Getting schadenfreude from Republican reactions to Obama's reelection

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SixNein
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
134 replies · 20K views
Physics news on Phys.org
Evo will be pleased. I think she voted for Harrison.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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:
This thread is out of control and going nowhere.
 

Similar threads

News Renaissance and reaction to Islam.
  • Schrodinger's Dog
  • · Replies 49 ·
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Schools PGRE - A message to undergrads from physics grad school.
  • javaNut
  • · Replies 25 ·
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
25