Obama MORE than 8 1/2 Million Ahead of McCain.

[SlowSpyder]

I don't see how that vote count is a 'landslide'. McCain got about 87% as many votes as Obama. So, for every 10 votes that Obama got, almost 9 people voted for McCain. I'd say that it was a solid-no-doubt-about-it victory for Obama (unlike the previous few elections which were almost 50/50) but hardly a landslide.

 

[eleison]

The warning I gave jpeyton applies to you as well

Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The other thread was about voter turnout, and that data analyzed thus far did not show a measurable or significant increase in voter turnout from 2004, particularly among some voter demographics the media framed as otherwise (i.e. the youth vote).

The signficance or magnitude of Obama's victory was never in question, just the demographic shifts, sources of Obama's support, where he made gains against former Bush strongholds, etc.

^Yeah.

I'm still hearing conflicting data. I'm pretty sure I heard somebody on the MSM (cable news) this morning talking about 131 million votes? Yet everywhere I look I see 123M, which is basically the same as '04 IIRC. I'm also seeing some sites saying turnout among new/young voters was the same as usual (I.e., no boom in college age voters again.)

I'm still looking for some good info on the demographic data.

BTW: I'm pretty sure the other thread (PJ's) was updated.

Fern

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The other thread was about voter turnout, and that data analyzed thus far did not show a measurable or significant increase in voter turnout from 2004, particularly among some voter demographics the media framed as otherwise (i.e. the youth vote).

The signficance or magnitude of Obama's victory was never in question, just the demographic shifts, sources of Obama's support, where he made gains against former Bush strongholds, etc.

^Yeah.

I'm still hearing conflicting data. I'm pretty sure I heard somebody on the MSM (cable news) this morning talking about 131 million votes? Yet everywhere I look I see 123M, which is basically the same as '04 IIRC. I'm also seeing some sites saying turnout among new/young voters was the same as usual (I.e., no boom in college age voters again.)

I'm still looking for some good info on the demographic data.

BTW: I'm pretty sure the other thread (PJ's) was updated.

Fern

It's 124 million right now between McCain and Obama with an estimate of between 1.6 and 2.0 million for Barr, Nader and others. Should be between 126 and 127 million when all is said and done. Regardless, the Dems had a great turnout. It was the GOP turnout that really sucked ass (as compared to previous elections).

 

[First]

4M is a ton and isn't even close. Not surprising this was a record setting election.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Deliximus

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Still no landslide with Obama @ 53.3% and McCain @ 46.7% (roughly).

landslides are about the electoral college. The system America uses for the Presidency makes even a 3-4% national popular vote advantage a landslide. obama is sitting at 6-7%, which is massive.

If Obama was white, mccain would've died on the campaign trail due to how far he would be behind.

This is a landslide.

Are you suggesting that Obama lost more votes then he gained because he is black?

Everything I've seen has pretty well pointed to the opposite... do you realize how much of the minority vote (not just black, but minorities in general) that Obama got?

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Deliximus

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Still no landslide with Obama @ 53.3% and McCain @ 46.7% (roughly).

landslides are about the electoral college. The system America uses for the Presidency makes even a 3-4% national popular vote advantage a landslide. obama is sitting at 6-7%, which is massive.

If Obama was white, mccain would've died on the campaign trail due to how far he would be behind.

This is a landslide.

Are you suggesting that Obama lost more votes then he gained because he is black?

Everything I've seen has pretty well pointed to the opposite... do you realize how much of the minority vote (not just black, but minorities in general) that Obama got?

THats bunk... Minorities always vote democratic. Being Black didnt help him... Being black is why it was as close as it was in an easy democratic year.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Evan
-snip-
Not surprising this was a record setting election.

What's so record setting about this election?

Seems to me it didn't live up to the hype.

I don't see any landslide either. The margin of 8M is the same as the population of NYC. Given the size of NY & CA and that they are both blue I would expect more.

Fern

 

[jpeyton]

Clinton won two large Electoral College victories.

Bush won two narrow Electoral College victories.

Obama won one large Electoral College victory.

I think it's safe to say Americans decided to 'dabble' with giving the GOP the White House, giving Bush two slim victories, but are comfortable giving Democrats DECISIVE victories.

 

[SagaLore]

Repost.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Repost.

^^^^ Nitwit who didn't read the thread.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Repost.

^^^^ Nitwit who didn't read the thread.

Oh I get it -
When Palin is accused of ignoring a supporter who shouted the word "n!gger," and someone posts a correction in a new thread, that's apparently a repost. That was merged into the original thread and buried, and the OP never updated his post to reflect the truth.

Here we have a similar situation, except ProfJohn has updated his post TWICE to reflect current vote counts, and will no doubt do the same again. I guess we need two threads to discuss this though.

And you called SagaLore a nitwit?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Repost.

^^^^ Nitwit who didn't read the thread.

Oh I get it -
When Palin is accused of ignoring a supporter who shouted the word "n!gger," and someone posts a correction in a new thread, that's apparently a repost. That was merged into the original thread and buried, and the OP never updated his post to reflect the truth.

Here we have a similar situation, except ProfJohn has updated his post TWICE to reflect current vote counts, and will no doubt do the same again. I guess we need two threads to discuss this though.

And you called SagaLore a nitwit?

:Q

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Clinton won two large Electoral College victories.

Bush won two narrow Electoral College victories.

Obama won one large Electoral College victory.

I think it's safe to say Americans decided to 'dabble' with giving the GOP the White House, giving Bush two slim victories, but are comfortable giving Democrats DECISIVE victories.

Dude, come on. The Reps held the white house for 12 years before Clinton, and that after divesting the dems of a 4 year incumbent in Carter. Bush 41 won 40 states and 426 EV. And Reagan swept the entire country except Minnesota with 525 EV in 1984, and in 1980 he won 489 EV and 44 states. Clinton's and Obama's victory margins look like nail biters compared to that.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Repost.

^^^^ Nitwit who didn't read the thread.

Oh I get it -
When Palin is accused of ignoring a supporter who shouted the word "n!gger," and someone posts a correction in a new thread, that's apparently a repost. That was merged into the original thread and buried, and the OP never updated his post to reflect the truth.

Here we have a similar situation, except ProfJohn has updated his post TWICE to reflect current vote counts, and will no doubt do the same again. I guess we need two threads to discuss this though.

And you called SagaLore a nitwit?

Zing!

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Clinton won two large Electoral College victories.

Bush won two narrow Electoral College victories.

Obama won one large Electoral College victory.

I think it's safe to say Americans decided to 'dabble' with giving the GOP the White House, giving Bush two slim victories, but are comfortable giving Democrats DECISIVE victories.

Dude, come on. The Reps held the white house for 12 years before Clinton, and that after divesting the dems of a 4 year incumbent in Carter. Bush 41 won 40 states and 426 EV. And Reagan swept the entire country except Minnesota with 525 EV in 1984, and in 1980 he won 489 EV and 44 states. Clinton's and Obama's victory margins look like nail biters compared to that.

:thumbsup: For not drinking the Kool-Aid that Jpeyton seems to have taken a bath in!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Clinton won two large Electoral College victories.

Bush won two narrow Electoral College victories.

Obama won one large Electoral College victory.

I think it's safe to say Americans decided to 'dabble' with giving the GOP the White House, giving Bush two slim victories, but are comfortable giving Democrats DECISIVE victories.

Dude, come on. The Reps held the white house for 12 years before Clinton, and that after divesting the dems of a 4 year incumbent in Carter. Bush 41 won 40 states and 426 EV. And Reagan swept the entire country except Minnesota with 525 EV in 1984, and in 1980 he won 489 EV and 44 states. Clinton's and Obama's victory margins look like nail biters compared to that.

:thumbsup: For not drinking the Kool-Aid that Jpeyton seems to have taken a bath in!

What would that make Bush's victory margins then? Reagan may have set the bar in recent memory, but Bush is (by far) dead last. Obama and Clinton did just fine.

 

[Lemon law]

Assuming Obama loses Missouri, the final tally will be 364 electoral votes for Obama out of 538, or 67.66%

But when we add today's very close to final raw vote totals, Obama took only 53.3% of the popular vote.

But do not get me wrong here, I like dmcowen674 and respect his rights to post his opinions, but he was long on record that Obama would take the popular vote but McCain would still win the electoral.
And to somewhat twist the knife, that prediction was a 180 degrees off. But in charity to Dave, he may well have been correct if McCain had done a better job of holding on to his battleground states, but as it is, with the exception of Missouri, McCain and the GOP lost every single battleground State. And with the exception of Missouri, Obama held on to every blue State won by Kerry or Gore in 2000 and 2004.

But my take on it is, even as a partisan dem, the numbers of 2008 do not constitute the death of the GOP or the ascendancy of the dems. GWB&co is now a quite evident GOP liability that would have ridden off into the sunset regardless off the outcome, but America is still a deeply divided nation, and the tectonic fault lines are still where they have been for the past eight years.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Clinton won two large Electoral College victories.

Bush won two narrow Electoral College victories.

Obama won one large Electoral College victory.

I think it's safe to say Americans decided to 'dabble' with giving the GOP the White House, giving Bush two slim victories, but are comfortable giving Democrats DECISIVE victories.

Dude, come on. The Reps held the white house for 12 years before Clinton, and that after divesting the dems of a 4 year incumbent in Carter. Bush 41 won 40 states and 426 EV. And Reagan swept the entire country except Minnesota with 525 EV in 1984, and in 1980 he won 489 EV and 44 states. Clinton's and Obama's victory margins look like nail biters compared to that.

:thumbsup: For not drinking the Kool-Aid that Jpeyton seems to have taken a bath in!

What would that make Bush's victory margins then? Reagan may have set the bar in recent memory, but Bush is (by far) dead last. Obama and Clinton did just fine.

If the republicans ran someone who was actually qualified to be president, they probably would have won by larger margins in 2000 and 2004.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Repost.

^^^^ Nitwit who didn't read the thread.

Here we have a similar situation, except ProfJohn has updated his post TWICE to reflect current vote counts, and will no doubt do the same again. I guess we need two threads to discuss this though.

PJ's last headline is STILL wildly incorrect. And, in his FINAL update, FOUR DAYS AGO, he smugly announced:

end of thread

His thread, fundamentally flawed from the beginning and never truly fixed, has jumped the damn shark. As you can see, he declared himself done with it.

Perhaps if you and the others reflexively shouting "Repost" had fully read his OP you'd know all this. Perhaps is you'd fully read this thread, Don Vito's spot-on response might also have hit home:

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
Maybe the reason for a new thread is that the OP of the other thread has declined to update it, and hence the thread title and first post of the other thread (and, indeed, its entire premise) are completely inaccurate and misleading.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Nice. Missouri was damn close. :Q

damnit missouri go find some votes for barry so my prediction of 375 bears out

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Repost.

^^^^ Nitwit who didn't read the thread.

Here we have a similar situation, except ProfJohn has updated his post TWICE to reflect current vote counts, and will no doubt do the same again. I guess we need two threads to discuss this though.

PJ's last headline is STILL wildly incorrect. And, in his FINAL update, FOUR DAYS AGO, he smugly announced:

end of thread

His thread, fundamentally flawed from the beginning and never truly fixed, has jumped the damn shark. As you can see, he declared himself done with it.

Perhaps if you and the others reflexively shouting "Repost" had fully read his OP you'd know all this. Perhaps is you'd fully read this thread, Don Vito's spot-on response might also have hit home:

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
Maybe the reason for a new thread is that the OP of the other thread has declined to update it, and hence the thread title and first post of the other thread (and, indeed, its entire premise) are completely inaccurate and misleading.

The thread that mugs was referencing meets all of the criteria that you just came up with. The OP even said that he was refusing to update his OP. Palin rally someone shouts "He's a ni**er!"

- His thread, fundamentally flawed from the beginning and never truly fixed
check

- He declared himself done with it.

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: JD50

I see that the OP is refusing to correct his lie, shouldn't this be locked?

I'm sticking to my original assertion.

check



----
The next person who extends this off topic trolling here will get a vacation. It stops NOW.
AnandTech Moderator Evadman

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Perknose
To correct some of the FUD that was slung around earlier about this year's popular vote, here's how it presently stands, with most, but not quite ALL the votes tabulated:

Obama: 66,056,046 McCain: 57,838,800

And the total votes are what? compared to 2004? That was part of the previous thread too.

Oh wait... why aren't you posting in that thread? Why YET ANOTHER thread since we already have a thread on this. Oh wait.... I know why...

You need to go off to Jesusland with Ocguy and play with the imaginary bunnies until you are no longer bitter.


Ah Sorry Evadman, thats what I get for posting without reading the entire thread

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The other thread was about voter turnout, and that data analyzed thus far did not show a measurable or significant increase in voter turnout from 2004, particularly among some voter demographics the media framed as otherwise (i.e. the youth vote).

The signficance or magnitude of Obama's victory was never in question, just the demographic shifts, sources of Obama's support, where he made gains against former Bush strongholds, etc.

Back on topic.

THIS post is spot on. The OP wants to claim "fud" but seems to only be grasping onto a small piece of what was reported at the time and ignoring the rest.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The other thread was about voter turnout, and that data analyzed thus far did not show a measurable or significant increase in voter turnout from 2004, particularly among some voter demographics the media framed as otherwise (i.e. the youth vote).

The signficance or magnitude of Obama's victory was never in question, just the demographic shifts, sources of Obama's support, where he made gains against former Bush strongholds, etc.

Back on topic.

THIS post is spot on. The OP wants to claim "fud" but seems to only be grasping onto a small piece of what was reported at the time and ignoring the rest.

Still denying the ideological shift to the left that happened huh?

Well denial is one of the steps to acceptance, I'm sure you'll be fine in the end, here have a cold one :beer:

It was shown multiple times how the independents and "middle ground" individuals were grasping onto left ideological ideas in that other thread. So the OP's assement of FUD is correct.