bush_cheney2004 Posted November 6, 2012 Report Posted November 6, 2012 No republicans ever won presidency without winning Ohio. President Ford didn't need to win Ohio. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Sleipnir Posted November 6, 2012 Report Posted November 6, 2012 Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
GostHacked Posted November 6, 2012 Report Posted November 6, 2012 Let's see, Huffington Post, FiveThirtyEight, and Talking Points Memo are all leftwing blogs/sites. RCP and Electoral-Vote are legitimate. Never heard of Votamatic. Who runs that? Sounds pretty sketchy. Votamatic, seriously? That's what they call themselves? What about your beloved InTrade? Quote
sharkman Posted November 6, 2012 Report Posted November 6, 2012 Let's look at the predictions by pollsters that use state-by-state polls. These give a better indication of which candidates will win particular states and therefore get the electoral votes there. As of Oct. 31 FiveThirtyEight: O-300, R-238 Electoral-Vote: O-280, R-206, T-52 Votamatic: O-332, R-206 HuffPost Pollster: O-277, R-206, T-55 RCP: O-201, R-191, T-146 TPM: O-303, R-191, T-44 Princeton Election Consortium: O-303, R-235 I wonder why Shady only ever refers to RCP.... hmm. Let's take a look at this list at midnight or so and see how accurate it turns out to be. Quote
Pliny Posted November 6, 2012 Report Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) Of course these polls mean that when Romney wins he will have stolen the election somehow. Edited November 6, 2012 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
nittanylionstorm07 Posted November 6, 2012 Report Posted November 6, 2012 President Ford didn't need to win Ohio. Ford didn't "win" the presidency. Quote
cybercoma Posted November 6, 2012 Report Posted November 6, 2012 Romney's campaign admitted tonight that their final internal numbers had Obama +5% in Ohio. Quote
binhbinh Posted November 10, 2012 Report Posted November 10, 2012 i love obama and he was winner ! ---------------------------- godaddy promo code Quote
cybercoma Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 Great article on polling accuracy from Nate Silver. It answers the questions put to Shady several times: what polls are biased and why? http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/ Quote
Sleipnir Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 It answers the questions put to Shady several times: what polls are biased and why? You think Shady's gonna read it? lol Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
cybercoma Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 In 59 Philadelphia voting division, Mitt Romney got zero votes Republicans are responding by suggesting that there's fraud and that voter identification laws need to be pushed through. Quote
wyly Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 In 59 Philadelphia voting division, Mitt Romney got zero votes Republicans are responding by suggesting that there's fraud and that voter identification laws need to be pushed through. voter id won't make someone vote republican...and how many people will use fake id to vote multiple times when the voting lines had in some locations waits of up to 8 hrs.... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
cybercoma Posted November 14, 2012 Report Posted November 14, 2012 Paul Ryan says they lost because so many "urban" voters turned out to vote. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/13/paul-ryan-obama-won-because-of-urban-turnout/#.UKJv82guhQo.reddit Dog-Whistle Politics at their finest. The Southern Strategy is still alive and well. Quote
kimmy Posted November 14, 2012 Report Posted November 14, 2012 "We lost because too many people voted. " If your chances of election depend on fewer people voting, that could be a clue that your policies suck. Also on the polling front, Dick Morris fesses up: he predicted a Romney landslide to try to boost the Romney campaign: I think that there was a period of time when the Romney campaign was falling apart, people were not optimistic, nobody thought there was a chance of victory and I felt that it was my duty at that point to go out and say what I said. He was a Romney employee, given a platform on a "fair and balanced" news outlet to spread a message he thought he would boost the Romney campaign, while Fox described him as a "Political Analyst" and "Former Clinton Advisor" and neglected to mention his ties to the Romney campaign. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ノ(° -°ノ)
August1991 Posted November 14, 2012 Report Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) According to Wikipedia (now), 59.1 million Americans voted for Romney and 62.6 million voted for Obama. Imagine a meeting of 122 colleagues. After a difficult debate, your proposal gets the support of 59 but loses to another proposal that wins 63 votes. Would you say that your (losing) proposal lacked support? Would you give up? ----- This is not 1964 or 1972 - it's no landslide. Moreover, this is no cartel; neither American side will readily give up/give in. IMHO, unlike China, Russia or even Europe, America is a thriving democracy; America is a thriving society. Edited November 14, 2012 by August1991 Quote
Pliny Posted November 14, 2012 Report Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) If your chances of election depend on fewer people voting, that could be a clue that your policies suck. -k Right, a policy of "reaching across the aisle" probably cost him a few million votes. But really the election was won by pandering and the vote buying of special interests aided by a biased mainstream media. Edited November 14, 2012 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Bonam Posted November 14, 2012 Report Posted November 14, 2012 Right, a policy of "reaching across the aisle" probably cost him a few million votes. But really the election was won by pandering and the vote buying of special interests aided by a biased mainstream media. Yeah, it couldn't have had anything to do with voters running the heck away from the insanity of the theocratic social conservatism of the republicans. Quote
dre Posted November 14, 2012 Report Posted November 14, 2012 Yeah, it couldn't have had anything to do with voters running the heck away from the insanity of the theocratic social conservatism of the republicans. Or having a base that consists only of rich white folks and dumb white folks, thats shrinking every election. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
CPCFTW Posted November 14, 2012 Report Posted November 14, 2012 Or having a base that consists only of rich white folks and dumb white folks, thats shrinking every election. As opposed to a base of dumb minorities and upper middle class 20-30 y/o living with their parents and pursuing or unemployed with arts degrees? Does that sound racist? I guess it's only ok if you're insulting the intelligence of "white folks". Quote
dre Posted November 14, 2012 Report Posted November 14, 2012 As opposed to a base of dumb minorities and upper middle class 20-30 y/o living with their parents and pursuing or unemployed with arts degrees? Does that sound racist? I guess it's only ok if you're insulting the intelligence of "white folks". I wasnt insulting the intelligence of white folks. There are both smart ones and dumb ones. The reality for the republican party is that their base is shrinking. White voters are a smaller percentage of the ellectorate each election, and groups like hispanics are growing by a percent or two. If they dont figure out a way to broaden their base they arent going to win elections. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 14, 2012 Report Posted November 14, 2012 The problem with this simple-minded ethno-racial analysis is that Hispanics can be counted as both "white"/"Hispanic", and "black"/Hispanic. There were about 7 million fewer "white" voters at the polls by choice (they stayed home), not just because of shrinking population ratios. It would be "dumb" to only focus on these demographic aspects of the electorate from one election cycle. For the record, I left my ballot unmarked for the office of President / Vice President of the United States. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Black Dog Posted November 14, 2012 Report Posted November 14, 2012 Right, a policy of "reaching across the aisle" probably cost him a few million votes. But really the election was won by pandering and the vote buying of special interests aided by a biased mainstream media. The last time that happened was all the elections. Quote
punked Posted November 14, 2012 Report Posted November 14, 2012 The problem with this simple-minded ethno-racial analysis is that Hispanics can be counted as both "white"/"Hispanic", and "black"/Hispanic. There were about 7 million fewer "white" voters at the polls by choice (they stayed home), not just because of shrinking population ratios. It would be "dumb" to only focus on these demographic aspects of the electorate from one election cycle. For the record, I left my ballot unmarked for the office of President / Vice President of the United States. Or maybe there was 7 million less white voters because the generation where there are higher amounts of white voters died. That is the other thing with older whiter voters 4 years is a long time and there are around 3 million deaths a year in the US. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 14, 2012 Report Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) Or maybe there was 7 million less white voters because the generation where there are higher amounts of white voters died. That is the other thing with older whiter voters 4 years is a long time and there are around 3 million deaths a year in the US. No...they are still very much alive....they just didn't vote. Fewer votes were cast in 2012 than in 2008, and it is not because millions of people died. The fastest growing racial demographic in the U.S. is Asian, not Hispanic. Edited November 14, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted November 14, 2012 Report Posted November 14, 2012 Or maybe there was 7 million less white voters because the generation where there are higher amounts of white voters died. That is the other thing with older whiter voters 4 years is a long time and there are around 3 million deaths a year in the US. THe bottom line is the demographics are changing. Even if the demographics were the same as they were in 2008, republicans would have won this time. And they are going to keep changing. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.