[Official Thread] OBAMA WINS RE-ELECTION

[Napoleon the Clown]

I suspect his lack of popularity among seniors is more to do with seniors generally leaning Conservative more than it is because of his skin color or name. There are plenty of detractors that are bitter about a black man being president. But it's more likely that his detractors are composed primarily of people who hate him for being a Democrat rather than any other reason.

[Mr Bean]

I suspect his lack of popularity among seniors is more to do with seniors generally leaning Conservative more than it is because of his skin color or name. There are plenty of detractors that are bitter about a black man being president. But it's more likely that his detractors are composed primarily of people who hate him for being a Democrat rather than any other reason.

Need I remind you about the fact that George Wallace got elected several times and the people who elected him are now old racists bastards in their 70s and 80s. Remeber today seniors of the 65-90 crowd grew up directly under the segregation fight. The current seniors came of age from 1942 to 1967 when being a racist and against equal treatment of the races was the only way to get elected in the southern states.

Have some of those people changed there views? Of course, getting old does not make you immune to the changing societal pressures and accepted behaviors. But understand this, when you combine good old fashion racism with the tendency for seniors to vote conservative I'm betting at least.. oh lets say 18% of those voting against Obama in our seniors are as direct result of racism to not wanting one of "those types" to be president. Of that 18% I'd say a solid 11% are those who would vote against him even if it was some other white Democratic leaving a solid 7% of those votes being solid racists votes.

[Dalton]

With 2 days to go, Nate Silver says O is back to his Pre-Denver high of 87% and R has no momentum. Should be a solid win but not a blowout.

[Simon_Jester]

I suspect his lack of popularity among seniors is more to do with seniors generally leaning Conservative more than it is because of his skin color or name. There are plenty of detractors that are bitter about a black man being president. But it's more likely that his detractors are composed primarily of people who hate him for being a Democrat rather than any other reason.

Need I remind you about the fact that George Wallace got elected several times and the people who elected him are now old racists bastards in their 70s and 80s. Remeber today seniors of the 65-90 crowd grew up directly under the segregation fight. The current seniors came of age from 1942 to 1967 when being a racist and against equal treatment of the races was the only way to get elected in the southern states.

Nitpick: The people in their 70s and 80s are the ones who were young when Wallace was winning election. Most of the people who elected him are already dead. They were the crusty old racist bastards of 1960.

Granted a fair number of young whites would have been pro-segregation in the '60s, certainly more than you could ever get to admit to it today. But it's worth remembering that this may be much like the conversation we have about gay rights in fifty years: "The current crop of seniors came of age from 1992 to 2017 when being a homophobe was the only way to get elected in states X, Y, and Z" does not mean "everyone, or even most people, who grew up in Georgia during those years were homophobes."

Because the people running on homophobic tickets are today concentrating their appeal on people over 30... who will almost all be dead in fifty years, just as most of the people Wallace campaigned for are dead today.

But understand this, when you combine good old fashion racism with the tendency for seniors to vote conservative I'm betting at least.. oh lets say 18% of those voting against Obama in our seniors are as direct result of racism to not wanting one of "those types" to be president. Of that 18% I'd say a solid 11% are those who would vote against him even if it was some other white Democratic leaving a solid 7% of those votes being solid racists votes.

I don't disagree with the basic conclusion.

Something interesting I read in a Post editorial recently: The proposition that a lot of votes against Obama aren't conscious racism as such. A bunch of them are a sort of subconscious allergic reaction to social change. The world has changed a lot since 1962, and it's been changing really fast since the 1980s or so, to the point where it becomes impossible to ignore the evidence that things aren't what they were even five years ago. Even during the 60s and 70s, if you squinted and didn't pay attention to youth culture most things stayed the same for that span of time. Today, not so much- even the technological underpinning change faster than that.

So a lot of people see Obama as a symbol of how much the world has changed, and the ones who don't like that are voting against him not because "black people shouldn't be president," but because "I want to go back to 19XX-2008, when all presidents were white men in suits and blah blah blah."

It's not quite the same sentiment.

Heck, if you felt as though voting against Obama would wind back the clock to before the recession, to whatever bit of recent American history you actually liked, would you be voting for him?

[Broomstick]

So even with Paul Ryan's vouchercare proposals, I guess seniors hate Obamacare more. I would've hoped that that would get Obama would be able to make inroads there over the course of this campaign.

I don't think it's the various [noun]care proposals so much as they don't like Obama – many, many white seniors can't stomach the notion of a black man running the country even if that's been reality for four years. He doesn't look like what they think of when you say the words “President of the United States”. They wouldn't want their offspring to marry his offspring.

Not all seniors think that way, but enough to make up a core that would vote for anyone white over Obama. Likewise, there is a similar group that could never stomach a woman for PotUS, it's just that we haven't seen that yet so it's not apparent.

I think his lack of support among the seniors is more than made up for by his support from the youth.

Only if the youth bother to vote.

I suspect his lack of popularity among seniors is more to do with seniors generally leaning Conservative more than it is because of his skin color or name. There are plenty of detractors that are bitter about a black man being president. But it's more likely that his detractors are composed primarily of people who hate him for being a Democrat rather than any other reason.

Need I remind you about the fact that George Wallace got elected several times and the people who elected him are now old racists bastards in their 70s and 80s. Remeber today seniors of the 65-90 crowd grew up directly under the segregation fight. The current seniors came of age from 1942 to 1967 when being a racist and against equal treatment of the races was the only way to get elected in the southern states.

It was also a time and place where racist views were seen as normal and correct. I remember the tail end of that era, I think it's hard for people who came of age in the '90's and 00's to really understand how pervasive and open those attitudes were, and that our current notion of equality was, in much of the US, seen as radical or even dangerously misguided.

“Seniors” include people who grew up and lived in such a milieu and prefer it to our current society. They'd never vote for a black man.

And yes, some of it is fear of change, and some of it is because he's a Democrat, and some of it because of other reasons but racism is far, far more of an issue for Obama than any other PotUS.

Me, I'm going to be relieved when I cast my ballot on Tuesday. Of course, no matter who winds there will be people crying DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! In many ways, I'm more interested in the local races because those more directly affect me. Understandably, those outside of the US are mainly interested in the PotUS race although the makeup of Congress is at least as significant as far as what course the US will take.

[Connor MacLeod]

With 2 days to go, Nate Silver says O is back to his Pre-Denver high of 87% and R has no momentum. Should be a solid win but not a blowout.

Out of curiosity, do you (or anyone else) know if Silver's models for predicting this sort of thing has taken into account the possibility of all the dishonest tricks the GOP seems to be pulling (The voter fraud disenfranchisement for example?) I've seen some on his blog mention that before but I dont remember him ever addressing it, and its something that has been on my mind too. Obama does seem likely to win, and I don't think the GOP efforts have been significant enough to affect the numbers alot, but if it IS as close as they keep playing it a small change could be significant (Even if its just the popular vote it wouldnt surprise me if the GOP calls foul or tries to spin it as the EVIL Dems ignoring the will of the people or something, even if that does involve selective amensia)

[Crossroads Inc.]

Reading several Right wing "news" sources, the rampant hysteria going on rigth now is, well, Hysterical.

The "Delusion Doctrine" seems to have worked perfectly... Reading comments on a lot of blogs people are talking about how Mittens "Should" win in a land slide, but that they know of "Tens of thousands" of issues of assumed voter fraud going on. Apparently close to 50,000 votes in Ohio have already been destroyed by Obama thugs! And that evidently they have "hacked" polling computers to show Obama ahead in key states to try and dampen the spirits of Republicans! Oh yes, and somehow, despite being dead of almost four years "ACORN" is behind payoffs to illegal immigrants to vote for Obama in swing states as well.

Some of the best comments are of the "Doomsday" outcome of Romney winning the election and evidently, Democrats will riot in the streets, and plot open insurrection of a Romney Presidency. Projection much?

All in all, the far right of the party seems totally deluded into thinking that either A: Romney is going to win in a 300+ landslide. Or B: That Obama will win due to vote fraud on a scale that would make the most corrupt dictators jealous.

[Dalton]

Out of curiosity, do you (or anyone else) know if Silver's models for predicting this sort of thing has taken into account the possibility of all the dishonest tricks the GOP seems to be pulling (The voter fraud disenfranchisement for example?) I've seen some on his blog mention that before but I dont remember him ever addressing it, and its something that has been on my mind too. Obama does seem likely to win, and I don't think the GOP efforts have been significant enough to affect the numbers alot, but if it IS as close as they keep playing it a small change could be significant (Even if its just the popular vote it wouldnt surprise me if the GOP calls foul or tries to spin it as the EVIL Dems ignoring the will of the people or something, even if that does involve selective amensia)

I do not think that his models take that into account, no. I may be wrong. It could be that these issues more or less don't affect the actual outcome all that much unless it's a REALLY tight race. We'll have to see tomorrow night. Obama may well just clinch the win without FL and OH.

Republicans have been living in a sort of fantasy-land lately of positive affirmation, where if they truly really believe the things they say, Romney may become a real boy President. Almost none of the (sane) prediction models show Romney with much chance of winning, and the Romney landslides predicted by looneys like the Unskewed Polls guy is a masturbatory fantasy. On the other hand, I have to wonder what the fuck Jim Cramer was smoking when he predicted that O would win 440 EVs.

[Kuja]

I'm not sure if this should go here or in the terrible political cartoons thread or what, but-



HAHAHAHA OH WOW. I just ran across this the other day. This is some serious straight-up Yellow Peril stuff. All that's missing is the guy stroking his Fu Manchu at the end.

[Terralthra]

It's also from 2010, at which point it had its own thread.

[Dalton]

Turns out that Tagg Romney does not own voting machines in Ohio. The GOP voter suppression effort is still a concern, though.

[Tribun]

I read that the election infrastructure of the US is a joke, and that every banana republic has a better one. Is this over the top or is it accurate?

Btw., I myself have so much trouble with the idea that a land like the US has trouble to hold elections. Perhaps it's because in my country election preperations are treated as serious business and therefore gets the needed attention and efford.

One last thing I still wonder about is the countless ways to vote. All this stuff about computers and election machines makes me scratch my head, since in my country, election computers were declared illegal (too easy to manipulate with no way to prove it) and we still have the most simple and reliable way: making an X into the right circle on a paper ballot. (you have to admit, that is a simple and reliable way)

Please explain to me why the US making a drama of their elections every time.

[Kuja]

It's also from 2010, at which point it had its own thread.

Oh man, how did I miss that? Got a link?

[Terralthra]

It's also from 2010, at which point it had its own thread.

Oh man, how did I miss that? Got a link?

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... &p=3492215

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 1#p3429371

[Dalton]

Please explain to me why the US making a drama of their elections every time.

Politicians love to throw out accusations of "voter fraud" or "rigged elections" etc. since their candidate apparently can't win on merit alone. For example, there are serious voter suppression issues going on in places like PA, OH and FL since because of the US Electoral Vote system those three states have the potential to swing the balance in favor of a particular candidate. Also, because each state decides how their residents cast their ballots, there are a ton of different ways to do it and no consensus on the "best" way.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

I read that the election infrastructure of the US is a joke, and that every banana republic has a better one. Is this over the top or is it accurate?

Btw., I myself have so much trouble with the idea that a land like the US has trouble to hold elections. Perhaps it's because in my country election preperations are treated as serious business and therefore gets the needed attention and efford.

One last thing I still wonder about is the countless ways to vote. All this stuff about computers and election machines makes me scratch my head, since in my country, election computers were declared illegal (too easy to manipulate with no way to prove it) and we still have the most simple and reliable way: making an X into the right circle on a paper ballot. (you have to admit, that is a simple and reliable way)

Please explain to me why the US making a drama of their elections every time.

Unless my impressions are completely wrong, you have a better educated population, that understands that elections are important. Most people I talk to regard voting as a necessary chore, at best, and a completely worthless waste of time, at worst. In short, most people don't care about voting in general, think its all rigged anyway, and therefore don't see the point in making sure the elections are fair and honest.

Sometimes I really do think most Americans would be happier with a king.

[Ralin]

Unless my impressions are completely wrong, you have a better educated population, that understands that elections are important. Most people I talk to regard voting as a necessary chore, at best, and a completely worthless waste of time, at worst. In short, most people don't care about voting in general, think its all rigged anyway, and therefore don't see the point in making sure the elections are fair and honest.

I'd say the electoral college contributes to that too. There really isn't much point to me voting for Obama back home in Louisiana. I was in Hawai'i during the 2008 election and apparently a lot of Republicans felt similarly about McCain. So there's some truth to those impressions.

[Agent Sorchus]

It's also from 2010, at which point it had its own thread.

Oh man, how did I miss that? Got a link?

To be fair to you I've seen this ad on tv in the last two weeks.

[Broomstick]

I read that the election infrastructure of the US is a joke, and that every banana republic has a better one. Is this over the top or is it accurate?

It is the responsibility of the individual States to hold elections, so there are at least 50 different systems in play. Imagine three neighboring states. One might have machines that tally the vote via mechanical means. Another might have a paper ballot (The last time I voted in Chicago that's what we had, and that's also what lead to "hanging chads" in Florida in 2000). The third might have an electronic ballot. The next state over from that also has an electronic ballot but a completely different format.

Btw., I myself have so much trouble with the idea that a land like the US has trouble to hold elections.

Well, in a sense we don't have trouble holding elections - we have never delayed, much less cancelled, a national election, not for natural disaster, not for civil war, not for any reason.

The trouble comes in with either voting tampering, or trying to deny a group the vote. Over time, though, the trend has been to include more and more people as eligible voters.

One last thing I still wonder about is the countless ways to vote.

Again, each State sets up their own system. So.. .50 different ways to cast a vote on voting day. 50 different forms of absentee ballots. And so on. Within the state a person resides in the system is consistent.

Please explain to me why the US making a drama of their elections every time.

I don't know, and I live here. I try to console myself with the thought that the piles of money spent on political advertising is providing a boost to our economy, which we need right now, but it's pretty thin comfort.

[weemadando]

A nice, light piece by Annabel Crabb on the US and Australian electoral systems. She's got two specials on ABC tonight about the US election which should be interesting viewing.

Votes are in and our plodding way of having a say wins in a landslide
November 4, 2012, Annabel Crabb
Nothing like a stint in the good old US of A to make one appreciate one's home-grown electoral boffins.

Dear Australian Electoral Commission,

This is just a little note to thank you for being the way you are. And an apology for taking you for granted all this time. Like many millions of Australians, I'm guilty of thinking you a little fusty, with your anally retentive rules and your little cardboard demountable booths.

On occasion, I have rolled my eyes.

Like that time in, I think, 2004 when one of your electoral officials told Tony Abbott he had to remove his Liberal Party T-shirt before voting (no campaign material within six metres of a polling place). I'm all for sticking to the rules, but surely the broader cost to the sighted community on that occasion could have been weighed?

Or that time you reprimanded me for not voting in the NSW local government elections, when I was living overseas and couldn't care less who the mayor of Queanbeyan was.

But I take it all back, dear old Australian Electoral Commission. The scales have fallen from my eyes. After a recent close inspection of the US voting system, I returned to Australia with a strong urge to kiss your feet.

The United States of America will vote to elect a president on Tuesday. They will also vote to elect members of Congress, senators, sheriffs, judges, members of the county soil and water boards, local lollipop guys and anyone else that county administrations with way too much time on their hands think ought to be elected. Including election officials. They're elected, too, in a faintly disturbing hall-of-mirrors phenomenon I couldn't quite get my head around.

If an election official is to be elected, then don't you need another election official to oversee that election? And shouldn't that election official be elected? And so on.

And why do they vote on a Tuesday, anyway?

I am sure you know the answer to this one, O Omniscient Administered Agency, but barely anyone in the US does. It's because, back in 1845 when this decision was made, the US was an agrarian society in which voters needed a full day to travel to town by horse and buggy to do their democratic duty. Weekends were out, because they were reserved for worship. And Wednesday was market day. So Tuesday it was. And Tuesday it remains, despite the fact that Tuesday is convenient for pretty much nobody.

Ridiculous? Yes. And it will never be changed, because the moment somebody tries to change it, they will immediately be accused of voter fraud, of being born in Kenya, or of trying to buy the election, or of disenfranchising small Ohio-based religious sects who worship a graven image of Grover Cleveland every day except Tuesdays.

Everything about the US voting system - who is allowed to vote, how they vote, and how the damned things are counted - varies from state to state and county to county.

If you're a former jailbird, you may vote in New York but not in Florida. And while in one county you might find yourself blinking into a retinal scanner to register your democratic intent, 10 miles down the road another voter might be punching a bit of cardboard or colouring in dots on a prepared ballot, or sacrificing a Buff Orpington chicken rather than a Rhode Island White.

In Leon county, Florida, I got to play with an antique voting machine weighing one tonne, which was manufactured sometime just after VE Day and boasted a privacy curtain and a series of levers to register voter preference. It looked like a mediaeval Tardis, or some kind of industrial-era chastity device.

All very funny, until Leon county's supervisor of elections informed me that this very machine was still in use four years ago in New York.

Most of New York, incidentally, does use paper ballots, which are fed into computer vote-counting machines. But the machines then spit out paper receipts that are chopped into sections and manually totted up by the New York Police Department.

I can sense your brow furrowing, dear AEC, at the very thought of all this. Your Howard Hughes-like obsession with order and cleanliness would never tolerate such a mess.

And all for what? Of all the adults in the US who are eligible to vote - a fraction more than 200 million - just 57.1 per cent bothered to do so at the last presidential election. And that was thought to be a bumper turnout.

I know, dear AEC, that you sometimes feel marginalised at international conferences, sitting at the unfashionable enforced-compulsory-voting table, which has only 19 global members (Hiya, Peru! How's it hanging, Luxembourg?).
But I hope you hold your head up high, old puss. There's nothing wrong with asking everyone their opinion, and asking it in a methodical, predictable, even plodding way.

In a world of Flash Harry operatives, cheap-jack dictatorships and democracies for sale or rent, you may be a bird of dull plumage, but you're our bird and we love you. Or we ought to.

Annabel Crabb travelled to the US to film a presidential election special for ABC's Foreign Correspondent, which airs at 8pm on Tuesday on ABC1.

[Dalton]

Obama takes a huge jump in the 538 forecast. 314.4/91.4%/50.9%.

Oh, and Florida is tacking blue.

[Haruko]

Meanwhile, Pollster.com has Oregon as lean democrat. lolwtf?

[Dalton]

Now at 315.3/92.2%/50.9%

[Dominus Atheos]

I read that the election infrastructure of the US is a joke, and that every banana republic has a better one. Is this over the top or is it accurate?

That's over the top. Regardless of what Democrats whined about in 2004 and what Republicans are whining about now, the US election infrastructure works fine. There is no actual proven vote fraud.

...we still have the most simple and reliable way: making an X into the right circle on a paper ballot. (you have to admit, that is a simple and reliable way)

Vote By Mail



Simplest thing in the world.

Please explain to me why the US making a drama of their elections every time.

The only time in recent memory where there was actual drama was in 2000 when the supreme court had to answer the question "Can a state ignore the potential opinion of it's majority and appoint whoever they want as Electoral College members" and the constitution unfortunately says yes pretty clearly.

All other elections were just whining and FUD, and were carried out perfectly fine.

[Dominus Atheos]

Well, there's two examples of drama even in Oregon's Vote-By-Mail system. In one county, an election worker was caught tampering with ballots by filling in races that the voter had not filled in. (actually she was filling in for the Republicans in any race) There's two ballots she definitely tampered with, and an unknown amount "quarantined". I'd call this more dramatic if that wasn't something that could happen in any election system.

Second piece of what-some-might-call-drama-if-they-were-really-really-bored? The USPS, which is a federal agency that states have no control over, just implemented a policy of delivering any voting envelope regardless of whether it has a stamp. When Oregon implemented our Vote-By-Mail, we specifically included a provision that said that the envelopes had to have sufficient postage or they will be returned. (I think it's even in our state's constitution) So there is some disagreement between different counties on whether or not unstamped votes will be counted. Also not really drama since the return envelopes clearly say to add a stamp unless you're dropping it off by hand at a ballot drop site, and because both our candidates for secretary of state agree that unstamped ballots should be delivered and counted. (and are actually attacking each other over the issue)