|
|
At it's core the fight in the GOP is the same one we've been having for decades. It's essentially the Rockefeller Republicans vs. Goldwater Republicans with a little Christian Right thrown in for flavor. I suspect that the pundits that have been wishing for the Tea Party to go away if Obama wins have severely underestimated the Tea Party.
I'll be voting in about 9 hours and still haven't decided which way I'm going to go on the Georgia Charter School amendment. Also, even though he's going to lose, I'm seriously considering voting for the Democratic candidate for Congress in my district. It would be more of an anti-incumbent vote than anything else, but I can think of worse reasons for voting for a Blue Dog Democrat.
The most important question I face tomorrow is what to get at the store to go along with my case of beer as I overdose on election day coverage. 
|
On November 06 2012 12:15 Defacer wrote:
Nate Silver and the fivethirtyeight blog has Obama with a staggering 91.4% chance of winning right now.
Makes sense. The closer the polls are to the election, the closer they are to being accurate. There's probably some level of uncertainty built into the model based on time to election and now that we're at T-1 day there's no room now for any weird shit to pop up.
On November 06 2012 12:20 ey215 wrote:At it's core the fight in the GOP is the same one we've been having for decades. It's essentially the Rockefeller Republicans vs. Goldwater Republicans with a little Christian Right thrown in for flavor. I suspect that the pundits that have been wishing for the Tea Party to go away if Obama wins have severely underestimated the Tea Party. I'll be voting in about 9 hours and still haven't decided which way I'm going to go on the Georgia Charter School amendment. Also, even though he's going to lose, I'm seriously considering voting for the Democratic candidate for Congress in my district. It would be more of an anti-incumbent vote than anything else, but I can think of worse reasons for voting for a Blue Dog Democrat. The most important question I face tomorrow is what to get at the store to go along with my case of beer as I overdose on election day coverage.
I'm voting against it because of this interview with Edward Lindsey (seems to work only in IE). He just dodges everything and really makes it seem like its just a plan to give handouts to private institutions aka government welfare. Can listen for yourself to see what I mean.
Edit: http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/10/24/charter-school-amendment-would-set-off-gold-rush/
|
Just putting out a data point to look at when election results come in.
Virginia... bottom line as Northern VA goes..so does the rest of the state. There is too much population in NoVA. So if you're looking at actual election results...look at these 3 counties. These are 20% of Virginia's active & registered voters.
Obama's percentages in 2008
Prince William - 57.5%
Loudoun - 53.6%
Fairfax - 60%
State as Whole 52.6%
2012 Virginia election site :
http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/
|
I expect a strong Democratic showing in Loudoun county; my grandparents will no doubt be voting Obama
|
On November 06 2012 12:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:
If you want to define the entire left vs. right dichotomy with the issue of taxes then I guess your argument makes sense. Regardless of their tax policy, however, all of those presidents resided over expanded government expenditures. All recent presidents, whether democrat or republican, have presided over higher government expenditures. And while that alone is also not the defining characteristic of the left/right paradigm, it is at least more accurate than focusing solely on tax cuts.
Yea, I was focusing on the issue of tax cuts, but it's an issue that Republicans and Tea Partiers alike seem to consider quite paramount. By that issue's standards, both parties are growing more conservative. So they should be a lot more pleased than they seem to be.
You can look at social issues and argue that both parties may be growing more liberal -- and that's probably true. You can look at spending, and say both parties are expansionist. You can look at bail-outs and call George W. pretty liberal in that regard.
But generally speaking, I'd point to Ronald Reagan, and say, rather decisively, that we've been a more conservative nation ever since. The differences we fight over now are rather petty compared to the conservative changes that we went through under Reagan.
|
I think the rightness of the republicans will be determined by how many seats they lose in the election. If they manage to be relatively unscathed, then they'll probably stay right and uncompromising. If they lose seats and barely squeeze seats out, I can see them becoming more reasonable.
|
On November 06 2012 12:22 RCMDVA wrote:Just putting out a data point to look at when election results come in. Virginia... bottom line as Northern VA goes..so does the rest of the state. There is too much population in NoVA. So if you're looking at actual election results...look at these 3 counties. These are 20% of Virginia's active & registered voters. Obama's percentages in 2008 Prince William - 57.5% Loudoun - 53.6% Fairfax - 60% State as Whole 52.6% 2012 Virginia election site : http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/
Based on those percentages, it appears that Romney can win VA while losing NoVA. I don't care to look up the population of each county, but if they're all about equal, then Obama won 5% more votes there than he did in the state as a whole, so he'd need to win about 55% of the votes in those 3 just to split the state 50/50.
|
On November 06 2012 12:20 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 12:15 Defacer wrote:
Nate Silver and the fivethirtyeight blog has Obama with a staggering 91.4% chance of winning right now.
Makes sense. The closer the polls are to the election, the closer they are to being accurate. There's probably some level of uncertainty built into the model based on time to election and now that we're at T-1 day there's no room now for any weird shit to pop up. Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 12:20 ey215 wrote:At it's core the fight in the GOP is the same one we've been having for decades. It's essentially the Rockefeller Republicans vs. Goldwater Republicans with a little Christian Right thrown in for flavor. I suspect that the pundits that have been wishing for the Tea Party to go away if Obama wins have severely underestimated the Tea Party. I'll be voting in about 9 hours and still haven't decided which way I'm going to go on the Georgia Charter School amendment. Also, even though he's going to lose, I'm seriously considering voting for the Democratic candidate for Congress in my district. It would be more of an anti-incumbent vote than anything else, but I can think of worse reasons for voting for a Blue Dog Democrat. The most important question I face tomorrow is what to get at the store to go along with my case of beer as I overdose on election day coverage. I'm voting against it because of this interview with Edward Lindsey (seems to work only in IE). He just dodges everything and really makes it seem like its just a plan to give handouts to private institutions aka government welfare. Can listen for yourself to see what I mean.
Nate did explain why the odds of Obama winning are 'only' at 80 to 90% a few days ago. Basically, the only reason to believe that Romney will win is that the polls across the board are inherently flawed and flat-out wrong.
|
On November 06 2012 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:
I think the rightness of the republicans will be determined by how many seats they lose in the election. If they manage to be relatively unscathed, then they'll probably stay right and uncompromising. If they lose seats and barely squeeze seats out, I can see them becoming more reasonable.
If Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Brian Sandoval, and (hopefully) Jon Huntsman are the prime Republican presidential candidates for 2016 I can't see the party radicalizing/staying as right as it was this primary cycle.
|
On November 06 2012 12:28 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 12:22 RCMDVA wrote:Just putting out a data point to look at when election results come in. Virginia... bottom line as Northern VA goes..so does the rest of the state. There is too much population in NoVA. So if you're looking at actual election results...look at these 3 counties. These are 20% of Virginia's active & registered voters. Obama's percentages in 2008 Prince William - 57.5% Loudoun - 53.6% Fairfax - 60% State as Whole 52.6% 2012 Virginia election site : http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/ Based on those percentages, it appears that Romney can win VA while losing NoVA. I don't care to look up the population of each county, but if they're all about equal, then Obama won 5% more votes there than he did in the state as a whole, so he'd need to win about 55% of the votes in those 3 just to split the state 50/50. .
Yeah thats about right.
|
On November 06 2012 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:
I think the rightness of the republicans will be determined by how many seats they lose in the election. If they manage to be relatively unscathed, then they'll probably stay right and uncompromising. If they lose seats and barely squeeze seats out, I can see them becoming more reasonable.
One thing to keep in mind, with the district maps we had from the 2000 redistricting, the median congressional district in this country had a partisan voter index of R+2, meaning that in a year when the national vote was split 50/50, that district would be 52% Republican. (alternatively, the Democrats would need to win 52% of the vote nationwide to be expected to win 50% of the vote in that district) The 2010 redistricting changed that to R+3. The House should be safely Republican until 2022 unless the party really screws up. This year, I think the worst-case scenario for the GOP is losing 15 house seats, and I expect the actual result to be a gain of less than 10 for either party.
|
On November 06 2012 12:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:
I think the rightness of the republicans will be determined by how many seats they lose in the election. If they manage to be relatively unscathed, then they'll probably stay right and uncompromising. If they lose seats and barely squeeze seats out, I can see them becoming more reasonable. If Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Brian Sandoval, and (hopefully) Jon Huntsman are the prime Republican presidential candidates for 2016 I can't see the party radicalizing/staying as right as it was this primary cycle.
Is it known if Ron Paul is going to run again? Or Rand?
|
On November 06 2012 12:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 12:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 06 2012 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:
I think the rightness of the republicans will be determined by how many seats they lose in the election. If they manage to be relatively unscathed, then they'll probably stay right and uncompromising. If they lose seats and barely squeeze seats out, I can see them becoming more reasonable. If Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Brian Sandoval, and (hopefully) Jon Huntsman are the prime Republican presidential candidates for 2016 I can't see the party radicalizing/staying as right as it was this primary cycle. Is it known if Ron Paul is going to run again? Or Rand?
Ron almost certainly not; Rand almost certainly.
|
allegedly the internal polls are very close in PA. That could be a game-changer.
|
I would just like to wish all US citizens a good and fair election. I hope you will all exercise your power to vote, circumstances permitting.
My media attention is completely focused on this event, so please, make it a good one!
|
Reps won't lose seats. I think with census shifts and incumbents dropping like flies they'll gain seats.
Definitely support Christie in 2016. He's bluntly honest and makes it work.
|
On November 06 2012 12:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:
I think the rightness of the republicans will be determined by how many seats they lose in the election. If they manage to be relatively unscathed, then they'll probably stay right and uncompromising. If they lose seats and barely squeeze seats out, I can see them becoming more reasonable. If Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Brian Sandoval, and (hopefully) Jon Huntsman are the prime Republican presidential candidates for 2016 I can't see the party radicalizing/staying as right as it was this primary cycle.
If those are the republican candidates they would have a really good shot at the white house, but if you add in Santorum and other tea party darlings the primary will go so far to the right that they will scare off moderates and even Huntsman will have to win back independents who fled because of the rhetoric in the primary. Basically the tea party has to fizzle out or at least lose some power with-in the gop or the party will stay really far to the right.
On November 06 2012 12:36 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Reps won't lose seats. I think with census shifts and incumbents dropping like flies they'll gain seats.
Definitely support Christie in 2016. He's bluntly honest and makes it work.
I might be able to support that.
|
On November 06 2012 12:36 BluePanther wrote:
allegedly the internal polls are very close in PA. That could be a game-changer.
Internal polls have around a 6 point bias towards the party they come from. PA isn't going red.
|
The tea party is dead imo. It's become a catch-all term which is why people think it still has power. When people like Bachman or Palin claim to be part of the Tea Party, it's obvious the tea party is dead. It's been taken over by social conservatives and the GOP and is now indistinguishable from the rest of the Republican party.
|
On November 06 2012 12:29 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 12:20 ZeaL. wrote:On November 06 2012 12:15 Defacer wrote:
Nate Silver and the fivethirtyeight blog has Obama with a staggering 91.4% chance of winning right now.
Makes sense. The closer the polls are to the election, the closer they are to being accurate. There's probably some level of uncertainty built into the model based on time to election and now that we're at T-1 day there's no room now for any weird shit to pop up. On November 06 2012 12:20 ey215 wrote:At it's core the fight in the GOP is the same one we've been having for decades. It's essentially the Rockefeller Republicans vs. Goldwater Republicans with a little Christian Right thrown in for flavor. I suspect that the pundits that have been wishing for the Tea Party to go away if Obama wins have severely underestimated the Tea Party. I'll be voting in about 9 hours and still haven't decided which way I'm going to go on the Georgia Charter School amendment. Also, even though he's going to lose, I'm seriously considering voting for the Democratic candidate for Congress in my district. It would be more of an anti-incumbent vote than anything else, but I can think of worse reasons for voting for a Blue Dog Democrat. The most important question I face tomorrow is what to get at the store to go along with my case of beer as I overdose on election day coverage. I'm voting against it because of this interview with Edward Lindsey (seems to work only in IE). He just dodges everything and really makes it seem like its just a plan to give handouts to private institutions aka government welfare. Can listen for yourself to see what I mean. Nate did explain why the odds of Obama winning are 'only' at 80 to 90% a few days ago. Basically, the only reason to believe that Romney will win is that the polls across the board are inherently flawed and flat-out wrong.
Yes, at this point basically all of the polls in Ohio are showing Obama with a few points' lead. While that's within the margin of error, this is offset by the number of polls showing it. The polls will have had to be systematically wrong to miss by that much over an aggregated sample.
If this happens, my bet will be that Democrats were less enthusiastic than their responses to pollsters indicated. The pollsters did a really good job predicting what happened in 2010 (a little high on the Senate changes, a little low on the House, but the polls predicted huge changes in both chambers) so I think they can measure GOP enthusiasm alright. But the numbers in national polls (currently Obama by anywhere from 0.5 to 1.5 points on the aggregation sites that don't add their own forecast variables) indicate that the Democrats have reached, at least, a midpoint in enthusiasm between where they were in 2010 vs where they were in 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
