News Obama Reelected: Republicans Feel the Schadenfreude

[BobG]

I doubt it was a referendum against Republican ideology any more than the 2010 Congressional elections were a rejection of Democratic party ideology.

The Romney campaign was a referendum against Republican ideology. Romney started to close the gap after the first debate and it's easy to say the performance of the two candidates were the reason, but the first debate was when Romney tossed the right-wingers under the bus and started playing the moderate Republican.

Some can say it was cynical to change ideologies in the middle of the campaign, but it did give him a fighting chance towards the end.

I'm surprised all three - Colorado, Virginia, and Florida - broke for Obama, but those states were still essentially 50/50 states that could have broken either way. And he at least kept Ohio somewhat in doubt. Romney didn't come up all that short compared to where he was before the conventions.

 

[Jack21222]

I'm surprised all three - Colorado, Virginia, and Florida - broke for Obama, but those states were still essentially 50/50 states that could have broken either way. And he at least kept Ohio somewhat in doubt. Romney didn't come up all that short compared to where he was before the conventions.

Nate Silver says Colorado and Virginia were not 50/50 states, but were 80/20 states. And Ohio was 90/10 for Obama in his simulations.

 

[BobG]

If the commentators are saying that, they're being disingenuous, particularly about immigration. Republicans are not anti-immigration, they are anti-illegal immigration.

The children of today's illegal immigrants are tomorrow's legal US citizens.

I don't know how many legal US citizens are 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation descendants of illegal immigrants, and that doesn't even mean they'd be sympathetic towards illegal immigrants today. People are selfish. Once here, they belong here, and they become more interested in protecting what they have than sharing it with people that come later, so you do have a point. But I'd guess there's still more sympathy for illegal immigrants among the latino population than other groups.

More importantly, the rhetoric creates an atmosphere where having a hispanic name makes a person feel like a target whenever they walk down the street. The subtleties of "illegal immigrant" vs "person of Mexican descent" gets lost. In fact, it creates a feeling that an increase in the latino population is the main reason for the rhetoric about illegal immigration.

 

[russ_watters]

I do agree that Democrats have been successful at selling that rhetoric - with, apparently, help from certain commentators.

 

[Angry Citizen]

I doubt it was a referendum against Republican ideology any more than the 2010 Congressional elections were a rejection of Democratic party ideology.

It was, actually - a rejection of the health care law. And in this awful political environment, we not only reelected the President by a landslide, we had a net gain of at least one, perhaps two seats in the Senate. Would've been three if Shelly Berkeley had been a competent candidate. Point being, this was your election to lose, and you lost it. If it were just Romney's fault, you wouldn't have lost the races in the Senate that were absolutely yours to win. I mean seriously - Heidi Heitkamp, who was polling 4% under Berg, is the new Senator from North Dakota. That should tell you something.

 

[turbo]

Obama's hand is strengthened by the election of Angus King to replace Olympia Snowe in the senate. King is a centrist, who will most likely caucus with the Dems. Obama has to deal with a right-wing supreme court, and a right-wing house, but things could have been much worse for him.

 

[Jack21222]

I find it interesting that Mitt Romney had not prepared a concession speech beforehand, and had to write one (or have one written) after it became clear he had lost. Was he really that arrogant that he refused to entertain any possibility that he'd lose?

 

[dlgoff]

Was he really that arrogant ...

No. IMO, that clueless.

 

[russ_watters]

It was, actually - a rejection of the health care law. And in this awful political environment, we not only reelected the President by a landslide, we had a net gain of at least one, perhaps two seats in the Senate. Would've been three if Shelly Berkeley had been a competent candidate. Point being, this was your election to lose, and you lost it. If it were just Romney's fault, you wouldn't have lost the races in the Senate that were absolutely yours to win. I mean seriously - Heidi Heitkamp, who was polling 4% under Berg, is the new Senator from North Dakota. That should tell you something.

What is your definition of "landslide"? Have any prominent/mainstream commentators used that word here?

 

[Angry Citizen]

Obama's hand is strengthened by the election of Angus King to replace Olympia Snowe in the senate. King is a centrist, who will most likely caucus with the Dems. Obama has to deal with a right-wing supreme court, and a right-wing house, but things could have been much worse for him.

By all accounts, the current landscape in the House is 235/200, +/- 2. Expect the House to become much less partisan, methinks. All it takes is 18 in such a House to put the Democrats into "minority-majority" status.

 

[Angry Citizen]

What is your definition of "landslide"? Have any prominent/mainstream commentators used that word here?

My definition of landslide is losing only two states from the 2008 landslide, one of which was by less than two points.

 

[Jack21222]

What is your definition of "landslide"? Have any prominent/mainstream commentators used that word here?

I'm a prominent commentator on this forum, and I'd say winning by 130 electoral votes is a landslide.

What's your definition of prominent?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm a prominent commentator on this forum, and I'd say winning by 130 electoral votes is a landslide.

What's your definition of prominent?

By "here", I meant in this case, not on PF.

 

[russ_watters]

My definition of landslide is losing only two states from the 2008 landslide, one of which was by less than two points.

So... None, then?

 

[arildno]

Landslide??
Try Johnson '64, Nixon '72, Reagan 80+84 to use THAT word...

 

[Angry Citizen]

So... None, then?

As far as I'm aware, no source is required to use a nonscientific term like "landslide". Clearly, in this landscape, winning nearly every single swing state and beating your opponent by over 100 electoral votes is, indeed, a landslide by any reasonable use of the term. But still, I would cite your desired source, but I've read only two articles so far this morning. I'll keep an eye out to see whether my "claim" is "justified" by the pundit brigade.

I'm sorry your candidate lost, and that it wasn't even close, but you should really avoid disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing.

 

[Jack21222]

By "here", I meant in this case, not on PF.

I know, the comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I don't particularly care what people you consider "prominent" call the election. This was not a close election. The final score appears to be 332-206. You can call it a "strong win" for Obama if you'd like. A "decisive victory." To me, those are synonymous to "landslide."

 

[arildno]

I know, the comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I don't particularly care what people you consider "prominent" call the election. This was not a close election. The final score appears to be 332-206. You can call it a "strong win" for Obama if you'd like. A "decisive victory." To me, those are synonymous to "landslide."

Well, Nate Silver's formulation "not a big win, but a broad one" seems more apt.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/live-blog-the-2012-presidential-election/

He has a very intelligent definition of "landslide", namely that it refers to the popular vote, and you need a double digit margin in the popular vote in order to speak about "landslides".

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

One area where liberal and conservative fair-weather friends agree on is Canada. It's the number one destination to threaten us with their moving to.
Yahoo News
I'd help pack their bags, but you and I both know they aren't going anywhere. "What, give up all the benefits I take advantage of here? Never!" I think the reason people say they're leaving is in order to convince other, more honest, people to do it. I'm disappointed that Romney lost, but I'll be staying in the US just the same.

 

[Angry Citizen]

One area where liberal and conservative fair-weather friends agree on is Canada. It's the number one destination to threaten us with their moving to.
Yahoo News
I'd help pack their bags, but you and I both know they aren't going anywhere. "What, give up all the benefits I take advantage of here? Never!" I think the reason people say they're leaving is in order to convince other, more honest, people to do it. I'm disappointed that Romney lost, but I'll be staying in the US just the same.

The conservatives are threatening to escape US liberalism by moving to a country with socialized medicine. Smart.

 

[OmCheeto]

... but you and I both know they aren't going anywhere. ...

Unless of course, there's an added incentive

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/23965_294694567307024_1974293322_n.jpg​

Gold and Guns and Ammo, oh MY!

(and Jimmy and I will help pack your bags)

 

[Jack21222]

Well, Nate Silver's formulation "not a big win, but a broad one" seems more apt.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/live-blog-the-2012-presidential-election/

He has a very intelligent definition of "landslide", namely that it refers to the popular vote, and you need a double digit margin in the popular vote in order to speak about "landslides".

Since it would be possible to win the popular vote by 20% and still lose the electoral college, I'd say that's a pretty dumb definition of landslide. I mean, what would you say? The loser won in a landslide?

Popular vote doesn't matter at all, only the votes of the electoral college.

 

[D H]

not only reelected the President by a landslide

Obama won by perhaps 2%. That does not constitute a landslide. Nobody is claiming this as a landslide election. With the exception of a razor thin popular vote, the electoral college tends to magnify the popular vote margin by a significant amount. An electoral landslide is 350 or more electoral votes.

That this slim 2% margin became a 23% margin is yet another sign that our Presidential election system is broken. Imagine if all of the safe red and blue states had joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. That slim 2% margin would have become an absolutely huge electoral margin -- and it would have been completely moot.

 

[arildno]

Since it would be possible to win the popular vote by 20% and still lose the electoral college, I'd say that's a pretty dumb definition of landslide. I mean, what would you say? The loser won in a landslide?

Popular vote doesn't matter at all, only the votes of the electoral college.

If you look at the general mood shift in the US, that was RIGHTWARD in this election.
That is why, for example, GOP retains, with a good margin, the majority in the HoR.

The electoral system of "winner-takes-it-all" at the local level allows small, broad, consistent edges that Obama had, to give a disproprtionate result.

Thus, the point is to localize the significant factors on the LOCAL plane, and that was that young voters in critical states voted predominantly for Obama, and that the Hispanic vote became particularly important.

New York Times, hardly a bastion for GOP, calls it a "narrow win":
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/07/us/politics/obamas-diverse-base-of-support.html

 

[Angry Citizen]

Obama won by perhaps 2%. That does not constitute a landslide. Nobody is claiming this as a landslide election. With the exception of a razor thin popular vote, the electoral college tends to magnify the popular vote margin by a significant amount. An electoral landslide is 350 or more electoral votes.

Under whose definition? Most of the reduction in Obama's PV count came from the south. Most of the margins in non-southern states were similar to the 2008 count.

 

[lisab]

I keep hearing Ann Coulter's prediction from 2 years ago in my head...

Ann Coulter's voice in your head? Sorry to hear it - I think there's good drugs for that.

 

[mheslep]

The republicans possibly put up the most inept challenger available in an election that was theirs to lose. Obama was perceived as the lesser of evils, not the great hope for the future. I'd have loved to seen a sincere and pragmatic fiscal conservative as an option, ...

Ok, such as?

 

[arildno]

Under whose definition? Most of the reduction in Obama's PV count came from the south. Most of the margins in non-southern states were similar to the 2008 count.

Incorrect, as to the relative trends.
The shift towards GOP was nationwide, as is well displayed in the NY Times article.

The Romney campaign had insufficient momentum, and failed to target the critical win-groups.

 

[Mentalist]

I do agree that Democrats have been successful at selling that rhetoric - with, apparently, help from certain commentators.

Fox news had its own brand of rhetoric that it was selling. Biased media wasn't the reason why Romney lost. The guy didn't have awesome plans. His plans were too old fashion, and the party turned off the majority of the country.

 

[Jack21222]

Obama won by perhaps 2%. That does not constitute a landslide. Nobody is claiming this as a landslide election. With the exception of a razor thin popular vote, the electoral college tends to magnify the popular vote margin by a significant amount. An electoral landslide is 350 or more electoral votes.

That this slim 2% margin became a 23% margin is yet another sign that our Presidential election system is broken. Imagine if all of the safe red and blue states had joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. That slim 2% margin would have become an absolutely huge electoral margin -- and it would have been completely moot.

I certainly am claiming this is a landslide election, and Obama will have won 50% more electoral votes than Romney (which is your 23 percentage points you mention). The popular vote doesn't matter whatsoever, so it's wrong to point at that and call it a close race. It wasn't close at all. Your arbitrary cutoff of 350 electoral votes for a landslide is just that; arbitrary. Obama was quite close to that number. If he had won 350 votes, you could easily be saying that 360 is the cutoff for a landslide.

Under the system we currently have (and not the system you wish we had), Obama won in a landslide. The electors in the electoral college will vote for Obama 332 - 206, or 62% - 38%. There is no way to spin that as close.