A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
As I said, it doesnt matter at this point. But would be ahuge poke in the eye of the exit poll predictions if Romney can win Ohio after everyone called it for Obama.
Also, before any of my friends on the left ridicule Romney, remember Kerry didnt concede in '04 until Wednesday
mump boy wrote:Nobody can afford to ignore the Latino vote anymore, they know it and will become increasingly confident and vocal about it
There will have to be some consensus on immigration (amongst other things obvs) for any party to be competitive in the future
NBC is reporting that Hispanics in Nevada and Colorado voted 90% Obama. Obama earned a lot of good will amongst them when he appointed Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. If the Democrats nominate San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro (this year's DNC keynote speaker) in 2016, they might turn Texas blue and lock up the Hispanic vote for a generation.
The following things were said during the Republican primary:
Rick Santorum: “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. Herman Cain: “We'll have a real fence, 20 ft. high with barbed wire [on the Mexico/US border], electrified, with a sign on the other side that says, 'It can kill you.”
The Republican "demographic" problem will continue with such attitudes.
Last edited by TrakFan on Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As I said, it doesnt matter at this point. But would be ahuge poke in the eye of the exit poll predictions if Romney can win Ohio after everyone called it for Obama.
Also, before any of my friends on the left ridicule Romney, remember Kerry didnt concede in '04 until Wednesday
It doesn't matter how many counties, it matters about the population and what % has been counted. Urban precincts are bigger and have counted a smaller % of votes so far
mump boy wrote:Nobody can afford to ignore the Latino vote anymore, they know it and will become increasingly confident and vocal about it
There will have to be some consensus on immigration (amongst other things obvs) for any party to be competitive in the future
NBC is reporting that Hispanics in Nevada and Colorado voted 90% Obama. Obama earned a lot of good will amongst them when he appointed Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. If the Democrats nominate San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro (this year's DNC keynote speaker) in 2016, they might turn Texas blue and lock up the Hispanic vote for a generation.
I don't think Dems can follow an african american with a latin nominee. They can follow with a woman and a latin Veep though
If you followed the statisticians, and TF fans should, they had Obama leading the electoral vote for months, narrowly, but never behind. Nate Silver at NY Times had it right. The problem is that much of the media ignored the electoral vote issue and focused on the popular vote, probably to keep people thinking it was "too close to call", I wrote a letter to my local newspaper about it and they printed it but left out my comment that Obama was leading. Of course Fox had to ignore it and trashed statistician's like Silver who were using "facts" not "myths."
Virginia just declared for Obama. According to NBC, the counties that haven't yet reported in Ohio are counties in which Obama won 2/3rds of the vote in 2008.
When you cut through the rhetoric and hyperbole, nothing has changed. Congress is split, Obama is president. Unfortunately for the country, expect four more years of same old, same old.
guru wrote:When you cut through the rhetoric and hyperbole, nothing has changed. Congress is split, Obama is president. Unfortunately for the country, expect four more years of same old, same old.
Well Reps may have to learn to compromise but many are too scared of losing a primary to a Tea Party loon
guru wrote:When you cut through the rhetoric and hyperbole, nothing has changed. Congress is split, Obama is president. Unfortunately for the country, expect four more years of same old, same old.
I agree -- especially based on the attitude of some politicians. I'm curious what the Senate Minority Leader's "number one priority" will be now? He was on a mission to make Obama a "one term President."
As the one lonely voice who proclaims that SARAH PALIN would have been declared President-Elect tonight...had she run...I am hesitant to state my reasons...because I've read all the NEGATIVE remarks about her on this thread.
But I'll do so anyway!! Following are SOME of the reasons I so strongly support Sarah.
1. On Nov 4, 2008, she had 8 years and 10 months of Executive Experience. McCain had NONE. Biden had NONE. Obama had NONE. Yet the LSM declared SARAH the least experienced.
2. Her 2 books (Going Rogue and America By Heart) sold over 4,000,000 copies in hardback, breaking all kinds of sales records with "Rogue".
3. She drew larger crowds at HER rallies in 2008 than McCain did at his!
4. Her Facebook total is nearly 3,500,000, more than Biden, McCain, and Romney combined!
5. Her FB Notes and Tweets always made headlines, and were FILLED with policy statements and ideas.
6. She was right on just about EVERY subject she spoke out on since 2008...pro-life, energy independence, Israel, North Korea, all matters on the economy, the Constitution, States Rights, the "border problem", NOT apologizing to our enemies, civilian trials for terrorists, and on and on.
7. EVERY appearance she made since 2008 sold out the house...even in LIBERAL bastions like Eugene!!
8. Her memoir told the TRUTH about the 2008 campaign; "Game Change" (book, but especially the movie!) did NOT!!
9. Most people who MEET her in person, whether conservative, moderate, or liberal, say she's a good and nice person....and SMART!!
10. Every idiotic statement made about her being an "idiot" or "uninformed" has been PROVEN false!
11. Totally vetted (beyond anyone ELSE being vetted in a "normal" manner), those 25,000 e-mails she released PROVED her time as Governor were ethically PURE!!
12. On a Newsweek cover in July 2011, she declared "I CAN WIN!"...meaning the 2012 race for President!!
The greatest mistake conservatives and Republicans made this year was nominating Mitt Romney....and NOT Sarah Palin...to be their nominee!!
Not to mention how much of an inspiration she would be to girls and women EVERYWHERE...as America's first female President!!
Last edited by aaronk on Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This is my major problem with Obama. I voted for him in 2008, but he was major disappointment. folding at every opportunity. The health care compromise infuriated me, and sent the message to republicans they could walk all over him - which they have.
This is my major problem with Obama. I voted for him in 2008, but he was major disappointment. folding at every opportunity. The health care compromise infuriated me, and sent the message to republicans they could walk all over him - which they have.
No, he tried to compromise with people who have no interest in any such thing
aaronk wrote:The greatest mistake conservatives and Republicans made this year was nominating Mitt Romney....and NOT Sarah Palin...to be their nominee!!
The greatest mistake made by the Republicans was not Nominating John Huntsman. I (as a die hard Dem.) liked him as a candidate, and was worried that he'd be a very formidable candidate. He would have picked of MANY Obama supporters.
guru wrote:This is my major problem with Obama. I voted for him in 2008, but he was major disappointment. folding at every opportunity. The health care compromise infuriated me, and sent the message to republicans they could walk all over him - which they have.
In this post you say you're disappointed because Obama folded (compromised). In another post you say it's going be "bad news for the USA" because Obama will be "hard headed" (uncompromising?) You're all over the place -- kinda' like Romney was during the campaign.
mump boy wrote:No, he tried to compromise with people who have no interest in any such thing
At some point you need to stand for what you believe in - you're the President of the United States for crying out loud. How might that civil rights bill showdown have gone if LBJ had the intestinal fortitude of Obama?
aaronk wrote:The greatest mistake conservatives and Republicans made this year was nominating Mitt Romney....and NOT Sarah Palin...to be their nominee!!
The greatest mistake made by the Republicans was not Nominating John Huntsman. I (as a die hard Dem.) liked him as a candidate, and was worried that he'd be a very formidable candidate. He would have picked of MANY Obama supporters.
This is exactly what the Republicans refuse to understand. America is not made up of nutcase Tea Party members but the party has been overtaken by them.
If they would nominate a centre right candidate they'd win but the base is mental so it won't happen. Thank god
guru wrote:This is my major problem with Obama. I voted for him in 2008, but he was major disappointment. folding at every opportunity. The health care compromise infuriated me, and sent the message to republicans they could walk all over him - which they have.
In this post you say you're disappointed because Obama folded (compromised). In another post you say it's going be "bad news for the USA" because Obama will be "hard headed" (uncompromising?) You're all over the place -- kinda' like Romney was during the campaign.
Not really. If he had stood his ground on health care, the Republicans would have been sent a message, and maybe the 2010 bloodbath doesnt happen. Now, they just laugh.
guru wrote:This is my major problem with Obama. I voted for him in 2008, but he was major disappointment. folding at every opportunity. The health care compromise infuriated me, and sent the message to republicans they could walk all over him - which they have.
I agree with this 100%. Obama seems to put too much faith in the power of personal persuasion and while at the same time avoiding personal confrontation at all cost. What he has to understand is that you can't always talk folks into doing what you want them to do, sometimes you have to force them to do it.
guru wrote:Not really. If he had stood his ground on health care, the Republicans would have been sent a message, and maybe the 2010 bloodbath doesnt happen. Now, they just laugh.
It takes two to tango. Without using Google, do you recall why he "gave in" to extending the Bush tax cuts in 2010? From a deficit standpoint we couldn't afford it, but those who were SERIOUSLY in need would have suffered if he didn't compromise.
mump boy wrote:No, he tried to compromise with people who have no interest in any such thing
At some point you need to stand for what you believe in - you're the President of the United States for crying out loud. How might that civil rights bill showdown have gone if LBJ had the intestinal fortitude of Obama?
It would have gotten nowhere. I personally don't think JFK would have gotten the Civil Rights and Voting Rights bills passed if he hadn't been assassinated.
Obama didn't have the intestinal fortitude to use the executive order to support gay military service. Instead he waited for Congress to get out in front of him and do it. Compare that to Truman who said "fuck Congress, fuck the racists" and then desegregated the military by executive order over the strong objection of a lot of high ranking racists in his own party.
Here's am excerpt from a 2010 Richard Cohen column titled "Obama muddles his mosque message":
Last Friday, at the start of Ramadan, President Obama presided over the White House's annual iftar dinner and made some rather bland remarks about religious freedom. The context, of course, was the controversy over the proposed mosque in Lower Manhattan, which is not, as Obama insisted, about freedom of religion but about religious tolerance. And then, having once again gotten high praise for so very little, he went to bed a panicked man and reached, trembling, some hours later, for a political morning-after pill to take back some of what he had said. Whew, for a moment there he was pregnant with principle.
No more. "I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," Obama said in revising and extending and eviscerating his remarks of the previous night. He had merely been commenting on freedom of religion. Turns out he's for it.
The president muddled his message. Does he not grasp that questioning the "wisdom" of the mosque's placement is predicated on thinking that 9/11 was a Muslim crime? Does he not understand that the issue here is religious prejudice, not zoning? The answer, of course, is that he does. But unlike Henry Clay, he would rather be president than right.
Guru: What they were doing was looking at the votes in 2008, looking at the turnout in each district, possibly to the precinct level in a number of cases and modeling what the rest of the votes would look like. That enables them to do more than guess at the numbers and 'guess' that there are some rural counties....
As for the aggregate vote, California is about 1/3rd done with a vote differential of about 600,000 -- translating into about a net gain of 1,200,000 from that point on. If you go through the states and total up these sorts of things you get a vote differential of more than a million+ more than now that will end up at about 2,000,000 or more, which is about 2.0%.
Pundits 0 Silver almost perfect. Yes, the race was generally close, no, Romney's likelihood of winning was no where near 50% - the odds makers were basically right throughout at 70-80%, and even the biased toward 50% Intrade was consistently above 50% for Obama.
I also disagree to an extent with Jazz on the mosque; it can be a mistake of wisdom for the siting of the mosque if they are dealing continually with people' perceptions in a way that interferes with what they are trying to accomplish.
[edit] The vote differential is now already at 2,150,000. and California, Oregon and Washington are the only states with enough outstanding ballots (percentage of vote and scale of state voting) to have much impact. California 58% leaving 42% has a 1,450,000 advantage for Obama, and simple ratios would imply another million votes net for Obama. Washington and Oregon have enough extra Obama votes to counter the rest of the country (and New York is likely to add another 200,000, depending on the locations, which are more likely to be from the storm-affect NYC area than the more Republican non-NYC residual of the state). Thus, we are likely to see a differential of 3,250,000 out of 125,000,000, or 2.5+% differential, almost exactly what Nate Silver had forecast.
I think that this is then end of the qualitative pundits in terms of their ability to cast aspersions on the quantitative analysts. Rove et. al. had blinders on and were willing to throw there credibility behind a wish and a prayer. Details [they no longer are the last to report, by the way. Urban counties with much higher votes per voting locale take much longer to complete, in part because it takes longer before everyone is done voting. My daughter was working another precinct and I picked her up almost three hours after the vote was closed, they had about 2500 ballots to tally. I voted at 9:30 and was 639th and new/transferred registrations were taking longer and even though they came in ahead of me, they voted after - they re-drew the lines so stuff got all moved around)]
Last edited by 26mi235 on Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
NH and Iowa "white states" totaled up in an interesting way. A certain boarder state also did with a blowout loss (for the Pres). Read into that what you will.
Similar to about 70 % of my fellow Brits we are delighted to see Obama back in the White House. He will of course have the same problems that he has had with the Republicans , I fear, for the last 4 years. As a fiscal moderate to right winger and a social moderate to left I am glad to see that a combination of organisation and demographics has helped to avoid having to listen any further to that appalling politician Romney, a cynical man who went along with a bunch of right wing nutters and then portrayed himself as a moderate. It did not work. Hurrah!
aaronk wrote:As the one lonely voice who proclaims that SARAH PALIN would have been declared President-Elect tonight...had she run
Not sure if she would've won, but I agree that she would've had a better chance than Romney. Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, Romney was just too similar to the current President.
With all the focus on the supposedly close Presidential race, many close elections for Congress seats may not have received the attention they deserved. Looking at why the Democrats easily defended their Senate majority, it helps to check what Republican candidate won or lost close elections.
On the one hand, a guy like the candidate in Missouri got rightfully punished for his remarks and lost. On the other hand, Jeff Flake in Arizone was known for his fierce opposition to all earmarks during his time in the House, including those that would've led to government spending in his home state; and he got rightfully rewarded for that consistency and won a seat in the Senate.
It did not work. Hurrah!