News Obama Reelected: Republicans Feel the Schadenfreude

[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.

 

[MacLaddy]

Ok, such as?

Jon Huntsman, Jr.

The Republican Party made a foolish choice by not giving him more prominence. He is a bit moderate, but I would have voted for him over Obama. I'm looking to hear more from him heading towards 2016.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr.

 

[Mentalist]

303 to 206 EV is not a landslide?

@MacLady: The party was foolish throughout this campaign. Like most commentators have said, they need to change their party platform and disown their pandering to the fringe sect of their party. 2016 won't be the year for them either if they keep this up due to demographics changing.

 

[Jack21222]

303 to 206 EV is not a landslide?

Florida is almost certainly going to Obama, making it 332-206.

If Romney somehow wins Florida, I'll agree that it wasn't a landslide.

 

[Angry Citizen]

303 to 206 EV is not a landslide?

@MacLady: The party was foolish throughout this campaign. Like most commentators have said, they need to change their party platform and disown their pandering to the fringe sect of their party. 2016 won't be the year for them either if they keep this up due to demographics changing.

I wouldn't characterize that as a landslide. What makes it a landslide is Florida, giving Obama 332.

 

[arildno]

303 to 206 EV is not a landslide?
.

Since the country as a whole went from a 7.2 percentage lead for Obama down to a 2 percentage lead, 2008 can be roughly regarded as a landslide for Obama. 2012 was not, by any rational standard.

 

[Gokul43201]

If you look at the general mood shift in the US, that was RIGHTWARD in this election.

And this is why virtually every Republican commentator on the TV this morning is talking about what they desperately need to do for their party to survive?

A Dem president wins fairly comfortably with nearly 8% unemployment. Republicans lose 2 seats in the Senate and will likely lose somewhere near 4-9 seats in the House (there's still about a dozen results that aren't in yet, so that's my estimate; so far they have lost at least 2 seats). Same-sex ballot measures win in all states that they were proposed, and more states legalize marijuana use.

How is this a RIGHTWARD shift?

 

[arildno]

And this is why virtually every Republican commentator on the TV this morning is talking about what they desperately need to do for their party to survive?

A Dem president wins fairly comfortably with nearly 8% unemployment. Republicans lose 2 seats in the Senate and will likely lose somewhere near 4-9 seats in the House (there's still about a dozen results that aren't in yet, so that's my estimate; so far they have lost 2 seats).

How is this a RIGHTWARD shift?

Look at the NYTimes simulation.

Obama lost 33 EVs, and his percentage lead in the popular vote went down from 7.2 in 2008 to 2 in 2012.

I sure call that a rightward shift.

Please explain to me why it should NOT be counted as such.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Since the country as a whole went from a 7.2 percentage lead for Obama down to a 2 percentage lead, 2008 can be roughly regarded as a landslide for Obama. 2012 was not, by any rational standard.

*shrug* The Angry White Male crowd was out in force. It wasn't enough. It was a landslide against them. They lost seats in both the Senate and the House. Maybe we should go off the popular vote more, but the fact remains, it's the electoral college that counts, not the politically-moderate-versus-the-fired-up-old-confederacy.

 

[arildno]

*shrug* The Angry White Male crowd was out in force. It wasn't enough. It was a landslide against them. They lost seats in both the Senate and the House. Maybe we should go off the popular vote more, but the fact remains, it's the electoral college that counts, not the politically-moderate-versus-the-fired-up-old-confederacy.

Well, intelligent and knowledgeable liberals like Nate Silver and the folks at NYTimes have a different view from you.

The point is that this was an election where, basically, the critical voter group deciding the EV outcome is in the low hundreds of thousands.
This is a typical result in "winner-takes-it-all"-systems.

 

[russ_watters]

There are different ways to spin the economy, but the Presidential election results are just statistcs and those statistics moved away from Obama since four years ago.

If you want to talk about Congress... Sure, it moved a touch to the left since two years ago.

Funny though how a smaller win for Obama was a"landslide", but a smaller win for Republicans in the house is a loss .

I think when you look at both together though it has to look like a split decision.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Maybe we should go off the popular vote more...

I would never trust the American people to have such full say in making the correct decision on who should be president. A good percentage of the people in this country know zilch about their own government let alone have a systematic way of deciding which president would benefit the country more. They just choose the candidate who more decorates them with lies of prosperity.

 

[arildno]

There are different ways to spin the economy, but the Presidential election results are just statistcs and those statistics moved away from Obama since four years ago.

If you want to talk about Congress... Sure, it moved a touch to the left since two years ago.

I think when you look at both together though it has to look like a split decision.

Probably, this is the last election GOP tries to mobilize primarily WASPS, ignoring the rest; I expect some massive "minority"-flirtation will be the issue in 2016.
Unless GOP wants to lose again, that is. The US is becoming a different country, and GOP hasn't realized that.

 

[Gokul43201]

Obama lost 33 EVs, and his percentage lead in the popular vote went down from 7.2 in 2008 to 2 in 2012.

I sure call that a rightward shift.

Please explain to me why it should NOT be counted as such.

First of all, you are comparing with the political mood 4 years ago, when we have plenty of data from mid-term elections 2 years ago that you've left out.

Secondly, Obama won an easy landslide in 2008 because the incumbent (Republican) party had just presided over the worst economic and financial disaster since the Great Depression, and they had just picked a dimwit for their VP. It is meaningless to make a direct comparison with 2008 numbers when conditions have so drastically changed from extremely favorable for Democrat challenger to very favorable to Republican challenger.

 

[arildno]

No, it is not meaningless to compare 2008 to 2012.

As of the moment, the Republicans losing the grand total 2 out of 435 in HoR (or something in that order of magnitude) cannot be regarded as a "landslide" victory for Obama that, either.

But, it certainly nuances the picture.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Well, intelligent and knowledgeable liberals like Nate Silver and the folks at NYTimes have a different view from you.

The point is that this was an election where, basically, the critical voter group deciding the EV outcome is in the low hundreds of thousands.
This is a typical result in "winner-takes-it-all"-systems.

That depends on how you interpret "broad". I'd say "broad" is an appeal from the majority of demographic groups to please, please fight against the Angry White Religious Male crowd that tightened up the vote so considerably. Obama won huge margins with Hispanics, Blacks, young voters, and women - all the folks who are traditionally marginalized in American society. That should tell you something.

 

[Angry Citizen]

There are different ways to spin the economy, but the Presidential election results are just statistcs and those statistics moved away from Obama since four years ago.

If you want to talk about Congress... Sure, it moved a touch to the left since two years ago.

Funny though how a smaller win for Obama was a"landslide", but a smaller win for Republicans in the house is a loss .

I think when you look at both together though it has to look like a split decision.

Regarding the House, it's clear that they benefited greatly from gerrymandering. But Obama's victory was a landslide, and since the Senate looks like a 56/44 split, I'd say that yes, being four seats away from a filibuster-proof majority after an election that most folks a year ago didn't even expect you to survive is a landslide for the Senate.

The House is a win for the Republicans - no doubt about it. Back in September, I expected it to be much narrower than it turned out to be. But the fact is, certain prominent Tea Party House members got the crap kicked out of them. Even Bachmann only narrowly won reelection. That's a repudiation of the conservative swing the Republicans have taken of late. If anything, it's an appeal towards the moderate Republican base to retake its own party.

 

[Angry Citizen]

No, it is not meaningless to compare 2008 to 2012.

As of the moment, the Republicans losing the grand total 2 out of 435 in HoR (or something in that order of magnitude) cannot be regarded as a "landslide" victory for Obama that, either.

But, it certainly nuances the picture.

More like six. And there were some important seat flips. Allen West lost, for instance. Plus Joe Walsh.

 

[Gokul43201]

No, it is not meaningless to compare 2008 to 2012.

Assertion without justification.

As of the moment, the Republicans losing the grand total 2 out of 435 in HoR (or something in that order of magnitude) cannot be regarded as a "landslide" victory for Obama that, either.

Strawman. I didn't say anything about Obama winning a landslide in 2012. The argument is about whether or not this election reveals a RIGHTWARD shift in the political mood. Republicans losing seats in the House and Senate does not support the assertion of a RIGHTWARD shift.

 

[arildno]

That depends on how you interpret "broad". I'd say "broad" is an appeal from the majority of demographic groups to please, please fight against the Angry White Religious Male crowd that tightened up the vote so considerably. Obama won huge margins with Hispanics, Blacks, young voters, and women - all the folks who are traditionally marginalized in American society. That should tell you something.

And, still, that does not constitute a..landslide.
At least to intelligent, fact-centered liberals.
Nor should it be regarded as a death knell; at least for intelligent, fact-centered..conservatives.

 

[arildno]

Assertion without justification.

Strawman. I didn't say anything about Obama winning a landslide in 2012. The argument is about whether or not this election reveals a RIGHTWARD shift in the political mood. Republicans losing seats in the House and Senate does not support the assertion of a RIGHTWARD shift.

No, it is your first assertion that is entirely without justification.
There is a rightward shift, from 2008 to 2012, even though you hate do admit it and pretend it does not exist.
Nor is it a "strawman" to deny "landslide for Obama", considering the bleatings and ravings of some other commentators here at PF.

 

[Angry Citizen]

There is a rightward shift, from 2008 to 2012, even though you hate do admit it and pretend it does not exist.

But there is a huge, huge leftward shift from 2004 to 2012. What does this even mean..?

 

[Averagesupernova]

I have to laugh at the fact that four years ago the republicans #1 priority was to make O'Bama a one term president. They had four years to do it, and failed. Based on the little they got done in the meantime I'd have to say that they must have been putting all their effort on keeping him out. Still failed.

 

[arildno]

But there is a huge, huge leftward shift from 2004 to 2012. What does this even mean..?

That the present day constituency is far more on the Left side in 2012 than it was in 2004.
What else?
--
Again, this year's election is the 11th lowest winner's margin of the popular vote in the last 48 presidential elections, from 1824.
Still an Obamaslide?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

 

[russ_watters]

But there is a huge, huge leftward shift from 2004 to 2012. What does this even mean..?

Well, in keeping with your previous statements about the death of the Republican party, it probably means a complete Republican government in 4 years!

 

[Angry Citizen]

Well, in keeping with your previous statements about the death of the Republican party, it probably means a complete Republican government in 4 years!

*shrug* Time will tell. You've been on these boards long enough, and I'm probably not going away, so in a year or so we can hash out just how closely the new Republican Party resembles the one that just got its butt kicked.

 

[arildno]

*shrug* Time will tell. You've been on these boards long enough, and I'm probably not going away, so in a year or so we can hash out just how closely the new Republican Party resembles the one that just got its butt kicked.

How did it get its "butt kicked" by a roughly status quo from 2010 and a rightward shift from 2008.

The more correct view is that GOP is banging its HEAD in the ceiling, and needs to diversify its voter base.

 

[Angry Citizen]

That the present day constituency is far more on the Left side in 2012 than it was in 2004.
What else?
--
Again, this year's election is the 11th lowest winner's margin of the popular vote in the last 48 presidential elections, from 1824.
Still an Obamaslide?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

Yep. Because, y'know.. the popular vote doesn't really matter. It should, but it doesn't. Again, most of Obama's losses came from the South. Virginia wasn't even very close. Neither was Colorado, or Minnesota, or Michigan, or Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or any other swing or semi-swing state.

 

[Gokul43201]

No, it is your first assertion that is entirely without justification.
There is a rightward shift, from 2008 to 2012, even though you hate do admit it and pretend it does not exist.

Sure, feel free to make up your facts.

Nor is it a "strawman" to deny "landslide for Obama", considering the bleatings and ravings of some other commentators here at PF.

I thought you were responding to me in all of that post. But I guess you weren't responding to me in any part of it.

 

[arildno]

Yep. Because, y'know.. the popular vote doesn't really matter. It should, but it doesn't. Again, most of Obama's losses came from the South. Virginia wasn't even very close. Neither was Colorado, or Minnesota, or Michigan, or Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or any other swing or semi-swing state.

And again:
That Loony Lefties are bleating about an Obama landslide and Rabid Righties are wailing about a death knell is not very interesting.
Intelligent commentators, on both sides, calls this a narrow, but solid win for Obama.
Which it was.

 

[Angry Citizen]

How did it get its "butt kicked" by a roughly status quo from 2010 and a rightward shift from 2008.

Because this election should've been a landslide for you. It wasn't. You lost seats in both the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. The Reagan coalition is dead, and it's only going to get worse. Like I said in another thread, the Republicans are a dead party. The new Republican Party will be more moderate. You wait and see.

 

[Angry Citizen]

And again:
That Loony Lefties are bleating about an Obama landslide and Rabid Righties are wailing about a death knell is not very interesting.
Intelligent commentators, on both sides, calls this a narrow, but solid win for Obama.
Which it was.

"Intelligent" commentators are calling it a "broad" victory for Obama, per Nate Silver.

 

[arildno]

Sure, feel free to make up your facts.

No, you are the one denying the rightward shift from 2008 to 2012, by declaring it to be inadmissible evidence. It is not. It is a..fact.

 

[arildno]

"Intelligent" commentators are calling it a "broad" victory for Obama, per Nate Silver.

He says:
Not a BIG win, but a broad one.

 

[arildno]

Because this election should've been a landslide for you. It wasn't. You lost seats in both the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. The Reagan coalition is dead, and it's only going to get worse. Like I said in another thread, the Republicans are a dead party. The new Republican Party will be more moderate. You wait and see.

Are you getting personal here??
I'm not an American, nor would I have voted for Romney.

 

[Angry Citizen]

He says:
Not a BIG win, but a broad one.

Y'know man..

You can keep telling yourself this wasn't a huge loss for your party. I'm not going to stop you.

 

[micromass]

*shrug* Time will tell. You've been on these boards long enough, and I'm probably not going away, so in a year or so we can hash out just how closely the new Republican Party resembles the one that just got its butt kicked.

I'm very glad Obama won. Very glad. But I fail to see how "landslide" or "butt kicked" characterize these elections. In my opinion, Romney got very close to beating Obama, closer than he should have come. If the republicans elected a better candidate, then they probably would have won.

 

[Pythagorean]

301 to 201 is close?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Does this help?
History of popular vote margins
You can click on the Margin heading next to pct of pop vote and the table will be sorted on that field. This was the 57th election, but there are somewhat less than 57 rows in the table. I think that popular votes were not consistently used in the early years of the country. Anyway, the 2.28% margin this time is 11th from the bottom of the list.

Here is a link that has electoral votes. I haven't found any that give you percentages and sort them. However, a quick look at the numbers shows that 303/535 is anything but a landslide. In fact, Kennedy got 303 and that was considered one of the closest elections ever. If Obama gets Florida, it will be 332/535, still at the low end historically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

 

[Pythagorean]

I see. I thought 100 electoral votes was a big difference. It's about 20%.

 

[arildno]

I'm very glad Obama won. Very glad. But I fail to see how "landslide" or "butt kicked" characterize these elections. In my opinion, Romney got very close to beating Obama, closer than he should have come. If the republicans elected a better candidate, then they probably would have won.

I am less unhappy that Obama won than Romney.
As to those meaning the 2010 election is truly the only admissible evidence (while 2008 is meaningless being prior in time), one might as well say that 2010 is meaningless because the popular support gained by the Republicans in 2010 had vaporized entirely by mid-2011 lasting into summer 2012, and Mitt Romney made a slight re-energization of GOP towards Election Day.