Election Day U.S.A. - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

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 

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.

Florida still hasn't announced.  

Rick Scott is very happy with how the election proceeded.

Florida, the joke of American elections.

Ron Paul posted the following on Facebook:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Now you know how we felt about Bush.

 

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.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Now you know how we felt about Bush.

 

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

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. 

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.")

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

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?  

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.  

Yes, yes it is.  

Oh, I think it has.  

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?  

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

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.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

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/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

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".

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. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

In total, there are 21 districts in Cleveland where Mr. Romney received precisely 0 votes. In 23 districts, he received precisely 1 vote. And naturally, in one of the districts where Obama won 100% of the vote, there was 100% turnout.

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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

In total, there are 21 districts in Cleveland where Mr. Romney received precisely 0 votes. In 23 districts, he received precisely 1 vote. And naturally, in one of the districts where Obama won 100% of the vote, there was 100% turnout.

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? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

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|noun2 the 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

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

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

Well at least two people have. 

But that's neither here nor there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

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 

Otherwise the whole process is pointless.

Well it might be anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

mandate |ˈmanˌdāt|noun2 the 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

mandate |ˈmanˌdāt|noun2 the 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

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

Okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

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 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

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

 

Okay.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

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 

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

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. 

An opinion on the electoral college.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

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.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

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.