US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
True. I just think the loss of Texas would pretty much see off the far right. There are plenty of influential actors in the party who care enough about power to have that fight. Not now, maybe not even if Romney loses, but surely if they were facing oblivion?

Silver's now got Obama's chances back up above where they were before the Eastwood/Clinton/47% period. So he's taken back about half the ground Romney made up after the first debate.

His projected EV gains have bounced back slower though.
 
Qunnipac saying Obama ahead in

Ohio +5
florida ***
Va +2

However, from their last polls in these states, it means his lead has gone down or the same in all these states.
 
Raoul said:
Silver seems to think Arizona will be in play in future elections. I think that any states where hispanic populations are rising rapidly will eventually flip to the Dems - Arizona and Texas spring to mind. If Texas becomes a battleground state, the GOP are finished at the Presidential level.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, the Dems are so badly disorganized and so poorly funded that they have a long, long way to go in making up ground. I don't remember the exact numbers, but apparently if Texas Hispanics turned out to vote at the same rate as California, Obama would win even next week. Don't forget that Karl Rove spent years organizing Texas, both for ground ops and importantly, donors, mostly from out of state. Let's hope the Castros can prove to be an effective magnet for the dollars of Coastal liberals.
 
Plechazunga said:
Looking at the state polls, I didn't realise that even in the most partisan states, the split is rarely more than 60-40. Places like North Dakota and Texas would only need a 6 or 7 percent swing to flip. I know that's a lot, but as demographics change and old people die it's not unthinkable.

I knew there were lots of conservatives in places like NY and CA, but I never knew the red states had so many unrepresented liberals.

Also, New Hampshire is fecking worryingly tight! Rich twats.
Click to expand...

Some are the traditional Dem families who stayed with them even after the Civil Rights Act, FDR's economic populism made them Dems for life. Then there's the urban - rural divide. Apart from the increase in Hispanic population, greater migration to the metropolitan areas in the coming decades is omething for Repubs to worry about.
 
radd said:
From what I've read, the Dems are so badly disorganized and so poorly funded that they have a long, long way to go in making up ground. I don't remember the exact numbers, but apparently if Texas Hispanics turned out to vote at the same rate as California, the Dems would win even next week. Don't forget that Karl Rove spent years organizing Texas, both for ground ops and importantly, donors, mostly from out of state. Let's hope the Castros can prove to be an effective magnet for the dollars of Coastal liberals.
Click to expand...

Dems have spoken about Texas for years and years. It's not going to materialize.

Demographic changes happen all the time, the GOP will not disappear. The point is, that on ground, the GOP is still wining states, house and senate races comfortably, even in Arizona.
 
Jaz said:
Dems have spoken about Texas for years and years. It's not going to materialize.

Demographic changes happen all the time, the GOP will not disappear. The point is, that on ground, the GOP is still wining states, house and senate races comfortably, even in Arizona.
Click to expand...

For the reasons I've mentioned. There's nothing immutable about fund-raising or organization.

EDIT: And demographic changes where the majority race gets reduced to a plurality do not 'happen all the time.' This is a historic shift. That doesn't mean the Repubs disappear, you're right that they can adapt and survive. But they can't turn on a dime either. It will take them a long time to accept the new balance.
 
The favourability numbers for Romney illustrate what I've been saying - he has a ceiling of about 47% in Ohio, and even a late break among undecideds is not enough to put him over the top.
 
radd said:
For the reasons I've mentioned. There's nothing immutable about fund-raising or organization
Click to expand...

And for the reason's I've mentioned it's not going to happen.

Similar arguments could be made about Georgia, New York, California and Pennsylvania. These are states with sizeable rural and sub-urban areas which could vote GOP/Dem.

The point is that on the ground, organization, does not simply "appear". It takes years and years of organization, activity, continuity. It simply doesn't exist in these states. I think we need a reality check. The democrats lost the house in 2010. Any machinery they had in the few seats in GOP states diminished. There are multiple Dem states now with Republican governors. But fewer Republican states with Dem governors too.

I think people tend to overestimate demographic changes, but underestimate the policy changes. The GOP is changing, slowly, but the policy positions are also moving. There is sometimes a lag between the demographic change and policy change, and that's when people start talking about parties being "wiped out". But this election cycle isn't it. The Democrats got wiped out twice in post-ww2 presidential elections. It still exists, but by necessary change.

Everything suggests that Mitt Romney will be closer to Obama than McCain was. This doesn't mean the GOP is dying or going in the wrong way.
 
More ominous for Romney, he's effectively stuck with the current polling numbers between now and election day, as the climate during the aftermath of the storm isn't very favorable for the normal electoral vitriol.
 
Raoul said:
More ominous for Romney, he's effectively stuck with the current polling numbers between now and election day, as the climate during the aftermath of the storm isn't very favorable for the normal electoral vitriol.
Click to expand...

I agree it would be a big surprise if he won. The polling simply isn't favourable for him right now.
 
Jaz said:
Everything suggests that Mitt Romney will be closer to Obama than McCain was. This doesn't mean the GOP is dying or going in the wrong way.
Click to expand...

That's only this version of Mitt.

Problem for the GOP is that their candidates have to pander to extreme elements of their parties.

For all intensive purposes I think Romney and McCain were "reasonable" Republicans. But the primary runs really didn't allow them to run that way.
 
Raoul said:
More ominous for Romney, he's effectively stuck with the current polling numbers between now and election day, as the climate during the aftermath of the storm isn't very favorable for the normal electoral vitriol.
Click to expand...

Romney is trying for PA/MI..

He is done.

Obama is ahead in Ohio by 5
Florida by 1
Virginia by 2

My only concern is how they will run elections in NY and NJ.
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
That's only this version of Mitt.

Problem for the GOP is that their candidates have to pander to extreme elements of their parties.

For all intensive purposes I think Romney and McCain were "reasonable" Republicans. But the primary runs really didn't allow them to run that way.
Click to expand...

So long as the GOP remains a homogenous party as it is now, it will be wiped out by changing demographics. They will eventualy become a regional southern party.

Just look at their platform.

This was the last great hope for that party to get a President in.
 
That all depends on who they put forward as a candidate in the next election. Someone like Rubio would stand a pretty decent chance in 2016 Imo.
 
Kaos said:
That all depends on who they put forward as a candidate in the next election. Someone like Rubio would stand a pretty decent chance in 2016 Imo.
Click to expand...

Yes but even someone decent will be forced into running as an ultra conservative in order to win the primary.

Look how well someone with as little funding as Santorum did. That element of their party has a huge say in what happens. Especially at primary level.

It's why Romney ran the way he did and picked Ryan and to a certain extent McCain did as well.
 
Red Dreams said:
Romney is trying for PA/MI..

He is done.

Obama is ahead in Ohio by 5
Florida by 1
Virginia by 2

My only concern is how they will run elections in NY and NJ.
Click to expand...

Quinnipac poll is the poll that's giving the biggest democratic advantage in all of these states and has done so in all their recent previous polls. (i.e. t's giving the democrats a bigger lead than all the other polls consistently).

As for romney in pa/mi. I'm guessing they have enough cash to spend in those states. There's only so many ads you can air in the battleground states. Secondly, recent michigan polls suggest it might end up close. I think people are forgetting that Romney is a northern republican, so is Ryan. Secondly, there is going to be media-market overlap around Iowa and Ohio, it makes sense.

If, as expected turnout is lower in non-battleground states and there is a dem/gop enthusiasm gap in some of these states it's likely that it could get close, Kerry barely won Michigan and PA.
 
Nate II often mentions that Arizona's steadily coming into play, the Obama campaign were even thinking of making a play for it this time round but that was when they were miles ahead. Texas seems a bit far fetched to my small brain though. North Carolina's one that'll seemingly be harder for the Repubs to win over the coming years.
 
Axelrod said he'd shave off his moustache if Romney won PA, MI or MN. He loves that moustache.
 
Jaz said:
Similar arguments could be made about Georgia, New York, California and Pennsylvania. These are states with sizeable rural and sub-urban areas which could vote GOP/Dem.
Click to expand...

Not really, the demographic movement is going the wrong way, rural > urban.

I think people tend to overestimate demographic changes, but underestimate the policy changes. The GOP is changing, slowly, but the policy positions are also moving.
Click to expand...

But again, in the wrong direction. The GOP has shifted massively right from 2008, while the demographics are shifting left.

There is sometimes a lag between the demographic change and policy change, and that's when people start talking about parties being "wiped out". But this election cycle isn't it.
Click to expand...

No-one's claiming it is. There's no chance of Texas going blue in 2016 either. But if the GOP loses this one and doesn't tack to the centre, it may find itself having to spend money there at least.

Everything suggests that Mitt Romney will be closer to Obama than McCain was. This doesn't mean the GOP is dying or going in the wrong way.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't mean it's not going the wrong way either. Each election has specific factors. If they get in, the GOP might be able to stem the tide with a booming economy in 2016. But the long-term demographic factors favour the Dems in ways that are probably going to mean the GOP having to rein in their right wing at some point soon.
 
Jaz said:
And for the reason's I've mentioned it's not going to happen.

Similar arguments could be made about Georgia, New York, California and Pennsylvania. These are states with sizeable rural and sub-urban areas which could vote GOP/Dem.

The point is that on the ground, organization, does not simply "appear". It takes years and years of organization, activity, continuity. It simply doesn't exist in these states. I think we need a reality check. The democrats lost the house in 2010. Any machinery they had in the few seats in GOP states diminished. There are multiple Dem states now with Republican governors. But fewer Republican states with Dem governors too.

I think people tend to overestimate demographic changes, but underestimate the policy changes. The GOP is changing, slowly, but the policy positions are also moving. There is sometimes a lag between the demographic change and policy change, and that's when people start talking about parties being "wiped out". But this election cycle isn't it. The Democrats got wiped out twice in post-ww2 presidential elections. It still exists, but by necessary change.

Everything suggests that Mitt Romney will be closer to Obama than McCain was. This doesn't mean the GOP is dying or going in the wrong way.
Click to expand...

The policy platform of the Repubs is the most regressive on every aspect in the last 50 years and it is a direct result of the anti-GWB backlash - Karl Rove positioned him more cerntrally in 2000 with Big Government policies in education, immigration reform and prescription drug benefits. GOP policies are not slowly changing despite what impression Mitt's lip-service (aka blatant lying) in the debates might leave.

As I mentioned a few pages back, Teabagger opposition to immigration reform is strongest in counties with significant Latino populations. Remember Rick Perry being butchered in the primaries for daring to suggest a 'compassionate conservative' approach?

I agree with your point about organization, but that's the reason Julian Castro was given such a prime speaking spot at the convention, it's a sign that the Dems are finally getting serious about Texas. The question is, if that is easier to accomplish than 'the struggle for the soul of the GOP.'

In terms of the GOP being 'wiped out', they don't have to be, to lose Prez elections. The Electoral College favours the Dems, absent economic crises.
 
Kaos said:
That all depends on who they put forward as a candidate in the next election. Someone like Rubio would stand a pretty decent chance in 2016 Imo.
Click to expand...

Be interesting to see if his expenses fiddling scandal plays out as a big negative.
 
radd said:
The policy platform of the Repubs is the most regressive on every aspect in the last 50 years and it is a direct result of the anti-GWB backlash - Karl Rove positioned him more cerntrally in 2000 with Big Government policies in education, immigration reform and prescription drug benefits. GOP policies are not slowly changing despite what impression Mitt's lip-service (aka blatant lying) in the debates might leave.

As I mentioned a few pages back, Teabagger opposition to immigration reform is strongest in counties with significant Latino populations. Remember Rick Perry being butchered in the primaries for daring to suggest a 'compassionate conservative' approach?

I agree with your point about organization, but that's the reason Julian Castro was given such a prime speaking spot at the convention, it's a sign that the Dems are finally getting serious about Texas. The question is, if that is easier to accomplish than 'the struggle for the soul of the GOP.'

In terms of the GOP being 'wiped out', they don't have to be, to lose Prez elections. The Electoral College favours the Dems, absent economic crises.
Click to expand...

A lot does depend on this election though. If Romney wins and the economy's booming in 16 it's hard to see him losing as incumbent, whatever the demographics. So they may only need to start winning back hispanics by 2020. And with a packed SCOTUS, they might succeed in disenfranchising a lot of Dem voters.

This election's massive. Silver currently has Romney between 1/4 and 1/5 to win. It's basically the same as Liverpool's odds of winning at OT in the Ferguson era.
 
Loving Wang's model at the moment mind you, Obama's been killing it today.

350whav.jpg


Silver's updating much less regularly, probably being cautious as there are fewer polls due to Sandy.
 
Should also mention because Raoul brought it up earlier on - Silver mentioned that his forecast changed so much overnight basically because of decent-to-good Ohio polls for Obama, seeing as it has such a bearing on the race. The extra +5 today (and the other Quinnipiac ones in FL and VA) aren't going to hurt either.
 
Plechazunga said:
A lot does depend on this election though. If Romney wins and the economy's booming in 16 it's hard to see him losing as incumbent, whatever the demographics. So they may only need to start winning back hispanics by 2020. And with a packed SCOTUS, they might succeed in disenfranchising a lot of Dem voters.

This election's massive. Silver currently has Romney between 1/4 and 1/5 to win. It's basically the same as Liverpool's odds of winning at OT in the Ferguson era.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. (And so, probably, does Danny Murphy :mad:)

But Jaz suggested there is a demographics v policy platform tradeoff, where there isn't. The Repubs are clearly on the wrong side of both. Nixon's Southern Strategy may not be as comfortable a proposition in the years ahead.
 
It would be interesting to see what would happen in, say, a Rubio vs Hillary election.
 
Ubik said:
It would be interesting to see what would happen in, say, a Rubio vs Hillary election.
Click to expand...

She won't run. She's looking old and tired as it is...

Would also be a tough ask for the democrats to win 3 on the trot, and try to beat the 'change' mantra that usually develops after 2 terms. Very difficult to do that with Hillary.
 
Was thinking more about demographics as a whole rather than just the Hispanic vote. She was always much stronger than Obama in white working-class areas for instance, and would she increase the Dems female share? Would African Americans turn out in such huge numbers? This is massive hypothetical spaculation though, I admit.

Jaz - if the economy's going well and Obama ends as a popular president should he win (and that's definitely possible), people might be wanting more of a "more of the same" rather than "change". She might well not run, but I think it's quite possible she'll have a break for a couple of years then go for it one last time.
 
Plechazunga said:
Looking at the state polls, I didn't realise that even in the most partisan states, the split is rarely more than 60-40. Places like North Dakota and Texas would only need a 6 or 7 percent swing to flip. I know that's a lot, but as demographics change and old people die it's not unthinkable.

I knew there were lots of conservatives in places like NY and CA, but I never knew the red states had so many unrepresented liberals.

Also, New Hampshire is fecking worryingly tight! Rich twats.
Click to expand...

To me it's interesting how my perception of "blue states" is really only valid for the last few elections. It's not surprising that that is my perception, since I haven't really paid any attention to American Politics for more than 3 Presidential Elections (I can't even vaguely remember the 1996 election, although by 2000 I was well interested).
 
There used to be a lot of Southern democrats, for historical reasons going back to the Civil War. That started changing as the Dems dismantled segregation, but it took till around the time you're talking about for many southerners to accept that they were no longer aligned culturally with them, hold their noses and vote for Lincoln's party.
 
Hispanics are the last, best hope for repubs. The power people know it but the base won't stand for the sort of pandering that will be required to bring Hispanics into the party.

Dems and repub power brokers alike are just waiting for angry old white people to die off.
 
You have to say, at some level the Tea Party are more principled than most political groups. I mean, their actual principles are terrible; but they don't just sell them for power.

A Rovian Republican would offer an amnesty in a second if he thought it would get him office. The Dems will suck off Wall St, Big Pharma, AIPAC, anyone who'll cut them a cheque or keep them looking mainstream. They almost seem to actively revel in pissing off their base.

The Tea Party don't give a shit how many winnable elections they lose, they insist on ideological purity. Is it unshakable principles, or just unshakable faith that the rest of the country shares them?
 
Plechazunga said:
You have to say, at some level the Tea Party are more principled than most political groups. I mean, their actual principles are terrible; but they don't just sell them for power.

A Rovian Republican would offer an amnesty in a second if he thought it would get him office. The Dems will suck off Wall St, Big Pharma, AIPAC, anyone who'll cut them a cheque or keep them looking mainstream. They almost seem to actively revel in pissing off their base.

The Tea Party don't give a shit how many winnable elections they lose, they insist on ideological purity. Is it unshakable principles, or just unshakable faith that the rest of the country shares them?
Click to expand...

Grossly overestimating their 2010 House success.
 
It's a denial of change is what it is. They somehow think that America can go back to the 1950's even though their view of that era isn't a reality-based one.

A lot of their principles appear moronic when dissected. "I don't want Government in my Medicare', 'slash government spending....go to war against Muslims' etc. etc.
 
Grinner said:
It's a denial of change is what it is. They somehow think that America can go back to the 1950's even though their view of that era isn't a reality-based one.

A lot of their principles appear moronic when dissected. "I don't want Government in my Medicare', 'slash government spending....go to war against Muslims' etc. etc.
Click to expand...

This particular one, I've always thought was misread by liberals 'Keep your Goverment hands off my Medicare' doesn't mean 'I don't want the Govt. to administer Medicare' but more 'I've already paid my money into the scheme, don't make any changes to it.' Applicable, as noted fraud Paul Ryan says, to people like his mom, those 55 and older.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.