Sponsored Links

[akaCG]

One month is a long time. There are still 3 debates left, one more unemployment number due, the geopolitical situation is quite fluid, and there's always the customary "October Surprise" (or will there be more than one?) to consider.

But that's what makes this more fun. So, ...

1. What will be the Obama/Romney popular vote split?

2. What will be the Obama/Romney Electoral College vote split?

3. What will be the Democratic/Republican U.S. Senate composition?

4. What will be the Democratic/Republican U.S. House composition?

Bonus question:

At what time (Eastern) will the Presidential Election be called?


My predictions:

1. Obama 47%, Romney 52%

2. Obama 236, Romney 302

3. Dems 50, Reps 50

4. Dems 199, Reps 236

Bonus: 11:45 PM Eastern

[scubatim]

Congratulations to the Electoral College Prediction Winner: "Dingo"

Thank you, although my prediction ultimately 303 for Obama, was a latter day one with all the near election polls in.

One thought, I was surprised at how objective a lot of the Fox News post election commentary was. I expected a lot more partisan bitterness. They generally seemed to buy the notion that the republicans need to seriously make some policy pivots or risk becoming political dinosaurs. They particularly seemed to be sobered by the rise of hispanic power.

I have noticed this throughout the social networking environment. Not much being said by the sane republicans; unfortunately I see a lot of gloating and attacks from those that supported Obama. I can't for the life of me figure out why they feel they need to attack anymore.

[Raptavio]

I have noticed this throughout the social networking environment. Not much being said by the sane republicans; unfortunately I see a lot of gloating and attacks from those that supported Obama. I can't for the life of me figure out why they feel they need to attack anymore.

Schadenfreude is a constant part of any electoral victory, just as the victory dance is. In an election this acrimonious, it's only going to be amplified.

Besides, bathing in the bitter tears of right-wingers screaming about the end of America is wonderful for the skin.

[Dontreadonme]

I have noticed this throughout the social networking environment. Not much being said by the sane republicans; unfortunately I see a lot of gloating and attacks from those that supported Obama. I can't for the life of me figure out why they feel they need to attack anymore.

I've had the opposite experience. I mostly travel in Mil Blogs and such where the regular population is pretty staunchly right wing....and I've seen no end to apocalyptic foretelling of the demise of western civilization [Mayan calendar notwithstanding].

I take it with a grain of salt though....when their party has spared no rhetoric telling them that Obama is a wild-eyed Kenyan Marxist [if not actually the anti-Christ], such a sound thumping is likely to set small minds off kilter for a bit.

[Paladin Elspeth]

Congratulations to the Electoral College Prediction Winner: "Dingo"

Thank you, although my prediction ultimately 303 for Obama, was a latter day one with all the near election polls in.

One thought, I was surprised at how objective a lot of the Fox News post election commentary was. I expected a lot more partisan bitterness. They generally seemed to buy the notion that the republicans need to seriously make some policy pivots or risk becoming political dinosaurs. They particularly seemed to be sobered by the rise of hispanic power.

I have noticed this throughout the social networking environment. Not much being said by the sane republicans; unfortunately I see a lot of gloating and attacks from those that supported Obama. I can't for the life of me figure out why they feel they need to attack anymore.

You can't figure it out? After Obama has, for over a year, been alleged to be a Kenyan, a Muslim, a Communist, a Socialist, a Fascist, not American, "not Black," lying, incompetent, sneaky, a reckless spendthrift, un-patriotic, stupid, elitist and determined to destroy our country and the American family? Really?

My response to the election victory has been pretty moderate as things go. But I don't really blame people who are still smarting from efforts of the opposition to de-legitimize our candidate in so many ways, and all at the same time.

You know darn well that in this political climate "Letting bygones be bygones" is viewed as weakness. Obama tried it over the last 3 years. Why should his supporters try to soothe Republican bruised egos?

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 7 2012, 11:39 PM

[Eeyore]

My social network has been mostly reserved pro-Obama and a fairly constant stream of "well America is going to get what it asked for" anti-Obamans.

[Curmudgeon]

I have noticed this throughout the social networking environment. Not much being said by the sane republicans; unfortunately I see a lot of gloating and attacks from those that supported Obama. I can't for the life of me figure out why they feel they need to attack anymore.

Personal aside, "sane republicans" may be added to my personal lexicon of oxymorons. ("Good Morning" tops my list, I have always prioritized it rather than alphabetized it.)

The social networking environment may consist largely of young folks with raging hormones. ("Hey! I can do more pushups using only my thumbs than you can!")

Many of the Republicans that I have known have tended to become that way as they aged and acquired assets and wealth that they felt a need to personally protect from "the enemies within." (As Chairman Bernie used to say on Tuesday mornings, "It may be cheaper to provide a family enough welfare to live on than to throw them in debtor's prison, but we wouldn't have to clothe and feed them if they were in prison.")

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Nov 8 2012, 03:03 AM

[Dingo]

Then there is the post-election perspective of the daddy of rhe right wing nutcases. I wonder if Fox would allow him back?

[Mrs. Pigpen]

Then there is the post-election perspective of the daddy of rhe right wing nutcases. I wonder if Fox would allow him back?

Irony being, I'll bet he accepts that government subsidy for his 'farmland', and of course uses it for tax advantage.

I don't doubt for a minute he's buying more, since he made a lot of money this year I'm sure.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Nov 8 2012, 01:26 PM

[Hobbes]

You can't figure it out? After Obama has, for over a year, been alleged to be a Kenyan, a Muslim, a Communist, a Socialist, a Fascist, not American, "not Black," lying, incompetent, sneaky, a reckless spendthrift, un-patriotic, stupid, elitist and determined to destroy our country and the American family? Really?

My response to the election victory has been pretty moderate as things go. But I don't really blame people who are still smarting from efforts of the opposition to de-legitimize our candidate in so many ways, and all at the same time.

You do realize this happens the other way too, right?

[Raptavio]

You can't figure it out? After Obama has, for over a year, been alleged to be a Kenyan, a Muslim, a Communist, a Socialist, a Fascist, not American, "not Black," lying, incompetent, sneaky, a reckless spendthrift, un-patriotic, stupid, elitist and determined to destroy our country and the American family? Really?

My response to the election victory has been pretty moderate as things go. But I don't really blame people who are still smarting from efforts of the opposition to de-legitimize our candidate in so many ways, and all at the same time.

You do realize this happens the other way too, right?

Yes, it does. Are you asserting that the degree and frequency with which it happens is anywhere near equivalent?

[Mrs. Pigpen]

You can't figure it out? After Obama has, for over a year, been alleged to be a Kenyan, a Muslim, a Communist, a Socialist, a Fascist, not American, "not Black," lying, incompetent, sneaky, a reckless spendthrift, un-patriotic, stupid, elitist and determined to destroy our country and the American family? Really?

My response to the election victory has been pretty moderate as things go. But I don't really blame people who are still smarting from efforts of the opposition to de-legitimize our candidate in so many ways, and all at the same time.

You do realize this happens the other way too, right?

Yes, it does. Are you asserting that the degree and frequency with which it happens is anywhere near equivalent?

I'm not Hobbes, but I'd say they are about equal. Really depends on who holds the presidential seat, since that's the biggest target.
Remember the Truther movement? Accusing the president of killing thousands of our citizens in cold blood for oil profits sort of trumps asserting he wasn't born in the US.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Nov 8 2012, 04:53 PM

[Raptavio]

I'm not Hobbes, but I'd say they are about equal. Really depends on who holds the presidential seat, since that's the biggest target.
Remember the Truther movement? Accusing the president of killing thousands of our citizens in cold blood for oil profits sort of trumps asserting he wasn't born in the US.

Did the Truther movement have major support from Democratic officeholders or news networks or did the Democrats by and large push their concerns to the fringe?

By my memory, Van Jones was the most prominent Democrat to give any support to the Truther movement, and even he backed away from them as soon as he realized what he had stepped into.

Short version of the above: I believe you're asserting a false equivalence.

[Hobbes]

Yes, it does. Are you asserting that the degree and frequency with which it happens is anywhere near equivalent?

I tend to try to filter it out, but I would say that it changes depending on who is in power, and who isn't. I saw at least the same level of virulence from the Democrats when Bush was in office. Both sides think the other does it more, which itself is probably a good indicator that both sides are about equal. I would love it if it all went away, but I'm not holding my breath. Until then, whether one side does it 100 times too much, and the other does it 90 is a fairly irrelevant discussion, IMHO. That discussion is of the 'ya, but they do it more!' variety, and is usually used to justify it for one side, when the discussion should really be more on 'how do we reduce it'. FWIW, I thought both candidates (this election and last) tried to dampen it. I don't think either Romney or Obama is a mudslinger at heart, nor did they really campaign that way.

Probably worth adding that 'too much' is a very relative term itself. Parties do this because it works. Campaign advisors might well say it isn't done enough, and politically they might be right, which is why the problem is so prevalent. Negative campaigning is done because it works. Various candidates, on both sides, have tried running positive campaigns, but as that effort falters, they inevitably turn negative to counter it. It is essentially human nature. People in one group have castigated those in other groups since humans were able to vocalize (and I wouldn't be surprised if gestures were used before that).

You get the same thing if you go into any sports chat room, and for the same reasons. People get attached to 'their' team, get emotionally engaged, and then start tossing invectives whenever their side wins or loses. I can't stand it there, either...it's like being in a room full of screaming infants, each wanting something another one has. A whole bunch of imbelic taunting, as if they had anything whatsoever to do with their team winning or losing. Again...human nature, sad as that might be. Much as in political chat rooms or debate sites, there are those that are open to having objective discussions, but they can easily get drowned out by those just wanting to gloat or rant. There, as here, I like to try to see why things happened, what strategies would work better (should they be more up tempo? how can they fix their defense? why are they throwing so many interceptions?, etc), but at least every other post, it seems, is '<insert team or player name> suck(s)!!! ' How do you have a discussion with that? Plus, there, as in political debate sites, the ranters might be in the minority, but they make it up with volume, creating the perception that there are many more of them than there really are. Also, there, as here, fans of each team think fans of other teams are the worst at it. Sometimes they might even be right, but that's not really the point--fans of all teams do it.

At least in politics people can actually get engaged directly, and when they do, I don't mind a little giddiness when their team wins. But that can be done without castigating the opponent. Being from Montana, and having a good friend who went to school at the University of Montana, I went onto one of the chat sites last year when the Wisconsin Badgers (a #2 or 3 seed I believe) beat the Grizzlies(A 14 or 15 seed, who had to pull off an upset in their tournament to get in) by about 20 points, which is what everyone should have expected to happen. The taunting the Badger fans threw out would make you think they just won the national championship. What purpose was that supposed to serve? I chatted with some of them about it, and they said it was because of all the naysaying from the analysts (which was true). OK--why not direct your comments towards them? None of the Montana fans were really involved in it. Same thing in politics. Yes, there are alot of people casting vitriol, on both sides, and I can see why the winning side would want to give them some 'How you like it now!'. But directing that at those (usually the majority) who weren't in the group saying those things is pointless, and just adds to the problem. You can be very happy that your team won without being condescending to the other side. It just doesn't happen that way that often.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Nov 8 2012, 05:42 PM

[Raptavio]

Yes, it does. Are you asserting that the degree and frequency with which it happens is anywhere near equivalent?

I tend to try to filter it out, but I would say that it changes depending on who is in power, and who isn't. I saw at least the same level of virulence from the Democrats when Bush was in office. Both sides think the other does it more, which itself is probably a good indicator that both sides are about equal. I would love it if it all went away, but I'm not holding my breath. Until then, whether one side does it 100 times too much, and the other does it 90 is a fairly irrelevant discussion, IMHO. That discussion is of the 'ya, but they do it more!' variety, and is usually used to justify it for one side, when the discussion should really be more on 'how do we reduce it'. FWIW, I thought both candidates (this election and last) tried to dampen it. I don't think either Romney or Obama is a mudslinger at heart, nor did they really campaign that way.

Probably worth adding that 'too much' is a very relative term itself. Parties do this because it works. Campaign advisors might well say it isn't done enough, and politically they might be right, which is why the problem is so prevalent. Negative campaigning is done because it works. Various candidates, on both sides, have tried running positive campaigns, but as that effort falters, they inevitably turn negative to counter it. It is essentially human nature. People in one group have castigated those in other groups since humans were able to vocalize (and I wouldn't be surprised if gestures were used before that).

Can you provide evidence to support your assertions? I can find no precedent to the sheer volume (and mainstream penetration) of the vicious lies about President Obama. And yes, I remember the Truthers and "Bu$Hitler" crap, and I don't pretend they didn't happen. But this did not happen before. Not with Bush, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford nor even Nixon, to sum up the Presidents in my lifetime. Never had major media nor elected officials entertained nor even promoted these sorts of vicious lies about a sitting President to the degree they do today.

[Hobbes]

Can you provide evidence to support your assertions?

Probably, but as I said, I find the discussion both irrelevant and fruitless. The question has been raised on various threads here, and no amount of evidence ever convinces one side that they do it as much or more than the other. Both sides do it, and both sides do it too much for my liking. When looking at two children making a mess, both will say "ya, but the other one started it!". I'm not that interested in which one did it more, I just want the mess cleaned up, and for it to not happen in the future. Engaging in the who started it discussion is not achieving the desired end, nor does it really make any difference. There is still a mess, and both sides still contributed to it.

Never had major media nor elected officials entertained nor even promoted these sorts of vicious lies about a sitting President to the degree they do today.

This might be true, as it relates to major media (elected officials have done it throughout history--campaign ads from the 1800's make todays look tame by comparison). But even if so, I see it as more of a symptom than a cause, and as long as people try to justify it when their side does it, the problem will continue. Same with news broadcasts in general...they sensationalize stories (over matters that are really trivial in the big picture) because people watch, and until people stop watching they will continue to do it.

[Raptavio]

Can you provide evidence to support your assertions?

Probably, but as I said, I find the discussion both irrelevant and fruitless. The question has been raised on various threads here, and no amount of evidence ever convinces one side that they do it as much or more than the other. Both sides do it, and both sides do it too much for my liking. When looking at two children making a mess, both will say "ya, but the other one started it!". I'm not that interested in which one did it more, I just want the mess cleaned up, and for it to not happen in the future. Engaging in the who started it discussion is not achieving the desired end, nor does it really make any difference. There is still a mess, and both sides still contributed to it.

I think to a point you're right that it doesn't matter who does it more.

However, I think that beyond that point, it matters. A lot.

That point is when, I believe, a plurality or majority of one party's faithful bases their campaign and their platform on those lies.

And I believe that is, for the first time in modern history, where one political party is today, and that party is today's GOP.

Never had major media nor elected officials entertained nor even promoted these sorts of vicious lies about a sitting President to the degree they do today.

This might be true, as it relates to major media (elected officials have done it throughout history--campaign ads from the 1800's make todays look tame by comparison). But even if so, I see it as more of a symptom than a cause, and as long as people try to justify it when their side does it, the problem will continue. Same with news broadcasts in general...they sensationalize stories (over matters that are really trivial in the big picture) because people watch, and until people stop watching they will continue to do it.

So what is the "cause"?

[Dingo]

I'm not Hobbes, but I'd say they are about equal. Really depends on who holds the presidential seat, since that's the biggest target.
Remember the Truther movement? Accusing the president of killing thousands of our citizens in cold blood for oil profits sort of trumps asserting he wasn't born in the US.

Did the Truther movement have major support from Democratic officeholders or news networks or did the Democrats by and large push their concerns to the fringe?

By my memory, Van Jones was the most prominent Democrat to give any support to the Truther movement, and even he backed away from them as soon as he realized what he had stepped into.

Short version of the above: I believe you're asserting a false equivalence.

I think a fair comparison is the Truther movement with the AGW denialists. Which was affirmed by the representatives of which party? Drawing an equivalency doesn't work.

[Raptavio]

I'm not Hobbes, but I'd say they are about equal. Really depends on who holds the presidential seat, since that's the biggest target.
Remember the Truther movement? Accusing the president of killing thousands of our citizens in cold blood for oil profits sort of trumps asserting he wasn't born in the US.

Did the Truther movement have major support from Democratic officeholders or news networks or did the Democrats by and large push their concerns to the fringe?

By my memory, Van Jones was the most prominent Democrat to give any support to the Truther movement, and even he backed away from them as soon as he realized what he had stepped into.

Short version of the above: I believe you're asserting a false equivalence.

I think a fair comparison is the Truther movement with the AGW denialists. Which was affirmed by the representatives of which party? Drawing an equivalency doesn't work.

Go with the Birthers, too. Same difference. Even Romney himself made not-very-suble overtures to them.

And the Marxist/Socialist charges.

And the pregnancy-from-rape-or-incest denial.

In other notes, have you guys seen the downballot tickets?

Two races in Florida: Allen West, the execrable McCarthyist and torturer, is out. Alan Grayson, liberal firebrand, is back in.

Deadbeat dad and misogynist Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh is out, replaced by the heroic veteran, Lt. Col. Tammy Duckworth.

Michele Bachmann, Batcrap Crazy MN congresswoman, nearly lost her seat (one of the few victories of Citizens United).

Four ballot measures impacting marriage equality were ALL decided in marriage equality's favor, when prior to 2012 not one ever was. (This represents a sea change, and is probably far more relevant to history than even the Presidential race.)

Rape deniers and anti-woman candidates were sent packing across the country, from MO to IN amongst other places, in deep red territory.

It's truly remarkable how much of a victory this was, and a nationwide mandate, for the D side, and even moreso a repudiation of movement conservatism.

[JohnfrmCleveland]

However, I think that beyond that point, it matters. A lot.

That point is when, I believe, a plurality or majority of one party's faithful bases their campaign and their platform on those lies.

And I believe that is, for the first time in modern history, where one political party is today, and that party is today's GOP.

I have to agree that the degrees of both rancor and misinformation have hit new highs with Republicans this year. FOX doesn't just report on stuff like birtherism, they propogate it. And on Wednesday, watching FOX was like watching a 2012 version of War of the Worlds. Everything was going to hell!

My friends are almost all white males with good incomes, and almost every one went for Romney. I have heard their reasons for choosing Mitt and their complaints against Obama, and these otherwise smart guys have bought into most or all of the major stupidity. Especially these: the 47% are mooching off of them; Obama is a socialist; I don't want to pay for everybody else's health insurance; I don't want my taxes raised; etc. And now, after the election: Obama caused the stock market to crash; goodbye, 401K!; etc. One of my friends actually said, "I don't understand my country anymore." I have had to point out to many of these same people that the stock market went from 6600 in March 2009 to 12900 now. And I had to point out that red states are subsidized by blue states. None of this stuff should be news to anybody.

This post has been edited by JohnfrmCleveland: Nov 8 2012, 08:52 PM