2012 Presidential Election Thread

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Not sure where else to put this.
But the end of Obama's 'fuck you, I won, motherfucker' (I just like to imagine that's what he referred to it as in his own mind) speech was probably one of the best bits of Presidential Speeching I've seen. He was so legitimately passionate about what he was saying, and it completely showed. Hopefully the almost half of people who didn't vote for him watched that, and saw what was clearly there.

Would you like to swap Presidents/Prime Ministers?

[Bond]

Well, I was wrong. No shame in making a prediction (hopefully). I was anticipating a +2-3 D advantage, but it appears as though it was indeed the +6 D advantage as predicted by Nate Silver and Obama's campaign manager (I forget his name).

I'm surprised. But it looks as though the Obama ground game was extremely effective at courting minorities (garnering ~72% of the Hispanic vote and ~91% of the black vote) and young people. Those figures are difficult to overcome when minorities encompass 28% of the electorate. I'd argue this is why the Republican party needs to liberalize its immigration and social platform to widen the tent, but I'll digress.

Anyway, I thought I saw a comment about my prediction being crazy, but I can't find it anymore. Like I said in the first paragraph, it was based on my idea of the electorate composition and not any partisan feeling.

Truth be told, Republicans like Prof and I are in the minority in the GOP these days (arguably the extreme minority). The party needs to promote its fiscal conservatism and silence its social conservatism. I think most Americans remain fiscally conservative and socially liberal -- it's time to pivot to them.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Would you like to swap Presidents/Prime Ministers?

Fuck no.
30 million people and our dollar is on par if not half-of-a-half-of-a cent above yours.
I hate how conservatively conservative that guy his, but I'll stick with Harper, thanks - illusion of a "strong" economy or not.
He might not know how or when to convey tone in his speeches, and he might have the emotional range of Keanu Reeves doped up on pills, and he may have a Lego-man haircut - but damnit, the guy can run (half of) a country pretty well.

[Fox 6]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Would you like to swap Presidents/Prime Ministers?

He is even more left of Barrack. All of the mainstream political parties in Canada are.

Aside from the joking, I think Americans are seeing the social benefits of moderation and voted as such. It seems that there is a fragmentation developing in the conservative camps, and hopefully this will make them take more liberal stances on things like immigration. On another note, Those Teas Party whack jobs give me the willies.

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by Bond

Anyway, I thought I saw a comment about my prediction being crazy, but I can't find it anymore. Like I said in the first paragraph, it was based on my idea of the electorate composition and not any partisan feeling.

Yea, that was me. Its earlier in this thread.

Anyways, I somewhat disagree with the notion that the republicans will be as "blocking" if you will of the democrats plans. I feel if they are as bi-partisan as they were the last 4 years it will really come back and backfire on them.

The way I see it, the country has again CLEARLY spoken and said "this is the person we want to lead our country, and we want him and his ideas to be continued." Obama will be much more agressive this time around because he dosent have another election to win. Republicans will be the ones who end up looking stupid, not democrats, if this bi partisanship continues.

In my person opinion without some DRASTIC changes in the Republican party's point of views, they will have a very hard time ever winning another election EVER again. This country is becoming more and more minority and poorer and this obviously is bad for the Republicans. Republicans are dying off, younger democrats are not. More and more minorities reaching legal voting age. I realise this is a huge generalization, but look how much the younger vote, especially minorities, sways democrat.

And for good reason. I can kinda see why a rich person might like Romneys views, but pretty much everyone else? Who knows. Personally I dont get why a median income or poor person would ever vote republican inless they change drastically, but thats just me.

[Vampyr]

From my point of view, all of those middle or lower class people who vote for the kind of republican you're talking about have a few things going on in there head:

1. They're voting because they view the Republican party as the Christian party, mostly due to the gay marriage issue.

2. They support giving benefits to the wealthy because they like the idea of the American dream, and they think they could be that wealthy one day.

3. They hate "entitlement" programs. They feel that giving a "handout" to someone is pretty much the most evil thing you can do.

edit:

Also, in my area, and in West Virginia and other south-east states, coal is a huge issue. People blame Obama for coal's decline. They see coal as a lifestyle because it's something their family has been doing for a long time.

[Seth]

A lot of Christians I know would never vote for the right because of exactly what you just outlined Vampyr.
Social issues take precedent over domestic observances. Maybe it's a Canadian thing and binaries don't rule the day quite as much?

Here, people vote for Harper because we are a resource economy and on a provincial level, the feds have vowed not to mess with regional profit holdings. Mercer makes it funny.

[Professor S]

Back to the Hurricane Sandy vs Nate Silver argument: Hurricane Sandy hit on the 29th and 30th. Looking at the chart below, it correlates almost to the day that political fortunes switched. Switch the chart to 30 or 14 days to see the trend.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1171.html

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Back to the Hurricane Sandy vs Nate Silver argument: Hurricane Sandy hit on the 29th and 30th. Looking at the chart below, it correlates almost to the day that political fortunes switched. Switch the chart to 30 or 14 days to see the trend.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1171.html

Yeah, but you're using RCP's averaging numbers, which obviously weren't as correct as Silver's...and I mean that they don't necessarily explain all of it...538 actually has a few more words that go into the details of the polls. I can't take time to find it right now, but if you go to the 538 archives, you can see Silver talking about Romney's momentum ending weeks ago. I'm not sure why you'd keep citing RCP when they weren't as accurate as The Princeton Election Consortium, 538, or this blog http://votamatic.org/election-day-fo...32-romney-206/



I guess here's an example from Sam Wang's site. Basically after the 2nd debate, all the momentum is in Obama's favor. That's well before Sandy.

EDIT: Here is Silver's post regarding Mitt Romney's momentum, dated 10/24.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...-have-stopped/

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

Yeah, but you're using RCP's averaging numbers, which obviously weren't as correct as Silver's...

Obviously incorrect? How so? Did RCP's aggregate polling estimate that Romney would be the winner? No, if you look at the trends you would guess Pres. Obama would have won re-election. All of these models, if you can call RCP a model since it doesn't make predictions, are based on whether or not they were correct. Both 538, and RCP's polling aggregates, showed strong signs Pres. Obama would win. They both proved correct.

If you look at the trends, and at the movement of undecided voters to Pres. Obama after Sandy, it's very difficult for me to understand how people can say the storm had no effect on voting. Also, please keep in mind I don't think Sandy was the only reason. Youth turnout was huge, and Silver had that nailed, along with single females and minority voting. But Sandy made it an easier victory for Pres. Obama, IMO.

[TheGame]

Just imagine if Romney's camp would have won all 4 debates. (lol)

There's a lot of reasons Romney lost that had nothing to do with the Hurricane.

[Bond]

I think Sandy may have expedited the fall of Romney's momentum, but I also believe the race was moving toward parity before the storm.

However, this is interesting: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...429662874.html

[Typhoid]

it's very difficult for me to understand how people can say the storm had no effect on voting.

I think it's the simple fear of "Give an inch, take a mile". The second an important Democrat says "Well, I'm sure the Hurricane had some effect on voting and the way some Republicans perceived the President", some Republican media source will most certainly turn that into "The only reason Obama won was because of a timely hurricane."

Looking at the chart below, it correlates almost to the day that political fortunes switched.

While that's true, it could also just be simple coincidence of "The election is getting nearer, so people are making more concrete choices."

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Obviously incorrect? How so? Did RCP's aggregate polling estimate that Romney would be the winner? No, if you look at the trends you would guess Pres. Obama would have won re-election. All of these models, if you can call RCP a model since it doesn't make predictions, are based on whether or not they were correct. Both 538, and RCP's polling aggregates, showed strong signs Pres. Obama would win. They both proved correct.

If you look at the trends, and at the movement of undecided voters to Pres. Obama after Sandy, it's very difficult for me to understand how people can say the storm had no effect on voting. Also, please keep in mind I don't think Sandy was the only reason. Youth turnout was huge, and Silver had that nailed, along with single females and minority voting. But Sandy made it an easier victory for Pres. Obama, IMO.

I never said the storm had no effect on voting. Your original argument was that "Sandy ended Romney's momentum." My argument is that isn't true, when any positive polling towards Romney basically ended 10 days after the Denver debate and started regressing to Obama. Sandy increased Obama's momentum back to his pre-Denver debate levels.

Maybe the problem is definition of momentum...I would think momentum means at least a gradual climb since Denver until Sandy. If Romney's momentum had increased until Sandy hit, he should have been ahead in the Electoral College by then, but he wasn't. Romney's best numbers were the week after Denver, maybe except for that errant Gallup poll that had Romney up 7 points or something.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

I never said the storm had no effect on voting. Your original argument was that "Sandy ended Romney's momentum." My argument is that isn't true...

It DID end Romney's momentum. I said it had slowed before Sandy, but Sandy ENDED it, and the aggregate polling data SHOWS THIS. Not only did it end Romney's momentum, but it gave Pres. Obama a last minute boost.

My argument is that if Sandy never happened the election would have been far from predetermined, not that Romney would have necessarily won. Many of these states were incredibly tight. To say that Sandy was not a significant contributor in such tight margins is foolish, especially considering how undecided voters, a.k.a. morons, flocked to Pres. Obama during that time, impressed with the optics of a bi-partisan Obama hugging a Republican governor during a time of crisis.

There is really no point in arguing this further because we both have data to back up our arguments, and both of them proved correct.