dayman Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) Some women in Obama's coalition, not all... and only because Romney let Obama make a strawman issue out of it. You have to understand that whether you believe Romney is a true thumper on that issue, he made commitments to people along his journey to the nomination. He couldn't beat the "strawman" b/c of those commitments. And if he had been elected, when the party pushed up what they could manage through congress (who knows what a 2014 senate would look like if Romney won), and when SC justices retire...he would keep those commitments. So you can call it a strawman all you like, personally I always used to feel it was nonsense to appeal to the base and nothing would come of it...but in the past couple years as the party dynamic shifted it became clear that various changes in policy were a real part of a powerful GOP niche...you take people at their word in politics when they commit strongly to certain views...you have nobody to be angry with except Romney and the social conservatives who must vet everybody that comes through the party. Edited November 7, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) Some women in Obama's coalition, not all... and only because Romney let Obama make a strawman issue out of it. It's not a strawman because Mitt Romney likely would have had a Supreme Court appointee or two. Do you think that Romney would have nominated a justice that interpreted a right to privacy to be within the penumbras or emanations of other enumerated constitutional protections? Probably not. Therefore, Roe could have been outright overturned or distinguished into obscurity. I'm personally against abortion so I'll leave that discussion to anyone who wants to have it. But for Obama to use the abortion issue offensively against Romney was not fallacious or even logically attenuated. Edited November 7, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Dick Morris admits to having egg on his face and being completely wrong (also continues on later to blame the weather): http://www.dickmorris.com/why-i-was-wrong/ I’ve got egg on my face. I predicted a Romney landslide and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker. The key reason for my bum prediction is that I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to “normal” levels. Didn’t happen. These high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay. And, with them, a permanent reshaping of our nation’s politics. In 2012, 13% of the vote was cast by blacks. In 04, it was 11%. This year, 10% was Latino. In ’04 it was 8%. This time, 19% was cast by voters under 30 years of age. In ’04 it was 17%. Taken together, these results swelled the ranks of Obama’s three-tiered base by five to six points, accounting fully for his victory. I derided the media polls for their assumption of what did, in fact happen: That blacks, Latinos, and young people would show up in the same numbers as they had in 2008. I was wrong. They did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Was it really a squeaker? A weakened president pretty much ran away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Was it really a squeaker? A weakened president pretty much ran away with it. Squeaker may be little too strong, but it wasn't a run away. The electoral college is sort of built to create that perception, but a 2-3% difference isn't a runaway in my book. I would put that at 10%. This election was close enough that any number of small events could have perturbed it the other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) Was it really a squeaker? A weakened president pretty much ran away with it. Dick predicted a 325-213 Romney "landslide" A possible 332-206 outcome for Obama is now a "squeaker" Edited November 7, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Dick Morris admits to having egg on his face and being completely wrong (also continues on later to blame the weather): http://www.dickmorri...hy-i-was-wrong/ I’ve got egg on my face. I predicted a Romney landslide and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker. The key reason for my bum prediction is that I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to “normal” levels. Didn’t happen. These high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay. And, with them, a permanent reshaping of our nation’s politics. In 2012, 13% of the vote was cast by blacks. In 04, it was 11%. This year, 10% was Latino. In ’04 it was 8%. This time, 19% was cast by voters under 30 years of age. In ’04 it was 17%. Taken together, these results swelled the ranks of Obama’s three-tiered base by five to six points, accounting fully for his victory. I derided the media polls for their assumption of what did, in fact happen: That blacks, Latinos, and young people would show up in the same numbers as they had in 2008. I was wrong. They did. Dick Morris.............................that isn't egg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Question from a canuck. Why is the electoral college not allocated based on percentage of vote? If Ohio goes 50/50, why aren't 9 votes given to each candidate instead of 18? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Question from a canuck. Why is the electoral college not allocated based on percentage of vote? If Ohio goes 50/50, why aren't 9 votes given to each candidate instead of 18? That would require too much math for Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 That would require too much math for Americans. Is that why Obama got reelected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Is that why Obama got reelected? ...No. There is a larger game afoot. But I already got in trouble for blabbing once so I can't really go into detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 If a state wants to split their electoral votes they are free to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 If a state wants to split their electoral votes they are free to do so. I'm just asking why it's not already done? Just seems to make sense. I get why the popular vote doesn't decide the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Wow... Take a look at that electoral map... Down to the county level... It will be studied for years. Did Obama bring the wood or what? What Nate Silver "excuses" are the loons/TeaBaggers talking about? I mean... The economy "sucks" right? That is what they are telling everybody? And Obama dookies all over the Reagan "gameplan." LoL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) Is that why Obama got reelected? Because he INCLUDES people. Don't even get me to start on Adam's queer fetish... Still the "right thing" to do by Obama. This election is turning out to be a laugher. 53% of the electorate was woman... He won around at least 55-45 (men don't believe your wife voted for Romney... LoL). 95" of the AA popluation voted Obama... Latinos blew it out of the water too, more than McCain. 72% of the vote was white, down from 74% in 2008. Mitt and the repubs memo: You can't win on the angry white male vote in Orange County or out in the wilds of Loving County Texas! LoL Edited November 7, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Because he INCLUDES people. Don't even get me to start on Adam's queer fetish... Still the "right thing" to do by Obama. This election is turning out to be a laugher. 53% of the electorate was woman... He won around at least 55-45 (men don't believe your wife voted for Romney... LoL). 95" of the AA popluation voted Obama... Latinos blew it out of the water too, more than McCain. 72% of the vote was white, down from 74% in 2008. Mitt and the repubs memo: You can't win on the angry white male vote in Orange County or out in the wilds of Loving County Texas! LoL I imagine strategist meetings in Dem circles going "who can we get, how can we build a coalition" In GOP circles it must be "you need to say/believe x, y, z to keep our base, then try your best after that" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Because he INCLUDES people. Don't even get me to start on Adam's queer fetish... Still the "right thing" to do by Obama. This election is turning out to be a laugher. 53% of the electorate was woman... He won around at least 55-45 (men don't believe your wife voted for Romney... LoL). 95" of the AA popluation voted Obama... Latinos blew it out of the water too, more than McCain. 72% of the vote was white, down from 74% in 2008. Mitt and the repubs memo: You can't win on the angry white male vote in Orange County or out in the wilds of Loving County Texas! LoL You're a retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I imagine strategist meetings in Dem circles going "who can we get, how can we build a coalition" In GOP circles it must be "you need to say/believe x, y, z to keep our base, then try your best after that" Yep. As the GOP zips around from rally to rally in their 1972 Ford Pintos! You're a retard. And you are still an ignorant Canuck that finds the need to get innvolved in MY politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Yep. As the GOP zips around from rally to rally in their 1972 Ford Pintos! And you are still an ignorant Canuck that finds the need to get innvolved in MY politics. Ok Moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I'm just asking why it's not already done? Just seems to make sense. I get why the popular vote doesn't decide the election. The answer is basically "just because." Most states want to throw them all behind one guy I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts