• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

United States Election: Nov 6, 2012 |OT| - Barack Obama Re-elected

Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean the country you advocate for in every thread. You knew that already. And yes you can cherry pick things that are the same with both parties but it is a tired exercise at this point in the election cycle. The two parties are probably as different today as they have ever been in the past and its enough for Americans to be invested in the choices they make.

You're better than that. Be explicit. What country?

The things that I pick as being the same are the things that have the largest impact, in that they are systemic (for example corruption) or involve killing on a wide scale.
 

Loxley

Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZZt3jPDvNQ

Don't know if that has been posted before in this thread but Americans, why is someone like Bill O'Reilly still on air?

Yeah Bill, God knows a whole buncha' white people didn't vote for Obama, it was just minorities with a couple of us sprinkled in there for poops and giggles.

Pack it in my fellow white Americans, our voice is now lost forever. Guess we'll just have to go back to running 98% of the major corporations in America and holding 98% of all political positions at the state and national level in the country. We're pretty much screwed.
 

lednerg

Member
So CNN finally calls it for Michele Bachmann. Oh well. You can't win them all, and that would have made the night almost too good to be true.

I suppose you gotta give Stewart, Colbert, and Maher something in the batshit category to fall back on whenever it's a slow news day.
 

Steelrain

Member

1351234485418.gif


Get fucked you war criminal.
 

Mael

Member
Not going to lie, I'm not familiar enough with the region to comment. I may be wrong, and they may indeed be substantial differences in that respect.

There was a chance (albeit slim) of getting a nice united, sane, Korea and Bush's administration singlehandedly shat on the process. By contrast nothing happened under Obama, I'll say that's an improvement.

If that is the case, I apologise, I'll look into it and get back to you. I'm just talking about the regions I am familiar with, central asia, the middle east and Africa.

Look up stuffs that Bush did in Africa and the rest of the world, there's a reason people everywhere hated him.

Again, those seem like relatively minor issues in the broader context of endemic corruption. Though I'll grant that they are a nice distraction.

Huh, not trying to sound like a dick but if the US has a huge endemic corruption problem then the problem is pretty much worldwide.
Heck the country I'm in currently have a bigger problem regarding corruption (we don't have anything close to Foreign Corrupt Practices Act here for example).
The situation is much more complicated as it is, I wouldn't throw the US under the bus just like that.
 
You're better than that. Be explicit. What country?

The things that I pick as being the same are the things that have the largest impact, in that they are systemic (for example corruption) or involve killing on a wide scale.

They have a large impact on the people you care about. They don't mean jack shit to most Americans. The real deal here is that the two parties don't differ much on foreign policy a) because Americans don't care and b) because there is wide support for things you don't like, such as drone strikes, such as indefinite detention, such as extraordinary rendition. The country as a whole believes these are good measures to combat terrorism and neither side really cares what people in Pakistan think about that. I personally have been very disappointed in Obama's use of these things and have lamented often in other threads but to say the two parties are the same is just ignorance in the extreme.
 

Jackpot

Banned
Reading between the lines in UK outlets it's easy to see the fear and relief. Even with superpower status if the presidency was between two vaguely similar candidates like it is here there wouldn't be such a hoopla. It's because every 4 years the US holds the world hostage as it decides if it's going to inflict absolute disaster or middling competence on the rest of us.
 

verbum

Member
Lower voter turnout than in 2008 and also 2004 in some states.

WASHINGTON — A drop in voter turnout in Tuesday's election didn't keep President Barack Obama from winning a second term in the White House.
Preliminary figures suggest fewer people voted this year than four years ago, when voters shattered turnout records as they elected Obama to his first term.
In most states, the numbers are shaping up to be even lower than in 2004, said Curtis Gans, the director of American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate. Still, the full picture may not be known for weeks, because much of the counting takes place after Election Day.
"By and large, people didn't show up," Gans said.
In Texas, turnout for the presidential race dropped almost 11 percent from 2008. Vermont and South Carolina saw declines that were almost as large. The drop-off was more than 7 percent in Maryland, where voters approved a ballot measure allowing gay marriage.
With 95 percent of precincts reporting, The Associated Press figures showed more than 117 million people had voted in the White House race, but that number will go up as more votes are counted. In 2008, 131 million people voted, according to the Federal Election Commission.

I have a feeling a lot of very conservative Americans couldn't accept Romney. Plus a decline of votes from NY and New Jersey.
 

The Jason

Member
This electoral college system is accepted quietly for american people? To me it seems absurd a system that allows the winner in popular vote becomes a loser in the election.

Outside that, it ceases to be a national election and becomes an election in a few states, voters in other states are irrelevant.

Anyway, I can't understand how a great democracy like the U.S. use an electoral system like this.

The nice thing about the electoral college is that the number of votes represents the population of the state. So in a way everyone votes even if you dont vote, because you vote as a state; but of course you have an opportunity to determine who.
 
The overall House picture is shaping up to be around +10 seats for the Dems. Some good surprises (Carol Shea-Porter in NH, not personally a fan but surprised she won).

Still, I feel that the overall House leadership for the Democrats needs a shake-up and some A-game fresh faces going into 2014 midterms. Pelosi is 72 and Hoyer is 73. There's a measurable disconnect between the winning Democratic coalition and the House membership. In some "purple" states Dems are doing absolutely terrible in winning seats-even taking account redistricting it should not be this bad.
 
You're better than that. Be explicit. What country?

The things that I pick as being the same are the things that have the largest impact, in that they are systemic (for example corruption) or involve killing on a wide scale.

I've agreed with 99% of what you've written in this thread, but really that first statement - it seems to be the go-to argue against someone statement made by GAF in 2012.

I worry you'll take this personally, but it's not really meant that way - I just shudder every time I see a GAFfer tell another GAFfer that he's "better than that". It seems quite patronising and condescending. Almost like "Hey man, I'm at a complete other level to you, totally superior in every way. You should be here too - your opinions which I don't agree with are letting you down, fella!"

Once again, agree with the majority of what you've said in this post, it's just a little pet peeve of mine that GAF is full of people point's-scoring with the "you're better than that" thing.
 

lednerg

Member
You're better than that. Be explicit. What country?

The things that I pick as being the same are the things that have the largest impact, in that they are systemic (for example corruption) or involve killing on a wide scale.

You're talking about systemic problems which no one politician or administration could realistically ever change on their own. It's not like some third party candidate could come in a clean house, either - it just doesn't work that way. The military industrial complex operates outside of the political sphere in many ways. It's a force that we as voters would only have a very little effect on at one time, namely in terms of military spending (which Obama has repeatedly said he would cut, unlike Romney). What's needed for the long run is a series of consecutive wins for the right people over a long period of time to get control out of the hands of the very corporations and contractors who make money off of these wars.
 

Mael

Member
Lower voter turnout than in 2008 and also 2004 in some states.



I have a feeling a lot of very conservative Americans couldn't accept Romney. Plus a decline of votes from NY and New Jersey.

So "anyone but Romney" during the primaries was not just a little triffling thing in the end
 
I've agreed with 99% of what you've written in this thread, but really that first statement - it seems to be the go-to argue against someone statement made by GAF in 2012.

I worry you'll take this personally, but it's not really meant that way - I just shudder every time I see a GAFfer tell another GAFfer that he's "better than that". It seems quite patronising and condescending. Almost like "Hey man, I'm at a complete other level to you, totally superior in every way. You should be here too - your opinions which I don't agree with are letting you down, fella!"

Once again, agree with the majority of what you've said in this post, it's just a little pet peeve of mine that GAF is full of people point's-scoring with the "you're better than that" thing.

I agree it seems like a sleazy debate tactic to me. Not too far away from "eww I can't believe you think such a gross thing"
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
So according to Chuck Norris, America is going to look like Tokyo from Shin Megami Tensei.

:lol
 

Curufinwe

Member
The nice thing about the electoral college is that the number of votes represents the population of the state. So in a way everyone votes even if you dont vote, because you vote as a state; but of course you have an opportunity to determine who.

But it makes a persons' Republican vote for President in Delaware/Democrat vote for President in Texas a waste.

The Electoral College probably won't ever be changed, but America should at least move elections to Saturdays to increase voter turnout.
 

lednerg

Member
But it makes a perdon's Republican vote for President in Delaware/Democrat vote for President in Texas a waste.

The Electoral College probably won't ever be changed, but America should at least move elections to Saturdays to increase voter turnout.

That or a national holiday (or compulsory voting like Australia, lol). These things always come up when it's election season, but nobody ever has the balls to do anything about it. It also doesn't help that 'one party in particular' has a vested interest in making sure voter turnout is low overall.
 

Nyx

Member
A big Dutch newspaper has a poll on their website since last night:

''Who would you have voted for? Obama or Romney''

Out of 33.000ish votes, 90% would have voted for Obama.
 

Curufinwe

Member
That or a national holiday (or compulsory voting like Australia, lol). These things always come up when it's election season, but nobody ever has the balls to do anything about it. It also doesn't help that 'one party in particular' has a vested interest in making sure voter turnout is low overall.

You would think Republicans would like Saturday elections since people with jobs would be more likely to vote.
 

Jintor

Member
Again, those seem like relatively minor issues in the broader context of endemic corruption. Though I'll grant that they are a nice distraction.

I keep hearing about people being able to live without having to sell their house because of it. Pretty powerful distraction.
 

lednerg

Member
You would think Republicans would like Saturday elections since people with jobs would be more likely to vote.

You'd think that, what with how they present themselves as the party of real hard workin' muricans and all. I'd love for them to put their money where their mouth is. That said, the law is that it's 'the Tuesday after the first Monday of November' and it's been that way forever. So I think making it a holiday would be more likely, or at least less difficult.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Cross post from the gay marriage ballot thread:

It looks like we'll have the most openly gay members of Congress ever in the House of Representatives:

Mark Takano (CA-41)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-9)*
David Cicilline (RI-1)
Sean Patrick Maloney (NY-18)
Mark Pocan (WI-2)
Jared Polis (CO-2)

The race hasn't been called for Sinema, but it looks good. What a night for the good guys.

It was a good night, even if we couldn't take back the House.
 

Vagabundo

Member
I've been watching a bit of Fox news and I get the impression that they aren't that unhappy about the result. They still have their boogyman and it is back to doom, gloom and fear mongering.

A Romney presidency could have been difficult.
 
This electoral college system is accepted quietly for american people? To me it seems absurd a system that allows the winner in popular vote becomes a loser in the election.

Outside that, it ceases to be a national election and becomes an election in a few states, voters in other states are irrelevant.

Anyway, I can't understand how a great democracy like the U.S. use an electoral system like this.

Why not?

The Constitution explicitly grants the power to elect the president and such to the states.

No vote is irrelevant, that is a fallacy that I really wish would die already. Its worked great for us this whole time. I really don't see why we should even attempt to go thru the complex procedure of amending the constitution when it works fine.


A big Dutch newspaper has a poll on their website since last night:

''Who would you have voted for? Obama or Romney''

Out of 33.000ish votes, 90% would have voted for Obama.

But the international community said...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom