-
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
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
BobTheFork
Member
So.. I'm reading that Mittens is behind is Michigan and Mass., his birth state and the state where he served as Governor. Losing both hasn't happened since 1844. I didn't realize it was normally such a lock.
It should really tell you something about him...
Also they'll likely lose Wisconsin, too, Paul Ryan's home state.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Theodore Roosevelt and Alton Parker both ran with the home state of New York (1904). Parker was born in New York. Roosevelt won New York. Parker wasn't a governor, but he was a Judge in New York. So the governor thing might be unduly skewing the statistics in a sort of meaningless way. Likewise, McGovern lost South Dakota in 72 (born and ran from) but was a Senator, not a Governor.
Unless you live to see the day where the US becomes a parliamentary democracy with some form of proportional representation, you won't live to see that day. There could possibly be a new national party, but it'd only compete at the expense of one of the current two collapsing, and so you'd still see the "third party" scenario.
Or possibly a representative democracy?
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Nobody sees Romney as a hometowner. Another interesting fact is that Paul Ryan is not so far delivering Wisconsin.
The US is a republic, not a true democracy.
You also have to remember that in truth the Founding Fathers were largely distrustful of true democracy, or mob rule as it was widely viewed as at the time. The Electoral College is meant to protect the people from their own whims, and, at the same time, protect the rights of some states that might have their opinions steamrolled in every election otherwise. Basically, it was to give the South some chance at having a President that represented its opinions. Otherwise you could just run up huge margins in the north and say "to hell with the South" and always be able to win.
You also have to remember who could vote at this point and what they would vote for. The people did not vote for either the President or the Senate as the constitution was originally written. The people voted for electors who would in turn vote for the president, and they voted for their state governments who would in turn decide who would be the senators from the state. Also, only a tiny percentage of Americans were actually permitted to vote at the time, being only white male landowning citizens. This system was not made to be inclusive or particularly democratic. Over time most of these practices have been phased out or tweaked and elections have been made generally more democratic, but the Electoral College still exists in more or less the same fashion as originally designed.
While it's not perfect, it can help prevent some parts of the country from being disproportionately influential. For example, let's say Mitt Romney runs up massive margins in the South to such a degree that he actually wins the overall popular vote (especially plausible if voting is depressed in NYC and NJ due to Sandy) yet loses the electoral vote because Obama wins by narrow margins in most swing states, making Obama president. In this case, the fact that Obama won more regions of the country and appealed to a wider variety of voters (in the Northeast, the Midwest, the West Coast, parts of the Southwest and Mountain West) overrides the fact that Romney won overwhelmingly in only one or two regions (the South, the Plains). The argument in favor of the Electoral College is that, despite losing the popular vote in this scenario, Obama more accurately represents what most parts of the nation actually want and should thus be president.
Naturally, lots of people would not agree with such an argument, but it is the system nonetheless.
Wiz
Member
Behold...the infamous electoral tie.
The scary thing about this is that it seems realistic...Obama might snag another 2/3 states from Romney's side though. Here's the link if you want to play around with the possibilities: http://apps.npr.org/swing-state-scorecard/
The scary thing about this is that it seems realistic...Obama might snag another 2/3 states from Romney's side though. Here's the link if you want to play around with the possibilities: http://apps.npr.org/swing-state-scorecard/
BobTheFork
Member
Yeah, something is up with that stat. I read it on cnn but in the same article they have a picture off to the side that says it happened to Thomas Dewey in 1944 so they seem to be contradicting themselves. It still doesn't happen often.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
People don't seem to understand what third parties are and why they don't work in US politics. There's only two kinds in reality - Single-issue Parties and No Compromise Parties (which are just the regular D and R parties, but extreme versions that don't compromise on any issues). Single Issue parties can influence politics by getting the major parties to incorporate them and No Compromise parties just sap votes from the party they share the most ideological similarity.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Maybe they're not counting Dewey because when he later ran in 48 he won Michigan (his home state) and NY (the state he governed/ran from)? Who knows?
But yeah, point granted, the hometown heroes generally get a pretty huge hometown boost. It just so happens that Massachusetts has a 30 point Democratic margin and Romney is seen as having betrayed Michigan in some respects, I guess?
teruterubozu
Member
Ross Perot, I think, was a really unique case - a rich eccentric with a host of wild ideas.
Karma Kramer
Banned
His run was what encouraged the narrative of balancing the budget.
Randolph Freelander
Member
The problem with our two parties is that they tightly bind the social and fiscal spectrums and don't give people options that more closely resemble their views. You have to sacrifice on one or the other. If, for example, you are a social conservative and fiscal liberal, you have no place to go. It's not quite the same reality for fiscal conservatives and social liberals, as there is the lolbertarian party, weak though it may be. I imagine if people were given more options, they might be surprised at what they truly want, politically speaking.
Behold...the infamous electoral tie.
The scary thing about this is that it seems realistic...Obama might snag another 2/3 states from Romney's side though. Here's the link if you want to play around with the possibilities: http://apps.npr.org/swing-state-scorecard/
Romney is not winning Nevada.
Wiz
Member
True, but that seems like the only way the math would add up to a tie, so the odds of it happening are close to zero.
Edit: Actually, there are several ways. So yeah, he can lose Nevada and still tie.
teruterubozu
Member
Oh totally. He was a weird mixture of libertarianism, protectionism, environmentalism and of all things, expanding the drug war.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Even then, Ross Perot became popular due to the fact he brought up a lot of fiscal issues that people thought weren't being addressed by the GOP
The problem is that people aren't entitled to get everything they want - voters need to compromise as much as parties do; even if you separated social and fiscal issues like that, you'd end up with candidates winning elections with 25% of the vote.
Ehhh.. Nevada is as good as done though. The early voting numbers are looking like Romney winning there is a remarkable improbability. Even the GOP's analysts are admitting this.Behold...
The scary thing about this is that it seems realistic...Obama might snag another 2/3 states from Romney's side though.
And Ohio is right behind it. Assuming similar turnout to 2008 - which is not that difficult, considering Obama's Extreme Ground Machine and the fact that the state's been campaign-bombarded for almost all year at this point - then Romney would have to beat Obama among remaining voters by at least 8%.. and even then, he'd only be even!
The last chance for a trajectory change was on Friday morning when jobs numbers came out, and now the nation is in "don't-bug-me-I'm-watching-football" mode. Sandy killed any time left that Romney had to close, and Christie - along with some very touching post-storm footage where the President comforted victims - might've even widened the gap such that Obama may well end-up winning with 303EVs instead of just 281EVs.
This race is all over but the crying. Pick out your champagne, clean the house, go shopping for some primo junk food, and get ready for a fun, fun Tuesday night!
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Nevada is practically a blue state, mostly due to an influx of hispanic voters who typically break for blue.
I really wonder if turnout is actually going to be lower in OH than 2008. Practically the entire media narrative focuses on the state.
I think his method of communicating was particularly effective as well. Charts? Graphs? Excellent. He leveled with the American people, talking to us like adults. A lot of people responded well to this. If he had not jumped in and out of the race several times, he might've done much, much better.
On the bright side? Political humor was fantastic that year.
I only wish that the Dems had the wisdom to crib this style of communication. A very large portion of the population communicates or learns well with visual assistance, and frankly I'm shocked that the two major parties have not picked-up on this and used visual cues or slides during primetime convention speeches. Not only is this incredibly effective, but as an added bonus.. we see more opportunity for an supremely powerful political tool: humor
So what did it tell you when Gore lost Tennesee? I think Romney winning the Governor seat of Mass if far more telling than him losing in a extremely blue state.
Karma Kramer
Banned
I disagree... voters need to voice their ideals. Too many issues are being ignored by the two party system that there must be voter support for other candidates to show they won't always have our support. You vote for a lesser of two evils, you don't get to complain when they do stupid/lame shit. You approved them with your vote.
Funny thing: if turnout is lower than 2008, Romney needs an even higher percentage of the remaining votes.
There is a danger of interpolating nationwide numbers - be they enthusiasm, turnout, gender gap, etc - onto state numbers. Ohio, and the other swing states to varying degrees, have a completely different environment than the safe states.
But....Husted.
Legit though I am slightly worried about what is going on in Ohio, what with the stories of vote switching etc, even though Obama has the lead.
Probably tells you he really knows how to blow smoke up people's asses and tell them just what they want to hear. From what I know his popularity pretty well dropped after he got the job and he really wasn't getting another term if he tried.
But yes, I realize it's not an overall indicator and blue states will generally go blue and vice versa. Governor should still translate at least a bit to President, and should put your state in a bit of contention.
Let's not pretend we're all four years old:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/19/120319fa_fact_klein?currentPage=all
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0605.sullivan1.html
Randolph Freelander
Member
The parties have us so far pinned into camps that we can't even breathe the word compromise. Particularly on the right. That's the point and the problem. It's frankly my opinion that there are far too many people along for the proverbial ride. It would be very liberating if people could actually vote their conscience, and not be so bound to dogma that they perhaps haven't even considered whether or not they believe in.
On the national level, yes, we need compromise. We need people that can work together. But since so much of our national politics are bound in litmus tests and signed pledges, and since the radicals control the primary process, we're stuck with the mess we have, and it seems to only be getting worse.
NihonTiger90
Member
Agreed. And we have a strong reason, too. Try to find the Ohio 9th District on the map in the OP.
Did you give up?
The green strip of land along Lake Erie. Gerrymandered to hell in order to force Kaptur and Kucinich into a primary fight. :-\
Karma Kramer
Banned
We just need third parties allowed in the deabtes. I mean seriously why is this accepted by the public?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSAkbwV808c
I agree. Over time, if enough voters refuse to compromise, the mainstream parties will have to move. It may take several election cycles, but it would be worth it to force change to happen more quickly I think.
Overall, this country needs to be more agile with changing views and trying new things. Everything changes too slowly in america, partly due to the two party system, and partly due to the way the Senate works.
FelixOrion
Poet Centuriate
Do you guys think Obama will steal any extra points out of Nebraska like he did last year?
Not a fan of Obama, but he has done what he could do with this country with his current restrictions. We would have been truly fucked if the auto industry and banked were not bailed out.
I'm a Florida gaffer, and I tossed my vote to Obama. He has done a lot of actions that I disagree with, but he is a better choice than Romney by a damn landslide. If only because Romney would have allowed the auto industry to completely fail. I cannot comment on the banks though.
I live in a very conservative area, and I see Romney/Ryan posters everywhere in my town. I know a few people voting for Romney, who I still respect because he protects their interests (rich, white and male). However, a lot of people I see voting for Romney are a damn fool and makes little sense to toss a vote towards him.
I can't wait to see the meltdown on Facebook!
I'm a Florida gaffer, and I tossed my vote to Obama. He has done a lot of actions that I disagree with, but he is a better choice than Romney by a damn landslide. If only because Romney would have allowed the auto industry to completely fail. I cannot comment on the banks though.
I live in a very conservative area, and I see Romney/Ryan posters everywhere in my town. I know a few people voting for Romney, who I still respect because he protects their interests (rich, white and male). However, a lot of people I see voting for Romney are a damn fool and makes little sense to toss a vote towards him.
I can't wait to see the meltdown on Facebook!
I'm not sure what we're supposed to get out of this. I didn't remember the Mars episode, and that definitely reflects poorly on the Dems if that's how it went down. But what's the issue with the other two? One guy brought the press's attention to the Dubai thing, and of course the Dems opposed the destruction of Social Security.
I'm sorry, but this really isn't equivalent to an entire term of Republicans blocking everything Obama tried to do, including legislation that they had previously supported.
If I were living in Pakistan I would probably consider president Obama a butcher and would be praying for anyone to replace him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
Edit: The Dubai Ports World "controversy" was an affront to any human being with a brain and some lesser animals as well.
Agreed. And we have a strong reason, too. Try to find the Ohio 9th District on the map in the OP.
Did you give up?
The green strip of land along Lake Erie. Gerrymandered to hell in order to force Kaptur and Kucinich into a primary fight. :-\
is it going to pass? I cant imagine any reasonable person would vote against it...
Your response indicates you refuse to read and understand the articles I posted. Your loss.
Randolph Freelander
Member
Open debates would certainly help. Get more diversified viewpoints out there, make the public actually think.
Considering the topic of third parties in the United States, this is how I feel, in baking terms:
Third parties don't work in US politics because the barriers suck.
With a voting system that discourages third parties, the two main parties have turned into giant cookie monsters. They swallow the cookies baked from eager third parties and then they both take a shit and show it to the American public. The public then has to choose between two different sorts of turds, each with a hint of the cookies they swallowed earlier, but covered in unmistakable shit.
The third parties are left in a backroom maze somewhere, leaving few of the American public the opportunity to properly whiff and taste their baked goods, because they can't find where the backroom is, or they figure the cookie monsters will have something good enough to satisfy their cookie needs.
The third parties would've picked a better, more prominent room to show their baked goods, but all the good rooms are taken by the cookie monsters, who use it show how great their turds are. The remaining rooms are too expensive.
Many important arguments can be said about the cookies the third parties bake. Maybe they're too sweet. Maybe they're made from ingredients that are too expensive or rare. Maybe in the current shitty environment, cookies have to have a little bit of shit on them. Perhaps if the third party bakers began to widely sell their cookies, they will realize it's not sustainable to cook it that certain way, and that they need to shit out a few specs in order to stay competitive. But they're not given the opportunity to reach a wide selling base.
It's a vicious cycle. The third party bakers would've gotten a better room if more people bought their cookies, giving them more money. But people can't buy their cookies because they can't find their room. The cookie monsters stay strong.
When the next cookie popularity contest begins, the small amount of people who did get past the maze to the backroom and enjoyed the delicious third party cookies might not vote for the third party anyways. They're afraid it'll take away from the Democratic cookie monster, causing the Republican cookie monster to win. And a Republican cookie monster win is something they do not want to see. So the third party bakers get less and less votes, and they're not anywhere closer to running a more mature bakery, because they get less money, less exposure, which equals less opportunity to widely sell their baked goods. I like cookies.
Third parties don't work in US politics because the barriers suck.
With a voting system that discourages third parties, the two main parties have turned into giant cookie monsters. They swallow the cookies baked from eager third parties and then they both take a shit and show it to the American public. The public then has to choose between two different sorts of turds, each with a hint of the cookies they swallowed earlier, but covered in unmistakable shit.
The third parties are left in a backroom maze somewhere, leaving few of the American public the opportunity to properly whiff and taste their baked goods, because they can't find where the backroom is, or they figure the cookie monsters will have something good enough to satisfy their cookie needs.
The third parties would've picked a better, more prominent room to show their baked goods, but all the good rooms are taken by the cookie monsters, who use it show how great their turds are. The remaining rooms are too expensive.
Many important arguments can be said about the cookies the third parties bake. Maybe they're too sweet. Maybe they're made from ingredients that are too expensive or rare. Maybe in the current shitty environment, cookies have to have a little bit of shit on them. Perhaps if the third party bakers began to widely sell their cookies, they will realize it's not sustainable to cook it that certain way, and that they need to shit out a few specs in order to stay competitive. But they're not given the opportunity to reach a wide selling base.
It's a vicious cycle. The third party bakers would've gotten a better room if more people bought their cookies, giving them more money. But people can't buy their cookies because they can't find their room. The cookie monsters stay strong.
When the next cookie popularity contest begins, the small amount of people who did get past the maze to the backroom and enjoyed the delicious third party cookies might not vote for the third party anyways. They're afraid it'll take away from the Democratic cookie monster, causing the Republican cookie monster to win. And a Republican cookie monster win is something they do not want to see. So the third party bakers get less and less votes, and they're not anywhere closer to running a more mature bakery, because they get less money, less exposure, which equals less opportunity to widely sell their baked goods. I like cookies.
Haha never change, GAF
LA times on a possible tie
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/28/opinion/la-oe-klotsche-electoral-college-apocalypse-20121028
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/28/opinion/la-oe-klotsche-electoral-college-apocalypse-20121028
- Status