WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now closed)


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby mump boy » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:21 pm

guru wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
guru wrote:
mump boy wrote:
Well Reps may have to learn to compromise...



Not a chance, and with Obama in essence a lame duck expect him to be more hard-headed as well. Bad news for the US of A.

Now is the time for Obama to channel his inner LBJ.


Haha can you imagine Obama giving John Boehner the Richard Russell treatment?


http://static.getkempt.com/wp-content/u ... opout1.jpg


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

Are you calling for even more partisanship ?
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby TrakFan » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:22 pm

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.
TrakFan
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby TrakFan » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:28 pm

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.
TrakFan
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby guru » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:28 pm

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?

Of course, no everyone can be LBJ,

or Lincoln for that matter(1:41) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRe3REa39-0
guru
 
Posts: 10265
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby Flumpy » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:29 pm

TrakFan wrote:
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 :mrgreen:
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby guru » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:30 pm

TrakFan wrote:
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
 
Posts: 10265
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:42 pm

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.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby Flumpy » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:42 pm

guru wrote:Now, they just laugh.


I don't think they're laughing tonight.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:45 pm

mump boy wrote:No, he tried to compromise with people who have no interest in any such thing

Are you calling for even more partisanship ?

The Republicans can't get any more partisan. It's time to break some fuckin' arms using every tactic and tool at his disposal.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby TrakFan » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:46 pm

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.
TrakFan
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:48 pm

guru wrote:
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.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:54 pm

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.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby guru » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:59 pm

Flumpy wrote:
guru wrote:Now, they just laugh.


I don't think they're laughing tonight.



Except for Romney, it's business as usual, full steam ahead for the elephant crowd.

As jazz said, unless Obama is ready to crack some heads prepare for utter gridlock
guru
 
Posts: 10265
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:03 pm

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03169.html

It's cowardice like this that makes me disappointed with Obama.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:07 pm

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.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby shivfan » Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:20 pm

I think a lot of non-Americans are like me right now...breathing a huge sigh of relief.
shivfan
 
Posts: 2586
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:30 am
Location: Just outside London

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby Friar » Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:33 pm

http://instagram.com/p/RtSym3pGck/
Vote today, running in regional Fri. Blondtourage.

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.

George Will looks flummoxed.
Friar
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Sittin' on the dock of the Bay.

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby lionelp1 » Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:49 pm

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. :lol: It did not work. Hurrah!
lionelp1
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:48 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby j-a-m » Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:19 am

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.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby j-a-m » Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:29 am

guru wrote:Congress is split

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.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:59 am

j-a-m wrote:
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.


I disagree. She could not even handle the Governor's job in the small state of Alaska. She has a much-improved but still deficient ability to carry the banner of the party for President. While Obama would not have won very many more states, the outcome would never have been in doubt. Her forei9gn policy credentials are sorely lacking and she would not have had the presence of mind that Romney had in the debates. Romney did well in the first debate because, effectively, he jettisoned many right-wing positions, an option that she would not have had.

She has a following and hence a significant role to play, but to think that she is presidential material is to wear blinders that make the Republican primary voters look like world sages.

Of the voters that Romney did not get, which group, in large numbers, would have voted for her in the swing states of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, .... Basically, there were few Obama voters who would have voted for Palin instead. There are certainly a substantial number of Republican and Independent voters that voted for Romney that would not have voted for Palin.

Look at it this way. Repeatedly during the primary campaign there were right-winger that shot to the top of the heap, only to fall by the shortcomings that rapidly became evident. In what way Palin would have been fundamentally different I cannot imagine. However, it would have presented enough of an additional challenge to Romney that he would have never been able to capture as much of the center as he did.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby j-a-m » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:21 am

26mi235 wrote:Of the voters that Romney did not get, which group, in large numbers, would have voted for her in the swing states of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, ....

Obama's biggest vulnerability in this campaign was the unpopularity of his healthcare law. Romney, during his time as Governor, supported a healthcare law that was very similar to Obama's. Because of that, Romney had no credibilty to focus his campaign on that issue.

I don't believe Palin would've been the best candidate to exploit that; all I'm saying is she would've been one of a few potential Republican candidates who would've been able to focus their campaign on healthcare, the one thing Romney could never do.

I don't know if that would've been enough, and I don't know what specific groups of voters that would've had the most effect on. I do believe, though, that it would've given Republicans a chance to re-shape the entire debate, giving them a better chance than they ever had with Romney.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby j-a-m » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:43 am

DrJay wrote:In Colorado, today we voted on Amendment 64, which would legalize posession of small amounts of marijuana for fun purposes, not just medical reasons (we already did that latter one) and would direct the state to tax wholesale sales of the drug:

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/s/regu ... l-act-2012

"yes" leads 54% to 46% early returns

Now this is some good news and a major victory for common sense.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/col ... d=17652774
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby mump boy » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:50 am

guru wrote:
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?

Of course, no everyone can be LBJ,

or Lincoln for that matter(1:41) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRe3REa39-0


He's a pragmatist and if he's played hardball there would be no healthcare act at all.

US specifically have a system that calls for compromise from all sides, unfortunately only one side have any intention of doing so at the moment, as moderate republicans are held to ransom crazies who would rather lose than give an inch. Someone is going to have to stand up to them soon or there won't be a Republican party that can win elections of any significants at all !!
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby mump boy » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:53 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
mump boy wrote:No, he tried to compromise with people who have no interest in any such thing

Are you calling for even more partisanship ?

The Republicans can't get any more partisan. It's time to break some fuckin' arms using every tactic and tool at his disposal.


In principle i would LOVE that but it's not realistic. Rep are either Tea Party and won't compromise on ideological grounds or they aren't scared of the electorate turfing them out, their scared of primary challenges from the right, so have no incentive compromise at all.
Last edited by mump boy on Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby j-a-m » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:03 am

guru wrote:Prepare for more Washington gridlock the next four years.

Gridlock, while most people seem to consider it a bad thing, is really an integral part of a system of checks and balances.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby mump boy » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:05 am

j-a-m wrote:
DrJay wrote:In Colorado, today we voted on Amendment 64, which would legalize posession of small amounts of marijuana for fun purposes, not just medical reasons (we already did that latter one) and would direct the state to tax wholesale sales of the drug:

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/s/regu ... l-act-2012

"yes" leads 54% to 46% early returns

Now this is some good news and a major victory for common sense.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/col ... d=17652774


Eek don't tell Marlow !!
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby mump boy » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:26 am

I'm obsessed with Fox news

When they're not avoiding the issue by reporting on Tiger Mums, Chris Wallace's wife's book on chicken or School Nurses, they are making excuses

In Fox world he won because of 'the touchy feely thing' and because the 'mainstream media were right in their polling and this led to people to follow the polls' :-S It was also a weak win (tell that to Bush 2000)

Oh and it's all Bill Clinton's doing !! they're holding him up as some hero of bipartisanship but Obama 'doesn't have a bipartisanship bone in his body' :roll:
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby mump boy » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:41 am

Fox News, the gift that keep on giving

"They're at it again !! BLACK PANTHERS were turning up at polling stations" :shock: :lol:
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:51 am

All of the other, right-of-Romney candidates would have had a stronger base, of which maybe three voted for Obama, (well, maybe half a percent in states that mattered) and would have lost a significantly larger portion of the independent and cross-over Democrats. Palin would have been (one of) the Democrat's dream opponents. It is true that she would have lost less of the female vote, but not really that much and would have significant losses to more than out-weigh that advantage.

Contrary to the right-wing view, the Republicans did not lose the election because they abandoned their principles, but because of those ideological principles. To wit, note that they lost several senate seats in states where Romney had substantial majorities like Indiana and Missouri.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby j-a-m » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:59 am

guru wrote:They held the House,

And GOP still has the majority of governors.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:09 am

j-a-m wrote:
guru wrote:They held the House,

And GOP still has the majority of governors.


Yes, because there are a bunch of low-population, relatively rural states in the central plains and the mountain areas. However, as populations grow and composition change these things seem to be changing. Arizona might soon be a swing state, Colorado is and New Mexico has gone a half step past that point. Nevada also went for Obama despite having one of the largest Mormon populations. Eventually Texas will also come into play, if you can grasp the implications of that, at least if the Democrats can come up with an effective immigration policy not hamstrung by labor.

As an addendum, the popular vote is now 2,500,000 margin (out of 116,000,000, or 2+%) for Obama and may change by another million due to the location of the remaining votes to be counted. So much for a 'narrow' victory without a popular-vote mandate'.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby tandfman » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:21 am

26mi235 wrote:As an addendum, the popular vote is now 2,450,000 margin for Obama and may change by another million due to the location of the remaining votes to be counted. So much for a 'narrow' victory without a popular-vote mandate'.

On the other hand, had Obama won the presidency and actually lost the popular vote, there might have been a bi-partisan movement to get rid of the electoral college. IMHO, that would be a good thing.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:35 am

shivfan wrote:I think a lot of non-Americans are like me right now...breathing a huge sigh of relief.

With the exception of the Israelis and the Pakistanis according to polls.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:40 am

j-a-m wrote:
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.

I think Romney's problem is that the folks in the middle didn't trust him based on his flip-flopping. No one knew why he stood. If he had campaigned for the last two years like he campaigned in the last two weeks, as the governor of Massachusetts who passed healthcare and supported abortion rights and gay rights, he would have beaten Obama, but then he wouldn't have gotten the nomination.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:58 am

mump boy wrote:He's a pragmatist and if he's played hardball there would be no healthcare act at all.

US specifically have a system that calls for compromise from all sides, unfortunately only one side have any intention of doing so at the moment, as moderate republicans are held to ransom crazies who would rather lose than give an inch. Someone is going to have to stand up to them soon or there won't be a Republican party that can win elections of any significants at all !!

I don't think you fully understand the American system. During Obama's first two years in office, he had a filibuster-proof majaority. When LBJ pushed through civil rights, segregationists filibustered until the bitter end, and when push came to shove, LBJ called Richard Russell and had this famous exchange with him:

    LBJ: Dick, you've got to get out of my way. I'm going to run over you. I don't intend to cavil or compromise.

    Russell: You may do that. But by God, it's going to cost you the South and cost you the election.

    LBJ: If that's the price I've got to pay, I'll pay it gladly.

The bottom line is that civil rights was 100 times more contentious than healthcare but LBJ was willing to spend all the polical capital he had and put all his chips in the middle of the table IN AN ELECTION YEAR.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:08 am

26mi235 wrote: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.

Chris Christie didn't pull any punches when confronting the Islamophobes.
Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Thursday slammed the anti-Muslim “crazies” who have raised objections to his nomination of a Muslim lawyer to become a state Superior Court judge.

“Ignorance is behind the criticism of Sohail Mohammad,” Christie said in response to a reporter’s question at a Thursday press conference. “Sohail Mohammad is an extraordinary American who is an outstanding lawyer and played an integral role in the post-September 11th period in building bridges between the Muslim American community in this state and law enforcement.”

Critics have used the very track record Christie cited to depict Mohammad, an Indian-American, as a radical unfit for the bench. Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism in January derided Mohammad as a “longtime mouthpiece for radical Islamists”. Emerson traced Mohammad’s career back to his work as an immigration lawyer on behalf of Arab men who were detained after 9/11.

Christie pointed out that many people were wrongly arrested during that time, and that none of Mohammad’s post-9/11 clients were charged with crimes of terrorism. Christie added that Mohammad set up “dozens of meetings” between government and law enforcement officials and members of the Muslim-American community to build lines of trust.

A reporter asked Christie a question about Shariah law, which only fired up the governor’s frustration. “Shariah law has nothing to do with this at all. It’s crazy. It’s crazy. The guy is an American citizen … and has never been accused of doing anything but honorably and zealously acquitting the oath he took when he became a lawyer…. This Shariah law business is crap. It’s just crazy. And I’m tired of dealing with the crazies. It’s just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background…. I’m happy that he’s willing to serve after all this baloney.”


http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/gov-ch ... -mohammad/

Why can't Obama be this assertive when dealing with these nutjobs?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby Marlow » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:17 am

mump boy wrote:Eek don't tell Marlow !!

Not a problem at all. I live 1500 miles away. It's not coming to my neck of the woods any time soon.

My take-away from this election is the same as kuha's: the Republican Party is broken and, for the common good, needs radical fixing. America's strength is the 2-party system - conservatives and progressives (liberal is a misidentification). The Reps are moribund in the mid-20th Century, which was a good time, but the national consciousness has been irreversibly raised and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. I want the Reps to have a viable national platform, but as time goes by and their platform stays stuck in the past, they're just going to lose more and more credibility. I could vote for a TRUE moderate Rep (my choice for the House is one) if s/he had some tether to reality, but Mitt drank the Kool-Aid of the wing-nuts of the party and it cost him the election.

While Obama is my choice, I am frustrated with his leadership right now, as I was with Jimmy Carter. It's almost as if he's too good a man to be a good President. On the other hand, Mitt offered me zero of substance. America deserves (needs!) strong positive visionary leadership. In my lifetime, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Clinton (and to some degree Obama) did that. FDR was that in spades. The rest . . . not so much.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby preston » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:22 am

jazzcyclist wrote:...During Obama's first two years in office, he had a filibuster-proof majaority. ...


Not exactly true. It's not like Joe Lieberman (CT), Ben Nelson (NE) or Blanche Lincoln (AR) who was looking at the demographics in Arkansas were "on board" from the beginning. Add in Bart Stupak and others in the House and Obama presided over a majority of democrats who were not "loyal" to his agenda. (Stupak retired after holding "Obamacare" hostage to make abortion tougher even thouh Hyde was still law). Also, remember that Kennedy passed and they no longer had the votes.

jazzcyclist wrote:...The bottom line is that civil rights was 100 times more contentious than healthcare but LBJ was willing to spend all the polical capital he had and put all his chips in the middle of the table IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

Realistically, yes, but metaphorically no. Healthcare to the fringe is no different than civil rights because they're STILL fighting that war. I read yesterday a theme that I've read several times over the last few years: the belief that President Obama is not legitimate. One woman is quoted as saying that she is "tired of him flying in MY airplane!" Comparing LBJ and Obama and the situations they faced is night and day, imo.

One other thing: it is easy to blame the Republicans but I put the blame squarely on Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. They created a nihilism among republicans that Limbaugh and talk radio could never reach; making the Fox view point legitimate, but woefully inacurate at the most liberal definition of the word acurate. Add in Drudge, Red State and others ... in shorter: the republicans will be under no compulsion to be civil or compromise. Sensible republicans will have to break away from the hate meanstest imposed upon republican candidates.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby mump boy » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:23 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
mump boy wrote:He's a pragmatist and if he's played hardball there would be no healthcare act at all.

US specifically have a system that calls for compromise from all sides, unfortunately only one side have any intention of doing so at the moment, as moderate republicans are held to ransom crazies who would rather lose than give an inch. Someone is going to have to stand up to them soon or there won't be a Republican party that can win elections of any significants at all !!

I don't think you fully understand the American system. During Obama's first two years in office, he had a filibuster-proof majaority. When LBJ pushed through civil rights, segregationists filibustered until the bitter end, and when push came to shove, LBJ called Richard Russell and had this famous exchange with him:

    LBJ: Dick, you've got to get out of my way. I'm going to run over you. I don't intend to cavil or compromise.

    Russell: You may do that. But by God, it's going to cost you the South and cost you the election.

    LBJ: If that's the price I've got to pay, I'll pay it gladly.

The bottom line is that civil rights was 100 times more contentious than healthcare but LBJ was willing to spend all the polical capital he had and put all his chips in the middle of the table IN AN ELECTION YEAR.


I do understand the system but he was trying to be conciliatory as he had run his campaign on that basis. I totally agree in hindsight he should have gone hell for leather but he obviously thought that the Reps might want to act like grown ups !!
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Bruce Kritzler and 6 guests