SK790 wrote:This article on how Nate Silver is in the tank for Obama and how he sounds like an effeminate man made me laugh:

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far ... b_articles

Also makes fun of him for being small in stature. The article's author provided a picture of himself, perhaps for comparison's sake

what's ed wade laughing about

Always knew Wade was a ginger

Decided I'm totally okay with a scenario in which Obama wins while losing the popular vote. It's similar to how I was fine with him winning the nomination over Hillary in 2008 despite her possibly having received the support of more individual Democrats (in addition obviously to preferring Obama in both contests, I mean). Their campaign maximizes resources to win within the clear rules of the contest.

In early 2008, they organized the hell out of the winner take all caucus states, built a big early lead among delegates, and hung on when Clinton crushed him in large primary states with proportional allocation of delegates. Then when he had to win primaries like that--the two Carolinas, one early and one late--he sometimes did.

Same deal here. In big blue state after big blue state, his margins will be much smaller--CA, NY, MA--but he'll still win. This is in part because disaffected or lazy Dems, knowing the outcome in advance, will stay home. (True also of Rs in large safe R states, but there just aren't that many big ones other than Texas. If Obama goes from losing Oklahoma by 30 points to losing it by 24 points, that isn't a big number of voters.)

Knowing this, and knowing that 270 EVs, not 50.1 percent, is what matters, they've thrown everything into that small number of states. It's unknowable, but I suspect that if we had popular vote as the determinant, those margins in the blue states would be emphasized and the numbers would look different. It can and would be plausibly argued that millions of non-voters will have favored the president.

It's really a case of don't hate the player, hate the game. Of course hating the player is pretty much the defining trait of the R base, but still.

Secondarily, I think even if Romney does get more votes, it'll be closer in size to Gore's plurality in 2000 than Bush's majority in 2004. (There's also that liberal upset with the 2000 outcome, at least this liberal's, is less about Gore's popular vote win than my belief that the Bushies stole Florida.) Whatever happened in Ohio in '04, W. led nationally by 2.5 million votes. Yet he would have lost the election had 50k flipped in Ohio. This would have made for a huge legitimacy problem I think because of the scale of Bush's popular vote win that year. Not that the Rs even fully accepted Obama's legitimacy when he won big last time...

swishnicholson wrote:The New Yorker provides what is , to my mind, a balanced and thoughtful argument for the reelection of Obama, that almost entirely echoes my sentiments. This makes me guilty of the laziest type of groupthink, I'm sure, but hey, if it saves me the time and effort of having to articulate my thoughts in my own way I'm all for it.

swish got me or ignore

or more likely, doesn't read through every shitty page of this thread.

kidding aside, i liked it a lot, too, swish

dajafi wrote:Decided I'm totally okay with a scenario in which Obama wins while losing the popular vote. It's similar to how I was fine with him winning the nomination over Hillary in 2008 despite her possibly having received the support of more individual Democrats (in addition obviously to preferring Obama in both contests, I mean). Their campaign maximizes resources to win within the clear rules of the contest.

In early 2008, they organized the hell out of the winner take all caucus states, built a big early lead among delegates, and hung on when Clinton crushed him in large primary states with proportional allocation of delegates. Then when he had to win primaries like that--the two Carolinas, one early and one late--he sometimes did.

Same deal here. In big blue state after big blue state, his margins will be much smaller--CA, NY, MA--but he'll still win. This is in part because disaffected or lazy Dems, knowing the outcome in advance, will stay home. (True also of Rs in large safe R states, but there just aren't that many big ones other than Texas. If Obama goes from losing Oklahoma by 30 points to losing it by 24 points, that isn't a big number of voters.)

Knowing this, and knowing that 270 EVs, not 50.1 percent, is what matters, they've thrown everything into that small number of states. It's unknowable, but I suspect that if we had popular vote as the determinant, those margins in the blue states would be emphasized and the numbers would look different. It can and would be plausibly argued that millions of non-voters will have favored the president.

It's really a case of don't hate the player, hate the game. Of course hating the player is pretty much the defining trait of the R base, but still.

Secondarily, I think even if Romney does get more votes, it'll be closer in size to Gore's plurality in 2000 than Bush's majority in 2004. (There's also that liberal upset with the 2000 outcome, at least this liberal's, is less about Gore's popular vote win than my belief that the Bushies stole Florida.) Whatever happened in Ohio in '04, W. led nationally by 2.5 million votes. Yet he would have lost the election had 50k flipped in Ohio. This would have made for a huge legitimacy problem I think because of the scale of Bush's popular vote win that year. Not that the Rs even fully accepted Obama's legitimacy when he won big last time...

sucks for the down ballot candidates

td11 wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:The New Yorker provides what is , to my mind, a balanced and thoughtful argument for the reelection of Obama, that almost entirely echoes my sentiments. This makes me guilty of the laziest type of groupthink, I'm sure, but hey, if it saves me the time and effort of having to articulate my thoughts in my own way I'm all for it.

swish got me or ignore

or more likely, doesn't read through every shitty page of this thread.

kidding aside, i liked it a lot, too, swish

Sorry, td, I definitely don't have you on ignore, and I meant to check more thoroughly if it had been posted. Like a bowl full of candy corn, the politics thread is something I can't help dipping into from time to time, and sometimes find something nice and sweet, sometimes even those pumpkins that provide something really good and chewy to bite into.

But I almost always leave with regret, the feeling I've lingered too long and a bad taste in my mouth.

My last post was nearly Baumanesque.

Literally.

Obama almost 75% now on 538

Obama has Nevada.

Unless things really slide toward Romney, I think 296-242 is something of a ceiling in the Electoral College for Mitt. Feeling better than ever about him winning though.

pacino wrote:jerseyhoya has a website and it figured out the election:

I'm following this guy on Twitter for the sole purpose of trolling the shit out of him in 2 weeks.

SK790 wrote:This article on how Nate Silver is in the tank for Obama and how he sounds like an effeminate man made me laugh:

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far ... b_articles

I like said free paper as a counter balance, but it is Fox New print, so toss this out with all other propaganda.

Two of my neighbors have political signs on their lawns to keep people from knocking!!! LOLOLOL

Philly the Kid wrote:

pacino wrote:sooooo, his and your solution is to not vote for obama? the supreme court will change this country for years to come if we don't.

also, franken was not seated during his first 100 days

I said, it's a complex topic. Of course I don't want Romney in there. But the truth is, that in the majority of instances, policies of Obama are horrendous. I don't think he'll put an Alito Thomas or Roberts on the bench, but he isn't appointing any true liberals and persons of deep conviction either.

So much damage has been done.

I can entertain two thoughts at the same time

1) Obama stinks and his policies stink - he's another militaristic corporate president bought and owned

2) Romney is worse

3) I don't want Romney in there

4) I'd like to envision a strategy to get out of this cycle so that a 3rd party could become viable or viable enough to put pressure on the Dems to stand for something even near what I believe

5) Obama wasted the support he had. He could have made moves and been supported popularly. Instead, he pandered to corp, and military. The rhetoric is bs.

Do what you can to encourage more people to vote in swing states. If most people voted Dems would win a ton more national elections. Then the narrative could be a little more interesting and we could more easily ignore Republican slug narratives.

jerseyhoya wrote:Unless things really slide toward Romney, I think 296-242 is something of a ceiling in the Electoral College for Mitt. Feeling better than ever about him winning though.

Seriously?