Election Day U.S.A. - Page 5

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

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.

Well it certainly doesn't even have to go as far as my vision of anarchy. But the reality is that when a person votes for the extremely limited set of options that are available for something like president, they are voting for a bundle of things whether they like, agree with or support all of them or not. So your presumption that a person voting for Obama supports all of his proposed policies (or even any of them) is dubious.

But now we've come full circle in this discussion.

Amazing. You say the above, yet you reject the notion that a pretty fair number of people vote against Obama for no reason except that he's black.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichL 


Nate Silver, the betting markets and every other unbiased source disagrees with you.

1.  Nate Silver is no genius. He simply trusted the right polls.  

2.  I don't see how the betting markets are relevant.  They have incredibly small sample sizes, for one thing.

3.  That's not true.  Is Gallup biased? Is Rasmussen?  Both are highly respected.  The former is probably the most respected polling organization anywhere.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

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.

 

Well it certainly doesn't even have to go as far as my vision of anarchy. But the reality is that when a person votes for the extremely limited set of options that are available for something like president, they are voting for a bundle of things whether they like, agree with or support all of them or not. So your presumption that a person voting for Obama supports all of his proposed policies (or even any of them) is dubious.

 

But now we've come full circle in this discussion.

Completely agree that few people will like all the policies of their chosen candidate, but short of holding referenda on every individual policy issue there are no viable alternatives. One key element of democracy is the election of representatives whom one trusts to use their judgement on issues that arise. One hopes that policy choices will continue to be informed by public opinion as far as is reasonable, but beyond that it is all a big compromise.

The problem remains that if we refuse to accept that the election of a candidate gives him any mandate to proceed with his policies then government has no basis on which to operate.

Even by the standards of the US political system, with its designed emphasis on inertia and viscosity, that would surely be unworkable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Completely agree that few people will like all the policies of their chosen candidate, but short of holding referenda on every individual policy issue there are no viable alternatives.

But you've basically moved the goal posts here. My original point was that interpreting Obama's win as a "mandate" for all of his policies seems like a dubious conclusion.

But, it seems we're going in circles here. Given that, I have better things to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 


Not my intent to move the goalposts. But you still haven't suggested an alternative by which we could determine which individual policies do have a mandate, without which we cannot do much other than take his election as a broad endorsement.
You are asking reasonable questions, but offering no solutions.

Just because I've not offered a solution you agree with or consider practical (or even if I don't have one at all), doesn't make my point any less valid.

You're right, we don't know which policies have the mandate or not, if any.

Have you considered the possibility that some people have voted for Obama just because he was black (just as it is alleged by some that some have voted against him for this reason)? What about the possibility that they might just consider Obama less bad and had not other options? Or even that someone voted for him because they anticipated a divided government and their hope was actually for gridlock?

There are varied reasons. There is no way to know which policies (if any) are endorsed. This, combined with the fact that 60M did not vote for that person, is why such a claim ought to be made with caution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 


Not my intent to move the goalposts. But you still haven't suggested an alternative by which we could determine which individual policies do have a mandate, without which we cannot do much other than take his election as a broad endorsement.
You are asking reasonable questions, but offering no solutions.

 

Just because I've not offered a solution you agree with or consider practical, doesn't make my point any less valid. You're right, we don't know which policies have the mandate or not, if any. Have you considered the possibility that some people have voted for Obama just because he was black (just as it is alleged by some that some have voted against him for this reason)? What about the possibility that they might just consider Obama less bad and had not other options? Or even that someone voted for him because they anticipated a divided government and their hope was actually for gridlock?

 

There are varied reasons. There is no way to know which policies (if any) are endorsed. This, combined with the fact that 60M did not vote for that person, is why such a claim ought to be made with caution.

Yes - I agree with all that, but again, if we are to have a government that is not paralyzed, how else can this work? Gridlock is clearly not a good option when there is consensus that the status quo is not where we want to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Yes - I agree with all that, but again, if we are to have a government that is not paralyzed, how else can this work? Gridlock is clearly not a good option when there is consensus that the status quo is not where we want to be.

There's more to "the government" than just the presidency. We have divided powers in this government (or are supposed to...despite the vastly increased powers of the presidency in the past 70-80 years.) so "government" is supposed to work by working together not by one man telling the rest of the branches what will be done. So there is negotiation and compromise.

Clearly we also have a sharply divided electorate as well. All of this would suggest proceeding with caution and considering what the people who basically voted "no" have on their mind.

P.S. Gridlock certainly is an option (and a highly probable one it looks like right now.) I don't know why you think it isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Yes - I agree with all that, but again, if we are to have a government that is not paralyzed, how else can this work? Gridlock is clearly not a good option when there is consensus that the status quo is not where we want to be.

 

There's more to "the government" than just the presidency. We have divided powers in this government (or are supposed to...despite the vastly increased powers of the presidency in the past 70-80 years.) so "government" is supposed to work by working together not by one man telling the rest of the branches what will be done. So there is negotiation and compromise.

 

P.S. Gridlock certainly is an option (and a highly probable one it looks like right now.) I don't know why you think it isn't.

Negotiation and compromise would be nice, but where two parties stand for quite different approaches in some areas (although I know they seem rather similar from your viewpoint), the election is all there is to go on to divine the majority will of the people. Far from perfect, agreed.

I don't doubt that gridlock is a possibility, and (see above) I did not say that it is not an option - I said that it is not a good option.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I did not say that it is not an option - I said that it is not a good option.

Sorry, my mistake.

However, I disagree. I think it is a good option at this point. When we have two factions whose actions are doing long-term damage to the country, then gridlocking them to prevent them from doing more of these actions might actually be the best option right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I did not say that it is not an option - I said that it is not a good option.

 

Sorry, my mistake.

 

However, I disagree. I think it is a good option at this point. When we have two factions whose actions are doing long-term damage to the country, then gridlocking them to prevent them from doing more of these actions might actually be the best option right now.

OK - fair enough then. Personally I think the economy needs further attention, and I think that the impending spending cuts will cause huge problems if they are not averted.

So you aren't in agreement with the social conservatives that "activist judges" on the Supreme court are a problem? So you do understand now that that's how the system is supposed to work? Or do you think the Executive and Judicial branches have both expanded at the expense of the Legislative? If that's the case, then please explain how Obama has been obstructed so much in the last four years if the Legislative have no power.

Do you think the expansion of the filibuster is a good balancing tool for the legislative branch to gain some of their lost power back?

Seriously, how do you feel about the triumvirate, and other checks and balances in our system, including voter action? Personally I think it's absolutely one of the most important aspects of our system. I think the expanded filibuster gives the Legislative branch too much power, and signing statements and the judicial appointment process gives the executive branch too much power.

But seriously, the powers that ARE out there are currently being dwarfed by the power of the lobbying system. That's what needs to get fixed first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

OK - fair enough then. Personally I think the economy needs further attention, and I think that the impending spending cuts will cause huge problems if they are not averted.

I think it does too. But, right now, I'm presuming that they could actually do more damage than repair.

Originally Posted by tonton 

So you do understand now that that's how the system is supposed to work?

Now? When have I expressed the view that it isn't supposed to work this way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

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.)

This is why you fail to realise what really happened, and how well Obama did. If you still don't understand the odds after seeing this graph there's not much more I can do.

~ http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/state-and-national-polls-come-into-better-alignment/ 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

This is why you fail to realise what really happened, and how well Obama did. If you still don't understand the odds after seeing this graph there's not much more I can do.

If you fail to see the facts that I presented and are unable to refute them in any way besides posting another graph as a red herring, there's not much more than I can do.

The simple fact is that Obama won the presidency by a mere 400,000 votes. This is not a "landslide."

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

If you fail to see the facts that I presented and are unable to refute them in any way besides posting another graph as a red herring, there's not much more than I can do.

 

The simple fact is that Obama won the presidency by a mere 400,000 votes. This is not a "landslide."

The current count has Obama up by almost 3.5 million votes, with significant vote counts still pending from Democratic strongholds (most notably California).  

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

The current count has Obama up by almost 3.5 million votes, with significant vote counts still pending from Democratic strongholds (most notably California).  

Read my previous posts on the subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Read my previous posts on the subject.

There's a great many of them, so maybe you could help me out.  Is there one where you declare math to be inoperative?

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

There's a great many of them, so maybe you could help me out.

Here and here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

Is there one where you declare math to be inoperative?

Cute. No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

If you fail to see the facts that I presented and are unable to refute them in any way besides posting another graph as a red herring, there's not much more than I can do.

 

The simple fact is that Obama won the presidency by a mere 400,000 votes. This is not a "landslide."

I understand your point, you don't seem to understand the odds for all of those states each gaining enough votes to swing the election to Romney. The chances of that happening were much slimmer than it appears. That's the issue here and why Obama's victory was so much larger than you seem to be able to comprehend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

I understand your point, you don't seem to understand the odds for all of those states each gaining enough votes to swing the election to Romney. The chances of that happening were much slimmer than it appears. That's the issue here and why Obama's victory was so much larger than you seem to be able to comprehend.

I understand now. You're dealing with the speculation of how something that didn't happen might have happened and I'm dealing with what actually did happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

This is why you fail to realise what really happened, and how well Obama did. If you still don't understand the odds after seeing this graph there's not much more I can do.

 

If you fail to see the facts that I presented and are unable to refute them in any way besides posting another graph as a red herring, there's not much more than I can do.

 

The simple fact is that Obama won the presidency by a mere 400,000 votes. This is not a "landslide."

I understand what you are saying here, but that misrepresents both the electoral college results and the popular vote. The observation that if Obama lost 400,000 votes from those specific states then he would have lost the electoral college (but still comfortably won the popular vote) unreasonably convolves two different metrics. If you want to compare votes then compare total votes, not a contrived subset. Since Obama actually won both the electoral college and the popular vote by much larger margins, it does not surprise me that some Republican commentators are grasping at other straws to try to make the loss appear closer, but I'm surprised to see you peddling that kind of sophistry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I understand what you are saying here, but that misrepresents both the electoral college results and the popular vote. The observation that if Obama lost 400,000 votes from those specific states then he would have lost the electoral college (but still comfortably won the popular vote) unreasonably convolves two different metrics. If you want to compare votes then compare total votes, not a contrived subset.

It does no such thing. It points out a factual reality: But for approximately 400,000 votes we would have a different person as president. This is a fact based on the operational nature of the electoral system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Since Obama actually won both the electoral college and the popular vote by much larger margins, it does not surprise me that some Republican commentators are grasping at other straws to try to make the loss appear closer, but I'm surprised to see you peddling that kind of sophistry.

Call is sophistry if that makes you feel more comfortable. But I am dealing in hard (and relevant) facts here. Facts that point to the case that re-elected President might be wise to consider the fact that he actually was closer to losing than either the EC or total popular vote suggest. This might also suggest a modicum of humility from him, though I don't expect any whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

I understand now. You're dealing with the speculation of how something that didn't happen might have happened and I'm dealing with what actually didn't happen, but I desperately want to believe could have so easily happened to take the pain away.

Tftfy!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Tftfy!

So your only response at this point is to modify what I said into a lie?

Interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I understand what you are saying here, but that misrepresents both the electoral college results and the popular vote. The observation that if Obama lost 400,000 votes from those specific states then he would have lost the electoral college (but still comfortably won the popular vote) unreasonably convolves two different metrics. If you want to compare votes then compare total votes, not a contrived subset.

 

It does no such thing. It points out a factual reality: But for approximately 400,000 votes we would have a different person as president. This is a fact based on the operational nature of the electoral system.

OK - well if you want to consider just those states then we had better consider the total votes and margins in those states, and so his win was by 406,000 out of 20 million total votes (2.1% margin), rather than by 3.3 million out of 120 million (2.7% margin).

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

OK - well if you want to consider just those states then we had better consider the total votes and margins in those states, and so his win was by 406,000 out of 20 million total votes (2.1% margin), rather than by 3.3 million out of 120 million (2.7% margin).

That's fine. What's your point now? None of this amounts to a "landslide." None of this amounts to the fact that nearly as many people voted against him as for him. A fact that ought to weigh into his governing decisions (but almost certainly won't.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

OK - well if you want to consider just those states then we had better consider the total votes and margins in those states, and so his win was by 406,000 out of 20 million total votes (2.1% margin), rather than by 3.3 million out of 120 million (2.7% margin).

 

That's fine. What's your point now? None of this amounts to a "landslide." None of this amounts to the fact that nearly as many people voted against him as for him. A fact that ought to weigh into his governing decisions (but almost certainly won't.)

Now you have moved the goalposts. Your thesis was that the election was much closer than it appeared from the electoral college and the popular vote, and you constructed a scenario with four states that you asserted showed that. I simply pointed out that even in just those states he won by over 2%, which is within a factor of 1.5 of the national popular vote margin. So yes, no interpretation suggests a landslide, but no, your swing state analysis does not suggest a much closer race than the popular vote indicates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Now you have moved the goalposts.

I did no such thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Your thesis was that the election was much closer than it appeared from the electoral college and the popular vote, and you constructed a scenario with four states that you asserted showed that.

Correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

So yes, no interpretation suggests a landslide, but no, your swing state analysis does not suggest a much closer race than the popular vote indicates.

Okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Now you have moved the goalposts.

 

I did no such thing.

I said you moved the goalposts because your argument changed from asserting that the election was much closer than the electoral college or popular vote suggested to saying just that it was not a landslide, which, as you will recall, I agreed with already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I said you moved the goalposts because your argument changed from asserting that the election was much closer than the electoral college or popular vote suggested to saying just that it was not a landslide...

Wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Here and here.

 

 

 

Cute. No.

OK, so you've posted some stuff where you torture the numbers to support the idea that Obama's win wasn't particularly impressive.  Nevertheless, he's likely to end up with something like a 4 million vote advantage in the popular vote, which is better than both of Bush Jr.'s numbers plus vastly better performance in the electoral college.

Making that out to be "400,000 votes" if you squint just right is silly.  We can argue about the definition of a mandate, but he won by the margins he won at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

OK, so you've posted some stuff where you torture the numbers...

I see how it is. Using actual, you know, facts and stuff is "torturing the numbers." Priceless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

Nevertheless, he's likely to end up with something like a 4 million vote advantage in the popular vote, which is better than both of Bush Jr.'s numbers plus vastly better performance in the electoral college.

Okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

Making that out to be "400,000 votes" if you squint just right is silly.

Thanks for sharing your opinion about my use of the facts.

If you look back where this started, I was addressing the claim of a "landslide" by a previous poster. The discussion of "mandate" has also overlapped this discussion. My point still stands, a wise and/or humble man (this set does not include Barack Obama), would consider carefully his path forward with some degree of care and consideration due to the narrowness of his victory and the people who voted against him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

I see how it is. Using actual, you know, facts and stuff is "torturing the numbers." Priceless.

 

 

 

Okay.

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion about my use of the facts.

 

If you look back where this started, I was addressing the claim of a "landslide" by a previous poster. The discussion of "mandate" has also overlapped this discussion. My point still stands, a wise and/or humble man (this set does not include Barack Obama), would consider carefully his path forward with some degree of care and consideration due to the narrowness of his victory and the people who voted against him.

Obama won the popular vote by at least 3.5 million, likely 4 million.  He won the electoral college 365-173.  About as factual as it gets, and your hand-waving doesn't change that (although extra points for getting dickish about "facts" when you're as far out on a limb as you are).

Unlike Bush, Obama hasn't declared himself king or claimed some kind of overwhelming mandate.  Much like a wise and humble man, he has been careful to talk of being president of all the people, and working with everyone to achieve progress.  The one point he has made is that his election suggests that the majority of Americans support the idea of higher taxes for the wealthy.  I realize that may be a trigger issue for you, but it's not exactly some kind of wild surmise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

Obama won the popular vote by at least 3.5 million, likely 4 million.  He won the electoral college 365-173.  About as factual as it gets

 Actually, you're facts are wrong.

Currently the popular vote differential is about 3.25M.

The electoral balance is 332-206.

The electoral balance is that way due to around 400,000 votes.

These are facts. I'm sorry if you feel the need to keep dismissing them for some reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

and your hand-waving doesn't change that

I'm not hand waving anything. I've presented facts. Feel free to show where they are wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

(although extra points for getting dickish...

Same to ya.

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

Unlike Bush...

Why are you bringing up Bush? Is this an attempt to offer a red herring? I'm talking about Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

Obama hasn't declared himself king...

Well, perhaps not in so many words.  You haven't been paying much attention to him since he won the first time have you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

...or claimed some kind of overwhelming mandate.

Actually, that's exactly what's doing in his initial rhetoric around the fiscal cliff. It helps if you actually pay attention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

Much like a wise and humble man...

Barack Obama is nothing like a wis or humble man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

...he has been careful to talk of being president of all the people, and working with everyone to achieve progress.

A wise and humble man would actually do those things. A partisan, arrogant, stubborn dickhead would just talk about doing those things and the tell the other side he's not really going to compromise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

The one point he has made is that his election suggests that the majority of Americans support the idea of higher taxes for the wealthy.

Except that this claim is not entirely clear at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I said you moved the goalposts because your argument changed from asserting that the election was much closer than the electoral college or popular vote suggested to saying just that it was not a landslide...

 

Wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Facts that point to the case that re-elected President might be wise to consider the fact that he actually was closer to losing than either the EC or total popular vote suggest. 

Wrong about what, exactly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Wrong about what, exactly?

That I moved the goal posts. My point stands. That you're denying it doesn't change this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Wrong about what, exactly?

 

That I moved the goal posts. My point stands. That you're denying it doesn't change this.

So did I misquote you? Which point still stands that I am denying?