Mitt Romney is Going to Win - Page 21

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

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

 

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

I think that this is the key problem with the polls that you trusted. Statistical correction for known demographic parameters (age, race etc.) is relatively simple and defensible. Statistical correction for voter turnout is based on a poorly known parameter set because it is hard to measure intentions and hard to distinguish failure to vote from failure to support. Those pollsters who simply used historical turnout data did quite well for the most part. The other pollsters just assumed a turnout model based on their preconceptions of public opinion and voting intention, which effectively means that they assumed the outcome that they were trying to measure. It is simply not defensible as a statistical technique - it's statistical manipulation to achieve a result, and its flaws were fully exposed by the outcome of the election.

Telling me that I don't understand how polling works is rather amusing given the title of this thread, but beyond that I would argue again that you are missing the distinction between dependent and independent variables, and that in fact it is you who are misunderstanding the basics of statistical analysis. I understand how polling is conducted and the various ways in which the resulting data are reduced and analyzed. I'm not trying to tell you how it is done - I'm trying to point out why some of the analysis techniques are flawed, and that those flaws are the explanation for the gulf between your expectations and the actual outcome. I know that you disagree and that the chances of me convincing you are less than Romney's chances in the election.

Based on Republican support in 2004 and 2008? So it was fine arbitrarily to assume that Democratic support and turnout would plummet (i.e. ignoring the 2008 turnout data), while at the same time assuming that Republican support and turnout would be sustained or increased (based on 2008 data). Do you not see the level of aggregate assumption here?

If we had been having this discussion before the election, I would have disagreed with you, but the outcome would still be unknown and you could reasonably have argued that you believed what you were saying. What completely baffles me is how you can still be making these arguments after they were shown to be erroneous.

The poll corrections that you are defending were demonstrably wrong. Now you appear to be saying that Republican votes were down not because Republican support was down on expected levels, but because for some reason they just didn't vote. Before the election you argued that the polls were skewed and really showed a big Republican lead if you unskewed them. Now you are arguing that the incorrectly unskewed polls were correct even though they weren't, and that the reason that they were wrong was that the turnout was wrong. But they weren't skewed and they reflected the election outcome rather well, especially when aggregated.

I'm certainly glad that I don't share your understanding of how polls work.

 As I said - I was referring to support for the Republican party. So you agree there is less support - I thought you were arguing that it was just turnout.

I made no claim that there is more or less support for conservatism in general - I didn't say that and I already corrected you when you asserted that I had. I did ask you why you  thought there is not less support, but, not surprisingly, you chose to avoid the question by just turning it around.

I think I'm going to give a few copies of Nate Silver's book as Christmas presents this year. . .  to my conservative friends who were watching Dick Roving on Fox.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I think that this is the key problem with the polls that you trusted. Statistical correction for known demographic parameters (age, race etc.) is relatively simple and defensible. Statistical correction for voter turnout is based on a poorly known parameter set because it is hard to measure intentions and hard to distinguish failure to vote from failure to support.

 

Those pollsters who simply used historical turnout data did quite well for the most part. The other pollsters just assumed a turnout model based on their preconceptions of public opinion and voting intention, which effectively means that they assumed the outcome that they were trying to measure. It is simply not defensible as a statistical technique - it's statistical manipulation to achieve a result, and its flaws were fully exposed by the outcome of the election.

 

1.  I'm just telling you how it works.  I agree that predicting turnout is a tricky business.  

 

2.  No, in many cases they did not use that data.  This is the point.  Many polls were taking 2008's Dem turnout and adding 2-3 points.   

 

Telling me that I don't understand how polling works is rather amusing given the title of this thread, but beyond that I would argue again that you are missing the distinction between dependent and independent variables, and that in fact it is you who are misunderstanding the basics of statistical analysis. I understand how polling is conducted and the various ways in which the resulting data are reduced and analyzed. I'm not trying to tell you how it is done - I'm trying to point out why some of the analysis techniques are flawed, and that those flaws are the explanation for the gulf between your expectations and the actual outcome. I know that you disagree and that the chances of me convincing you are less than Romney's chances in the election.

 

I don't claim to be an expert in statistical analysis.  I'm simply telling you how polling works in general.  You seemed to be under the impression that the polls showing an Obama win were unadjusted and reflected a general lack of support for the Republican party.  

 

 

Based on Republican support in 2004 and 2008? So it was fine arbitrarily to assume that Democratic support and turnout would plummet (i.e. ignoring the 2008 turnout data), while at the same time assuming that Republican support and turnout would be sustained or increased (based on 2008 data). Do you not see the level of aggregate assumption here?

 

It's a judgment call.  And to be clear, I don't think anyone expected Dem support to "plummet."  

 

If we had been having this discussion before the election, I would have disagreed with you, but the outcome would still be unknown and you could reasonably have argued that you believed what you were saying. What completely baffles me is how you can still be making these arguments after they were shown to be erroneous.

 

Which arguments?  Again, turnout is judgment call.  Unless you're arguing that the pollsters showing an Obama win had some crystal ball in this regard.  

 

The poll corrections that you are defending were demonstrably wrong. Now you appear to be saying that Republican votes were down not because Republican support was down on expected levels, but because for some reason they just didn't vote. Before the election you argued that the polls were skewed and really showed a big Republican lead if you unskewed them. Now you are arguing that the incorrectly unskewed polls were correct even though they weren't, and that the reason that they were wrong was that the turnout was wrong. But they weren't skewed and they reflected the election outcome rather well, especially when aggregated.

 

I'm certainly glad that I don't share your understanding of how polls work.

 

Yes, the poll corrections I was defending were wrong, because turnout was different than I and many others expected. Turnout among blacks, latinos and Dems in general was higher. GOP turnout was lower.  I'm not sure what your problem with this reasoning is.  Are you arguing that somehow the organizations who ran skewed polls (as I saw them) knew what turnout would be?  Why did they have this knowledge?  On what did they base their assumptions? 

OK - I'll try to make my point one final time and then I'll leave it alone.

Consider the poll aggregators, such as Wang and Silver. They took the raw poll data and adjusted for known demographic factors, and then combined with historical election data to predict an outcome. This was essentially an analytic process, in that it was not weighted by their opinions on how the electorate would behave this time around. In contrast, some of the individual polls, and also the poll "unskewers", adjusted the results according to their guesses (or their wishful thinking) on how the electorate would vote. In doing so they made assumptions that directly affected the outcome (dependent variable) that they were trying to predict. They introduced a systematic correction (that turned out to be wrong) based purely on their own opinion rather than founded in any historical evidence.

Some may have thought, for whatever reason, that it would turn out to be correct, while others, I'm fairly sure, realized the fundamental flaw in those analyses but hoped to galvanize Republican support and momentum by distorting the statistics and engineer a self-fulfilling prophecy. Either way - they played you and other Republican supporters (and probably Romney himself), and you fell for it.

Fair enough. I think you put too much store in the significance of "fiscal conservative" though. That's only a small element of the overall conservatism that characterizes much of the Republican party, and means different things to different people. The "New Democrats" claim fiscal conservatism. Who calls themselves a fiscal socialist these days anyway?

But are you sure that the reason that they lose is that they field a moderate candidate? You are suggesting that when the Republicans field a moderate candidate the response of the electorate is to vote for a Democrat? So if offered the choice between (in US political terms anyway) center-right and left, they choose left, but if they were offered far-right or left, they would choose far-right? Really? In any case, which non-moderate Republicans would you say have occupied the White House recently?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

OK - I'll try to make my point one final time and then I'll leave it alone.

 

Consider the poll aggregators, such as Wang and Silver. They took the raw poll data and adjusted for known demographic factors, and then combined with historical election data to predict an outcome. This was essentially an analytic process, in that it was not weighted by their opinions on how the electorate would behave this time around.

 

Great in theory, but that's simply not what happened.  They didn't take "raw" poll data.  They used polls that were already adjusted, because all polls are to some degree.  When you're talking about likely voter polls, they all have to make assumptions about who is actually going to vote.  

 

 In contrast, some of the individual polls, and also the poll "unskewers", adjusted the results according to their guesses (or their wishful thinking) on how the electorate would vote. In doing so they made assumptions that directly affected the outcome (dependent variable) that they were trying to predict. They introduced a systematic correction (that turned out to be wrong) based purely on their own opinion rather than founded in any historical evidence.

 

Again, I understand the thought, but it's just not what happened.  People like Dick Morris and Karl Rove looked at specific polls and concluded that the turnout assumptions were flawed.  This wasn't hard to understand.  Contrary to your statement about historical evidence, they did in fact rely on it.  2008 was a big Democratic year. Turnout was D+7 nationally (I think).  A national CNN poll taken the week before the election showed the race at 49-49, but the sample was +11 Democrat.  And you're telling me that thinking +11 Democrat turnout  (didn't happen, by the way) was unlikely is "wishful thinking?"    

As I feared, at this point we are both just stating the same arguments repetitively and getting nowhere. It looks to me like you are wriggling around trying to defend the belief that the aggregate polls were wrong and that they only predicted correctly because they made compensating errors, while people like Morris and Rove, rather than misleading everyone and making total asses of themselves, made perfectly reasonable calls. You are clearly convinced (or hopeful) that I don't know what I'm talking about, so I won't waste your time with further argument. I'd quote Megyn at you, but that would be a cheap shot.

There are multiple well-researched articles that dissect the polls, how they fared and how the screwed up. Maybe you have read some of them. I'm not going to recommend any in particular because I'm sure that will just lead to accusations that their analyses are skewed.

You already named a couple of them. And I have no proof, of course, which is why I stated it as my opinion.

You think Bush was more conservative than Romney? Except on that little issue of fiscal. So you are saying that Romney needed to be more socially conservative than he was to win the election?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

As I feared, at this point we are both just stating the same arguments repetitively and getting nowhere.

 

I don't mean to be disrespectful here, but what is happening is that you are continuing to demonstrate that you don't understand how polls are conducted and ultimately published.  This is apparent because you've referenced "raw, unadjusted" poll data, which in reality does not exist..at least not in the kind of polls we're talking about.  

No offense taken.

It has been 13 days since Mitt Romney was elected president of the United States.

I'm entirely confused by your reaction to this.  I thought you backed Mitt Romney.  Why does his winning the presidency upset you so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

I'm entirely confused by your reaction to this.  I thought you backed Mitt Romney.  Why does his winning the presidency upset you so?

 

If only you were as funny as you seem to believe.  

I think he's pretty funny! You on the other hand are a riot ( intentional or not ) !  You just don't get the fact that your whole idea about the way things work just got overturned and you're still carrying on like it was still before the election that you were so sure would go a certain way. I told you you were wrong before it happened. I also told you this before the last election ( 2008 ) . However this time you laid it on real thick and were 100% wrong. It wasn't a fluke ( like you would have us believe ) . It wasn't just chance. It was however an indicator of how the voting public is changing in their attitude and that the GOP is out of touch and behind the times.

But just keep on digging that hole SDW with the same rhetoric and those worn out partisan talking points. You're supplying material for years to come!  

Secession talk is heating up in Texas.

I wonder: if Mittens had won, would things be different?

They would probably be shouting, USA! USA! USA! We're #1!  We have a mandate!  

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/us/politics/with-stickers-a-petition-and-even-a-middle-name-secession-fever-hits-texas.html?hp

The concept of a democracy is sooooo lost on these people it is difficult to comprehend.  As an American living abroad, it is downright embarrassing.  Thankfully, the media around the world doesn't take these idiots seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

I think he's pretty funny! You on the other hand are a riot ( intentional or not ) !  You just don't get the fact that your whole idea about the way things work just got overturned

 

What idea is that?  

 

 

 

Quote:

and you're still carrying on like it was still before the election that you were so sure would go a certain way. 

 

Given all the factors I listed at the beginning of the thread, yes...I was fairly certain.  

 

 

 

Quote:

I told you you were wrong before it happened. I

 

On what did you base you prediction?  

 

 

Quote:

 also told you this before the last election ( 2008 ) .

 

On what did you base that prediction?  

 

 

 

Quote:

However this time you laid it on real thick and were 100% wrong.

 

Yes, I was.  However, unlike you, I am actually interested in delving into the reasons why.  

 

Quote:

 It wasn't a fluke ( like you would have us believe ) . It wasn't just chance. It was however an indicator of how the voting public is changing in their attitude and that the GOP is out of touch and behind the times.

 

I'm not sure I completely agree with that.  There is some truth to it, no doubt...a fact which I have raised in this thread and others.  However, it was about more than that. Obama's campaign was brilliant in its divisiveness.  He divvied up his voting blocs, targeted them, and ignored all else.  He also defined Romney as an out of touch vulture capitalist early on.  Obama was also the beneficiary of a somewhat weak GOP turnout.  Why that was remains to be seen, though some have speculated that evangelicals may not have come out in force for a Mormon candidate, and that many Tea Partiers decided not to support a more moderate Republican.   Obama was unquestionably aided by his liberal media cohorts, perhaps more than any candidate in history.  They were stunningly negative about Romney, turning every minor slip into a major gaffe.  Meanwhile, they ignored major Obama gaffes and the disastrous events in the Middle East.  Finally, Obama benefited from record urban minority turnout, which exceeded anyone's expectations.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

But just keep on digging that hole SDW with the same rhetoric and those worn out partisan talking points. You're supplying material for years to come!  

 

I'm really not sure what you're reading.  I don't use talking points.  To which "rhetoric" do you refer?  

Deny, deny, deny, and " I just don't understand! " You just never change do you?

I'll give you one thing out of this mess.

My knowledge of people and the way I look at the mood of the country ( which is not just looking at statistics and historical facts it's actually listening to people ). You just don't get that people are feeling fed up with the usual rhetoric from the GOP. Also the demographic of the average voter is changing. The GOP is going to have to learn they can't just pander the rich anymore. And if you ask me "  How are they doing that? " you've just proved my point. You just don't get it. Even in the face of a lost election.

SDW I've told you times are changing. Maybe that's why you don't recognize our country anymore. That's why the stats and history that only told you what you wanted to hear didn't work. Trickle down money and spinning smoke and mirrors don't work anymore. Just letting the rich have extra big tax breaks while they pretend to be in the same boat as the average guy ( as if ) just isn't cutting it anymore.

Something that also won't work anymore is just saying " No " to any idea that wasn't theirs. That will only backfire. The Republican party needs to reorganize into something that resembles what they were a awhile ago. That is an equal counterpoint to the Democrats to keep them in check when they get out of hand. True conservatives that realize they have to get along with the other half. Not this joke of a tea party that doesn't really stand for the average voter. Not this idea that it's their way or the highway.They need to reach out ( and also within themselves ) to understand what the country wants these days and who the average voter is. Clearly they don't have a clue right now.

Oh well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

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

Wrong!  Show me the law that says that zombies can't vote if they're citizens.   Where in the constitution does it deny zombies the right to vote?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

Secession talk is heating up in Texas.

You know, this is just a load of crap. The secession petitions are filed through type of social media White House website. Anyone can go there. Anyone can "sign" and anyone can petition.

This is no different than condemning Republicans for nonsense like twitter mentions.

I could go on there and start a petition right now to ask President Obama to exterminate all puppies and kittens. In addition to secession requests being popular there's also petitions asking the President to legalize marijuana, label GMO foods, impeach himself, outlaw religion, repeal DOMA and of course this won't be reported on, there are petitions on there to allow blue states to secede as well including California and New York.

Please find another tired meme to pedal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

My knowledge of people and the way I look at the mood of the country ( which is not just looking at statistics and historical facts it's actually listening to people ). You just don't get that people are feeling fed up with the usual rhetoric from the GOP. Also the demographic of the average voter is changing. The GOP is going to have to learn they can't just pander the rich anymore. And if you ask me "  How are they doing that? " you've just proved my point. You just don't get it. Even in the face of a lost election.

 

SDW I've told you times are changing. Maybe that's why you don't recognize our country anymore. That's why the stats and history that only told you what you wanted to hear didn't work. Trickle down money and spinning smoke and mirrors don't work anymore. Just letting the rich have extra big tax breaks while they pretend to be in the same boat as the average guy ( as if ) just isn't cutting it anymore.

 

Something that also won't work anymore is just saying " No " to any idea that wasn't theirs. That will only backfire. The Republican party needs to reorganize into something that resembles what they were a awhile ago. That is an equal counterpoint to the Democrats to keep them in check when they get out of hand. True conservatives that realize they have to get along with the other half. Not this joke of a tea party that doesn't really stand for the average voter. Not this idea that it's their way or the highway.They need to reach out ( and also within themselves ) to understand what the country wants these days and who the average voter is. Clearly they don't have a clue right now.

 

Oh well.

I think you're making this way too complicated.    We pretend that these national elections are actually contests, but they're usually not.    In recent times, there is such a distinction between the Democratic and Republican party platforms, especially as Republicans have moved to the right and pushed out the centrists from the party, that most people will vote along party lines almost no matter who is running.     And based upon this and the changing demographics of the country, Democrats (unless they run a real loser) are always going to win the northeast, the northern industrial states and California.   The only questionable voters are the "independents" and "undecideds" and IMO, these are people who don't vote on the issues (because they must not understand what they are), but vote on the personality of the candidates and in the end, there aren't enough of those to turn most states either way.   

During the primaries for the 2008 election, I originally thought that if the Democrats ran either Obama or Hillary Clinton, they would lose.   I thought this because in the best of times, the country is split down the middle and it would only take 1 to 2% of the electorate to be racist or sexist (even subconsciously) and would never vote for a black man or a woman to tip the election to the Republicans.    But then I realized that I was looking at it the wrong way - you have to look at it on a state by state basis.  After the convention, when I looked at it state-by-state, to my shock I realized that Obama would win.   In 2012, in spite of the bad economy and many people resenting "Obamacare", nothing changed all that much on a state basis.   In the end, Dems lost only Indiana and North Carolina from 2008.  

In this past election, Democrats won 6 of the largest 7 states - those with 18 or more electoral votes.   Some people feel that the demographics in Texas are changing so quickly that by 2020 (if not 2016), Texas could go Democratic.    If that's the case, Democrats would have 209 electoral votes (39% of the total) just from those 7 states.   That means they would only have to win another 61 electoral votes out of the remaining 329 (18.5%) to win any election.     Even without Texas, Dems only need 27% of the remaining electoral votes (assuming they can keep Florida).   After 2020 and the next census, whoever wins Texas will have an advantage, since Texas is likely to continue gaining population.   It jumped from 34 to 38 electoral votes after the last census whereas NY, IL, PA and OH lost population and electoral votes.  

(On a side note, when Romney made that 47% comment at that private fundraiser, the press certainly picked up the comment, but I never heard anyone state that Romney basically conceded the election at that point.   Because if 47% were going to vote for Obama no matter what, then Romney would have needed 94.35% of everyone else to win the popular vote and that was never going to happen.  In the end, Romney had the numbers right, but for the wrong reasons.   It's not that people who don't pay taxes will only vote for a Democrat.   It's that people in huge, diverse population centers vote Democratic because they understand that Government is needed to support such infrastructures.)

So IMO, even if Republicans did find a way to appeal more to Hispanic and Asian voters and even if they did stop alienating people who are not rich or who don't pay much in federal income taxes, they might narrow the gap a bit, but they would still lose all the same states that they've been losing (unless they change so much that they can win California).     Running for national office is quite different than running for local office.  It's very possible that Democrats keep the White House, but Republicans dominate Congress (especially the House) and the majority of State governments for the foreseeable future.     That, of course, assumes we keep the electoral college.    If the Presidency was determined by the popular vote or we didn't have "winner take all" in the electoral college, then every election would be a real contest.   Obama only won by 2.8% of the popular vote even though he took 62% of the electoral votes.   On election night,  there was a period of hours where it looked like he might actually have lost the popular vote, as Bush did in 2000.    

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoetmb 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

My knowledge of people and the way I look at the mood of the country ( which is not just looking at statistics and historical facts it's actually listening to people ). You just don't get that people are feeling fed up with the usual rhetoric from the GOP. Also the demographic of the average voter is changing. The GOP is going to have to learn they can't just pander the rich anymore. And if you ask me "  How are they doing that? " you've just proved my point. You just don't get it. Even in the face of a lost election.

 

SDW I've told you times are changing. Maybe that's why you don't recognize our country anymore. That's why the stats and history that only told you what you wanted to hear didn't work. Trickle down money and spinning smoke and mirrors don't work anymore. Just letting the rich have extra big tax breaks while they pretend to be in the same boat as the average guy ( as if ) just isn't cutting it anymore.

 

Something that also won't work anymore is just saying " No " to any idea that wasn't theirs. That will only backfire. The Republican party needs to reorganize into something that resembles what they were a awhile ago. That is an equal counterpoint to the Democrats to keep them in check when they get out of hand. True conservatives that realize they have to get along with the other half. Not this joke of a tea party that doesn't really stand for the average voter. Not this idea that it's their way or the highway.They need to reach out ( and also within themselves ) to understand what the country wants these days and who the average voter is. Clearly they don't have a clue right now.

 

Oh well.

 

I think you're making this way too complicated.    We pretend that these national elections are actually contests, but they're usually not.    In recent times, there is such a distinction between the Democratic and Republican party platforms, especially as Republicans have moved to the right and pushed out the centrists from the party, that most people will vote along party lines almost no matter who is running.     And based upon this and the changing demographics of the country, Democrats (unless they run a real loser) are always going to win the northeast, the northern industrial states and California.   The only questionable voters are the "independents" and "undecideds" and IMO, these are people who don't vote on the issues (because they must not understand what they are), but vote on the personality of the candidates and in the end, there aren't enough of those to turn most states either way.   

 

During the primaries for the 2008 election, I originally thought that if the Democrats ran either Obama or Hillary Clinton, they would lose.   I thought this because in the best of times, the country is split down the middle and it would only take 1 to 2% of the electorate to be racist or sexist (even subconsciously) and would never vote for a black man or a woman to tip the election to the Republicans.    But then I realized that I was looking at it the wrong way - you have to look at it on a state by state basis.  After the convention, when I looked at it state-by-state, to my shock I realized that Obama would win.   In 2012, in spite of the bad economy and many people resenting "Obamacare", nothing changed all that much on a state basis.   In the end, Dems lost only Indiana and North Carolina from 2008.  

 

In this past election, Democrats won 6 of the largest 7 states - those with 18 or more electoral votes.   Some people feel that the demographics in Texas are changing so quickly that by 2020 (if not 2016), Texas could go Democratic.    If that's the case, Democrats would have 209 electoral votes (39% of the total) just from those 7 states.   That means they would only have to win another 61 electoral votes out of the remaining 329 (18.5%) to win any election.     Even without Texas, Dems only need 27% of the remaining electoral votes (assuming they can keep Florida).   After 2020 and the next census, whoever wins Texas will have an advantage, since Texas is likely to continue gaining population.   It jumped from 34 to 38 electoral votes after the last census whereas NY, IL, PA and OH lost population and electoral votes.  

 

(On a side note, when Romney made that 47% comment at that private fundraiser, the press certainly picked up the comment, but I never heard anyone state that Romney basically conceded the election at that point.   Because if 47% were going to vote for Obama no matter what, then Romney would have needed 94.35% of everyone else to win the popular vote and that was never going to happen.  In the end, Romney had the numbers right, but for the wrong reasons.   It's not that people who don't pay taxes will only vote for a Democrat.   It's that people in huge, diverse population centers vote Democratic because they understand that Government is needed to support such infrastructures.)

 

So IMO, even if Republicans did find a way to appeal more to Hispanic and Asian voters and even if they did stop alienating people who are not rich or who don't pay much in federal income taxes, they might narrow the gap a bit, but they would still lose all the same states that they've been losing (unless they change so much that they can win California).     Running for national office is quite different than running for local office.  It's very possible that Democrats keep the White House, but Republicans dominate Congress (especially the House) and the majority of State governments for the foreseeable future.     That, of course, assumes we keep the electoral college.    If the Presidency was determined by the popular vote or we didn't have "winner take all" in the electoral college, then every election would be a real contest.   Obama only won by 2.8% of the popular vote even though he took 62% of the electoral votes.   On election night,  there was a period of hours where it looked like he might actually have lost the popular vote, as Bush did in 2000.    

Well you're right that Bush won in 2000 primarily because of the electoral college. An even better example is when he ran against Kerry. However to represent different parts of the country with different population density how else would you do it?. I have never said it was a contest. I have said that all of the far right wing pundits here were so sure Obama would lose. Not just maybe. They actually dedicated threads to what they saw as it's certainty. Well things just didn't turn out that way even though according to their logic they should have. That's what I've been pointing out. I think next time will be worse if the GOP doesn't change their approach. Making apologies and excuses for what just happened won't change a thing for them. I do fully believe that the Republicans can go back to a more centrist type of party that isn't run by groups like the Tea Party however. That would be more viable as a counterpoint to the Democrats. That's the way it's supposed to work.

As for Romney he made so many gaffes it's sad really. That 47 % comment didn't help him at all. As a matter of fact I think it made people like him even less. He just served to illustrate how out of touch the GOP is. A kind of microcosmic example of the bigger problem. The Republicans need to wake up and smell the 21st century! Some of their members have already said as much.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/18/us-usa-politics-republicans-idUSBRE8AH0GA20121118

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoetmb 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

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

 

 

Wrong!  Show me the law that says that zombies can't vote if they're citizens.   Where in the constitution does it deny zombies the right to vote?

But are they really citizens? They can't draw benefits - we know that because people have got themselves into trouble trying to help them do that.

Republicans are acting as if Obama didn't just win the election and receive a strong mandate from the people.  I'll keep reminding Republicans of this fact as long as it takes for the notion to sink in that their ideas for this nation were soundly rejected.  The House majority that Republicans maintained means very little in the context of Democrats winning a nationwide plurality by over a million votes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Republicans are acting as if Obama didn't just win the election and receive a strong mandate from the people.

He did win the election. He did not "receive a strong mandate from the people."

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

I'll keep reminding Republicans of this fact as long as it takes for the notion to sink in that their ideas for this nation were soundly rejected.

Evidently, in BR's reality, 50% of the voters for something is the nation soundly rejecting it. Interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

The House majority that Republicans maintained means very little in the context of Democrats winning a nationwide plurality by over a million votes.

Here again, a very interesting and rather biased interpretation.

Here's what I suggest: Barack Obama should simply create the budget and pass it.

Given all we're hearing from the left about the election results, I don't see why he doesn't just do that. BR, why doesn't he just do that?

According to Republicans, he did get a strong mandate.  They claimed Bush II received a mandate in 2004.  Obama's victory in 2012 easily surpasses Bush II's in 2004.  Unless somehow winning bigger lessens mandates, according to Republican logic, Obama must have a mandate at least as strong if not stronger than Bush II's.  

As to your latter question...there's a little question of a hugely Gerrymandered House of Representatives that doesn't actually represent the Democrats winning a plurality of the votes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

According to Republicans, he did get a strong mandate.  They claimed Bush II received a mandate in 2004.  Obama's victory in 2012 easily surpasses Bush II's in 2004.  Unless somehow winning bigger lessens mandates, according to Republican logic, Obama must have a mandate at least as strong if not stronger than Bush II's.

Oh...well...I was speaking of reality, not what any particular partisan position on "mandate" is today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

As to your latter question...there's a little question of a hugely Gerrymandered House of Representatives that doesn't actually represent the Democrats winning a plurality of the votes.

You haven't answered the questions. It looks like you're simply making excuses.

Tell me, why doesn't Obama simply create the budget and pass it?

"Tell me why <strawman>."

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Q: Tell me, why doesn't Obama simply create the budget and pass it?
A: There's a little question of a hugely Gerrymandered House of Representatives that doesn't actually represent the Democrats winning a plurality of the votes.
Clear enough for you?

Not at all. This looks like a weak attempt at excuse-making.

So, again: Why doesn't Obama simply create the budget and pass it?

Are you two afraid to give the answer? Are you afraid to admit what the answer says?

Oh just make your silly point already and stop playing games.  Asked and motherfucking answered, MJ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Oh just make your silly point already and stop playing games.  Asked and motherfucking answered, MJ.

Well, I thought you would chose to be honest (and keep a civil tongue.) But I am fool for having expected either.

The simple fact is that Obama cannot. Why not? Because he doesn't have the power to do so. Why not? Because he is only President and there are (still a few) checks and balances to the absolute power of one person or even one party. We have divided government because that is what the voters have chosen. About 50% of the people voted for Barack Obama, but about 50% voted against him also. This general division is reflected in the vote for president but also in the make of both the Senate and the House. In other words there's more than just what Barack Obama wants. Barack Obama needs to be President of everyone, including those that did not vote for him. However he (and you and tonton, et al) don't seem to think he does. You seem to think that because he won, with a fair small majority mind you, this essentially makes him king to which all others who have been elected should bow and for whom all others who did not vote for him must submit.

What's even more curious is why, when Barack Obama did have a more clear "mandate" (when his party had FULL control of Congress and the White House) they didn't settle this tax issue at that time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Thanks for sharing your opinion. 

Actually, it's not even a valid opinion. It is factually and objectively wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I'll go even further:  How about BR and tonton explain why Obama's budget proposal makes sense?  

I don't even care about that. Of course his proposal is a joke. That's not even the point here. The real point is the attitude that Obama and his disciples have copped which looks a like they think he was elected king. This is nothing new for Barack Obama of course. He was copping this attitude from day one.

MJ, you ignore the Gerrymandered House.  You ignore how Republicans acted in 2004.  You ignore the polls that have shown for years that a vast majority of the American public wants to raise taxes to address the deficit and debt, not cut medicare and social security.  I suppose the will of the people doesn't matter to you in that regard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

MJ, you ignore the Gerrymandered House.

That's a red herring. You're implying that the only reason the GOP has a majority in the house is this gerrymandering and also that there are not Democrats who hold seats for the same reason to the point where it is likely a wash. But you r free to prove it is overwhelmingly a Republican thing.

What you are ignoring is that half the country did not vote for the president.

The country is clearly and sharply divided but you (and the president) wish to pretend that the entire country supports him and agrees with him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

You ignore the polls that have shown for years that a vast majority of the American public wants to raise taxes to address the deficit and debt, not cut medicare and social security. I suppose the will of the people doesn't matter to you in that regard.

It doesn't when it comes to matters of right and wrong or correct an incorrect. Often the "will of the people" has been the basis for doing wrong and incorrect things.

I put up with this shit in 2004 from SDW.  His party asserted a mandate.  Suddenly, what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.  Admit it.  The Republicans played the mandate card in 2004 based on a closer election with far fewer voters and now object to it in 2012.  

Turnout 56.2%[1]   Nominee George W. Bush John Kerry Party Republican Democratic Home state Texas Massachusetts Running mate Dick Cheney John Edwards Electoral vote 286[2] 251[2][3] States carried 31 19 + DC Popular vote 62,040,610 59,028,444 Percentage 50.7% 48.3%

538 electoral votes of the Electoral College 270 electoral votes needed to win Turnout 57.5%–60% (voting eligible)[1][2]   Nominee Barack Obama Mitt Romney Party Democratic Republican Home state Illinois Massachusetts Running mate Joe Biden Paul Ryan Electoral vote 332[a] 206[a] States carried 26 + DC 24 Popular vote 65,387,700 60,724,464 Percentage 50.9% 47.3%

If 2004 was a mandate, 2012 is.  Fucking deal with it, Republicans.  You lost.