2012 US Presidential Race Catch All

suresure wrote:
Bear wrote:

The GOP has lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections. They Republican's haven't won by a margin as large as Obama did since Reagan. I think the gap is a lot larger than the 2% suggests.

Fun fact, the last time the GOP won a presidential election without a Bush family member on the ticket was 1972. Maybe they just need to call Jeb in 2016 for some of that Bush magic.

Nah, Christie's the way to go. Though maybe Jeb would be a good veep.

I really think Romney was a terrible candidate, and his terribleness only highlighted the demographic problems the GOP is going to be facing in the future. Romney was just the worst of all worlds, pandering hard to the nutjob social conservative fringe in the primaries, then coming off as a douchebag cartoon villain capitalist in time for the general election. If they just run somebody who tones down the anti-women/immigrant/poor rhetoric and manages to stay somewhat consistent throughout the race, they'll be back in the game in 2016. They don't have to pander to minorities yet, they just have to not actively piss them off.

The only question is whether they can slip such a person past the crazies in the primary.

gore wrote:
suresure wrote:
Bear wrote:

The GOP has lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections. They Republican's haven't won by a margin as large as Obama did since Reagan. I think the gap is a lot larger than the 2% suggests.

Fun fact, the last time the GOP won a presidential election without a Bush family member on the ticket was 1972. Maybe they just need to call Jeb in 2016 for some of that Bush magic.

Nah, Christie's the way to go.

Here we go!!

IMAGE(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Dm4sFu73cJo/TOaDxXD-QcI/AAAAAAAAa5A/Hcpx2DDpWew/s1600/chris-christie-2009-11-4-3-10-33.jpg)

gore wrote:
suresure wrote:
Bear wrote:

The GOP has lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections. They Republican's haven't won by a margin as large as Obama did since Reagan. I think the gap is a lot larger than the 2% suggests.

Fun fact, the last time the GOP won a presidential election without a Bush family member on the ticket was 1972. Maybe they just need to call Jeb in 2016 for some of that Bush magic.

Nah, Christie's the way to go. Though maybe Jeb would be a good veep.

It's like we just waited a couple hundred years before admitting the British had the whole monarchy thing right...

We'll be a country of nearly a third of a billion people by 2016. I'm going to take a wild guess and say we'll have someone who is both qualified to be president, is conservative, and who isn't named Bush by then.

OG_slinger wrote:

It's like we just waited a couple hundred years before admitting the British had the whole monarchy thing right...

Nah, not just the Bushes. Don't forget the Kennedy family.

OG_slinger wrote:

I'm going to take a wild guess and say we'll have someone who is both qualified to be president, is conservative, and who isn't named Bush by (2016).

I'm sure you're right, but anyone who has those qualities and appears rational in the debates will not survive primary season. See Huntsman.

(For the record, though I assume most got the joke earlier, my pinko ass is not canvassing for Jeb)

suresure wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

I'm going to take a wild guess and say we'll have someone who is both qualified to be president, is conservative, and who isn't named Bush by (2016).

I'm sure you're right, but anyone who has those qualities and appears rational in the debates will not survive primary season. See Huntsman.

Indeed. Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum all out-lasted Huntsman. The only person he beat was Bachman. Although I guess Huntsman did actually get a couple delegates, where Bachman and Perry got 0.

But Santorum won multiple states. And the way he was talking in the primaries sounded like he wanted to make this country a theocracy. That guy scares the sh*t out of me. He shouldn't be in charge of anything, ever.

Stele wrote:
suresure wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

I'm going to take a wild guess and say we'll have someone who is both qualified to be president, is conservative, and who isn't named Bush by (2016).

I'm sure you're right, but anyone who has those qualities and appears rational in the debates will not survive primary season. See Huntsman.

Indeed. Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum all out-lasted Huntsman. The only person he beat was Bachman. Although I guess Huntsman did actually get a couple delegates, where Bachman and Perry got 0.

But Santorum won multiple states. And the way he was talking in the primaries sounded like he wanted to make this country a theocracy. That guy scares the sh*t out of me. He shouldn't be in charge of anything, ever.

No way he'd win the general election though. He's on the wrong side of history on a number of social issues. As a liberal, I wouldn't mind seeing the Republicans continue to post social issue candidates like Santorum. If the Republicans were smart, they'd press for immigration reform and have their candidate press economy and foreign policy issues--two potential strengths of the Party. God is one hell of a constituent though. I don't think we'll see a significant shift in Republic ideology for at least another election.

Is foreign policy a strength? Seems like Bush spent 8 years pissing people off. And re-fighting the same war his dad did. So when's the last time a GoP president did something right in dealing with another country?

My saw this today on my Facebook page and I think it's pretty interesting:

IMAGE(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/552381_4419138669951_955262954_n.jpg)

Stele wrote:

Is foreign policy a strength? Seems like Bush spent 8 years pissing people off. And re-fighting the same war his dad did. So when's the last time a GoP president did something right in dealing with another country?

Nixon did end the war in Vietnam and withdraw our forces.

Kamakazi010654 wrote:

I happened to have the end of the LOTR-ROTK soundtrack playing while watching this... damn.

#badatmath

@realDonaldTrump wrote:

Romney campaign used me in 6 primary states and won every one- they should have used me in Florida and Ohio & he would be President.

He's crying manly tears of manliness.

Stele wrote:

Is foreign policy a strength? Seems like Bush spent 8 years pissing people off. And re-fighting the same war his dad did. So when's the last time a GoP president did something right in dealing with another country?

I guarantee you that with the rise of China in Southeast Asia, Republicans will push for more military posturing in the region. It's also an instance where I am just not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

Jayhawker wrote:

#badatmath

@realDonaldTrump wrote:

Romney campaign used me in 6 primary states and won every one- they should have used me in Florida and Ohio & he would be President.

His mere presence in those two states would have awed Pennsylvanians so deeply, rendering them helpless before the Trump, who would then command them using his weave as an signal amplifier to vote Romney.

fangblackbone wrote:
Hawaii elected our first Buddhist and first Hindu to Congress.

Oh crap, here comes Tantric law!

FTFY

Someone brought this up earlier.

IMAGE(http://static.happyplace.com/assets/images/2012/11/509bedacdc6e5.jpeg)

Numbers came from Fox Business. The worst educated states also correlate to the most religious ones.

Top 10 most religious states

  • Mississippi: 59 percent are very religious
  • Utah: 57 percent
  • Alabama: 56 percent
  • Louisiana: 54 percent
  • Arkansas: 54 percent
  • South Carolina: 54 percent
  • Tennessee: 52 percent
  • North Carolina: 50 percent
  • Georgia: 48 percent
  • Oklahoma: 48 percent

Bottom 10 (least religious states)

  • Vermont: 23 percent are very religious
  • New Hampshire: 23 percent
  • Maine: 25 percent
  • Massachusetts: 28 percent
  • Alaska: 28 percent
  • Oregon: 30 percent
  • Nevada: 30 percent
  • Washington: 30 percent
  • Connecticut: 31 percent
  • District of Columbia (tie): 32 percent
  • New York (tie): 32 percent
  • Rhode Island (tie): 32 percent

I bolded only the ones that correlate with their respective side (Most Educated <-> Least Religious, Worst Educated <-> Most Religious).

So 6/10 (60%) of the Worst Educated States are also in the Most Religious category that happen to have voted for Romney. Only 5/10 (50%) of the Most Educated states are also in the Least Religious category that happen to have voted for Obama.

Keep in mind that not 100% of the people in these states voted for Obama or Romney. In fact, it was a close race in many of those states. Further analysis could be done to cross reference population sizes and how that affects the pattern shown above. I'd like to also note that not having a degree doesn't mean you are not educated, so this is a pretty shallow analysis. Full disclosure: I don't have one.

So what's my takeaway?

Romney voters, are more likely (not saying they are) to be less educated and more religious. Obama voters are more likely to be more educated and less religious but at a lower rate than the Romney voters are in their respective adjectives. This could explain the wave of anti-intellectualism we have been seeing in the last decade and a half as it seems to be a possible threat to people's faith, culture and identity.

Feel free to poke holes all over my interpretation since I wrote this at 2 AM.

Why is there such a large difference between West Virginia and Virginia?

Vector wrote:

Why is there such a large difference between West Virginia and Virginia?

My guess would be that there is one large city center close to WVa (Pittsburgh) and one large, nationally respected university in the state (WVU) while Virginia has Richmond, DC, Baltimore in/close by and UVA, VT, and William & Mary. Basically, WVa is the pretty much all rural, while Virginia has a good portion of urban centers.

Vector wrote:

Why is there such a large difference between West Virginia and Virginia?

West Virginia was broken off from Virginia during the Civil War--the backwoods/hill country portions of many of the Confederate states were not big fans Secession, especially over an issue like slavery that benefited the richer lowland areas of the South, not the poorer Appalachian parts. One state, two different populations.

Also, the past couple of years have seen an influx of highly educated people into the northern portion of Virginia with the growth of tech/government jobs in the D.C. area. That has contributed in large part to Obama winning the state twice now.

Edwin wrote:

Romney voters, are more likely (not saying they are) to be less educated and more religious. Obama voters are more likely to be more educated and less religious but at a lower rate than the Romney voters are in their respective adjectives. This could explain the wave of anti-intellectualism we have been seeing in the last decade and a half as it seems to be a possible threat to people's faith, culture and identity.

That wave goes back to a decision in the late 60s on the part of the Republicans--Nixon and Buchanan, specifically--to make anti-intellectualism part of the strategy for breaking up the New Deal coalition that had been keeping the Democrats in power. Making intellectualism seem like a threat to people's faith/culture/identity was part of the strategy.

Chairman_Mao wrote:
Kamakazi010654 wrote:

[Obama speech

I happened to have the end of the LOTR-ROTK soundtrack playing while watching this... damn.

The paranoid right does have one thing correct; the man is a gifted orator. Amazing.

Did anyone catch David Frum on Morning Joe? He was SPECTACULAR! He basically said "the leadership of the Republican party are cowards." That Republicans have been "fleeced, exploited and lied too" and have been duped into believing a bunch of falsehoods by a media machine. A machine he called a "conservative entertainment complex". He goes on to point out that the vast majority of the Tea Party members don't even know the simple economic facts.

I don't know much about David Frum but holy sh*t does he have my respect now.

KingGorilla wrote:
Stele wrote:

Is foreign policy a strength? Seems like Bush spent 8 years pissing people off. And re-fighting the same war his dad did. So when's the last time a GoP president did something right in dealing with another country?

Nixon did end the war in Vietnam and withdraw our forces.

Eventually, but it's not like his election signaled the end of the war. He actually expanded the war, moved into Laos, bombed Cambodia, and, on one of his White House tapes, he's heard saying he's tired of fighting the war and was thinking about escalating to nuclear weapons. Kissinger talked him down, which means Henry Kissinger was the voice of peace and reason in that room. Also, if not for massive Congressional opposition and eventually being taken down by Watergate (which was related to Vietnam anyways in that that particular group was started as part of investigating Daniel Ellsberg's leaking of the Pentagon Papers), Nixon undoubtedly would have tried to re-commit ground troops back into the region to continue propping up the South Vietnam regime of the day.

Yes, off-topic rant for the thread, but Nixon didn't really just end the war; he made it worse, then was eventually pressured to leave. Given the opportunity, I suspect he'd have happily charged back in again.

shoptroll wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

It's like we just waited a couple hundred years before admitting the British had the whole monarchy thing right...

Nah, not just the Bushes. Don't forget the Kennedy family.

So Hillary can't run either. An acceptable compromise

Vector wrote:

Why is there such a large difference between West Virginia and Virginia?

There's a pretty interesting thread that touches on it somewhere here......

Ah.

Ignore that it's locked, it was actually a quite civil and interesting read.

Some interesting stats I just heard on CSPAN.

-Obama won just 25% of the counties in the US.

-He won 29% of the counties containing a Cracker Barrel.

-He won 77% of the counties containing a Whole Foods.

-For the first time ever, white males do not hold the majority of the Democratic seats in the House, with just 47%.

-Republicans saw their 86% of white males in the House increase to 88%.

And I believe that in California, for the first time in generations, one party has a supermajority in both sides of the State House. That's a foreshadowing of the demographic change that is coming in other parts of the country.

The paranoid right does have one thing correct; the man is a gifted orator. Amazing.

Nah, their story was that he was nothing without a teleprompter. That drum was beaten for the whole election. He *can't* be a good orator, because he is a lying incompetent who has duped us all.

2016 you say....

*whistles*

Jan'16
2016 Presidential Election Winner
Hillary Clinton 6.00
Marco Rubio 13.00
Paul Ryan 13.00
Joe Biden 17.00
Jeb Bush 17.00
Chris Christie 17.00
Andrew Cuomo 26.00
Martin O'Malley 26.00
Bobby Jindal 26.00
Condoleeza Rice 26.00
Elizabeth Warren 34.00
Scott Walker 34.00
Michael Bloomberg 41.00
Rand Paul 51.00
Rick Santorum 51.00
Mitt Romney 51.00
Eric Cantor 51.00
Deval Patrick 51.00
John Hickenlooper 51.00
Mark Warner 51.00
Brian Schweitzer 51.00
Bob McDonnell 51.00
Sarah Palin 67.00
David Petraeus 67.00
Rahm Emmanuel 67.00
Jon Huntsman 67.00
Mike Huckabee 67.00
Amy Klobuchar 67.00
Janet Napolitano 67.00
Nikki Haley 67.00
Cory Booker 81.00
Ron Paul 101.00
Donald Trump 101.00
Julian Castro 101.00
Mia Love 101.00
Michele Bachmann 101.00
Rick Perry 101.00
Karl Rove 201.00
George Clooney 201.00
Michelle Obama 201.00
Herman Cain 201.00
Clint Eastwood 501.00
Nate Silver 539.00

I would do a lot of mincing if it were Bloomberg or Huntsman who won the GOP bid.

Karl Rove 201.00
George Clooney 201.00
Michelle Obama 201.00
Herman Cain 201.00

Herman Cain, are you insulted? Too insulted to run again? Please don't be too insulted to run again, Herman, the world of comedy needs you.