douches about their atheism a fault of the... lack of religion, i guess, as much as it's not fair to apply that to any relgion

 

[Frozocrone]

Clinton had just as many reasons not to vote for her. Proven liar, not in touch with the working class, accepting money from other countries, for the Iraq war, etc etc...

Don't blame the voters for not voting Clinton, blame the Democratic Party for not putting their best candidate forward. This was a lose lose situation for America either way.

Bernie Sanders said it best with his statement.

Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer.

"To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.

 

[gimmepie]

Right because all of those third party votes would've gone to Hillary.........

I expect the majority of them would have if the popular vote is any indication. I think if forced to choose between a very dangerous man and conceding to the establishment - without the option to play dumb to it all - most people would make the better decision.

 

[gimmepie]

Friendly reminder to all posters past and present that you can disagree without being a dick.

Carry on.

 

[Sir Codin]

I expect the majority of them would have if the popular vote is any indication. I think if forced to choose between a very dangerous man and conceding to the establishment - without the option to play dumb to it all - most people would make the better decision.

Clinton won the popular vote by .2%

I think instead of shaming people for voting for a candidate who wasn't Trump, you should direct your anger towards the people who are actually responsible for Trump being in office: the 59.6-million who actually voted for the guy.

Blaming third-party voters when half the general voting population went for Trump is just dumb, egotistical, shaming, and hateful. Period.

 

[gimmepie]

Clinton won the popular vote by .2%

I think instead of shaming people for voting for a candidate they believed was most qualified for the job (as most third-party guys tend to do), you should direct your anger towards the people who are actually responsible for Trump being in office: the 59.6-million who actually voted for the guy.

Blaming third-party voters when half the general voting population went for Trump is just dumb, egotistical, shaming, and hateful. Period.

I'm not talking about the people who legitimately believed in the third party candidates. I'm talking about people who chose to vote for anyone (or nobody) simply because they were misguided enough to think both options were equally bad.

I am not the type who would normally shame people over their choice of vote, but this is not a typical situation and at least the majority of Trump supporters truly believed in their candidate. Even if from an objective standpoint it's pretty clear he was not the better choice.

 

[Sir Codin]

I'm not talking about the people who legitimately believed in the third party candidates. I'm talking about people who chose to vote for anyone (or nobody) simply because they were misguided enough to think both options were equally bad.

I am not the type who would normally shame people over their choice of vote, but this is not a typical situation and at least the majority of Trump supporters truly believed in their candidate. Even if from an objective standpoint it's pretty clear he was not the better choice.

True, neither was good, but they were not equally bad. Hillary was still better. But a lot of people believed they were equally bad and voted for a candidate they believe would not be as bad as either of them. I'm not going to say I agree with that, but I think the attitude you are holding towards them is part of the much larger problem that I think fueled what happened:

People are tired of shame. People are sick of being shamed for having their opinions and choices.

That's one of the biggest underlying reasons why Trump got so popular: the man is a trash-talking bloviating non-politician who has no shame. He's always historically been a pathological narcissist. He says anything he wants and doesn't care what people think of him for it and a lot of Trump supporters find that appealing.

I don't know if you've noticed this, but in the past several years with all the "SJW" "feminazi" "#NotAllMen" "MRA misogynists" blah blah blah BS, shame has become a more common tool in political discussion and discourse than ever before, we've both even seen it on this very site.

Blaming third-party voters or non-voters and shaming them as social pariahs who are at fault for Hitler 2.0 (not your words, but the general atmosphere I'm seeing in a lot of places) are just more fuel for the fire for creating more of one the types of people who swayed towards Trump two days ago.

It helps no one, it doesn't convince people of the merits of voting, and it doesn't solve anything.

 

[Caaethil]

No, you're just politically unaware and completely swindled by his lies and rhetoric

False and false. I hate Trump almost as much as I hate Clinton. I think you need to take a breather, man.

 

[User19sq]

Exactly. Clinton is currently winning the popular vote by 230,000 votes and the NYT expects her to beat Trump by about 700,000 votes when all of California and Washington is fully tallied up, making it a C+1.2 race. Clearly something is wrong here. But, funnily enough, polls were less wrong this year than in 2012.

The "one person, one vote" argument would've allowed Clinton to win because more people want her in office. But we have the electoral college system, which the founding fathers implemented to keep us from true democracy. Their reason was: the U.S. was still a new country, so they didn't wanna screw it up so soon.

It was okay then, but horridly outdated now. This means the next president is decided by a handful of swing states. Or as Trevor Noah put it: "Trump wins due to yet another bullsh*t college".

 

[Esper]

Considering Islamic Terrorists alone have carried out about 25,000 -29,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11. Granted, that's globally and not domestically and there have been less attacks in Europe than the US.

Maybe it's time to look at who the perpetrators are? I will say that people that do attack abortion clinics (there were about 7 last year?) in the US are still an issue, but once again, if someone is going to defend Islam because 'those are just extremists' than we can put Christian extremists on the same plate. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Besides, I'm not arguing we should stop looking for any terrorists. Don't you think it's counter productive to leave the door open for more attackers when you're still dealing with domestic terrorists like you said? So now you're fighting both foreign and domestic terrorists?

Let me put this to you. There are lots of homegrown extreme right-wing white Christian extremists in America. Do we surveil all the Christians in America? Just the right-wring ones? It's more productive to look for people who express radical and violent ideologies and focus attention on them. Muslims might be a smaller group in America than Christians, but there are still millions. You can't watch them all, and you shouldn't. Wait to see if someone develops a penchant for violent extremism before you go busting down the door. Accept that people aren't criminals by default. Similarly, accept that the process for obtaining visas, for being granted refugee status, is already pretty strict and rigorous and that it by itself will prevent lots of dangerous people from coming to the country without a need to single out all Muslims.

I'm not trying to be racist here as I agree that every religion, ideology etc has radicals but i think Muslim terrorists are a bit more of a threat just because those are the ones actively committing acts of violence When was the last time you saw a radical christian behead someone?

"Christian militias in Central African Republic 'burnt witches at stake', says UN report" [source] This was last year.

"Three Arrested in Bomb Plot Targeting Somalis in Kansas" [source] This was last month.

Granted, it's not beheadings, but I think it still counts in spirit. Now, you may say that's just two examples and that's true. But when you have a place like Iraq or Syria where there is little safety then of course you're going to have violent extremists out in force attacking and killing people. It's not because they're Muslim per se, it's that most people in that part of the world are Muslim. Look at all the dictators and guerrilla groups across Latin America from the last hundred years. Christian terrorists right there.

 

[Caaethil]

The "one person, one vote" argument would've allowed Clinton to win because more people want her in office. But we have the electoral college system, which the founding fathers implemented to keep us from true democracy. Their reason was: the U.S. was still a new country, so they didn't wanna screw it up so soon.

It was okay then, but horridly outdated now. This means the next president is decided by a handful of swing states. Or as Trevor Noah put it: "Trump wins due to yet another bullsh*t college".

Many people who marginally prefer Trump over Hillary will have voted third party because they live in a blue state anyway, and vice versa. It is impossible to know what would have happened if the popular vote decided the winner, because the tactics behind voting would have been completely different.

It seems a bit silly to me to suggest that Hillary's marginal lead in the popular vote would still exist without the college. I doubt we could ever predict which way it would have gone.

 

[Sektor]

Spoiler:

Let me put this to you. There are lots of homegrown extreme right-wing white Christian extremists in America. Do we surveil all the Christians in America? Just the right-wring ones? It's more productive to look for people who express radical and violent ideologies and focus attention on them. Muslims might be a smaller group in America than Christians, but there are still millions. You can't watch them all, and you shouldn't. Wait to see if someone develops a penchant for violent extremism before you go busting down the door. Accept that people aren't criminals by default. Similarly, accept that the process for obtaining visas, for being granted refugee status, is already pretty strict and rigorous and that it by itself will prevent lots of dangerous people from coming to the country without a need to single out all Muslims.



"Christian militias in Central African Republic 'burnt witches at stake', says UN report" [source] This was last year.

"Three Arrested in Bomb Plot Targeting Somalis in Kansas" [source] This was last month.

Granted, it's not beheadings, but I think it still counts in spirit. Now, you may say that's just two examples and that's true. But when you have a place like Iraq or Syria where there is little safety then of course you're going to have violent extremists out in force attacking and killing people. It's not because they're Muslim per se, it's that most people in that part of the world are Muslim. Look at all the dictators and guerrilla groups across Latin America from the last hundred years. Christian terrorists right there.

I don't think I said that much. To clarify, I believe it negligent to let refugees in without some form of screening process. I didn't say we should put all Muslims under the microscope, but should watch outside, whilst still looking in. It's also not specifically Muslims, but rather Islamic extremism which can come from anyone that believes in Islam so labeling all Muslims as Islamic or all Islamic people as Muslim is incorrect.

Not all dictators nor guerrilla groups are certified Christians, further more killing people as a Christian is a huge difference than killing for Christianity. There are murderers of every stripe, but killing just for killing isn't necessarily linked with religious extremism, right? There have been culling and killings between tribes and South American cartels for decades just because of slights and tribal differences.

Considering that the majority of terrorist attacks in 2016 were claimed by and for Islam should show a pattern. All Muslims bad? No. Are the majority of terrorists (globally) Islamic? Yes. There really isn't much of a way around this. It is what it is.

Should we stop focusing on potential domestic terrorist attacks? No, but you must also keep in mind that if you have Americans in those countries you must now split your attention, and given he pattern and locations of said terrorist attacks it's more likely that an Islamic terrorist attack will happen in Sudan than here in the states.

Of course, you will always have domestic killers and terrorists, but even given those two examples of 'Christian' terrorists:

The car bombing article makes no mention of them being Christian or claiming to act on Jesus'/God's behalf. They were caught, no lives lost. Not Muslim, but still terrorists. I don't want to really watch an entire group of people because it's unconstitutional and counter productive. . .

And the Christian militia burning a witch at the stake is all the way across the Atlantic ocean and in no way is it a marked pattern for killing in the name of Jesus or Christianity. These killings are far overshadowed by Omar's 49 kills which did occur on US soil. As a whole, Christianity is not a bigger threat than Islam.

I've been told to shift away from this topic, really. So, what does everyone think about all the newspapers attempting to predict the future?

 

[Somewhere_]

The "one person, one vote" argument would've allowed Clinton to win because more people want her in office. But we have the electoral college system, which the founding fathers implemented to keep us from true democracy. Their reason was: the U.S. was still a new country, so they didn't wanna screw it up so soon.

It was okay then, but horridly outdated now. This means the next president is decided by a handful of swing states. Or as Trevor Noah put it: "Trump wins due to yet another bullsh*t college".

When the constitution was written, the Democratic-Republicans boycotted and the Federalists instituted the electoral college system to prevent mob rule because public opinion is very fickle and easily swayed by emotion.

Its ironic that its the Federalists that instituted it (most like the modern-day Democrats), but the Republicans benefit from it the most (most similar to the Democratic-Republicans of the time).

Nowadays, the original purpose of the electoral college has been undone and has been on a trend of becoming more and more pointless. If you believe in democracy, the electoral college really is a stupid thing.

 

[Guest123_x1]

I'm pleasantly surprised that Trump managed to pull through in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. The next big challenge is calming the tensions in such a divided nation as we are, especially among us young folks. (I can imagine that if Bernie Sanders had gotten the Democratic nomination, he would have definitely beaten Trump in both popular and electoral votes by a considerable margin.)

I will say, though, that I was definitely NOT looking forward to a Hillary Clinton presidency, and if I had the money, I would have prepared to emigrate from this country had she been elected. 8 years of empty/broken promises under Obama, preceded by another 8 years of problems under George W. Bush were bad enough for this country. Never mind how Mrs. Clinton was able to get away with having a private email server containing sensitive information pertaining to our country (if any Republican Secretary of State had a private email server set up similarly to Hillary's, he/she would almost certainly have been prosecuted).
People think Trump is this horrible and "dangerous" man that cannot do anything right, but Hillary's (and Obama's) crimes against humanity (particularly her involvement in the Arab Spring and handling of the Benghazi attack when she was Secretary of State) are far, far more egregious than anything Trump has done.

So, what does everyone think about all the newspapers attempting to predict the future?

It's not just the newspapers that were so adamant about getting Clinton elected, but also the mainstream television news media was gloating all over the place over the course of this year about how Hillary was going to win in a landslide (again, her popular vote margin is so thin, and she actually underperformed in some traditionally Democratic places.) The daily attacks against Trump were on a greater scale than Barry Goldwater 1964, John McCain 2008, and Mitt Romney 2012 combined. What's particularly interesting, though, is that nearly every newspaper that didn't endorse Clinton (such as the Detroit News) endorsed Gary Johnson instead of Trump.

We'll see eventually what Trump actually does as President, particularly with his plans on trade policy (including labeling China a currency manipulator), and national security.

As I have done on here since 2010 for key U.S. elections, I'm posting the results of some state and local races that I've been following, with commentary on select races (these results are still preliminary, with all available precincts reported unless otherwise noted):

Spoiler:

Key:
(D): Democratic
(R): Republican
(L): Libertarian
(T): U.S. Taxpayers/Constitution
(G): Green
(N): Natural Law
(W): Working Class
(I): Independent or No Party Affiliation

(i) (lowercase): Incumbent

President/Vice President – Nationwide Popular Vote
I'm not including the nationwide popular vote at this time because the totals are not yet complete. Although Clinton carried the national popular vote by around 2 million votes, she has 232 electoral votes as compared to Trump's currently projected 306.

President/Vice President – Michigan Vote
Donald Trump/Mike Pence (R-New York, NY/Indianapolis, IN) 2,279,543 47.5%
Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine (D-New York, NY/Alexandria, VA) 2,268,839 47.3%
Gary Johnson/Bill Weld (L-Santa Fe, NM/Canton, MA) 172,136 3.6%
Jill Stein/Ajamu Baraka (G-Lexington, MA/Atlanta, GA) 51,463 1.1%
Darrell Castle/Scott Bradley (T-Germantown, TN/Hyde Park, UT) 16,139 0.3%
Evan McMullin (Write-in) 8,177 0.1%
Emidio Soltysik/Angela Walker (N-Los Angeles, CA/Milwaukee, WI) 2,209 0.1%
Michael A. Maturen (Write-in) 517 0%
Tom Hoefling (Write-in) 95 0%
Laurence Kotlikoff (Write-in) 87 0%
Ben Hartnell (Write-in) 39 0%
Monica Moorehead (Write-in) 30 0%
Cherunda Fox (Write-in) 10 0%
Incumbent Barack Obama (D-Chicago, IL) cannot run again due to term limits.
Surprising that Trump managed to pull through in Michigan, even if the margin over Clinton was razor-thin. Of note, 11 of the 20 counties that went for Obama in 2012 flipped over to Trump this time, most notably Macomb, Monroe, Saginaw (first time they went GOP in a Presidential race since Reagan 1984), and Bay. Of those counties that went for Hillary this year, Genesee, Muskegon, and Oakland were particularly underwhelming. Additionally, last time, Obama got less than 40% of the vote in just 10 of the state's 83 counties, but this time, Clinton got less than 40% in a staggering 60.

The statewide executive branch offices of Governor/Lt Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General are not up for election this year.
The next race for these will be in 2018, where all three positions will be open due to their incumbents being term-limited.

State Board of Education (2 positions)
Tom McMillin (R-Rochester Hills) 1,958,602 23.3%
Nikki Snyder (R-Whitmore Lake) 1,919,895 22.8%
John Austin (D-Ann Arbor) (i) 1,912,983 22.7%
Ismael Ahmed (D-Novi) 1,698,927 20.2%
Mary Anne Hering (W-Detroit) 224,392 2.6%
Scotty Boman (L-Detroit) 198,349 2.3%
Karen Adams (T-Lake Odessa) 140,215 1.6%
Sherry Wells (G-Ferndale) 124,124 1.5%
Bill Hall (L-Grand Rapids) 123,637 1.5%
Derek Grigsby (G-Alanson) 66,051 0.8%
Doug Levesque (T-Owosso) 55,313 0.7%
Incumbent Kathleen Straus (D-Southfield) opted not to seek re-election.
This was such a close race it wasn't even funny. Tom McMillin, the top vote-getter in this race, ran on name recognition and his previous work in fighting against centralization of school standards as well as increased bureaucracy and federal mandates including Common Core. Nikki Snyder, who beat out the lone incumbent running (John Austin) by less than 7,000 votes, ran on a similar platform with the addition of improving special education in Michigan (which I greatly appreciate her for).

There is no U.S. Senate race for Michigan this year.
The next race will be in 2018, when incumbent Debbie Stabenow (D-Lansing) will be up for re-election to a fourth term.

U.S. Congress, District MI-01
Jack Bergman (R-Watersmeet) 197,777 55%
Lon Johnson (D-Kalkaska) 144,334 40%
Diane Bostow (L-Gwinn) 13,386 4%
Ellis Boal (G-Charlevoix) 4,774 1%
Incumbent Dan Benishek (R-Crystal Falls) opted not to seek re-election.

U.S. Congress, District MI-03
Justin Amash (R-Grand Rapids) (i) 203,545 59%
Douglas Smith (D-Belmont) 128,400 38%
Ted Gerrard (T-Grand Rapids) 10,420 3%

U.S. Congress, District MI-04
John Moolenaar (R-Midland) (i) 194,572 62%
Debra Wirth (D-Dewitt) 101,277 32%
Leonard Schwartz (L-Oak Park) 8,516 3%
George Zimmer (T-Byron) 5,595 2%
Jordan Salvi (G-East Lansing) 3,953 1%
Keith Butkovich (N-Wayne) 1,838 0%

U.S. Congress, District MI-05
Dan Kildee (D-Flint) (i) 195,279 61%
Al Hardwick (R-Davison) 112,102 35%
Steve Sluka (L-DeWitt) 7,006 2%
Harvey Mikkelson (G-Caro) 4,904 2%
Kildee came through pretty nicely despite Hillary's rather weak showing in this district (she won Genesee County with a mere 53% of the vote, despite the presence of Flint).

U.S. Congress, District MI-07
Tim Walberg (R-Jackson) (i) 184,321 55%
Gretchen Driskell (D-Saline) 134,010 40%
Ken Proctor (L-Charlotte) 16,476 5%
This was a particularly nasty race, as ads were run all over television in this district attacking Walberg for his support of every major trade deal, while Driskell was called out on her business record.

U.S. Congress, District MI-10
Paul Mitchell (R-Dryden) 215,132 63%
Frank Accavitti, Jr. (D-Grosse Pointe Shores) 110,112 32%
Lisa Gioia (L-West Bloomfield) 10,612 3%
Benjamin Nofs (G-Port Huron) 5,127 2%
Incumbent Candice Miller (R-Harrison Township) opted not to seek re-election.
Mitchell coasted to victory by positioning himself as a political outsider in what is widely considered a "safe Republican" district. This is his second time running for Congress-he ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination in the 4th District two years ago, in a very heated race against John Moolenaar (Moolenaar would be elected that year to replace the retiring Dave Camp.) Mitchell was previously known for leading the movement to defeat the controversial tax hikes in 2015's Proposal 1.

The Michigan State Senate is not up for election this year
The next race will be in 2018, where all but ten current senators will be ineligible for re-election due to term limits, although there was a special general election in the 4th District, with these results:
4th District State Senate – Partial Term ending 12-31-2018
Ian Conyers (D) 69,305 76%
Keith Franklin (R) 21,225 23%
The previously elected officeholder for this district, Virgil Smith, Jr. (D) resigned from jail on April 12, 2016.

48th District State House
Pam Faris (D-Clio) (i) 22,888 54%
Joseph Reno (R-Davison) 19,641 46%
This was a considerably weaker showing for Faris as compared to her previous two State House elections. With this victory, this will also be her third and final term.

50th District State House
Tim Sneller (D-Burton) 22,773 52%
Michael Mathney (R-Grand Blanc) 20,994 48%
Incumbent Charles Smiley (D-Grand Blanc) cannot run again due to term limits.
One would think that Sneller would have gotten a better margin of victory, given his past experience with outgoing Representative Charles Smiley (who was highly popular as mayor of Burton).

82nd District State House
Gary Howell (R-Deerfield Township) (i) 29,962 69%
Margaret Guerrero DeLuca (D-Imlay City) 13,492 31%
Howell has proven himself to be quite an effective (and popular) representative for Lapeer County, having accomplished far more in his seven months of holding office as compared to his predecessor, Todd Courser, who became embroiled in a major sex scandal with another former representative, Cindy Gamrat (Gamrat was expelled by the State House, and Courser resigned at the last minute to avoid expulsion.)
Because Howell initially took office back in March with more than half of Courser's term spent, this victory will be considered his first full term under Michigan's term limits.

83rd District State House
Shane Hernandez (R-Port Huron) 23,108 33%
Jim Frank (D-Burtchville) 12,345 63%
Deena Bruderick (G-Marlette) 1,350 4%
Incumbent Paul Muxlow (R-Brown City) cannot run again due to term limits.

99th District State House
Roger Hauck (R-Mount Pleasant) 18,358 55%
Bryan Mielke (D-Mount Pleasant) 15,291 45%
Incumbent Kevin Cotter (R-Mount Pleasant) cannot run again due to term limits.
This was another hotly-contested race, with one of the main issues being school funding.

Michigan Supreme Court Justice
David Viviano (i) 2,316,459 67%
Frank Szymanski 792,944 23%
Doug Dern 336,160 10%

Michigan Supreme Court Justice - Partial Term ending 1-1-2019
Joan Larsen (i) 1,940,260 59%
Deborah Thomas 984,107 28%
Kerry Morgan 442,781 13%

Lapeer County Prosecutor
Mike Sharkey (R) 30,614 71%
Phil Fulks (D) 12,045 29%
Incumbent Tim Turkelson (R) was defeated in the primary.
Sharkey came away very easily after winning a hotly-contested primary against the incumbent in August. Sharkey is best known as the defense attorney for 40th Circuit Court judge (and former Prosecutor) Byron Konschuh against embezzlement charges in what is known locally as the "Donutgate" scandal. (Indeed, commentators saw the August primary for this race as a kind of "referendum" on Donutgate.)

Lapeer County Road Commission
Les Nichols (R) 28,018 68%
Howard Coon (D) 13,220 32%
Incumbent Michael Hemmingsen (R) was defeated in the primary.

Scott McKenna (R) is running unopposed for Lapeer County Sheriff
He defeated incumbent Ron Kalanquin and challenger Dave Eady in the August state primary.

Michigan has no statewide ballot proposals this year.
Among the issues that were planned for placement on the general election ballot were initiatives regarding recreational marijuana, voting by mail, repealing "Stand Your Ground", a statewide fracking ban, expansion of anti-discrimination laws to include the LGBT demographic, guaranteeing workers the right to sick time, and a repeal of prevailing wage requirements for state construction projects.

Lapeer County EMS Millage Proposal
Yes 21,706 52%
No 20,174 48%

Metro Detroit Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Millage Request
Yes 893,978 49%
No 912,033 51%

 

[Esper]

(if any Republican Secretary of State had a private email server set up similarly to Hillary's, he/she would almost certainly have been prosecuted)

Let me introduce you to a man named Colin Powell, Secretary of State under G. W. Bush, who himself used a personal email account while Secretary of State and who deleted all his emails. And yet... no prosecution.

 

[Kanzler]

Let me introduce you to a man named Colin Powell, Secretary of State under G. W. Bush, who himself used a personal email account while Secretary of State and who deleted all his emails. And yet... no prosecution.

The difference was about the server or something like that. There was a major distinction, iirc.

 

[Somewhere_]

Trump's 100 day plan was released. We dont know if he will follow it, but we can talk about the merits (or lack thereof).

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

 

[Kanzler]

Trump's 100 day plan was released. We dont know if he will follow it, but we can talk about the merits (or lack thereof).

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

It was released before the election, therefore, it's not binding, HAHAHA!

Seriously though, I hope he checks some of those proposals. Please don't actually build the wall or ban Muslims. If you don't want to take refugees, well, that I can at least understand more than a blanket ban.