Support NeoGAF

[Tom_Cody]

I borrowed my brother's new year's resolution to stop trolling myself, so I try not to read Brooks anymore. Predictably, this column features the same false equivalence nonsense that he's made his name on. Obama and other democrats can criticize Washington for being broken, but they do not think it is incorrigibly or necessarily so; many conservatives, on the other hand, insist that government is inherently dysfunctional, and as such there can be no wrongheaded attempts to dismantle it. They're not the same thing at all.

I don't think any of you actually read the column. He isn't trying to equate the two, he is 1) pointing out the contradiction, 2) advising liberals to be more bold. The article starts with this:

"It’s not because liberalism lacks cultural power. Many polls suggest that a majority of college professors and national journalists vote Democratic. The movie, TV, music and publishing industries are dominated by liberals.

It’s not because recent events have disproved the liberal worldview. On the contrary, we’re still recovering from a financial crisis caused, in large measure, by Wall Street excess. Corporate profits are zooming while worker salaries are flat.

It’s not because liberalism’s opponents are going from strength to strength. The Republican Party is unpopular and sometimes embarrassing."

I just shake my head when I think of moments like when the public option was abandoned. How is impossible to legislate ideas like that? Republicans suffer when they try to block popular ideas.

 

[Arde5643]

I get the feeling that that "I like being able to fire people" thing might end up helping Mitt more than it will hurt him. Now he can release the full clip and say, "this kind of disingenuous trickery is exactly the corrupt behavior I want to root out in Washington"

The connotation of firing people especially during this period of high unemployment is too negative for him to be able to reply with a witty banter.

Plus Romney has no wit nor sense of humour.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

Are there any New Hampshire goers here?

 

[AlteredBeast]

I think its fantastic.

Especially how they went after him for firing people.

Thats like GOP 101: Right to work is amazing because we can fire people, wheeeeee!
GOP 102 of course is: Never speak ill of job-creators (aka, rich)



Romney is a lose-lose-lose

Evangelicals will stay home, as they did with McCain. And thats when Obama was the big scary kenyan muslim. Why would they vote for a mormom, who had gay marriage be legalized under his watch, and saw marijuana laws loosen?

Tea Party will stay home. Their number 1 hate is "business as usual" washington types. Aka: Mr establishment Romney. Their number 2 hate is wall street. Aka: Mr wall street romney.

People with standards will stay home, because they dont support a flip-flopper.

largely all correct

 

[Clevinger]

I get the feeling that that "I like being able to fire people" thing might end up helping Mitt more than it will hurt him. Now he can release the full clip and say, "this kind of disingenuous trickery is exactly the corrupt behavior I want to root out in Washington"

I think there's a saying that's something like "If you have to explain something in politics, you lose." I think it's usually true, unfortunately.

 

[Kosmo]

I think its fantastic.

Especially how they went after him for firing people.

Thats like GOP 101: Right to work is amazing because we can fire people, wheeeeee!
GOP 102 of course is: Never speak ill of job-creators (aka, rich)



Romney is a lose-lose-lose

Evangelicals will stay home, as they did with McCain. And thats when Obama was the big scary kenyan muslim. Why would they vote for a mormom, who had gay marriage be legalized under his watch, and saw marijuana laws loosen?

Tea Party will stay home. Their number 1 hate is "business as usual" washington types. Aka: Mr establishment Romney. Their number 2 hate is wall street. Aka: Mr wall street romney.

People with standards will stay home, because they dont support a flip-flopper.

You guys vastly underestimate the disdain for Obama among a large portion of the electorate. This election is not about Mitt Romney, it's about Obama, period. No matter how lukewarm some are about Romney, they sure as hell don't want to see Obama get another 4 years.

 

[AlteredBeast]

The connotation of firing people especially during this period of high unemployment is too negative for him to be able to reply with a witty banter.

Plus Romney has no wit nor sense of humour.

Probably true. Funny though that he says "I like being able to fire people" when he really means "I like being able to fire corporations." Guess he is one that has really bought into corporate personhood.

 

[Dyno]

You could argue (and I would) that often times that money follows the opinion of the people. Money is often to secure favor once that person is in office not to always influence elections. Not that it doesn't most most of the big money goes to both sides.

And if our vote means nothing why isn't hilary president? I'm pretty sure she was the establishments' choice in 2007.

Obama secured around 142 million from Wall St. prior to being elected - more than any other candidate before him including Hilary - and it seems to me that was money well spent because the banks got way more back in the form of bailout money. There also hasn't been a single charge laid for corruption or fraud due to the economic meltdown. You could argue (and I would) that The President has been bought and paid for.

Balony.

The choice this time around is between the guy I'm talking about above and most likely Romney, a man who's made untold millions liquidating companies, shipping factory work overseas, and working hard to deregulate markets BEFORE he became the type of person to change his message depending on what he's running for. A guy who has claimed that corporations are people. Basically a Wall St. prodigy only he worked in another part of the country.

Choosing between these two civilian faces of banking interests is no choice at all.

 

[Clevinger]

You guys vastly underestimate the disdain for Obama among a large portion of the electorate. This election is not about Mitt Romney, it's about Obama, period. No matter how lukewarm some are about Romney, they sure as hell don't want to see Obama get another 4 years.

That worked out well for Kerry. He's definitely overestimating all of Romney's negatives though.

 

[jamesinclair]

That worked out well for Kerry. He's definitely overestimating all of Romney's negatives though.

Excellent point. Kerry ran as "anything but Bush!" and how well that turned out.


And I forgot one. Rational republicans wont vote to him because he's a war mongrel. Lets bomb everyone, wheee! Of course, the tea party folks dislike that as well, because that involves spending. And who knows spending better than the massachusetts governor who saw the big dig explode in costs under his watch?

 

[Clevinger]

Your vote means nothing at this point in our history.

What horseshit. Your vote means nothing if all you care about is banks and are single issue voters, and even then there's nuance between what the two candidates/parties would do there - even if it's just varying degrees of shittiness on that issue.

 

[RoninChaos]

For Kosmo.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/08/us/income-gap-profile/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

How much more skin should they put in the game? I mean, it's obvious they're just lazy people who are in it because there's no incentive to work, and being poor is obviously awesome.

Anyway, I live in Atlanta and the folks that I've seen who have been middle class and fallen into poverty... it's heart breaking. I've seen a lot of people take it in stride, but I've seen families fall apart over the money aspect of it. Shit is sad. The income disparity on display can be overwhelming at times.

I actually just got a much better job and it's still crazy how little that salary bump gets me in terms of mobility.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Yea, I think Romney's foreign policy is going to scare a lot of fence sitters away once it starts to get attention. I don't think many Americans want a trade war with China, nor do they want 'tough talk' about Middle Eastern countries.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

The problems our next presidential contenders have seem pretty obvious. Obama's problem is the economy, and Mitt Romney's problem is actually just being Mitt Romney. The public think Obama is a nice guy, but they want results which have been slow in coming. Mitt Romney on the other hand is going to be portrayed as the boss that fired you in one of the worst economic periods in the past 100 years. Let's just run down the gaffes he has made to make this possible:

1. I enjoy firing people.
2. I bet you $10,000.
3. I'm afraid of getting a pink slip.
4. I'm unemployed.
5. If you are not rich, then don't run for office.
6. Corporations are people.
7. Renovating his multi-million dollar mansion.

And the general election hasn't even started. Obama is going to make him look worst than John 'I don't know how many houses I own' McCain. At least McCain had his service record to fall back on. Also as Drek said, no one is going to man phones or go door to door for this guy. Obama's get out the vote effort is going to dwarf him in comparison. I'm afraid there is only one person that is going to be made to look 'out of touch' this campaign, and it is going to be Mitt Romney.

 

[PhoenixDark]

If Romney wants to get anything done with divided government, he'd be forced to govern as a center-right president - as Obama has done; and I'd argue a republican president always gives democrats cover to vote for things they might not support with a democrat president (infrastructure now, for instance). Just as Obama governed somewhat more liberally with dem controlled congress/senate, I'd expect Romney to govern conservatively with a rep controlled congress/senate.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Obama secured around 142 million from Wall St. prior to being elected - more than any other candidate before him including Hilary - and it seems to me that was money well spent because the banks got way more back in the form of bailout money. There also hasn't been a single charge laid for corruption or fraud due to the economic meltdown. You could argue (and I would) that The President has been bought and paid for.

Bank Bailouts happened before Obama came to power. You can also go read on the SEC suits agianst various companies/hedge fund managers. Goldman Sachs was charged under Obama admin. Here is FBI's comments on investigations into mortgage fraud:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/16/mortgage-fraud-prosecutions-idUSN1612885020110316

Dodd-Frank Bill was passed (which WS hates).

And you can see which candidates are benefitting the most this cycle from WS money.

 

[Clevinger]

Yea, I think Romney's foreign policy is going to scare a lot of fence sitters away once it starts to get attention. I don't think many Americans want a trade war with China, nor do they want 'tough talk' about Middle Eastern countries.

Romney will just change his positions/tone the moment he seals the nom. I think he'll be fine, especially since he's going to win so early in the process.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I think its fantastic.

Especially how they went after him for firing people.

Thats like GOP 101: Right to work is amazing because we can fire people, wheeeeee!
GOP 102 of course is: Never speak ill of job-creators (aka, rich)



Romney is a lose-lose-lose

Evangelicals will stay home, as they did with McCain. And thats when Obama was the big scary kenyan muslim. Why would they vote for a mormom, who had gay marriage be legalized under his watch, and saw marijuana laws loosen?

Tea Party will stay home. Their number 1 hate is "business as usual" washington types. Aka: Mr establishment Romney. Their number 2 hate is wall street. Aka: Mr wall street romney.

People with standards will stay home, because they dont support a flip-flopper.

As Kosmo said, you're greatly underestimating the level at which conservatives fear and hate Obama. Why would they stay home when they have a legit chance at repealing much of his presidency with a win? Even if some don't vote for Romney, they WILL vote for senators/congress.

I don't think Romney is worried about losing votes in the bible belt, where he'll win anyway. Nor do I believe republicans will stay home in important swing states, given just how important this election is. This is arguably the most important election of many people's lifetimes. 2004 was very important as well, the problem was that young people stayed home, as did minorities iirc; the war may have been a big issue, but people could pay their mortgages and UE was low so there was complacency.

 

[Evlar]

I don't think Republicans fear and hate President Obama more than the guy who won the Democratic nomination in 2008... what's his name...

 

[RustyNails]

I get the feeling that that "I like being able to fire people" thing might end up helping Mitt more than it will hurt him. Now he can release the full clip and say, "this kind of disingenuous trickery is exactly the corrupt behavior I want to root out in Washington"

Trying to explain your dumbassery on stump or the airwaves always backfires. Remember Christine O Donnell and her "I am not a witch" ad? You lick your wounds and press forward and hope someone else goofs ups so media can focus there.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

You are probably right Phoenix. The Republican base will still vote for him, especially those that dislike Obama. But do you honestly believe they will go out and advocate for a guy they do not trust? Do you think they'll invest their off hours in manning phones and distributing campaign literature? Do you think they'll be able to match the Obama campaign with boots on the ground? Romney might have their vote, but he does not have the level of support that Obama will get. This is why he is not a shoe in.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

You guys vastly underestimate the disdain for Obama among a large portion of the electorate. This election is not about Mitt Romney, it's about Obama, period. No matter how lukewarm some are about Romney, they sure as hell don't want to see Obama get another 4 years.

You're projecting. His approval rating is going up, and it will go even higher throughout the year.

The election will be about the economy, and fairness in the economy.

If the economy keeps getting better, even slightly-which it will- then Obama wins.

Obama owns national security and foreign affairs, Republicans don't have anything other than rhetoric about Israel, which anyone with half a brain can see right through.

The only feathers in the cap for Republicans are the rural states that have too many voters who are convinced that any day now Obama is sending the men in black to take away their ammunition.

 

[PhoenixDark]

You are probably right Phoenix. The Republican base will still vote for him, especially those that dislike Obama. But do you honestly believe they will go out and advocate for a guy they do not trust? Do you think they'll invest their off hours in manning phones and distributing campaign literature? Do you think they'll be able to match the Obama campaign with boots on the ground? Romney might have their vote, but he does not have the level of support that Obama will get. This is why he is not a shoe in.

Do you believe the GOP machine won't mobilize for its candidate? They will do their jobs. It's not like Romney has been running phonebanks by himself in primary states, he has a legit infrastructure that will grow. There should be enough folks excited about ousting Obama and banning Obamacare to create the grass roots he needs. That being said, I could see him having some sparsely attended events early

Now I do believe his fans will be less inspired than Obama's, but I don't believe they'll be as clueless or outclassed as McCain's.

 

[Allard]

You are probably right Phoenix. The Republican base will still vote for him, especially those that dislike Obama. But do you honestly believe they will go out and advocate for a guy they do not trust? Do you think they'll invest their off hours in manning phones and distributing campaign literature? Do you think they'll be able to match the Obama campaign with boots on the ground? Romney might have their vote, but he does not have the level of support that Obama will get. This is why he is not a shoe in.

They won't support Romney as a candidate with a get out and vote campaign but they will how have an 'oust Obama' campaign that will go door to door. What Obama needs to do (And is doing) is compel the narrative about choice and not about specifically him. If I were Romney I'd stay out of the limelight, use his donors super pac money to shoot outlandish accusation at the president and force him to talk about his record while also staying low enough where accusations the president makes at Romney don't hold enough water or can be easily side stepped without making much of a presences. The minute Mitt tries to talk back against the president about the nature of his past business, of trying to explain his positions, he loses. Like I have said many times before Romney 'can' win as an invisible candidate, the "Not Obama" candidate, but the minute he takes scrutiny in the general election, he loses, period. The thing is Obama has a big enough grass roots movements and enough money in his own campaign to decimate Romney publicly where that is all you hear on the air waves, not to mention the extreme advantage of having the biggest public pulpit in the ring (Presidency) to talk about his policies and the many different positions Romney has taken. The election isn't between Obama and Romney, its between Obama and Romney's donors. It will be a painful and robust war of media narrative, and it is going to come no matter how good/bad the Republican candidate is so we better all prepare for it.

 

[Drek]

Romney will just change his positions/tone the moment he seals the nom. I think he'll be fine, especially since he's going to win so early in the process.

No he won't.

Romney is an all world carpet bagger who will sell out 99% of his stances for the popular stance at the time. But not being a war hawk.

He's been pro military intervention every step of his political career. It is the one consistent backbone he's had. Now in the primary he's outright said he'd want to head down the path to a major trade war with China and has openly talked about using military force ASAP in Iran.

To the first issue (China) - how does he curry the favor of the major industrial companies who live off outsourced Chinese labor if he wants to force the Chinese currency up, and therefore their labor and shipping rates? This is a classic example of a venture capitalist/money manager who has never actually dealt with real labor issues expounding on something he doesn't know about. Generally a politician can walk back from such statements, but Huntsman really jumped on him for this one and it was the big soundbite of that debate, getting national news play. He will not be able to backtrack easily on this within the next year.

To the second issue (being a war hawk) - this is one of the few consistent core beliefs Romney has ever espoused. His rhetoric about "using force to keep Iran from getting a nuke" and how much play that has gotten with with Ron Paul crowd makes this another thing he can't just back away with, though his record shows no intention of doing so. People often ask "who is the real Mit Romney?" This is it. He's a guy who believes in the American Empire.

The second could be particularly damning since we'll just be getting the majority of our troops home from our two longest conflicts in U.S. history about the time of the general election and no one but a select handful (which Romney is a part of) really want to jump back into another middle east conflict with no real end in sight. Paul has hit him on this repeatedly and the Paulbots do not forget, are some of the most politically active people to the right of center, and many are not truly committed GOPers, they're libertarians who glommed on to the GOP because that was Paul's platform.

If Obama's campaign is even remotely competent, which all indications say they're well beyond that, we will see more than a few major pushes on the foreign policy front, stressing Romney's desire for militaristic resolutions as opposed to Obama's "scalpel, not a hatchet" approach coupled with the results Obama has given us the last three years. Obama's numbers are very strong on foreign policy and the threat of starting another war so soon after getting out of Iraq/Afghanistan is one of the very few things that can steal some mind share from the economy.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Do you believe the GOP machine won't mobilize for its candidate? They will do their jobs. It's not like Romney has been running phonebanks by himself in primary states, he has a legit infrastructure that will grow. There should be enough folks excited about ousting Obama and banning Obamacare to create the grass roots he needs. That being said, I could see him having some sparsely attended events early

Now I do believe his fans will be less inspired than Obama's, but I don't believe they'll be as clueless or outclassed as McCain's.

I'm sure he'll get support from his wing of the Republican party, but the others will not be as forth coming. Even McCain had to go and kiss the ring of several preachers to be accepted into the fold. No idea what Romney is going to have to do. Also, there are many Evangelists that believe he was a former baby killer supporter. These people don't trust him and make poor advocates on his behalf. I kind of wonder if the support will match McCain's. No one really showed up for him till Palin needed to be defended.

 

[Drek]

As Kosmo said, you're greatly underestimating the level at which conservatives fear and hate Obama. Why would they stay home when they have a legit chance at repealing much of his presidency with a win? Even if some don't vote for Romney, they WILL vote for senators/congress.

I don't think Romney is worried about losing votes in the bible belt, where he'll win anyway. Nor do I believe republicans will stay home in important swing states, given just how important this election is. This is arguably the most important election of many people's lifetimes. 2004 was very important as well, the problem was that young people stayed home, as did minorities iirc; the war may have been a big issue, but people could pay their mortgages and UE was low so there was complacency.

Those two groups will be very Pro-Obama though. So their turnout during tough economic times will only help Obama, not hurt him.

The GOP core will still turn out, but it won't be with the fervor they would for a Gingrich or Santorum. Their turnout will still be strong, but Romney losing a few points in states like Virginia, South Carolina, Missouri, etc. is all it takes to keep or turn those states blue.

Grudging support for Romney isn't going to flip the bible belt Obama's way. But the lack of enthusiasm for him in the base is going to make swing states hard. If come the general states like the three listed above, Maine, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, etc. are within 5 points they'll probably go blue.

 

[RoninChaos]

Phoenix, why are you so down on Obama when it's obvious how deficient Romney is in most catagories? THe right has made no qualms about showing who they care about when it comes to their electorate, and it's not the people that Obama is going after.

 

[el retorno]

Romney will just change his positions/tone the moment he seals the nom. I think he'll be fine, especially since he's going to win so early in the process.

Yea, I think Romney's foreign policy is going to scare a lot of fence sitters away once it starts to get attention. I don't think many Americans want a trade war with China, nor do they want 'tough talk' about Middle Eastern countries.

Doesn't Romney have like all Bush's old guys advising him?

 

[The Chosen One]

Why is this topic on the second page on Primary day?

 

[teruterubozu]

Why is this topic on the second page on Primary day?

Because Romney's a fucking bore. What's up with Massachusetts and their blowhards like Romney, Brown and Kerry?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Why is this topic on the second page on Primary day?

No results rumbling in yet. And even then, the only interesting part will be who comes in second.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Why is this topic on the second page on Primary day?

Find a way to make Romney winning by (according to the last poll) 19 over Huntsman interesting.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

No results rumbling in yet. And even then, the only interesting part will be who comes in second.

Romney's margin of victory and the percentage he gets will be good to see today.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Romney's margin of victory and the percentage he gets will be good to see today.

Over/Under 15?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Romney's margin of victory and the percentage he gets will be good to see today.

Academically, sure. I'm interested in that myself. I'm guessing about a 15% margin over Huntsman. But we're going through the motions at this point; after winning* Iowa by eight votes he was predictably all but made the nominee. At this point it's all about who drops out when, how big of a stink they make before they do, and how long Romney has someone nipping at his heels.

Over/Under 15?

I'll go with a touch over.

 

[NihonTiger90]

Over/Under 15?

I expect Romney +28. Or more precisely:

Romney: 45
Huntstman: 17
Paul 15
Santorum: 11
Gingrich: 10
Perry: 1
Other: 1

 

[teruterubozu]

New Hampshire conservatives are fucking nuts. Now way Romney runs away with it.

 

[Jackson50]

I addressed this in my post already, but if you're not going to read it I don't see why I should respond to you.

You come at me with the same points to which I have already refuted, and you say my argument is tautological? I can, just as you have but with 2008, easily attribute any Republican gain in 2010 and 2011 to the "fundamentals of [2010]" as much as you can attribute both states going blue to the "fundamentals of 2008." But that's lazy. You talk about how the Congressional elections of 2010 refute the demographic argument, but you're largely ignoring the percentage with which they won by. Any seat change in NC and Virginia was won by less than a five percent margin except for one. Only one seat changed from Dem to Rep in North Carolina – and he only lost because he got mad at some reporter, and lost by less than one percent. The only seats that changed hats in Virginia were Southern seats – the part of the state in which Obama didn't do as well, the part of the state that's not the reason for it going blue in 2008. None of these were blowouts like Louisiana's Third in which the Democratic incumbent lost by a twenty-seven point margin. Hell, you saw Democratic representatives in New York losing by a larger margin than almost any in Virginia and NC. And I'm not even hitting the fact that Obama was winning in both states where the people were. New York is a blue state but because of the distribution of its population it has a Republican senate. I live in NC. I know what's going on in my state.

If anything, the more I look at this, the more its up in the air. But I think you're ignoring the fact that when you say it was the fundamentals of 2008, it went that way in large part because of the changing demographics. That's not to say they won't go red in 2012, but to assume the other way is like putting the horse before the carriage.

No, you did not address it. I noted why your rebuttal was deficient. And I will elucidate again. You are attributing their partisan swing in 2008 to demographic changes. However, their partisan swing coincided with a broader national swing. A largely uniform shift across various states evidences a general cause for the swing. There is scant evidence indicating NC and VA were unique cases. Thus, while demographic changes may have caused NC and VA's particular shifts, additional data is necessary to confirm this hypothesis. Otherwise, until we have additional evidence, their respective swings are probably attributable to whatever caused the general shift in other states.

First, yes. You corrected my interpretation of your argument by merely restating it. And, again, you refuted nothing. I noted the incongruity of the demographic hypothesis with reducing the GOP's recent success in midterm/off-year elections to the prominence of older white voters. If an increase in demographics favorable towards Democrats was significant enough to flip a solidly Republican state to Democratic in only a single cycle, then the proportion of new voters would likely be substantial enough to moderate the older white vote in a midterm election. But it has not. Again, evidence contradicting the demographic hypothesis. Further, that would not be lazy as states often shift uniformly in response to the fundamentals. Virginia and NC do not exist in a vacuum. If they have shifted largely in unison with the broader national swing, then it indicates the catalyst for their respective shifts are probably not specific to their state. Moreover, I have not ignored their margin of victory. Rather, I utilize the intra-district partisan swing as it more accurately depicts a district's convergence with the national trend. For example, the minute margin of victory in NC's single flipped Congressional district makes it appear as if Democrats overachieved. However, the district's partisan swing was eight percent greater than the national swing. And it occurred in a district Obama won in 08. Many Congressional districts in NC and VA mostly conformed to the national trend while a few districts experienced swings considerably larger than the national shift. Altogether, Republicans largely performed to expectations and overachieved in a few instances. Thus, incorporating their margin of victory does not substantiate the demographic argument.

Additionally, I analyze the recent Congressional elections in accordance with NC and VA's historical partisan behavior in presidential elections. They had been solidly Republican in numerous presidential elections preceding 2008. The only elections inconsistent with a solidly Republican state were 06/08. And those elections occurred in a toxic cycle for Republicans. Additionally, they moved in unison with other states evidencing a general cause for the shifts. That also weakens the argument that VA and NC were only susceptible to the swings because of demographic changes. Numerous solidly Republican states experienced even more substantial swings in the absence of significant demographic changes. NC and VA's behavior was not peculiar, and conforms to expectations given the fundamentals.

 

[Puddles]

Dax, I thought your argument was pretty good, but Jackson uses way bigger words. You'll need to step your thesaurus game up a bit.

 

[Aaron Strife]

PPP just released their new poll of NC. Obama is tied with Santorum (!) at 46-46 but leads Romney by a point, at 46-45. His approval rating is 47 approve, 49 disapprove, which is still underwater but better than his national approval.

Given that Obama won by less than half a point here in 2008, even winning by one point would be an improvement.

Also - Virginia has sucked for Democrats, but the recent State Senate elections resulted in a 20-20 split, which at least defied expectations (that the GOP would win outright, gaining the trifecta). And as mentioned, only one Democratic Congressperson lost in North Carolina in 2010, which wouldn't indicate a red state to me.

 

[cooljeanius]

Are there any New Hampshire goers here?

I am! Just got back from the polls. I was surprised to see there were 14 candidates on the Democratic ballot; I had no idea that that many Democrats were running against Obama. Outside the polls there were only 3 people holding signs: 2 for Huntsman and 1 for Paul. My polling place is Concord Ward 6 btw.

Edit: Pics:
Democratic Ballot:


Sign holders:

 

[Puddles]

I still can't believe Santorum would get 46% of the vote. I would hope that society can move beyond a guy who would effectively end the marriages of every married gay couple in America.

 

[teruterubozu]

I still can't believe Santorum would get 46% of the vote. I would hope that society can move beyond a guy who would effectively end the marriages of every married gay couple in America.

We're talking about NH conservatives who want to repeal all laws back to the Magna Carta.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

I am! Just got back from the polls. I was surprised to see there were 14 candidates on the Democratic ballot; I had no idea that that many Democrats were running against Obama. Outside the polls there were only 3 people holding signs: 2 for Huntsman and 1 for Paul. My polling place is Concord Ward 6 btw.

when does/did the polling start? I'm really excited for Huntsman tonight.

 

[GhaleonEB]

when does/did the polling start? I'm really excited for Huntsman tonight.

You should start seeing results in about three hours; polls close in less than two.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

You should start seeing results in about three hours; polls close in less than two.

Hype.

I'm going to watch CNN again, they had great coverage, and were actually pretty funny too.

 

[esquire]

I'm a republican, but I like Obama, I really do. Even though I don't support the democrats due to a difference in opinion, I respect Obama, and should he not win another term in office, I wouldn't think it was a good thing for this country to shift permanently to the right. I prefer a more balanced approach because regardless of how strongly I believe in what I believe in, the fact of the matter is that other people don't necessarily share those beliefs and it is important to recognize that and not create a situation where their views aren't represented well in government and policy making.

That said, God damn, Chris Christie is a fat fuck. Jesus.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I still can't believe Santorum would get 46% of the vote. I would hope that society can move beyond a guy who would effectively end the marriages of every married gay couple in America.

I think Santorum's views probably aren't that widely known at this point, casting him as "generic Republican" for a lot of people.

BTW, a Reuter/Ipsos poll has Obama leading Romney by 5, 48-43, with an approval rating at 47%. So for those freaking out about that other poll.

 

[Wray]

This is arguably the most important election of many people's lifetimes. 2004 was very important as well, the problem was that young people stayed home, as did minorities iirc; the war may have been a big issue, but people could pay their mortgages and UE was low so there was complacency.

While true to an extent, that wasn't the main problem. The main problem, especially in 2000, was that the "youth" vote was very small in raw numbers. In 2004 and especially 2000, the 18-29 voting bracket were mainly Generation X'ers. That's a relatively small demographic compared to Gen Y and the Baby Boomers, both of which are nearly double in size.

Today, the 18-29 Vote is virtually all Gen Y. Which means if the same "percentage" of youth voters that 2004 or 2000 had actually come out, you're going to get almost double the raw number of votes. It's why Obama won so handily in 08. He had enthusiasm and such a larger amount of raw votes in that bracket. It's why I expect such an easy win in 2012, cause it's going to be even more so this time around. And that's not even factoring in the latino factor.