• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Democratic Victory Will Unleash Obama, Top Backers Say

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I'd expect to see pushes on the debt deal, infrastructure (probably framed in a climate change argument), immigration, and possibly energy come to the forefront for the next year. Republicans can deal on those somewhat at least.

Gun control would be a criminal waste of political capital at this point and people don't want more of it anyway.
 
Na the market will keep both parties in check unless the US Government stops running deficits it will be downgraded and both Republicans and Democrats wont be able to fake "economic growth" anymore by running massive fiscal deficits - one way or the other. Either interest rates skyrocket or they cut/tax amount to same thing.

It's cute u think Republicans will do something about it tho

I am near certain this fiscal mess will come to a head during Obama's second term and they will get blamed for the devastation it causes since they hold the White House so I laugh at Democratic gloating and Republican ruin predictions today as well.
 
Last edited:
During the presidential election of 1800, a newspaper friendly to John Adams attacked his opponent thus:

Quote:
"If Thomas Jefferson wins, murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced. The air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes. Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames, female chastity violated, and children writhing on a pike".

Some things never change...😉
 
chucky2 said:
Don't we? Obama had more votes...that means he'd still have won right?
Click to expand...

No, people voted under a different set of rules than PV. Change the rules changes how people vote. I voted Republican for Senator because mine voted for the war like I warned her I would do if she voted that way. If that race were national and every vote counted I would have to consider more carefully. And lots and lots of people don't vote because their vote doesn't matter.
 
If people think there will be some liberal tidalwave of legislation they are kidding themselves. The one thing we have learned from Obama's team is they are smart.

See what happened to Republicans after 2010 when they overreached? All the social stuff? All the tea party kooks? Voters lowerd the boom.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
Probably. Not necessarily.
Click to expand...

CharlesKozierok said:
I just republished an article I wrote in 2008 that describes my position better.
Click to expand...

I read some of the beginning, and I think your analogy is flawed. The POTUS election is more like football, with the vote we had on Tuesday like the Superbowl. You don't play multiple games in the Superbowl, you play one time. Whoever wins, is the champion. That's more like the POTUS race. Baseball and the World Series really isn't a good fit. I'll read the rest later...

Chuck
 
HomerJS said:
If people think there will be some liberal tidalwave of legislation they are kidding themselves. The one thing we have learned from Obama's team is they are smart.

See what happened to Republicans after 2010 when they overreached? All the social stuff? All the tea party kooks? Voters lowerd the boom.
Click to expand...

Boom was lowered by 5%.

Not enough to have any impact on anything ongoing.:thumbsup:
 
Moonbeam said:
No, people voted under a different set of rules than PV. Change the rules changes how people vote. I voted Republican for Senator because mine voted for the war like I warned her I would do if she voted that way. If that race were national and every vote counted I would have to consider more carefully. And lots and lots of people don't vote because their vote doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But I doubt the masses really give it that much thought. Most are going to vote for whoever they think is the best, or, lately, whichever they can stomach better.

If it was PV wins, I wouldn't have voted for Robama over Obamney, I'd still have voted Johnson. Why? Not because I have any particular love for Johnson, but because it has become painfully clear that the two party system is horribly ruining this country.

If my vote would have elected Obamney over Robama, or vice versa, and the one I hated the least would win, I'd still have voted Johnson.

P.S. You voted for Rep senator who voted for a war?

Chuck
 
Moonbeam said:
No, people voted under a different set of rules than PV. Change the rules changes how people vote. I voted Republican for Senator because mine voted for the war like I warned her I would do if she voted that way. If that race were national and every vote counted I would have to consider more carefully. And lots and lots of people don't vote because their vote doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Frustrating when you realize that at least 2/3 of the votes have no real impact on the national election.
 
Ausm said:
Hmm that's not how it been reported and also if look at the EC after President Obama takes Florida ,Rmoney is going to be crushed as bad as McSame was.
Click to expand...

As has been stated by myself and others.

The EC is pre-stacked.
2/3 of the votes that define the EC are essentially pre determined.

Whether there is a difference of 1M votes cast in NY or 1.5M cast; NY will be blue and not change the EC count. (1M is an example #)

So conceivably, there might have been up to 2M votes in NY but .5M chose to not come out to vote knowing that the result was already predetermined.

While the actual number of states went Republican, because of the population density; the Republicans have an uphill battle to get 2/3 of the swing states for a fighting chance in the EC
 
chucky2 said:
I read some of the beginning, and I think your analogy is flawed.
Click to expand...

Please read it again. You didn't get the point of the analogy, which is that you don't set up a system that measures victory by the number of individual contests won, and then ignore those individual contests and measure something else.
 
Bateluer said:
Fortunately, we've got the House in GOP control to keep Obama in check. And the Senate is balanced, will be hard to push much of his liberal agenda through it.

Still, if we get through the next 4 years without any significant damage, I'll be surprised.




50% Obama, 48% Romney. Thats a razor's edge.
Click to expand...

History books suck these days.
 
IAteYourMother said:
EagleKeeper said:
that is less than 2%.

Not very decisive
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, it looks like Obama will take the popular vote by about 3m, corresponding to about a 2.5% margin

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president
Click to expand...

Numbers change over time. they will change again based on absentee and provisional ballots added into the totals.

The one and only time I looked was Wed Am when the original results were called.

If boiled down, this time the EC does not reflect the popular vote and while Obama did win the PV; the amount should not be considered a mandate in any shape. It did not change the balance of power.

The status quo has been maintained by the voters.
 
Tom said:
if it was true..

in the real world Obama got Bob Dole's healthcare plan passed, took out Bin Laden, mostly got us out of a fruitless war in Iraq, stimulated the economy to 31 months of growth..

And wants to work to reduce the deficit in a balanced way, but has been blocked by Republicans in Congress.
Click to expand...


We haven't had nominal gdp growth since 2000. deficit spending ur way to pretty numbers helps politicians maybe but not the country and vast majority of ppl living in it.
 
2/3 of the vote being essentially predetermined isn't evidence votes in those states don't matter. Quite the opposite - voters there have been accounted for, and the politicians running, who expect to take the state, have framed their policy in a way to reliably do so.

They're not campaigning in your state simply because they've built their politics entirely around what you vote for anyway.

You're no more disenfranchised then someone who voted for the loser in a swing state.

If you want it to be direct popular vote, feel free to bring up discussions....but, I'd expect the Republicans to fight you tooth and nail as it's a State's rights issue.
 
Matt1970 said:
Out of nearly 120 Million votes? No. Not even close to a mandate.
Click to expand...

Of course, if Obama had "won" by 2 million votes in the "popular vote", and they had tied in the EC and Romney had become president because of a House vote after multiple recounts, you'd be here arguing that Romney did have a "mandate".

That's because you're a hack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top