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

[shivfan]

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

[Friar]

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.

[lionelp1]

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!

[j-a-m]

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]

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.

[26mi235]

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.

[j-a-m]

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]

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

[mump boy]

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]

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.

[j-a-m]

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.

[mump boy]

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]

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'

[mump boy]

Fox News, the gift that keep on giving

"They're at it again !! BLACK PANTHERS were turning up at polling stations"

[26mi235]

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.

[j-a-m]

They held the House,

And GOP still has the majority of governors.

[26mi235]

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'.

[tandfman]

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.

[jazzcyclist]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Marlow]

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.

[preston]

...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.

...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.

[mump boy]

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 !!

[j-a-m]

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.

Yes, he flip-flopped a lot, as did the previous losing candidates McCain and Kerry. All three won the primaries in part because they were considered the mainstream candidate, all three kept flip-flopping, all three lost the general election. Maybe there's a pattern there.

[jazzcyclist]

[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.

You summed up my sentiments exactly. Amen Marlow!

[preston]

[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.

You summed up my sentiments exactly. Amen Marlow!

Kennedy, may he rest in peace, was given a lot of credit for things he didn't do - it was a benefit of being assassinated (and I don't mean "benefit" that it was good). We now know that he taped everyone's conversations in the White House; he wasn't nearly as strong on Missiles in Cuba; and he MLK and other civil rights leaders were incredibly frustrated by his pace. Again, he wasn't the strong President some make him out to be. My point, I guess, is that all of these men must make compromises because it's the essence of a strong democracy. Obama needs to be cut a little slack (though I agree with jazz and Marlow).

[Pego]

I don't know if it means anything, but I think it is interesting that neither Romney nor Ryan carried their own state.

[kuha]

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.

Well stated. The Repub party is just severely damaged now and desperately needs to reinvent itself. Think about it: We have a 7.9 unemployment rate; something like 55% of the population says the country "is on the wrong track"; and depending on how you measure it, more than 50% of the public claims to "hate" the ACA. The incumbent is a black man with a weird name who perhaps 20% of the population "thinks" is a radical Muslim, business-busting, nation-hating, illegitimate alien. And there are media outlets that enthusiastically feed these pathetic delusions. AND YET, the Repub nominee still fails! If there was ever a "gimme" election, one would have THOUGHT it was this one.

These were not "normal" circumstances, and this can't be seen as a "normal" loss. The Repubs are an ill-fitting coalition of plutocrats, honest small businessmen, (rhetorical, at least) budget hawks, military adventurers, Any Randian Libertarians, anti-science folks, nativists, religious fundamentalists, racists (yes), extreme social conservatives, and a few other odds and ends. A good percentage of this amalgamation is either very backward looking or pretty purely ideological. I'm all for a sane and responsible "conservative" party, but we haven't had one in quite a while. And that's a real loss for the country.

I'm certainly less disappointed than Marlow with O's performance to date, given the astonshing barriers he had to deal with. But I certainly would like to see a more efficient and effective process in the next 4 years.

[j-a-m]

because of those ideological principles.

It depends on which principles you're talking about. The GOP candidates in Missuori and Indiana lost because of their social conservative views on abortion. The GOP candidate in Arizona, on the other hand, may be one of the most consistent fiscal conservatives, based on his opposition to earmarks; and he won.

[Pego]

Well stated. The Repub party is just severely damaged now and desperately needs to reinvent itself. Think about it: We have a 7.9 unemployment rate; something like 55% of the population says the country "is on the wrong track"; and depending on how you measure it, more than 50% of the public claims to "hate" the ACA. The incumbent is a black man with a weird name who perhaps 20% of the population "thinks" is a radical Muslim, business-busting, nation-hating, illegitimate alien. And there are media outlets that enthusiastically feed these pathetic delusions. AND YET, the Repub nominee still fails! If there was ever a "gimme" election, one would have THOUGHT it was this one.

These were not "normal" circumstances, and this can't be seen as a "normal" loss. The Repubs are an ill-fitting coalition of plutocrats, honest small businessmen, (rhetorical, at least) budget hawks, military adventurers, Any Randian Libertarians, anti-science folks, nativists, religious fundamentalists, racists (yes), extreme social conservatives, and a few other odds and ends. A good percentage of this amalgamation is either very backward looking or pretty purely ideological. I'm all for a sane and responsible "conservative" party, but we haven't had one in quite a while. And that's a real loss for the country.

I'm certainly less disappointed than Marlow with O's performance to date, given the astonshing barriers he had to deal with. But I certainly would like to see a more efficient and effective process in the next 4 years.

I am one of those "really disappointed" (more by the Congress than the President, but both), but I fully agree with everything you said above.

[j-a-m]

The Repubs are an ill-fitting coalition of

Isn't that inherent in a two party system?

[jazzcyclist]

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.

I don't think folks like Liberman and Nelson were any more recalcitrant than folks like Ross Barnett and George Wallace, who IMO were even more dug-in, but LBJ still broke them. In March 1965, LBJ called Wallace up to the White House for some "recalibration" on the issue of voting rights. Of course Wallace went in with the attitude that nothing LBJ could do would make him back down. However, at the end, Wallace backed down just like all the rest and when he got back to Alabama he told an aide that if LBJ had kept him in the Oval Office any longer he would have had him marching for civil rights.

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.

I agree with there not being a comparison, because Republicans today are only working to overturn a healthcare law through the democratic process, they aren't openly defying the U.S. Constituion and federal laws and court orders. Even their voter suppresion efforts are being done using the tools of democracy, not at by violence the way it was done in in the 1960's. Remember, civil rights often had to be enforced at gunpoint by sending in federal troops and U.S. Marshalls and it wasn't uncommon for entire counties to be put under de facto military occupation to enforce the law.

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.

There may not have been any right-wing media riling up the rejectionists the way FOX News and Limbaugh do today, but it wasn't needed since the segregationist politicians themselves did it themselves in stadiums and convention halls that would make Hitler blush.

[jeremyp]

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...

You should have quit while you were pondering...