[Official Thread] OBAMA WINS RE-ELECTION

[Haruko]

Well I'm happy. Not so much that Obama won, but that the republicans lost. I wonder when the GOP realizes that pandering to right wing extremists, anti-intellectuals, the greedy, racists and homophobes, lunatics, misogynists, fundamentalists, warmongers and people who enjoy sucking Netanyahu's cock may not be the best of strategies

Basically not until they suffer the same sort of electoral defeat the party got handed to it in 1932. And through multiple election cycles. Expect them to trot out what's become their standard-model excuse for losing: that they just weren't "conservative enough".

America dodged a bullet last night. But it's still disturbing that there were fifty million fools willing to vote for Romney.

Too bad that, as political scientists and authors of Winner-Take-All-Politics Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson noted in a recent lecture aired on LinkTV, even though the Democratic Party has moved slightly to the left over the years, the Republican Party has actually moved significantly toward the right. So... you would expect a party to become more moderate after losing, but the opposite is true.

[Patrick Degan]

Fox News on why the Republicans lost: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/ ... from-here/

Basically, Romney sucked because he was too moderate. So yeah, MORE CONSERVATISM is still apparently what the Republicans are going to take away from this election.

"We just weren't conservative ENOUGH".

Republicans... Predictable as the sunrise.

Expect far more obstruction in congress the next two years. And it would not surprise me at all if the House Tealiban started working up an impeachment bill against Obama.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Good Obama got reelected, but what is the best news of all? NO MORE CAMPAIGN ADDS!!!
It's over. It's finally over... at least until next time.

[Mr Bean]

The GOP has some tough choices to make. Their anti-abortion/gay-marriage stance automatically guarantees them a sizeable chunk of the population, so they're not likely to give that up anytime soon. Still, it's looking like pandering to evangelicals just isn't enough to win elections any more.

I'm pretty sure if they dropped the anti-gay marriage stance and just doubled down on anti-abortion(This would be the 10th or 11th doubling down at this point) they would keep those voters because those voters are rabid enough about that issue to vote on it alone.

[Blayne]

Edi, while I am quite sure this is just an honest slip of the tongue calling the state legislatures parliaments could seem ignorant and may make some people not want to listen whether you are making a good point or not.

'State Legislature'/'National Assembly'/'parliament' I'm pretty sure all trace their political-linguistic origins to the french 'parlement' and is frequently I've seen and heard the term used by Europeans for the American legislatures. It isn't what its called sure but its not exactly without reasoning. I'm vaguely certain Churchill also called it a parliament as well.

That isn't necessarily true at all, Ed. Candidates who focus advertising time on say, California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Ohio and a few others could be viable contenders in a third party role with the Electoral College. You would just have to split up your vote by region, since any one region doesn't carry the decisive EV margin.

Nope, because they'll split the EC vote and then Congress will pick the President denying the third party. That and is it really democratic for a third party to win because they magicked up 270 electoral votes but only had 20% of the vote? I like third parties, I like Canada's parliamentary system and parliamentary systems in general. I like my politics and options to be diverse, however this isn't possible under the EC and FPTP voting systems.

There are better systems than the Electoral College if we want third parties, such as instant runoff and mixed member proportional for the popular vote. That way you don't get people voting third party meaning the party they disliked the most would win.

I'm not convinced there's harm from having the electoral college elect the chief executive. Have you demonstrated this? The biggest consequences are:

Yes. We have as historical fact a 5% failure rate in which the EC vote did not reflect the will of the people.

The way I think about this, every person should have one vote and every vote should matter, meaning every election should be close elections where the candidates have to work hard to earn every vote. Right now we see this only happens with key swing states.

1) Sometimes the electoral college winner wins with 1% or so less of the popular vote than their rival.
2) Certain states are disproportionately important because their population is nearly split 50/50, and winning a thousand voters in a state where you're leading 55/45 matters less than winning them in a state where you're 50/50.

Context is everything, voter turnout is something around 50%; anectdotally I consistently and constantly see and hear Americans complain how "their vote doesn't matter." The EC passively suppresses the votes of undecideds in decided states; so who knows what that 1% gap could've been if 80% voted.

But again, if 51% vote for Rick Berman and 49% voted Brannan Braga and its BB who wins, that's not democracy. Even if the difference is a minuscule 1%; why should the votes of the 2% for RB not matter? Bah! A pox on their houses.

Additionally and specifically for (2), if everyone voted and only the PV mattered then it doesn't matter if you carry a state only by 50% or 65% or lost it by that margin, those votes still matter; they don't under the EC.

(1) isn't inherently wrong unless we can prove that all positions in a democracy should be handled by strict popular vote- in other words, more Athenian-style and less Roman Republic-style. That is at best hard to prove.

This doesn't follow; America's representative democracy is handled through Congress, that's whats makes it republic. The Electoral College is a historical anachronism due to logistical limitations and nothing to do with the US being a republic.

(2) is going to happen anyway. Right now, the candidates pay the most attention to places where there is a real struggle, and a nearly tied one, over what kind of policies and people we should have in charge. They know they stand to gain a huge amount by convincing people in those areas- look at how much Obama has gained by being able to convince, say, Virginians (or some of them) that he's the right man for the job.

I'm not sure I see, if every vote matters then the electoral strategy changes to focusing on populated areas, which means New York may now matter to a republican when it didn't before, or Texas to a Democrat. Which doesn't seem like much of a change at first beyond the fact that now the votes in otherwise uncontested states now matter when they didn't before. The politicians will strategically decided where to focus isn't the issue, its that 80% of the country doesn't matter regardless of who visits them is the issue.

Go to national popular vote, and they will pay the most attention to places with a large population density, and ignore places where it takes more dollars per person to win hearts and minds.

Its true they'll favor places with population, but I think its facetious to suggest they would entirely ignore rural America. That's still roughly 60 million people that could tip an election either which way in a close elections, so I would expect stop overs and town halls in a bunch of choice small towns all over the midwest; also for the trickle down effect for downticket races.

That and who the candidates happen to see or visit isn't really the issue, its that democratic votes in missouri might as well not be counted under the current system. Missouri might not still be visited often without the EC but at least their vote small as it may be, matters to the overall tally.

The result is that (for example) New York City and its metropolitan area gets a lot more attention than a swath of rural America with a similar-sized population, because you get more bang for your buck by visiting New York 30 times than you do by visiting 30 rural cities of 40000 people each and trying to appeal to all the people who live scattered around them.

Which is true, but I find this preferable to the exact same but less democratic situation of where they only focus on 5-8 swing states.

Oh- one side effect: suppressing voter turnout becomes more important. Suppose you're worried about the Orange Party suppressing voter turnout to favor itself over the Lemon Party by passing discriminatory laws. Now they have more incentive to do that in states where the Oranges already have a huge advantage, and can pass whatever laws they please. Because getting ten thousand Lemonists not to show up on election day could win the election regardless of what state you do it in...

As pointed out above this isn't true, if anything a PV election would be less likely to be tampered with as its more difficult to make enough people to not vote to upset an election than it is to get 1000 people to not show up in a key riding in a swing state. The resources are easier to focus on state contests than nationally, a difference of even 1% is around over a million people; it would take unprecedented even for this election nationwide fraud and suppression to accomplish it.

We can solve that with mandatory voting and a sane, centralized set of rules for who is allowed to vote and so on. But that's a big enough change that it might fix our problems in its own right. Better to implement that first and worry about the electoral college later.

We don't need to, sane voting system like Mixed Member proportional and/or instant runoff along with abolishing the EC would make third parties viable and people's choices matter; meaning more people will get out to vote because now their vote actually matters regardless if they live in DC, Utah or New York.

[Civil War Man]

The electoral college has this funny effect where one person's vote is not worth the same as another person's. For example, Wyoming has something like 1/70 the population of California, but only about 1/18 as many electoral votes (obviously rounding here). So the vote of a Wyoming resident is technically worth more than a California resident's when it comes to choosing the president, since Wyoming awards more electoral votes per person than California. One Wyoming voter theoretically has as much political power as 3-4 California votes. Stuff like that just generally doesn't come up because both states are foregone conclusions in modern elections.

[JME2]

Turned off the computer last night before turning it, but my reaction to Mittens' last gleaming was pure schadenfreude.

The half-assed concession, the deadened reaction of the Romney HQ audience, and Fox News' meltdown was just beautiful.

The only bad part this morning was that Graves couldn't sink Bachman, but oh well.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Irbis


I am not wrong, because that 22% (not 16%) of the popular vote must be very widely dispersed across the entire nation, meaning that a minor party with broad-based support can win, but a large party with overwhelming regional support cannot. The Electoral College is an intensely clever way of making states regionally important, preserving regional distinctions in the country, without letting individual regions dominate the nation by going overwhelmingly toward a peculiar cause. The electoral college is the perfect moderating tool in US politics, and exactly what we need.

Consider this: No Democrat President has won the popular vote in his reelection bid since FDR--until, interestingly enough, Obama, yesterday. Yet this country has not been completely dominated by Republicans in those years.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

It's incredibly dishonest to imply that "winning with a plurality rather than a majority of the popular vote" and "winning with a minority of the popular vote" are the same thing like you just did.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It's incredibly dishonest to imply that "winning with a plurality rather than a majority of the popular vote" and "winning with a minority of the popular vote" are the same thing like you just did.

But they ARE much more similar than they should be, and without some kind of method for allocating preference like is used in Europe, winning a plurality is no indication of the real desires of the populace.

[Terralthra]

You mean, besides Clinton, who won the Popular Vote 47 million to Dole's 39 million and Perot's 8?

Also, the Electoral College has chosen a different President than the Popular Vote exactly three times, and in each case, it did so because of stronger regional support, with the more broadly-supported candidate getting more votes in more regions, but not concentrated enough to win individual states. Can you point to any evidence that the EC does what you claim it does?

Because switching to a popular vote system certainly doesn't do what you claim it does. The cities of the US and their suburban regions simply aren't big enough to amass such an overwhelming majority. A candidate targeting large cities and their media markets, as pointed out in the linked video, would have to own (100% of the vote) the top 100 cities, down to the mighty Spokane, WA, and in reward for their urban dominance, would poll roughly 20% of the PV.

[Gil Hamilton]

"We just weren't conservative ENOUGH".

Republicans... Predictable as the sunrise.

Expect far more obstruction in congress the next two years. And it would not surprise me at all if the House Tealiban started working up an impeachment bill against Obama.

I think everyone called this. It was clear that if Romney lost, the GOP was going to turn on him and line up to explain how they never thought he was a good idea anyway, that they were against him from the very beginning, and that any evidence of them talking about how awesome Romney is is misrepresenting them or an outright fabrication.

[fgalkin]

From the sig and ruger forums:

Never give up, was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor...posted by Baran

Fuck this country and it's stupid citizens.
~~~GO COLTS~~~posted by stickman428

I hope the first one was a joke but I'm not too sure.

I'm told the Saiga-12 messageboard went full KKK but I'm not logging into that at work.

You've never seen Animal House?!

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Agent Sorchus]

Also, there is the 'small' issue of 3rd party candidate with 5% support in just 4 states, just like the regional political movement you mentioned, easily deciding the whole course of presidency by nudging them to the otherwise loser, just like that idiot Nader did. Take a guess, how long it will take Republicans to remember that, find a left-leaning guy for 2016/2020, give him nice PAC in swing states, and run him as interference to Democratic candidate mostly in swing states to win?

Hey Irbis, you are wrong Nader didn't cause Gore to lose. The people who voted Nader when asked at the exit poles if Nader wasn't in the race and it was between just Gore and Bush overwhelmingly went Bush. And in actual fact since they wouldn't be required to vote at all it is easier to disenfranchise them.

IN Fact this blaming 3rd parties is just a disenfranchisement tactic. But you dont' have to take my word for it.

Democratic party strategist and Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) chair Al From expressed a different view. In the January 24, 2001, issue[76] of the DLC's Blueprint magazine,[77] he wrote, "I think they're wrong on all counts. The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."

All that you get from blaming people for voting how they wish is people not voting at all. Note that despite Nader winning alot of the 2000 election the democrats didn't try and pickup the Nader voters by appealing more to green sensibilities, because the common narrative that they cost the dems the election disenfranchised them out of the voting populace. This is not productive and the entire argument is BS of the highest order. (Since more votes in Florida in 2000 were thrown out than were cast for Nader, it doesn't even make sense to try and get the green vote since they actually are more right wing then you think rather than make more of the votes actually be counted.)

(That and 3rd parties are actually more diverse in politics than you'd expect. A right wing voter who values hunting, guns and the enviroment feels safer voting green than democrat since the democrats have this stupid spectre of 'take away all our guns' which the greens don't.)

I've said this before and brought these facts out before but even in this supposedly factual discussion based forum it gets ignored.

As for this election and 3rd parties it's still bullshit to blame them since 14 million voters from 2008 dropped out of the pool of voters this year. Maybe they are more important to bring back then to blame the 40,000 3rd party voters from only a couple states?

In fact until we have Australian requirements to voting blaming 3rd parties is and will forever be total BS since people dropping from the voting pool is just going to be of greater quantity of the potential vote than any other aspect of the election.

So please if you want to keep blaming the victims at least bring some data, like exit polling or something rather than relying on your on personal common sense which is broken.

[Soontir C'boath]

Also, there is the 'small' issue of 3rd party candidate with 5% support in just 4 states, just like the regional political movement you mentioned, easily deciding the whole course of presidency by nudging them to the otherwise loser, just like that idiot Nader did. Take a guess, how long it will take Republicans to remember that, find a left-leaning guy for 2016/2020, give him nice PAC in swing states, and run him as interference to Democratic candidate mostly in swing states to win?

Hey Irbis, you are wrong Nader didn't cause Gore to lose. The people who voted Nader when asked at the exit poles if Nader wasn't in the race and it was between just Gore and Bush overwhelmingly went Bush. And in actual fact since they wouldn't be required to vote at all it is easier to disenfranchise them.

IN Fact this blaming 3rd parties is just a disenfranchisement tactic. But you dont' have to take my word for it.

Do you have the exit polls on hand? That would be very useful here in this thread and for me to use elsewhere.

[Irbis]

I am not wrong, because that 22% (not 16%) of the popular vote must be very widely dispersed across the entire nation, meaning that a minor party with broad-based support can win, but a large party with overwhelming regional support cannot.

16% is in previous video, the one where small party merely blocks EC by not allowing the major ones to get 270 electors, then uses its 16% that allowed it majority in the legislature to pick the Prez that way. Example - Andrew Jackson kicked in favour of John Quincy Adams despite winning popular vote.

And you know what you describe? 'Minor party with broad-based rural support' sounds just like Tea Party. 'Large party with overwhelming regional support'? Why, progressives/socialists based in large cities/industrial centres. Gee, I think I know what I'd pick.

This also ignores the fact that 100 largest cities in USA are ~19% of total population, so even if every single urban dweller of city above 210.000 people voted for party X in massive 99% landslide victory it's still less than 1/5 of seats. You can't get more overwhelming regional support than that, can you? Majority vote isn't 'winner takes all' kind of failure EC can create.

The Electoral College is an intensely clever way of making states regionally important, preserving regional distinctions in the country, without letting individual regions dominate the nation by going overwhelmingly toward a peculiar cause. The electoral college is the perfect moderating tool in US politics, and exactly what we need.

And all it does is that 90% of states are just ignored, and it's 5 or 6 that actually decide. These 5 or 6 can be trivially interfered with, making the process doubly undemocratic. Oh, and it all happens on Tuesday to cleverly make horse travel easier

As was pointed, the only 2 states besides the swing ones that aren't ignored are ones that assign EC votes by dividing them. Maybe their example should be followed if politicians pay attention there?

Consider this: No Democrat President has won the popular vote in his reelection bid since FDR--until, interestingly enough, Obama, yesterday. Yet this country has not been completely dominated by Republicans in those years.

Counterpoint - Gore should have been one to do that. Instead, 537 votes shafted 50,999,897 votes cast into majority losing ticket.

By the way, Clinton, 1996, 47,401,185 votes to 39,197,469 of Bob Dole, and 1992, 44,909,806 votes to 39,104,550 of George H. W. Bush. Two examples right there. If you meant pure reelections, well, it so happens no Democratic president between FDR and Clinton was reelected, so it proves nothing anyway.

[Agent Sorchus]

Take a guess, how long it will take Republicans to remember that, find a left-leaning guy for 2016/2020, give him nice PAC in swing states...?

Hey Irbis, you are wrong Nader didn't cause Gore to lose. The people who voted Nader when asked at the exit poles if Nader wasn't in the race and it was between just Gore and Bush overwhelmingly went Bush. And in actual fact since they wouldn't be required to vote at all it is easier to disenfranchise them.

IN Fact this blaming 3rd parties is just a disenfranchisement tactic. But you dont' have to take my word for it.

Do you have the exit polls on hand? That would be very useful here in this thread and for me to use elsewhere.

I will look it up, however it isn't a high priority for me since I am quoting an expert here. But yeah it could be quite useful in the future.

Also going back to the bolded, this already happens, but not in the final election but in the primary challengers the Democrat party funds the further right loons to get easier elections in the House and Senate. Already a thing, and it is helping the party you have unconditional loyalty for.

(Which I don't have, loyalty to the party being unconditional is BS and allows blue dogs their day.) And hell I have hopes that PACs will be illegal soon, since in CO an amendment passed with ~75% of the vote to limit campaign money in state elections and send our congress critters back to DC to support a federal version of the bill. Totally blows the marijuana bill out of the water for importance and support.

[Irbis]

Hey Irbis, you are wrong Nader didn't cause Gore to lose. The people who voted Nader when asked at the exit poles if Nader wasn't in the race and it was between just Gore and Bush overwhelmingly went Bush. And in actual fact since they wouldn't be required to vote at all it is easier to disenfranchise them.

Oh? Let's see what Nader himself said (wiki link as it has all quotes in one place):

"In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."

Gee, someone is lying here, and I don't think it's the man in question. Also:

"You have also broken your word to your followers who signed the petitions that got you on the ballot in many states. You pledged you would not campaign as a spoiler and would avoid the swing states. Your recent campaign rhetoric and campaign schedule make it clear that you have broken this pledge..."

Nader wasn't supposed to campaign in Florida at all. I blame the victims? Seriously? Or maybe I blame the imbecile who, knowingly or not, handed USA for 8 years to Bush and his daddy complex.

All that you get from blaming people for voting how they wish is people not voting at all. Note that despite Nader winning alot of the 2000 election the democrats didn't try and pickup the Nader voters by appealing more to green sensibilities, because the common narrative that they cost the dems the election disenfranchised them out of the voting populace.

You completely ignore the fact that doing so might have cost them votes. The man himself admitted that, pity his puppets can't agree with him and throw accusations of BS instead.

(That and 3rd parties are actually more diverse in politics than you'd expect. A right wing voter who values hunting, guns and the enviroment feels safer voting green than democrat since the democrats have this stupid spectre of 'take away all our guns' which the greens don't.)

Seeing as I actually live in country with more than two political parties, vote for them, and talk with people who do, gee, thanks for education. How would I know how it works without you?

I've said this before and brought these facts out before but even in this supposedly factual discussion based forum it gets ignored.

Nader quote is from his own book. Care to give any sources for your BS?

So please if you want to keep blaming the victims at least bring some data, like exit polling or something rather than relying on your on personal common sense which is broken.

Be a good kiddo, do a homework and tell me if 97,421 Nader's votes x 38% is less than 537 votes votes Gore lost by.

I don't blame 3rd parties, I think multiple parties are far better than USA 2 party system, but in the context of frankly stupid Electoral College it's explicit third party's fault if big party similar to it lost election. Even Nader's supporters acknowledge this by saying he promised to not warp the main elections by campaigning in swing state. Instead, he did. It's precisely the fault of that Nader imbecile Bush decided to invade Iraq, and the whole mess, including blood of every single Iraqi killed in this conflict, is on his hands.

[White Haven]

The spoiler claim goes like this: George W. Bush won Florida in 2000 by 537 votes. Nader had 97,488 there. We can’t be sure how Nader’s Florida supporters would have voted had he not been on the ballot, but in national exit poll data (necessary for a sufficient sample size), 47 percent said they’d have voted for Gore, 21 percent for Bush, and the rest would’ve stayed home. Divide the Nader vote in Florida that way, and inaugurate President Gore.

Google to the rescue.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Terraltha: 39+8 = 47 = 47 and as it happens the chaff on those big rounded numbers meant Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote, just a plurality.

At any rate, you can all bloviate about how awesome representative democracy is, but this system seems to be working excellently, and I for one will never support changing it in a hundred years of your all trying. It's just an absurd demand by a bunch of people who could be spending that time doing something actually politically constructive, like fighting for measures to remove corporate personhood.

[Terralthra]

Terraltha: 39+8 = 47 = 47 and as it happens the chaff on those big rounded numbers meant Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote, just a plurality.

At any rate, you can all bloviate about how awesome representative democracy is, but this system seems to be working excellently, and I for one will never support changing it in a hundred years of your all trying. It's just an absurd demand by a bunch of people who could be spending that time doing something actually politically constructive, like fighting for measures to remove corporate personhood.

You said "win the popular vote," not "win a majority of the popular vote." He had more of the popular vote than anyone else. He won it. By your logic, no President in the 20th or 21st century has won the popular vote, as none of them have received the votes of 50%+1 of eligible voters.

[Block]

The spoiler claim goes like this: George W. Bush won Florida in 2000 by 537 votes. Nader had 97,488 there. We can’t be sure how Nader’s Florida supporters would have voted had he not been on the ballot, but in national exit poll data (necessary for a sufficient sample size), 47 percent said they’d have voted for Gore, 21 percent for Bush, and the rest would’ve stayed home. Divide the Nader vote in Florida that way, and inaugurate President Gore.

Google to the rescue.

But the national exit poll doesn't reflect how Florida Nader voters would break down.

[Haruko]

I like how Pollster.com just lists third parties as "others" without any way to see elaboration, heh. And one of those thirds got over a million, which to me is pretty significant considering it got no mainstream coverage or access.

[SirNitram]

I am shocked and pleased to be VERY wrong about it being dragged out. I am Wrong. I'm sure there's some folks on the board who want to frame that.

[TheHammer]

The reality is that most third party beliefs are so far outside the mainstream that they will never have a chance of getting elected. They will get the super small percentage of crackpots and protest votes, but that's it. The big myth in this country is that we have a "two party system". Sure, Republicans and Democrats are coalitions made up of politicians with some common ground, but within these groups you have various caucuses and subgroups (blue-dog democrats, teaparty etc) that aren't in lockstep with the whole party. Even in cases where a non party affiliate gets a nomination, more often than not they are lumped in with one party or another as a natural fit.

Sure in the end we distill it down to just two candidates, but thats after numerous primaries and debates to get to that point. Its in these primaries that you'll see a lot of your fringe third party candidates "get their shot", but there is a reason they are called fringe candidates.