or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Election Day U.S.A.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Election Day U.S.A. - Page 4

post #121 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No, "we're" probably parsing whether it's possible to have a conversation without you snidely changing the subject, and are back to my original point that the subject of discussion was how Romney would be just fine after losing the election, not Obama's wealth. You brought Obama into the conversation in your usual fashion and I questioned the relevance of that, since he didn't lose the election.

 

We all get that you don't have much of a sense of humor. No need to belabor it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It degenerated from there to your latest question predicated on the assumption that Obama's policies are terrible.

 

Look back at the original statement I was replying to and apply your allegedly objective insight there as well.

 

The original poster basically said we need not worry about Romney because he had enough wealth to protect him from the consequences (implication...negative) of the policies he was expected to implement. I was simply turning this around, for the sake of sarcastic humor, pointing out that Obama too will be able to be financially protected from the consequences of the policies he actually implements.

 

1rolleyes.gif


Edited by MJ1970 - 11/9/12 at 6:45am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #122 of 254

Florida still hasn't announced.  

 

Rick Scott is very happy with how the election proceeded.

 

 

Florida, the joke of American elections.

 

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 #123 of 254

Ron Paul posted the following on Facebook:

 

Quote:
America is over $16 trillion in debt. The "official" unemployment rate still hovers around 8%.
 
Our federal government claims the right to spy on American citizens, indefinitely detain them, and even assassinate them without trial.
 
Domestic drones fly over the country for civilian surveillance. 
 
Twelve million fewer Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008, yet political pundits scratch their heads.
 
It's not hard to see why, though.
 
To go along with endorsing a never-ending policy of bailouts, "stimulus packages," and foreign military adventurism, the establishment of neither major party questions the assaults on Americans' liberties I’ve named above.
 
As my campaign showed, the American people are fed up. Many realized heading into Tuesday that regardless of who won the presidential election, the status quo would be the real victor.
 
GOP leadership is now questioning why they didn't perform better.
 
They're looking at demographic changes in the United States and implying minorities can only be brought into the party by loudly advocating for abandoning what little remains of their limited government platform and endorsing more statist policies.
 
My presidential campaign proved that standing for freedom brings people together.
 
Liberty is popular – regardless of race, religion, or creed.
 
As long as the GOP establishment continues to not only reject the liberty message, but actively drive away the young, diverse coalition that supports those principles, it will see results similar to Tuesday’s outcome. 
 
A renewed respect for liberty is the only way forward for the Republican Party and for our country.
 
I urge all my Republican colleagues to join the liberty movement in fighting for a brighter future.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #124 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Now you know how we felt about Bush.1wink.gif

 

That felt like 12 years....of stupidity.

 

The fact that you think this is about mere partisan disagreement or policy differences shows how you do not understand the depths of the problem.  The American electorate voted for entitlement, appeasement and failure.  They voted for someone who has unequivocally failed, someone who ran a negative and small campaign.  It's not that "we" simply didn't get the result we wanted.  We are honestly questioning whether this nation will survive as it was founded.  You might have disagreed with Bush, maybe even hated him.  But America was still America.  At least our President didn't despise American's foundations.  At least the makers weren't yet outnumbered by the takers.  That is what we're worried about, jimmac.  American can survive four more years of Obama.  I'm not so sure it can survive the mentality of the people that elected him.  

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 #125 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Now you know how we felt about Bush.1wink.gif

 

That felt like 12 years....of stupidity.

 

The fact that you think this is about mere partisan disagreement or policy differences shows how you do not understand the depths of the problem.  The American electorate voted for entitlement, appeasement and failure.  They voted for someone who has unequivocally failed, someone who ran a negative and small campaign.  It's not that "we" simply didn't get the result we wanted.  We are honestly questioning whether this nation will survive as it was founded.  You might have disagreed with Bush, maybe even hated him.  But America was still America.  At least our President didn't despise American's foundations.  At least the makers weren't yet outnumbered by the takers.  That is what we're worried about, jimmac.  American can survive four more years of Obama.  I'm not so sure it can survive the mentality of the people that elected him.  

Well.........I tried. At least I know I tried. You really couldn't be more wrong about this.

 

During the Bush years I tried to tell you how bad he was for the country and yet you continued to support him. Look where we ended up! It wasn't until after he was out of office did you even start to admit that maybe he made some bad moves. Then you ask how it's his fault and yet you are willing to automatically blame Obama. The fact of the matter is Bush failed miserably as a leader and he is responsible for what happens while he's in office ( through action or not ) just like any CEO of a company or a leader in the military. Now Obama will responsible for what happens while he's in office. This economic debacle didn't happen then it happened before. Now he could do things to make it worse. Yes that's true. But that hasn't been proven yet. Some think what he did needed to be done as expensive as it was. However in reading your posts on this subject I'm thinking even if at the end of Obama's term in office if things are all rosy you would still make some other excuse for it and not just accept that just maybe you were wrong.


Edited by jimmac - 11/9/12 at 11:14am
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #126 of 254
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Florida still hasn't announced.  

 

Rick Scott is very happy with how the election proceeded.

 

 

Florida, the joke of American elections.

 

I'm not sure how much this has to do with Scott. Florida has had chronic election problems going back well more than a dozen years.

 

Elections have been run by both Democrats and Republicans, so while there are mischief makers on both sides, it looks like a systemic problem.

 

As I've said earlier, nothing short of a grassroots, voter-driven campaign (starting now) will provide the impetus to fix this.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #127 of 254

Florida finally announces: Obama won.

 

Seriously, what is the problem with Florida?

 

 

- - - - -

 

 

Alan West, yeah, that crazy dude down in Florida, lost to his Democratic opponent. 

 

And another nutter is out of Washington!  The cleansing is underway but will take a while.  The recovery will take longer.

 

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 #128 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Florida finally announces: Obama won.

 

Seriously, what is the problem with Florida?

 

 

- - - - -

 

 

Alan West, yeah, that crazy dude down in Florida, lost to his Democratic opponent. 

 

And another nutter is out of Washington!  The cleansing is underway but will take a while.  The recovery will take longer.

Quite a landslide. 

 

Looking back, at the last few months, I don't think it would have been quite so enjoyable without SDW around. 1biggrin.gif

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 #129 of 254

I'm not sure I would call winning by less than 500,000 votes (out of more than 121,000,000 cast) a "landslide" (or a "mandate.")

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #130 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm not sure I would call winning by less than 500,000 votes (out of more than 121,000,000 cast) a "landslide" (or a "mandate.")

Where did you find that number?

 

My understanding is that Obama is winning the popular vote by over 3,200,000 votes.

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 #131 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well.........I tried. At least I know I tried. You really couldn't be more wrong about this.

 

During the Bush years I tried to tell you how bad he was for the country and yet you continued to support him.  Look where we ended up! It wasn't until after he was out of office did you even start to admit that maybe he made some bad moves. Then you ask how it's his fault and yet you are willing to automatically blame Obama. The fact of the matter is Bush failed miserably as a leader and he is responsible for what happens while he's in office ( through action or not ) just like any CEO of a company or a leader in the military.

 

Let me get this straight:  The economic problems we now face are Bush's fault?  OK...how, exactly?  What you're arguing is that he is responsible because he was in office when it started.  Correct?  

 

 

 

Quote:
Now Obama will responsible for what happens while he's in office. This economic debacle didn't happen then it happened before.

 

So each President is responsible for outcomes while he is in office.  OK.  Unless it's Obama, who is not responsible for outcomes, because the economic problems are really Bush's fault.  Got it.  

 

Quote:
Now he could do things to make it worse. Yes that's true.

 

Yes, yes it is.  

 

 

Quote:
 But that hasn't been proven yet.

 

Oh, I think it has.  

 

 

Quote:
 Some think what he did needed to be done as expensive as it was.

 

What needed to be done?  The stimulus?  Taking over car companies?  And why are you assuming I oppose them because of how expensive they were?  

 

 

Quote:
However in reading your posts on this subject I'm thinking even if at the end of Obama's term in office if things are all rosy you would still make some other excuse for it and not just accept that just maybe you were wrong.

 

What is your definition of "rosy," and do you really think we have any chance in hell of achieving it in four years?  I'll tell you what:  If, after four more years, we have vastly reduced or eliminated deficits, 4% growth, well funded schools and are winning the war on radical Islam, I'll be happy to credit Obama.  But I think you know that's not going to happen . In four years, we'll be at or near $20 trillion in debt.  We'll have unemployment above Bush-era levels. Economic growth will be sub 3%, and we'll still have deficits exceeding $750 billion+ a year.  At least.  We might even have a war with Iran tossed in.  And do you know what will happen?  You'll be here spewing the same talking points Obama and his minions will be.  You'll be spinning about how successful he was, no matter what.   

 

I pray for our nation.  In four years, we're likely to be completely screwed.

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 #132 of 254

As of this moment:   http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results

 

Florida is now (finally) in.  That should be the end of it.

 

Obama      61,735,935  (50.5%)

 

Romney    58,530,244  (47.9%) 

 

 

total votes:   120,266,179

 

Let's see:

                           61735935

                          -58530244

 

DIFFERENCE     3,205,691

 

 

 

The figures over at Fox may be different; they don't do so well with math.

 

CNN had a segment called GOP denial this morning... my wife was aghast at Fox, so I showed her the more complete version courtesy of the Daily Show (don't worry, Jon shows full clips, unedited; that's why they are frightening).  She is speechless.


Edited by Bergermeister - 11/10/12 at 4:27pm

 

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 #133 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

As of this moment:   http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results

 

Obama      61,735,935  (50.5%)

 

Romney    58,530,244  (47.9%) 

 

 

Let's see:

                           61735935

                          -58530244

 

DIFFERENCE     3,205,691

 

As I said, completely out of whack with national polls which had Romney up by 1-2.  It was turnout, and turnout alone.  

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 #134 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

As of this moment:   http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results

 

Obama      61,735,935  (50.5%)

 

Romney    58,530,244  (47.9%) 

 

 

Let's see:

                           61735935

                          -58530244

 

DIFFERENCE     3,205,691

 

As I said, completely out of whack with national polls which had Romney up by 1-2.  It was turnout, and turnout alone.  

 

That simply shows that you placed to much faith in the wrong (unskewed) polls. The Silver's aggregates in the days leading up to the election showed approximately +1.5% for Obama, which is within a percent or so of the final result. But you dismissed him as biased and irrelevant, of course.

post #135 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That simply shows that you placed to much faith in the wrong (unskewed) polls. The Silver's aggregates in the days leading up to the election showed approximately +1.5% for Obama, which is within a percent or so of the final result. But you dismissed him as biased and irrelevant, of course.

Nate was incredibly accurate and so were the polls, especially when looked at in respect to their historical biases, which Nate pays careful attention to, unlike some other people, i.e. SDW.

 

 

"

 

Nate's prediction of the popular vote- 50.8% Obama, 48.3% Romney ~ http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/state-and-national-polls-come-into-better-alignment/

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 #136 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Nate's prediction of the popular vote- 50.8% Obama, 48.3% Romney ~ http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/state-and-national-polls-come-into-better-alignment/

 

The kid is good, and Fox and its extended family can't accept it.

 

Anybody read his book yet?  Anybody send a copy to Fox?  They probably don't want it; what did they say?  Scientific-goggly-gloop?

 

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 #137 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That simply shows that you placed to much faith in the wrong (unskewed) polls. The Silver's aggregates in the days leading up to the election showed approximately +1.5% for Obama, which is within a percent or so of the final result. But you dismissed him as biased and irrelevant, of course.

Nate was incredibly accurate and so were the polls, especially when looked at in respect to their historical biases, which Nate pays careful attention to, unlike some other people, i.e. SDW.

 

 

"

 

Nate's prediction of the popular vote- 50.8% Obama, 48.3% Romney ~ http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/state-and-national-polls-come-into-better-alignment/

 

It wasn't just Silver, either. Wang and Linzer, using similarly robust statistical techniques on aggregated data rather than the bizarre "unskewing" corrections that were partly based on assuming the outcome, also came close in both popular vote and electoral college. It is disappointing to see how many commentators (and posters) are now excusing their pre-election dismissive bombast by blaming the polls that they insisted were correct before the election. As many have already pointed out, the party of personal responsibility has, hopefully temporarily, become the party of "it's everyone else's fault".

post #138 of 254
Thread Starter 
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #139 of 254

Well this is rich. Romney, having used grossly slanted polls favouring himself, to help raise billions of dollars from those stupid enough to believe them, cut off the credit cards to hundreds of his campaign workers as soon as he knew he'd lost. That left them having to spend their own money that night onwards. 

 

"Aides taking cabs home late that night got rude awakenings when they found the credit cards linked to the campaign no longer worked.

 

"Fiscally conservative," sighed one aide the next day."

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/08/15024793-the-last-days-of-romneyland?lite

 

 What a horrible ride home that must have been. 

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 #140 of 254

Apparently in the district where Obama won 100% of the vote and there was 100% turnout, there only were two voters. Kind of changes things!

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 #141 of 254

 

Thanks for that link. As well as that particular story it leads to all kinds of "news" websites with a fascinating proliferation of new ways to excuse the election loss, but primarily that Romney was denied by widespread voting fraud of some unspecified variety. These election results cannot be permitted to stand, and we should expect to see prompt and well-founded legal challenges arising from all these egregious occurrences. We will see that, won't we - the Republican-controlled Ohio state government surely won't tolerate voter fraud? 

post #142 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As I said, completely out of whack with national polls which had Romney up by 1-2.  It was turnout, and turnout alone.  

Nate Silver, the betting markets and every other unbiased source disagrees with you.
post #143 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Well this is rich. Romney, having used grossly slanted polls favouring himself, to help raise billions of dollars from those stupid enough to believe them, cut off the credit cards to hundreds of his campaign workers as soon as he knew he'd lost. That left them having to spend their own money that night onwards. 

 

"Aides taking cabs home late that night got rude awakenings when they found the credit cards linked to the campaign no longer worked.

 

"Fiscally conservative," sighed one aide the next day."

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/08/15024793-the-last-days-of-romneyland?lite

 

 What a horrible ride home that must have been. 

 

 

For Mittens, the only goal was and always will be money.

 

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 #144 of 254
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Thanks for that link. As well as that particular story it leads to all kinds of "news" websites with a fascinating proliferation of new ways to excuse the election loss, but primarily that Romney was denied by widespread voting fraud of some unspecified variety. These election results cannot be permitted to stand, and we should expect to see prompt and well-founded legal challenges arising from all these egregious occurrences. We will see that, won't we - the Republican-controlled Ohio state government surely won't tolerate voter fraud? 

 

Not sure about all that, but it definitely shows that electioneering in the U.S. is a loosey-goosey basket case regardless of who runs it, and there is a need for the people to rise up and demand better. This site has catalogued numerous deficiencies on both the right and left.

 

There are just weeks left before this election fades from public consciousness. Is anyone going to stand up for progress?

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #145 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Where did you find that number?

 

My understanding is that Obama is winning the popular vote by over 3,200,000 votes.

 

But he won the election only by the difference in the swing/battleground states that swung the electoral college his way. That's only about 400,000 votes.

 

Again, hardly a landslide. Even looking at the popular vote differential hardly makes it landslide.

 

It is only a "landslide" and/or a "mandate" in the glorious imaginations of Obama and his worshippers.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #146 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Where did you find that number?

 

My understanding is that Obama is winning the popular vote by over 3,200,000 votes.

 

But he won the election only by the difference in the swing/battleground states that swung the electoral college his way. That's only about 400,000 votes.

 

Again, hardly a landslide. Even looking at the popular vote differential hardly makes it landslide.

 

It is only a "landslide" and/or a "mandate" in the glorious imaginations of Obama and his worshippers.

 

What margin do you think would constitute a mandate?

post #147 of 254
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

 

 

For Mittens, the only goal was and always will be money.

 

That's idiocy. Of course the cards were cut off when the campaign ended. Anyone who is responsible about money (and we know where that mostly lies) understands why that happened.

 

Election campaigns end after the concession speech. If cab fares home are considered a legitimate expense by a campaign, they might be reimbursed.

 

Let's also remember this conversation is about a select group of campaign aides, not volunteers. A typical presidential campaign can have hundreds of thousands of volunteers, and I doubt many of them got to charge their cab fares.

 

Your ignorance of how campaigns work could be understandable, but smearing a man who had no financial need to serve as President is just repulsive.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #148 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Thanks for that link. As well as that particular story it leads to all kinds of "news" websites with a fascinating proliferation of new ways to excuse the election loss, but primarily that Romney was denied by widespread voting fraud of some unspecified variety. These election results cannot be permitted to stand, and we should expect to see prompt and well-founded legal challenges arising from all these egregious occurrences. We will see that, won't we - the Republican-controlled Ohio state government surely won't tolerate voter fraud? 

 

Not sure about all that, but it definitely shows that electioneering in the U.S. is a loosey-goosey basket case regardless of who runs it, and there is a need for the people to rise up and demand better. This site has catalogued numerous deficiencies on both the right and left.

 

There are just weeks left before this election fades from public consciousness. Is anyone going to stand up for progress?

 

Agreed - it has been clear over the past few elections that things don't work as well as we expect. One might ask whether expectations are too high given the scale of the endeavor, but even that should not prevent reasonable efforts to improve the process. The cost may be quite high though.

post #149 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

What margin do you think would constitute a mandate?

 

I really don't know. The idea of "mandate" (or "landslide") isn't a very scientific concept. I honestly don't thinks there any objective way to define these. Anything I come up with is simply an opinion. This idea of "mandate" is thrown out by whomever it serves.

 

Here are facts:

 

  • Popular vote percentage differential between Obama and Romney: 2.6%
  • Popular vote percentage differential between Obama and those who did not vote for him: 1.7%

 

If we want to discuss the electoral college the numbers look big (332 vs. 206), but when you realize that Obama was only about 400,000 votes away from losing the EC, things don't seem like such a "landslide" or "mandate."

 

Again, this is all subjective. But then so is anyone claiming the mandate or landslide.

 

Point is, I think Obama (and his worshippers) need to be careful and realize that there were also almost 60M that voted against him.

 

As some have mentioned in the past, he needs to be President of all of America, not just those that explicitly voted for him. Claiming the mandate risks implying that those other 60M voters don't really matter.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #150 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

What margin do you think would constitute a mandate?

 

I really don't know. The idea of "mandate" (or "landslide") isn't a very scientific concept. I honestly don't thinks there any objective way to define these. Anything I come up with is simply an opinion. This idea of "mandate" is thrown out by whomever it serves.

 

Here are facts:

 

  • Popular vote percentage differential between Obama and Romney: 2.6%
  • Popular vote percentage differential between Obama and those who did not vote for him: 1.7%

 

If we want to discuss the electoral college the numbers look big (332 vs. 206), but when you realize that Obama was only about 400,000 votes away from losing the EC, things don't seem like such a "landslide" or "mandate."

 

Again, this is all subjective. But then so is anyone claiming the mandate or landslide.

 

Point is, I think Obama (and his worshippers) need to be careful and realize that there were also almost 60M that voted against him.

 

As some have mentioned in the past, he needs to be President of all of America, not just those that explicitly voted for him. Claiming the mandate risks implying that those other 60M voters don't really matter.

 

I can't imagine that anyone would call this a landslide. But while any elected government should strive to represent the entire electorate, not just its supporters, these candidates stood on their individual policy platforms, and winning both the election and the popular vote has to be taken as a mandate of some kind to pursue the winning candidate's policies. Otherwise the whole process is pointless. 

 

mandate |ˈmanˌdāt|nounthe authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election

post #151 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I can't imagine that anyone would call this a landslide.

 

Well at least two people have. 1rolleyes.gif

 

But that's neither here nor there.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

But while any elected government should strive to represent the entire electorate, not just its supporters, these candidates stood on their individual policy platforms, and winning both the election and the popular vote has to be taken as a mandate of some kind to pursue the winning candidate's policies.

 

Well that's assuming that every or even most of the votes the candidate received were also votes for his/her platform (and all of that platform.) This seems like a dubious assumption.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Otherwise the whole process is pointless.

 

Well it might be anyway.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

mandate |ˈmanˌdāt|nounthe authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election

 

I think you are smart enough to realize that the political use of that term is often meant to imply something beyond the simple dictionary definition of the word. But even if this weren't true, this all still predicated on the assumption you stated above that the votes for the candidate are also votes for all of his/her policies.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #152 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

mandate |ˈmanˌdāt|nounthe authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election

 

I think you are smart enough to realize that the political use of that term is often meant to imply something beyond the simple dictionary definition of the word. But even if this weren't true, this all still predicated on the assumption you stated above that the votes for the candidate are also votes for all of his/her policies.

 

I cannot see what it could be taken to imply beyond that definition. As to the assumption, since the ballots do not separate the questions (Who do you want as president?  Whose policies do you like best?), there is no alternative to presuming their equivalence, which is exactly the definition of mandate. To do otherwise is to admit the situation that you appear to be proposing - that the election of a President or Government is not an electoral endorsement of their policies, that it says nothing about the wishes of the electorate and that there is no guidance on what policies to try to implement. It may be an attractive argument for the losing party to try to make, but it still makes a mockery of the process.

post #153 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I cannot see what it could be taken to imply beyond that definition.

 

Okay.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

As to the assumption, since the ballots do not separate the questions (Who do you want as president?  Whose policies do you like best?), there is no alternative to presuming their equivalence, which is exactly the definition of mandate.

 

Actually there is another choice.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

To do otherwise is to admit the situation that you appear to be proposing - that the election of a President or Government is not an electoral endorsement of their policies, that it says nothing about the wishes of the electorate and that there is no guidance on what policies to try to implement.

 

I'm not saying it isn't an endorsement, I'm saying you can assume that it is such an endorsement of all policies (or maybe even any). I suspect the reasons a voter votes for a particular candidate are more varied and complex than you seem to be implying.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #154 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I cannot see what it could be taken to imply beyond that definition.

 

Okay.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

As to the assumption, since the ballots do not separate the questions (Who do you want as president?  Whose policies do you like best?), there is no alternative to presuming their equivalence, which is exactly the definition of mandate.

 

Actually there is another choice.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

To do otherwise is to admit the situation that you appear to be proposing - that the election of a President or Government is not an electoral endorsement of their policies, that it says nothing about the wishes of the electorate and that there is no guidance on what policies to try to implement.

 

I'm not saying it isn't an endorsement, I'm saying you can assume that it is such an endorsement of all policies (or maybe even any). I suspect the reasons a voter votes for a particular candidate are more varied and complex than you seem to be implying.

 

Yes - all well and good, but for the practical purposes of electing a government that actually does anything that the people would like it to do, what do you propose instead? What is the other choice?

post #155 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

But he won the election only by the difference in the swing/battleground states that swung the electoral college his way. That's only about 400,000 votes.

 

Again, hardly a landslide. Even looking at the popular vote differential hardly makes it landslide.

 

It is only a "landslide" and/or a "mandate" in the glorious imaginations of Obama and his worshippers.

It was more than 400,000.

 

Here's how many votes Obama got more than Romney in the swing states Obama won -

 

Florida - 73,858

Virginia- 115, 910

New Hampshire- 40,659

Pennsylvania- 287,865

Ohio- 103,481

Michigan- 449,238

Wisconsin- 205,204

Iowa- 88,501

Colorado- 113,099

Nevada- 66,379

 

Total- 1,544,194

 

Regardless, 332 - 206, where most of the resources and time are all spent in the swing states, is a landslide victory for Obama. 


Edited by Hands Sandon - 11/11/12 at 2:00am
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 #156 of 254

An opinion on the electoral college.

 

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/eo20121107a4.html

 

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 #157 of 254

He had smart campaign strategy that is why he won this election.
 

post #158 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It was more than 400,000.

 

Here's how many votes Obama got more than Romney in the swing states Obama won -

 

Florida - 73,858

Virginia- 115, 910

New Hampshire- 40,659

Pennsylvania- 287,865

Ohio- 103,481

Michigan- 449,238

Wisconsin- 205,204

Iowa- 88,501

Colorado- 113,099

Nevada- 66,379

 

Total- 1,544,194

 

Regardless, 332 - 206, where most of the resources and time are all spent in the swing states, is a landslide victory for Obama. 

 

You're counting too many states. Romney only needed to flip 63 electoral votes.

 

The swing/battleground states where that were closest were:

 

FL (29), VA (13), OH (18) and CO (9). That's 69 electoral votes and a margin of only 406,348 voters.

 

It's only a landslide in your imagination (and possibly Obama's also.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #159 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Yes - all well and good, but for the practical purposes of electing a government that actually does anything that the people would like it to do, what do you propose instead? What is the other choice?

 

The government doing less things over which the president's policies and decision-making are a factor.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #160 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Yes - all well and good, but for the practical purposes of electing a government that actually does anything that the people would like it to do, what do you propose instead? What is the other choice?

 

The government doing less things over which the president's policies and decision-making are a factor.

 

So then, no fiscal management, no taxation, no defense forces, no legislation at all, in fact? I was hoping for a practical solution rather than just your vision of anarchy.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Election Day U.S.A.