Obama Reelected: Republicans Feel the Schadenfreude

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SixNein
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the reelection of President Obama, exploring various factors that may have influenced the election outcome, including the performance of Mitt Romney, the impact of Hurricane Sandy, and the evolving political landscape of the Republican Party. Participants express a range of opinions on the implications of the election results for both parties and the electorate.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express feelings of schadenfreude regarding Republican reactions to the election results.
  • There is uncertainty about whether Obama's success was due to his own performance or Romney's shortcomings, with some attributing the loss to Romney's failure to effectively communicate his economic plans.
  • Several participants note that the election may have been more about Romney's perceived inadequacies than Obama's strengths.
  • Comments highlight a belief that the Republican Party must change its stances on social issues to remain relevant, with some arguing that the party is out of touch with younger voters and changing demographics.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for political instability in the South if the Republican Party does not adapt.
  • Some participants question the impact of Hurricane Sandy on the election, with differing views on its significance and effects on voter sentiment.
  • There is speculation about whether economic conditions influenced voters' decisions, particularly regarding fears of losing homes under a Romney presidency.
  • Participants discuss the idea that the election results may reflect a broader referendum on Republican ideology rather than specific events like hurricanes or bailouts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a variety of opinions, with no clear consensus on the reasons behind the election outcome or the future direction of the Republican Party. Disagreements persist regarding the significance of Hurricane Sandy and the implications of the election results for party ideologies.

Contextual Notes

Some statements reflect assumptions about voter behavior and party dynamics that are not universally accepted. The discussion includes multiple perspectives on the impact of external events and internal party strategies, highlighting the complexity of electoral outcomes.

Physics news on Phys.org
  • #123
Evo will be pleased. I think she voted for Harrison.
 
  • #124
russ_watters said:
Meanwhile, the Dow is down about 300 points right now.
No surprise there, given the continuing gridlock in the system as a whole.

Either that, or the "1%" are forced sellers covering their losses on spread bets on Romney :devil:
 
  • #125
Jimmy Snyder said:
Evo will be pleased. I think she voted for Harrison.

Aah, now I know why he undressed at an inappopriate moment for too long.
 
  • #126
  • #127
micromass said:
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.

Romney was a good candidate. And he didn't get very close to beating Obama. He got very close to causing an EV/PV split. Major difference.
 
  • #128
mathwonk said:
actually young southerners are much less racist than us oldsters, or maybe it is just the ones in my neighborhood.

My state wanted Rick Santorum for president. They even voted for a wife beater for state representative over a democrat.

Needless to say, I think it'll be a few more generations.
 
  • #129
arildno said:
Doesn't that tell you more about Dick Morris' incompetence than anything else??
The fact is that a 325 win for Romney wouldn't have been a "landslide", by any historically meaningful comparison.

Yes, it would have been, because the electorate is such that Texas would never (in its current state) vote for a Democrat, and Massachusetts would never vote for a Republican, at least at the Presidential level. The "blue wall" and the "red wall" are nearly impenetrable provided each candidate has a brain. If you measure landslides by Reagan's standards, then there will never be a landslide again. But a 325 Romney win would have meant eating significant margins into traditionally blue territory. And that, frankly, is what a landslide is all about: eating into the opponent's territory. Like Obama with Colorado and New Mexico and Virginia.
 
  • #130
Angry Citizen said:
Yes, it would have been, because the electorate is such that Texas would never (in its current state) vote for a Democrat, and Massachusetts would never vote for a Republican, at least at the Presidential level. The "blue wall" and the "red wall" are nearly impenetrable provided each candidate has a brain. If you measure landslides by Reagan's standards, then there will never be a landslide again. But a 325 Romney win would have meant eating significant margins into traditionally blue territory. And that, frankly, is what a landslide is all about: eating into the opponent's territory. Like Obama with Colorado and New Mexico and Virginia.
Obama won with the 20th lowest (out of 50) percentage of EVs in US history.
Landslide?
A SLIGHTLY more rational idea might be to be in the top half of that list. That would have required roughly 360 mandates.

But even though YOU are not an idiot, you have deranged this thread with idiotic redefinitions of words, merely, due to your vanity, in order to prove yourself right.
I have had enough of your nonsense, and complete detachment from reality.
 
Last edited:
  • #131
Obama won with the 20th lowest (out of 50) percentage of EVs in US history.
Landslide?

See sentences one, two, and three in the post you quoted, yet either did not read or did not assimilate.
 
  • #132
Angry Citizen said:
Yes, it would have been, because the electorate is such that Texas would never (in its current state) vote for a Democrat, and Massachusetts would never vote for a Republican, at least at the Presidential level. The "blue wall" and the "red wall" are nearly impenetrable provided each candidate has a brain. If you measure landslides by Reagan's standards, then there will never be a landslide again. But a 325 Romney win would have meant eating significant margins into traditionally blue territory. And that, frankly, is what a landslide is all about: eating into the opponent's territory. Like Obama with Colorado and New Mexico and Virginia.

This entire thread is silly. It is turning into the following:

"It was a landslide victory"
"No, it wasn't"
"Yes, it was"
etc.

Let's try to set some objective criteria on the term landslide victory, like the following:
  • Has won by a significant margin in the popular vote.
  • Has won a significant portion of the electoral college.
  • Political commentators and news stations are using the word landslide victory.

None of these are satisfied. So, what objective criteria do you have to talk about a landslide victory?? I don't find "eating into an opponents territory" to be a very convincing definition.
 
  • #133
Roughly 400.000 votes the other way, out of some 100 million (0.4% of the voting total), could have given Romney EV victory.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #134
Sigh.
Thread locked pending moderation.
 
  • #135
This thread is out of control and going nowhere.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
8K
Replies
34
Views
10K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 502 ·
17
Replies
502
Views
50K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
9K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
7K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K