News Obama Reelected: Republicans Feel the Schadenfreude

[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.