**2012 Election Day thread**

[RockRaines]

The fact that the Republican part is shocked that people voted for more people's rights regarding social issues like abortion and marriage equality instead of for their economic plan shows how out of touch they really are. Young people came out in mass to vote for Obama primarily for those reasons. Unless the GOP softens up their stance in no-win issues like those they are going to be behind the 8-ball.

[MexSoxFan#1]

I don't have Fox News (thank God), but I would've loved to have watched them last night for the lulz.

[RockRaines]

I don't have Fox News (thank God), but I would've loved to have watched them last night for the lulz.

It was that and super drunk Diane Sawyer that made it entertaining to watch the different channels last night.

[MexSoxFan#1]

The fact that the Republican part is shocked that people voted for more people's rights regarding social issues like abortion and marriage equality instead of for their economic plan shows how out of touch they really are. Young people came out in mass to vote for Obama primarily for those reasons. Unless the GOP softens up their stance in no-win issues like those they are going to be behind the 8-ball.

This

 

If they keep on the path they've been on, TX will be in play for the Dems much sooner than CA or NY for them. Demographics in TX are trending blue.

[Soxbadger]

The fact that the Republican part is shocked that people voted for more people's rights regarding social issues like abortion and marriage equality instead of for their economic plan shows how out of touch they really are. Young people came out in mass to vote for Obama primarily for those reasons. Unless the GOP softens up their stance in no-win issues like those they are going to be behind the 8-ball.

 

And even worse for them is that there is very little indication that people in the age group of 30-40 are becoming less socially liberal as they get older.

 

[RockRaines]

And even worse for them is that there is very little indication that people in the age group of 30-40 are becoming less socially liberal as they get older.

The writing should be on the wall. The young population and the growing minorities put a black president in office and reelected him amongst very weak progress. Their parents or even our parents were the folks who instilled alot of the liberal social attitudes in us and it will be passed down from there. The social issues need to be something they come to agreement on with the dems or at least be more conservative.

[LittleHurt05]

I think that got overblown and people didn't really buy it. He was still viewed as the better person to get us going economically. Race played a factor, though, for sure. 93% of blacks voted for Obama (racists!) and 71% of hispanics. I think Bush got like 44%, so that's a huge drop. And unmarried women really liked Obama more than Romney too. [i'll leave the easy joke about entitlements alone]

 

That to me is why the GOP has to give up on the social issues. Even if you're apathetic to gay marriage or abortion, don't make that an important part of your platform. Keep it about the economy (the conservative/capitalist philosophy is always favored over the liberal/socialist one) and the government getting too big.

 

They also need to stop throwing old, white, male candidates out there.

[MexSoxFan#1]

[southsider2k5]

of course you wouldn't

 

(statistics and math are used in making projections in both politics AND sports!)

 

Except there is a fundamental difference here. Baseball statistics are the result of play. Election projections are based on polls of what is going to happen. (past results versus future results, just in case you are missing the disconnect there) Those are polar opposite things there, unless you are trying to tell me that Nate Silver can predict baseball ABs, games, and seasons to somewhere between 98 and 100% accuracy.

[bmags]

Except there is a fundamental difference here. Baseball statistics are the result of play. Election projections are based on polls of what is going to happen. (past results versus future results, just in case you are missing the disconnect there) Those are polar opposite things there, unless you are trying to tell me that Nate Silver can predict baseball ABs, games, and seasons to somewhere between 98 and 100% accuracy.

 

Exactly, Nate's new job is way easier. He's essentially just analyzing constant snapshots. Fivethirtyeight final "projection" was based off that day's polls.

[Reddy]

Except there is a fundamental difference here. Baseball statistics are the result of play. Election projections are based on polls of what is going to happen. (past results versus future results, just in case you are missing the disconnect there) Those are polar opposite things there, unless you are trying to tell me that Nate Silver can predict baseball ABs, games, and seasons to somewhere between 98 and 100% accuracy.

Nate Silver and other polls DO take into account past voting patterns and how states/districts/etc have voted in the past when creating models for prediction.

 

My dad is a leading political scientist in the field of why and how voters decide. there's a lot more to it than blindly predicting what's going to happen.

[LittleHurt05]

Exactly, Nate's new job is way easier. He's essentially just analyzing constant snapshots. Fivethirtyeight final "projection" was based off that day's polls.

 

In all honesty, the polls deserve as much credit for being spot on than Nate does. If some of the polls has been way off, so would have been his projections.

[southsider2k5]

Nate Silver and other polls DO take into account past voting patterns and how states/districts/etc have voted in the past when creating models for prediction.

 

My dad is a leading political scientist in the field of why and how voters decide. there's a lot more to it than blindly predicting what's going to happen.

 

There is nothing in baseball equivalent to an electoral poll. You can pretty clearly ask a person, and then sum up multiple persons totals to get an accurate predictor of what an election is going to look like. It is a simple yes or no question being asked, because realistically there are two candidate options out there. Baseball is no where near that simple, and has nothing anywhere near this sort of a predictive nature, it did everyone would already know the 2013 World Series winner.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Based on his complicated analysis using a pencil and paper, Karl Rove has released what he believes the results of the election are:

 

Edited November 7, 2012 by Athomeboy_2000

[Soxbadger]

There is nothing in baseball equivalent to an electoral poll. You can pretty clearly ask a person, and then sum up multiple persons totals to get an accurate predictor of what an election is going to look like. It is a simple yes or no question being asked, because realistically there are two candidate options out there. Baseball is no where near that simple, and has nothing anywhere near this sort of a predictive nature, it did everyone would already know the 2013 World Series winner.

 

I agree, an equivalent in baseball would be if he ran a prediction of who would be MVP and was getting data from the people who vote on MVP.

 

But baseball stats and election stats have a completely different nature. Because its not about calling A-Rod and asking him if hes going to hit .300 this year, and then determining whether hes telling the truth and whether hell actually show up to hit.

 

 

[Reddy]

There is nothing in baseball equivalent to an electoral poll. You can pretty clearly ask a person, and then sum up multiple persons totals to get an accurate predictor of what an election is going to look like. It is a simple yes or no question being asked, because realistically there are two candidate options out there. Baseball is no where near that simple, and has nothing anywhere near this sort of a predictive nature, it did everyone would already know the 2013 World Series winner.

oh i absolutely agree that baseball is MORE complicated - but i'm pretty sure your initial post said you don't see how they're in any way related... and... that's simply not true.

[southsider2k5]

I agree, an equivalent in baseball would be if he ran a prediction of who would be MVP and was getting data from the people who vote on MVP.

 

But baseball stats and election stats have a completely different nature. Because its not about calling A-Rod and asking him if hes going to hit .300 this year, and then determining whether hes telling the truth and whether hell actually show up to hit.

 

Now that is much more accurate.

[bmags]

In all honesty, the polls deserve as much credit for being spot on than Nate does. If some of the polls has been way off, so would have been his projections.

 

Exactly, the only ones really off were Gallup and Ras.

[southsider2k5]

oh i absolutely agree that baseball is MORE complicated - but i'm pretty sure your initial post said you don't see how they're in any way related... and... that's simply not true.

 

They really aren't. Baseball advanced statistics really aren't of a predictive nature. They are of a resulting nature. They are as a result of actions that have already happen. Election prediction is WAY different. They really aren't related.

[Reddy]

They really aren't. Baseball advanced statistics really aren't of a predictive nature. They are of a resulting nature. They are as a result of actions that have already happen. Election prediction is WAY different. They really aren't related.

the reason we have battleground states is due to results of prior elections and how certain voting blocks tend to vote.

 

i get what youre saying, and you're right. but a lot of you are oversimplifying the poll-taking process

[southsider2k5]

the reason we have battleground states is due to results of prior elections and how certain voting blocks tend to vote.

 

i get what youre saying, and you're right. but a lot of you are oversimplifying the poll-taking process

 

To get an equivalent, there need to be someone out there who can take baseball statistics, and give me a future result based on those numbers, to at least a first standard deviation. Last nights election prediction's were at almost a second deviation of confidence. What baseball stat (or grouping of stats) out there going to predict anything (like I said, AB, game, series, season, whatever...) to a 95% confidence?

[Jenksismyhero]

Exactly, the only ones really off were Gallup and Ras.

 

They had it at 49-48 or 48-49. That's basically where it ended up.

[NorthSideSox72]

saw all that - new question - why is a national popular vote the right call NOW when it wasn't for last 200+ years?

 

To a certain extent, this...

 

It was the right call 200+ years ago, just as allowing women and minorities and people who didn't own land to vote was the right choice 200+ years ago.

 

But also, the nation has changed, as has technology. Here are my basic reasons, if you really want to know...

 

1. Look at the history. The Electoral College was put in place for three primary reasons. One, a national popular vote was much more expensive and difficult to accomplish at that time. Two, the framers didn't trust the electorate to make good decisions (this may still hold true, but modern society now gives them the ammo they need to make good ones if they are informed). And three, they wanted buy-in from the smaller states to form the union. Of those three factors, none are really relevant today, except to a degree the representation of smaller states.

 

2. The Presidency is not, and cannot be, representative in the same sense as a legislature. It is one person. One person to represent the nation as its chief executive. Arguments about small or large states, urban or rural, black or white... are irrelevant because there cannot be a breakdown. Therefore, the only logical way to derive the will of the people for a single office, is a single vote. Unless that is, you want to go the other way, and have Congress choose a President, and take the vote of the people away entirely.

 

3. The interests of those dynamics I mentioned earlier, geographically and otherwise, and represented in the Legislature, as was the design. You have a population-based body, and a state-based body, in a bicameral legislature, and that is a great system for doing just that. SCOTUS and the Executive branch were never intended to be filled by the wishes of land area, or of smaller levels of government.

 

4. The electoral college is statistically problematic because of the nature of 535 - rounding and grouping must occur, in some biased fashion. No need for that intrusion with a popular vote.

 

5. The electoral college leaves wiggle room for electors to do stupid things, and not represent the will of the voters. You are introducing human error where there need not be any.

 

I have other reasons too, but there is a sampling for you to chew on.

 

[Reddy]

To a certain extent, this...

 

 

 

But also, the nation has changed, as has technology. Here are my basic reasons, if you really want to know...

 

1. Look at the history. The Electoral College was put in place for three primary reasons. One, a national popular vote was much more expensive and difficult to accomplish at that time. Two, the framers didn't trust the electorate to make good decisions (this may still hold true, but modern society now gives them the ammo they need to make good ones if they are informed). And three, they wanted buy-in from the smaller states to form the union. Of those three factors, none are really relevant today, except to a degree the representation of smaller states.

 

2. The Presidency is not, and cannot be, representative in the same sense as a legislature. It is one person. One person to represent the nation as its chief executive. Arguments about small or large states, urban or rural, black or white... are irrelevant because there cannot be a breakdown. Therefore, the only logical way to derive the will of the people for a single office, is a single vote. Unless that is, you want to go the other way, and have Congress choose a President, and take the vote of the people away entirely.

 

3. The interests of those dynamics I mentioned earlier, geographically and otherwise, and represented in the Legislature, as was the design. You have a population-based body, and a state-based body, in a bicameral legislature, and that is a great system for doing just that. SCOTUS and the Executive branch were never intended to be filled by the wishes of land area, or of smaller levels of government.

 

4. The electoral college is statistically problematic because of the nature of 535 - rounding and grouping must occur, in some biased fashion. No need for that intrusion with a popular vote.

 

5. The electoral college leaves wiggle room for electors to do stupid things, and not represent the will of the voters. You are introducing human error where there need not be any.

 

I have other reasons too, but there is a sampling for you to chew on.

 

a lot of valid points, but i'm curious about what i mentioned before. If only the urban centers matter, won't 1) the rural areas and small states become disenfranchised and 2) won't democrats always win?

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

To a certain extent, this...

 

 

 

But also, the nation has changed, as has technology. Here are my basic reasons, if you really want to know...

 

1. Look at the history. The Electoral College was put in place for three primary reasons. One, a national popular vote was much more expensive and difficult to accomplish at that time. Two, the framers didn't trust the electorate to make good decisions (this may still hold true, but modern society now gives them the ammo they need to make good ones if they are informed). And three, they wanted buy-in from the smaller states to form the union. Of those three factors, none are really relevant today, except to a degree the representation of smaller states.

 

2. The Presidency is not, and cannot be, representative in the same sense as a legislature. It is one person. One person to represent the nation as its chief executive. Arguments about small or large states, urban or rural, black or white... are irrelevant because there cannot be a breakdown. Therefore, the only logical way to derive the will of the people for a single office, is a single vote. Unless that is, you want to go the other way, and have Congress choose a President, and take the vote of the people away entirely.

 

3. The interests of those dynamics I mentioned earlier, geographically and otherwise, and represented in the Legislature, as was the design. You have a population-based body, and a state-based body, in a bicameral legislature, and that is a great system for doing just that. SCOTUS and the Executive branch were never intended to be filled by the wishes of land area, or of smaller levels of government.

 

4. The electoral college is statistically problematic because of the nature of 535 - rounding and grouping must occur, in some biased fashion. No need for that intrusion with a popular vote.

 

5. The electoral college leaves wiggle room for electors to do stupid things, and not represent the will of the voters. You are introducing human error where there need not be any.

 

I have other reasons too, but there is a sampling for you to chew on.

I'll add to this... where people live has dramatically change din the last 150 years. Now 80% of the population live in urban areas... There's a lot of "red" counties in the country, but a LOT of the them are in the great plains where there is an extremely small population density. I heard people saying "look at all this red" and i kept thinking... "No one lives there"

Edited November 7, 2012 by Athomeboy_2000