• 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."

Ok- looks like it's a fairly close race.

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

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,298
127
106
the middle class is where all the money is!?!?

for which country?

I'm so happy the GOP is getting shellacked.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,298
127
106
Fox news just called it for Obama!

4 more years!!!!

WE THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!!
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
CNN just called Ohio for Obama, putting him at 274 EV - over the top.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
All over and Obama called the winner. It actually was a close race. We end up with the same government we had from 2010 -2012, Obama as President, A Republican House and a Senate that isn't filibuster proof. I guess we get to wait till 2014 to see any major changes.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,166
14,018
136
From what I'm seeing we'll likely retain the status quo of Dem Pres and Senate with Rep House. The only difference will be that the Rep delegation might be a bit less rabid than the class of 2010. Fiscal cliff here we come!

In other words, what monovillage just said.
 
Nov 3, 2004
10,491
22
81
How are they calling OH and not FL? Miami-Dade is only 75% counted and it's heavily democratic. Absentee ballots? OH looks like a dead heat right now
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,631
8,758
136
How are they calling OH and not FL? Miami-Dade is only 75% counted and it's heavily democratic. Absentee ballots? OH looks like a dead heat right now
I don't know, that's why I called Florida for Obama and Ohio to romney.


Everyone turn to fox news and watch Karl rove trying to say this thing isn't over!

Lol
 

Revolution 11

Senior member
Jun 2, 2011
924
1
71
This is what happens when there's not a real choice. Flip a coin 100 times, don't be surprised when heads come up 46 times...
That works if you only flip the coin 100 times. Try flipping that coin more than 100 million times and anything besides 50% for heads and tails is very likely to be statistically significant. If there is more than a 2% margin, that is clearly a mandate, if a weak-ass one.

If anything, this was Romney's election to lose, he had the best (worst?) economic conditions to win against Obama and he blew it by not preventing his party from turning away Latinos, blacks, and young voters.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
This is what happens when there's not a real choice. Flip a coin 100 times, don't be surprised when heads come up 46 times...
Pretty much. Neither was an outstanding candidate so the lesser of two evils scenario most likely prevailed. There are certain advantages from my perspective. Since partisans handicap themselves with their self imposed limitations it's probably best to have them focused on trying to kill each other. If any party consolidates power we're in trouble. It would be nicer if government were not synonymous with the controlling party so contention isn't something I fear, rather am glad for. Perhaps we will wake up one day and insist on more than our extremely limited choices, but seeing the lack of comprehension here doesn't give much hope.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,298
127
106
extra bonus of the night...Karl Rove is hanging himself on live tv

tune in to Foxnews! :p
 

Revolution 11

Senior member
Jun 2, 2011
924
1
71
I hope someone tapes and uploads that for those who miss the live execution....I mean interview.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
That works if you only flip the coin 100 times. Try flipping that coin more than 100 million times and anything besides 50% for heads and tails is very likely to be statistically significant. If there is more than a 2% margin, that is clearly a mandate, if a weak-ass one.

If anything, this was Romney's election to lose, he had the best (worst?) economic conditions to win against Obama and he blew it by not preventing his party from turning away Latinos, blacks, and young voters.
Well the reps are outstandingly bad, however much depends on what "mandate" means. To me that would imply a large majority. That isn't here. What we have is a continuation of a lack of consensus and a continuation of irrational rule.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,318
4,038
136
Well the reps are outstandingly bad, however much depends on what "mandate" means. To me that would imply a large majority. That isn't here. What we have is a continuation of a lack of consensus and a continuation of irrational rule.
Remember Bush and Cheney in 2000, when they got half a million LESS votes than Gore, coming out of the chute calling it a MANDATE for their policies?

Modern day Republicans have absolutely no shame.
 

Revolution 11

Senior member
Jun 2, 2011
924
1
71
I may have mistated what "mandate" means. But the system is broken because there is too much money flooding Congress. Voters are also astoundingly apathetic about staying in contact with their reps.

I am not saying that members of Congress are angels in any way, but when all they hear is from lobbyists and receive corporate gifts and ignore voters because voters can't lift their fat asses enough to call or write letters about issues they care about................

Expect the current political situation.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Remember Bush and Cheney in 2000, when they got half a million LESS votes than Gore, coming out of the chute calling it a MANDATE for their policies?

Modern day Republicans have absolutely no shame.
Remember when that twerp Clinton got 43% of the vote in 1992 and called it a mandate?
 

Gigantopithecus

Diamond Member
Dec 14, 2004
7,665
0
71
Pretty much. Neither was an outstanding candidate so the lesser of two evils scenario most likely prevailed. There are certain advantages from my perspective. Since partisans handicap themselves with their self imposed limitations it's probably best to have them focused on trying to kill each other. If any party consolidates power we're in trouble. It would be nicer if government were not synonymous with the controlling party so contention isn't something I fear, rather am glad for. Perhaps we will wake up one day and insist on more than our extremely limited choices, but seeing the lack of comprehension here doesn't give much hope.
Bingo. That's why we saw the Economist endorse Obama. He was a known quantity vs Mitt's real potential for disaster and very, very limited hope he'd actually be any better than Obama.

As usual, couldn't agree more with you. I am terrified that Team Red is done - their stance on social issues is increasingly anachronistic (see Akin's and Mourdock's losses). And their stance on economic issues is...what, exactly? It's not even clearly defined anymore.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
26,309
473
126
Remember Bush and Cheney in 2000, when they got half a million LESS votes than Gore, coming out of the chute calling it a MANDATE for their policies?

Modern day Republicans have absolutely no shame.
Remember when that twerp Clinton got 43% of the vote in 1992 and called it a mandate?
I remember neither of these events, but in both cases there was no mandate (landslide).

In 1984 Reagan won by a landslide and in 1996 Clinton did the same. Those were mandate elections.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,166
14,018
136
How long will it take for one side or the other to claim vindication or a mandate? ;)
MANDATE!!!!

The American people have delivered a mandate to Washington to to, um, ah, well carry on with whatever it was they were doing prior to the election.

My personal wish list:
Elect a new Speaker. Bohner(sp?) is whiny and annoying.
Elect a new Senate Majority Leader. Reid is simply a jackass.
Shake up the cabinet and get rid of the deadwood.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
16,405
4,340
136
Remember Bush and Cheney in 2000, when they got half a million LESS votes than Gore, coming out of the chute calling it a MANDATE for their policies?

Modern day Republicans have absolutely no shame.
It was incredible. It was was like they said it was daytime when it was dark outside.

Oh wow, Mittens is giving his concession speach now.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
In terms of our OP's title thread prediction that it would be close, the verdict is now in, and in terms of electoral votes, the outcome was not even close. In terms of the popular votes, its still will be a clear Obama Obama win. But will it be as large as the Obama McCain margin or not?

As I ask will out nation be more or less polarized than it was four years ago.

But still the GOP and tea party extremism is the big loser in 2012. As the dems retain the Presidency and the Senate, and the repubs have lost most but not all of their house majority.
 

Emos

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2000
1,989
0
0
Bingo. That's why we saw the Economist endorse Obama. He was a known quantity vs Mitt's real potential for disaster and very, very limited hope he'd actually be any better than Obama.

As usual, couldn't agree more with you. I am terrified that Team Red is done - their stance on social issues is increasingly anachronistic (see Akin's and Mourdock's losses). And their stance on economic issues is...what, exactly? It's not even clearly defined anymore.
I'm glad to see that Akin, Murdouch and the other "rapey" candidates were given the boot, it's the fringe views like that made me retreat from the Republicans. Hopefully more moderate voices will begin to assert themselves in the Republican Party...
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,316
1,386
126
I guess someone has earned political capital to spend.
GW spent all his on pretzels and beer... :D

(today is going to be a VERY fun day on P&L)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY