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! (Page 3)
Thread Tools
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 04:42 PM
 
Another thing this election CLEARLY demonstrates is that the GOP vastly overestimated its supposed "mandate" resulting from the 2010 elections. Without question the GOP won. They re-took control of the House and then promptly showed Chairman Michael Steele the door after he delivered one of the greatest political victories in US history. The gained in the Senate as well. But at the end of the day ... this was a MID-TERM election where turnout for presidential incumbent's party is historically low. So this great "repudiation" of President Obama was only among those who bothered to vote. The political mood of the country is determined more by the results during presidential election cycles because they produce the greatest turnout for all races involved. And what we have seen 2 cycles in a row is that the American electorate overall is NOT down with this Tea Party nonsense. The right-wing echo chamber can keep telling itself that America is a "center-right" country if it wants to. And perhaps if one goes by how people "self-identify" politically that may be true. But when you poll the country on actual POLICY (i.e. raising taxes on the wealthy, rebuilding infrastructure, turning Medicare into a voucher program, etc.) .... that simply is NOT the case. A 50+% majority of the American electorate has agreed with President Obama's policies in back to back elections. And this majority is likely to grow.

OAW
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 04:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I see the Stock market is voting to day.
You say that like the stock market has a say in the matter.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 05:13 PM
 
BadKosh, since Obama has won has your spellchecker exploded with all of your clever and creative intentional misspellings which I'm sure have intensified?
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 05:29 PM
 
Everyone is complimenting ebuddy for his humility and candour, and I agree. We all like a gracious loser. But there are some little points I can't let slip by.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
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 was a bad candidate because he was a flip-flopper." I know that's the nastiest interpretation possible, but the fact is, we're gonna hear this a lot from the conservative side. "If only Romney were a more committed conservative!"

Romney was running on the most conservative platform since, gosh, Goldwater maybe? Romney was a conservative wet dream come true, with astounding military spending, deep tax cuts, and a really regressive social policy. Think about it this way: Romney's choice for President if he died was a guy who claims his only difference with Ayn Rand was over atheism. When your selection for highest government office is a crazy person, it does reflect on you personally.

There's two fundamental options Republicans have to chose from: more conservative or less conservative. Only one of these has a future. You can't fix national issues with nothing else but "free market pixie dust."

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.
Romney tried the Bengazi route twice, and was slapped down hard both times. That's why he more or less dropped it after the second debate. There's a point when you realize a strategy just won't work, and Romney figured it out too late.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Currently, Obama has a 2.x % lead in popular vote, a difference of almost 3 million votes. In the Electoral College, though, Obama has a ~50 % advantage (~300 vs. ~200 votes).
I don't get it: why do you try to warp reality into something it isn't, just because you'd like to have seen Romney win?
I didn't vote for him, but you say I wanted to see him win? Between the two, it's like choosing whether you'd prefer to be shot or stabbed, neither is a pleasant experience. Despite the hoopla, it was by no means a landslide, it was still a statistical dead heat. Furthermore, the fact that Obama had a majority is because there was no 3rd party candidate of note on the Left. If Nader or some other influential Greenie had been running, as has happened often in the past (ask Gore), Obama very well may have lost.

You're sitting on the side of the victory celebration, and it's coloring your perspective. I'm not.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 07:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
A 50+% majority of the American electorate has agreed with President Obama's policies in back to back elections. And this majority is likely to grow.
OAW
It wouldn't have been 50%, or even 49%, if Nader had ran, as he'd done in the past (despite his age). The majority didn't agree with Obama's policies, as evidenced by his approval ratings, they just had no other choices. Romney wasn't actually a choice for many, he was a protest vote.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Cold Warrior
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by osiris View Post
You use your tongue prettier than a $20 whore.
$20 whores aren't, and don't use, anything pretty. Perhaps that was the rub, tongue in cheek as it were.

Regardless, we don't need to be insulting other members.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 07:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post

I didn't vote for him, but you say I wanted to see him win? Between the two, it's like choosing whether you'd prefer to be shot or stabbed, neither is a pleasant experience. Despite the hoopla, it was by no means a landslide, it was still a statistical dead heat. Furthermore, the fact that Obama had a majority is because there was no 3rd party candidate of note on the Left. If Nader or some other influential Greenie had been running, as has happened often in the past (ask Gore), Obama very well may have lost.
You're sitting on the side of the victory celebration, and it's coloring your perspective. I'm not.
I think you are wanting to prove to us that you are impartial and non-partisan, but in the process you are over-compensating by stating stuff that simply isn't true and frankly looking a little silly.

You were wrong on the popular vote margins, the EC margins. I could come up with a long list of valid reasons to support the notion that it wasn't a good night for Republicans, and a great night for Democrats (and this goes beyond the raw totals). For example, the number of young people that voted was greater, as was the black and latino votes. There are many things to be worried about if you are a Republican that go well beyond the numbers. Any EC victory above 300 points is generally considered a decisive victory. As Oreo said, the popular vote lead was pretty significant too, and while not as decisive, campaigns are not built around going after popular vote victories. That being said, Obama is now the most successful Democratic president ever in terms of popular vote totals, and the first to win re-election with a popular vote majority. There were a number of important gains in not only gay marriage rights, but in gay politicians voted in office, women voted into office, and gains in both the senate and house.

It was a good night for Democrats. If you want to be Mr. Impartial "I'm not a Democrat or Republican" as you seem to want to convey, there is really no way you can spin the results any other way, they are what they are.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 07:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post

It wouldn't have been 50%, or even 49%, if Nader had ran, as he'd done in the past (despite his age). The majority didn't agree with Obama's policies, as evidenced by his approval ratings, they just had no other choices. Romney wasn't actually a choice for many, he was a protest vote.
Why do you keep on embarrassing yourself by saying things that simply aren't true and that can be researched pretty easily? Obama's approval rating is over 50%. Just barely, you can say that, but don't say things that simply aren't true, this doesn't serve you.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 08:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think you are wanting to prove to us that you are impartial and non-partisan, but in the process you are over-compensating by stating stuff that simply isn't true and frankly looking a little silly.
Don't speak for me, I know how I feel about this. How many governor seats did the Repubs gain? How many House seats did they lose? It wasn't a good night for them, but it wasn't crushing either. Spouting hyperbole will not change the facts. You can BS all you want that the Republicans have to change their platform, but I don't seem to remember you saying the same thing when Democrats were swept out of the House a couple years ago.

Why do you keep on embarrassing yourself by saying things that simply aren't true and that can be researched pretty easily? Obama's approval rating is over 50%. Just barely, you can say that, but don't say things that simply aren't true, this doesn't serve you.
I'm not embarrassed, your attempts to irritate me by calling me out aren't working, either. Obama's approval rating was at 46% 10 days ago and that has been the average for the last 3 months (which is a more accurate long-term indicator), and he rode the mid-40s all Summer. Any numbers over 50% are an election bounce, not a trend. Fluffing up his approval just to try and make your argument stick doesn't serve you.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 08:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post

Don't speak for me, I know how I feel about this. How many governor seats did the Repubs gain? How many House seats did they lose? It wasn't a good night for them, but it wasn't crushing either. Spouting hyperbole will not change the facts. You can BS all you want that the Republicans have to change their platform, but I don't seem to remember you saying the same thing when Democrats were swept out of the House a couple years ago.
I'm not embarrassed, your attempts to irritate me by calling me out aren't working, either. Obama's approval rating was at 46% 10 days ago and that has been the average for the last 3 months (which is a more accurate long-term indicator), and he rode the mid-40s all Summer. Any numbers over 50% are an election bounce, not a trend. Fluffing up his approval just to try and make your argument stick doesn't serve you.
I haven't looked at the governor races, but as stated the Republicans will lose 8 seats in the house. That is pretty significant:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/presidential_elections_seats.php

When Clinton was elected both times the Democrats lost seats in the house. Since the 2008 election there hasn't been 8 house seats gained for the victor in a presidential election since Reagan. These are just facts. If you want to be impartial, maybe just stick to them?

The 50% approval rating was as of Nov. 5. If you look at the chart:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

you'll see that more people approved of them than disapproved since September, and before that it was back and forth. This doesn't mean much though, approval ratings below 50% are typical of any presidency:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

You'll see that Clinton's approval ratings were below 50% for a time, as were Reagan's to name two popular presidents. This doesn't necessarily mean that the population approves or disapproves of policies, since in the case of both they won those elections by mandate-type margins. His popularity figures were no doubt influenced by his getting a blowjob, so there are a number of factors to factor in here that go well beyond feelings about policies.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 09:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Despite the hoopla, it was by no means a landslide, it was still a statistical dead heat.
That depends very much on what you mean by that: most polls have predicted a win by Obama with quite a margin (e. g. have a look at the second graph on the top-right of this page). Nobody here has claimed it was a landslide victory, but it was an expected victory by Obama (in the sense that according to most polls, Obama's probability to win was clearly above 50 %).

You could correctly claim that Obama's votes in the Electoral College do not reflect how close the popular vote is likely going to be. But the popular vote doesn't determine who the next President will be (otherwise Gore would have narrowly defeated Bush 2 and history had taken a different turn), the Electoral College does. (Just for the record, I find the EC antiquated and would prefer if Presidents are elected by popular vote only, but that's not how it works now.)
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Furthermore, the fact that Obama had a majority is because there was no 3rd party candidate of note on the Left. If Nader or some other influential Greenie had been running, as has happened often in the past (ask Gore), Obama very well may have lost.
And in another universe, Obama has a pony. Yes, hypothetically, a third-party candidate from the left would have hurt Obama. In another parallel universe, a Libertarian candidate would have taken votes from Romney, increasing the gap from ~2.5 % to some other imaginary number. Meanwhile in our universe, the elections went down as they did.
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
You're sitting on the side of the victory celebration, and it's coloring your perspective. I'm not.
I think you're mistaking me for yourself: I am not American, I don't root for one party or the other. You've made a claim that Obama won by a very slight margin, 0.5 %, and you have yet to make a convincing argument that you're right. I'm just stating the facts that Obama has a ~50 % lead in the Electoral College (whether the 29 Floridian votes go to Obama or Romney is immaterial) and a ~2.5 % lead in the popular vote.

Stating facts doesn't make me partisan. Even if I had a stake in American politics, these numbers would still be correct, numbers are numbers. Certainly, it hasn't been a landslide victory for the Democrats, but it has been a victory nevertheless. The Republican have lost the bid to the Presidency and seats in both houses of Congress.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 01:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This came down to who won Ohio.
Obama basically threw everything he had at that state.
After all that effort, he beats Romney there by 2%.
That's pretty damn close in my book.
The tipping point state actually turned out to not be Ohio. The critical path to 270 was Wisconsin-Nevada-Iowa-NH-Colorado, with Colorado as the tipping point state. Ohio was gravy on top.

And saying that Obama threw everything he had at the state...and Romney didn't? Put another way: Ohio is traditionally slightly Republican, and Obama managed to win it despite Romney throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it. If anything, he seems to have reversed the state: According to 538, Ohio is usually 2 points more Republican than the nation, but this year it seems to be perfectly aligned, as Obama leads the popular vote by 2.
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.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 01:27 AM
 
Oh, so approval ratings <50% are "no big deal", yet you try to harangue me over them?

I have stated facts. You like to point out statistics that may, or may not, have anything to do with the price of tea in China. They're cherry-picked to suit your bias, and I can go to FOX news and they're doing the same. There's no reason for the Repubs to run around like their hair is on fire, neither party is overwhelmingly popular right now. It would be a fantastic time for a good 3rd party to form, like Libertarians minus the extreme isolationism.

I'm critical of both parties because they deserve it, because I'm not going to put on rose-colored glasses and agree with someone, only because they have a D or R after their name. We're losing more rights and freedoms every year, whose fault is that? The government? Politicians? Corporations? No, none of the above. It's our fault, we're empowering them by trading liberty for comfort.

I don't obey bad laws and I don't follow bad leaders. For me, the social contract is only good insofar as what is being done is just, and I'm having a tough time accepting that what we're being told is right.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 01:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
The tipping point state actually turned out to not be Ohio. The critical path to 270 was Wisconsin-Nevada-Iowa-NH-Colorado, with Colorado as the tipping point state. Ohio was gravy on top.
And saying that Obama threw everything he had at the state...and Romney didn't? Put another way: Ohio is traditionally slightly Republican, and Obama managed to win it despite Romney throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it. If anything, he seems to have reversed the state: According to 538, Ohio is usually 2 points more Republican than the nation, but this year it seems to be perfectly aligned, as Obama leads the popular vote by 2.
Romney was wasting a lot of time in PA.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 01:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post

And in another universe, Obama has a pony. Yes, hypothetically, a third-party candidate from the left would have hurt Obama. In another parallel universe, a Libertarian candidate would have taken votes from Romney, increasing the gap from ~2.5 % to some other imaginary number. Meanwhile in our universe, the elections went down as they did.
I think you're mistaking me for yourself: I am not American, I don't root for one party or the other. You've made a claim that Obama won by a very slight margin, 0.5 %, and you have yet to make a convincing argument that you're right. I'm just stating the facts that Obama has a ~50 % lead in the Electoral College (whether the 29 Floridian votes go to Obama or Romney is immaterial) and a ~2.5 % lead in the popular vote.
You're not listening, you're too busy using sarcasm. Put aside the bias for a second. This is the first election for president where Nader didn't run, and he usually siphons off 3-4% of the votes from candidates on the Left, on average. He's done this since the `90s. Now, bearing that in mind, could Romney have won if the Green party fielded a candidate with Nader's endorsement?

Yes.
"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 8, 2012, 01:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Can someone tell me what the hell Romney was trying to accomplish in Pennsylvania in the final days of the campaign? There were several other swing states that were much closer contests than that.
I think they saw that Wisconsin was completely gone, and that there was little they could do in Ohio - it stayed in the blue column despite being saturated by ads, and they just couldn't move it. That meant either winning a streak of battleground states that all looked to be trending towards Obama (Not just CO and VA, but NV, IA and NH as well) or doing a Hail Mary with a grab for PA, which had received much less attention and which would get them to 277 together with CO and VA. Not a good option, but I think they felt that it was the only one left.
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.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 01:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Romney was wasting a lot of time in PA.
Only at the end, I think - and Biden has been spending quite some time in PA.
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.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 03:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Only at the end, I think - and Biden has been spending quite some time in PA.
Yeah, that was election day, he still would have been better served by camping out in Ohio. Not that it would have mattered too much.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 04:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post

You're not listening, you're too busy using sarcasm. Put aside the bias for a second. This is the first election for president where Nader didn't run, and he usually siphons off 3-4% of the votes from candidates on the Left, on average. He's done this since the `90s. Now, bearing that in mind, could Romney have won if the Green party fielded a candidate with Nader's endorsement?
Yes.
Maybe, you don't know that. A Green party candidate could steal votes from either Romney or Obama, you seem to act like it would only work to the detriment to Obama.

How did the third party candidates you and your family support fund themselves? It seems like the more expensive campaigns get to run because of our ****ed up laws, the less likely it is that we'll ever see a viable third party.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 04:22 AM
 
Besson asks:

"BadKosh, since Obama has won has your spellchecker exploded with all of your clever and creative intentional misspellings which I'm sure have intensified?"




No. As a matter of fact I took a few days off from political BS. Perhaps you should too? Wipe the rabid foam off your face!
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 04:32 AM
 
besson has never come across as particularly "rabid".
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 05:07 AM
 
Unless in [email protected]$h-land "rabid" means "awesome", in which case I'd wonder why he likes having foam on his face... Unless he is into bukkake.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 05:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
$20 whores aren't, and don't use, anything pretty. Perhaps that was the rub, tongue in cheek as it were.
Regardless, we don't need to be insulting other members.
He wasn't insulting me, he was complimenting me. He liked the Obama story.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 05:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Despite the hoopla, it was by no means a landslide, it was still a statistical dead heat. Furthermore, the fact that Obama had a majority is because there was no 3rd party candidate of note on the Left. If Nader or some other influential Greenie had been running, as has happened often in the past (ask Gore), Obama very well may have lost.
That's a unique perspective.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 05:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
There's no reason for the Repubs to run around like their hair is on fire, neither party is overwhelmingly popular right now.
I think my favourite quote of the evening comes from Shepard Smith, as he was anchoring Fox's election coverage.

Shepard Smith"]“Barack Obama wins a second term and his acceptance speech will be coming in the minutes ahead, and Mitt Romney will be congratulating him, I’m quite sure, as the nation tries to figure out a way to come together after one of the most polarizing, brutal, expensive, and at times just disgusting campaigns anybody’s ever seen. That last part was bipartisan in every way. Dragged through the mud is the understatement of the year. The names that they’ve called each other, the fibs that they’ve told about each other, the ads that they have paid for to tear down the other side beginning all the way back in the primaries, it’s been absolutely brutal. And if the goal was to divide the populace, well they succeeded because right now in living rooms across America, one side is absolutely livid and worried that the nation is about to collapse, and the other side is thankful that the Republicans didn’t get in there and destroy what progress had been made. It depends on your point of view. But people are divided and divided that seriously. And I don’t need to tell you that, you know it. Maybe it’s time to demand that they work together.”[/quote]

The other interesting thing to see from the Fox coverage was their own observation that the voter demographics in this election changed in ways that the Republicans aren't campaigning for. Neither party may be overwhelmingly popular right now, but each in different ways. For the Republicans, it would seem to be because they are too focused on trying to please their base rather than trying to win voters from the centre.

Also interesting was Karl Rove lecturing Fox for announcing Obama's win too quickly.


Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It would be a fantastic time for a good 3rd party to form, like Libertarians minus the extreme isolationism.
No doubt. Who's going to fund it?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 05:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Maybe, you don't know that. A Green party candidate could steal votes from either Romney or Obama, you seem to act like it would only work to the detriment to Obama.

How did the third party candidates you and your family support fund themselves? It seems like the more expensive campaigns get to run because of our ****ed up laws, the less likely it is that we'll ever see a viable third party.
Green candidates, when not voting Green, 89% of the time vote Democrat. Why? Because Dems, usually, are more environmentally focused.

My candidate took $100 private donations, nothing more. I tried to setup a local rally and fundraising dinner, but he declined.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 05:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
besson has never come across as particularly "rabid".
No, just purposely obtuse and argumentative.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 05:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I think my favourite quote of the evening comes from Shepard Smith, as he was anchoring Fox's election coverage.
The other interesting thing to see from the Fox coverage was their own observation that the voter demographics in this election changed in ways that the Republicans aren't campaigning for. Neither party may be overwhelmingly popular right now, but each in different ways. For the Republicans, it would seem to be because they are too focused on trying to please their base rather than trying to win voters from the centre.
Also interesting was Karl Rove lecturing Fox for announcing Obama's win too quickly.
No doubt. Who's going to fund it?
I'm working on that.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That's a unique perspective.
One that I've not heard from the usual media outlets, likely because they're too focused on other things that aren't as obvious.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 05:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
One that I've not heard from the usual media outlets, likely because they're too focused on other things that aren't as obvious.
It's also kind of pointless, if not counterproductive. Obama could have won by a larger margin – if only Ron Paul had gone 3rd party. Maybe I learned the wrong lesson, but all Perot and Nader seemed to do is change the outcome of elections to not necessarily reflect the will of the people.

Now if we could install a run-off voting system, that'd be great.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 05:46 AM
 
At the end of the day, it's shocking and amazing to me that there seems to be no real push for an amendment to your campaign spending and donation laws.

There's no way to describe your campaign dollar figures other than "wildly outrageous".
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 05:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
At the end of the day, it's shocking and amazing to me that there seems to be no real push for an amendment to your campaign spending and donation laws.
There's no way to describe your campaign dollar figures other than "wildly outrageous".
It could be worse. We could have been in an economic environment where a billion dollars would be better spent funding new businesses, increasing employee count, or raising peoples wages.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 06:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Maybe I learned the wrong lesson, but all Perot and Nader seemed to do is change the outcome of elections to not necessarily reflect the will of the people.
Third party candidates are far more than just "spoilers." They are watched closely by the major parties, and to the extent that a third party candidate attracts actual votes, that candidate's platform is incorporated by the major parties in order to win those votes back. For example, Perot wanted to close the deficit, and while he had less than a snowball's chance of doing it personally, you'll notice that the deficit was closed under the candidate that defeated him.

Now if we could install a run-off voting system, that'd be great.
Agree. Getting third party ideas in through the back door like we have now is no substitute for creating an actual front door for those ideas.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 06:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Now if we could install a run-off voting system, that'd be great.
Personally I am not a fan of first-past-the-post elections, but there are tested options to mitigate the problems with that system. One is instant runoff voting, used in e.g. Australia. A voter picks their favorite and marks it 1. They may then optional mark other candidates 2, 3 etc as fallback candidates. When counting, initially only the 1s are counted. If neither candidate received an absolute majority, the candidate with the lowest number of 1s is removed, and those ballots are examined for 2s to vote for another candidate. If there is still no absolute majority, another candidate is removed and any votes for that candidate are examined for 2s (and 3s) for any remaining candidate, etc.
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.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 06:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It's also kind of pointless, if not counterproductive. Obama could have won by a larger margin – if only Ron Paul had gone 3rd party. Maybe I learned the wrong lesson, but all Perot and Nader seemed to do is change the outcome of elections to not necessarily reflect the will of the people.
Now if we could install a run-off voting system, that'd be great.
Not unimportant. Gore had Nader, Bush had Perot, Obama had no foil on his side of the political bed, while Romney had several small "fleas" who leached from him. Why not? Would that have made enough of a difference? We'll never know, but it is interesting.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 06:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Personally I am not a fan of first-past-the-post elections, but there are tested options to mitigate the problems with that system. One is instant runoff voting, used in e.g. Australia. A voter picks their favorite and marks it 1. They may then optional mark other candidates 2, 3 etc as fallback candidates. When counting, initially only the 1s are counted. If neither candidate received an absolute majority, the candidate with the lowest number of 1s is removed, and those ballots are examined for 2s to vote for another candidate. If there is still no absolute majority, another candidate is removed and any votes for that candidate are examined for 2s (and 3s) for any remaining candidate, etc.
That's exactly what I'm referring to. Cynically, it's also going to never happen, either because it's not murican or, more likely, because both parties don't want the competition.


Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Not unimportant. Gore had Nader, Bush had Perot, Obama had no foil on his side of the political bed, while Romney had several small "fleas" who leached from him. Why not? Would that have made enough of a difference? We'll never know, but it is interesting.
Who was leaching from Romney?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 07:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post

Who was leaching from Romney?
Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode, for starters.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 07:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode, for starters.
Johnson got less than 1% of the vote. Virgil not even .1%. I don't think this really compares to the effect of Nader (2.74%) or Perot (18%!).

Oh, and Stein siphoned .33% off Obama.


Is there any state where giving Romney Johnson or Virgil's votes would change the outcome? And would it impact the electoral outcome meaningfully?

Edit: Even better – https://ivn.us/neutral-zone/2012/11/...ates-for-loss/

Virginia

99.5% of precincts reporting:

Barack Obama – 1,852,123
Mitt Romney – 1,745,397
Gary Johnson – 30,003
Virgil Goode – 13,442
Jill Stein – 8,357
One of the biggest concerns for the Romney campaign was Virgil Goode’s impact on this race. Goode has only secured roughly .4% of the vote. It is Goode’s home state and Governor Johnson has more votes than he has. The difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in Virginia is 106,726. Combined Johnson and Goode took a total of 43,445.

Verdict: Obama would still win Virginia.

Ohio

99.7% of precincts reporting:

Barack Obama – 2,672,302
Mitt Romney – 2,571,539
Gary Johnson – 48,672
Jill Stein – 17,657
The difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is 100,763. Gary Johnson did not even get half that.

Verdict: Obama would still win Ohio

Colorado

76.8% of precincts reporting:

Barack Obama – 1,199,142
Mitt Romney – 1,100,186
Gary Johnson – 30,821
Jill Stein – 6,609
Virgil Goode – 5,610
The difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is 98,956. Of the battleground states, Gary Johnson is doing the best in Colorado, garnering 1.3% of the vote with just over three-quarters of the precincts reporting in. The state he is doing the best in is his home state, New Mexico, where he has 3.8% of the vote. Combined, Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode took 36,431 votes in Colorado.

Verdict: Obama would still win Colorado

Florida

100% of precincts reporting:

Barack Obama – 4,129,360
Mitt Romney – 4,083,321
Gary Johnson – 43,479
Jill Stein – 8,676
This is the closest race in the country, and election officials have stopped counting ballots in some areas. The difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is 46,039. It is the closest Gary Johnson comes to matching the difference, but still the math doesn’t add up.

Verdict: Though the state has not been projected, no matter who wins it, third party candidates are not to blame for one candidate losing to another.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 07:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Johnson got less than 1% of the vote. Virgil not even .1%. I don't think this really compares to the effect of Nader (2.74%) or Perot (18%!).
Oh, and Stein siphoned .33% off Obama.
Is there any state where giving Romney Johnson or Virgil's votes would change the outcome? And would it impact the electoral outcome meaningfully?
While adding Nader back in? Probably several.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 07:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Not unimportant. Gore had Nader, Bush had Perot, Obama had no foil on his side of the political bed, while Romney had several small "fleas" who leached from him. Why not? Would that have made enough of a difference? We'll never know, but it is interesting.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Who was leaching from Romney?

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode, for starters.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yes, it turns out it was unimportant.


Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
While adding Nader back in? Probably several.
Not getting why you keep bringing up Nader. Why don't we add Perot back in too, while we're at it?
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 08:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
it was still a statistical dead heat
Obama won 7 of 9 background states, more than double the minimum he needed in order to win. You are deluding yourself.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 08:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post

Not getting why you keep bringing up Nader. Why don't we add Perot back in too, while we're at it?
Well, because Perot hasn't run since `96, whereas Nader ran 4 straight times, right up until 2008. This is the first presidential election he hasn't been directly involved with in 20 years. If he had ran, as usual, and Johnson had pulled "normal" Libertarian numbers of ~400k, we very well could be swearing in Romney on January 21st. That's why I said:

Obama had no foil on his side of the political bed, while Romney had several small "fleas" who leached from him.
It's all academic, we can't know for sure. One thing is certain, however, it would have been a lot more interesting. In fact, we'd likely still be waiting for the final results.

Anyhow, it's been fun theorizing.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 08:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Personally I am not a fan of first-past-the-post elections, but there are tested options to mitigate the problems with that system. One is instant runoff voting, used in e.g. Australia.
Wouldn't have affected anything in this election, all things being equal. Obama still won the majority. Not only that, he won a majority in every state he carried, with Virginia being the lowest at 50.8%.

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/

It looks like Florida will be the only state where the winner doesn't have at least 50%, although 3rd parties took only .7% of the total vote. The only state with weaker 3rd party turnout than Florida is Oklahoma.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 08:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Obama won 7 of 9 background states, more than double the minimum he needed in order to win. You are deluding yourself.
I never mentioned the EC, this was all started over the popular vote. You may say I'm deluded, but at least I'm the one following the thread of the conversation.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 08:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Well, because Perot hasn't run since `96, whereas Nader ran 4 straight times, right up until 2008. This is the first presidential election he hasn't been directly involved with in 20 years. If he had ran, as usual, and Johnson had pulled "normal" Libertarian numbers of ~400k, we very well could be swearing in Romney on January 21st.
Nader pulled a worse % in '08 than Johnson did this year.

All I'm reading is if things had gone different things would be different.


It's all academic, we can't know for sure. One thing is certain, however, it would have been a lot more interesting. In fact, we'd likely still be waiting for the final results.
Anyhow, it's been fun theorizing.
It's academic, but I don't see the point. What's the point? It seems to have all started with you taking exception to Obama's PV margin (or the liberal reaction to it therein). It certainly wasn't a landslide or a mandate, but in the end, it was no razor thin victory either. It was simply decisive and clear. Nader's presence would not have negated that.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 08:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It certainly wasn't a landslide or a mandate
That's all I said too, but was attacked for it. "Durr hurr, you dirty Romney supporter!"

Honestly folks, that shtick gets old after a while.


Well, back to work, those valves aren't going to replace themselves.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 08:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
That's all I said too, but was attacked for it. "Durr hurr, you dirty Romney supporter!"
Honestly folks, that shtick gets old after a while.
I don't think you're a Romney supporter, but I do get the vibe that given your dislike of both candidates or natural cynicism, you're a little put-off by the people celebrating Obama's victory.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 09:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I never mentioned the EC, this was all started over the popular vote. You may say I'm deluded, but at least I'm the one following the thread of the conversation.
I've been following the thread, and several people have been telling you the same thing: the EC matters, the popular vote doesn't.

It's like one team won 7 of 9 games, and you're claiming the series was a squeaker because the total number of baskets over the games was close. That's just not how the series is scored.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 10:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
$20 whores aren't, and don't use, anything pretty. Perhaps that was the rub, tongue in cheek as it were.
Regardless, we don't need to be insulting other members.
It's a line from Blazing Saddles, and a complement:

"God darnit, Mr. Lamarr, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore."

As a side note: while Googling for the script, I found out that the Language Center of National Central University in Taiwan uses Blazing Saddles for analyzing English language.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 10:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I've been following the thread, and several people have been telling you the same thing: the EC matters, the popular vote doesn't.
It's like one team won 7 of 9 games, and you're claiming the series was a squeaker because the total number of baskets over the games was close. That's just not how the series is scored.
This isn't a very good analogy.

It would work if every series was scored by the number of baskets across the series except the championship.
     
 
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
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:35 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,