Author Topic: What's next for GOP?  (Read 7069 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #60 on: December 12, 2012, 12:35:24 PM »

Offline InfiniteMH

  • Gerald Wallace
  • Posts: 127
  • Tommy Points: 17
Trouble is popular vote means nothing, electorally he got pummeled.

President won the popular vote by nearly 5 million. That is a huge margin.

  It's very small by re-election standards. The difference in popular vote (about 4%) was slightly larger than Bush's margin, about half of Clinton's margin and about 1/5 or less of the margin that Reagan, Nixon or LBJ won by.

Whenever I see this on TV and whatnot, I fail to see the significance in those comparisons. Can someone explain it to me like I'm a five year old? Isn't it still 100% of the votes he won by?
These are all re-election margins. I'll explain what I think BBall is saying:

Obama's margin was about 4%. He won 51% and Romney 47.3%. (3.7% to be more precise)

Obama won by slightly larger margin than Bush: Bush 50.7% vs Kerry 48.3 - 2.4% victory for Bush vs 3.7% for Obama.

Clinton's margin was about double (or Obama's was half of Clinton's) so Clinton had about 8% margin over dole (something like 53 to 45 I guess.)

Obama was about 1/5th of the other guys (LBJ, Nixon, Reagan) so they won by 5 times 4% or about 20%.

The reason to use % is the population changes (grows over time) and election turnout (% of eligible voter who actually vote) can vary greatly.

Looking at hard numbers is useful. For example if less people voted for Obama in 2012 than 2008, you could interpret that to mean people are getting sick of him, but just don't like Romney enough to show up. Or if more people vote for Obama in 2012 than in 2008, you could interpret that to mean he's converting apathetic and/or republican voters to convert to his cause. These kind of analysis are hard to do at a data level because there is so many variables, so you tend to get the TV blaring some cheesy high level interpretations. Doesn't mean there is no value, just take with grain of salt.
No, I understand.

But isn't that still saying "He didn't win well enough"?

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #61 on: December 12, 2012, 12:53:16 PM »

Offline Brendan

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2988
  • Tommy Points: 72
    • Self Assay
No - the question was on the size of the mandate. Certainly a win is a win in terms of who takes the next oath of office, on the other hand a small victory makes it harder politically for POTUS to bully the legislative branch. And it makes it easier politically for the Republican Majority in the US House to say no.

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #62 on: December 12, 2012, 01:05:39 PM »

Offline InfiniteMH

  • Gerald Wallace
  • Posts: 127
  • Tommy Points: 17
No - the question was on the size of the mandate. Certainly a win is a win in terms of who takes the next oath of office, on the other hand a small victory makes it harder politically for POTUS to bully the legislative branch. And it makes it easier politically for the Republican Majority in the US House to say no.

I understand,

but isn't that still saying "He didn't win well enough"?

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #63 on: December 12, 2012, 01:21:28 PM »

Offline Brendan

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2988
  • Tommy Points: 72
    • Self Assay
No - the question was on the size of the mandate. Certainly a win is a win in terms of who takes the next oath of office, on the other hand a small victory makes it harder politically for POTUS to bully the legislative branch. And it makes it easier politically for the Republican Majority in the US House to say no.

I understand,

but isn't that still saying "He didn't win well enough"?
Broadly? No. Life is not binary. Analysis is important, especially if you are POTUS or US House trying to figure out the political ramifications of various courses of actions.

Narrowly? I dunno - I didn't bring up the topic in this thread, but my read is the argument was "Obama won by so much you are in big trouble Rs, look at the demographics" - I disagree with this point, and the historical results back it up.

So I guess it depends on what you are saying. Example GWB won by a negative popular vote margin in 2000, he was still president - but he didn't have a ton of political capital until 9/11 and then 2002 mid terms.

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #64 on: December 12, 2012, 01:34:22 PM »

Offline InfiniteMH

  • Gerald Wallace
  • Posts: 127
  • Tommy Points: 17
What is the ramification of the POTUS winning the election?

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #65 on: December 12, 2012, 01:35:42 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22477
  • Tommy Points: 1034
Trouble is popular vote means nothing, electorally he got pummeled.

President won the popular vote by nearly 5 million. That is a huge margin.

  It's very small by re-election standards. The difference in popular vote (about 4%) was slightly larger than Bush's margin, about half of Clinton's margin and about 1/5 or less of the margin that Reagan, Nixon or LBJ won by.

Whenever I see this on TV and whatnot, I fail to see the significance in those comparisons. Can someone explain it to me like I'm a five year old? Isn't it still 100% of the votes he won by?
These are all re-election margins. I'll explain what I think BBall is saying:

Obama's margin was about 4%. He won 51% and Romney 47.3%. (3.7% to be more precise)

Obama won by slightly larger margin than Bush: Bush 50.7% vs Kerry 48.3 - 2.4% victory for Bush vs 3.7% for Obama.

Clinton's margin was about double (or Obama's was half of Clinton's) so Clinton had about 8% margin over dole (something like 53 to 45 I guess.)

Obama was about 1/5th of the other guys (LBJ, Nixon, Reagan) so they won by 5 times 4% or about 20%.

The reason to use % is the population changes (grows over time) and election turnout (% of eligible voter who actually vote) can vary greatly.

Looking at hard numbers is useful. For example if less people voted for Obama in 2012 than 2008, you could interpret that to mean people are getting sick of him, but just don't like Romney enough to show up. Or if more people vote for Obama in 2012 than in 2008, you could interpret that to mean he's converting apathetic and/or republican voters to convert to his cause. These kind of analysis are hard to do at a data level because there is so many variables, so you tend to get the TV blaring some cheesy high level interpretations. Doesn't mean there is no value, just take with grain of salt.
No, I understand.

But isn't that still saying "He didn't win well enough"?

  You said Obama won by 5 million votes, which is a huge margin. There were 35 million fewer voters when Reagan was re-elected and the margin in that election was 17 million votes. Obama's victory was, by historic standards, a narrow victory.

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #66 on: December 12, 2012, 01:40:06 PM »

Offline InfiniteMH

  • Gerald Wallace
  • Posts: 127
  • Tommy Points: 17
I didn't say that, but I understand what you're saying,

but isn't that still saying "He didn't win well enough"?

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #67 on: December 12, 2012, 02:38:24 PM »

Offline D Dub

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1616
  • Tommy Points: 72
Quote from: Brendan
Narrowly? I dunno - I didn't bring up the topic in this thread, but my read is the argument was "Obama won by so much you are in big trouble Rs, look at the demographics" - I disagree with this point, and the historical results back it up.


how about this demographic, not troubling?
92% of Republicans are White

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #68 on: December 12, 2012, 02:38:51 PM »

Offline Change

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6666
  • Tommy Points: 544
I didn't say that, but I understand what you're saying,

but isn't that still saying "He didn't win well enough"?

its in the margins. The bigger the margins the bigger the mandate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_(politics)

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #69 on: December 12, 2012, 02:47:04 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26949
  • Tommy Points: 2004
In today's partisan politics, unless we have just been attacked as a country, I don't care how large the margin of victory, the losing side just isn't going to compromise thinking there was a mandate in the election.

It could be argued that the sweeping victory by Republicans in the 2010 mid term elections was a mandate for the President to compromise with the Republicans. That didn't happen.

I just think the ideologues have firm control of too much power in Washington and its killing any chance at compromise from either side.
2015 CB HISTORICAL DRAFT: COMING THIS OCTOBER
FORMAT:
3 players from 1960-73
3 players from 1974-86
3 players from 1987-00
3 players from 2001-Pres
1 player from any era

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #70 on: December 12, 2012, 02:49:09 PM »

Offline InfiniteMH

  • Gerald Wallace
  • Posts: 127
  • Tommy Points: 17
I didn't say that, but I understand what you're saying,

but isn't that still saying "He didn't win well enough"?

its in the margins. The bigger the margins the bigger the mandate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_(politics)
I see, so he has more say, but people are arguing how much more influence he's entitled to have?

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #71 on: December 12, 2012, 02:53:16 PM »

Offline InfiniteMH

  • Gerald Wallace
  • Posts: 127
  • Tommy Points: 17
In today's partisan politics, unless we have just been attacked as a country, I don't care how large the margin of victory, the losing side just isn't going to compromise thinking there was a mandate in the election.

It could be argued that the sweeping victory by Republicans in the 2010 mid term elections was a mandate for the President to compromise with the Republicans. That didn't happen.

I just think the ideologues have firm control of too much power in Washington and its killing any chance at compromise from either side.

This makes sense. Thanks, TP

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #72 on: December 12, 2012, 03:02:19 PM »

Offline foulweatherfan

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12469
  • Tommy Points: 1508
In today's partisan politics, unless we have just been attacked as a country, I don't care how large the margin of victory, the losing side just isn't going to compromise thinking there was a mandate in the election.

It could be argued that the sweeping victory by Republicans in the 2010 mid term elections was a mandate for the President to compromise with the Republicans. That didn't happen.

I just think the ideologues have firm control of too much power in Washington and its killing any chance at compromise from either side.

I agree generally but I will say that if Obama had won by say, 20 million votes instead of 5, the Republicans would feel a lot more internal pressure to adjust what they're doing.

I think it's important to distinguish between the "mandate" talk, which is mainly a public PR battle about how obligated the losing side is to compromise, and the mostly private strategy shift that always accompanies a loss and is much more directly related to the specifics of that loss. 

I think it's safe to say the GOP is much more alarmed about the election loss in private than they're willing to show in public, which is why a lot of politicians are downplaying it, and political strategists are practically banging pots and pans together while screaming for adjustment.

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #73 on: December 12, 2012, 03:26:37 PM »

Offline InfiniteMH

  • Gerald Wallace
  • Posts: 127
  • Tommy Points: 17
In today's partisan politics, unless we have just been attacked as a country, I don't care how large the margin of victory, the losing side just isn't going to compromise thinking there was a mandate in the election.

It could be argued that the sweeping victory by Republicans in the 2010 mid term elections was a mandate for the President to compromise with the Republicans. That didn't happen.

I just think the ideologues have firm control of too much power in Washington and its killing any chance at compromise from either side.

I agree generally but I will say that if Obama had won by say, 20 million votes instead of 5, the Republicans would feel a lot more internal pressure to adjust what they're doing.

I think it's important to distinguish between the "mandate" talk, which is mainly a public PR battle about how obligated the losing side is to compromise, and the mostly private strategy shift that always accompanies a loss and is much more directly related to the specifics of that loss. 

I think it's safe to say the GOP is much more alarmed about the election loss in private than they're willing to show in public, which is why a lot of politicians are downplaying it, and political strategists are practically banging pots and pans together while screaming for adjustment.

Yes, it's hard for me to believe that the GOP won't try to re-adjust its positions on many issues, especially social, but I can see more why the President's win is being downplayed.

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #74 on: December 12, 2012, 03:49:30 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22477
  • Tommy Points: 1034
I didn't say that, but I understand what you're saying,

but isn't that still saying "He didn't win well enough"?

  Sorry, the post that I originally responded to was claiming that Obama won by a huge margin. I was pointing out that the margin was pretty small for a re-election win. It wasn't a comment on "how well he won".

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog