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

[Conor Dary]

Yea, it was like something out of SNL.

[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...

Miss Half-Term! The funniest thing here. We all need a laugh...

1. It was NOT a "half-term". She was in office 2 years and 7 months and 22 days, which is just shy of TWO-THIRDS of her term, not half!

Thanks! The clarification makes all the difference. A quitter is a quitter. And one who quits their constituency for personal gain is the worst quitter.

3. Is she an "idiot"? She's been an avid reader since she was 5 years old. She sought to improve the quality of education in Alaska while Governor. She wrote (Yes, SHE wrote them!!) 2 books, 100's of Facebook Notes, and many Tweets, not to mention op-eds in major newspapers and magazines.

She is certainly not an idiot but she manages to come across as one and that's a problem.

4. She "lacks foreign policy experience"! Funny, they must have MISSED that about Obama in 2008!! While Governor, Sarah met with many foreign trade ministers, visited her Alaskan troops in Kuwait, Iraq, and at Camp Landstuhl, and in 2011, had a private dinner meeting in Israel with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Also, in a speech in Denver in 2011, she outlined a 5-point Doctrine for the Use of American Military Force. Also, the general consensus is that she OUT-debated Biden in their 2008 debate, even though Joe was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and had 36 years in the Senate!!

Wow she's a foreign policy wonk! I saw that debate! She did not win, she simply did not lose!

5. She's a know-nothing on issues of consequence. Huh?? She spoke out, in speeches, FB Notes, op-eds, and interviews (Too many to list here!!) on Quantatative Easing, N. Korea, Iran, Egypt, Obamacare, Energy Independence, the US being "downgraded", the Constitution, the budget (or lack thereof!!), the trillion dollar debt and deficits, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our border and immigration problem and on and on!! As noted, she laid out a Doctrine on our military, and another 5-point Doctrine on our economy (in her Indianola, Iowa speech on Sept 3, 2011).

As a rich opiner she can afford to get neocon's to write her stuff for her.

6. She said "You can see Russia from my house!". NOPE!! Tina Fey said that. Sarah said "You can see Russia from land here in Alaska!". And THAT is TRUE!! (Look up Big and Little Diomedes Islands!!)

Which was her comment about her foreign policy experience, Duh!

Continued in the next post.

[Conor Dary]

In addition it is a really bad idea; currently, if there is voting fraud the effects are completely limited to a single state rather than affecting the singular total. In addition, such a rule provides an incentive to the state to have as many votes as possible.

Voter fraud is a non existent problem. The big problem at the moment is states trying to limit voters they don't like.

Personally I think we should go to a popular vote. But the main priority at the moment should be having consistent voting procedures and rules across the country, which we do not have at the moment.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/25/penn_re ... omney_win/

[preston]

It seems that democrats will definitely have to be more moderate (sorry, jazz and Marlow). I just looked at the senate contests for 2012 and though both parties have a bit to defend the Democrats are more vulnerable - and if they want to control the house they won't be able to overreach, which is probably why you won't see serious filibuster reform.

Republicans are defending 13 seats and Democrats will defend 20. Of the 20 Democrats up for reelection in 2014, 7 are in "red states" (AK, AR, LA, MT, NC, SD, WV) and 2 are in the very "purple" but trending Blue VA and CO. Senator-elect Heidkamp joins Bachus, but...he may have a tough reelection. Also, If Kerry gets the SoS, then there has to be a special election for that seat and again in 2014 (can you hear Scott Brown stirring). There will be no President Obama coat-tails for these candidates and Dems tend to do awful in mid-term elections. Incumbents will be voting to protect their backs unless they can get every republican incumbent and candidate to state their honest views on rape.

President Obama's legacy for big things will grow, but without senate control he will have serious difficulty getting his SCOTUS nominations through a Vitter or Sessions filibuster. All that said, changing demographics and the right candidate for Dems in 2016 (Clinton? Castro?) could lead to pressure on republican candidates in red states.

[26mi235]

Four years ago they said that about McCain, four years before that they said it about Kerry, and it keeps not working out too well. Now at least three consecutive elections were lost by the candidate who was more of a flip-flopper than his opponent. Maybe voters would appreciate some consistency in a candidate's opinions.

In terms of strategy, Obama's biggest weakness was the unpopularity of his healthcare law. And Romney was the one candidate who couldn't focus his campaign on that issue, because he did essentially the same back when he was Governor.

For one thing, Romney had a track record of saying whatever was expedient, which made his positions questionable (whether that was really his position). To think that Romney moving toward the middle did not help him is to fundamentally misunderstand the whole process this year. The only point in the campaign where he narrowed the gap was in the first debate where he caught Obama off guard by saying he was 'not-Romney', that is, taking decidedly different positions on major issues. After a while that wore off and the odds when back up to 75% Obama from mid50s to 60%.

And, Romney was by far the most moderate of the major Republican candidates (Huntsman was probably the best but had no chance as the better-known and better-financed Romney had that 'space'.

As for much of the country hating the health care law, I think that is a lot of rhetoric and not particularly close to the truth. In fact, much of the opposition is from the same people who wanted the conservative Republicans and did not sway a lot of votes one net because I think that there were independents that broke both ways on that, especially those that looked at it themselves rather than listening to the Fox News, WSJ Editorial page version.

The Independents give you the notion that the economy etc did hurt Obama, but not terribly.

If you look closely, I think that you will find that the Obama team did their homework on the ground game and closed up all of the Republican advantage on that score, despite rules that made it a bit harder in a number of states.

[jazzcyclist]

Aaronk, I applaud you for coming into the lion’s den. I think people like you need to be heard from lest folks on this board forget that there are many Americans who share your views. I won’t critique your post because I think you and I view reality and absorb news so differently, that nothing constructive would come from me debating you. However, I must point out to you that everyone on this board likely observed Palin’s 2008 performance with their own ears and eyes, including the Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson interviews, and formed their opinions accordingly, and therefore, reading her books and tweets has a zero percent chance of changing those opinions. I would also surmise that you’re spinning your wheels trying to convince folks that Game Change was just a fairytale concocted by former McCain staffers out of spite. I hope you have a good day but I also want to leave you with this quote from Euripides:

Man’s most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe.

[kevinsdad]

But the main priority at the moment should be having consistent voting procedures and rules across the country, which we do not have at the moment.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/25/penn_re ... omney_win/

[/quote]

My favorite tweet from last night: "No matter what happens, I'm just proud to live in a country where our voting process resembles a Moroccan marketplace."

Seriously, the hours' long wait and other difficulties people encountered in trying to vote last night, many due to incompetence and others the result of deliberate attempts to suppress the votes of certain groups of voters, are a national disgrace.

[jazzcyclist]

Voter fraud is a non existent problem. The big problem at the moment is states trying to limit voters they don't like.

Personally I think we should go to a popular vote. But the main priority at the moment should be having consistent voting procedures and rules across the country, which we do not have at the moment.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/25/penn_re ... omney_win/

I think 26mi made a good point about the lilelihood of small states voting for a system that would give them less power.

[TN1965]

Palin would have been (one of) the Democrat's dream opponents.

To paraphrase Robert Reich, 1% chance of Palin victory is worse than 50% chance of Romney victory.

So I am glad Palin has no chance for the GOP nomination.

[TN1965]

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.

On the other hand, the Democratic campaign managers seem to understand the electoral math (actually "arithmetic") much better than the GOP counterpart. They know where to focus their resources based on the polling data. The Republicans look like they are the "faith-based" party even on election campaigns.

[jeremyp]

As we suspected all along Romney is secretly a Kenyan!http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20240532

[Marlow]

It seems that democrats will definitely have to be more moderate (sorry, jazz and Marlow).

Hey, I get it, and Obama, in his victory speech, acknowledged that the only way out of the mess we're in is BIpartisan moderacy. Despite Mitt's disparagement of the 47% of the electorate, we get that almost 48% of the vote was for NOT-Obama! (57 MILLION people!) If we don't 'reenfranchise' as many as we can, we're sunk.

[Conor Dary]

Hey, I get it, and Obama, in his victory speech, acknowledged that the only way out of the mess we're in is BIpartisan moderacy. Despite Mitt's disparagement of the 47% of the electorate, we get that almost 48% of the vote was for NOT-Obama! (57 MILLION people!) If we don't 'reenfranchise' as many as we can, we're sunk.

Bi-partisan with whom exactly? This guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc

Sorry but bi-partisanship with the crazies in the GOP is a loser for Obama which he learned last year.

http://www.tnr.com/book/review/bob-wood ... f-politics

[mcgato]

On the statistical side of things, Nate Silver's model proves to be virtually flawless. He was 50 for 50 on his state predictions, and the popular vote tally is looking good too.

That's the main reason that I got a good night's sleep last night. I went to bed at about 10 ET, after seeing that Silver's model had predicted every state correctly up to that point. I figured that I would wake up to pretty much what his predictions said.

Here is a nice xkcd strip about it. He had mentioned Silver in Monday's mouse-over.
http://xkcd.com/1131/

[jeremyp]

From Adam Gopnick in New Yorker on the eve of the election.

We have arrived, this morning, at the true moneyball moment in American electoral politics, where the fight is not just between candidates but also between two ways of predicting the future, analytic and impressionistic. Nate Silver has Obama’s chances of reëlection around a ninety-per-cent certainty; Sam Wang, of the “Princeton Consortium”—though exactly who consorts with him in Princeton is unclear, the idea of consorting, electorally, is too winning not to relish—has Romney’s odds even longer than that. Note that they are not saying that the election will be over in a hour or anything like that; on the contrary, they predict that what is, historically, a close race, will remain one, with at most a couple of percentage points dividing the two men. What they are saying is that, short of a statistical miracle, it can only end one way. (My colleague John Cassidy has more on why.) What the pro-pundit class is saying, on the other hand, is that no one really knows, it will be a long night, it could go either way, and the rest of the usual excited—and, if you don’t care too much about the future of the country, exciting—chatter.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... z2BZQ7DjpG

[Conor Dary]

And finally Heitkamp In North Dakota won, so the Democrats will have 55 seats, assuming King caucuses with the Dems which is likely. Pretty amazing. A month ago, the idea of the Dems picking up 2 seats was a huge fantasy.

[Marlow]

Bi-partisan with whom exactly? This guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc
Sorry but bi-partisanship with the crazies in the GOP is a loser for Obama which he learned last year.

So the MAJORITY of Reps are loony toons? I think not. Both sides have PLENTY of crazies. Google Congresswoman Corrine Brown (D) of Jacksonville, FL if ya wanna see Bull Moose Crazy! She has SIX different paragraphs of 'Controversies' in her Wiki page.

[Conor Dary]

From Adam Gopnick in New Yorker on the eve of the election.

We have arrived, this morning, at the true moneyball moment in American electoral politics, where the fight is not just between candidates but also between two ways of predicting the future, analytic and impressionistic. Nate Silver has Obama’s chances of reëlection around a ninety-per-cent certainty; Sam Wang, of the “Princeton Consortium”—though exactly who consorts with him in Princeton is unclear, the idea of consorting, electorally, is too winning not to relish—has Romney’s odds even longer than that. Note that they are not saying that the election will be over in a hour or anything like that; on the contrary, they predict that what is, historically, a close race, will remain one, with at most a couple of percentage points dividing the two men. What they are saying is that, short of a statistical miracle, it can only end one way. (My colleague John Cassidy has more on why.) What the pro-pundit class is saying, on the other hand, is that no one really knows, it will be a long night, it could go either way, and the rest of the usual excited—and, if you don’t care too much about the future of the country, exciting—chatter.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... z2BZQ7DjpG

Yes, the professional pundit class was completely clueless on this. All those years of getting contacts and rolodexes and all for naught....HO, ho, ho.

[Marlow]

Did you see Gingrich's 'apology' for declaring Mitt unbeatable? It was classic.

[Conor Dary]

Bi-partisan with whom exactly? This guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc
Sorry but bi-partisanship with the crazies in the GOP is a loser for Obama which he learned last year.

So the MAJORITY of Reps are loony toons? I think not. Both sides have PLENTY of crazies. Google Congresswoman Corrine Brown (D) of Jacksonville, FL if ya wanna see Bull Moose Crazy!

Yes, the Democrats have a few nutcases. But they aren't the party leaders. But look at the GOP primary. Romney won because the rest were complete nutters. Lunacy is the main blood of the GOP these days.

[jeremyp]

Bi-partisan with whom exactly? This guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc
Sorry but bi-partisanship with the crazies in the GOP is a loser for Obama which he learned last year.

So the MAJORITY of Reps are loony toons? I think not. Both sides have PLENTY of crazies. Google Congresswoman Corrine Brown (D) of Jacksonville, FL if ya wanna see Bull Moose Crazy!

Yes, the Democrats have a few nutcases. But they aren't the party leaders. But look at the GOP primary. Romney won because the rest were complete nutters. Lunacy is the main blood of the GOP these days.

If I remember correctly not one believed in: Global warming; Evolution; 1$ of taxes for $10 of cuts. Huntsman was the sanest but he was seen as crying wolf....to a wolf pack.

[jeremyp]

Did you see Gingrich's 'apology' for declaring Mitt unbeatable? It was classic.

Wasn't he famous for predicting himself as the undisputed Republican nominee after a strong debate? These ego maniacs (like Trump) always remind of my days in mental health and dealing with narcisstic personality disorders: namely the administrators.

[jeremyp]

What really strikes me about this election is that this one was should have been an easy win for the GOP. The economy almost always sways these elections, and in addition they had increased spending, health care reform, all red meat to many moderates, and an administration that could not figure out how to sell itself, while the GOP could. Then came the primaries and we couldn't tell dumb from dumber. Even Palin was smart enough to know she shouldn't run. Obama was like somebody on "Walking Dead" who'd been bit by many walkers but never turned.

[aaronk]

Re: Your reactions to my "promotion" of Sarah Palin.....

Back in my "serious" days as a runner (the 70's and early 80's), I got the distinct impression that,based on those many people I ran in training with, and competed against, young and old, men and women, that MOST of them were not only liberal, but RADICALLY so!!

Y'know, I was RIGHT!!!

[kuha]

many people I ran in training with, and competed against, young and old, men and women, that MOST of them were not only liberal, but RADICALLY so!!

The relativity principle: if most/many people seem to be different than you in some significant way, it may well be YOU that's off on the edge of that particular spectrum, not them.

[j-a-m]

Then again, I believe it was Mark Twain who said, "whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect".

[preston]

...Both sides have PLENTY of crazies...

I disagree. Democrats may share scoundrels and idiots with the rest of the population but crazies? I don't see that. Yes, there are some loudmouths on the democrat side but they have some grounding in sensible thought; they're not crazies - something that I wouldn't say about Michelle Bachman, Allan West, or Virginia Foxx. The GOP has to wrest back control of intellectual conservatism from the inbreds.

[Marlow]

The GOP has to wrest back control of intellectual conservatism from the inbreds.

Ha!
And that (not that I don't WANT to agree) may sound the death-knell for this thread. RIP!
gh, thanks for the opportunity - I enjoyed it!

[jazzcyclist]

Re: Your reactions to my "promotion" of Sarah Palin.....

Back in my "serious" days as a runner (the 70's and early 80's), I got the distinct impression that,based on those many people I ran in training with, and competed against, young and old, men and women, that MOST of them were not only liberal, but RADICALLY so!!

Y'know, I was RIGHT!!!

That's an interesting observation. What is it about runners that makes them tend to trend to the left of the political spectrum?

[Conor Dary]

Re: Your reactions to my "promotion" of Sarah Palin.....

Back in my "serious" days as a runner (the 70's and early 80's), I got the distinct impression that,based on those many people I ran in training with, and competed against, young and old, men and women, that MOST of them were not only liberal, but RADICALLY so!!

Y'know, I was RIGHT!!!

That's an interesting observation. What is it about runners that makes them tend to trend to the left of the political spectrum?

Probably because most went to college. Which helps in making you a bit more open minded.

[aaronk]

Re: Your reactions to my "promotion" of Sarah Palin.....

Back in my "serious" days as a runner (the 70's and early 80's), I got the distinct impression that,based on those many people I ran in training with, and competed against, young and old, men and women, that MOST of them were not only liberal, but RADICALLY so!!

Y'know, I was RIGHT!!!

That's an interesting observation. What is it about runners that makes them tend to trend to the left of the political spectrum?

You asked a serious question, so I'll (attempt to) give you a serious answer.

I think runners (meaning distance runners) are generally more intellectual (though not necessarily smarter!) than the general population.

Many of the people I ran with were either college profs or students. We always had intelligent conversations (arguments?) while we ran our "20's".

I found runners to be well-read, and culturally astute.

I think it's because we....distance runners....are generally loners.
Or at the least the running itself is a loner-activity. You don't have a teammate passing you the ball, or throwing a pass to you. On the course, even amongst 1000's of other runners, you're all alone, with only your motivation and guts to make you run faster or even keep going!!

I found runners were more concerned about the environment, women's rights (especially in the early-mid-70's when Title IX was coming into effect!!), and politics.

Many people I knew were Liberal Arts majors, and MANY were artists themselves (music, painting, writing, pottery, weaving, sculpting, etc etc).
I've been a writer since 1965!

Also, when you're by yourself.....or in a group running together.....your mind tends to wander, and what enters it?? All KINDS of thoughts....from the extremes to the middle. But they're YOUR private thoughts.....with no one to bounce them off of.....Thus, by not sharing those ideas, you're denying yourself a more balanced idea of what those ideas are about!!

Maybe I was a bit "hyperbolic' in saying that many were "radically" liberal. I agree it's a matter of degree...and in some facets of life, radicalism is NEEDED!! In others, it's regressive.

Anyway, for what it's worth.

Added:

Just thought of something else.
I said I was speaking of distance runners.
Why not sprinters/hurdlers, and field eventers?

Because sprinting and field events don't give you time to reflect, to think.
They're "explosive" events....and usually, you're concentrating so much on form and technique that you can't let extraneous thoughts....even about SEX!! ( ) enter your mind.

In distance running, there's LOTS of time to think.

(Frank Shorter once said that in a marathon, there's 45 minutes of concentrated effort....the rest of the time (about 90 mins. for Shorter!!) you're "floating"....with all kinds of shit entering your brain!!)

[jeremyp]

Re: Your reactions to my "promotion" of Sarah Palin.....

Back in my "serious" days as a runner (the 70's and early 80's), I got the distinct impression that,based on those many people I ran in training with, and competed against, young and old, men and women, that MOST of them were not only liberal, but RADICALLY so!!

Y'know, I was RIGHT!!!

Actually I was a shot and discus man and a swimmer and a rugby player.....and a liberal.

[preston]

From the movie Platoon:

King: Hey, Taylor, how in the fuck you get here anyway? You look educated.
Chris Taylor: I volunteered for it.
King: You did what?
Chris: I volunteered. I dropped out of college, told 'em I wanted the infantry, combat, Vietnam.
Crawford: You volunteered for this shit, man?
Chris: Believe that?
King: You's a crazy fucker, giving up college?
Chris: Didn't make much sense, I wasn't learning anything. I figured why should just the poor kids go off to war and the rich kids always get away with it.
King: Oh, I see, what we got here is a crusader.
Crawford: Sounds like it.
King: Shiiit, you gotta be rich in the first place to think like that. Ever'body know, the poor are always being fucked over by the rich. Always have, always will.

[jazzcyclist]

Aaronk, you seem to associate intellectualism with liberalism. Do I read you correctly?

[gh]

Note: you get about 90 minutes more here before we close up shop. That's a bit early, but my schedule requires it.