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

[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.

[aaronk]

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

Just in time....gh...before the bullets start flying!!

[Flumpy]

3. Is she an "idiot"? She's been an avid reader since she was 5 years old.

.

But what newspapers did she read ?

AMAZING!!!

[jazzcyclist]

Rush Limbaugh is having a tough time dealing reality.

"I went to bed last night thinking, 'we're outnumbered,'" he said. "I went to bed last night thinking we'd lost the country. I don't know how else you look at this. The first wave of exit polls came in at five o'clock. I looked at it, and I said ... 'this is utter BS, and if it isn't, then we've lost the country.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 ... 88760.html

As I said earlier, demographics is destiny. Reality is a bitch isn't it!

[aaronk]

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

Hmmm, ANOTHER interesting question!!

Not exactly...is my short reply.
First, having an intellect doesn't mean you have intelligence.
("The fool on the hill....sees the sun going down....and the eyes in his head...sees the world going 'round!")

Using big words or being pedantic doesn't mean you have wisdom.
Bringing Sarah Palin back into the mix, she calls her brand of conservatism "common sense" conservatism.
Common sense...or ideas expressed in commonalities (cliches?)...doesn't mean you're dumb.
That's why cliches are what they are. They apply to people through entire generations or centuries or even millennia!!

Also, you need to understand the difference between being conservative and being liberal.....and I'm NOT speaking in political terms.

Basically, it comes down to thinking "inside the box" (conservatively...not wanting to explore new ideas...or just opting for safety...perhaps out of fear of the unknown) or "outside the box" (no holds barred...anything goes!!), which is a liberal's purview.

But no, there are MANY liberals who react in knee-jerk fashion (the Wall Street protesters)....and there are many conservatives who have VERY open minds and "odd" ways of expressing their ideas.

(Sarah always said, back in 2010 and 2011, that if she DID run for President, her campaign style would be "unconventional"!!)

[18.99s]

While Nate Silver used statistics to predict the election, the Obama team used statistics to win the election.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/in ... win/print/

So over the first 18 months, the campaign started over, creating a single massive system that could merge the information collected from pollsters, fundraisers, field workers and consumer databases as well as social-media and mobile contacts with the main Democratic voter files in the swing states.

The new megafile didn’t just tell the campaign how to find voters and get their attention; it also allowed the number crunchers to run tests predicting which types of people would be persuaded by certain kinds of appeals. Call lists in field offices, for instance, didn’t just list names and numbers; they also ranked names in order of their persuadability, with the campaign’s most important priorities first. About 75% of the determining factors were basics like age, sex, race, neighborhood and voting record. Consumer data about voters helped round out the picture. “We could [predict] people who were going to give online. We could model people who were going to give through mail. We could model volunteers,” said one of the senior advisers about the predictive profiles built by the data. “In the end, modeling became something way bigger for us in ’12 than in ’08 because it made our time more efficient.”

[Conor Dary]

Meanwhile check out what the GOP was looking at, courtesy of the unscrewedPolls guy. No wonder they were a bit shell-shocked last night.

http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-ro ... test-polls

[gh]

Thanks for participating everyone, and for keeping it relatively civil.