2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMy bet is it won"t be a close election
As all the pundits claim. I"m looking at a Obama landslide.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But the one benefit of the constant close "polling" reports is that Democrats will remain engaged rather than coasting to the finish line.
This will affect down card races.
lacrew
(283 posts)Money will be spilling in every direction. It will keep the election close.
mabuhayp
(135 posts)Say it loud, Im a Democrat and Im Proud
Democratic Party Rally Song
Say it loud: Im a democrat and Im proud!
Say it loud: Im a democrat and Im proud!
Some people say Im a liberal because I look ahead and not behind
Because I welcome new ideas and try to be gentle and kind
Some criticize me because I have different ideology
But Im also a loyal American, for that I make no apology
We have arguments about pro-life and pro-choice
It is my belief that every woman should have a voice
Say it loud: Im a democrat and Im proud!
Say it loud: Im a democrat and Im proud!
One more time!
Say it loud: Im a democrat and Im proud!
Dont say that Im not a Christian because I dont do as you do
Dont decide what is good for me and I wont decide what is good for you
Most democrats believe in God and try to do as he commands
It is not your position to decide where we stand
Im someone who believes we can work through the stalemate
I believe in compromise and Im not driven by hate
Say it loud: Im a democrat and Im proud!
Say it loud: Im a democrat and Im proud!
Say it loud: Im a democrat and Im proud!
Say it loud: Im a democrat and Im proud!
Of course, I would prefer a democrat as our president
But, no matter which political party, I pray that he be heaven sent
Im a proud democrat, loyal American, well educated and motivated
I will stand up for my beliefs and will not be intimidated
I hear many in the GOP say we need to take our country back
Well, this country belongs to me too, and that is a fact
Say it loud: Im a democrat and Im proud!
Say it loud: Im a democrat and Im proud!
Say it loud: Im a democrat and Im proud!
Say it loud: Im a democrat and Im proud!
By: Tolbert Earl Wyatt Dated: April 14, 2012
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)I'm happy to see how enthusiastic you are about re-electing President Obama!
I also like your Democratic Party Rally Song.
However, I see that you're including the entire song in most (if not all) of your posts. I'm afraid that someone might mistake your enthusiasm for your song with an attempt to spam the message board (posting the same content in multiple threads), and I'd hate to see someone send an alert on one of your posts.
You may wish to consider leaving the lengthy text of your song out of your future threads, just to make sure someone doesn't misinterpret your intentions.
Again - Welcome to DU!
- cyberswede (Malicious Intruder Removal Team)
gkhouston
(21,642 posts)Just go to your post, click the "journal" button, and have at it.
mabuhayp
(135 posts)I'm new to this type of forum and I certainly didn't mean to spam anyone.Thanks again!
veganlush
(2,049 posts)With citizen's united and all that, and the polls being close already, I'm worried. We gotta win big too, a squeaker would be better than a loss but we need to make gains in the house and senate. I hope you're right about a landslide. It's gonna take "all hands on deck" though. We all need to be donating and volunteering as much as possible.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)rgbecker
(4,834 posts)There will be huge buys with racists themes. And lies, lies, lies.
barbtries
(28,813 posts)i think the media is trying to spin it otherwise, which frustrates the hell out of me.
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)no longer the country I grew up in.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I mean let's face it ... if it becomes clear that Obama is going to win, the 24/7 pundits are all out of a job.
And after all, the only jobs they care about, are their own.
And so ... anytime there is a poll showing Obama up 9%, get ready for 3 to 5 more polls that show the race close, with one or 2 showing Romney with a slight lead.
During 2008, I watched the realclear average of the polls. And Obama maintained a 6-7% lead, and he won polls by as much as 9 or 10%. But then, McCain would suddenly be 2% back, or might even be "up" by 2% from time to time ... but when you looked at the aggregate of the polls, month after month, McCain rarely won by more than 2%, and Obama regularly won by as much a 8% or more.
Meanwhile, the media claimed it was TIGHT up until about 11pm on election day, because by 11pm, it was OVER.
Bush's margin of victory was 0% in 2000 and about 1.5% in 2004. And the media said he had a mandate.
Obama wins by 6+%, and it was SO CLOSE!!!!
Expect the same this time.
My bet is this ... by October, UE is under 8%, DOW is still above 12k, and gas prices are not above the $4 average that the pundits have screamed about.
Romney will still claim Obama apologizes for the US, and that his policies hurt women. Total nonsense, but the media will play along and pretend that these are potential considerations.
And then on election day, we'll all go to bed smiling at about 11pm again.
And the next day, Romney will be sitting in a bar wishing he could have a few drinks with Bob Dole.
lastlib
(23,322 posts)...one SC justice...
In the actual voting his margin was -.00001%
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)that people make up their mind about the economy 6 months out. And, from signs
so far (gallup) it's going up to 8.5. Now, you can say they are full of shit, but
they predicted it was coming down when it did.
I absolutely positively hope that UE rate comes down for April....but too many
have said the recession recovery may be stalled.
Hope not.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)Romney will win at least one of them by my counts, there will be a draw and then Obama will win one.
Of course, this is all media fabrication, it won't be the reality, but that's how it will be framed.
brooklynite
(94,792 posts)I don't think they're going to go out of their way to trumpet his performance. There'll be plenty of opportunities to point out that polling shows the race is close, and likely to remain so.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)A 2012 Electoral Map Forecast
The map ON THE LINK BELOW is based on data from the Intrade prediction market, where individuals place wagers on the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election in each state. The states remaining dark gray have no betting data currently available. The darker the shade of blue or red, the more likely that party will carry the state. Hover over any state for details.
Here: http://electoralmap.net/2012/intrade.php
Note: the Democrat total doesn't include Illinois ("no Intrade data" and that's 20 electoral votes which would give Obama 283 and the election!
Tax Man
(104 posts)i think obama gets around 320 electoral votes
TheDebbieDee
(11,119 posts)new voter ID requirement laws and relatively new and unknown laws like Jackson County, Missouri's law that allows the Election Board to drop voters from the rolls if they haven't voted in 4 years.
My nightmare scenario? Many voters that voted for Obama in 2008 will show up to vote for him again in November and find themselves dropped from the voting rolls because they couln't be bothered to vote for county dog catcher.
Sure, the county will have pulled the trigger too early and dropped these voters prematurely but all the provisional ballots and lawsuits and threatened investigations by the DOJ won't get Obama the votes of these people that want to vote for him............
Obama lost Missouri by less than 4,000 votes in 2008 while many urban voters in St Louis and Kansas City got the runaround on election day............
MatthewStLouis
(904 posts)Missouri will probably be close this time as well. Sadly, every media outlet and pundit writes it off as a conservative win. No one talks about the fact that it was so close in '08.
That's just how the right wing operates. Lull liberals into a false sense of security, while whipping their own base into a frenzy over wedge issues. Then they shave off a few more votes with voter ID laws and other vote suppression tactics. They especially like to make sure voting places in urban areas are undermanned, overwhelmed, and utterly chaotic.
progressoid
(50,000 posts)It would take something serious to unseat him.
It's the House and Senate seats that we should be worried about.
Cosmocat
(14,575 posts)I think he wins about the same as last time.
I think the Ds can whittle down the margin in the house, but just the way the sates that are up in the senate breaks this go around, even with BO getting reelected and some gains in the house, they could lose the senate. And, things are going to have to really go well to take back the house.
As you noted, if nothing serious happens, I see BO spending the next four years having the Senate do absolutely nothing other than putting up stupid A social issues and the house doing after him for whatever drummed up BS gets some traction to try to impeach him.
susanlinch
(17 posts)Obama is my first choice. give him another chance
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)picturing happy faces and big landslides of votes
Antoniac123
(10 posts)I don't see a landslide at all. Obama can't win the south and midwest unless Romeny just completely screws up. I live in Tennessee, I am bullied constantly for being "liberal". You should see the things people say about Democrats (and I'm not even a democrat). They constantly talk about "this is a war" and we need to go after these enemies of America. Typical Faux news crap. This is typical for the south. The Democrats lost this place a long time ago. They aren't going to get it back unless a miracle happens this year. Obama certainly can win without it, but I think the country is still too polarized to see a landslide. It's likely Obama will get a handed Republican Senate too. That will make it a fully controlled GOP house.
Even if he wins it's going to be nothing but gridlock.
Cosmocat
(14,575 posts)is he going to win this go around?
The Rs have VERY SUCCESSFULLY divided this country.
I think he probably maxed out his EV capacity the last go around.
Agree, they Ds chip into the margin in the House, but not enough to flip it back, and because of the seats that are up, lose the senate or AT BEST get a 50/50 split.
BO will not get JACK done the next four years, and will spend most of it fending off whatever nonsense the lunatics in the house can get traction on to try to impeach him.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)If an election is close enough to steal, the Republicans try to steal it. That worked in 2000 and 2004, and the tactic was still used in 2008, as well.
The only solution to such a corrupt situation is to generate a groundswell of outrage and populist support that dramatically outweighs the margin of error and the fallacious reporting of the Republican-owned media. If it is not within the margin of error in a given state, it is much more difficult for the GOP to steal it.
And so we have seen this President deftly pivot the Republican Party on its greed time after time, to put them on the wrong side of every major issue that breaks heavily in one direction, spelling it out in huge letters for the poor, women, minorities, the declining middle class, union workers, non-fundamentalists, the fiscally responsible, and so on.
So here's what I think is going to happen: the bought media is going to soft-pedal the idea of a landslide all the way up to the last minute. But Obama campaign workers will be sipping the last of their champagne and be headed off to bed by 11pm EST. By the next morning, President Obama will be sitting on 409 electoral votes and half a dozen conservative states will be trying to explain how Mitt Romney won there with 35% polling the night before.
FSogol
(45,555 posts)great white snark
(2,646 posts)GOTV.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,446 posts)the Republicans need to be massively repudiated at the polls and have to learn that obstructionism for obstructionism sake just doesn't pay.
Alexander
(15,318 posts)When you can't eat cookies with people without saying something idiotic, it's time to hang it up.
Even Biden is nowhere near as gaffe-prone as Romney.
Mosaic
(1,451 posts)And often have seen the stats and viewpoints to back it up. I have no doubt he'll get four more years. He just better go Progressive or I will not be his friend.
Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)election and they will push that theme even if Obama opens up a solid lead. Blowouts don't generate ad money-tight races do.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)someone with a 12 point lead among women...could lose. He would have
to have a big deficit among men to erase that since more women than
men vote. All he needs to do is sing Al Green a couple more times
and all the women will melt.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)The audience burst into applause! They loved hearing about how he treats her so romantically.
Maybe Mitt could sing Johnny Mathis...
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Frontier. Obama's got charm just oozing from him. But, it is so much better when he adlibs it.
I just watched the tape of Jimmy Fallon last night. It was ok...but I got the impression that
it was all a bit too rehearsed. You?
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)But that Davy Crockett performance was just too odd. Nobody under the age of 70 remembers that song...but maybe that was the point. I sure don't get it...
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)had no clue how "uncool" he was
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)Obama will do what he does best, which is to be uber cool without appearing to try to hard.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)In 2008, over 130 million votes were cast for president of the United States. The White House flipped from Republican to Democratic as George W. Bush insured John McCain's loss to Barack Obama. Raw votes margin was an est. 9.5 million. Obama received 52.92%; McCain generated 45.66%. Margin in the popular voter: D+7.26.
Since the 1990s, Republicans haven't won the presidency with a margin exceeding George W. Bush's R+2.46 (historically the lowest for a [re-elected] incumbent) from 2004. He did not win the popular vote in 2000.
The Republicans' victories in the 1970s and 1980s were a minimum national margin of R+7.73 (for 1988 George Bush) and 426 electoral votes (1988 Bush). The base for the party was going to the south. The north was underperforming (or at least trending away from the GOP).
In 1988, when Bush won Ronald Reagan's third term, he underperformed in states that used to be the base for the GOP. And they are among the Top 10 in population: No. 1 California (R+3.57), No. 5 Pennsylvania (R+2.32), and No. 6 Illinois (R+2.08). Michigan was, in that election, No. 1 for closely reflecting the percentage of his popular vote: R+7.90, a spread of just 0.17 (which helps to explain why, even to this day, Mich. is presumed by too many to be a battleground when, in reality, it moved over to base state status for the Democratic Party).
The underperformances in those states made it real easy for Bill Clinton to flip them, plus likeminded vote states (such as New Jersey, Connecticut, and Maine), over to the Democratic Party. Regularly. In fact, those states along with ex-bellwether Delaware, Maryland, and Vermont (which voted for all GOPs from 1856 to 1988 except for 1964 Barry Goldwater) have not once voted for a Republican presidential candidate. Nor have the 1988 Democratic pickups, for Michael Dukakais, that were along with his home state of Massachusetts Hawaii (which has been GOP only for 49-state landslide re-elections of 1972 Richard Nixon and 1984 Reagan), New York, Oregon, Rhode Island (voting the same since 1960 as Obama's birth state), and Washington. And since 1992, one of the other states Iowa has been remarkable in reflecting in margins at a statewide level vs. the national outcome.
So, all this means is the following: structurally, the Democrats, not the Republicans, have the electoral advantage: states that haven't voted for a GOP once since the 1980s (add to the list Minnesota and, Democratic in all since first participation in 1964, District of Columbia) add up to 242 electoral votes. (Rendering the GOP nowadays unable to reach 300, let alone 400, in the Electoral College.) Add three states that had carried for Bush just once (and whose margins tilt Democratic): Iowa (6), New Hampshire (4), and New Mexico (5). That's a total of 257 electoral votes, down from the 2000s allocation of 264. But along with bellwether N.M., rising bellwether Ia., consider that Virginia and Colorado may be the new big bellwether states on the block. 2008 pickups were as follows: Va. was D+6.30. Colo was 8.95. They were Nos. 1 and 2 in closely mirroring Obama's national outcome of D+7.26. Ia., also a pickup, was D+9.54, completing the trio most close in margins with state vs. national outcomes. All three highly likely will vote again for the presidential winner of the 2012 contest. And N.H., at D+9.61, likely will do so as well.
Looking at past presidential elections which resulted in an incumbent winning re-election: all but 1916 Woodrow Wilson increased their score in the Electoral College. Wilson, in 1912: 435 (of available 531). Wilson, in 1916: 277. Back then the Republicans imploded in 1912, with party nod battle that brewed between incumbent William Howard Taft and predecessor Teddy Roosevelt. Taft won in 1908; Teddy four years earlier. Once it was over, Taft was reduced to just two of his 1908 states for carriage in 1912: Utah and Vermont. Teddy flipped six of Taft's 1908 states into his Progressive Party column: California, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington. Wilson won all 1908 states which carried for losing Democrat William Jennings Bryan
and then flipped all others which had voted for 1908 Taft. As a bonus: New Mexico and Arizona, brand new states (Nos. 47 and 48), voted for the first time and carried for Wilson. All 1916, when Wilson was nearly unseated, meant was that the Republicans stabilized and competed.
I believe traditional voting patterns will remain. If Mitt Romney unseats Barack Obama, he would carry all states in the column of 2008's losing Republican, John McCain, and then string together victory with Va., with Colo., with Ia., and other 2008 Obama/Democratic pickups: New Mexico (D+15.13), Nevada (D+12.55), Ohio (D+4.59), Florida (D+2.81), Indiana (D+1.03), and North Carolina (D+0.33). Add to it N.H., a John Kerry/Obama state. And include Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District, since redrawn, which Obama flipped at D+1.19. (It votes like Indiana.)
If Obama wins re-election, it's a matter of two scenarios: Does he become the fifth two-term winner, since we've been on a Republican-vs.-Democratic party system, not to give up a single state from his first election? (Applicable were 1864 Abraham Lincoln; 1936 Franklin Roosevelt; 1972 Richard Nixon; 1984 Ronald Reagan.) Or does he engage in a little trading of colors? Give up, say, one his nine pickups and win over at least two from 2008 Team Red? If that is the case, I'd say N.C. is a better bet to hold than Ind. Why? Ind. votes like Neb. #02, Nebraska statewide, Kansas, and both North Dakota and South Dakota. In fact, from 1920 to 2004, the five voted the same. Usually with no greater than a 10-point margin between Ind. and most of those other four in the plains. N.C., on the other hand, voted for all winning Democrats except for 1990s Bill Clinton. And the demographics may suggest there it, along with Va., are picking up the slack for former bellwether states Tennessee and Kentucky. Ohio, on the other hand, is the nation's longest-running bellwether state
and Florida votes just like it.
Okay, so Ind. and Nebraska would end up on Team Red for Mitt Romney.
For the pickups going to Team Blue: choose a minimum of two of the following four between Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, and Montana. Why? Margins, from 2008, but also the gender voting results. Of Obama's 28 states, he carried males along with females in 25. (The exceptions: Colorado, nearly a statistical tie; Ind.; and N.C.) But of the 22 states that held for McCain, only his home state are among the four in which he won both genders. But his performance with men was his second weakest among the holds (45% voted for Obama) compared to declining bellwether Mo. (48% voted for Obama). Ariz.'s men were one point better than Mont. (44% voted for Obama). And Obama won over females in Ga. (54%; males were 40%); Mont. (51%); and Mo. (50%).
Electoral vote increase: start off with 365 electoral votes but reallocate them (applicable for Elections 2012, 2016, 2020) to 359. Lose Ind. and Neb. #02. That's 347. Win over Ariz. (11) and Ga. (16), for 374. Or win over Mo. and Ga., for 373. Or win over Mont., in addition to two of the other three, for upper-370s. (Mo. and Mont. have incumbent, freshman Senate Democrats Claire McCaskill and Jon Tester trying to win second terms. I imagine Obama will help them
and try to help himself to flip both states.)
Plenty of speculation will be offered over the next six [plus] months. (Mine, below, are the minimum levels for both the incumbent and challenger.)
http://ElectoralMap.net/2012/myPrediction.php?d=qfispbr0jauarskuq
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)How can they win? Oh yeah - Diebold.
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)Like many of you, I'm very concerned about the "quash the vote" operation going on. People in states where registration has become like a prelude to a root canal must rally and assist friends, family, and strangers to bypass all the hurdles and get registered to vote. That and continued masive, enthusiastic, joyous turnouts during Obama's campaign stops where media cannot ignore the numbers pouring out could make the difference.
Think LANDSLIDE.
prefunk
(157 posts)If it is even close, I would suggest foul play.