• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Obama will set precedent by winning re-election w/8%+ unemployment

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,611
9,219
136
It would be a much shoter list if I were to give you the states that obama might win.

Obama wins the following states:

WA, OR, CA, NM, IL, MD, DE, NJ, NY, RI, MA, VT, MA, HI and DC.

That gives Romney 347 votes. I keep saying 320 just to make it sound closer.
That assumes Obama looses every state leaning his way or that is a tossup. Every state. Even a few states where he is favored.

Those are some blood red colored glasses you're viewing the probable electoral map with.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,824
0
0
I just spent a few minutes filling out the interactive electoral map at RealClearPolitics.com and got this result:

226 Obama/Biden
19 Toss Ups
293 Romney/Ryan


Really a bit too early to have full confidence yet, but it will likely be a Romney/Ryan win if the Lord's willing and the creek don't rise.

:cool:
 

Generator

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
793
0
0
Republicans are taking this election. The debates will show Romney for the silver spooned, low expectations, rich white-shooed boy that he is. The drubbing that Obama will hand Romney in debate won't matter in a country where nearly half the voting population doesn't vote. The bottom line is that millions of racists woke up to a black man as their president nearly 4 years ago. These legions of bigots with a little shaming from their Republican lords won't let down their race again. God if I was a Republican I could play these rubes into voting themselves off a cliff.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,824
0
0
There is no way in hell that Romney will carry Massachusetts.
They elected Romney before and Scott Brown seems to have opened up a lead over Fauxahontas Lizzie Warren.

Lizzie will be confronted by various American Indian delegates at the convention at the same time as she has a speaking role. Should be fun to see how that plays out.

I have Mass leaning Romney. :sneaky:
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,869
0
71
"So if Pennsylvania is off the boards, let’s look around. Imagine it’s election night, say 10:45 east coast time. Four eastern states haven’t been called yet: Ohio (18), Virginia (13), North Carolina (15), and Florida (29). Also, in some Western states, the polls haven’t closed, or the races are too tight to project just yet—Colorado and Nevada, say. Arizona has just been called for Romney. At this point, Romney actually leads, 188 to 182. In this scenario I’m assuming Obama has won Iowa (6), which is admittedly close but where his lead has been stable at three or four points, and New Hampshire (4), where Obama has a similar fairly small but stable lead, and Michigan (16), where the gap appears to be opening up a little.

So it’s a six-vote Romney edge. They’re feeling great up in Boston. Especially with the big Eastern four still up in the air. Right?

Not really. Let’s look at these West Coast states. Even though they’re still voting in California, obviously Obama is going to win it (55). And equally obviously, he’s going to win Washington (12) and Oregon (7), where neither side even bothered to spend a dime. Throw in Hawaii (4). Those 78 votes haul Obama up to 260. That’s something to keep in mind for election night: Whatever Obama’s number is at 10 pm Eastern, add those 78 EV’s—they’re a mortal lock, and a hefty insurance policy. If he wins Nevada (6) and Colorado (9), it’s over.

In other words, Obama can lose the big Eastern four—Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida: all of ’em!—and still be reelected.

And barring some huge cataclysm, he’s not losing all four of those states. If he wins even one—say Virginia, the smallest of the four—then Romney has to win Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire; all possible, certainly, but all states where he has been behind, narrowly but consistently, for weeks or months."


http://news.yahoo.com/coming-obama-landslide-025409605.html
Even if Romney were likeable and his campaign apparatus competent, it would have been difficult to unseat Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-electoral-map-obama-still-has-routes-to-victory-in-2012-despite-low-ratings/2011/11/06/gIQACdmLtM_story.html?hpid=z3), unless the economy really tanked (recession or approaching recession, as June retail sales this summer fleetingly suggested (it ended up being a statistical fluke: http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000103065&play=1).

Probably why the field of Republican Primary contenders was so weak, and why Chris Christie is probably waiting for 2016.

And too early for Jeb Bush, though Mitt the Twit is inadvertently doing his darndest to rehabilitate the Bush family name for 2016 (will come across as moderate and competent vs. out of touch and pandering to wing nut base Romney).

Romney's billionaire donors probably have to try and crash the stock market to try and temporarily take down economy with it.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,869
0
71
I think he needs some sort of Republican wave to overtake the country (real game changer like Depression right now).

Tidbits I hear on tv seem to suggest Romney campaign may be using 1980 as template, and they basically need massive landslide percent of white vote (60% plus margin), along with massive voter suppression to try and steal election.

Lots of dog whistle politics like they're taking your Medicare and welfare queen innuendo. In addition to Rush listeners (average age of his audience is around 67 and he is only one on radio in some very rural areas), perhaps trying to appeal to blue collar white males who only had the opportunity to complete high school and are experiencing high unemployment (I heard on tv that construction workers still have 14% unemployment), white married seniors who lost alot of their retirement savings in stock market crash under Bush and can't retire now like they wanted to, and white working moms who are struggling to pay bills in economy that just hasn't recovered palpably enough for them to feel it.

I guess it's possible, but if Obama campaign is anything like it was in 2008, they are well oiled machine. Stephanie Cutter previously said she thought turnout would be like 2008, and even though they will be vastly outspent in fall, they have enough money to implement their plan and have already spent alot of money and time putting in powerful ground game in states like Ohio.

I'm guessing North Carolina is like fourth line of defense, fall back position, for Obama campaign, so if it is truly competitive, might suggest that Romney is in real trouble in electoral college right now.
 
Last edited:

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
I have Mass leaning Romney. :sneaky:
So, you've just decided to ignore all of the polls, every single one of which that has been taken this year has Obama with a double digit lead -- including Rasmussen's most recent, which has Obama +21.

This seems to be a nice example of what I see from extremists on both sides: if you don't like the facts, ignore them and invent your own "reality".
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,497
3
0
I think he needs some sort of Republican wave to overtake the country (real game changer like Depression right now).

Tidbits I hear on tv seem to suggest Romney campaign may be using 1980 as template, and they basically need massive landslide percent of white vote (60% plus margin), along with massive voter suppression to try and steal election.

Lots of dog whistle politics like they're taking your Medicare and welfare queen innuendo. In addition to Rush listeners (average age of his audience is around 67 and he is only one on radio in some very rural areas), perhaps trying to appeal to blue collar white males who only had the opportunity to complete high school and are experiencing high unemployment (I heard on tv that construction workers still have 14% unemployment), white married seniors who lost alot of their retirement savings in stock market crash under Bush and can't retire now like they wanted to, and white working moms who are struggling to pay bills in economy that just hasn't recovered palpably enough for them to feel it.

I guess it's possible, but if Obama campaign is anything like it was in 2008, they are well oiled machine. Stephanie Cutter previously said she thought turnout would be like 2008, and even though they will be vastly outspent in fall, they have enough money to implement their plan and have already spent alot of money and time putting in powerful ground game in states like Ohio.

I'm guessing North Carolina is like fourth line of defense, fall back position, for Obama campaign, so if it is truly competitive, might suggest that Romney is in real trouble in electoral college right now.
It doesn't necessarily mean anything, but there is a noticeable absence of Romney signs in rural areas (NC) around me. McRory and Ellmers are there, but no Romney. I don't think a millionaire corporate Mormon is going to win over a lot of the folks that dog whistle politics would appeal to.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
And you expect that it will make a difference? :confused:

Unless the Republicans loose the House and the Dem get stronger control of the Senate; you will see nothing change within the system.

What will happen is that in 4 more years; the Republican can point to the Dems in having accomplished nothing to recover the country and a massive debt pileup with higher unemployment.

What do you think the voters will then do.

Possibly setup a clean sweep
I dunno, Obama is being fairly aggressive with executive and bureaucratic powers even with the need to get re-elected, so I'm not sure we can safely say nothing will change if he's re-elected and the Pubbies hold the House.

As far as Obama setting precedent, at this point I'm guessing Obama pulls it out but let's all fervently hope that re-election with 8%+ unemployment is not a precedent.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
I just spent a few minutes filling out the interactive electoral map at RealClearPolitics.com and got this result:

226 Obama/Biden
19 Toss Ups
293 Romney/Ryan


Really a bit too early to have full confidence yet, but it will likely be a Romney/Ryan win if the Lord's willing and the creek don't rise.

:cool:
Just after Romney's convention bounce - not a good time to read poles. Plus, the shrieks of racism, while in full bloom among the amateurs here and certainly present amongst the media elite, have yet to reach their full, deafening crescendo.

There is no way in hell that Romney will carry Massachusetts.
Um, you DO know Romney was governor of Massachusetts, right? Having elected Scott Brown and apparently planning to keep him another six years (LOL @Fauxahontas) it's not unlikely that if Romney wins the election, he carries Massachusetts.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Um, you DO know Romney was governor of Massachusetts, right?
Really? I had no idea! o_O

He may have been governor years ago, but he's quite unpopular there now, hasn't polled anywhere near Obama in forever, and has basically no chance of winning the state.

In the latest PPP poll, Obama has a +14 job approval rating in MA, and Romney has a -16 favorability rating. Apparently people aren't too happy with the job he did, or perhaps with his most recent fraudulent lurching to the right.

The idea, as suggested by that map, that Romney will win Massachusetts but lose Pennsylvania with VA as a "toss up" is beyond ludicrous. It's a sign of someone simply making stuff up. "He used to be governor there so he'll win!"

Anyone who wants to bet that Romney wins MA but loses PA, name the wager.

(As an aside, are there any right-wingers who ever bother to do any research on anything before spouting off on it? Honestly, it's getting embarrassing.)
 
Last edited:

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,936
1
0
Just after Romney's convention bounce - not a good time to read poles...
Cut him some slack on that - Mr. Romney's convention bounce looks like the "Dead Cat" variety.
Um, you DO know Romney was governor of Massachusetts, right? Having elected Scott Brown and apparently planning to keep him another six years (LOL @Fauxahontas) it's not unlikely that if Romney wins the election, he carries Massachusetts.
You do realize that Mr. Romney is running hard against his record as Massachusetts governor, and that the Senate race appears statistically tied?
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,869
0
71
Only Mitt the Twit can produce an, ahem, negative bounce!:
"Although I have not seen Tuesday’s data yet (and can’t for some time because of a speaking engagement), enough is known to allow some advance comments.

Bottom line: not only is there no bounce so far, the data suggest the possibility of a negative bounce.

Update, 12:35pm: yep, there it is. ~10 EV and counting…"


http://election.princeton.edu/2012/09/04/the-incredible-shrinking-bounce/
:rolleyes:




(in fairness, both this pollster and Nate Silver said you can't read too much into polls for next several weeks, till any temporary convention bounces have settled out. But the negative bounce has really gotta to make you chuckle...)
 
Last edited:

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Only Mitt the Twit can produce an, ahem, negative bounce:
Doesn't actually surprise me. I've been saying for months now that this race probably isn't as close as it seems at the moment, for the simple reason that people haven't seen enough of Romney yet, and the more people see of him, the less they like him. More people saw him last week.

He's just a very unlikable person. There's nothing compelling about his personal story, he has no charisma whatever, and he has absolutely no vision or leadership position to sell. He's simply the "un-Obama", and there's only so far you can get trying to run against the other guy when you have zero to offer yourself.

Obama will probably pull away after the debates, not because he'll "out-debate" Romney, but just because millions more people will realize what those of us following politics have known for a long time: Romney is a stuffed-shirt douchebag. No matter how disappointed they may be with Obama, a lot of folks simply won't pull the lever for someone like Romney.
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
7,557
671
126
They elected Romney before and Scott Brown seems to have opened up a lead over Fauxahontas Lizzie Warren.

Lizzie will be confronted by various American Indian delegates at the convention at the same time as she has a speaking role. Should be fun to see how that plays out.

I have Mass leaning Romney. :sneaky:
You're insane. Or just very, very, very stupid.
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
76
Doesn't actually surprise me. I've been saying for months now that this race probably isn't as close as it seems at the moment, for the simple reason that people haven't seen enough of Romney yet, and the more people see of him, the less they like him. More people saw him last week.

He's just a very unlikable person. There's nothing compelling about his personal story, he has no charisma whatever, and he has absolutely no vision or leadership position to sell. He's simply the "un-Obama", and there's only so far you can get trying to run against the other guy when you have zero to offer yourself.

Obama will probably pull away after the debates, not because he'll "out-debate" Romney, but just because millions more people will realize what those of us following politics have known for a long time: Romney is a stuffed-shirt douchebag. No matter how disappointed they may be with Obama, a lot of folks simply won't pull the lever for someone like Romney.
I would much rather pull the lever for someone I don't like personally that would get the job done than someone I would like personally that wouldn't get the job done. Unfortunately, it appears to be a high school prom king vote coming up.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
Interesting how the same people who say "both parties are bad" are the same ones who think deficit spending is bad. How many times does it have to be explained that cutting millions of jobs during a recession would only make it worse?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
I dunno, Obama is being fairly aggressive with executive and bureaucratic powers even with the need to get re-elected, so I'm not sure we can safely say nothing will change if he's re-elected and the Pubbies hold the House.

As far as Obama setting precedent, at this point I'm guessing Obama pulls it out but let's all fervently hope that re-election with 8%+ unemployment is not a precedent.
If the makeup of the Congress and WH stay the same; I expect that attempts at end arounds will get challenge by the Republicans.

There is a leak in the dam and they will want it plugged.

4 more years of being ignored will not go down well.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
No president won re-election w/8%+ unemployment.

But the 21st century is the start of things anew.
For example: Bush broke the ZERO year curse

DISCUSS!
Are we to accept unemployment at those levels as the new norm? I would certainly hope not. Before many of you were born, our government made a conscious decision to change the way that they reported unemployment figures. There was little problem making that happen because after all, it favored whatever party was in power. So we seasonally adjust, we quit counting those that are no longer eligible to receive unemployment benefits, we snip away at the number and make it one that is far more palatable. So 4% then became a number that was considered manageable. The norm. It was really 11%, but we we're manufacturing a lot of stuff, productivity was increasing and we had lots of money to spend on social programs so that people weren't starving and weren't being thrown into the streets.

What's changed? A whole lot. I won't take the time to spell it all out because I'm confident you're aware of the differences.

So now, 8% (which is really closer to 25%, remember we fudged the way we counted) you would like to adopt as the new norm. It's OK because we're in a new century now and as a bonus we get to keep the president we've got. Well, we can't sustain that level of unemployment any more and meet the needs of those who aren't employed. We can't borrow enough to keep it going.
 

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
Nice summary of the whole P&N forum here: one contentless, unsupported leftie cheerleading post, and a matching one from the right.

As an aside, I'd love a list of the states Romney is supposedly going to win to get 320 EV.
Only took 2 posts to get this far. Wow we are sure making these threads more efficient.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY