**2012 Election Day thread**

[Dick Allen]

I got a kick out of the post election coverage at least on msnbc. Before the election they were saying how close the race was and a nailbiter, then the minute the thing is over they say the Republicans will never win a presidential election again, the Republicans are a disgrace, blah blah blah.

Let me say this, if the Republicans have a better candidate for once or a more popular candidate, that person will win.

 

Or let's say the Democrats go with Hillary and people early on deem her a wretched b****. Well, the Republican candidate Rubio in that case will likely win and win big.

 

I just got a kick out of how all of a sudden the Republicans are a joke and will never win, when a day earlier, some were saying Romney might even win. It all changes in one day? Give me a break, Democratic pundits. The truth is, Obama was a very very very weak choice, in fact a joke of a choice. But the Republicans threw out there an even worse candidate somehow. And I am somebody who voted for Obama saying this. Yes I voted for Obama and still think he is a wretched president. It's just that Romney is way worse and I did want to vote.

As long as the economy is halfway decent, if Hillary is the next candidate, and Bill is still able to campaign for her, I think she will win easily. Bill Clinton is the biggest rockstar in politics. Without him, I don't think Obama wins.

[CrimsonWeltall]

EC votes are all proportional to the states' populations so they don't get more of a say.

 

They're proportional to their representatives, not their populations. Small states get a boost due to the 2 free Senators.

[LittleHurt05]

I got a kick out of the post election coverage at least on msnbc. Before the election they were saying how close the race was and a nailbiter, then the minute the thing is over they say the Republicans will never win a presidential election again, the Republicans are a disgrace, blah blah blah blah.

Let me say this, if the Republicans have a better candidate for once or a more popular candidate, that person will win.

 

That's how the majority of Soxtalk sounded during the 2012 season.

[bmags]

They're proportional to their representatives, not their populations. Small states get a boost due to the 2 free Senators.

 

Which are now capped.

[Jenksismyhero]

No they do.

 

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepolitical...es-By-State.htm

 

Wyoming 3 electoral votes, population 565,000 = 1 electoral vote for every 188k people.

 

NY 29 electoral votes, population 19.3 mil = 1 electoral vote for every 665k people.

 

In order for NY to be as represented as Wyoming they would need to have 102 electoral votes.

 

Well you could change the EC votes. I have no idea how they determine that.

[greg775]

As long as the economy is halfway decent, if Hillary is the next candidate, and Bill is still able to campaign for her, I think she will win easily. Bill Clinton is the biggest rockstar in politics. Without him, I don't think Obama wins.

 

Yes, but we don't know how Hillary is going to act as the candidate. If she is Miss Prissy b**** as she's appeared to be in the past, I say she loses. In fact she could lose in a landslide. Remember, there are still intangibles in elections. Many voters still go by how a person looks on TV. If Hillary looks like an old hag and speaks words of b****iness and Rubio is up there all handsome and all that, he'll win in a landslide. I don't think you can give it to Hillary just because of Bill.

Remember, women voted big time for Obama; men chose Romney.

Women may not vote for Hillary just because she will be the first female president. And we know a lot of men will not vote for her just because she is a woman.

The intangibles still leave a lot of unknowns ... mainly the Hillary/b**** factor on a long campaign trail.

[StrangeSox]

EC votes are all proportional to the states' populations so they don't get more of a say.

 

They're whole numbers, so they get rounded, and the smaller states actually do get over-represented per capita. They get more representation in the Senate, they get an edge in the House (on a rep per capita basis) and they get an edge in the Presidency for the same reason.

 

This is 2004 but the pattern holds:

 

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/pre_2004_...otes-per-capita

 

Texas gets 0.149 EC's per 100,000 people while Wyoming gets 0.589.

[StrangeSox]

I can understand people wanting to get rid of the EC. But, how can anyone argue that going to popular vote someone in a state like North Dakota would be worth more. The EC benefits the smaller states and gives them more of a say than their population does. I don't think the EC is perfect but popular vote isn't the answer be open to hearing other ideas to replace it.

 

The only question I care about answering in the one national race we have is "how do we make sure every person's vote counts exactly equally?"

[Jenksismyhero]

I got a kick out of the post election coverage at least on msnbc. Before the election they were saying how close the race was and a nailbiter, then the minute the thing is over they say the Republicans will never win a presidential election again, the Republicans are a disgrace, blah blah blah blah.

Let me say this, if the Republicans have a better candidate for once or a more popular candidate, that person will win.

 

Or let's say the Democrats go with Hillary and people early on deem her a wretched b****. Well, the Republican candidate Rubio in that case will likely win and win big.

 

I just got a kick out of how all of a sudden the Republicans are a joke and will never win, when a day earlier, some were saying Romney might even win. It all changes in one day? Give me a break, Democratic pundits. The truth is, Obama was a very very very weak choice, in fact a joke of a choice. But the Republicans threw out there an even worse candidate somehow. And I am somebody who voted for Obama saying this. Yes I voted for Obama and still think he is a wretched president. It's just that Romney is way worse and I did want to vote.

 

All that s*** about Romney was to get viewers. Flipping between basically all of the networks last night, until about 9am you could tell they were just bulls***ting, trying to make it sound like it was going to be a tight race.

[Reddy]

Yes, but we don't know how Hillary is going to act as the candidate. If she is Miss Prissy b**** as she's appeared to be in the past, I say she loses. In fact she could lose in a landslide. Remember, there are still intangibles in elections. Many voters still go by how a person looks on TV. If Hillary looks like an old hag and speaks words of b****iness and Rubio is up there all handsome and all that, he'll win in a landslide. I don't think you can give it to Hillary just because of Bill.

Remember, women voted big time for Obama; men chose Romney.

Women may not vote for Hillary just because she will be the first female president. And we know a lot of men will not vote for her just because she is a woman.

The intangibles still leave a lot of unknowns ... mainly the Hillary/b**** factor on a long campaign trail.

 

you're not horribly sexist at all!

[StrangeSox]

Agreed. They can come to more reasonable positions on those social issues - be fine with civil unions if not marriage, don't overturn Roe v. Wade but still fight for further restrictions (24 hour waiting period or something), immigration reform that doesn't deport everyone (oh wait, no one is advocating for that), etc.

 

that isn't why the GOP lost the Latino vote in such huge numbers. It's the laundry list of things they have actually said and done as well as their lack of any real plan to do anything about immigration or for immigrants.

[StrangeSox]

All that s*** about Romney was to get viewers. Flipping between basically all of the networks last night, until about 9am you could tell they were just bulls***ting, trying to make it sound like it was going to be a tight race.

^^^this is why the pundits hate Nate Silver et. al.

[Reddy]

I got a kick out of the post election coverage at least on msnbc. Before the election they were saying how close the race was and a nailbiter, then the minute the thing is over they say the Republicans will never win a presidential election again, the Republicans are a disgrace, blah blah blah blah.

Let me say this, if the Republicans have a better candidate for once or a more popular candidate, that person will win.

 

Or let's say the Democrats go with Hillary and people early on deem her a wretched b****. Well, the Republican candidate Rubio in that case will likely win and win big.

 

I just got a kick out of how all of a sudden the Republicans are a joke and will never win, when a day earlier, some were saying Romney might even win. It all changes in one day? Give me a break, Democratic pundits. The truth is, Obama was a very very very weak choice, in fact a joke of a choice. But the Republicans threw out there an even worse candidate somehow. And I am somebody who voted for Obama saying this. Yes I voted for Obama and still think he is a wretched president. It's just that Romney is way worse and I did want to vote.

 

you're silly.

 

why do you think Obama's been "wretched"? and then why did you vote for him?

 

[greg775]

All that s*** about Romney was to get viewers. Flipping between basically all of the networks last night, until about 9am you could tell they were just bulls***ting, trying to make it sound like it was going to be a tight race.

I wondered about that. Whitlock called them on it and said they were lieing to America that the race never was close.

 

you're not horribly sexist at all!

Reddy. You know that since the days of Nixon when he sweated on TV, people have been voting how people look. No ugly person stands a chance. As far as my voting patterns, please don't call me sexist. I am a lifelong Republican and I voted for Obama. Why? I thought he was the better of two horrific candidates. Please ... I will vote for whomever I think is best. Trust me. I was an undecided until I went in the booth. I just couldn't vote for Romney whom I consider to be a clown.

I'm just saying ALOT of people vote on looks, etc. It's been discussed for decades; how candidates look on TV. And hillary can come across as a huge b****. I prolly shouldn't have said old hag.

[Jenksismyhero]

^^^this is why the pundits hate Nate Silver et. al.

 

Meant 9 Pm, obviously.

[Soxbadger]

Well you could change the EC votes. I have no idea how they determine that.

 

Its because the electoral college is a bastardized system that's only purpose is to ensure that an establishment candidate wins. Its also the same problem that occurs in the House of Reps (at least the argument is that thousands of reps are unwieldy.) But the main argument against the EC is that it disenfranchises most Americans at the expense of a very few states (I havent done the math in a while but the greatest extremes are between small states and big states) where a person in a small state has almost 5x as much impact as a person in a big state.

 

I just dont see how that is fair at all, which is why I want a 1 to 1 vote.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

that isn't why the GOP lost the Latino vote in such huge numbers. It's the laundry list of things they have actually said and done as well as their lack of any real plan to do anything about immigration or for immigrants.

 

Is this one of your classic "one example means the whole party" situations? Cuz I know since Murdoch thinks rape is God's plan, so does the entire GOP!

[NorthSideSox72]

Is this one of your classic "one example means the whole party" situations? Cuz I know since Murdoch thinks rape is God's plan, so does the entire GOP!

Well, let's be honest, the GOP lost a chance to gain Senate control almost entirely because of a handful of Tea Party right wingers made outlandish and offensive comments about women. So no, not all Republicans in the electorate are like that, at all. But the Senate candidates in the key races were that way, in many cases.

 

[MexSoxFan#1]

Yes, but we don't know how Hillary is going to act as the candidate. If she is Miss Prissy b**** as she's appeared to be in the past, I say she loses. In fact she could lose in a landslide. Remember, there are still intangibles in elections. Many voters still go by how a person looks on TV. If Hillary looks like an old hag and speaks words of b****iness and Rubio is up there all handsome and all that, he'll win in a landslide. I don't think you can give it to Hillary just because of Bill.

Remember, women voted big time for Obama; men chose Romney.

Women may not vote for Hillary just because she will be the first female president. And we know a lot of men will not vote for her just because she is a woman.

The intangibles still leave a lot of unknowns ... mainly the Hillary/b**** factor on a long campaign trail.

 

We'll see if Obama's coalition can hold, lot's of pundits didn't think he could replicate 2008. Obama's numbers went down because he lost working class white men and more Republicans turned out this time but if his coalition is a solid Democratic one, the GOP is in real trouble. They need to be more inclusive, old white guys won't win you elections anymore.

 

If the economy is humming along in 2016, no one is beating Hilary.

[Reddy]

I wondered about that. Whitlock called them on it and said they were lieing to America that the race never was close.

 

 

Reddy. You know that since the days of Nixon when he sweated on TV, people have been voting how people look. No ugly person stands a chance. As far as my voting patterns, please don't call me sexist. I am a lifelong Republican and I voted for Obama. Why? I thought he was the better of two horrific candidates. Please ... I will vote for whomever I think is best. Trust me. I was an undecided until I went in the booth. I just couldn't vote for Romney whom I consider to be a clown.

I'm just saying ALOT of people vote on looks, etc. It's been discussed for decades; how candidates look on TV. And hillary can come across as a huge b****. I prolly shouldn't have said old hag.

 

it's hard for me to believe you have any idea what you're talking about when you had to ask why you should vote for one candidate or the other the day before the election. you don't know about how and why people vote. Who was the good looking one between Gore and Bush? Listen dude, we just voted a black guy into office twice, and more women are now in political office than ever before. we elected a lesbian senator in Wisconsin. Times be a changin'

 

and you only think she's a b**** because you're a man.

[NorthSideSox72]

If the economy is humming along in 2016, no one is beating Hilary.

This, by the way, is something probably very upsetting to the GOP looking forward. Not only all the problems they will have that will worsen in terms of the makeup of the electorate... but I am sure they know that, no matter who was elected President, there is a very good chance the economy will get stronger at some point in the next few years. And with a Dem in the White House, that could spell big trouble for the GOP in 2014 Midterms and the 2016 General. Not to mention the GOP is defending a lot more Senate seats in 2014 than they were this year.

 

The only thing that kept this from being a complete disaster, was that they happened to control most state legislatures in 2010-2012 when redistricting was occurring, which is why the House makeup stayed static. If not for that, they may have lost the house too.

 

[StrangeSox]

Is this one of your classic "one example means the whole party" situations? Cuz I know since Murdoch thinks rape is God's plan, so does the entire GOP!

Sb1070, rejection of the dream act, no real plan supported by the party, demonization of "illegals," self-deportation and "language of the ghetto" being said by main candidates and not being roundly condemned, English-only initiatives, harsh Georgia laws.

 

So no, not just one person. A good bit of the party and the rest letting it happen.

[StrangeSox]

This, by the way, is something probably very upsetting to the GOP looking forward. Not only all the problems they will have that will worsen in terms of the makeup of the electorate... but I am sure they know that, no matter who was elected President, there is a very good chance the economy will get stronger at some point in the next few years. And with a Dem in the White House, that could spell big trouble for the GOP in 2014 Midterms and the 2016 General. Not to mention the GOP is defending a lot more Senate seats in 2014 than they were this year.

 

The only thing that kept this from being a complete disaster, was that they happened to control most state legislatures in 2010-2012 when redistricting was occurring, which is why the House makeup stayed static. If not for that, they may have lost the house too.

That's exactly why going district-by district for the ec only makes things worse. A majority of Pennsylvanians voted democratic for house, but the make up is something like 16-5 republicans.

 

Edit: this is also why state races are really important!

Edited November 7, 2012 by StrangeSox

[mr_genius]

This, by the way, is something probably very upsetting to the GOP looking forward. Not only all the problems they will have that will worsen in terms of the makeup of the electorate... but I am sure they know that, no matter who was elected President, there is a very good chance the economy will get stronger at some point in the next few years. And with a Dem in the White House, that could spell big trouble for the GOP in 2014 Midterms and the 2016 General. Not to mention the GOP is defending a lot more Senate seats in 2014 than they were this year.

 

The only thing that kept this from being a complete disaster, was that they happened to control most state legislatures in 2010-2012 when redistricting was occurring, which is why the House makeup stayed static. If not for that, they may have lost the house too.

 

unlikely. after Clinton won his second term it was supposed to be 30 years of Democrats controlling the house, senate, and oval office. didn't work out that way. if the GOP plays it right, they can win again.

Edited November 8, 2012 by mr_genius

[Reddy]

unlikely. after Clinton won his second term it was supposed to be 30 years of Democrats controlling the house, senate, and oval office. didn't work out that way. if the GOP plays it right, they can win again.

the economy went from good to good. right now, it's going to go from crap to better. there's a huge difference there.