|
|
|
probably because obama was projected to win those states he was ahead in anyway and he had a lead of like 300 to 150 electoral votes
|
|
|
When you're that far ahead it would basically take a miracle for the other guy to win. Conceding is just facing facts.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
All of the networks were calling it for Obama.
The fact is that in America, unless it's a very specific situation, your vote probably won't "count" anyway. Unless you lived in North Carolina, Indiana, or Missouri, your vote simply wasn't likely to change anything as far as the electoral college goes. And, of course, last night it wouldn't even have mattered if all three of those razor-close states had gone to McCain.
I don't see why the candidates have to prolong the inevitable based on giving part of America a sense of efficacy. If I lived in Oregon, and one of the candidates won every one of the east coast/midwest states, I would be much happier to see the other candidate gg and let the first guy give his victory speech. But maybe that's just me.
|
United States13896 Posts
heh where i live (in kentucky) my district was one of the few to close at 6:00 pm, and it was one of the earlier states to be "decided" for either candidate. I got sorta the complete opposite feeling cause when I got back down to school later in the day and started watching all the coverage they showed like the initial count in KY and I was thinking "oh yeah, I'm one of those so many thousand" because my district was done so early.
Anyways to your point you just have to get over it really. In this era unless it is extremely close you're usually going to see candidates conceding early. Besides, there's still other people you voted for, and I'm sure at least some of those races were close. Then again maybe you're like me and you were only really concerned with the presidential election and half-assed your way through the other decisions.
|
1584 Posts
<3 mario paint! :D
seems the other guys missed the purpose of this topic... ._.
|
On November 06 2008 00:11 Ki_Do wrote:
HOLY SCIT
DRAGONFORCE111
Ya that caught my attention too hahahahaha
|
haha cool vid.
On your point, well, I'm sure there probably countries too but the USA is the only one i know that doesn't has voting as an obligation. Also i find curious that usually the declared winner is so when the other one concedes, not when all the votes are counted. So, from my perspective i understand your point but really, it's just not contemplated in your voting system.
|
Mario paint songs are pretty much the greatest thing ever.
|
|
|
McCain got owned in the electoral votes, and really, those are the votes that really matter. The popular vote doesn't really matter. It was clear that Obama was the victor pretty early.
|
United States17042 Posts
On November 06 2008 02:06 zer0das wrote:
Mario paint songs are pretty much the greatest thing ever.
They're freaking awesome.
Mccain was pretty far behind in exit polling, as well as in the polling leading up to the election. It would have been better if he had waited, just so that his supporters wouldn't be disappointed in him. However, when he conceded doesn't really change the election results.
|
the whole winner takes all is ridiculous imho
|
I don't think the OP is saying that McCain would of had a remote chance of winning.. He's saying it's disrespectful to voters to quit so early and make them feel like their votes don't count. The next time a vote rolls around there's always the chance that people on the west coast will be like "oh, my vote didn't matter last time so why should I sit in line for two hours to vote?"
I'm also all for Obama, but I totally can see what the OP is talking about.
|
you rickrolled us with politics thats new i guess
|
On November 06 2008 04:15 Mikilatov wrote:
I don't think the OP is saying that McCain would of had a remote chance of winning.. He's saying it's disrespectful to voters to quit so early and make them feel like their votes don't count. The next time a vote rolls around there's always the chance that people on the west coast will be like "oh, my vote didn't matter last time so why should I sit in line for two hours to vote?"
I'm also all for Obama, but I totally can see what the OP is talking about.
This guy seems to be the only one who gets the point, Political Science classes talk about the 2004 election and how Kerry's concession before the end of the night disenfranchised voters making people immediately after say they were less likely to vote next time around. This time around there was such a large amount of effort on both sides to get people to get out and Vote that you'd think they'd avoid the same mistake.
As for the networks calling it too early? Yeah McCain didn't concede until around 11:30? I dont remember the exact time but the networks were calling an Obama Victory as early as 9PM EST that's pretty rediculous imho. Let's make something clear I never said I thought McCain was going to win I just said he should have waited to concede so that maybe next time around these people won't go "hey my vote didn't matter why should I vote"
On November 06 2008 00:13 motbob wrote:
All of the networks were calling it for Obama.
The fact is that in America, unless it's a very specific situation, your vote probably won't "count" anyway. Unless you lived in North Carolina, Indiana, or Missouri, your vote simply wasn't likely to change anything as far as the electoral college goes. And, of course, last night it wouldn't even have mattered if all three of those razor-close states had gone to McCain....(rest of post chopped)
This guy is proving my point with what he's saying, Obama has disproved this general idea by going into states that are traditionally republican controlled and making the networks mark them as swing states. By making the networks wonder if Obama might win traditional Republican states he contributed to the networks calling his victory even earlier. But the problem is if Obama can make a concerted effort to bring Republican states into contention by saying "Come out an vote you can make a difference" he's proved it can work the other way around as well. I don't ever want to hear someone say that someones vote won't "count" just because they're in a heavily tilted state.
If every republican in a democratic state doesnt go out and vote just because "Hey it's a democratic state my vote won't matter" then it's no real surprise that the sate goes democratic. If you can break people from their conventional thought of my state is Red or my sate is Blue and get them to go out and vote anyway you'd see a large difference.
But I'm off the original topic here the main issue is by conceding too early you're contributing to people feeling like their vote doesnt matter. So in 4 years when maybe the election is closer what do you do when some of those voters don't show up? Think forward a little wait half a day before giving your concession speech and you avoid all of this.
If McCain had waited to concede the front page of my paper would have been "Obama Wins" not "McCain Concedes" and that's a very very different connotation
|
There is no reason to consider how the 2000 and 2004 election would've been different if all those people came out and voted, because there wasn't any reason for them to. Obama is riding off amazing charisma during turbulent times, thus the kind of situation we had yesterday. That those states went from traditionally Republican to swing states is merely a reflection of the overall situation of the country and not a sign that your vote does matter - it simply looks like that there is a difference.
In other words, if the Credit crisis did not occur, I heavily doubt that we would see the kind of results that we did in such radical shifts.
EDIT - And seriously, every Republican in NY voting won't make a difference. We'd need like five votes each to even come close to contesting here -.-
|
United States24673 Posts
On November 06 2008 06:30 Ecael wrote:
EDIT - And seriously, every Republican in NY voting won't make a difference. We'd need like five votes each to even come close to contesting here -.-
We had 62% d to 37% r in such an election... not quite as one-sided as you think haha.
|
On November 06 2008 07:00 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 06:30 Ecael wrote:
EDIT - And seriously, every Republican in NY voting won't make a difference. We'd need like five votes each to even come close to contesting here -.- We had 62% d to 37% r in such an election... not quite as one-sided as you think haha.
Exaggeration :p
Depends on the area you are at though, in the City it really feels like that I am outnumbered five to one.
|
Fox called Ohio for Obama first my friends.
|
Wikipedia lists 2000 and 2004 as having about 100M and 120M total voters, respectively. Where'd you get 45M from?
|
I'm not really sure... I thought I looked that up, removed it from my post thanks for pointing that out
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
