Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama wins!

Obama wins!
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 08:57 PM
 
Let the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth begin ...

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 09:03 PM
 
I don't mean to sound gloaty about the actual results, but in terms of scoring analysis I'm most looking forward to hearing from people like ebuddy and stupendousman as to what went wrong with their predictions (against all/most odds) for a Romney victory.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 09:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't mean to sound gloaty about the actual results, but in terms of scoring analysis I'm most looking forward to hearing from people like ebuddy and stupendousman as to what went wrong with their predictions (against all/most odds) for a Romney victory.
Because facts have a liberal bias.

Thus facts must be skewed toward Republicans/Conservatives to reflect conservative reality.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 09:38 PM
 
I think their argument was that it would be improbable for the EC to show a large margin of victory while the popular vote was tighter. It was pointed out to them that the polling results showed the popular vote totals to be tighter because they don't run many polls in non-contested states with huge population centers like NY, IL, or CA. I figured this was an obvious sort of explanation, but they weren't having it.

Next time around I hope they'll just trust the results of people like Nate Silver and other poll aggregators and quit with their own silly pseudo-scientific rationales. After all, next time around it could very well be these same sources reporting on a sizable Republican lead. It will be funny if they jump all aboard this bandwagon when/if this happens.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 09:44 PM
 
As positive as this outcome is for Obama supporters, it's looking like the Democrats will lose some seats in the House, which would be bad news providing these candidates aren't complete train wrecks, although they look poised to gain in the Senate.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 09:44 PM
 
Nate Silver knows his stuff.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 09:49 PM
 
To the point where he's passed the Heisenberg line.

You aren't going to be able to run a campaign now without taking into direct account what Nate is saying.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 09:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
As positive as this outcome is for Obama supporters, it's looking like the Democrats will lose some seats in the House, which would be bad news providing these candidates aren't complete train wrecks, although they look poised to gain in the Senate.
Actually, I might be misinterpreting things. It looks like the Democrats can pick up a few seats in the House, although it looks like it will be a very modest gain.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 10:06 PM
 
Given how President Clinton went hard in the paint for President Obama, if Joe Biden runs in 2016 against Hillary Clinton it'll be interesting to see if he endorses one or the other or sits on the sidelines.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 10:06 PM
 
It's hardly a mandate from the People, but he did win. *squeeeeeeak*
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Given how President Clinton went hard in the paint for President Obama, if Joe Biden runs in 2016 against Hillary Clinton it'll be interesting to see if he endorses one or the other or sits on the sidelines.
OAW
If Billary runs in 2016, I'll vote for them her.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It's hardly a mandate from the People, but he did win. *squeeeeeeak*
You have a funny way of looking at things.

The states he didn't pick up this time around that he did in 2008 were (correct me if I'm wrong) IN, NC, and MO. The thing is, in 2008 he absolutely dominated with his EC totals (365). This time around, I'd call it a decisive victory at 332.

Let's look at past years:

2008: Obama 365
2004: Bush 286
2000: Bush 271
1996: Clinton 379
1992: Clinton 370
1988: Bush 426
1984: Reagan 525
1980: Reagan 489
1976: Carter 297

I would call the Clinton, H. Bush, and Reagan years mandate years, possibly the 2008 Obama year too although maybe that one is border-line, I would call the W. Bush and Carter years squeakers.

If 332 is considered a squeaker, what do you call 2004, 2000, and 1976?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 10:22 PM
 
Why would you focus on the EC to the exclusion of the popular vote?
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 10:28 PM
 
Electoral College has President Obama at 303 vs. 206 for Romney. And this is BEFORE Florida is even called. In 2008 President Obama won 365 electoral college votes. He might actually come close to that result again.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 10:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Electoral College has President Obama at 303 vs. 206 for Romney. And this is BEFORE Florida is even called. In 2008 President Obama won 365 electoral college votes. He might actually come close to that result again.
OAW
How does adding 29 EC votes put him close to the 365?

The difference between this year and 2008 will be minus Indiana and North Carolina (I was wrong about Missouri). I guess this is relatively close, but not super close.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 10:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why would you focus on the EC to the exclusion of the popular vote?
As far as the whole mandate concept? Well, for one, because it will be a while before the popular vote is tallied up this year
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 10:34 PM
 
I've got time.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 10:48 PM
 
Guess the final EC will be:

Obama: 332
Romney: 206
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 10:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post

I've got time.
Okay, well let's extend my list to include historical popular vote totals, taken from:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html


rounded to nearest million so I have less to type and/or copy/paste

1976: 41 to 39m (2m lead)
1980: 44 to 36m (8m lead)
1984: 54 to 38m (16m lead)
1988: 49 to 42m (7m lead)
1992: 45 to 39m (6m lead)
1996: 47 to 39m (8m lead)
2000: 51 to 50m (in favor of Gore)
2004: 62 to 59m (3m lead)
2008: 67 to 58m (9m lead)

In terms of raw totals, the Obama 2008 total would represent the biggest "mandate" in history. In terms of lead over opponent 2008 Obama would have the second biggest mandate within this sample.

Would a 7m lead be a reasonable estimate for 2012 Obama? If so, that's a Clinton-era sort of lead.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2012, 11:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post

Okay, well let's extend my list to include historical popular vote totals, taken from:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html


rounded to nearest million so I have less to type and/or copy/paste

1976: 41 to 39m (2m lead)
1980: 44 to 36m (8m lead)
1984: 54 to 38m (16m lead)
1988: 49 to 42m (7m lead)
1992: 45 to 39m (6m lead)
1996: 47 to 39m (8m lead)
2000: 51 to 50m (in favor of Gore)
2004: 62 to 59m (3m lead)
2008: 67 to 58m (9m lead)

In terms of raw totals, the Obama 2008 total would represent the biggest "mandate" in history. In terms of lead over opponent 2008 Obama would have the second biggest mandate within this sample.

Would a 7m lead be a reasonable estimate for 2012 Obama? If so, that's a Clinton-era sort of lead.
I'm glad you made me look into this subego...

Using popular vote totals, this disputes the whole notion that we are oh-so-polarized as a nation. We are no more polarized than we were in the Clinton era, and much less polarized than we were under Bush.

Where we are polarized is in EC tallies, but perhaps this is simply a result of perfecting gerrymandering?
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 12:05 AM
 
Gerrymandering is changing district borders to optimize your seat count. You can't change state boundaries, so that is not really relevant to a presidential election. No, I think the point about the polarization is that the areas of the country are so different from each other. The best example of that is the 2004 result with the famous "Jesusland" map, where all the red states are contiguous and the blue states are contiguous if you include Canada. These areas were also deemed "inelastic", meaning that there were rather few areas that it was possible to contest.

The 2008 election broke this to some extent: Obama won three southern states and grabbed Colorado for a foothold almost everywhere. To some extent this was because 2008 was a big year for Dems, and the result would have been "nicer" if the GOP could have taken something like NH and one state on the West Coast, but it was at least less polarized than 2004. With the preliminary results of this year, we see a movement towards a new normal, and a normal that the GOP should be very afraid of. All of the newly competitive states come from previously safe red states, and changing demographics are only going to make that worse. I know they're going to fight this tooth and nail, but the GOP needs to move back towards the center to put currently safe blue states in play.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 12:22 AM
 
There are maps that graph election results as shades of purple popular vote, rather than the red and blue of electoral votes.

The US aren't *nearly* as "polarized" as people would have you believe.
There are definite tendencies, but they're strongly exaggerated by the electoral college and the propaganda designed to make the differences as stark as possible.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 12:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Gerrymandering is changing district borders to optimize your seat count. You can't change state boundaries, so that is not really relevant to a presidential election. No, I think the point about the polarization is that the areas of the country are so different from each other. The best example of that is the 2004 result with the famous "Jesusland" map, where all the red states are contiguous and the blue states are contiguous if you include Canada. These areas were also deemed "inelastic", meaning that there were rather few areas that it was possible to contest.
The 2008 election broke this to some extent: Obama won three southern states and grabbed Colorado for a foothold almost everywhere. To some extent this was because 2008 was a big year for Dems, and the result would have been "nicer" if the GOP could have taken something like NH and one state on the West Coast, but it was at least less polarized than 2004. With the preliminary results of this year, we see a movement towards a new normal, and a normal that the GOP should be very afraid of. All of the newly competitive states come from previously safe red states, and changing demographics are only going to make that worse. I know they're going to fight this tooth and nail, but the GOP needs to move back towards the center to put currently safe blue states in play.
I thought Gerrymandering also included having candidates move to different strategic areas to run for office?

I see the new normal becoming more about urban areas consistently voting Democrat, and this sort of thing creeping to invade what were Republican strongholds. It seems like the divide is urban vs. rural. In the 1970s the Republicans were winning states like California and the other west coast states, and in 1976 the Democrats won Texas.

My theory as to why this is, and I know this is going to piss off people on the right: a growing part of the right is not embracing modernity. Urban areas embrace modernity in large part because they have to to survive and get along, but also because the forces pushing for modernity come from intellectual communities that are largely found in urban areas.

This whole Todd Akin and Murdouch rape thing, for example? Madness. The Republican party has to do away with this sort of backwards, old, white dude thing if they want to continue to change this sort of thing.

Just my random, scattered, undefined, and unfocused thoughts here...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 12:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
There are maps that graph election results as shades of purple popular vote, rather than the red and blue of electoral votes.
The US aren't *nearly* as "polarized" as people would have you believe.
There are definite tendencies, but they're strongly exaggerated by the electoral college and the propaganda designed to make the differences as stark as possible.
That's what I'm starting to believe. In this information age, campaigns start in states like Ohio years before the actual election and campaigns have a lot more data points and demographic information to start really optimizing how they go after these swing states.

It seems like we're polarized because we are hyper-focused on these few states, but on the whole as a nation we are no more polarized than in the past. Picking up from my modernity concept we might also seem more polarized because of the urban/rural divide, but this has always existed...

I don't know, I'm confusing myself.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 12:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You have a funny way of looking at things.

The states he didn't pick up this time around that he did in 2008 were (correct me if I'm wrong) IN, NC, and MO. The thing is, in 2008 he absolutely dominated with his EC totals (365). This time around, I'd call it a decisive victory at 332.

Let's look at past years:

2008: Obama 365
2004: Bush 286
2000: Bush 271
1996: Clinton 379
1992: Clinton 370
1988: Bush 426
1984: Reagan 525
1980: Reagan 489
1976: Carter 297

I would call the Clinton, H. Bush, and Reagan years mandate years, possibly the 2008 Obama year too although maybe that one is border-line, I would call the W. Bush and Carter years squeakers. 

If 332 is considered a squeaker, what do you call 2004, 2000, and 1976?
He won by 0.5%, that's not a mandate. Period. In fact, he said it wasn't a mandate, and that it's a clear message that he needs to work harder at bi-partisanism. Which has been one of his biggest failures.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 12:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
That's what I'm starting to believe. In this information age, campaigns start in states like Ohio years before the actual election and campaigns have a lot more data points and demographic information to start really optimizing how they go after these swing states.

It seems like we're polarized because we are hyper-focused on these few states, but on the whole as a nation we are no more polarized than in the past. Picking up from my modernity concept we might also seem more polarized because of the urban/rural divide, but this has always existed...

I don't know, I'm confusing myself.
It is modernity, but not the urban/rural divide. That was around back when things were less polarized.

It's the national media falling apart in the face of the Internet.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 01:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post

He won by 0.5%, that's not a mandate. Period. In fact, he said it wasn't a mandate, and that it's a clear message that he needs to work harder at bi-partisanism. Which has been one of his biggest failures.
Where are you getting the 0.5% figure from?

How would you propose he work harder at bi-partisanism?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 02:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To the point where he's passed the Heisenberg line.
You aren't going to be able to run a campaign now without taking into direct account what Nate is saying.
We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by [strike]fact-checkers[/strike] proven psephologists!
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It's hardly a mandate from the People, but he did win. *squeeeeeeak*
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
He won by 0.5%, that's not a mandate. Period. In fact, he said it wasn't a mandate, and that it's a clear message that he needs to work harder at bi-partisanism. Which has been one of his biggest failures.
Ostrich.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 03:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Ostrich.
Snowback troll.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 03:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
He won by 0.5%, that's not a mandate. Period. In fact, he said it wasn't a mandate, and that it's a clear message that he needs to work harder at bi-partisanism. Which has been one of his biggest failures.
In this election? The west coast is nowhere near finished counting.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 03:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't mean to sound gloaty about the actual results, but in terms of scoring analysis I'm most looking forward to hearing from people like ebuddy and stupendousman as to what went wrong with their predictions (against all/most odds) for a Romney victory.
Very fair request besson.

I was wrong. I couldn't have been more wrong on this one. I underestimated the youth turnout, overestimated the evangelical turnout, misinterpreted the roles Independents would play, and how folks would vote what they claimed was their primary concern in the ancillary polling. The results were as I expected them locally, but certainly didn't carry the trend throughout the swings.
  • There's a problem with the Republican brand they're absolutely going to have to fix if they ever hope to win the Presidency. You can't gaffe your way through indictments of racism, sexism, and being out of touch with the little guy. You have to be infinitely more skilled than your counterpart in this regard and Republicans simply cannot produce the right candidates. It's not about what you're against, it needs to remain what you're for.
  • Conservatism has to be fashionable and fun, not square and cold. Neither is an easy hill for them to climb.
  • Short of abandoning conservatism in the interest of popularity, conservatives need to learn how to more effectively and unashamedly express conservative values, not vacillate back and forth as the wind blows causing confusion and hampering enthusiasm.
  • Romney left far too much on the table including Fast and Furious and Benghazi of course, but he also assumed the electorate understood more of his economic philosophy. They don't. They needed to be taught. They needed more details. He left too much up to his surrogates and they couldn't produce for him.

None of this is to be taken from our President of course. Obama has amassed a ground-game like no other and successfully made the appeal to the American people that while things are bad today, they could've been much worse and he's taking care of them personally. I may not agree with his appeal, but I'm solidly in the minority today and my will was not to be.

So... yes, I'm eating my crow today, but this is much less important than where we go from here. Now that we know our setup for the next four years, hopefully the engine of our economy begins to release its liquidity and we begin to move through our challenges in a less divisive and more healthy manner over all.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 03:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
In this election? The west coast is nowhere near finished counting.
Still looks like a 1% win, 2% margin. Alaska hasn't finished either, or Guam, Hawaii, and most of the armed services (especially overseas). No matter how you slice it, it's still a tight popular vote. No mandate found, and Obama agrees.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 03:41 AM
 
And for the amount of money on both sides...we end up the same, with Owe-bama not caring about his electoriate anymore.

I wonder how many lower paid employees will end up with a 36 hour week, so the employer won't have to pay insurance?




We are Greece.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 04:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Still looks like a 1% win, 2% margin. Alaska hasn't finished either, or Guam, Hawaii, and most of the armed services (especially overseas). No matter how you slice it, it's still a tight popular vote. No mandate found, and Obama agrees.
Dude.

Hawaii is going to go Pres. Obama by over 70%.

No one lives in Alaska. There's going to be 4500% more people voting in CA than Alaska.

Pres. Obama is going to get slightly over 2% majority of the popular vote.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 04:11 AM
 
Nate Silver wins!

Public polling wins.

Rasmussen polls who tend to skew in favor of Republicans by about 2% losses.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 04:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It's not about what you're against, it needs to remain what you're for.
This.

I *want* to see true conservatives win. Economically, I prefer conservatism. But, it seems that, these days, the conservatives that run for upper political offices are only capable of whining about what they're against.

Also, turf the evangelicals. It should become clearer now that continuing to pander to them only turns off the younger and more moderate voters.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 05:06 AM
 
That, and the Protestant majority in the United States has become a minority in itself. Offering to build and rule the state to their preferences is to defy a reality where the so-called "minorities" represent a majority of the population.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 05:18 AM
 
Race in hand, Barack went back into the phone booth, tucked the cape into his pants, buttoned his shirt and adjusted his tie, and with one last sigh, put on his glasses and returned to his post at the Daily Planet as the meek and mild mannered President Obama. Campaign Obama would probably not be seen again.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 05:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Race in hand, Barack went back into the phone booth, tucked the cape into his pants, buttoned his shirt and adjusted his tie, and with one last sigh, put on his glasses and returned to his post at the Daily Planet as the meek and mild mannered President Obama. Campaign Obama would probably not be seen again.
You use your tongue prettier than a $20 whore.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 05:49 AM
 
So, gay marriage passed in two states, marijuana was legalized to some degree in a few others... this really was the reverse 2004.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back in the Good Ole US of A
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 05:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So, gay marriage passed in two states, marijuana was legalized to some degree in a few others... this really was the reverse 2004.
I think the gay marriage bit is very important since it was the voters themselves and not the courts or legislators that made the decision. The tide has truly turned. Now.. if we can just get rid of DOMA, I can move back home. Can't believe it's been almost 8 years...
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Martha's Vineyard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 06:01 AM
 
Speaking to what is wrong with the Republican party, and why they lost - I feel the repubs simply had a flawed candidate. He made too many gaffes, hid his past tax returns, had the evangelicals calling Mormonism a cult, conservative pundits lined up against him in the primaries, and he flipped on key issues. I was surprised that he became the GOP nominee, however, I think it was a flawed field. Out of the candidates I think Huntsman may have been the best choice to beat Obama(though happy with the results myself).
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 06:01 AM
 
Oh yeah, first openly gay senator.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 06:23 AM
 
So... where the hell are we going to put the 51st star?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 06:24 AM
 
I wonder if Obama will soften on drug laws, or at least on marijuana raids now that two states have basically legalized it.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 06:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post

So... where the hell are we going to put the 51st star?
Oh yeah, PR. Those guys swung FLA. Sure, why not. 51!
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 06:30 AM
 
This si the answer, apparently.



Edit: Or this

     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 06:32 AM
 
nice.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 06:33 AM
 
Excellent analysis by ebuddy, but let me comment on a few things:

Evangelicals did come out for Romney - that just didn't help. He lost too much in the center.
Independents voted Romney by a decent margin, but there was enough +Dem that it didn't matter. Given that 2004 was much further towards the GOP in many states, the way I read this is that many economic conservatives no longer identify with the party of evangelicals and Tea Party activists. They still vote for someone like Romney, but some of the shenanigans scare them, and they would not vote for a Santorum or Palin. This only deepens the problem for the GOP if they stay the course far to the right on those issues. I would imagine that such voters were less than amused by the idea that one can play games with the debt ceiling.

The GOP's current gameplan is basically to find a slice of voters that they know are likely to vote and rely on the apathy of the rest of the electorate to make that slice count for enough to get a slim plurality. The only problem is that the slice was cut some time in the early 2000s, and two things have happened since: the demographics have changed enough to make the math change, and the actions taken to build loyalty in the base have alienated the rest enough to raise the enthusiasm in other layers of the population. The GOP needs to rein in the extremists and it needs to focus on a wider slice of the electorate. The question now is if it will realize that in time to be an alternative in 2016. Chances are that they hold out, have a decent election in 2014 when enthusiasm is lower, and keep trying with the same tired old methods.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 06:34 AM
 
I see the Stock market is voting to day.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:33 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2