EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 1425
| 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 | ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
| ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On November 10 2012 05:06 oneofthem wrote: he had the same info. it's right before his face. but he only focused on the fact that there are some republican counties left. he should know that cleveland and toledo were not counted yet, but he focused on a small piece of advantageous fact in order to say, wait a minute, we still have some time to spin this. edit: the cult 'argument.' let's consult the dictionary on that one cause language is god given and god speaks in a british accent. eh, mate? according to Fox, he did not have the same information as their desk. maybe they are lying, but I doubt it. seems more likely that he was getting that information from another source (I believe he mentioned that source on air) and was not being given numbers by the desk, but instead was just getting their results. in fact, Megyn Kelly marching off to the desk in order to get a confirmation supports that. I don't think the desk reports all the numbers to the reporters, they just tell the reporters when they've called the state. even if you meant cult in the sociological sense, Mormonism does not qualify: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult#Origins_in_sociology | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i defined the characteristics i was interested in. a class of privileged interpretation, theological control, indoctrination of kids, etc. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On November 10 2012 04:58 sc2superfan101 wrote: white women voted for Romney over Obama.... so you 1) didn't read the exit polls and 2) still haven't proven your claim that the GOP platform was based on hate. You're conflating multiple variables (the effect of being white, and the effect of being female). Bad statistics. Might as well point out that the majority of evangelical Bible Belt Christian women making over 200k a year voted for Romney. When it comes to women it's pretty clear that Democrats hold a large advantage. When it comes to minorities, it's also clear that Democrats hold an advantage. I don't see what's so disputable about this. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On November 10 2012 05:22 acker wrote: You're conflating multiple variables (the effect of being white, and the effect of being female). Bad statistics. Might as well point out that the majority of evangelical Bible Belt Christian women making over 200k a year voted for Romney. When it comes to women it's pretty clear that Democrats hold a large advantage. When it comes to minorities, it's also clear that Democrats holds an advantage. I don't see what's so disputable about this. when it comes to women, Obama held an advantage (presidential is not only electoral race), but I don't know if I would call it large. further, it is offensive and dishonest to lump all women into one homogenous group and assume that their opinions are uniform. it is actually bad statistics to simply say: "women supported Democrats by huge margins!" and not present the full picture of exactly which women and exactly why. when it comes to minorities, Democrats do, in general, have an advantage. not arguing that. I'm arguing: 1) that this proves the existence of a platform of hate, and, 2) that presidential exit polls represent the full picture of actual, by party, demographics. on a side note, has anyone said that Obama (and Democrats) have a "demographic" problem for losing males and whites and the elderly? | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On November 10 2012 05:02 sc2superfan101 wrote: you missed the point: Karl Rove had different information than them. he was not aware, at the time, that the only county left to count was Cuyahoga. different information = different interpretation. who knew?!?!?! No, I didn't miss the point. In case you somehow missed it in my post, the entire point is that the analysts had the information they needed to make the call. Rove did not. Despite this, he clung to his belief and disputed the call made by the ones who had access to the data. | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On November 10 2012 05:27 sc2superfan101 wrote: on a side note, has anyone said that Obama (and Democrats) have a "demographic" problem for losing males and whites and the elderly? If the electorate were increasingly male, older, and whiter in the future, then we would be talking about it. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On November 10 2012 05:27 sc2superfan101 wrote: When it comes to women, Obama held an advantage. But I don't know if the trend holds beyond the Presidential race. Furthermore, it is offensive and dishonest to lump all women into one homogenous group and assume that their opinions are uniform. It is bad statistics to say: "women supported Democrats by huge margins!" and not present the full picture of exactly which women and why. When it comes to minorities, Democrats do, in general, have an advantage. I'm arguing that this proves the existence of a platform of hate, and that presidential exit polls represent the full demographic picture, by party. On a side note, has anyone said that Obama have a demographic problem of losing males, whites, and the elderly? First and foremost, the trends hold beyond Presidential races. It's not exactly difficult to look up or infer. It's perfectly good statistics to say women support Democrats by a large margin. That's because it's true. It does not mean that all women support Democrats or that some subgroups of women do not vote Republican. On the other hand, it's terrible statistics to go Texas sharpshooter and single out the subgroups as a counterexample to such a statement. Being a woman is a positive factor towards voting Democratic, not a neutral or negative factor. I'm not sure why you'd say minorities going for Obama is considered a platform of hate. But I'm pretty sure that Republicans didn't lose the majority of the minority and female vote without trying really hard to do so. The population is getting older, to be sure. However, the population is getting less white and males are, proportionally, losing votes to women. Is there some sort of demographic problem here for the Democratic Party? | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On November 10 2012 05:27 sc2superfan101 wrote: when it comes to women, Obama held an advantage (presidential is not only electoral race), but I don't know if I would call it large. further, it is offensive and dishonest to lump all women into one homogenous group and assume that their opinions are uniform. it is actually bad statistics to simply say: "women supported Democrats by huge margins!" and not present the full picture of exactly which women and exactly why. when it comes to minorities, Democrats do, in general, have an advantage. not arguing that. I'm arguing: 1) that this proves the existence of a platform of hate, and, 2) that presidential exit polls represent the full picture of actual, by party, demographics. on a side note, has anyone said that Obama (and Democrats) have a "demographic" problem for losing males and whites and the elderly? When you have a decent constituency of women voting Democrat because they feel a Republican candidate would infringe upon basic reproductive rights, yeah it comes off as a platform of hate. Obviously not all women feel this way, but it is the singular issue that puts most women in the Democratic camp and will keep them there until the Republican platform updates itself with the 21st century. And no, it isn't a demographic problem because those demographics (white and elderly) are shrinking. While the nation is getting older, more young people are voting than ever before, which helps mitigate the advantage Republicans have historically had in that older individuals are more likely to make the effort to vote. Democrats would be talking about their demographic problem if religious white men were still the only ones voting, but they are not. I think it's fortunate that Romeny ran his campaign almost exclusively on the economy instead of these other social issues, because then it would have been an even wider margin of victory for Obama. Until the Republican Party can fix their image and not be immediately associated with anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigrant sentiments, they will continue to be shunned by the left, most of the middle, and even some of the socially liberal right. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 09 2012 23:45 oneofthem wrote: if this is the internal view of the republican party, that it's just a business cycle, then we are royally fucked. www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-15/sorry-u-s-recoveries-really-aren-t-different.html My point was that you cannot attribute "x party is better for the economy" to who is sitting president, because of things such as lagging effects and the business cycle, which is something completely out of their hands. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 10 2012 02:10 paralleluniverse wrote: So Republicans suddenly flip-flop on immigration after getting annihilated in the Latino demographic: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/sean-hannity-john-boehner-gop-tackle-immigration-reform-142212570--election.html Is there anyone who can't see through this cynical ploy? Well, at least it appears to be good for the country. I don't think it's "cynical". It's a view that's been evolving for many years now. They didn't just wake up today and go "well, we can't have what we wanted." There have been growing number of moderates pushing that stance for a while now. I think this election was a wake-up call to some of the more conservative elements. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 10 2012 04:14 jalstar wrote: I think the Nate Silver partisan hack thing is hilarious. Every time he's been wrong (Indiana in 08, two senate races in 2010, the Montana senate race this year) he's picked a Republican to beat a Democrat. If anything, his model is biased towards Republicans. While his formula isn't partisan, he definitely presents his information in a partisan manner. I think people take more of an issue with that than his formula. And there are people--even me--who did not expect the turnout to be that heavily Dem. I honestly thought it would be about 2% more Republican than it was. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On November 10 2012 06:15 BluePanther wrote: I don't think it's "cynical". It's a view that's been evolving for many years now. They didn't just wake up today and go "well, we can't have what we wanted." There have been growing number of moderates pushing that stance for a while now. I think this election was a wake-up call to some of the more conservative elements. Yes - losing a critical amount of support as a result of a certain stance, then deciding to change that stance to be closer to what the people want, isn't cynical. That's how parties are supposed to evolve in a democracy. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On November 10 2012 06:22 BluePanther wrote: While his formula isn't partisan, he definitely presents his information in a partisan manner. I think people take more of an issue with that than his formula. And there are people--even me--who did not expect the turnout to be that heavily Dem. I honestly thought it would be about 2% more Republican than it was. The table on this link does a really good job explaining why that happened. Basically confirms that lots of solid conservatives are now calling themselves "Independents." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-gourevitch/romney-lead-with-independents_b_2058290.html?utm_hp_ref=@pollster | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 10 2012 06:27 Signet wrote: The table on this link does a really good job explaining why that happened. Basically confirms that lots of solid conservatives are now calling themselves "Independents." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-gourevitch/romney-lead-with-independents_b_2058290.html?utm_hp_ref=@pollster I'm referring more to turnout. Sure, I have no doubt that Obama had more support than Romney from the population as many polls suggested; however, I didn't think we'd see the same level of turnout from the Democratic side. I understand what you're saying. I ID as an Independent, although my ties are much closer to the Republican Party. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 10 2012 06:22 BluePanther wrote: While his formula isn't partisan, he definitely presents his information in a partisan manner. I think people take more of an issue with that than his formula. And there are people--even me--who did not expect the turnout to be that heavily Dem. I honestly thought it would be about 2% more Republican than it was. Sure, his articles generally were statistical analyses of why Obama was more likely to win but that's because Obama was actually more likely to win. He did once in a blue moon say something like "I hope my model is right and everyone criticizing it is wrong because that would be bad news for both me and the President" in the end of his entries, I suppose. Everything else was 100% accurate descriptions of the trends in the polls. It's not his fault trends in the polls never favored Romney after the second debate. Plus his 2010 blog entries certainly couldn't be called partisan. | ||
|
Flakes
United States3125 Posts
On November 10 2012 06:33 BluePanther wrote: I'm referring more to turnout. Sure, I have no doubt that Obama had more support than Romney from the population as many polls suggested; however, I didn't think we'd see the same level of turnout from the Democratic side. I understand what you're saying. I ID as an Independent, although my ties are much closer to the Republican Party. I'd just assumed that conservative media predictions of a huge Romney win backfired in the form of republican voter apathy, while liberal media sources' constant declaration that the race was "too close to call" stirred up democrat voters -- especially in minorities, many of whom were already determined to exercise their voting rights in the wake of the voter ID mess. That article on polling statistics was really interesting though. | ||
|
stk01001
United States786 Posts
On November 10 2012 05:27 sc2superfan101 wrote: when it comes to women, Obama held an advantage (presidential is not only electoral race), but I don't know if I would call it large. further, it is offensive and dishonest to lump all women into one homogenous group and assume that their opinions are uniform. it is actually bad statistics to simply say: "women supported Democrats by huge margins!" and not present the full picture of exactly which women and exactly why. when it comes to minorities, Democrats do, in general, have an advantage. not arguing that. I'm arguing: 1) that this proves the existence of a platform of hate, and, 2) that presidential exit polls represent the full picture of actual, by party, demographics. on a side note, has anyone said that Obama (and Democrats) have a "demographic" problem for losing males and whites and the elderly? It's offensive to lump all woman into a single group and treat them equally as oppose to sepreating them into groups based on their skin color?? Quite the opposite really.. of course all woman's opinions aren't uniform, and ethnicity does play a role, but at the end of the day a MAJORITY of woman DON'T want men telling them what they can and can't do with their bodies, they want equal pay for equal work, and they want access to birth control.. doesn't matter what color their skin is. When they hear a 60 year old white dude saying it's "god's plan" for them to have a baby from a man they were raped by, well that just doesn't come off well. It's an extreme statement, but it's not that far off from their anti abortion platform. "Hate" is a strong word, but when it comes to the republican platform regarding gays, it's not far off. When the religious right, along with certain prominent republican figures (Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, two people who could have been the nominee), preach that homosexuality is wrong and evil, well that straight up IS hateful. Being against gay marriage is less extreme, but it still is straight up discrimination. Maybe republicans don't "hate" hispanics (some do I'm sure), but when your telling people who have been living and working in the country for years that they can't have any path to citizenship and should be deported, well maybe that's not "hate".. but they definitely don't "like" these people. The fact that he overwhelmingly won the minority vote in this economy might not prove a platform of "hate" but it definitely does prove one thing at least.. that there is something seriously wrong with the republican platform. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
sometimes the captives are not rebellin and you gotta rescue them. freeing the fuck out of them, in american speak | ||
| ||
