The final numbers with Florida in and Obama winning look like 332/206


http://www.wtsp.com/news/breaking/articl...nt-concede

Indiana and North Carolina were the only two states to change from 2008 to 2012 I believe? In general, there was about a 3 to 4 pct swing in most states in the Obama support from 2008 to 2012. That's not universal but the general trend in each state. And overall the voter turnout was down a bit from 2008 but I think the percentage still is decent compared to most elections from the past 30-40 years.

I still believe the most important stat from this election is one that most people continue to choose to ignore. 53 pct of the voters were women. That's obviously a much different stat from the numbers on this board. Minorities aren't deciding national elections - women are. At least that's what I believe.

Domination. Time to start moving forward for Hillary.

The Romney team was shocked by the loss. They must watch FAUX News instead of the mainstream or as I call it reality based media.

(11-09-2012 07:20 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  The Romney team was shocked by the loss. They must watch FAUX News instead of the mainstream or as I call it reality based media.

I don't know why. He was a horrible candidate. He did not appeal to minorities and women....game over. I am not smart and I figured this out.

Quote:Romney was stoic as he talked to the president, an aide said, but his wife Ann cried. Running mate Paul Ryan seemed genuinely shocked, the adviser said. Ryan's wife Janna also was shaken and cried softly.

[...]

Bob White, a close Romney friend and adviser, was prepared to tell the waiting crowd that Mr. Romney would not yet concede. But then, Mr. Romney quietly decided it was over. "It's not going to happen," he said.

As Ann Romney cried softly, he headed down to deliver his speech, ending his second, and presumably last, bid for the White House.

I dunno, this reaction doesn't seem that out of the oridinary. We are onlookers to the whole thing. But imagine those who've poured their hearts, souls, etc, into the thing for two years, 24/7. Those with larger egos than Joe Q Public as well. The fact that pollsters and Vegas odds had Obama up X.X points has little impact. I don't know if I've ever heard anyone say, "yeah, well, we kind of figured going into it that we were toast."

Same thing with NFL Superbowl losers. They may be 3-point underdogs going into the game, but if they do lose by 3 points, it doesn't make it all any easier.

I thought Romney would win but admitted many times that his chances were no better than 50/50. Among the individual states, Florida is the only one that Obama carried which I thought he couldn't carry.

2016 is a long ways off. Looking through history, there are plenty of examples of winning presidential candidates who were barely on the radar 4 years earlier. So we'll see how that turns out. One fact that I think is significant, though: since 1950, there have been 8 presidential elections in which the incumbent party has held the White House for 8 or more years: the Democrats in 1952, 1968, and 2000, and the Republicans in 1960, 1976, 1988, 1992, and 2008. The incumbent party is 1-7 in those elections. Of course there are other factors at work, but I think that is one historical trend that we should keep in mind as 2016 draws near.

I've always figured that an incumbent president has a small home field advantage going into it because many voters have a built-in "I don't want to change horses in midstream" lobe in their brain.

Then perhaps it's reversed for the incumbent party after the 8 years, in that people have this tendency of, "well, both these candidates are brand new, but let's give the other party a shot"?

I'm just hypothesizing here. And like you said, there are a lot of other factors going into it.

Those assumptions are if both parties are viable. Unless Jeb is running, the GOP will not be. Plus there will be historical significance of the first female president. Hillary wins the Obama states plus GA,NC,AR,TX,IN,AZ.

Is Hillary giving serious vibes about running again in 2016? If so, she'll get some of the same (granted, unfair) murmurs that McCain got: entering a possible one- to two-term presidency just as she crosses 70 years old. Her VP pick will get extra scrutiny.

(11-09-2012 08:46 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Those assumptions are if both parties are viable.

What assumptions?

Quote:Hillary wins the Obama states plus GA,NC,AR,TX,IN,AZ.

So just for the record here, you're predicting a 429-109 win for Hillary! in the Electoral College and an approximate popular-vote win of 57-42, is that right?

No comment.

(11-09-2012 08:50 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Is Hillary giving serious vibes about running again in 2016? If so, she'll get some of the same (granted, unfair) murmurs that McCain got: entering a possible one- to two-term presidency just as she crosses 70 years old. Her VP pick will get extra scrutiny.

She swears up and down she's done with politics, but if you believe that I've got a bridge on the moon to sell you

(11-09-2012 08:46 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Those assumptions are if both parties are viable. Unless Jeb is running, the GOP will not be. Plus there will be historical significance of the first female president. Hillary wins the Obama states plus GA,NC,AR,TX,IN,AZ.

Hillary would not win Texas. It might become more of a battleground state in 2016, but the Republicans will still carry it. And I don't think they're that popular in Arkansas anymore - especially her. She might turn Missouri and Montana - and then some of the ones you mentioned. The Republicans can turn quite a few states with the right candidate/ticket. But it won't matter if they can't turn Florida, Ohio and Virginia.

(11-09-2012 08:58 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  She swears up and down she's done with politics, but if you believe that I've got a bridge on the moon to sell you

Except for her husband, there really hasn't been anyone in public life quite so successful as Hillary! when it comes to concealing one's true intentions and motives. So I readily admit that I don't know where she'll go from here. If she does run in 2016 she would be strong. Not a guaranteed winner but as good a chance as anyone else, and a much better chance than most.

If I just had to bet $100 on it, I'd bet she doesn't run. I think she's done with it -- shaking hands at a Chamber of Commerce meeting in Dubuque, having to be "on" for the endless fundraisers in the Hamptons, California, etc. Not to mention the role of the State Department in the Benghazi mess will get a good workout. Plus she knows that a lot of her current "popularity" is rooted precisely in the public belief that Hillary! is through as a partisan candidate for office. Take that away, and her ratings will revert back to 2007 levels: not bad, but nowhere near what she has now.

Anyway, I admit she very well might go for it. Bill's energetic stumping for Obama obviously was done partially to lay down a marker for 2016 that Hillary! may or may not claim at a later date. We'll see.

Sorry, anyone who claims a Dem will carry Texas in 2016 is crazy. Possibly a moderate, Hispanic Dem could make a run in 2020 due to demographic shifts, but not this next election.

BAM! 50/50. And for the record, when I made the prediction, Silver had Florida red (though he later changed it).

(11-02-2012 09:47 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 10:33 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 10:00 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 09:55 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 09:51 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 09:47 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Electoral college: Obama 332, Romney 206

I'll bet any amount of money with you this will not happen. Though you being a scum sucking ambulance chaser you'd just welch as well.

This is so close, I wouldn't be shocked to see anything happen

To get 332 Obama has to sweep FL, NC and VA. He is not winning NC. It won't happen. I don't think he wins FL or VA either even if he wins the whole election. The best Obama can do IMO is 281.

And to firm, this is a prediction thread. A prediction is what you think will happen, not what you know will happen. If I knew what would happen you'd be seeing Intrade skyrocket for one guy cause I'd be buying with everything I had.

I don't disagree. I think Obama will end up at 281 myself. I was just stating that I wouldn't be surprised at Obama at 332 or Romney between 271-304. It's that close.

332 does not give North Carolina to Obama. It does give Florida to Obama, and I'm on the fence about that. I see FL as a coin flip at the moment. Obama is down by about a point in the aggregate there, but the Obama ground game is so superior to Roms it should be worth a point. FL will be extremely close, but thankfully it won't matter.

No Ninerfan I'm not going to bet on Obama getting 332. I think that is the most likely outcome, but still the odds of it happening IMO is just about 20-25%. 303 and 332 are the most likely outcomes, but I'd weigh the chances of them all like this right now:

332: 25% chance
303 (subtracting FL): 24% chance
290 (subtracting FL and VA): 20% chance
281 (subtracting FL and VA and CO): 15%
347 (adding NC): 15%
Anything else: 1%

(11-09-2012 08:50 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Is Hillary giving serious vibes about running again in 2016? If so, she'll get some of the same (granted, unfair) murmurs that McCain got: entering a possible one- to two-term presidency just as she crosses 70 years old. Her VP pick will get extra scrutiny.

Yes. The Clinton donors were alerted months ago to prepare for 2016. She still may change her mind, but she's keeping the door open.

McCain was older than she will be in 2016 when he ran. So was Reagan and Dole.

(11-09-2012 10:04 AM)Max Power Wrote:  BAM! 50/50. And for the record, when I made the prediction, Silver had Florida red (though he later changed it).

(11-02-2012 09:47 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 10:33 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 10:00 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 09:55 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  This is so close, I wouldn't be shocked to see anything happen

To get 332 Obama has to sweep FL, NC and VA. He is not winning NC. It won't happen. I don't think he wins FL or VA either even if he wins the whole election. The best Obama can do IMO is 281.

And to firm, this is a prediction thread. A prediction is what you think will happen, not what you know will happen. If I knew what would happen you'd be seeing Intrade skyrocket for one guy cause I'd be buying with everything I had.

I don't disagree. I think Obama will end up at 281 myself. I was just stating that I wouldn't be surprised at Obama at 332 or Romney between 271-304. It's that close.

332 does not give North Carolina to Obama. It does give Florida to Obama, and I'm on the fence about that. I see FL as a coin flip at the moment. Obama is down by about a point in the aggregate there, but the Obama ground game is so superior to Roms it should be worth a point. FL will be extremely close, but thankfully it won't matter.

No Ninerfan I'm not going to bet on Obama getting 332. I think that is the most likely outcome, but still the odds of it happening IMO is just about 20-25%. 303 and 332 are the most likely outcomes, but I'd weigh the chances of them all like this right now:

332: 25% chance
303 (subtracting FL): 24% chance
290 (subtracting FL and VA): 20% chance
281 (subtracting FL and VA and CO): 15%
347 (adding NC): 15%
Anything else: 1%

Damn, nice call man.

(11-09-2012 07:20 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  The Romney team was shocked by the loss. They must watch FAUX News instead of the mainstream or as I call it reality based media.

That was perhaps the most shocking news I've heard since election night. They seriously believed the "skewed polling" theories coming from the right wing bloggers. It's one thing for the bloggers and Fox News talking heads and idiots like Ninerfan to believe it, but I figured that the people at the top of their campaign knew better. But they were either stupid or delusional.

It's the most moronic idea ever. A mainstream pollster calls 100 people who say they're "extremely likely" to vote, with 52 going for Obama and 48 for Romney. And the Romney campaign didn't believe it because "there's no hope and change" and "crowd sizes." That's pure wishful thinking. This isn't rocket science. The only way the poll is wrong is if the Democrats who say they're extremely likely" to vote are lying. Why the **** are they lying? And you saw this in poll after poll. The pollsters all said they weren't applying "2008 turnout models" or weighing for party ID-- it's just how the results were coming in. People were just telling them they would vote for Barack Obama. And none of it ever got through to the people on the right, including shockingly the people getting paid to get it right.

It's absolutely shocking how willfully ignorant they were of reality. It makes me that much more glad they lost. If you can't accept facts you're not fit to be president.

(11-09-2012 08:46 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Those assumptions are if both parties are viable. Unless Jeb is running, the GOP will not be. Plus there will be historical significance of the first female president. Hillary wins the Obama states plus GA,NC,AR,TX,IN,AZ.

Dude, put the crack pipe down. I know you libs love you some Hillary but let's get realistic.