|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: A 2012 US election thread
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Where are the media when it comes to why the Superpac spending didn't get the results hoped for? Maybe my reading is limited but I haven't seen it mentioned. I have no doubt that if the election had gone to Romney the media would be all over the "buying the election".
There was a little bit of discussion about it on CNN last night -- mostly along the lines of "there are going to be a lot of Republicans asking 'what did we get for all that money?'"
And there's this in the Washington Post.
[ 07. November 2012, 19:52: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
... It just amazes me that no one is willing to approach even the possibility of race being the determining factor. I guess you just see what you want to see. ...
Your contention might be less amazing if you had more data points. After all, he's not the first African-American to run for President.
But hey, if it's really that easy, maybe I'll give the Presidency a run. I won't bother with fund-raising or campaigning; I'll just get my name on the ballot. People will vote for me just because my last name ends in Z. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
Sorry -- I've been out this morning and am just now returning.
Let's see... I think all I need to respond to is the "elected because he is black" thing. I'll say it again: If the Democratic candidate in office on Monday had been a white man, he would not have been reelected on Tuesday. How can I say that more clearly?
Oh, you've been incredibly clear about what you said. You've been incredibly clear that you want to blaim Barak Obama's race for everything that's gone wrong.
Unfortunately other than racist assertions, you've produced nothing to support your argument. I've given some actual facts.
quote:
I agree that the ones who voted for him because he's black would not have voted for Romney; they would not have voted at all, which was the very beginning point of my comments. Remove those votes from the count, and he would not have been reelected. That's all I'm saying, and I don't see how you can honestly not believe that, too, no matter how much it pains your liberal heart to admit it.
In Gritsland, apparently there are no racists who either don't vote for someone overtly because they are black or who find an excuse not to vote for someone because they are black. Romney & Co. ran an almost overtly racist campaign following the model of the Southern Strategy. It's unlikely they'd have done it if there weren't votes to be had in running a racist campaign.
So on one side you have people encouraged to vote because someone was like them. On the other you have deliberate and pre-meditated racism. And you're blaming the racism on Obama? As well as your other mendacious attacks?
quote:
And yes, wouldn't you know it -- she's black.
"Some of my best friends are black"? Seriously? Why don't you try saying "I'm not a racist, but..."?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Where are the media when it comes to why the Superpac spending didn't get the results hoped for? Maybe my reading is limited but I haven't seen it mentioned. I have no doubt that if the election had gone to Romney the media would be all over the "buying the election".
Incidentally, I wonder if those superpacs would be open to using all their excess billions on more rewarding spending like education?
I wouldn't hold your breath on that last bit. Paul Krugman over at the New York Times made an interesting observation* prior to the election about one of the most notorious big players in the SuperPAC game:
quote:
Remember how [Karl] Rove and others were supposed to raise vast sums from billionaires and corporations, then totally saturate the country with GOP messaging, drowning out Obama’s message? Well, they certainly raised a lot of money, and ran a lot of ads. But in terms of actual number of ads the battle has been, if anything, an Obama advantage. And while we don’t know what will happen on Tuesday, state-level polls suggest both that Obama is a strong favorite and, much more surprising, that Democrats are overwhelmingly favored to hold the Senate in a year when the number of seats at risk was supposed to spell doom.
Some of this reflects the simple fact that money can’t help all that much when you have a lousy message. But it also looks as if the money was surprisingly badly spent. What happened?
Well, what if we’ve been misunderstanding Rove? We’ve been seeing him as a man dedicated to helping angry right-wing billionaires take over America. But maybe he’s best thought of instead as an entrepreneur in the business of selling his services to angry right-wing billionaires, who believe that he can help them take over America. It’s not the same thing.
And while Rove the crusader is looking — provisionally, of course, until the votes are in — like a failure, Rove the businessman has just had an amazing, banner year.
In other words, a lot of SuperPACs may be the political equivalents of those charities that spend most of their donations on "overhead". This could partially explain Rove's FoxNews Freakout. A bunch of happy billionaires who just bought the Presidency are a lot less likely to start asking awkward questions about the books than a bunch of angry billionaires who feel like they've just been taken.
So no, if there are any "excess billions" left unspent at the moment I'm sure they'll be paid out into various executives' Cayman Island accounts as bonuses or wind-down expenses in the next week or so, long before anyone will suggest spending them on something as extravagant as education.
--------------------
* The New York Times has a ridiculous firewall that allows non-subscribers to view ten articles per calendar month. Only click through if you're a subscriber or willing to use one of your ten magic monthly NYT passes.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
I'm heartily sick of race being dragged around in this. yes, for both sides of the debate, race is an issue that exists. for some people. not even most. I think the idea that if Obama were white Romney would have won is outlandish.
4 years ago, I was happy that our country had come along far enough that a black man could win. However, that is not why he got my vote. Condeleeza Rice would not have gotten my vote. It's about policy.
Did Obama's race bring out people who would not normally vote? maybe. and probably on both sides of the aisle. I know of one person who never voted before 4 years ago who is now a voter because he doesn't want a black man in office. the difference all this makes?
nothing.
More voter turn-out? I'm not seeing the numbers but if so, hallelujah! who cares what the reasons are, we need a populace more involved in the system. bring them all out. How many people voted the Big Bird ticket? How many people voted because Romney's mormonism scares them, or because he's a mormon? who gives a shit. people are voting. hooray for that.
Bill Clinton is a white guy. he got a second term. so have a lot of white guys.
the majority of people who voted republican that I know are not swallowing the fear koolaid about Obama's race or imaginary religion or location of birth - they voted because they don't believe he is the right person to lead us. I happen to believe they're wrong - but at least it's a respectable kind of wrong. both sides need to drop the race card and take up discussions on actual issues.
A friend of mine last night (lefty) made a stupid FB comment about right wing voters having race fear and she got trounced. as she should have. It's possible to like or dislike a candidate without it being about their skin color.
drop it already, it's stupid and beneath all of us.
[ 07. November 2012, 20:03: Message edited by: comet ]
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ Nick Tamen
A below-average understanding of the "market" in which they were seeking to achieve "product dominance"?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Where are the media when it comes to why the Superpac spending didn't get the results hoped for? ...
Am I the only one who noticed the irony of the Republicans throwing massive amounts of money into the election, and losing, versus the Democrats, using modern targeted marketing and communications, just like businesses and brands do, maximizing bang for their fewer bucks, and winning?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I've been peeking at the ruminations of conservative commentators on sites like the National Review, one of the more mainstream monthlies on the right, for some insight into why republicans think they lost.
In general, it's because Obama pandered to the worthless, grovelling masses with promises of undeserved social programs, promises which will give wealthy liberals power of the short term while wrecking Good Ol' America in the long term.
My favorite was from Victor Davis Hanson,
quote:
We have never quite had the present perfect storm of nearly half not paying federal income taxes, nearly 50 million on food stamps, and almost half the population on some sort of federal largess — and a sophistic elite that promotes it and at the same time finds ways to be exempt from its social and cultural consequences. For an Obama, Biden, Kerry, Pelosi, or Feinstein, the psychological cost for living like 18th-century French royalty is the promotion of the welfare state for millions of others who for now will be kept far away, in places like Bakersfield or Mendota.
Jeeze louise. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 07. November 2012, 20:10: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
There was a little bit of discussion about it on CNN last night -- mostly along the lines of "there are going to be a lot of Republicans asking 'what did we get for all that money?'"
They bought the right to call up the politicians they supported who were successful last night and tell them what to do.
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
drop it already, it's stupid and beneath all of us.
After you got in long post about race in the election? Yeah, right.
The element of race in the election is not only worthy of discussion here, it's important that we do discuss it, here and elsewhere. Let's not pretend otherwise. An open airing of these things is a crucial part of working toward a more just society.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Obama got re-elected because he's a Democrat.
Also because he's accomplished some very popular moves: Obamacare, which lets middle-class parents keep kids in college on their insurance; wiping bin Laden off the map; shutting down Don't Ask Don't Tell; shutting down two deeply unpopular wars; bailing out the U.S. auto industry.
Romney lost because he's a Republican.
Also because he thinks kids who can't afford college should just borrow a couple of million from their parents and do a high-tech start-up; thinking half the nation is a bunch of gormless ne'er-do-wells who can't get out of their own way; said going after bin Laden was a waste of time and money; disavowing his own health care plan; making vaguely warlike noises about Libya and Syria; and telling us we should let the auto biz go belly-up and the Feds should get out of the FEMA business.
Anybody who thinks Obama was re-elected because he's black is looking through the telescope from the wrong end.
[ 07. November 2012, 20:18: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
Looking at this contention that people voted for Obama because he is black there are two things that come to mind for me.
Firstly people vote or don't vote for candidates of all parties due to all kinds of non-policy related issues in elections. "I voted for him as I feel he is likely to understand/care about people from my background because he shares it in some way" is just one of those. And the inverse, "I wouldn't vote for him as he is a millionaire/privately educated/has a privileged background and therefore is out of touch with how people like me have to live" is another. Or "I/my family has always voted for this party" or "I would never vote for that party however good their policies are because they did something 30 years ago to screw over my father about something"
It's impossible to restrict voting to only those who have purely a policy based motivation for how they vote. And the reality is people on all parts of the political spectrum have a mixture of motives.
Secondly surely encouraging people to take up their rights as voters and take part in the election can only be a good thing. Greater participation should be welcomed. Then if a party wishes to win it must do so on the strength of its argument and its ability to persuade people that it is the best for the job. To win because people were too disillusioned or apathetic to vote is not much of a mandate.
And if I may just return for a moment to the comments waaaay back on this thread about the electoral college system. Presumably neither party is interested in changing it because although they would lose some electoral college votes in some places and gain them in others the problem for them is that they would need to campaign in all the states. They wouldn't be able to take the 'safe' states as read and just concentrate on the swing states.
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
In general, it's because Obama pandered to the worthless, grovelling masses with promises of undeserved social programs, promises which will give wealthy liberals power of the short term while wrecking Good Ol' America in the long term.
Fine. I'm willing to give them a day or two of indulging a fit of pique. If they want to have a chance of governing again, though, they need to make some changes. They can't change the Democrats. They can change themselves.
If they don't change, they'll probably end up like the Federalist Party. I'm not worried about a 1-party state, though--the Democrats could never hold themselves together without an opposition, so they would split into at least 2 parties.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Nick Tamen
A below-average understanding of the "market" in which they were seeking to achieve "product dominance"?
Possibly, and I think Soror Magna might have another part of the answer a few posts up.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Mr. Porridge, the whole Ship wants to know, were you elected, sir? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Fine. I'm willing to give them a day or two of indulging a fit of pique. If they want to have a chance of governing again, though, they need to make some changes. They can't change the Democrats. They can change themselves.
If they don't change, they'll probably end up like the Federalist Party. I'm not worried about a 1-party state, though--the Democrats could never hold themselves together without an opposition, so they would split into at least 2 parties.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Romney lost by the smallest of margins after all. The Republican base is losing ground only very slowly. I think the Republicans could yet eek out another white house term or two with its present coalition.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Am I the only one who noticed the irony of the Republicans throwing massive amounts of money into the election, and losing, versus the Democrats, using modern targeted marketing and communications, just like businesses and brands do, maximizing bang for their fewer bucks, and winning?
Revenge of the nerds. As a citizen, I can't take any pride in the fact that such a prosaic, coldly calculating, and manipulative approach is what does the job. But one must admit that with all that money sloshing around, the businesslike thing to do is to use it efficiently, especially if it comes from lots of little people and you don't have quite as much as your opponents. The impression has been that Romney is the sober numbers guy while Obama is mainly good for making stirring speeches. Reality, at least when their whole respective teams are taken into account, seems to be just the opposite.
I'm reminded of a remark on the radio today by a presumed Republican guru. He said that the way to appeal to Hispanics was to convince them to start businesses. The Republican faith and sympathy seems to lie in the chiefs, and forget about the Indians. At least the Democrats want to ensure that the Indians can educate themselves well enough to do competent work.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Romney lost by the smallest of margins after all. The Republican base is losing ground only very slowly. I think the Republicans could yet eek out another white house term or two with its present coalition.
Not that you could have known from my previous post, but I wasn't thinking on a time frame of "in the next four years". Still, the Republican Party has reinvented itself several times in my lifetime (as have the Democrats) and to be honest I expect they will do it again. The mystique of Karl Rove isn't what it was yesterday morning, and I think even he realized this was the last time Republicans could count on white males to keep them in power.
I've noticed on the social media there is some real hatin' on Chris Christie, which is unfortunate--he might well be electable in four years, but he would have to be nominated first.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
So for the 12 latest National polls of the national popular vote...
I understand what you are saying. However, the nature of the disagreement on the poll data presents a problem for your naive shuffling of the polls -- the question is whether the assumptions of how populations will behave reflects a systematic bias -- "groupthink," if you will. If so, lumping the data does not provide noticeably better indication of the results than do each of the polls individually.
Given the large demographic flux of the electorate, ISTM that prudence would dictate assuming a larger than usual variance in our predictions. The discussion that I have seen of most of this data reflects a much too trusting attitude for such shakey data. The polls may end up being precisely on-target. I am not saying that they are necessarily wrong, even if Croesos would like to impute such a view to me. Rather, ISTM that such close margins in the context of major shifts in the make-up of the electorate create a recipe for black swans, if you will.
One certainly can't ignore the question of how well the poll results reflect the actual likely outcomes. (I'm reading your response to say that is your concern rather than a distrust of the Central Limit Theorem.)
While it is possible to take things too far, a mathematical approach can still provide a useful tool for such an analysis.
I don't claim to be an expert in all phases of this analysis (if I were, then I'd be the one with the blog and the media attention) but I would make the following observations:
1) We have a lot of history with polling data. Not just the number of polls on the same topic (such as the 12 polls reporting national popular vote estimates the day before the election) but also over multiple states, races, and election cycles. Sure, there have been some results that were not predicted well, and we include those in our data to come up with statements such as, "for polls such as these that show a 1% point advantage for one candidate a week before the election, past results suggest that candidate will win 77% of the time." That allows for the fact that there may be a shift, along with the relative likelihood of the shift being big enough to change the results. As I understand it, Mr. Silver's model uses the polling data to predict the vote margin, and calculates the statistical probability winning based on historic data for margins of a similar size.
2) With the large amount of polling taking place, it is likely that any significant flux in the electorate would show up in the polling data somewhere. This is one reason why Mr. Silver focuses on polls of "likely voters" rather than "registered voters", as the former would (hopefully) reflect changes in patterns of who will actually show up to vote.
3) If you express the result in probabilities you can always leave a tiny space for unexpected results. Even though the polls seemed clear by the morning of the election, 538 still gave Romney about a 9% chance of winning, explicitly because the polls might turn out to be biased, or there could be a last minute shift. Most of his margin projections in swing states had an expected margin of around +/- 3 percentage points, so a prediction that Obama would win by 1.3% of the vote was by no means a sure thing.
In the end, it appears that Mr. Silver predicted the correct result in every state (although the counts aren't finished) including the slight Obama edge in Florida (calculated as 0.01% in the final forecast.) The actual vote spreads, however, are the true test of the model, and while not perfect (actual results appear to be a bit more Democratic in Florida and Montana, a bit more Republican in Virgina, Nevada, Indiana and the national popular vote based on the first data I saw) they have, on the whole, been pretty close.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
In other news, I lost the office pool miserably. I only gave Obama a pessimistic 281 electoral votes.
Oh well, you win some you lose some.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Romney lost by the smallest of margins after all.
Not at all. There have been many smaller margins. The 2000 presidential election comes to mind as an obvious example. The ultimate victor had a much narrower electoral count and actually lost the popular vote.
Just four years later the presidency would be decided by a margin smaller than Obama's 2012 victory and the winner would claim to have a "mandate".
[ 07. November 2012, 20:41: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'd like to see some hard evidence, really I would. But to this Brit it looks like Romney lost because he was on the Republican ticket, and the 2012 Republicans scared enough of the 2008 Obama voters back to the polling booths despite their reservations over Obama.
If the Democratic president running for reelection had been white, there is no way on God's green earth he would have been reelected. Even some Democrats admit Obama has been ineffective at best, detrimental in many cases. His campaign has proven to be one big fat lie. If he was white, he would have been gone, gone, gone. The closeness of the vote proves that totally.
And the quality, or lack thereof, of the candidate on the other side has NOTHING to do with it?
The Republican primaries were a mess. The outcome was to pick the "least worst" candidate - the one who had a hope in hell of gaining the centre after the field were all dragged right.
It's a two-person race, not simply a referendum on the incumbent.
I know this because the exact same thing is happening in Australia. The current government is NOT popular. But you can't simply vote out a government. You're voting an alternative government IN. And the current leader of the opposition is extremely unpopular with certain segments of society.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
Let's see... I think all I need to respond to is the "elected because he is black" thing. I'll say it again: If the Democratic candidate in office on Monday had been a white man, he would not have been reelected on Tuesday. How can I say that more clearly?
Let's see... I don't agree with your assertion. I'll say it again: if it's your opinion, I don't automatically have to agree with it. How can I say that more clearly?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Grits
I think the problem is that you are playing "what if" with just one factor. Romney would have been elected if women didn't have the vote, or if there was a minimum income qualification for voting, or the minimum voting age was 30 etc.
And again she left out any consideration - nay, MENTION - of the people who only voted AGAINST Obama because he's black.
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Where are the media when it comes to why the Superpac spending didn't get the results hoped for? Maybe my reading is limited but I haven't seen it mentioned. I have no doubt that if the election had gone to Romney the media would be all over the "buying the election".
It's ironic (or something--I'm an American) either way for the media to comment about it, since what the boatload of money bought was advertising in the ... wait for it ... media. Those Superpac dollars pay the wages of the pundits who decry them (which is at least brave if not foolhardy) or applaud them (which is self-serving).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Fine. I'm willing to give them a day or two of indulging a fit of pique. If they want to have a chance of governing again, though, they need to make some changes. They can't change the Democrats. They can change themselves.
If they don't change, they'll probably end up like the Federalist Party. I'm not worried about a 1-party state, though--the Democrats could never hold themselves together without an opposition, so they would split into at least 2 parties.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Romney lost by the smallest of margins after all. The Republican base is losing ground only very slowly. I think the Republicans could yet eek out another white house term or two with its present coalition.
I've been meaning to take a look at which States are actually in play each election, partly because of something a commentator one of the American networks said yesterday.
The effect of it was that there were about 18 States that were now solidly, predictably blue. And that because they included some high-population states, it meant that a Republican had to thread the needle and pick up lots of the 'swing' states in order to win.
They contrasted this with the situation around the 70s or 80s, where a Democrat would have to thread the needle and gain lots of 'swing' states because of the number of ones that were predictably red.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Various places upthread where this sort of comment appeared:
quote:
"He won because we always re-elect sitting presidents, unless a. Somehorrible gamechanging crisis has just occurred that the president seems to be failing at managing..."
"Unemployment, mortgage foreclosures..."
none of which include the idea that the GOP, particularly in the House, ran absolute blockage on anything that Obama did.
And quite a lot of people who are not resolutely party-defined noticed this
and did not blame Obama for not finishing the job. he could probably have been more forceful in dealing with them, but the fact remains that it is the GOP that is now understoood to be the problem, not Obama.
The House vote numbers* don't show this strongly, but the message clearly got through to John Boehner
A House win in Texas and a lead in Utah at this time do show that there is movement. One more blockade and the GOP will go down in the House.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Mr. Porridge, the whole Ship wants to know, were you elected, sir?
Huh? I suspect you might be on your onesies on the Ship in even recalling I was running, but okay (remember how unimportant any 1 member is in the context of a House with 400 members): As already mentioned, I was unopposed. I'd have been elected even if I'd died last week.
What's much, much, better news, though, is that the 3-to-1 Republican majority in the House is now a small majority of Dems. The crazy Speaker of the last 2 years got re-elected, dammit, but has announced (like we care) that he intends to seek no leadership positions. Good move on his part; doubt he could win one.
We also managed to retire at least one of our House birthers and the crackpot who wanted to reference the Magna Carta in all new legislation.
We also have the first (I think -- can someone more knowledgeable speak authoritatively on this?) all-female congressional delegation in national history, plus a female guv.
New Hampshire is definitely blue.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
The BBC News this evening devoted a lot of space, quite rightly, to the results of the American election. What struck me most was an interview with a member of the Latino community, who ran a small shop. He said, "The Latino community has a lot in common with Republicans. We are pro family, pro tradition, pro religion. But we vote Democrat because the Republicans hate us and want to throw us out of the country." (Or words to that effect - I wasn't taking notes I'm afraid.)
If that chap is correct, it seems to me that the Republican party has an easy path to future victory - just start engaging with non-white Americans and the door to the White House is open to you. Is he right, and how likely is that Republicans can begin to engage?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
Well, there are a fair number of (white) people in Central Florida this morning who are stocking up on guns and ammo, talking about Obama as the precursor of the Antichrist, and so forth. And of course he's a Muslim (didn't you know?) who refuses to salute the flag and doesn't believe in God. (OK, that's contradicts the Muslim bit, but never mind.) They are angry at Obama for withdrawing the troops from Afghanistan. (Go figure.)
Some things never change.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The BBC News this evening devoted a lot of space, quite rightly, to the results of the American election. What struck me most was an interview with a member of the Latino community, who ran a small shop. He said, "The Latino community has a lot in common with Republicans. We are pro family, pro tradition, pro religion. But we vote Democrat because the Republicans hate us and want to throw us out of the country." (Or words to that effect - I wasn't taking notes I'm afraid.)
If that chap is correct, it seems to me that the Republican party has an easy path to future victory - just start engaging with non-white Americans and the door to the White House is open to you. Is he right, and how likely is that Republicans can begin to engage?
Matthew Yglesias has an article in Slate today that addresses this very issue. His take:
quote:
Pundits are quickly turning to immigration to explain the Republicans’ Latino problem and to offer a possible cure, but the reality is that the rot cuts much deeper. The GOP doesn’t have a problem with Latino voters per se. Rather, it has a problem with a broad spectrum of voters who simply don’t feel that it’s speaking to their economic concerns. The GOP has an economic agenda tilted strongly to the benefit of elites, and it has preserved support for that agenda—even though it disserves the majority of GOP voters—with implicit racial politics.
...
Polling suggests that the Latino problem for the GOP is deeper than immigration. John McCain got a scant 31 percent of the Latino vote despite a long record of pro-immigration policies. The best evidence available on Hispanic public opinion, a big election even poll from Latino Decisions and ImpreMedia, makes it clear that this is just a fairly liberal voting block. Just 12 percent of Latinos support a cuts-only approach to deficit reduction, and only 25 percent want to repeal Obamacare. Only 31 percent of Hispanics say they’d be more likely to vote for a Republican who supports the DREAM Act. This isn’t to say Latinos aren’t eager to see immigration reform, it’s just that the lion’s share have bigger reasons for rejecting the GOP.
However, Republicans haven't just used racism to sell policies that primarily benefit the affluent to middle-class and working-class voters -- they've used the culture wars and appeals to rugged individualism. If Republicans can persuade non-white voters, who are primarily also non-rich, on the same grounds that they've persuaded non-rich white voters, they could improve their chances tremendously.
Whether this works culturally or not, I don't know. If the statistics Yglesias cites are indicative of the real thinking among Latinos, it could be very hard to get them to vote for the Republicans' anti-government ideas. But that would just be in the near term. In the long term, who knows?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The BBC News this evening devoted a lot of space, quite rightly, to the results of the American election. What struck me most was an interview with a member of the Latino community, who ran a small shop. He said, "The Latino community has a lot in common with Republicans. We are pro family, pro tradition, pro religion. But we vote Democrat because the Republicans hate us and want to throw us out of the country." (Or words to that effect - I wasn't taking notes I'm afraid.)
Yeah, he's correct. Latinos are a minority that Republicans, in theory, should be very enthusiastic about. Predominantly "pro-family", usually with a patriarchal view of family, religiously observant, willing to work hard and even defy "government bureaucrats in Washington" with their red tape and petty regulations to do so. Yet the horror at letting large numbers of non-whites into the Big Tent™ seems to be stronger than the ideological similarities.
Blogger Rany Jazayerli has some thoughts on how the Republicans blew it with Muslims, who are probably a similar category.
quote:
In the 2000 election, approximately 70% of Muslims in America voted for Bush; among non-African-American Muslims, the ratio was over 80%.
Four years later, Bush’s share of the vote among Muslims was 4%.
What happened? Well, a lot.
It's a good, though long, essay on a particularly good example of how the GOP works to become less diverse. Go read it if you got the time to spare.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The BBC News this evening devoted a lot of space, quite rightly, to the results of the American election. What struck me most was an interview with a member of the Latino community, who ran a small shop. He said, "The Latino community has a lot in common with Republicans. We are pro family, pro tradition, pro religion. But we vote Democrat because the Republicans hate us and want to throw us out of the country." (Or words to that effect - I wasn't taking notes I'm afraid.)
If that chap is correct, it seems to me that the Republican party has an easy path to future victory - just start engaging with non-white Americans and the door to the White House is open to you. Is he right, and how likely is that Republicans can begin to engage?
Latino/Hispanics are not all the same. The business owners and affluent Latinos often lean Republican, the doctors, teachers and professors lean Democrat, the Evangelicals are heavily Republican, the Catholics lean Democrat. Individuals who are newer to the country are more conservative those here longer are more moderate or liberal. People reject the Republicans because of their lack of interest in social justice, the overt racism, the unwillingness to address the plight of undocumented children, the hypocrisy of Republican owned businesses that demand immigrant labor and then treat that same labor as subhuman, Republican support for laws like in Arizona that treat citizens of Latino descent like criminals...the list goes on. It has brought very different communities together for the first time ever since whether you are Puerto Rican, Cuban or born in Colorado too many Republicans call you "a Mexican" and tell you to "go home". Hispanic/Latinos have been made scapegoats and Republicans can pander all they wish but few will be fooled.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
It just amazes me that no one is willing to approach even the possibility of race being the determining factor. I guess you just see what you want to see.
You have not provided a single shred of evidence to support your assertion, which makes it appear to arise from nothing more than you seeing what you want to see.
It is very hard to prove it being a determining factor in the outcome.
But, realistically, if some white people voted based on race, some black people did too.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Minor amusing notes from the voting:
Obama won in Paul Ryan's Congressional district;
Joe the Plumber scored 23.5% against his Democrat opponent;
And Romney got, so far, 2.5 million votes fewer than McCain four years ago, despite having Sarah P. on JM's ticket
courtesy of The Guardian , thankyouverymuch.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
So what, exactly, is the hold up with Florida?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Mr. Porridge, the whole Ship wants to know, were you elected, sir?
Huh? I suspect you might be on your onesies on the Ship in even recalling I was running, but okay (remember how unimportant any 1 member is in the context of a House with 400 members): As already mentioned, I was unopposed. I'd have been elected even if I'd died last week.
What's much, much, better news, though, is that the 3-to-1 Republican majority in the House is now a small majority of Dems. The crazy Speaker of the last 2 years got re-elected, dammit, but has announced (like we care) that he intends to seek no leadership positions. Good move on his part; doubt he could win one.
We also managed to retire at least one of our House birthers and the crackpot who wanted to reference the Magna Carta in all new legislation.
We also have the first (I think -- can someone more knowledgeable speak authoritatively on this?) all-female congressional delegation in national history, plus a female guv.
New Hampshire is definitely blue.
thank you for your service. hope it doesn't give you heartburn!
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So what, exactly, is the hold up with Florida?
Voter Suppression - make it a pain and a laughingstock and also make people cynical. They will be less likely to vote.
The Republicans were surprised at the GOTV success of the democrats; this is all part of the calculus.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In case you thought there weren't any people who voted against Obama because he was black....
While we are at it, let's not forget the Republican Convention. Or the overtly racist nonsense one Republican candidate put out under his own name. And Grits' argument is that for the first time some people saw someone enough like them to vote for him?
You know, it occurs to me: if being black is all it takes, why didn't Mr. 9-9-9 win his party's nomination?
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
But, realistically, if some white people voted based on race, some black people did too.
Nobody has denied this. What Grits has claimed is that the ONLY reason Obama won was because he's black; if he had been white, he would have lost. See the difference?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I did that bit of homework I assigned myself on States not in play.
I chose to go back to 1992, partly because 20 years is a nice round number, and partly because that did seem to be the point at which the current patterns roughly appeared.
And I in fact ended up with 18 'permanently blue' States, just like the commentator I referred to earlier. Plus DC.
States that have voted Republican every time since '92: South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Alaska.
States that have voted Democrat every time since '92: Maine, Vermont, Massachussetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii.
Not only is the 'blue' list larger, but it has quite a few of the really big states - California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, as opposed to Texas being the only really big one on the 'red' list.
In fact, the second largest on the red list is Alabama. And before that on the blue list I hit Michigan, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
All up, on current apportionment I think it's 242 blue votes in the bag, versus 102 red votes.
That REALLY doesn't leave a lot of room in the swinging states.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
thank you for your service. hope it doesn't give you heartburn!
![[Biased]](wink.gif) I've laid in a supply of Tums.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Add to that the fact that Virginia and North Carolina, two of the largest Southern states and formerly reliably Republican are now competitive and the list gets thinner.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Not only is the 'blue' list larger, but it has quite a few of the really big states - California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, as opposed to Texas being the only really big one on the 'red' list.
Not to contradict your point, which is a good one, but to say something about its implications: If you'd gone back just one more election, California wouldn't have made your list -- California went for Bush Sr. in 1988, and before that was reliably Republican for decades. Once the Democrats started running moderates, the state went blue in presidential elections. (The stereotype of California being all crazy liberal is simply not true and never has been.) Since the country's demographics are starting to follow the pattern already set down by changes in California, if Republicans keep running jerks and the Democrats keep running moderates, the Democrats could take over the White House for quite some time.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Indiana is another reliable republican state that is looking to drift left eventually. Maybe.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Mr. Porridge, the whole Ship wants to know, were you elected, sir?
Huh? I suspect you might be on your onesies on the Ship in even recalling I was running, but okay (remember how unimportant any 1 member is in the context of a House with 400 members): As already mentioned, I was unopposed. I'd have been elected even if I'd died last week.
What's much, much, better news, though, is that the 3-to-1 Republican majority in the House is now a small majority of Dems. The crazy Speaker of the last 2 years got re-elected, dammit, but has announced (like we care) that he intends to seek no leadership positions. Good move on his part; doubt he could win one.
We also managed to retire at least one of our House birthers and the crackpot who wanted to reference the Magna Carta in all new legislation.
We also have the first (I think -- can someone more knowledgeable speak authoritatively on this?) all-female congressional delegation in national history, plus a female guv.
New Hampshire is definitely blue.
Congratulations, Porridge! And having listened to "This American Life" this past weekend, with its story on the New Hampshire House, I'm glad to hear the update on the elections there.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I know very little about Indiana, but if the Republicans keep putting up nudniks like Mourdock, that drift could turn into a rip-tide.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Indiana is another reliable republican state that is looking to drift left eventually. Maybe.
I wondered about this. Why such a solidly red state stuck between a very blue state on one side and a swing state on the other?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Indiana is another reliable republican state that is looking to drift left eventually. Maybe.
I wondered about this. Why such a solidly red state stuck between a very blue state on one side and a swing state on the other?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Illinois only goes blue for the sake of Chicago, and Ohio because of cities like Cleveland. Indianapolis is growing, but Indiana wasn't historically a population center. If you factor out Chicago, Indiana and Illinois are practically the same place in terms of values and political predilections.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Not only is the 'blue' list larger, but it has quite a few of the really big states - California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, as opposed to Texas being the only really big one on the 'red' list.
Not to contradict your point, which is a good one, but to say something about its implications: If you'd gone back just one more election, California wouldn't have made your list -- California went for Bush Sr. in 1988, and before that was reliably Republican for decades. Once the Democrats started running moderates, the state went blue in presidential elections. (The stereotype of California being all crazy liberal is simply not true and never has been.) Since the country's demographics are starting to follow the pattern already set down by changes in California, if Republicans keep running jerks and the Democrats keep running moderates, the Democrats could take over the White House for quite some time.
Yes, I realise that going back any further shows completely different patterns (not just California, but that is an excellent example).
But whatever the precise combination of demographic and political shifts involved, the 'current' pattern is a string of 6 elections with the same result in 18 States, many of them big ones. The margin might shift from one election to the next, but the pendulum just doesn't seem to swing far enough any more to change the overall result.
Actually, the Wikipedia article on the 2008 election has a really nice graph showing the movement between the 2004 and 2008 votes. Almost all States had a swing towards the Democrats on that occasion. The size of the swing actually didn't vary THAT much across lots of States, but for many States at either end it doesn't change the outcome. You've got a selection in the middle of the spectrum where it can change the outcome.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if, once all the votes are officially declared, a similar graph for 2008 versus 2012 showed a lot of States with a shift back in the Republican direction. The problem for the Republicans is getting a shift that's large enough to change the result.
It seems to me that it's the party that's going to have to shift. They're going to have to find a form of Republicanism that appeals ENOUGH in at least one of those large blue blocs - the West Coast, the North-East and that northern midwest chunk - to give them a shot.
If I were a Republican strategist, I would start by giving serious thought to why they can't get hold of states like Minnesota, Wisconsin and (mostly) Iowa.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
