Vote Now: Polls Open in Eastern USA

[LowlyPion]

I'm so happy, so proud. I'm looking at the pictures of the crowd in Chicago - I wish I was there!

...have I mentioned I'm happy and proud...?

It's this century's Woodstock.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

CNN just projected Obama the winner!

 

[LowlyPion]

CNN just projected Obama the winner!

ABC as well.

What a bunch of geniuses.

 

[jtbell]

So did CBS. Then the CBS station in Charlotte cut away from Grant Park in Chicago to the acceptance speech of Beverly Perdue (D), who just became North Carolina's first woman governor. Her Republican opponent was the current mayor of Charlotte, who is actually a pretty nice guy and gave a very gracious concession speech.

It's kind of funny how those battleground states are still up in the air (Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana), at least according to CBS, but now they don't matter any more now that the West Coast has come in.

 

[G01]

Virginia, Colorado, Florida have all gone to Obama.

 

[Topher925]

Well, I guess Obama is our new president. I'm neither excited or disappointed, just nervous.

Did anyone else see how the laws again marijuana were loosened as well? This country is so screwed.

 

[Evo]

WOOT!

This is incredible!

 

[Saladsamurai]

... This country is so screwed.

But that's nothing new...

 

[Pyrrhus]

Congrats to Obama!, Let's hope he can live up to the people's expectations.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It's Obama by the thinnest of margins. Apparently he was able to garner no more than 350 electoral votes even though there were a total 535 he could have gotten. I expect he will let us know his positions on the issues sometime in the next 4 years. As for me, I'm going to tell my boss that I don't want that raise. I can't afford it.

 

[G01]

Congratulations to President Obama!

Well, now the hard part begins...

 

[G01]

It's Obama by the thinnest of margins. Apparently he was able to garner no more than 350 electoral votes even though there were a total 535 he could have gotten. I expect he will let us know his positions on the issues sometime in the next 4 years. As for me, I'm going to tell my boss that I don't want that raise. I can't afford it.

350 is a sizable margin compared to the previous few elections.

In 2000 bush won the election by 1 electoral vote.

Now Obama will win by at 80 if he does get 350

 

[russ_watters]

It's Obama by the thinnest of margins. Apparently he was able to garner no more than 350 electoral votes even though there were a total 535 he could have gotten.

Heh, we'll see what the final tally was, but according to CNN this minute, he won by about as much popular vote as Bush in 2004: 51-48%.

It's what I expected, which is why I'm not too upset. Like Topher said: nervous is the word.

 

[russ_watters]

350 is a sizable margin compared to the previous few elections.

Previous two, yes. Clinton won 370 and 376. Bush I, 476. And before that was Reagan...

Considering the status of the economy now and in 1992 (and Bush), I'm still quite confident we are a conservative country.

 

[chasely]

Heh, we'll see what the final tally was, but according to CNN this minute, he won by about as much popular vote as Bush in 2004: 51-48%.

It's what I expected, which is why I'm not too upset. Like Topher said: nervous is the word.

That doesn't include the west coast, where about 40 million votes will be cast, with a good percentage for Obama.

 

[OrbitalPower]

This is not a narrow victory, it is a near landslide. He's won by a greater electoral vote than the past few presidential elections. My predictions in the "game thread" were pretty close so far but I didn't predict that Obama would win NC, MT, IN, so the landslide could be even bigger.

This is also a mandate for progressive economic policies, and the Republicans shot themselves in the foot by proclaiming Obama to be an extremist, so that's good as well if you're on the left.

 

[russ_watters]

That doesn't include the west coast, where about 40 million votes will be cast, with a good percentage for Obama.

Yeah, you're probably right - CNN isn't real clear about that. And he does get the distinction of being the first Democrat since 1976 to get a majority of the popular vote (Carter got 50.1%).

 

[russ_watters]

This is not a narrow victory, it is a near landslide. He's won by a greater electoral vote than the past few presidential elections.

Winning by more than two of the closest in history is how you define a landslide? Ok...

Wiki lists 6 since 1900, with the smallest being an 18% popular vote gap.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Yeah, you're probably right - CNN isn't real clear about that. And he does get the distinction of being the first Democrat since 1976 to get a majority of the popular vote (Carter got 50.1%).

"Majority" means they won the greatest part of the votes cast, so in that sense Clinton did win the majority, both times.

Winning by more than two of the closest in history is how you define a landslide? Ok...

There have been numerous close elections in US history and the last two weren't even the closest in terms of the popular vote. Obama won by a greater victory than Kennedy beat Nixon, for example.

Yes, I consider it a landslide, and a mandate for progressive economics. Whether Obama governs as he said he would has yet to be seen.

 

[lisab]

I'm so happy, my President is giving his acceptance speech now. My president - President Obama!

 

[OrbitalPower]

Wiki lists 6 since 1900, with the smallest being an 18% popular vote gap.

LOL. What? Ok, that's enough "history" from physicsforums for today.

:rofl:

 

[Ben Niehoff]

"Majority" means they won the greatest part of the votes cast, so in that sense Clinton did win the majority, both times.

Actually, it doesn't. "Majority" means greater than 50% of the votes cast.

The word you are looking for is "plurality".

 

[OrbitalPower]

Actually, it doesn't. "Majority" means greater than 50% of the votes cast.

Wrong. According to my "Webster's New World Dictionary", a majority is defined as 1. (therefore the most common definition) 1. The greater part or larger number.

Even on dictionary.com you also have " the greater quantity or share."

Words in English have more than one use, and you don't have to specify "plurality" when you're referring to who won the most votes, i.e., the majority.

If 3 people vote for me, 2 for you, and 2 for Russ, I would have won the "majority" of the vote. It's in common usage - and thus correct.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

"Majority" means they won the greatest part of the votes cast, so in that sense Clinton did win the majority, both times.

Both times, Clinton won a plurality, not a majority. In 1992 he got 43% of the vote:
1992

In 1996 it was 49.2%
1996

 

[wildman]

Just about 50 years ago Rev. King said the following:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Rev. King must be smiling in heaven. Today the country has judged President-Elect Obama by the content of his character not by the color of his skin. The dream has come true.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

1. The greater part or larger number.

Note carefully the wording. It is not "The greatest part or largest number". Comparatives (as contrasted with superlatives) are used, grammatically, to distinguish exactly two alternatives. The correct interpretation of the definition given is

"The greater part or larger number of two alternatives."

I know that the distinction between comparatives and superlatives has been slowly going out of style for centuries, but I'm fairly sure the dictionary writers, being English majors, intended the grammatically-correct reading of the definition.

 

[D H]

Wrong. According to my "Webster's New World Diction", a majority is defined as 1. (therefore the most common definition) 1. The greater part or larger number.

Nice how you cut off the half of the definition you didn't like (the full definition is "1. The greater part or number; the number larger than half the total "). Nicer yet is how you truncated the "ary" from Dictionary.

Edit: I see you fixed "Dictionary" -- but you have not fixed the out-of-context quote.

A majority inherently involves more than 50%.

 

[Cyrus]

Today I went for the GOLD!

RIGHT JOHN?

 

[OrbitalPower]

It's not out of context. The same definition is also given as part of 3c at:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/majority
"the greater quantity or share" - it does NOT have that addendum you added.

I said I took it from Webster's New World - you took it from dictionary.com. Of course if you take things from other dictionaries they won't match up.

I'll take his word for it that "greater" means "of two," although I've heard majority used all the time to refer to the one with the most votes, and words are mostly defined according to how they are used.

 

[Cyrus]

I'll help you pack.

IM Not going anywhere BABY!

 

[russ_watters]

It's not out of context. The same definition is also given as part of 3c at:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/majority
"the greater quantity or share" - it does NOT have that addendum you added.

Though there are multiple definitions and that one isn't clear (it doesn't say greater than what: wiki expands on it and makes it cleaer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_(voting ) ), when applied to politics, in the US in particular, there is only one definition that applies, and that ain't it. It's spelled out explicitly in Article II, sect I of the Constituion.

In 1824, Andrew Jackson failed to get a majority of the electoral college vote and as a result, the election was decided by the House.

Regardless, the point is the same: a relatively close election.

There have been numerous close elections in US history and the last two weren't even the closest in terms of the popular vote.

The 1960 was "closest" in popular vote in that one candidate only had .1% more than the other, but in 2000, the candidate with more popular vote didn't win. Either way, that makes it an extremely close election. Here's a list where they combine popular and electoral votes to rank the closest elections (2000 is listed as the closest for obvious reasons): http://historylist.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/closest-us-presidential-elections/

 

[OrbitalPower]

Yes, apparently the definition came from my own misunderstanding as when I read "greater part" I interpreted it as "the greatest part." For example, "most" is defined as "the greatest part" of a certain amount. My point was that Clinton actually did win most - the plurality - of the votes, i.e., he didn't lose the popular vote. You learn something new everyday - I'll use "plurality" when I mean "most" from now on. As my writing shows, I'm not an English major or a grammarian.

1960 is considered a close election and the difference was not an 18% popular vote - I didn't know what you meant there, as there are a couple others.

 

[russ_watters]

Today the country has judged President-Elect Obama by the content of his character not by the color of his skin.

I'm not convinced of that and I'd very much like to see what the exit polls have to say.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Theodore Roosevelt's 336 electoral votes to Alton Brooks Parker's 140 electoral votes in 1904

Obama's victory may be around this, and it's considered a "landslide" according to wiki, so "near landslide" is thus correct.

 

[Borek]

Just waked up and switched my computer on - and everything is clear already.