EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 1211
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
| ||
|
Amnesty
United States2054 Posts
7.8% for Romney 92.2% for Obama Not much change from his earlier update today but Blue improved again. Edit: Biggest changes are Ohio at 91% for Obama Florida flipped over to favor Obama slightly at 53% | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 06 2012 12:38 Jaaaaasper wrote: 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. I might be able to support that. Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, and co might run again but it's really hard to shake the dirt off of the loss to someone who lost without money backers like Romney had. They could try to frame Romney as losing because of not being conservative enough, but most of the big hitters in the party are smart enough to know that's not why Romney lost (if he loses) and more importantly will be able to state it eloquently. It helps that they all came off terribly favorability-wise in the primaries if I remember right. Maybe Palin will actually run this go around, but Christie et al will swat her off as easily as they'd swat off Paul Ryan. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 06 2012 12:38 Unholy_Prince wrote: Internal polls have around a 6 point bias towards the party they come from. PA isn't going red. Internal polls are they ones where they base their spending money on and are far more elaborate and accurate than polling agencies. I'm not talking out of my ass here. Apparently Romney's move there wasn't based on desperation; they actually think they can win it. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 06 2012 12:46 TheTenthDoc wrote: Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, and co might run again but it's really hard to shake the dirt off of the loss to someone who lost without money backers like Romney had. They could try to frame Romney as losing because of not being conservative enough, but most of the big hitters in the party are smart enough to know that's not why Romney lost (if he loses) and more importantly will be able to state it eloquently. It helps that they all came off terribly favorability-wise in the primaries if I remember right. Maybe Palin will actually run this go around, but Christie et al will swat her off as easily as they'd swat off Paul Ryan. Or, if that fails, he can always sit on them. Or eat them. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On November 06 2012 12:32 Signet wrote: 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. They don't need to lose the House. That's far too unrealistic. What needs to happen in the House needs to lose some republican seats so that house members are actually scared of losing their jobs. There's a lot of really close tea party races right now, so I imagine they'll lose a couple. More they lose, the more moderate they'll be after. | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On November 06 2012 12:46 TheTenthDoc wrote: Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, and co might run again but it's really hard to shake the dirt off of the loss to someone who lost without money backers like Romney had. They could try to frame Romney as losing because of not being conservative enough, but most of the big hitters in the party are smart enough to know that's not why Romney lost (if he loses) and more importantly will be able to state it eloquently. It helps that they all came off terribly favorability-wise in the primaries if I remember right. Maybe Palin will actually run this go around, but Christie et al will swat her off as easily as they'd swat off Paul Ryan. I hope you are right, but living in a area with a fair number of tea party true believers, they honestly think Romney was to moderate to get elected, and that someone like Sanoturm (or palin) could have won this year. There will be people pushing for those candidates to run again, and they will be vocal enough to attract attention. And in politics yelling loud enough is sometimes enough to have an effect. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
On November 06 2012 12:49 BluePanther wrote: Internal polls are they ones where they base their spending money on and are far more elaborate and accurate than polling agencies. I'm not talking out of my ass here. Apparently Romney's move there wasn't based on desperation; they actually think they can win it. Anderson Cooper tried to pin down that Cutter chick from the DNC on this. He asked her....Did the PA ad spend from Romney mean anything... She said..Nope..act of desperation. Then he came back with... Well why did you send Bill Clinton to Pennsylvania then?...the last campaign day? And she flubbed some weak response. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On November 06 2012 12:49 BluePanther wrote: Internal polls are they ones where they base their spending money on and are far more elaborate and accurate than polling agencies. I'm not talking out of my ass here. Apparently Romney's move there wasn't based on desperation; they actually think they can win it. l.o.l. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On November 06 2012 12:53 DoubleReed wrote: They don't need to lose the House. That's far too unrealistic. What needs to happen in the House needs to lose some republican seats so that house members are actually scared of losing their jobs. There's a lot of really close tea party races right now, so I imagine they'll lose a couple. More they lose, the more moderate they'll be after. I definitely agree with your last line. I don't see the total change being more than 10 for either party, but there are always a lot of close House races and there is always the possibility that, for all the talk about Republican undersampling, the polls have actually undersampled Latinos again or something like that. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On November 06 2012 12:51 jdseemoreglass wrote: Or, if that fails, he can always sit on them. Or eat them. He could just eat all his political opponents, get elected, and make all the other countries feel bad about themselves. | ||
|
Zaqwert
United States411 Posts
Meanwhile every person under 18 in this country is inheriting $218,676 in national debt. WOW, we did it you guys! FOUR MORE YEARS! It's a great irony in life that all the silly children supporting him this time will be the one inheriting the disaster of a country his policies will leave behind. | ||
|
holy_war
United States3590 Posts
On November 06 2012 12:59 Zaqwert wrote: Obama will probably win and this thread will erupt in high fives and celebration. Meanwhile every person under 18 in this country is inheriting $218,676 in national debt. WOW, we did it you guys! FOUR MORE YEARS! It's a great irony in life that all the silly children supporting him this time will be the one inheriting the disaster of a country his policies will leave behind. And sadly, neither Obama nor Romney can do much about that debt. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On November 06 2012 12:54 Jaaaaasper wrote: That may be the case, but all that means is that the conservative vote will be split. The people with money picked Romney for the simple reason that he seemed the most electable out of a bad lot once Perry proved to be incapable of public speaking. The same will happen to either Rubio or Christie. Both of those guys can appeal to voters in Ohio and Virginia and Colorado. The Tea Party types like Santorum or Bachman or whatever could only get votes in the Confederacy and probably not even Virginia and Florida. Whatever you can say about the GOP in general, the people who give over hundreds of millions to it arent stupid. [Although I guess if Mitt does lose, they will feel pretty pretty dumb considering the vast sums of money that went into this] I hope you are right, but living in a area with a fair number of tea party true believers, they honestly think Romney was to moderate to get elected, and that someone like Sanoturm (or palin) could have won this year. There will be people pushing for those candidates to run again, and they will be vocal enough to attract attention. And in politics yelling loud enough is sometimes enough to have an effect. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On November 06 2012 13:01 holy_war wrote: And sadly, neither Obama nor Romney can do much about that debt. Even more sadly (for deficit hawks), both have promised to avoid the "fiscal cliff" that would bring the deficit somewhat under control. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 06 2012 12:59 Zaqwert wrote: Obama will probably win and this thread will erupt in high fives and celebration. Meanwhile every person under 18 in this country is inheriting $218,676 in national debt. WOW, we did it you guys! FOUR MORE YEARS! It's a great irony in life that all the silly children supporting him this time will be the one inheriting the disaster of a country his policies will leave behind. Yes, because Romney has campaigned so hard on fixing our terrible generational accounting. I mean, he's even said he's not going to make any cuts to Medicare for the baby boomers and raged against the cuts Obama did make to the program! Oh wait, that's actually not going to fix our long-term entitlement problem? And neither will repealing all the comparative effectiveness and public health infrastructure in the ACA? Huh... | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On November 06 2012 13:01 holy_war wrote: And sadly, neither Obama nor Romney can do much about that debt. It's either fix the debt at the cost of double dip recession or keep the debt while restoring the economy. Obama leans toward the former, Romney the latter. Not a good.position to be in. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On November 06 2012 12:59 Zaqwert wrote: Obama will probably win and this thread will erupt in high fives and celebration. Meanwhile every person under 18 in this country is inheriting $218,676 in national debt. WOW, we did it you guys! FOUR MORE YEARS! It's a great irony in life that all the silly children supporting him this time will be the one inheriting the disaster of a country his policies will leave behind. Ya. And the women. And the African Americans. And the college educated urban dwellers. And the Latinos. But you see the light, and only if the genius of Ron Paul could turn America back to the wonders of the 19th century all problems would be solved. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On November 06 2012 12:59 Zaqwert wrote: Obama will probably win and this thread will erupt in high fives and celebration. Meanwhile every person under 18 in this country is inheriting $218,676 in national debt. WOW, we did it you guys! FOUR MORE YEARS! It's a great irony in life that all the silly children supporting him this time will be the one inheriting the disaster of a country his policies will leave behind. What's the national debt when you add 5 to 7 trillion to it, as Romney has essentially proposed? | ||
| ||
