or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney is Going to Win
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mitt Romney is Going to Win - Page 20

post #761 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

 

I don't get it.  How would any system know whether anyone voted yet or not?    While the Board of Elections knows that by my signing the book, is that information public?

I don't know how it worked. Maybe they would mark someone off if they knew they'd driven them to the polls or knocked on their door and said they'd voted already or were about to, etc.

 

I don't think it was that detailed. I think it was basically a data reduction system that analyzed localized voting numbers and exit poll information and then tried to flag counties that appeared to have low turnout of Republican voters. Not a bad idea at all, and I suspect that by 2016 both parties will have something like that in place and working. It was probably over-ambitious to expect it to work first time under full load and untested.

post #762 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I don't think it was that detailed. I think it was basically a data reduction system that analyzed localized voting numbers and exit poll information and then tried to flag counties that appeared to have low turnout of Republican voters. Not a bad idea at all, and I suspect that by 2016 both parties will have something like that in place and working. It was probably over-ambitious to expect it to work first time under full load and untested.

 

 

Be interesting what develops between now and the next election with all the new tech and apps. I suspect we'll all have voting apps with GPS and if we haven't got to the polls, we'll get banner notifications etc.  
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #763 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

My worldview?  LOL.  No, that's quite fine, thanks.  Sometimes you don't need to read anything into a statement.  :) 

 

 

 

I find it funny that you feel qualified to judge me and what I know about the "real world."  You're probably 17 years old for **** 's sake.  

 

I find it funny that virtually all the pollsters except the wingnuts on the right were pointing to an Obama victory.  Yet you followed the wingnuts, so don't talk to me about the "real world".  

 

Four more years!  lol.gif

The devils that drive us do not discriminate
Reply
The devils that drive us do not discriminate
Reply
post #764 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega View Post

 

I find it funny that virtually all the pollsters except the wingnuts on the right were pointing to an Obama victory.  Yet you followed the wingnuts, so don't talk to me about the "real world".  

 

Four more years!  lol.gif

 

That's not true.  Gallup and Rasmussen are the most respected polls in the country.  They both showed Romney winning nationally by 1-2 points.  He lost by over 3%.  That's a 5 point swing.  The only polls that showed this outcome were leftwing polls with D+11 samples.  In fact, even CNN showed the race tied nationally with a D+11 sample.  Do the math.  

 

This came down to turnout, which defied everyone's expectations.  The Obama campaign's vaunted "ground game" was far superior to what anyone realized.  It worked.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #765 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I don't know how it worked. Maybe they would mark someone off if they knew they'd driven them to the polls or knocked on their door and said they'd voted already or were about to, etc.

 

It worked because they check voters against registrations at the polls.  It's as simple as exit polling, but with a better data system on the back end.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #766 of 1062

This victory was not important cause Obama won, but because a club full of borderline manicas and rich guys lost. 

The people (the well informed, intelligent one) has spoken. They outweigh the superrich and zombie voters. 

 

So happy.

post #767 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by hwjunkie View Post

This victory was not important cause Obama won, but because a club full of borderline manicas and rich guys lost. 

The people (the well informed, intelligent one) has spoken. They outweigh the superrich and zombie voters. 

 

So happy.

 

If there were zombies voting then we definitely have a serious problem with the electoral process.

post #768 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

That's not true.  Gallup and Rasmussen are the most respected polls in the country.  They both showed Romney winning nationally by 1-2 points.  He lost by over 3%.  That's a 5 point swing.  The only polls that showed this outcome were leftwing polls with D+11 samples.  In fact, even CNN showed the race tied nationally with a D+11 sample.  Do the math.  

 

This came down to turnout, which defied everyone's expectations.  The Obama campaign's vaunted "ground game" was far superior to what anyone realized.  It worked.  

 

I think that the fact that you think that Rasmussen is "one of the most respected polls in the country" is symptomatic of your problem.  

 

But more generally, "turnout" isn't just some little technical glitch that saves you from losing "your" country.  I'm sure you're clinging to the hope that, if Republicans just upgrade their ground game next time around, we'll elect Paul Ryan or whoever and all will be well.

 

But turnout is demographics is destiny.  Look at the trend lines for the numbers of latino, asian, black and women voters.  Of those categories, look at the percentages won by Republican presidential candidates over the last three elections.  Notice that, given those trends, the Republicans are going to have to squeeze the turnip of their ever dwindling base harder and harder and harder just to stay in the ballpark, whereas the Democrats are going to be enjoying an ever expanding electorate which will require an ever lower net turnout to still win elections by sheer numerical superiority. 

 

What are the Republicans going to do?  You can fulminate all you want about how these new, growing populations are lazy and shiftless and "have their hand out" expecting the government to give them goodies, but a couple of things about that:

 

One, it's a pig-ignorant racist lie.  You guys really, really need to get past this bit, and although it seems to be a problem (in that racist belief systems aren't really founded on evidence), nevertheless.  Folks aren't stupid, and if Obama won with a coalition of basically everybody but the old white guys, and the old white guys all start shaking their heads and muttering about how the country is now officially doomed because the ones who elected Obama are indolent, Obama-phone having layabouts who don't understand basic economics or how the world works or, apparently, what it means to stand on your Own Two Feet And Make Something of Yourself, well, they get it.  They get that you think that white men are industrious and thrifty, and they're not, and that the changing of the guard means the end of the line.

 

Right?  You can holler about the horror of "playing the race card" all you want, but your message is unmistakable, to the ever growing portion of the population that is going to decide the future of the country.

 

Which is the second point-- whatever else you might believe about Jose and Ming and Devon (and for that matter these Vagina-Americans with their unseemly concerns about their lady parts and not having to carry their rapist's babies to term, which is so obviously beside the point of the proper concerns of real people), explaining to them, in a hundred different ways both subtle and overt, that they suck at being adult human beings is just strategically disastrous.  I think even some of the Republican brain trust, such as it is, are starting to notice, but then you're saddled with that very vocal Tea Party action which is ready to secede from a union that involves all these "maggots."

 

And the thing is, they are definitely going to secede, in the sense that they will become utterly irrelevant to the governance of the country. Texas is going to go blue.  It's inevitable, as hispanic voters continue to swell in numbers, get organized, and remember, forever, that white Texan politicians think they're a problem to be controlled.  At that point, game over.  

 

It's going to happen, the demographic numbers don't lie.  The only question is, can the Republican party quite acting like a John Birch meeting, circa 1956, long enough to talk to these voters without visibly sneering?  If not, you have nobody to blame but yourself for the coming "socialism."


Edited by signal1 - 11/11/12 at 10:34am
post #769 of 1062

$5 on the wingers laughing at the spelling errors and largely ignoring signal's important points.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #770 of 1062

I tend to post first and edit later, so hopefully I fixed most of those once I had a chance to look at it.

post #771 of 1062

Hmmm, apparently I only get a couple of shots at editing, or maybe there's a time limit thing??  So I guess "Vagnina-Americans" it is.

post #772 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

Hmmm, apparently I only get a couple of shots at editing, or maybe there's a time limit thing??  So I guess "Vagnina-Americans" it is.

 

I've never seen a time or number limit on edits.

post #773 of 1062

Huh.  When I click the edit button (for the third time, because I really suck at spelling) I just get a new post style empty text box.  I tried cutting and pasting the whole shebang into that, but it wouldn't let me.

post #774 of 1062

It's buggy.  Click on the "go to full editor" thing and you can do it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #775 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

Huh.  When I click the edit button (for the third time, because I really suck at spelling) I just get a new post style empty text box.  I tried cutting and pasting the whole shebang into that, but it wouldn't let me.

 

Ah yes - I've seen that a few times. Either going to the full editor, as suggested, or just hitting the "Source" button twice to go to source view and then back will restore the appropriate content to the edit box.

post #776 of 1062

Oh cool, thanks.

post #777 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hwjunkie View Post

This victory was not important cause Obama won, but because a club full of borderline manicas and rich guys lost. 

The people (the well informed, intelligent one) has spoken. They outweigh the superrich and zombie voters. 

 

So happy.

 

 

Obama's not a rich guy?  OK then.  Bye bye.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

 

I think that the fact that you think that Rasmussen is "one of the most respected polls in the country" is symptomatic of your problem.  

 

How you disagree is beyond me.  

 

 

 

 

But more generally, "turnout" isn't just some little technical glitch that saves you from losing "your" country. 

 

 

Minority and Democrat turnout in general are why Obama won.  Period.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 I'm sure you're clinging to the hope that, if Republicans just upgrade their ground game next time around, we'll elect Paul Ryan or whoever and all will be well.

 

 

You're wrong.  I've not said that at all.  

 

 

 

Quote:
But turnout is demographics is destiny.  Look at the trend lines for the numbers of latino, asian, black and women voters.  Of those categories, look at the percentages won by Republican presidential candidates over the last three elections.  Notice that, given those trends, the Republicans are going to have to squeeze the turnip of their ever dwindling base harder and harder and harder just to stay in the ballpark, whereas the Democrats are going to be enjoying an ever expanding electorate which will require an ever lower net turnout to still win elections by sheer numerical superiority.

 

I don't disagree with that.  The GOP needs to change.  I'm not totally certain how, though.  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

What are the Republicans going to do?  You can fulminate all you want about how these new, growing populations are lazy and shiftless and "have their hand out" expecting the government to give them goodies, but a couple of things about that:

 

One, it's a pig-ignorant racist lie.  You guys really, really need to get past this bit, and although it seems to be a problem (in that racist belief systems aren't really founded on evidence), nevertheless.

 

One, I've really had enough of people like you running around calling conservatives racists.  Two, I don't anyone who thinks that blacks, latinos, etc. are "lazy adn shiftless" in general.  That's an assumption about us you've made.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Folks aren't stupid, 

 

I think I could make a good case that vast swaths of the populace are.

 

 

 

Quote:
and if Obama won with a coalition of basically everybody but the old white guys,

 

Great, except that's false.  He won minorities, liberals and single women.  Romney won whites, married men and women, a good chunk of independents and conservatives.  

 

 

 

Quote:
and the old white guys all start shaking their heads and muttering about how the country is now officially doomed because the ones who elected Obama are indolent, Obama-phone having layabouts who don't understand basic economics or how the world works or, apparently, what it means to stand on your Own Two Feet And Make Something of Yourself, well, they get it.  They get that you think that white men are industrious and thrifty, and they're not, and that the changing of the guard means the end of the line.

 

I don't think the average Obama voter gets that at all.  I've met a lot of them.  They believe in a greater government activity in the affairs of the people.  And yes, the country is probably doomed.  We reelected a President who has failed in nearly every aspect of his job.  We have high unemployment, trillion dollar deficits and low growth.  And we reelected him instead of going for the experienced executive, along with his budget policy wonk VP candidate.  This doesn't bode well for your version of who the American people are.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Right?  You can holler about the horror of "playing the race card" all you want, but your message is unmistakable, to the ever growing portion of the population that is going to decide the future of the country.

 

I'd love to read why the Democrats' "message" is in any way different, aside from issues like abortion and gay marriage.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Which is the second point-- whatever else you might believe about Jose and Ming and Devon (and for that matter these Vagina-Americans with their unseemly concerns about their lady parts and not having to carry their rapist's babies to term, which is so obviously beside the point of the proper concerns of real people), explaining to them, in a hundred different ways both subtle and overt, that they suck at being adult human beings is just strategically disastrous.  I think even some of the Republican brain trust, such as it is, are starting to notice, but then you're saddled with that very vocal Tea Party action which is ready to secede from a union that involves all these "maggots."

 

You disgust me.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

And the thing is, they are definitely going to secede, in the sense that they will become utterly irrelevant to the governance of the country. Texas is going to go blue.  It's inevitable, as hispanic voters continue to swell in numbers, get organized, and remember, forever, that white Texan politicians think they're a problem to be controlled.  At that point, game over.  

 

It's going to happen, the demographic numbers don't lie.  The only question is, can the Republican party quite acting like a John Birch meeting, circa 1956, long enough to talk to these voters without visibly sneering?  If not, you have nobody to blame but yourself for the coming "socialism."

 

Yes, game over.  You've said it yourself.  See, your mistake is thinking that I give two shits about the Republican party.  What I really care about is the future of America and the principles upon which she was founded.  A populace that continues to vote for More Free Crap™, unrestricted and unregulated immigration, a massive federal government as caretaker of the nanny state and trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see deserves what it gets.  So go ahead, continue to indict conservatives as racists, bigots, idiots and war mongers.  Gloat about what you think will be one party rule.  Bask in the warm glow of your intellectual and moral superiority.  None of it will stop the fall of Rome.  And rest assured that on our current path, that's where we are going.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #778 of 1062

It's funny, isn't it, that the fall of Rome coincides with the rise of non-white voting populations.  All these Asians and Latinos with their hands out, demanding goodies.  Or, as Trumptman would have it

 

 

Quote:
Also is it really delusional or crazy to not want to believe a decent percentage of your countrymen and their votes are bought and paid for by EITC, food stamps, Obamaphones (lifeline phone service), Section 8 housing and so on? Is it delusional to believe people want to stand on their own two feet rather than just wait for an income transfer payment of some sort?

 

That probably explains the voting outcome, for sure.  And definitely not racist!  That nonsense has to stop!  Even though, you know, poor people on the dole disproportionally living in red states, but bygones.  Oh, and "the dole" being kind of threadbare and shitty, at this point, and pretty slight deficit wise, but never mind.  FOODSTAMPS!  Important point.  Not racist.

 

At any rate, fine.  Now that the country has betrayed the Republican Party, I thinks it's a good idea for the Republican Party to proceed to hate America.  After all, "America", for them, was never anything but a grab-bag of sentimental kitsch regarding hearth and home and family and the heartland, specious notions of "freedom" and "opportunity" that were notoriously applied by varying standards, depending on (wink) who your family was.  If America can't remain a static replica of an imaginary past, where every man was an utterly autonomous homesteader, steady of eye and steely of heart, then screw it. Doomed.

 

The rest of us will continue to know America as a big, sprawling, messy place full of disparate peoples and conflicting ideas as to how to govern ourselves.  We'll probably resist mindlessly reductive formula like "the nanny state" or imagine that access to health care is fascism.  

 

I'm saying we'll do just fine without you.  I know, I know, without decent real Americans (wink) it's probably just going to be mostly like post-Katrina New Orleans, just an orgy of looting and helplessness and really loud people yelling at whatever camera is nearby about what they "deserve" (wink) but still.  We'll probably muddle through somehow.  

post #779 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

It's funny, isn't it, that the fall of Rome coincides with the rise of non-white voting populations.  All these Asians and Latinos with their hands out, demanding goodies.  Or, as Trumptman would have it

 

Don't worry, there are plenty of single women in there too begging for the government to be their husband. You left out a few other tribe members as well. When a group goes against their economic interests, pardon me, their economic interests if they were trying to be an independent economic entity, then there has to be a reason. When you can point at a group and say, you are poorer, there are fewer of you employed, the measures of your well being all show you being worse off and they double down on that, there has to be a reason. That reason is they vote the tribe instead of their pocket book.

 

 

Quote:

That probably explains the voting outcome, for sure.  And definitely not racist!  That nonsense has to stop!  Even though, you know, poor people on the dole disproportionally living in red states, but bygones.  Oh, and "the dole" being kind of threadbare and shitty, at this point, and pretty slight deficit wise, but never mind.  FOODSTAMPS!  Important point.  Not racist.

 

Oh there is racism there. There is racism among Obama supporters who watch their fellow Americans suffer but demand that the measure be skin color and not performance.

 

 

Quote:

At any rate, fine.  Now that the country has betrayed the Republican Party, I thinks it's a good idea for the Republican Party to proceed to hate America.  After all, "America", for them, was never anything but a grab-bag of sentimental kitsch regarding hearth and home and family and the heartland, specious notions of "freedom" and "opportunity" that were notoriously applied by varying standards, depending on (wink) who your family was.  If America can't remain a static replica of an imaginary past, where every man was an utterly autonomous homesteader, steady of eye and steely of heart, then screw it. Doomed.

 

If you believe FINE can solve going from the world's greatest saver to debtor, then go right ahead. If you believe there are new rules that make it so nothing has to add up then you'll do just great. If you think Illinois and Califoria their terrible credit ratings are the model for our future, then you'll be just fine as you note.

Quote:

The rest of us will continue to know America as a big, sprawling, messy place full of disparate peoples and conflicting ideas as to how to govern ourselves.  We'll probably resist mindlessly reductive formula like "the nanny state" or imagine that access to health care is fascism.  

 

I'm saying we'll do just fine without you.  I know, I know, without decent real Americans (wink) it's probably just going to be mostly like post-Katrina New Orleans, just an orgy of looting and helplessness and really loud people yelling at whatever camera is nearby about what they "deserve" (wink) but still.  We'll probably muddle through somehow. 

 

 

I'm sure you'll do just fine when the measure of fine is do you have someone who fails but looks just like me or gives the right platitudes while failing so horribly. Again, just look at California. We are doing wonderfully here with our double-digit unemployment and double digit deficits measured in billions. Why you know who will be racist? All those darn bankers who want the numbers to add up. Also racist are all those people who bought the bonds and want their money back. Why anyone who thinks accountability is good for all, they are racist too and don't forget, sexist!


Edited by trumptman - 11/12/12 at 4:56am

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #780 of 1062
One of the biggest problems is that by claiming that it's the "more free shit" Democrats that won the election, the Republicans are completely ignoring the large numbers of highly educated, intelligent, fully employed "Krugman Democrats" who look at the trickle down model and recognize failure.
post #781 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

Obama's not a rich guy?  OK then.  Bye bye.  

 

 

 

Wow, that is the level on which you discuss politics? Throwing out a (extremely poor constructed and lackluster) strawman and feel victorious?

 

Let me guess... you voted Republican and thought they made constructive, well reasoned arguments...     Just wow.

post #782 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

 

I think that the fact that you think that Rasmussen is "one of the most respected polls in the country" is symptomatic of your problem.  

 

But more generally, "turnout" isn't just some little technical glitch that saves you from losing "your" country.  I'm sure you're clinging to the hope that, if Republicans just upgrade their ground game next time around, we'll elect Paul Ryan or whoever and all will be well.

 

But turnout is demographics is destiny.  Look at the trend lines for the numbers of latino, asian, black and women voters.  Of those categories, look at the percentages won by Republican presidential candidates over the last three elections.  Notice that, given those trends, the Republicans are going to have to squeeze the turnip of their ever dwindling base harder and harder and harder just to stay in the ballpark, whereas the Democrats are going to be enjoying an ever expanding electorate which will require an ever lower net turnout to still win elections by sheer numerical superiority. 

 

What are the Republicans going to do?  You can fulminate all you want about how these new, growing populations are lazy and shiftless and "have their hand out" expecting the government to give them goodies, but a couple of things about that:

 

One, it's a pig-ignorant racist lie.  You guys really, really need to get past this bit, and although it seems to be a problem (in that racist belief systems aren't really founded on evidence), nevertheless.  Folks aren't stupid, and if Obama won with a coalition of basically everybody but the old white guys, and the old white guys all start shaking their heads and muttering about how the country is now officially doomed because the ones who elected Obama are indolent, Obama-phone having layabouts who don't understand basic economics or how the world works or, apparently, what it means to stand on your Own Two Feet And Make Something of Yourself, well, they get it.  They get that you think that white men are industrious and thrifty, and they're not, and that the changing of the guard means the end of the line.

 

Right?  You can holler about the horror of "playing the race card" all you want, but your message is unmistakable, to the ever growing portion of the population that is going to decide the future of the country.

 

Which is the second point-- whatever else you might believe about Jose and Ming and Devon (and for that matter these Vagina-Americans with their unseemly concerns about their lady parts and not having to carry their rapist's babies to term, which is so obviously beside the point of the proper concerns of real people), explaining to them, in a hundred different ways both subtle and overt, that they suck at being adult human beings is just strategically disastrous.  I think even some of the Republican brain trust, such as it is, are starting to notice, but then you're saddled with that very vocal Tea Party action which is ready to secede from a union that involves all these "maggots."

 

And the thing is, they are definitely going to secede, in the sense that they will become utterly irrelevant to the governance of the country. Texas is going to go blue.  It's inevitable, as hispanic voters continue to swell in numbers, get organized, and remember, forever, that white Texan politicians think they're a problem to be controlled.  At that point, game over.  

 

It's going to happen, the demographic numbers don't lie.  The only question is, can the Republican party quite acting like a John Birch meeting, circa 1956, long enough to talk to these voters without visibly sneering?  If not, you have nobody to blame but yourself for the coming "socialism."

You're right on the money.     The funny thing is that in past decades, recent legal immigrants tended to support Republicans, especially Hispanics.   It wouldn't be that hard for Republicans to win Hispanics back, but they've got to get past this thinking that anyone who is not of European descent is not a "real American" and they've got to stop witch hunts for illegal immigrants.    

 

The other thing working against the current form of the Republican party is that eventually, new generations of southerners are going to become less racist.   There is already far less racism in the south than there was just 20 years ago, but it hasn't found its way into the voting booth yet for a national election, but it will.   Even without those states, if the Democrats can take Texas, it doesn't matter - there's no way a Republican can ever win.    Texas is 38 electoral votes.   A Democrat cold lose Ohio, Virginia and Iowa, but still win if they win Texas.     But even without Texas, it would only take one or two southern states to lock the Democrats in power for a very long time, especially if they run a white southern Democrat.   Looking at it another way, the seven largest States, those with 18 or more electoral votes (CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH), constitute 209 electoral votes.    In this election, Dems won all but Texas, and that was with running a minority candidate in a bad economy.     If Dems can also capture Texas in the future, that means they would only need 61 more electoral votes from the 329 left - just 18.5% of the remaining electoral votes to win an election.     The only way I can see Republicans having a chance to win in the future is if they run a Hispanic candidate, whereas the Democrats just need to run someone who appeals to Hispanics.     And since the Asian population is also growing very fast, both parties need to look ahead and bring Asian leaders into the political system.   

 

My guess is that Republicans push for an end to the electoral "winner take all" system.    The popular vote has always been much closer than the electoral vote has represented.  

post #783 of 1062

Now they are blaming the Conservative Media for lying to them!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/joe-scarborough-gop-lied-to_n_2116804.html

 

This is rich.

 

The conservative media supposedly lied to everybody in order to secure more donations from rich people.

 

Fox and other outlets lied?

 

 

Who would have thought that?  lol.gif

 

 

PS  Joe is the same guy who attacked Nate Silver...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #784 of 1062

 "The president won an extraordinary victory. And the fact is we owe him the respect of trying to understand what they did and how they did it." He added, "But if you had said to me three weeks ago, Mitt Romney would get fewer votes than John McCain and it looks like he’ll be 2 million fewer, I would have been dumbfounded."

~ Newt Gingrich
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #785 of 1062

I'll just put this here because, 

 

1-- It's hilarious

2-- It's so spot on as to be weirdly predictive of these very forums

3-- It always gives me a laugh when the response to this kind of thing is "But that so perfectly describes liberals!  We win again!"

 

 

 

 

1000

 

 

 

post #786 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

I'll just put this here because, 

 

1-- It's hilarious

2-- It's so spot on as to be weirdly predictive of these very forums

3-- It always gives me a laugh when the response to this kind of thing is "But that so perfectly describes liberals!  We win again!"

 

That's almost as funny as the one I saw about spending $5 trillion dollars, having the four largest deficit spending years for a president ever, having the worst recovery of any president in the modern era, and being historic in managing to garner reelection while shrinking his governing coalition.

 

The called all that a mandate!

 

I was laughing so hard.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #787 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

That's almost as funny as the one I saw about spending $5 trillion dollars, having the four largest deficit spending years for a president ever, having the worst recovery of any president in the modern era, and being historic in managing to garner reelection while shrinking his governing coalition.

 

The called all that a mandate!

 

I was laughing so hard.

So then maybe you also saw the one about the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression, requiring extraordinary intervention to keep the economy from collapsing, piled on top of two unfunded wars started by George Bush and topped off by his huge tax cut, engendering an enormous preexisting deficit that didn't seem to bother the same people who have now made it a religion.

 

Obama isn't just habitually spending huge amounts of money, willy nilly, on some vast array of socialistic government programs.  The current deficit is Bush's wars, Bush's tax cuts, and huge infusions of government spending to keep the economy afloat, which worked.  One time deal.  

 

So:  pretending like Obama is habitual deficit spender, and that weird little "shrinking his coalition" thing, which is pretty obvious desperate spin to get at least some kind of negative talking point out of a historic Republican failure?  Right out of the bubble.  Congrats.

 

Anyway, what do you care?  Blacks, asians, hispanics, unmarried women, gays, well educated whites and young people are all a bunch of whiny entitlement babies who can't figure out where their own interests lie.  Their day has come, and they're going to ruin the country entirely and there's nothing you can do about.  I suggest getting a shotgun and a rocking chair and guarding your lawn.

post #788 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hwjunkie View Post

 

Wow, that is the level on which you discuss politics? Throwing out a (extremely poor constructed and lackluster) strawman and feel victorious?

 

Let me guess... you voted Republican and thought they made constructive, well reasoned arguments...     Just wow.

 

You said "the rich guys lost."  I'm pointing out that Obama is also a rich guy.  As for my vote, yes, it was for the Republican.  And yes, Romney's arguments were far more constructive and reasoned than Obama's.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #789 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

So then maybe you also saw the one about the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression, requiring extraordinary intervention to keep the economy from collapsing, piled on top of two unfunded wars started by George Bush and topped off by his huge tax cut, engendering an enormous preexisting deficit that didn't seem to bother the same people who have now made it a religion.

 

A few points...

 

Explain how the wars were... "unfunded."

 

Explain how we should call them the "Bush tax cuts" when Obama and the Democrats extended them for another two years starting in 2010 when they expired.

 

Explain how this "extraordinary intervention" fixed anything because we still have no growth and I'm quite sure it will be announced right after the new year that we are in recession again.

 

I can understand you read a few bumper stickers and you and the hipsters thought the sentiments in them were pretty cool. Explain. Start with the "unfunded" part.

Quote:
Obama isn't just habitually spending huge amounts of money, willy nilly, on some vast array of socialistic government programs.  The current deficit is Bush's wars, Bush's tax cuts, and huge infusions of government spending to keep the economy afloat, which worked.  One time deal.

 

First this statement isn't just wrong. It is delusional. You are saying the entire Obama first term is just a continuation of the Bush presidency. Are we to believe that with a supermajority of Democrats and him as president that all they did was let the clock run on everything Bush did for another four years?

Quote:
So:  pretending like Obama is habitual deficit spender, and that weird little "shrinking his coalition" thing, which is pretty obvious desperate spin to get at least some kind of negative talking point out of a historic Republican failure?  Right out of the bubble.  Congrats.

 

Are you still upset that you didn't get that job for Latino Activism Poet? That gig paid pretty good man. Too bad those assholes went broke and couldn't fund it anymore. Rich bastards!

Quote:
Anyway, what do you care?  Blacks, asians, hispanics, unmarried women, gays, well educated whites and young people are all a bunch of whiny entitlement babies who can't figure out where their own interests lie.  Their day has come, and they're going to ruin the country entirely and there's nothing you can do about.  I suggest getting a shotgun and a rocking chair and guarding your lawn.

 

Actually I said I know that a disproportionate number of the members of the Democratic coalition know exactly where their interests lie. They lie in being dependent and trading their vote for an entitlement. They just don't realize there aren't enough people left to pay for their lifestyle and screaming racism, sexism or anything else won't change that. Borrowing a trillion a year won't change that. Declaring everyone who isn't that is in a delusional bubble won't change that either.

 

You can deny the fact that more people have been granted Social Security Disability than have found jobs and swear it is all about a war that Obama continued and added to for another four years even though it isn't his fault.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #790 of 1062

And Ryan is blaming urban areas.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/paul-ryan-obama-win_n_2121348.html

 

I guess we need to send all these liberal anti american city dwellers out to the countryside to learn some real americana.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #791 of 1062

Mittens will be Mittens.  

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/mitt-romney-obama-gifts_n_2133529.html

 

Or, for the ultimate in liberal elite mediate that hates the Right because it employs Nate Silver:

 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/romney-blames-loss-on-obamas-gifts-to-minorities-and-young-voters/

 

 

Mittens claims that Obama won because he gave gifts to blacks, Hispanics and the poor.

 

 

47% - - - - - - again?

 

This little boy wanted to be POTUS.

 

Mitt the Twitt.


Edited by Bergermeister - 11/14/12 at 6:58pm

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #792 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Mittens will be Mittens.  

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/mitt-romney-obama-gifts_n_2133529.html

 

Or, for the ultimate in liberal elite mediate that hates the Right because it employs Nate Silver:

 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/romney-blames-loss-on-obamas-gifts-to-minorities-and-young-voters/

 

 

Mittens claims that Obama won because he gave gifts to blacks, Hispanics and the poor.

 

 

47% - - - - - - again?

 

This little boy wanted to be POTUS.

 

Mitt the Twitt.

 

Lucky his name is not Matt.

post #793 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

And Ryan is blaming urban areas.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/paul-ryan-obama-win_n_2121348.html

 

I guess we need to send all these liberal anti american city dwellers out to the countryside to learn some real americana.

 

If you weren't just trolling, you'd realize that Ryan is absolutely correct.  Obama was reelected thanks to historic minority turnout, particularly in the cities.  In Philadelphia, there were 59 precincts (nearly 20,000 votes) where Obama won by....100%.  Not one Romney vote in 20,0000.  They were shocked by minority turnout in urban areas, and that was what won Obama the election.  What is the problem? Is there something racist about your expectations for turnout being different?  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Mittens will be Mittens.  

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/mitt-romney-obama-gifts_n_2133529.html

 

Or, for the ultimate in liberal elite mediate that hates the Right because it employs Nate Silver:

 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/romney-blames-loss-on-obamas-gifts-to-minorities-and-young-voters/

 

 

Mittens claims that Obama won because he gave gifts to blacks, Hispanics and the poor.

 

 

47% - - - - - - again?

 

This little boy wanted to be POTUS.

 

Mitt the Twitt.

 

More trolling.  Little boy?  Classy, Berg.  As for Romney, he's correct too.  Obama's entire campaign was based on giving his base of voters what they want.  He won by dividing the country.  Read some of the breakdown on how efficient his ground game was, and you'll realize I'm correct.  They knew exactly who to target, how to target them, and get them to the polls.   It produced a win.  Congratulations on hurting the nation in the process.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #794 of 1062

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #795 of 1062
Thread Starter 

 

Are you denying that Obama was elected due to historic minority turnout?  Are you denying that most of this turnout was in the urban areas?  Are you denying that The GOP base didn't vote in numbers sufficient to overcome this? 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #796 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Are you denying that Obama was elected due to historic minority turnout?  Are you denying that most of this turnout was in the urban areas?  Are you denying that The GOP base didn't vote in numbers sufficient to overcome this? 

 

This argument has at least consistency of theme, but it's hard to support in the larger context. First it was the polls that were skewed, and now you are arguing, effectively, that the election was similarly skewed. You could always blame the pollsters for the polls, but what now - you blame the Republican voters for not voting. But hang on - if the polls indicated less Republican support than you expected, and then fewer votes were cast for the Republican candidate in the election, is it not more likely that there is just less support for the Republicans than you assumed?

post #797 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

This argument has at least consistency of theme, but it's hard to support in the larger context. First it was the polls that were skewed, and now you are arguing, effectively, that the election was similarly skewed. You could always blame the pollsters for the polls, but what now - you blame the Republican voters for not voting. But hang on - if the polls indicated less Republican support than you expected, and then fewer votes were cast for the Republican candidate in the election, is it not more likely that there is just less support for the Republicans than you assumed?

 

I'm not arguing that the election was skewed.  I'm arguing that turnout was the difference.  Polls don't measure turnout...they assume turnout.  Obama's performance among minority voters outclassed even his historic 2008 figures.  On the other side, GOP turnout was lower than I expected.  We can certainly debate why that might be, but it doesn't change what happened.  

 

 

 

Quote:
is it not more likely that there is just less support for the Republicans than you assumed?

 

I assume by that you mean "support for conservatism in general?"  If so, then no.  I don't think there is less support for conservative principles overall.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #798 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

This argument has at least consistency of theme, but it's hard to support in the larger context. First it was the polls that were skewed, and now you are arguing, effectively, that the election was similarly skewed. You could always blame the pollsters for the polls, but what now - you blame the Republican voters for not voting. But hang on - if the polls indicated less Republican support than you expected, and then fewer votes were cast for the Republican candidate in the election, is it not more likely that there is just less support for the Republicans than you assumed?

 

I'm not arguing that the election was skewed.  I'm arguing that turnout was the difference.  Polls don't measure turnout...they assume turnout.  Obama's performance among minority voters outclassed even his historic 2008 figures.  On the other side, GOP turnout was lower than I expected.  We can certainly debate why that might be, but it doesn't change what happened.  

 

I disagree - that is exactly what you are arguing - that the Republican support in the election was less than you expected and thus the results look skewed. In the polls you believed that was due to oversampling of Democrats that should have been statistically corrected, which was an assumption in itself, and in the election you believe that it is due to voters who would have voted Republican not showing up to vote, which is another, different assumption. So you are making two unsupported assumptions to support your hypothesis for the combined polls/election results, when none is actually needed at all under the simpler hypothesis that there is just less Republican support than you believe.

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
is it not more likely that there is just less support for the Republicans than you assumed?

 

I assume by that you mean "support for conservatism in general?"  If so, then no.  I don't think there is less support for conservative principles overall.   

 

No, I meant what I said - less support for the Republican party. As for the level of support for "conservatism in general", on what do you base your conclusion that there is not less support for that?

post #799 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I disagree - that is exactly what you are arguing - that the Republican support in the election was less than you expected and thus the results look skewed. 

 

Glad you feel qualified to tell me what I'm arguing.  It's not.  

 

 

 

In the polls you believed that was due to oversampling of Democrats 

 

 

Yes.  Based on what I expected actual turnout to be.  

 

 

 

Quote:
that should have been statistically corrected,

 

I don't think you understand the issue as well as you think you do.  All polls are already statistically corrected.  It's not like they went out and surveyed 40% Democrats and 30% Republicans and just left it that way.  All credible polls survey a certain number of people...it might even be 50/50 in terms of partisan split.  Then they up-sample or down-sample (or both) the various groups based on what they think turnout will be.  

 

 

Quote:
 which was an assumption in itself,

 

Yes, which all polls make.  As I said, I think you're quite misinformed on how polling works. 

 

 

 

Quote:
and in the election you believe that it is due to voters who would have voted Republican not showing up to vote, which is another, different assumption.

 

No, that's a fact.  It's based on registered Republicans not voting and based on Republican support from 2008 and 2004.  

 

 

 

Quote:
So you are making two unsupported assumptions to support your hypothesis for the combined polls/election results, when none is actually needed at all under the simpler hypothesis that there is just less Republican support than you believe.

 

Again, you're wrong and don't understand how polling works.  Perhaps you will before you're done reading the above.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
No, I meant what I said - less support for the Republican party. As for the level of support for "conservatism in general", on what do you base your conclusion that there is not less support for that?

 

There was obviously less support for the party, hence the election result.  On what do you base your claim that there is less support for conservatism in general?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #800 of 1062
It's so fun keeping this thread title up at the top.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney is Going to Win