७ नोव्हेंबर, २०१२
"Most of the nation shifted to the right in Tuesday's vote, but not far enough to secure a win for Mitt Romney."
Caption on the front page of the NYT right now, under a cool graphic of the U.S. map with flowing red and blue arrows.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२३ टिप्पण्या:
That is cool.
Look at those right wing confederate states get ... bluer?
Political identification is much more complicated than anybody wants to admit. The essence of political argument seems to be caricaturing your opponent in the flattest, simplest terms imaginable.
Those of us who are old farts have lived through a lot. Our social and political opinions are pretty complex and formed through long experience.
Try telling that to some young fart who's determined to win an argument at all costs.
I'm only here to admit that, yes, I was wrong on my Ohio prediction (and surprised by Florida as well) and like many other commenters here recently I could not understand how anybody would vote to reelect Obama. Then there are the others -- your Garage and AF for example -- who were pretty sure Obama would get the nod a second time.
You guys were right and we were wrong. I'm shocked at the outcome. FWIW last night was almost physically painful to watch as the paths to 270 narrowed for Romney and eventually closed up. Given the closeness in Ohio (missed it by that much!) my feeling is that the state was called too early, but after Florida went blue again it didn't matter. Lefties can now pile on if you wish. I would were the fortunes reversed, not because I despise any of you, but because I have Obama fatigue and would have been greatly relieved to see him go. I now know how the Bush haters felt -- although I don't engage in that emotional indulgence -- and I will do my best to avoid news so as not to hear his boring stentorian tone and see his arrogant victorious visage.
That and I'm praying the conservative Supremes can live beyond 2016. Carry on!
Armstrong and Getty report tweet: In a long race, the Kenyan always wins.
Miss and 'bama becoming more...blue? Well, good news for my home state! Still, I'll just have a look at the county by county if you don't mind...
I have to give credit to the New York Times where it's due. This is a remarkably sober outlook from them.
Republicans didn't show up for Romney. I blame that on Romney. John McCain received a million more popular votes than Romney. McCain received more votes in Ohio than Obama did last night! The so called Republican enthusiasm advantage did not exist.
Say what you want about the NYT--they certainly have a monopoly on awesome graphics and/or interactive features.
I'd like to see this directional map going back for the last 10 presidential elections. Cool stuff, though.
I was a Republican poll watcher yesterday, my first time doing so. I’m not happy with the result, but, you know, the sun still rises and sets, and life goes on.
The only thing that has me very concerned is that some very smart people actually believe a lot of the liberal claptrap on how Republicans are all right wing wing-nuts, we want to suppress the vote of all single women, gays, blacks, latinos, asians, and so on. My Democratic counterpart at the poll watching for my voting center actually said this to me after I raised concern over some people having to vote with provisional ballets when they should have been allowed to vote regular:
“Gee, I’m really surprised, with you being a Republican, you actually care about people being able to vote.”
Later she said this:
“You know, you’re not like most Republicans, you seem to be moderate and reasonable. You’re not a right wing wing-nut.”
This lady was very smart and bright. She was a patent lawyer with degrees in engineering and law. I didn’t want to confuse her world view any more than it was, so I didn’t tell her I was also an Episcopalian, where we have some gay bishops, priests, and are starting to allow same-sex blessings in some parishes. Very sad the way this country is heading with the middle ground disappearing.
McCain received a million more popular votes than Romney
Ha. Not surprised at all.
Meanwhile, how could anybody vote to reelect Obama?
It is not that hard to understand when one considers that Obama's opponent never went for the jugular, never really made the argument that, as I said on Monday, "Obama made things worse." Instead, Romney gave him implicit support, calling him a nice guy and repeatedly saying that we were in a recovery.
There was ZERO sense of urgency in the Romney campaign; in fact, he expressly said that he wasn't going to "set my hair on fire" getting riled up about anything. There was no sounding of the alarm to ram the stake through Obama's heart, no argument expressly made that the nation is headed over a cliff, that these are emergency times. Instead, people were left to make that conclusion themselves -- many did, but not enough to seal the deal.
In like manner, there was meek opposition, but no real sense of urgency in repealing ObamaCare as being inherently a disaster. But to do that would have required repudiating RomneyCare, and he would rather lose the election than ever do that.
@ K in Colorado,
I was a poll watcher, too. I didn't have a Democratic counterpart with me, but we had a Democratic and Republican "Door greeter" whose jobs were to tell people whether they were in the right precinct or not for voting. The Democratic lady was from the city, we are in the suburbs. She is black and from a black neighborhood. We are predominantly white. She did express surprise at how nice everyone, including the voters, were. Even the ones who were upset about being in the wrong polling place.
Meanwhile, what are the Republicans in Congress going to do?
They are going to do what they've been doing the last two years -- accomodate Obama on most everything. They will continue to vote for Obama-level sky-high spending. They will continue to make excuses for why that cannot, they will not, exercise their constitutional duty (and their moral duty) to provide a check on a despotic executive. They will continue to mouth opposition while in practice they will continue to be go-along and get-along. Business as usual.
And if the Republicans themselves were not able to get all that riled up to stop Obama and his tyranny, why should the voters?
So, the country is demonstrably moving right, and Obama (unleashed!) is free to move left.
An interesting outcome of an election - at least if you were observing it from another planet - but not one making for peace and bipartisanship!
So what does this do to the Republican Party. I'm not interested in having a "Social Conservative" to choose from -- and I think it's a no sell Nationally, they'll get drubbed by all the women so concerned about reproductive rights. Romney was a pretty good candidate, I thought, and yet fiscal conservatism is a definite no-sell, apparently.
So if the Republicans can't get elected nationally as a social conservative or as a fiscal conservative, where does that leave them.
So if the Republicans can't get elected nationally as a social conservative or as a fiscal conservative, where does that leave them?
Where does that leave the country?
On the contrary, the NYT map shows the Republicans did better theoretically last night. They can still win at the highest level, just not against a Barack Obama.
Sorry but liberal Republicans do not win. Not even in Massachusetts. There are plenty of conservative Democrats, still around.
We vote party, not ideology, I guess.
Some of us have even talked about moving out of state to relocate, but we have way too many cultural/social ties here.
A lot of progressives are our friends, and day to day existence it's pretty peaceful. But well it is bad policy with this Warren/Obama combo and many of us are fiscally illiterate to handle the economic issues.
The beginning of today's Armstrong and Getty program is amusing (.mp3)
So many reason to think that the NYT is just past its prime and delusional....now one more. The "nation" did not shift anywhere. More moderates took a chance with a President who, overall, has delivered on most of his promises. Less moderates were willing to take on a man who was consistantly inconsistant in his ideals and who picked a nut for a running mate. Simple. The True Blues and Ready Reds voted for their guy.
Renee, I'm from Maine and sympathize. Unfortunately people like Brown and Snowe and Collins are part of a political party that uses hate as an organizing principle. They don't have a chance because voters see them as one step removed from idiots like those two in MO and IN that lost safe GOP senate seats.
There was all this stuff about GOP enthusiasm carrying the day - didn't happen. A quick perusal of the NYT maps indicates that GOP turnout was way down, as does the comparison of Romney's vote total to that of McCain. Maybe it is because the bible-thumpers and snake-handlers were suspicious of the Mormon?
How sad.
Tell me which Democrats don't use hate as an organizing principle?
Seems like there was "hate" from the other side as well. Each Dem voting block was targeted:
Single women: "war on women" Mitt will ban contraception, ban abortion, keep women barefoot and pregnant, left wing blogs in a tizzy over a satire news page about how House Repubs were planning on banning tampons (they just knew it had to be true).
African-Americans: Biden's put y'all back in chains, a 9 year old at a Michelle Obama event was heard to say he was afraid that if Romney won, we would have to go back to the crop fields.
Working People: Romney's a vampire that will suck your plant dry, he let a poor women die of cancer, he'll send all of your jobs to China.
All of them: Repubs want to stop you from voting.
Mark Levin sounds like he's winding up for a good rant, at 18:05.
My son is watching ABC and they are saying that the Obama is returning to the White House. Four more years in public housing!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा