Was Romney Right?

[irishScott]

Gerrymandering was the driving factor, yes. See the bolded below. Gerrymandering produced an oddball result only seen once since WWll. It was no rejection of Obama's policies. Here are the facts:



Let me break that down for you:

You wish to use the outcome of the 2012 house races as your barometer that Americans rejected the Democrats and therefore Obama because "40 some-odd districts among multiple states swinging Republican" but that result is and was skewed by gerrymandering.

In fact, using the purest and most direct metric, how Americans voted,in the 2012 house races, a resounding 1.4 million MORE of us backed the Dems.

You wanted to use the results of the 2012 house races to support your contention that Americans rejected Barry's policies.

You failed.

And you cited wikipedia without consulting the sources they cited.

Here's a fun little line from one of them: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html

Second, if we replace the eight partisan gerrymanders with the mock delegations from my simulations, this would lead to a seat count of 215 Democrats, 220 Republicans, give or take a few.

So even one of your own sources admits that Republicans would have likely regained control of the house, just not by as large a margin, even if there was absolutely zero gerrymandering.

In any case, if you have a problem with the distracting system that's a whole other debate. But remember we're a nation where a Presidential candidate can win the popular vote and lose the election. I hope you're against the electoral college as well.

 

[ivwshane]

You decry me for not providing examples, yet provide none of your own, all while preaching about how I should hold people to the same standards as I hold myself.

Ramming something down someone's throat because you have the power doesn't make you a leader. Especially when that someone is ~50% of the US public.

He didn't take sides? In what universe is "if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin" and "Trayvon Martin could have been me" not taking sides? I sure as hell don't recall him empathizing with Zimmerman or Zimmerman's family. Remember what I said about lapping up hope-and-change residue? You're really stretching for the last droplets here.

What issue did he "bring to light" in the TM case? All I saw was a man inflaming and polarizing those he was supposed to be calming and leading. You want to talk about racism and the stigma associated with black people, fine, talk about racism and stigmas. I'm perfectly fine with that discussion. But you don't need to exploit and escalate tensions over an already polarizing trial to do it. That is HORRIBLE leadership. Unless you only intend to lead the minority that already agree with you and fuck-all with everyone else.

But of course, all of this is only "hearing what I want to hear". God forbid your man Obama isn't the dreamy, revolutionary reformer you voted for.

Lol! The bubble is strong with you!

Btw, the ACA, that you continue to say was rammed down the throats of congress, how many yes votes did it get in the senate? Was it a simple majority or the fillibuster proof 60 votes? I'm not aware of too many laws that have been rammed through that got a fillibuster proof, 60 votes. Are you?

Good thing you have that government provided health care! Because you should really see a doctor, your senility is bordering on alzheimers because you seem to be forgetting an awful lot.

 

[irishScott]

Lol! The bubble is strong with you!

Btw, the ACA, that you continue to say was rammed down the throats of congress, how many yes votes did it get in the senate? Was it a simple majority or the fillibuster proof 60 votes? I'm not aware of too many laws that have been rammed through that got a fillibuster proof, 60 votes. Are you?

Good thing you have that government provided health care! Because you should really see a doctor, your senility is bordering on alzheimers because you seem to be forgetting an awful lot.

Your comebacks are as weak as your "arguments."

If your counter-argument was merely to nitpick the definition of "rammed through", you'd have lost. But instead you've taken it the extra mile and have purposefully misunderstood basic English. "Rammed" means "forced", not "easily passed". If it had been filibustered, then Obamacare still would have been "rammed", just not "rammed through".

Cool off. You're poking at my supposed Alzheimer's while you forget grade school English.

 

[K1052]

You're saying that an issue that is historically huge and controversial, that will literally make high school history books, had "little impact" on the midterms. I'd love to see you back up that claim. Since obviously half of America being against the law, and the law being a central issue for most people, had absolutely nothing to do with it.

As far as seat turnover to the Republicans the impact was contributory but definitely not a decisive factor. Democrats typically don't fare well in midterm elections particularly after a strong showing for the Presidential election (which also gave them a big win in the house due to turnout). Democrats and independents didn't suddenly start voting a straight Republican ticket because the healthcare reform passed...which wasn't exactly a mystery item on the agenda back in 2008.

Since passage of the ACA public opinion has been essentially stable on the issue and evenly split with a sliver of undecided people in the middle. If there was such a huge groundswell of anger over this then why isn't Romney in the White House since he spent a good deal of time trying to beat Obama up with the ACA?

 

[irishScott]

As far as seat turnover to the Republicans the impact was contributory but definitely not a decisive factor. Democrats typically don't fare well in midterm elections particularly after a strong showing for the Presidential election (which also gave them a big win in the house due to turnout). Democrats and independents didn't suddenly start voting a straight Republican ticket because the healthcare reform passed...which wasn't exactly a mystery item on the agenda back in 2008.

Since passage of the ACA public opinion has been essentially stable on the issue and evenly split with a sliver of undecided people in the middle. If there was such a huge groundswell of anger over this then why isn't Romney in the White House since he spent a good deal of time trying to beat Obama up with the ACA?

Ever hear of a protest vote? By your logic these never occur. Just because someone votes one way doesn't necessarily mean they support that party. See the Democrat protest votes during the Bush Era that gave Democrats a leg up in congress, for starters. What groundswell there was wasn't pro-Republican, it was anti-Obamacare; and anti-Democrat in general as it appeared that the Democrats controlled the house, senate and presidency. I know more than a few independents who voted Republican simply to maintain balance.

To completely dismiss public opinion over Obamacare is rather naive. It was just as contentious as the Trayvon Martin case and was played for much longer in the media. This isn't some fringe issue where you can say the polls don't matter, people vote over stuff like this. It's like saying SOPA and the massive public reaction to it had nothing to do with it being shot down.

 

[ivwshane]

Your comebacks are as weak as your "arguments."

If your counter-argument was merely to nitpick the definition of "rammed through", you'd have lost. But instead you've taken it the extra mile and have purposefully misunderstood basic English. "Rammed" means "forced", not "easily passed". If it had been filibustered, then Obamacare still would have been "rammed", just not "rammed through".

Cool off. You're poking at my supposed Alzheimer's while you forget grade school English.

That's because I'm arguing against someone who moves the goal posts every time he makes a new post.

I'm nitpicking your use of the word rammed? Why did you choose to use that word in the first place? You weren't trying to make a point?

Your latest dismissal of the election results as a protest vote is laughable!

 

[irishScott]

That's because I'm arguing against someone who moves the goal posts every time he makes a new post.

I'm nitpicking your use of the word rammed? Why did you choose to use that word in the first place? You weren't trying to make a point?

Your latest dismissal of the election results as a protest vote is laughable!

I chose "rammed" because it was accurate. Obamacare was the definition of a purely partisan vote. And I didn't dismiss anything, I merely think Obamacare was the deciding factor in the midterms.

If you'll read my response to Perknose, one liberal commentator he cited actually conducted simulations that controlled for gerrymandering. Guess what? Republicans still won the house, just not by as much. This is a guy on your side saying that.

And pray tell, what goal posts am I moving? You're just failing to poke holes in my argument while providing no support for your own. Although it's clear that you'll find some rationalization for nigh-anything Obama does at this point. You're too pissed off to do anything else.

 

[fskimospy]

I chose "rammed" because it was accurate. Obamacare was the definition of a purely partisan vote. And I didn't dismiss anything, I merely think Obamacare was the deciding factor in the midterms.

If you'll read my response to Perknose, one liberal commentator he cited actually conducted simulations that controlled for gerrymandering. Guess what? Republicans still won the house, just not by as much. This is a guy on your side saying that.

And pray tell, what goal posts am I moving? You're just failing to poke holes in my argument while providing no support for your own. Although it's clear that you'll find some rationalization for nigh-anything Obama does at this point.

Nate Silver is not a 'liberal commentator'. He's a statistician. (if that's who you were referring to) The reasons why Republicans would have kept the house are mostly a combination of population dispersal and gerrymandering. From the way geography is set up you tend to get Democrats concentrated in urban areas where they rack up huge majorities while the Republicans are more evenly distributed. Then on top of this you have gerrymandering which takes that natural tendency and exacerbates it further.

All this adds up to somewhere around a 2% advantage for the Republicans (in that the Democrats need somewhere around 52% of the overall vote to win the House while Republicans need about 48%) Sure it's possible and I'm sure the Democrats will win the House again at some point, but the way it is currently set up is institutionally biased against them.

As for Obama being able to lead and motivate people and somehow stir the country up to elect more Democrats to the House, I still just don't find that convincing at all. These are all incredibly nebulous statements. Again, the appeal that he should have just been more convincing is to me like when in football people talk about how someone needs to 'make a play'.

 

[K1052]

Ever hear of a protest vote? By your logic these never occur. Just because someone votes one way doesn't necessarily mean they support that party. See the Democrat protest votes during the Bush Era that gave Democrats a leg up in congress, for starters. What groundswell there was wasn't pro-Republican, it was anti-Obamacare; and anti-Democrat in general as it appeared that the Democrats controlled the house, senate and presidency. I know more than a few independents who voted Republican simply to maintain balance.

To completely dismiss public opinion over Obamacare is rather naive. It was just as contentious as the Trayvon Martin case and was played for much longer in the media. This isn't some fringe issue where you can say the polls don't matter, people vote over stuff like this. It's like saying SOPA and the massive public reaction to it had nothing to do with it being shot down.

Yes, to suggest gerrymandering (via increased control of state legislatures) and very favorable electoral conditions had anything to do with Republican gains in the House is naive while your position supported by anecdote and personal belief is a nuanced fortress of logic.

The available information does not point to the ACA being a significant factor in the last midterms as to seat turnover. Public opinion hasn't shifted much at all since passage so I don't see how you can draw the conclusion that alone it created a swing in the House that hasn't been seen for over half a century.

 

[irishScott]

Nate Silver is not a 'liberal commentator'. He's a statistician. (if that's who you were referring to) The reasons why Republicans would have kept the house are mostly a combination of population dispersal and gerrymandering. From the way geography is set up you tend to get Democrats concentrated in urban areas where they rack up huge majorities while the Republicans are more evenly distributed. Then on top of this you have gerrymandering which takes that natural tendency and exacerbates it further.

All this adds up to somewhere around a 2% advantage for the Republicans (in that the Democrats need somewhere around 52% of the overall vote to win the House while Republicans need about 48%) Sure it's possible and I'm sure the Democrats will win the House again at some point, but the way it is currently set up is institutionally biased against them.

As for Obama being able to lead and motivate people and somehow stir the country up to elect more Democrats to the House, I still just don't find that convincing at all. These are all incredibly nebulous statements. Again, the appeal that he should have just been more convincing is to me like when in football people talk about how someone needs to 'make a play'.

I was referring to Sam Wang, whom I suppose is also technically a "statistician", although from what I've seen of his blog (http://election.princeton.edu/) he apparently leans substantially to the left. His gun politics are especially bias, surprising for a statistician. He tries to establish a trend in mass shootings off of what amount to spikes every few years (Columbine, VA Tech, Sandy Hook, etc) and imply that they are directly related to to the Clinton AWB, without even acknowledging that the 80s were more "peaceful" in terms of mass shootings, despite the fact that there was even less regulation (for a $200 tax you could buy a fully automatic weapon), which directly contradicts his point. But that's a whole other debate.

As for the quoted entry in question.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?_r=0

Second, if we replace the eight partisan gerrymanders with the mock delegations from my simulations, this would lead to a seat count of 215 Democrats, 220 Republicans, give or take a few.

And when people say someone needs to "make a play" in football, they're usually right. It's just a matter of whether the team in question is capable of "making a play". In keeping with the analogy, I don't see Obama making it to the playoffs. He is in capable of "making the play" that is needed. Doesn't mean it's impossible in general, just that's apparently impossible for him.

 

[irishScott]

Yes, to suggest gerrymandering (via increased control of state legislatures) and very favorable electoral conditions had anything to do with Republican gains in the House is naive while your position supported by anecdote and personal belief is a nuanced fortress of logic.

The available information does not point to the ACA being a significant factor in the last midterms as to seat turnover. Public opinion hasn't shifted much at all since passage so I don't see how you can draw the conclusion that alone it created a swing in the House that hasn't been seen for over half a century.

Never said anything about a "nuanced fortress of logic", I just think you're not seeing the forest for the trees. And I've certainly posted more sources than you in this thread, so you're hardly in a position to attack me on grounds of "anecdotes" and "personal beliefs".

I don't even know what you're trying to say with that last paragraph. Public opinion hasn't shifted all that much since passage... so? At passage it was still highly controversial (even the moderates were split), and was still fresh in peoples' minds at the midterms. If it's going to affect an election, that's the one it's going to most strongly affect.

I'm not denying that other factors existed, I'm simply saying that Obamacare was a major factor in swaying the election, and was likely the decisive factor. Without Obamacare Democrats may have lost a bit but would likely have held the house IMO.

 

[fskimospy]

And when people say someone needs to "make a play" in football, they're usually right. It's just a matter of whether the team in question is capable of "making a play". In keeping with the analogy, I don't see Obama making it to the playoffs. He is in capable of "making the play" that is needed. Doesn't mean it's impossible in general, just that's apparently impossible for him.

I think you might have missed my point. Everyone needs to make a play on every play, that's the whole point. It's a meaningless statement. Every president needs to be more convincing all the time, to say that's what he needed to do doesn't mean anything as to what that would actually entail. It is also a meaningless statement. He's incapable of what? You need to say EXACTLY what you think he should do and why you think it would lead to a different outcome. If you can't, it's just the color commentator on TV saying how people need to 'make plays'.

I find the idea that somehow the right series of words or political moves would make people who have no political reason to compromise suddenly become receptive is extremely naive.

 

[K1052]

Never said anything about a "nuanced fortress of logic", I just think you're not seeing the forest for the trees. And I've certainly posted more sources than you in this thread, so you're hardly in a position to attack me on grounds of "anecdotes" and "personal beliefs".

I don't even know what you're trying to say with that last paragraph. Public opinion hasn't shifted all that much since passage... so? At passage it was still highly controversial (even the moderates were split), and was still fresh in peoples' minds at the midterms. If it's going to affect an election, that's the one it's going to most strongly affect.

I'm not denying that other factors existed, I'm simply saying that Obamacare was a major factor in swaying the election, and was likely the decisive factor. Without Obamacare Democrats may have lost a bit but would likely have held the house IMO.

The Democrats aren't forecast to make a serious challenge to Republican control of the house in 2014 or even 2016. This is not the result of a protest vote lasting almost a decade by independents because of Obamacare. The electoral math has simply changed to favor Republican control of the house while consigned them to being a minority party in the Senate and locked out of the White House for the foreseeable future. If independents hated Obamacare so much to propel tea party radicals and other sundry new republicans very solidly into control of the House why was the president reelected in 2012 with a margin of the popular vote only a couple points less than 2008 with ACA polling essential stable?

With the drastically increased partisanship present in both bodies of a congress that enjoys record low approval ratings and is looking for the shovel to get into somehow get into negative territory blaming Obama's inability to move forward his agenda on his "leadership" a statement that needs some explanation. I too would like a description of what "leadership" would entail at this point for him to be able to move the needle in congress. If you can't articulate that then it's as empty a term here as when the Republican candidates for president where tossing it around in the last election as a dodge to to avoid actually answering questions.