Skip to main content

View Diary: From debates to Sandy: Things "everyone knows" aren't always true (245 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nonsense? You must really hate people, or, at the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Greg Dworkin, a2nite, Alice Olson

    very least, believe us all to be a bunch of mindless sheep.

    I believe the reason that Mitt Romney lost is because he didn't give people a reason to vote for him, and offered up more than a few reasons not to.

    You can't buy enough television to make up for that.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 08:24:09 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  very true (10+ / 0-)

      and it's good he lost.

      But the fundamentals always favored O, so it would have taken an extraordinary candidate to beat him.

      Which R was not.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 08:34:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The fundamentals never favored Obama. (0+ / 0-)

        He needed a gift from Republicans in much the same way that Bush needed a gift from Democrats in 2004.

        The Republicans were only too happy to oblige.

        Maybe they had no choice.  I was convinced that a real candidate would emerge from the primaries, but all we got was an extended silly season.

        And, while you like to cite polls, let's look at one that really matters: turnout.

        The turnout rate for this election was lower than both 2004 and 2008, and not much above 2000.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 08:57:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  see citations, end of first section (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ratcityreprobate, The Nose, vcmvo2, bfbenn

          here they are:

          http://themonkeycage.org/...

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

          this is a case where you are simply, factually incorrect.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 09:01:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Seems your own citation admits that there (0+ / 0-)

            are differences of opinion on that matter.

            I would bet it's a little like the old canard that you can't beat a sitting President in time of war. Sounds good until you look under the covers.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 09:09:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  wait until the votes are counted (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dinotrac, Alice Olson, vcmvo2, saugatojas, IM

          before asserting this is low turnout. From election day to final, there are another 10 million votes to count.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 09:02:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How do you calculate turnout in the USA? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            IM

            In Britain (for example) it is straightforwards. With no on-the-day registration there is a printed electoral roll with a definite number of people registered. The first job of the counting staff after the polls close is to verify the number of ballots received (they do NOT count the numbers per candidate at this stage). When they have verified that the number of ballots issued in poll places equals the number placed in the ballot boxes and added on the postal votes received back they issue a figure for 'turnout' for that particular contest, an exact number also expressed in percentage of registered voters terms to two decimal places. Turnout therefore is not just the crude number voting but the proportion of registered voters who voted.

            Only when the turnout is known for a particular contest are the votes separated into counts for each candidate in that contest. The turnout figure is the honesty check figure. The candidates totals plus spoilt and disputed ballot papers must add up to the turnout figure precisely, to the vote, no fudging allowed. This minimises the chances of ballot stuffing

            How do you do it in the USA?

            Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

            by saugatojas on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 01:00:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  here (0+ / 0-)

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 01:25:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No wonder your turnout figures are so low (0+ / 0-)

                The figures are for percentage 'voting age population'.

                Other countries turnout figures (routinely higher than the turnout figures for the USA are for percentage of registered voters.

                How is voting age population refined to eligible citizens of voting age? And then to the numbers registered for that election?

                Concerned citizens in the USE regularly moan about low USA election turnouts. Could it be you are giving yourselves too hard a time in this respect  and the real problem is failure to register eligible voters?

                Does anyone produce 'turnout' figures that would be statistically comparable (say) to UK turnout figures?That is percent of registered voters who vote in a given election, not percent of voting-age population.

                Those 50% turnout figures might actually more impressive in proper comparative terms.

                Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

                by saugatojas on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 02:05:18 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Turnout... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2

          ...because of voter suppression (=voters were not going to be denied), their anti-women's rights agenda, their coded racism (=the whole "tea party" movement was created because we elected a black President; they just "filled in the blanks" with all that fiscal stuff to give them cover...), their obstructionism over the past 4 years, their insulting views vis-a-vis immigrants....

           An informed electorate made this happen, which bodes well for the future.

        •  Republican efforts to keep voters from (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Nose, vcmvo2, SoCalSal

          exercising their rights and creating huge barriers to their doing so was certainly a factor here.  How many people in Florida do you suppose simply can't give 10 hours of a day to casting their ballots?  That said, we already know that voter turnout in the swing states was up over the 2008 totals; and comparisons with 2008 for totals nationwide should at least await the completion of counting so as not to compare apples with oranges (2008 final vs. 2012 unfinished counting.)

          New Jersey set a record for low turnout. Duh. Tens of thousands of New Jersey residents were still without electricity on election day and mostly, they weren't even in their own homes. Voting in a deep blue state probably wasn't a high priority for many of them. Some studies project that 30% of the decline occurred in New Jersey, New York and Connecticut, all reliably blue.  Can you say Hurricane Sandy?

          The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain, is floating in mid-air, until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life. Jane Addams

          by Alice Olson on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 09:18:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Except that, if that were really the case, (0+ / 0-)

            I would expect Romney to do a lot better.

            I think the most effective voter suppression this year was simple disgust.

            I seriously considered staying home for this one, but

            a) down-ballot races, and
            b) a 40 year unbroken street of voting in national elections

            made me get out.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 09:21:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site