Relapse wrote: It's way early, though, and a lot seems projected and not certain, but I'm surprised at this.
Try waiting to be surprised until after more than 0.0001% of the vote has been counted. Those numbers are meaningless right now, since they're just the result of a republican district/state or two being officially called earlier than a democrat district/state. In 15 minutes it could easily swing back to a decisive Obama "victory" when an inevitable Obama state is officially called.
Relapse wrote: It's way early, though, and a lot seems projected and not certain, but I'm surprised at this.
Try waiting to be surprised until after more than 0.0001% of the vote has been counted. Those numbers are meaningless right now, since they're just the result of a republican district/state or two being officially called earlier than a democrat district/state. In 15 minutes it could easily swing back to a decisive Obama "victory" when an inevitable Obama state is officially called.
No need to get your panties twisted. I did say it was way early.
Relapse wrote: No need to get your panties twisted. I did say it was way early.
So what's the point in making a thread about it this early? I mean, all you've said was "hey guys someone called a Romney state 15 minutes before they called an Obama state, omg what a surprise!!!!". There's just nothing to discuss at this point.
NBC and CNN have similar, but less excellent, versions of the same. I found this was the case in 2010 and 2008 as well. What Fox lacks in reporting they make up for in coding.
NBC and CNN have similar, but less excellent, versions of the same. I found this was the case in 2010 and 2008 as well. What Fox lacks in reporting they make up for in coding.
Relapse wrote: It's way early, though, and a lot seems projected and not certain, but I'm surprised at this.
Try waiting to be surprised until after more than 0.0001% of the vote has been counted. Those numbers are meaningless right now, since they're just the result of a republican district/state or two being officially called earlier than a democrat district/state. In 15 minutes it could easily swing back to a decisive Obama "victory" when an inevitable Obama state is officially called.
Yup, expect the numbers to fluctuate wildly for the next hour plus...
hotsauceman1 wrote: The LA Times says the same.
That is a total of.....11 out of 270 votes.
Lets wait until midnight on the west coast before we call it.
It could be a wild ride tonight for sure.
So far it's Romney's 33 electoral votes to Obama's 3 projected, but the popular vote is extremely close. Things are really going to be flipping and turning like crazy in a couple more hours.
Why aren't they calling Florida for Obama? They felt pretty comfortable calling VT at 3%, SC at 2%, WV at 1%... but Florida has 36% reported, the most of any state currently, and it's all hey, what's the rush?
The pan handle is in the central time zone and I belive the polls close an hour later there. It's a solidly republican zone so while Obama is up for now, it's too late.
Ouze wrote: Why aren't they calling Florida for Obama? They felt pretty comfortable calling VT at 3%, SC at 2%, WV at 1%... but Florida has 36% reported, the most of any state currently, and it's all hey, what's the rush?
Maybe there's a rationale I don't understand.
Probably because those states are predictable, and they're willing to call a predictable state as soon as the votes start coming in and confirm that nothing unusual has happened (and the polls close so they're allowed to make the call). Florida, as a contested swing state, needs a higher percentage before they can comfortably say it's gone one way or another.
As someone with an avid interest in international politics (and for whom no foreign country's election is more important than that of the US - it affects us all) I've found the press coverage (especially concerning the BBC) for this election to be pretty intriguing, but not specifically for the way that it seems to have become more far reaching than ever before. Specifically because most of the polling/analysis opinion carried out prior to the election, and during the start of it, has Obama down as the victor. Not by the margin that we saw in 2008, but certainly not the neck & neck race to the line that the BBC in particular over here is expounding. So why the lack of proper reporting and accurate commentary? It's like they too have been drawn into the massive, overblown theatre of the whole event; We know the movie is going to end with Bruce Willis blowing some dodgy-sounding European criminal's head off, yet we still grip our seats and fear for him as he scrapes through by the width of his white vest (not to draw analogies to any particular 'character' in this election).
So, analyses from multiple sources (who have got every other election right, going back years) are saying it's Obama in 2012. Are they suddenly going to all be wrong? Is it some conspiracy, with Obama's nephew the one who owns the polling machine software company in Ohio?
Or is it just the BBC, who I've heard are a commonly watched channel for anyone in the US so sick of news stations falling on one side or the other, are afraid of alienating any of their viewership ?
Anyway I've had enough of it for now - sadly there is no longer the opportunity for Gore Vidal to be interviewed and come out with some witty yet often rude retorts to the news presenters (a good reason to stay up and watch previous elections!), so I'm off to bed and wait to see the aftermath in the morning!
Peregrine wrote: Probably because those states are predictable, and they're willing to call a predictable state as soon as the votes start coming in and confirm that nothing unusual has happened (and the polls close so they're allowed to make the call). Florida, as a contested swing state, needs a higher percentage before they can comfortably say it's gone one way or another.
That sounds reasonable, sure.
Also, it looks like Obama is, so far, winning Ohio - that's probably it there, right?
Pacific wrote: So why the lack of proper reporting and accurate commentary?
Because reporting accurately doesn't generate interest. If the headline week after week was "Obama still likely to win, Romney still the worst candidate ever" attention drops, and advertising income goes with it. On the other hand reporting it as "CLOSEST RACE EVER KEEP WATCHING OUR NEWS SO YOU DON'T MISS ANYTHING" is more likely to keep everyone's attention, and then you add in the effect of 24/7 news making it mandatory to have a "close race" just so the 24/7 news shows have something to talk about.
Of course in a self-fulfilling prophecy this probably resulted in the election being a lot closer than it should have been, since everyone was afraid to go after Romney as harshly as he deserved and risk making it obvious that the show was over. As a result Romney looks like less of a joke and gains a false sense of legitimacy and probably a lot of votes he wouldn't have had in a world with honest reporting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Also, it looks like Obama is, so far, winning Ohio - that's probably it there, right?
Well, that depends on what order the results arrive in. If the Obama-leaning districts simply happened to count their votes faster than the Romney-leaning districts then it's too early to call it since the current total isn't a representative sample. On the other hand, if the districts that counted their votes fastest are a representative sample then it's a lot more likely to be an accurate prediction of the final result.
For example, google tells me that SC has been called for Romney even though Obama is "winning" the state right now, which just means that the token Obama-leaning districts in a Romney-dominated state happened to count and report their votes a bit faster and dominate the first 1% of the count, but once the other 99% are counted that will no longer be the case.
Ouze wrote:Why aren't they calling Florida for Obama? They felt pretty comfortable calling VT at 3%, SC at 2%, WV at 1%... but Florida has 36% reported, the most of any state currently, and it's all hey, what's the rush?
Maybe there's a rationale I don't understand.
Because if Florida gets called for Obama, then it's game over, goodnight, no more ratings.
Maybe they can't release the numbers due to new procedures...like counting by machine and counting by hands....do we really want another FLA Chad "NIGHTMARE"
BBC one ain't bad if you are looking for another alternative. The states update slowly in colour for some reason, but its not that bad. They have O 78- R 76
only the states that don't really matter have been counted yet
it will take a month for NY votes to be figured out alone
but Obummer will have it in the bag by 11 PM PST tonight
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: AFAIK, the Mormons use the old and new testament, along with their own fan-fic of middling quality. /mormonrazzing.
Mormanism should really make everyone second guess religion
here is a guy who loves him a bunch of ladies so he invents a religion so he can sleep with them all and not feel he was doing anything morally wrong.
I mean Jesus H Christ came to America nearly 2000 years after he had died and told a man in Utah of all places it was cool to have lots of women, as long as you married them all. See zombie Jesus figured one wife was hard enough, no man in his right mind would want more than one, but not this man. This man had seen a zombie Jesus, now he had a church to build and a harem to build as well.
I mean come on, these works of fiction are clearly correct, right?
Testify wrote: ...I have no idea why elections are declared before they've even counted the votes.
Because once you get a representative sample it's pretty easy to predict with overwhelming confidence which way the election as a whole is going. For example, an extremely conservative state can be called for Romney as soon as the polls close, even if only 0.0001% of the vote has been officially counted (and only waiting that long because there's a policy of not doing it any sooner). Or, if the current count shows 55% Obama 45% Romney with 30% of the vote counted it's safe to say Obama is going to win if the remaining 70% consists mostly of districts that always favor democrats. Sure, there's a tiny chance that the early call could be wrong, but we're talking about unofficial statements by the media, not binding legal declarations by the government, so they can afford to accept a 1% chance of being wrong.
As for Florida, the last time I heard with 78% of the vote in there was only like a 200 vote difference with each candidate having over 3.3 million votes.
Personally I liked where a couple of states were given to Obama with 0 votes for either candidate.
Testify wrote: ...I have no idea why elections are declared before they've even counted the votes.
Because once you get a representative sample it's pretty easy to predict with overwhelming confidence which way the election as a whole is going. For example, an extremely conservative state can be called for Romney as soon as the polls close, even if only 0.0001% of the vote has been officially counted (and only waiting that long because there's a policy of not doing it any sooner). Or, if the current count shows 55% Obama 45% Romney with 30% of the vote counted it's safe to say Obama is going to win if the remaining 70% consists mostly of districts that always favor democrats. Sure, there's a tiny chance that the early call could be wrong, but we're talking about unofficial statements by the media, not binding legal declarations by the government, so they can afford to accept a 1% chance of being wrong.
They are waiting until polls are closed at least. I think in 2000 they called Florida when they were still voting in the panhandle and there were arguments that because it was called early some voters stayed home, which could have affected a close race there.
Archaeo wrote: Personally I liked where a couple of states were given to Obama with 0 votes for either candidate.
Just like states were given to Romney with 0 votes. When you have a state where there's a 99.9999999999% chance that the winner will be a particular candidate of course the media is going to call it as soon as the polls close.
Everything is going pretty much as predicted, and with Ohio showing strong returns for Obama, the election is pretty much all sewn up.
Only thing a bit off from the predictions is Virginia, which is going far more strongly for Romney than expected. That might even up as more of the vote is counted however.
Meanwhile, just as predicted, Florida is almost exactly tied, only 2000 votes between the candidates at the moment. Luckily, the election almost certainly won't depend on it, so it won't be 2000 all over again.
I just saw a Republican strategist for the state get apoplectic because his party voted out an old school Republican in the primaries for a Tea Party candidate, only to have him lose to a Democrat that the original Republican would have walked all over.
NBC and CNN have similar, but less excellent, versions of the same. I found this was the case in 2010 and 2008 as well. What Fox lacks in reporting they make up for in coding.
Their layout is great but their calls are the same old FOX, unfortunately.
I mean, right now they've called Montana for Romney, with a whopping 0% of the vote counted. Now fair enough you might say, Montana is always going to Romney. But then California and Washington are always going to go to Obama, but neither of those have been called...
That said, I'm still using it because they seem to be updating faster than anyone else when it comes to Ohio and Florida.
Ahtman wrote: I just saw a Republican strategist for the state get apoplectic because his party voted out an old school Republican in the primaries for a Tea Party candidate, only to have him lose to a Democrat that the original Republican would have walked all over.
Dick Luger had served Indiana for 30+ years as a republican. He was ousted during the primaries by Mourdock of "rape babies are god's willl" fame, and then Mourdock is heavily projected to lose to Donneley.
sebster wrote: Their layout is great but their calls are the same old FOX, unfortunately.
I mean, right now they've called Montana for Romney, with a whopping 0% of the vote counted. Now fair enough you might say, Montana is always going to Romney. But then California and Washington are always going to go to Obama, but neither of those have been called...
I believe that's because Montana's polls have closed, but neither California nor Washington's have.
Pacific wrote: So why the lack of proper reporting and accurate commentary?
Because reporting accurately doesn't generate interest. If the headline week after week was "Obama still likely to win, Romney still the worst candidate ever" attention drops, and advertising income goes with it. On the other hand reporting it as "CLOSEST RACE EVER KEEP WATCHING OUR NEWS SO YOU DON'T MISS ANYTHING" is more likely to keep everyone's attention, and then you add in the effect of 24/7 news making it mandatory to have a "close race" just so the 24/7 news shows have something to talk about.
Never forget the shambles that was the 2000 election though. There the pressure was to be the first to call the race, and the result was several news sites calling it for Gore long before the thing was really over. I think news sites are still a little gunshy over that.
Ahtman wrote: I just saw a Republican strategist for the state get apoplectic because his party voted out an old school Republican in the primaries for a Tea Party candidate, only to have him lose to a Democrat that the original Republican would have walked all over.
Dick Luger had served Indiana for 30+ years as a republican. He was ousted during the primaries by Mourdock of "rape babies are god's willl" fame, and then Mourdock is heavily projected to lose to Donneley.
That is the race I am referring to. It was one of the local channels and they had a rep for each party and when they called it for Donnely the Republican strategist looked visibly uncomfortable, and his face was red, but it seemed more like he was more angry at the party than anything else and was going on about how the Republicans had taken good seats in the Senate and just thrown them in the trashcan (or ashcan). I imagine he was probably a Lugar supporter in the primaries.
Ahtman wrote: I just saw a Republican strategist for the state get apoplectic because his party voted out an old school Republican in the primaries for a Tea Party candidate, only to have him lose to a Democrat that the original Republican would have walked all over.
The only thing that kept the senate in Democratic hands in 2010 was the Tea Party crazies that the Republican Party put up, and it looks like that is going to be the case again.
It really opens up the door on asking if the Tea Party is a good thing or a bad thing for the Republicans.
Ouze wrote: I believe that's because Montana's polls have closed, but neither California nor Washington's have.
Ah, of course. My bad, and my apologies to Rupert Murdoch and the greater FOX news corporation, should they be reading this.
You shouldn't, they shouldn't call MT without counting it. It's actually a purple state. In the grand scheme it's 3 EV don't change a thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It seems likely at this point Obama will unsurprisingly win the EV by a large margin, but surprising to me is how far ahead (obviously early in the night with Cali not in with it's 10M+ votes) Romney is in the popular vote. If memory serves in 2000 the margin between bush and Gore was like 500,000. Before they went to commericial I saw CBS carrying Mittens at 1.5 to as much as 2m ahead of Barry.
No matter what the outcome Id like to see what the map would look like if all the states went to a proportional system by district like I believe Nebraska has. I like the EC but I think that the winner take all system needs to be dumped in favor of a proportional system so candidates have to go to places like California and campaign.
Ahtman wrote: I just saw a Republican strategist for the state get apoplectic because his party voted out an old school Republican in the primaries for a Tea Party candidate, only to have him lose to a Democrat that the original Republican would have walked all over.
Dick Luger had served Indiana for 30+ years as a republican. He was ousted during the primaries by Mourdock of "rape babies are god's willl" fame, and then Mourdock is heavily projected to lose to Donneley.
That is the race I am referring to. It was one of the local channels and they had a rep for each party and when they called it for Donnely the Republican strategist looked visibly uncomfortable, and his face was red, but it seemed more like he was more angry at the party than anything else and was going on about how the Republicans had taken good seats in the Senate and just thrown them in the trashcan (or ashcan). I imagine he was probably a Lugar supporter in the primaries.
Yeah, I just wanted to put names to what you were talking about. According to one of the news programs I've been flipping back and forth between, a lot of exit poll commenters mentioned that they would have voted Lugar.
My thought was, "Well then why the frell didn't you vote for him in the primaries?" I'm sure some did, don't get me wrong, but frankly any state getting its t-bag kicked in deserves it.
Well, in 2009 the Tea Party was saving the Repubilcan Party. And then 2010 happened and they managed to get their numbers out, while the Democratic turnout dropped away, and they made huge gains.
So then there was a debate, did the Tea Party improve turnout to give them their successes, or did the nuts put up by the Tea Party in some places cost them too much?
Now, with the Republicans failing to claim the Senate like they probably should have, maybe there isn't a debate anymore, and the Tea Party is a straight up problem for the Republicans?
The FOX website has called Ohio for Obama. That puts him at 275 and gives him the win, with a win in Nevada to come and a probable win in Florida to come and bump him up. That gives him, what, 307 votes all up?
Well, in 2009 the Tea Party was saving the Repubilcan Party. And then 2010 happened and they managed to get their numbers out, while the Democratic turnout dropped away, and they made huge gains.
So then there was a debate, did the Tea Party improve turnout to give them their successes, or did the nuts put up by the Tea Party in some places cost them too much?
Now, with the Republicans failing to claim the Senate like they probably should have, maybe there isn't a debate anymore, and the Tea Party is a straight up problem for the Republicans?
I was being facetious.
The Tea Party is a horrible, horrible problem for the Republicans. It's like the "Occupy ____" movement. It is full of people wanting completely different things, and has gone so far from what it was founded to do that it's gone absolutely wacky.
Ahtman wrote: I just saw a Republican strategist for the state get apoplectic because his party voted out an old school Republican in the primaries for a Tea Party candidate, only to have him lose to a Democrat that the original Republican would have walked all over.
Dick Luger had served Indiana for 30+ years as a republican. He was ousted during the primaries by Mourdock of "rape babies are god's willl" fame, and then Mourdock is heavily projected to lose to Donneley.
That is the race I am referring to. It was one of the local channels and they had a rep for each party and when they called it for Donnely the Republican strategist looked visibly uncomfortable, and his face was red, but it seemed more like he was more angry at the party than anything else and was going on about how the Republicans had taken good seats in the Senate and just thrown them in the trashcan (or ashcan). I imagine he was probably a Lugar supporter in the primaries.
Yeah, I just wanted to put names to what you were talking about. According to one of the news programs I've been flipping back and forth between, a lot of exit poll commenters mentioned that they would have voted Lugar.
My thought was, "Well then why the frell didn't you vote for him in the primaries?" I'm sure some did, don't get me wrong, but frankly any state getting its t-bag kicked in deserves it.
Because only a small fraction of the electorate votes in primaries, and that's split into the different parties. The end result is the most motivated and zealous voters are the ones who chose the candidate. Lugar might have picked up a lot more moderate dems normally, but the stupid Rape comments drove even the moderate republicans away. Stupid choices made by Tea baggers in the primaries cost Republicans at least 4 seats in the senate, between this and the last election.
The Tea Party is a horrible, horrible problem for the Republicans. It's like the "Occupy ____" movement. It is full of people wanting completely different things, and has gone so far from what it was founded to do that it's gone absolutely wacky.
Oh okay. I thought you were, quite rightly, pointing out that I'd understated the point in my first comment, and I was changing my comment because of it.
And yeah, the Tea Party is a big problem for the party, and in much the same way that Occupy is for the Democrats. In both cases, they're a noisy fringe movement that is far more interested in ideological purity and simplicity than they are about being successful, or about dealing with the realities of government.
That said, Occupy is probably less of a problem for a funny kind of reason - they're so much more disorganised and impractical that they can't influence primaries, and as a result they aren't hurting the Democrats by getting far left people put up for Senate and House elections.
d-usa wrote: Yeah, looks like 538's final count might have been right on the money.
Add in Nevada and Florida to the states already given to Obama and you have 307, compared to 538 calling 313 for Obama. Looks like his only miss was calling Virginia as a more likely win for Obama than Florida, which has been an interesting result.
Oops, and as I say that Obama claws ahead in Virginia, so Obama's victory could end up being much closer to his 2008 electoral count than people thought, despite the vote totals being much closer than in 2008.
I keep thinking how funny it would be of they counted California and it went Romney. It would make all the talking heads; and most of us, look like jackasses.
Time to start planning my reign as the unelected leader of North America.
Polonius wrote: And, much like in 2004, the "i'm not that other guy" platform didn't work.
Americans like a strong leader, and they like a guy that stands for something.
Show me a person that's excited about Mitt Romney, and I'll show you Ann Romney.
And like 2004, for all the noise about this or that, people just had to look at Ohio. When the challenger couldn't lead there, their electoral paths stopped making any real sense.
Easy E wrote: Quick question, has anyone heard if that guy who said that Women can't become pregnant by rape won his race? I can't recall his name at the moment.
That's my state... Atkins... and no, he didn't win.
Its over, Its finally over. Thank the FSM its finally over Its the first election I didn't vote in, so I can only hope in 2016 I really won't care anymore. But its really horrible that you only have 2 choices, and its a toss up between the lesser of two evils. We, I mean you guys, really need more parties.
streamdragon wrote: Currently only two states can split electoral votes. Nebraska and Maine.
Well, every state could. There is nothing keeping them from doing that except the states themselves.
Yes I agree! I was just clarifying the two states that can split their votes. I agree that the "all in" method of electoral voting is harmful; I also feel like you would hear less "my vote is meaningless" if electoral votes were tied to popular vote. (Or done away with entirely.)
Easy E wrote: Quick question, has anyone heard if that guy who said that Women can't become pregnant by rape won his race? I can't recall his name at the moment.
That's my state... Atkins... and no, he didn't win.
streamdragon wrote: Currently only two states can split electoral votes. Nebraska and Maine.
Well, every state could. There is nothing keeping them from doing that except the states themselves.
Yes I agree! I was just clarifying the two states that can split their votes. I agree that the "all in" method of electoral voting is harmful; I also feel like you would hear less "my vote is meaningless" if electoral votes were tied to popular vote. (Or done away with entirely.)
It might also be a boost to third parties. More so in populous states, but still.
Oklahoma has 7 electoral votes. If we would have divided them up by districts it would still be 7. If we did popular vote we would have ended up with a 5-2 split. More people might be bothered to come out and vote if they could make a difference in changing that one electoral vote.
Third Parties might not win, but it would be nice if they could walk away with a few electoral votes.
streamdragon wrote: Currently only two states can split electoral votes. Nebraska and Maine.
Well, every state could. There is nothing keeping them from doing that except the states themselves.
Yes I agree! I was just clarifying the two states that can split their votes. I agree that the "all in" method of electoral voting is harmful; I also feel like you would hear less "my vote is meaningless" if electoral votes were tied to popular vote. (Or done away with entirely.)
Agreed. California especially has become too flabby with welfare-happy minorities that are all in for free handouts. It's a free 55 EV's to the Democrats. And, of course, since CA is leaning so far left, there are lots of people that feel their vote is meaningless. Even I was hesitant to vote, but I did anyways. It was a bit awkward though, as my voting location was at an Islamic Mosque where they were handing out the Quran.
Manchu wrote: I can't wait to read all the threads about how awful the electoral college is.
Well romney did win the popular vote so....
No, he didn't. At least, you can't really say for certain. Not all the votes have been counted yet. For example, less than a third of the votes in California have been counted yet. Once everything's been counted, you could be looking at some very different numbers.
It's like democrats win do to a system they probably hate. True democracy would've worked against them. Irony!
There's nothing wrong in recognizing the flaws in a system, even if it works to benefit you or your views.
Ok fine, fine, fine! The popular vote isn't fully counted yet and i didn't check but i won't stay up all night for it. I find it odd how electoral votes work. 49/51 split and it all goes to the dude with 51%. It's just dumb. Yes i'm whining! Shut up! I'm tired!
I have work tomorrow and yes i get to be a crab *ss about it!
Well, now all that's left is to hear pundits drone about how everything the winner did was genius and how everything the loser did was the stupidest thing ever.
Fafnir wrote: No, he didn't. At least, you can't really say for certain. Not all the votes have been counted yet. For example, less than a third of the votes in California have been counted yet. Once everything's been counted, you could be looking at some very different numbers.
And with California going about 60-40 to Obama, and less than a third counted as you said, it'd be really weird if it didn't put him over the top in the popular vote.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Also, all those who were convinced that the 538 blog was fixed.... well.... I think you can eat your hat now. He nailed it...again.
Yep.
Maybe now people will learn the difference between people who are trying to predict something accurately, as opposed to people who are trying to find ways to claim their guy isn't a heavy underdog.
Easy E wrote: So, the big question now is.... what will be the Republican Parties response to this defeat?
Well... they primaried back-to-back moderates...
Next time they'll go hog-wide and go for a strong conservative (Santorum... BARF!).
Which is a mistake...
Any moderate Republican can beat a generic Democrat. But, they ran into Obama...
A moderate Republican could have easily beat Obama. A moderate Republican that has to become a severe conservative and then try to return to being a moderate couldn't. It's as much a fault of the primary process and the grip the Tea Party has on the GOP as anything else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cyporiean wrote: Haven't seen it mentioned yet, but it looks like we're getting a 51st State.
Dude screw that you know who they need? Gandalf. I'd vote republican if gandalf was at the helm or maybe aragorn. At least i'd go into the very fires of mordor if he was my king....er....president.
Easy E wrote: So, the big question now is.... what will be the Republican Parties response to this defeat?
Well... they primaried back-to-back moderates...
Next time they'll go hog-wide and go for a strong conservative (Santorum... BARF!).
Which is a mistake...
Any moderate Republican can beat a generic Democrat. But, they ran into Obama...
A moderate Republican could have easily beat Obama. A moderate Republican that has to become a severe conservative and then try to return to being a moderate couldn't. It's as much a fault of the primary process and the grip the Tea Party has on the GOP as anything else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cyporiean wrote: Haven't seen it mentioned yet, but it looks like we're getting a 51st State.
And in the really big news, Bachman is narrowly trailing her Democratic opponent in her house seat. Man that'd be fantastic if she got booted. Be a real sign that people might not be crazy for everything the Democrats offer, but they sure are sick of the really crazy end of the Republican party.
sebster wrote: And in the really big news, Bachman is narrowly trailing her Democratic opponent in her house seat. Man that'd be fantastic if she got booted. Be a real sign that people might not be crazy for everything the Democrats offer, but they sure are sick of the really crazy end of the Republican party.
This is one of the few races I had my eye on. I really hope she gets booted.
Can't stand her. Liar, clueless, hypocrite, and ehhhhh you get it.
sebster wrote: And in the really big news, Bachman is narrowly trailing her Democratic opponent in her house seat. Man that'd be fantastic if she got booted. Be a real sign that people might not be crazy for everything the Democrats offer, but they sure are sick of the really crazy end of the Republican party.
My hope is that the GOP realizes that the Tea Party is a cancer that needs to be booted. Considering how diverse the Democratic Party is I could even see the GOP split into two parties. They could let the Tea Party become their own party and have the GOP proper move towards moderation while picking up blue dog democrats and moderates.
My fear is that the GOP will "realize" that they didn't win because Romney was not conservative enough, and that they need to double down on being more conservative.
whembly wrote: Well... they primaried back-to-back moderates...
Next time they'll go hog-wide and go for a strong conservative (Santorum... BARF!).
Which is a mistake...
Any moderate Republican can beat a generic Democrat. But, they ran into Obama...
Well, 2008 is the post Bush, post GFC election. McCain was a strong candidate, but there was no way any Republican was winning that thing.
This election is definitely one the Republicans let slip, and part of that comes down to Romney being a fairly average campaigner. And sure, a lot of it comes down to Obama being pretty strong, but a lot also goes to the campaign infrastructure, and a lot of that is going to last after Obama is done.
Both parties can now focus potential voters down to their core issues, and make sure that voter receives campaign information that is essential for them. Both parties have it, but Democrats reportedly do it better right now, and given that the Democrat base is larger but less likely to vote unless given a good reason, it matters a lot more for them.
As for who the Republicans will run next time? Well it depends who does well in the Primary - this election was ear marked for Rick Perry, but that didn't work out for obvious reasons
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: A moderate Republican could have easily beat Obama. A moderate Republican that has to become a severe conservative and then try to return to being a moderate couldn't. It's as much a fault of the primary process and the grip the Tea Party has on the GOP as anything else.
Meh, Kerry was called a flip flopper in 2004 because he did the same - move out left for the primary then move back to the centre in race itself. And then Obama was far more to the left during the 2008 primary, but that wasn't as noticeable because McCain did the same in the Republican primary.
Basically the challenger will always have a problem with having this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Piston Honda wrote: This is one of the few races I had my eye on. I really hope she gets booted.
Can't stand her. Liar, clueless, hypocrite, and ehhhhh you get it.
I don't like her.
Yep. Though now she's up by about 350 votes, so that sucks.
d-usa wrote: My hope is that the GOP realizes that the Tea Party is a cancer that needs to be booted. Considering how diverse the Democratic Party is I could even see the GOP split into two parties. They could let the Tea Party become their own party and have the GOP proper move towards moderation while picking up blue dog democrats and moderates.
My fear is that the GOP will "realize" that they didn't win because Romney was not conservative enough, and that they need to double down on being more conservative.
Yeah, though given 'not conservative enough' was their answer in 2008, I can't see that working as the reason again. Probably the most likely result at this point is they'll decide Obama is an exceptional candidate, and all they have to do is wait four years to be rid of him. It's a safe answer, doesn't require a radical rethink of party strategy, and is at least somewhat true.
My hope is that they'll realise they've maxxed out their vote with white christian voters, and that only gives them 49% of the vote. Hoping the Democratic base doesn't show up in big numbers is basically the only way they win, and with demographics being as they are that situation is only going to get worse for Republicans. That means simply doubling down on the narrow base and hoping to get even more turnout from them is a losing strategy. Instead the party really needs to rebrand itself to appeal to a broader base, and that means the race to be the most extreme has to stop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DIDM wrote: there was a story today on NPR about, "The real winners of the 2012 election, The Clintons."
SHe will run in 2016, and win
She'll be what, late 60s, maybe even 70? Pushing it.
rockerbikie wrote: She'll be 73. I doubt she would want to run for it. I would prefer a Native American President.
Oh, stupid me, I was counting from 2012, not 2016. Yeah, that'd be really pushing it.
No wonder she was so pissed when she missed the gig in 2008, and played for Secretary of State instead of the VP spot - she knew 2008 was her one shot at the big chair.
Well, the Republicans sent out their "B" team once again and as usual they lost. Romney isn't as bad a choice as Dole or McCain but he didn't run a campaign that would exactly inspire anyone, either. You've got to inspire confidence way before October and Romney didn't. Sort of ironic given the crowds he was drawing late in the game.
My hope is that they'll realise they've maxxed out their vote with white christian voters, and that only gives them 49% of the vote. Hoping the Democratic base doesn't show up in big numbers is basically the only way they win, and with demographics being as they are that situation is only going to get worse for Republicans. That means simply doubling down on the narrow base and hoping to get even more turnout from them is a losing strategy. Instead the party really needs to rebrand itself to appeal to a broader base, and that means the race to be the most extreme has to stop.
Yes I hope so too, have to say as an outsider the whole thing was pretty unpleasant and to be honest downright scary!
The Democratic majority in the senate also has to be pretty important in terms of legislature and you have to think now that we will finally see Obama get some of the things he has promised on the table. Not like last time, with every motion being blocked for the sake of it, and with this being his final term he won't have to be looking over his shoulder with everything he does.
Good news for the Brits and our army who will now leave Afghanistan by 2014 and then presumably will have at least 2 years rest in any case.
I missed it, but reports have it Mitt Romney's speach was pretty gracious.
Pacific wrote: Yes I hope so too, have to say as an outsider the whole thing was pretty unpleasant and to be honest downright scary!
I mean, it isn't that likely just yet. As much as the Democrats are happy and Republicans are sad, there's really only 100,000 votes in each of Ohio and Virginia, and 50,000 votes in Florida and it would be very different.
My point is more that if the Republicans look long term (and that's a massive if) they can see that their general support is in trouble, demographically speaking. Taking a more Texas style approach to issues like border control could see a lot more Hispanic voters tempted by their family values platform, than the present Alabama style race baiting that kills their support with Hispanic voters.
The Democratic majority in the senate also has to be pretty important in terms of legislature and you have to think now that we will finally see Obama get some of the things he has promised on the table. Not like last time, with every motion being blocked for the sake of it, and with this being his final term he won't have to be looking over his shoulder with everything he does.
Well, Obama doesn't have the house, and the senate doesn't really turn on a simple majority (it helps, but it isn't all that). So the next four years really depends on where the two sides can find middle ground, and how much each side is willing to concede.
The real hope is if the 2008 Republican strategy of Obama as a one term president dies, and they realise they've got to work with this guy to achieve anything. Time will tell on that one. The Grover Norquist 'no new taxes' pledge is a heavy constraint on any possible bargaining from the Republicans.
Good news for the Brits and our army who will now leave Afghanistan by 2014 and then presumably will have at least 2 years rest in any case.
I think that stuff was happening anyway. To be honest the only point of difference between Romney and Obama on foreign policy was on Iran, where both guys would say 'we're for sanctions, and if Iran keeps building a bomb we'll take more aggressive action', except for political purposes Obama emphasised the first part, and Romney emphasised the second part.
Meanwhile I'm pretty sure the withdrawal of Afghanistan was happening under each of them.
EDIT And XKCD has fething hammered it, on that whole weird attack on Nate Silver is biased and misleading thing we saw in the last couple of months.
Because looking at averages of state polls and using that to predict an election just makes sense, and it fething works.
sebster wrote: And in the really big news, Bachman is narrowly trailing her Democratic opponent in her house seat. Man that'd be fantastic if she got booted. Be a real sign that people might not be crazy for everything the Democrats offer, but they sure are sick of the really crazy end of the Republican party.
My hope is that the GOP realizes that the Tea Party is a cancer that needs to be booted. Considering how diverse the Democratic Party is I could even see the GOP split into two parties. They could let the Tea Party become their own party and have the GOP proper move towards moderation while picking up blue dog democrats and moderates.
My fear is that the GOP will "realize" that they didn't win because Romney was not conservative enough, and that they need to double down on being more conservative.
Remember Alfred's line in The Dark Knight about how in the mob's desperation, they turned to a man they didn't truly understand?
The GOP and the Tea Party are a lot like that. The Tea Party gave them a burst of adrenaline in 2010, but set them on the wrong path for the long term. Party leadership knows what it's up against -- note how in an age when the rightiest righties are louder than ever, they run McCain and Romney back-to-back for POTUS. Their problem now is that the GOP is very fractured, and the reactionaries are likely going to be more unwilling than ever to play ball.
But as I've said consistently, the GOP will eventually figure it out because it's ultimately about winning elections and not about ideological purity. Most of the "pure" types fake it anyway.
Well, maybe rockerbikie is a racist and feels that Native people are the superior race, I have no idea.
can you be a Nazi aboriginal?
Maybe Dakka should read for once, I am not a Nazi, I have changed. I was just a pissed off little kid back then, I would like an aboriginal America to be President because it was originally there land. Also, I praised that Obama won. If I was still a "Nazi", I would have stated something stupid and claimed it should of been Romney. I have a frickin poster of Ho Chi Minh in my room. How many times do I have to state I have changed, socially I'm on the right but econmoically I'm on the left. Look I'm a Nationalist Communist, philsophy wise similar to Ho Chi Minh.
Well, maybe rockerbikie is a racist and feels that Native people are the superior race, I have no idea.
can you be a Nazi aboriginal?
Maybe Dakka should read for once, I am not a Nazi, I have changed. I was just a pissed off little kid back then, I would like an aboriginal America to be President because it was originally there land. Also, I praised that Obama won. If I was still a "Nazi", I would have stated something stupid and claimed it should of been Romney. I have a frickin poster of Ho Chi Minh in my room. How many times do I have to state I have changed, socially I'm on the right but econmoically I'm on the left. Look I'm a Nationalist Communist, philsophy wise similar to Ho Chi Minh. [snip]
I read plenty 6 months ago and before when you publicly and vociferously were proclaiming that you were a nazi, 2 months ago you claimed to be a conservative, and this week you think you're a communist. Next week you'll probably be a Girondian. But you'll always be Dakka's adorable litle neo-Nazi.
Well, maybe rockerbikie is a racist and feels that
I read plenty 6 months ago and before when you publicly and vociferously were proclaiming that you were a nazi, 2 months ago you claimed to be a conservative, and this week you think you're a communist. Next week you'll probably be a Girondian. But you'll always be Dakka's adorable litle neo-Nazi.
Actually, I am kinda a mixed bag between communist and conservatism. Instead of antagonising others, you could instead make a rational argument, wait, I'm being a bit too much of an optimist expecting an argument which is not insultive or antagonisive. By treating me like an idiot you are just providing evidence of the edited part of my first post which shall not be stated again. Ok? I use rational and logic, you use pure emotion and anger. I shall recite a passage now. The monkey looked at the moon, he jumped at the moon, leaping trying to proove it's superiority but it was just looking at the moons reflection. No matter how hard you try to be more intelligent than me you can not, like the monkey you are looking in the reflection of me( the moon).
Breotan wrote: Well, the Republicans sent out their "B" team once again and as usual they lost. Romney isn't as bad a choice as Dole or McCain but he didn't run a campaign that would exactly inspire anyone, either. You've got to inspire confidence way before October and Romney didn't. Sort of ironic given the crowds he was drawing late in the game.
The great white hope was "B Team"?!?
It is hard to inspire people when you are focused on repressing them, taking away civil liberties, labeling them lazy and unpatriotric, etc., etc.
Pro tip: don't continually insult and dismiss the people you need to vote for you...
Manchu wrote: I can't wait to read all the threads about how awful the electoral college is.
Well romney did win the popular vote so....
It's like democrats win do to a system they probably hate. True democracy would've worked against them. Irony!
And, now that it's the next morning, Obama has a 2.5 million lead in the popular vote, with tons of votes still to come in from California and Washington, which should add even more to his lead.
Breotan wrote:Well, the Republicans sent out their "B" team once again and as usual they lost. Romney isn't as bad a choice as Dole or McCain but he didn't run a campaign that would exactly inspire anyone, either. You've got to inspire confidence way before October and Romney didn't. Sort of ironic given the crowds he was drawing late in the game.
McCain was an excellent choice, definitely not the "B" team you're suggesting. His (previously) moderate stance is exactly what is needed to win. His downfall was picking a mentally unstable idiot for a running mate. Hell, even Romney wasn't even part of the "B Team" on the national stage. If he never had to pander to the Liars for Jesus crowd during the primaries, then he would've crushed Obama. Until the GOP splits away from the hardcore, fundamentalist-right base, it will never get anyone other than the "B Team", or else someone that looks like them, on the national stage again.
rockerbikie wrote:Maybe Dakka should read for once, I am not a Nazi, I have changed. I was just a pissed off little kid back then, I would like an aboriginal America to be President because it was originally there land. Also, I praised that Obama won. If I was still a "Nazi", I would have stated something stupid and claimed it should of been Romney. I have a frickin poster of Ho Chi Minh in my room. How many times do I have to state I have changed, socially I'm on the right but econmoically I'm on the left. Look I'm a Nationalist Communist, philsophy wise similar to Ho Chi Minh.
Sounds like you have a propensity to idolize very extreme, violent fringe croups. I think you should read some Hobbes; it would do you good.
rockerbikie wrote:Actually, I am kinda a mixed bag between communist and conservatism.
I think that's a recipe for Stalin-worship, which is just as worrisome as being a neo-Nazi (not saying you are- I don't know you).
funny thing I heard about a voting place in Flordia
a woman tries to go in and vote
the person at the door tells her she cant go in
why you may be asking
because of the shirt she was wearing. it is a rule that no political signs were allowed in the voting place. The woman was like ????? Then she looked down at her shirt and this was what she saw
she asked to speak with another official that could spell the candidates name right
Actually, while Hitler was in power the Nazi groups in Australia were extremely progressive in their embrace of Australian Aboriginal culture. They put them, culturally, on a footing that the rest of Australia probably still hasn't reached.
Seriously, for anyone interested in just how weird history gets, Nazis are the gift that keeps on giving.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: As of 5:00 am CST Michelle Bachman was declared the winner in MN 6th District by 1% point.
The challenger Graves is considering a recount challenge, but it probably won't do any good.
Well that's just a damn shame, really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I was smelling, frankly, desperation in some of the attacks on Mr. Silver in the last 2 days about how he obviously had his thumb on the scale.
Yeah, there really was. Something a little similar happened in 2004, when Democrats suddenly decided that the polls were biased, but from my general impression it was nothing like what we saw from right wing pundits this time around.
Seems the strategy of 'don't like reality, shout your opinion loudly' is just how they work.
Yeah, we did. Technically at least two of those seats are independents that will caucus Democrat (IIRC). But Republicans and their amazing ability to get suckered into the abortion conversation and say the dumbest fething thing that comes to their mind sunk at least two races. I mean Akins could have announced his candidacy and gone on vacation and won; now look where he is. (and thank God, but whatever.)
Turns out my earlier bemoaning of our Senate race (which may have been another thread) may have been premature with 450,000 ballots yet to be counted 450,000 just in this county.
azazel the cat wrote: McCain was an excellent choice, definitely not the "B" team you're suggesting. His (previously) moderate stance is exactly what is needed to win. His downfall was picking a mentally unstable idiot for a running mate.
McCain's problem was running as a Republican in 2008. Between following on from Bush and the GFC, Jesus himself couldn't have done enough to change how that year was going to turn out.
Palin was an out of left field option, because he needed to do something to change up that campaign.
Hell, even Romney wasn't even part of the "B Team" on the national stage. If he never had to pander to the Liars for Jesus crowd during the primaries, then he would've crushed Obama. Until the GOP splits away from the hardcore, fundamentalist-right base, it will never get anyone other than the "B Team", or else someone that looks like them, on the national stage again.
It certainly didn't help that he had to say some pretty out there stuff to get the nomination, but he's a fairly smooth operator and always couched his statements in vague enough language that Obama never really managed to hammer him on it. It was certainly no greater a hinderance to Romney than having to move out left and then back to the centre had been for Kerry in 2004.
The bigger issue is that basically Romney scored the same number of votes that McCain did - about 60 million. Bush in 2004 picked up 62 million. Which is a pretty solid sign that the Republican party is just about maxxed out with its current campaign strategy, and so if the Democrats can get a decent turn out of their supporters, there really isn't much the Republican candidate can do.
The party needs to expands its base.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So I admit that I haven't paid that much attention to the Senate.
But did we really go from a "Republicans might take over the Senate" scenario to a "Democrats now have more seats than before" scenario?
Which is quite a remarkable thing, when you think this election was re-electing the positions won in 2006 - a massive year for Democrats. That they could avoid losing ground when they had so many seats up for grabs, including many in strong Republican states, says a fair bit about the candidates that won the Republican primaries.
