Always like the correspondent dinners. Nice to see presidents make fun of themselves a bit. Given the facade they have to put on all the other days.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
Was a bit surprised to hear so many dog-eating jokes.
Yeah some of the jokes were a bit edgy. Needless to say, a white candidate could not have gotten away with that without raising a few eyebrows in the press the following day.
liked the one about the secret service.
Our good friend Karl Rove has Obama hammering Romney by at least 100 electoral votes if the election were held today. Looks about right, despite the fact that Rove, oddly has South Carolina as a toss up when it hasn't gone Dem in ages.
Obama will win Arizona.
Our good friend Karl Rove has Obama hammering Romney by at least 100 electoral votes if the election were held today. Looks about right, despite the fact that Rove, oddly has South Carolina as a toss up when it hasn't gone Dem in ages.
I agree with him about SC. think it will still go GOP but it will be close. Next Presidential cycle...who knows.
Those are daunting numbers for Romney. Looking at the little black box inside the map image, even if Romney were to get the 93 votes Rove is giving him, then for good measure assume the 82 Toss Ups and the 79 leaning towards Romney - that would still not get him to 269. Whereas Obama easily reaches 269 if he gets the states that are already solid blue and light blue.
I think Obama has a decent chance in three of the 6 toss ups in Rove's map, (Florida, North Carolina, and Iowa) in which case he may be looking at a 150-200 vote win.
I think Obama has a decent chance in three of the 6 toss ups in Rove's map, (Florida, North Carolina, and Iowa) in which case he may be looking at a 150-200 vote win.
Landslide to Obama when all is said and done, except for the photo ops he could probably go to bed early that night and not worry about.
It will take a massive campaign F-up for Obama to blow this. MASSIVE...ie handing ready to launch ICBM's over to North Korea and Iran size F-up. Or perhaps serving dog at the Democratic National Convention.
Which brings up another point, what a huge waste of money these conventions are. 5 freaking nights of TV coverage on just about every channel when the nominee is already decided. The networks ought to just stop showing them and let both parties have their circle jerks in private.
It will take a massive campaign F-up for Obama to blow this. MASSIVE...ie handing ready to launch ICBM's over to North Korea and Iran size F-up. Or perhaps serving dog at the Democratic National Convention.
Which brings up another point, what a huge waste of money these conventions are. 5 freaking nights of TV coverage on just about every channel when the nominee is already decided. The networks ought to just stop showing them and let both parties have their circle jerks in private.
I said Obama will win Arizona because of a few factors.
Firstly, Reid's come from behind win in 2010 and the hunch that the Latino population is increasing in these Western States. Also the Arizona immigration law is clearly seen by Hispanics as racial profiling. Motivation to go and vote against a party that advocates such laws,
I went to Nate Silver's site to look at the latest analysis and Arizona was sure enough being discussed.
Here is someone responding to Nate's analysis.
It's important to keep the old definition of "swing state".
Nate, your definition of "swing state" is not the same as the standard definition. The standard definition is: "a state that may switch from one party to the other in different elections". By that definition, Arizona is a potential swing state this year...
The reason that is important is that participation in elections is severely depressed in a party-locked state, whether red or blue... and that depressed activity can often lag demographic shifts by several election cycles.
In 2000, AZ was clearly red, but since that time the adult latino population has increased significantly. Currently ~29.6% of the state is latino, 4.1% of the state is black, and 3.4% of the state is bi-racial. If we assume (correctly) that >90% of the black population and >70% of the latino and bi-racial population vote democratic, then that already equals 26.79% of the vote before the first WASP makes it into the voting both. That means the white people have to break for the republicans by >63%!!!
Firstly, Reid's come from behind win in 2010 and the hunch that the Latino population is increasing in these Western States. Also the Arizona immigration law is clearly seen by Hispanics as racial profiling. Motivation to go and vote against a party that advocates such laws,
I went to Nate Silver's site to look at the latest analysis and Arizona was sure enough being discussed.
Here is someone responding to Nate's analysis.
It's important to keep the old definition of "swing state".
Nate, your definition of "swing state" is not the same as the standard definition. The standard definition is: "a state that may switch from one party to the other in different elections". By that definition, Arizona is a potential swing state this year...
The reason that is important is that participation in elections is severely depressed in a party-locked state, whether red or blue... and that depressed activity can often lag demographic shifts by several election cycles.
In 2000, AZ was clearly red, but since that time the adult latino population has increased significantly. Currently ~29.6% of the state is latino, 4.1% of the state is black, and 3.4% of the state is bi-racial. If we assume (correctly) that >90% of the black population and >70% of the latino and bi-racial population vote democratic, then that already equals 26.79% of the vote before the first WASP makes it into the voting both. That means the white people have to break for the republicans by >63%!!!
Always depressing/reassuring/annoying/dependable/delete where appropriate to see the US adhere to its Intelligent Informed Coastal vs Pigshit Passportless Middle demographical stereotype in those things.
Away from the electoral college for a moment...I thought Bill Maher made an interesting point the other day. He said that everybody talks about Mitt Romney being an amazing success story, but he was the son of a millionaire governor who became a millionaire governor whereas Obama was born relatively poor to an ordinary family and worked his way up against the odds to become POTUS.
Who's the bigger success story? I'd say Obama personifies the fabled American Dream.
Who's the bigger success story? I'd say Obama personifies the fabled American Dream.
Rich white men find nothing more inspiring than rich white men becoming even richer white men.
I'm sure Romney overcame many obstacles to get where he is today. I just can't think of any...
He had to live off of sale of the stock he was given by his father during college.
That's the weirdest hair I've ever seen.
Our good friend Karl Rove has Obama hammering Romney by at least 100 electoral votes if the election were held today. Looks about right, despite the fact that Rove, oddly has South Carolina as a toss up when it hasn't gone Dem in ages.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...lectoral-map/2012/04/29/gIQAHxz7pT_story.html
Romoney has a narrow path to victory but nevertheless has a very high ceiling. So you cant be certain.
Interesting analysis, I have a couple of questions.
What proportion of Latinos in Arizona have the required state sanctioned ID cards? (thankfully the courts threw out the required proof of citizenship obviously aimed at latinos) Do you think the Voter ID laws could have a significant impact?
think that has to be factored into the polls.
The very reason the GOP is pushing for these Voter suppression laws is they can see the changing demographics as well as the Dems.
I miss the days of the old Chicago when dead people continued to vote,sometimes for decades after they passed away.
how many cases for voter fraud were there in 2008? I mean where an illegitimate vote was cast, not some moron who registers people puts 'donald duck' or the name of a dead person on a registration form to try and extra commission before getting caught and fired
No idea, funny thing being you ever really only know about any that get caught so it is really an impossible number to count. Could be anywhere form a few dozen to thousands, in theory possibly more but that's a stretch.
But I do miss the days of Daley's Chicago back decades ago, zombie voters FTW!!!!!!!
Only citizens get a vote. Its always been that way.
Well any law that would require any kind of ID, needs to be set up so that EVERY voter has to supply ID, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. As long as any law is both written and enforced equally there should be no problem with it. The problem becomes when it is not done that way.
Without evidence that it is a wide spread issue there is no reason to disenfranchise voters. All allegations that were made during the 2008 'Obama stole the election through Acorn' was proven to be bullshit.
Yes, you need to be a citizen to register- once you register you shouldn't have to bring proof of citizenship to the ballot with you. It was aimed at making voting even more uncomfortable for poorer people and ethnic minorities who are less likely to have this available and maybe cannot afford the fees to get a new one.
I doubt too many people that have obtained citizenship lose their certificate or passport. Even if you did lose it the cost of a copy is relatively low and its a very easy process.
Romney's supposed success story is about as amazing as George W's was.
I mean, Bush's down home, good old boy act worked a treat & pretty much obscured what he actually was- a spoilt, millionaire frat boy from Yale.
I mean, Bush's down home, good old boy act worked a treat & pretty much obscured what he actually was- a spoilt, millionaire frat boy from Yale.
what if they don't know that it is required to vote? Many people don't keep upto date with voting laws. Its a bit of a dick move to deny citizens the right to vote because they don't know the intricacies of the process.
Also, I have first hand experience of being a moron and losing my passport. I was using it as ID on a night out and lost it, I keep delaying getting a new one because I'm too cheap to pay £80 until I absolutely need it!
the point is to make people think its not worth it to send off and pay for something they otherwise wouldn't need when their vote probably won't matter anyway.
Nothing I am saying has anything to do with 2008 or Acorn, so no need to even bring it up. 2008 seems to be your issue, not mine. Not only did Obama win that election fairly, he is actually a citizen of the United States and meets all requirements to hold the office of President. Shocking stuff, huh.
As I said in another post, any law about this has to be applied EQUALLY to all regardless of race, religion, gender, etc etc etc.
The whole disenfranchisement issue is just a scare tactic, one of those words that is sure to touch emotions and turn people away from the issue.
If a voter id card were to become required it should be supplied to the voter upon registration, whether registering for the first time or registering in a new area because they have moved.
There are so many things you need identification for these days, it is ridiculous for anyone not to have somekind of valid id.
As many as 11 percent of eligible voters do not have government-issued photo ID. That percentage is even higher for seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students. Many citizens find it hard to get government photo IDs, because the underlying documentation like birth certificates (the ID one needs to get ID) is often difficult or expensive to come by. At the same time, voter ID policies are far more costly to implement than many assume.
Anyone who thinks voter ID laws have anything to do with the incredibly rare instances of actual voter fraud has their head in the sand:
In Wisconsin, a new law requires people who register others to vote to be deputized in whatever municipality they are in, creating a massive bureaucratic impediment to registering others to vote, and burdening cities and towns with the need to create a deputization process for these people, since 99% of them never saw any need to do so.
In Florida, a new law requires voter registration signatures to be handed to state officials within 48 hours of collection. So, y'know, don't collect any signatures on Fridays!
In Ohio, new laws discourage precinct workers from telling voters where to go if they show up at the wrong precinct. What possible voter fraud is this intended to prevent?
Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia all passed laws shortening the early voting period before Election Day. This has nothing to do with voter fraud. It has to do with the fact that the President has a better GOTV operation than the GOP does.
Anyone who thinks voter ID laws have anything to do with the incredibly rare instances of actual voter fraud has their head in the sand:
In Wisconsin, a new law requires people who register others to vote to be deputized in whatever municipality they are in, creating a massive bureaucratic impediment to registering others to vote, and burdening cities and towns with the need to create a deputization process for these people, since 99% of them never saw any need to do so.
In Florida, a new law requires voter registration signatures to be handed to state officials within 48 hours of collection. So, y'know, don't collect any signatures on Fridays!
In Ohio, new laws discourage precinct workers from telling voters where to go if they show up at the wrong precinct. What possible voter fraud is this intended to prevent?
Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia all passed laws shortening the early voting period before Election Day. This has nothing to do with voter fraud. It has to do with the fact that the President has a better GOTV operation than the GOP does.
what if they don't know that it is required to vote? Many people don't keep upto date with voting laws. Its a bit of a dick move to deny citizens the right to vote because they don't know the intricacies of the process.
Also, I have first hand experience of being a moron and losing my passport. I was using it as ID on a night out and lost it, I keep delaying getting a new one because I'm too cheap to pay £80 until I absolutely need it!
the point is to make people think its not worth it to send off and pay for something they otherwise wouldn't need when their vote probably won't matter anyway.
LOL, obviously if the law went into effect it would be made public in many, many ways. You are grasping at straws with that one. Remember the old saying ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The two examples you use are cases of people making a choice to not have id, well then that is their choice then isn't it and therefore all responsibility for the results of making that choice falls upon themselves.
Until we see a national law of somekind get passed, I doubt this will ever become the law of the land though and idividual state laws will continue to see much debate in the courts and have many issues being upheld.
Is that including State issued IDs like driving licenses?
That's correct.
no..no no.
these are not voter suppression laws
We all know the score with these laws. This Supreme Court would uphold most of them too.
have any of the Justice Department challenges or challenges by other organisations come up to the Supreme Court yet?
- Status