Author Topic: What's next for GOP?  (Read 7316 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #75 on: December 12, 2012, 03:50:24 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10606
  • Tommy Points: 234
  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.

i don't think obama received a "mandate" ; I've never liked that word after GWB used it to describe his electoral college win (despite popular vote loss).

But comparing to Reagan and saying anything that doesn't match up is "a narrow victory by historic standards" doesn't make sense to me. Rather, by historic standards, Reagan received a huge mandate -- it was on par with Richard Nixon's win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

Celtics fan for life.

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #76 on: December 12, 2012, 04:15:26 PM »

Online BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23074
  • Tommy Points: 1082
  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.

i don't think obama received a "mandate" ; I've never liked that word after GWB used it to describe his electoral college win (despite popular vote loss).

But comparing to Reagan and saying anything that doesn't match up is "a narrow victory by historic standards" doesn't make sense to me. Rather, by historic standards, Reagan received a huge mandate -- it was on par with Richard Nixon's win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

  It was also on par with LBJ's. Every president that won re-election in recent memory did clearly better in the second election than the first. I think that Bush, who's elections were both close, did better in something like 45 states in 2004 than 2000. I think Obama did worse in about that many states. Not that it matters, I just kept hearing that Obama "won in a landslide" after the election, the assumption you'd have to make is that the people saying that have no idea what happened in elections before 1988.

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #77 on: December 12, 2012, 04:40:31 PM »

Offline D Dub

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1713
  • Tommy Points: 75
I'd agree with Tim that 'landslide' doesn't really accurately describe the D's momentum.

Durable seems better, taking into account that Dem's have won 5 of the last 6 popular votes and that non-white voters now count for less than 10% of registered Republicans.



 

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #78 on: December 12, 2012, 04:45:56 PM »

Offline foulweatherfan

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13252
  • Tommy Points: 1595
  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.

i don't think obama received a "mandate" ; I've never liked that word after GWB used it to describe his electoral college win (despite popular vote loss).

But comparing to Reagan and saying anything that doesn't match up is "a narrow victory by historic standards" doesn't make sense to me. Rather, by historic standards, Reagan received a huge mandate -- it was on par with Richard Nixon's win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

Bush's crowing about the mandate was after 2004.  Usually "mandate" is used with regard to re-election - the idea being that the American people have seen what the President is doing in office and are endorsing him continuing it.

I'm not a fan of the term either, but I'd say there's a middle ground between "landslide" and "narrow win" and Obama's win is squarely in there somewhere.

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #79 on: December 12, 2012, 04:56:31 PM »

Online BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23074
  • Tommy Points: 1082
I'd agree with Tim that 'landslide' doesn't really accurately describe the D's momentum.

Durable seems better, taking into account that Dem's have won 5 of the last 6 popular votes and that non-white voters now count for less than 10% of registered Republicans.



 

  The democrats have won 4 of the last 6 elections, 5 of the last 12. They also had one of the worst mid-term elections ever in 2010, and Obama's the first president in at least 50 years to win re-election by a smaller margin than his first term. Party popularities ebb and flow, if you've been around long enough you've seen both parties in disarray multiple times. People think that the democratic party is now some kind of juggernaut, just like they did when Clinton was running the country, before they lost two straight elections.

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #80 on: December 12, 2012, 05:00:51 PM »

Offline D Dub

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1713
  • Tommy Points: 75
I'd agree with Tim that 'landslide' doesn't really accurately describe the D's momentum.

Durable seems better, taking into account that Dem's have won 5 of the last 6 popular votes and that non-white voters now count for less than 10% of registered Republicans.



 

  The democrats have won 4 of the last 6 elections, 5 of the last 12. They also had one of the worst mid-term elections ever in 2010, and Obama's the first president in at least 50 years to win re-election by a smaller margin than his first term. Party popularities ebb and flow, if you've been around long enough you've seen both parties in disarray multiple times. People think that the democratic party is now some kind of juggernaut, just like they did when Clinton was running the country, before they lost two straight elections.

Gore won popular vote in 2000

Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Bush, Obama, Obama = 5 of 6

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #81 on: December 12, 2012, 05:02:31 PM »

Offline Brendan

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2988
  • Tommy Points: 72
    • Self Assay
There are huge portions of the white vote that no-showed though.

There is also reason to think that Obama got exceptionally large AA turn out, which he did, for non-repeatable reasons.

I think breaking down what % a demographic vote makes of the party vote inverts the analysis. Instead of white % of R vote is 95%, better to say 75% of white vote was R.

It's not like that 75% number doesn't cover a lot of lower income people, I don't see any reason a well articulated position cannot convince other chunks of the electorate (including AA, Hisp., and especially Asian.)

Bonus questions:
- how did past presidential elections break down along demographic lines?
- how does the % of demographics break down when normalized to the broader population?


Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #82 on: December 12, 2012, 05:03:37 PM »

Offline Brendan

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2988
  • Tommy Points: 72
    • Self Assay
I'd agree with Tim that 'landslide' doesn't really accurately describe the D's momentum.

Durable seems better, taking into account that Dem's have won 5 of the last 6 popular votes and that non-white voters now count for less than 10% of registered Republicans.



 

  The democrats have won 4 of the last 6 elections, 5 of the last 12. They also had one of the worst mid-term elections ever in 2010, and Obama's the first president in at least 50 years to win re-election by a smaller margin than his first term. Party popularities ebb and flow, if you've been around long enough you've seen both parties in disarray multiple times. People think that the democratic party is now some kind of juggernaut, just like they did when Clinton was running the country, before they lost two straight elections.

Gore won popular vote in 2000

Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Bush, Obama, Obama = 5 of 6
Kind of need to account for third part votes - Clinton won only 43% of the popular vote in 1992.

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #83 on: December 12, 2012, 05:04:44 PM »

Online BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23074
  • Tommy Points: 1082
I'd agree with Tim that 'landslide' doesn't really accurately describe the D's momentum.

Durable seems better, taking into account that Dem's have won 5 of the last 6 popular votes and that non-white voters now count for less than 10% of registered Republicans.



 

  The democrats have won 4 of the last 6 elections, 5 of the last 12. They also had one of the worst mid-term elections ever in 2010, and Obama's the first president in at least 50 years to win re-election by a smaller margin than his first term. Party popularities ebb and flow, if you've been around long enough you've seen both parties in disarray multiple times. People think that the democratic party is now some kind of juggernaut, just like they did when Clinton was running the country, before they lost two straight elections.

Gore won popular vote in 2000

Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Bush, Obama, Obama = 5 of 6

  One of these days you'll figure out that Gore *lost* the election. Trust me, it really happened.

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #84 on: December 12, 2012, 05:42:33 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8565
  • Tommy Points: 501
Right now 60% like Hillary.   She is a woman and will get a lot of the hispanic vote.   I don't see anyone right now that can take her on but things can change but right now she has to be a strong favorite.

She has some teflon in her too, this Benghazi crap never gets blamed on her as Secretary of State.

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #85 on: December 12, 2012, 05:49:20 PM »

Offline D Dub

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1713
  • Tommy Points: 75
I'd agree with Tim that 'landslide' doesn't really accurately describe the D's momentum.

Durable seems better, taking into account that Dem's have won 5 of the last 6 popular votes and that non-white voters now count for less than 10% of registered Republicans.



 

  The democrats have won 4 of the last 6 elections, 5 of the last 12. They also had one of the worst mid-term elections ever in 2010, and Obama's the first president in at least 50 years to win re-election by a smaller margin than his first term. Party popularities ebb and flow, if you've been around long enough you've seen both parties in disarray multiple times. People think that the democratic party is now some kind of juggernaut, just like they did when Clinton was running the country, before they lost two straight elections.

Gore won popular vote in 2000

Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Bush, Obama, Obama = 5 of 6

  One of these days you'll figure out that Gore *lost* the election. Trust me, it really happened.

what part of "Popular Vote" is unclear in my posts? 

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #86 on: December 12, 2012, 06:23:09 PM »

Online BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23074
  • Tommy Points: 1082
I'd agree with Tim that 'landslide' doesn't really accurately describe the D's momentum.

Durable seems better, taking into account that Dem's have won 5 of the last 6 popular votes and that non-white voters now count for less than 10% of registered Republicans.



 

  The democrats have won 4 of the last 6 elections, 5 of the last 12. They also had one of the worst mid-term elections ever in 2010, and Obama's the first president in at least 50 years to win re-election by a smaller margin than his first term. Party popularities ebb and flow, if you've been around long enough you've seen both parties in disarray multiple times. People think that the democratic party is now some kind of juggernaut, just like they did when Clinton was running the country, before they lost two straight elections.

Gore won popular vote in 2000

Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Bush, Obama, Obama = 5 of 6

  One of these days you'll figure out that Gore *lost* the election. Trust me, it really happened.

what part of "Popular Vote" is unclear in my posts?

  Because, as you saw to your dismay, winning the popular vote when you lose the election is meaningless. It's like losing a series 4-3 but scoring more total points in the 7 games than your opponent.

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #87 on: December 12, 2012, 06:26:53 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1969
  • Tommy Points: 224
Because, as you saw to your dismay, winning the popular vote when you lose the election is meaningless. It's like losing a series 4-3 but scoring more total points in the 7 games than your opponent.
No, he's correct. If you're talking about party popularity, it's fair game to make a point of the popular vote and not just the EC. That's hardly a meaningless thing.

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #88 on: December 12, 2012, 06:35:40 PM »

Online BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23074
  • Tommy Points: 1082
Because, as you saw to your dismay, winning the popular vote when you lose the election is meaningless. It's like losing a series 4-3 but scoring more total points in the 7 games than your opponent.
No, he's correct. If you're talking about party popularity, it's fair game to make a point of the popular vote and not just the EC. That's hardly a meaningless thing.

  I didn't say he was incorrect. It's clearly less important than winning the election, and it's not really a sign of trends in the direction of democrats. The fact that Bush did better in almost every state in the country in the next election shows this. You also saw a big drop in support for Obama from 2008 to 2012. If there was an ongoing shift to the left we'd have seen Bush lose in 2004 and Obama win big last year.

Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #89 on: December 12, 2012, 06:44:41 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1969
  • Tommy Points: 224
I didn't say he was incorrect. It's clearly less important than winning the election, and it's not really a sign of trends in the direction of democrats. The fact that Bush did better in almost every state in the country in the next election shows this. You also saw a big drop in support for Obama from 2008 to 2012. If there was an ongoing shift to the left we'd have seen Bush lose in 2004 and Obama win big last year.
I didn't say that you said that he was incorrect. I suggest that you pull the chain on this one before we divide by zero.

It's not "clearly less important" than winning the election if we are talking about party popularity, which is the subject as near as I can tell. Bush only barely carried Florida, he couldn't have done worse without losing. The 2004 election was against a different opponent, and as an incumbent president.

I'd say that it's likely that the differential between 2008/2012 can also be partially attributed to things like McCain vs. Romney, Sarah Palin, Bush hangover leaving Republicans home, the 2008 election not being representative of Obama's real support due to the financial crisis and "first AA president" thing... and this is just what I came up with off the top of my head. Never mind that Obama is one of the most centrist leftists we've had in a while, and GWB wasn't much of a conservative.

No, there are just all kinds of problems with your implications.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog