View Poll Results: Predict the result of the Presidential Election

Voters
74. You may not vote on this poll
  • Obama landslide (310 + electoral votes)

    2 2.70%
  • Obama comfortable win (290-310 EVs)

    17 22.97%
  • Obama close win (279-290 EVs)

    27 36.49%
  • Obama barely wins (270 + 278 EVs)

    6 8.11%
  • Exact tie 269-269

    0 0%
  • Romney barely wins (270 + 278 EVs)

    7 9.46%
  • Romney close win (279-290 EVs)

    7 9.46%
  • Romney comfortable win (290-310 EVs)

    7 9.46%
  • Romney landslide (310 + electoral votes)

    1 1.35%
Page 99 of 99 FirstFirst ... 4989979899
Results 1,961 to 1,980 of 1980
  1. #1961
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    You know, one thing I haven't heard anyone talk about yet (and yes, this could be the first 2016 message on this thread) is this:

    During this election, the Dems clearly had a closer in Clinton. His speech at the convention was wonderful. The Democratic base loves him. Most independents and moderates love him. He is incredibly charismatic. The fact they had him flying around all over giving talks (down the stretch) was amazingly helpful. The Republicans currently have nobody like that. No true champion for their base.

    And in 2016 the Dems will have both Clinton and Obama. Two of the best public speakers out there. Two people who can reach and fire up the base. Obama can go to North Carolina and the major cities of swing states and help to get out the inner city voters. They are going to be a formidable campaigning pair. No doubt.

  2. #1962
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Udaman View Post
    During this election, the Dems clearly had a closer in Clinton. His speech at the convention was wonderful. The Democratic base loves him. Most independents and moderates love him. He is incredibly charismatic. The fact they had him flying around all over giving talks (down the stretch) was amazingly helpful. The Republicans currently have nobody like that. No true champion for their base.
    The do have FoxNews and Rush.

  3. #1963

    the Blame game

    Quote Originally Posted by kexman View Post
    2) I was shocked by an exit poll that said who is to blame for the current poor economy..Bush or Obama. 52-38% blamed Bush. Although I agree with that I was shocked that the majority of voters still blamed Bush 4 years later. I agree that Romney's best plan was to talk about the economy, but a tougher sell if the majority of voters blame your party for the mess. I thought 8% unemployment would really hurt obama.
    I posted earlier in this thread that the situation is very much like 1936 -- do you think the voters in 1936 (when the economy was in MUCH worse shape than it is in 2012) blamed Roosevelt for the terrible conditions? Or did they blame Hoover (and the Republicans) who were in office when the economy collapsed? Most voters obviously believe that [Obama] HAS improved the situation.

    As for the Republican future, I'll be curious to see how they respond to the defeat. It was interesting listening to Fox late last night (after Karl Rove's on-air meltdown) and hear a number of what I thought were rational responses to the growing demographic problem (I say growing because the white share of the voter is only going to shink as time goes on) and some hard-liners who insisted that there was no inherent problem -- only problems of tactics. My favorite was Charles Krauthammer, who argued that the Republicans lost because "Mitt was not a real conmservative" and that the demographic problems were bogus -- to prove that, he cited the fact that Romney was up 3-4 points in the Gallup and Rasmussen polls a week before the election -- polls "which we know were very accurate". In his view, only Sandy and a few other tactical mistakes cost the Republicans the White House.

    He admitted that the massive Latino vote for Obama was a problem, but an easy one to fix -- all they had to do was nominate Mario Rubio or Jeb Bush, who were very popular with Laino voters.

    Finally, add my props to Nate Silver ... he was 51 for 51 in the Electoral College and almost as perfect in the Senate -- his sole miss was picking against John Tester in Montana ... although Nate gave him just a 38 percent chance of winning, Tester held onto his seat.
    Last edited by hurleyfor3; 11-07-2012 at 05:36 PM. Reason: partisan

  4. #1964
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Lid View Post
    I'm curious about this statement. My impression is that abortion is important to a large segment of women, but that this characterization is an oversimplification.

    My own opinion is that the gender gap comes from a number of areas (e.g. all of the rape pontification, some of which was abortion-related, but all of which highlighted the gap between stereotypical Republican legislators and actual women; also, as mentioned here several times, the tone-deaf binders and dinner-cooking comments). Narrowing it to abortion is missing a lot of the point. If you give women a list of "women's" issues and ask them to choose one, I would believe that abortion comes up first. However, acting on the results of a survey like that would mean that R's will continue to appear not to "get" women.
    Sorry, I oversimplified my attempt at oversimplification. Of course, there are many, many issues. I was trying to isolate one where Rs and Ds have a starkly different platform where women are heavily favoring the D platform, enough to effect the vote totals. Trust me, married to a woman who votes Republican largely because of the party stances on abortion, I know there are a variety of female viewpoints and a variety of differences in terms of relative importance of issues.

    In addition to altering the party platform on abortion, Republicans also need to develop more female leaders and get those leaders on the national platform. For example, their failure to make Condoleeza Rice, a brilliant and likeable leader who also happens to be an African-American woman, a primary face of the party, is a stark example of how the party is missing golden opportunities.

  5. #1965
    Quote Originally Posted by Udaman View Post
    You know, one thing I haven't heard anyone talk about yet (and yes, this could be the first 2016 message on this thread) is this:

    During this election, the Dems clearly had a closer in Clinton. His speech at the convention was wonderful. The Democratic base loves him. Most independents and moderates love him. He is incredibly charismatic. The fact they had him flying around all over giving talks (down the stretch) was amazingly helpful. The Republicans currently have nobody like that. No true champion for their base.

    And in 2016 the Dems will have both Clinton and Obama. Two of the best public speakers out there. Two people who can reach and fire up the base. Obama can go to North Carolina and the major cities of swing states and help to get out the inner city voters. They are going to be a formidable campaigning pair. No doubt.
    Clinton's influence is broad, and his active support was undoubtedly a beneficial factor for Obama in this campaign. But I think Clinton's influence is based less on his talent as a public speaker than on his reputation and credibility as someone who led the country by trying to formulate and promote policies that seemed to make sense as the right balancing of interests to a broad circle of people with otherwise differing political views -- in short, as someone committed to find solutions that were perceived as "good for the country" and would gain acceptance, if not always attract enthusiastic support, from diverse constituencies.

    I believe the extent to which Obama ultimately achieves that stature and level of credibility with people outside the perimeters of his core support groups remains to be determined. Let's see what transpires during the next four years.

  6. #1966
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    John Huntsman, come on down. Bring some like-minded friends.
    Seriously, John Huntsman seemed like a very appealing candidate with a wealth of foreign policy experience. I couldn't understand how he could only get 1% of the vote in the primaries...I guess the fact that he was appointed by Obama to serve as Ambassador to China was a kiss of death. Clearly, having anything to do with somebody across party lines is frowned upon these days in the primaries unfortunately.

  7. #1967
    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    Sorry, I oversimplified my attempt at oversimplification. Of course, there are many, many issues. I was trying to isolate one where Rs and Ds have a starkly different platform where women are heavily favoring the D platform, enough to effect the vote totals. Trust me, married to a woman who votes Republican largely because of the party stances on abortion, I know there are a variety of female viewpoints and a variety of differences in terms of relative importance of issues.

    In addition to altering the party platform on abortion, Republicans also need to develop more female leaders and get those leaders on the national platform. For example, their failure to make Condoleeza Rice, a brilliant and likeable leader who also happens to be an African-American woman, a primary face of the party, is a stark example of how the party is missing golden opportunities.
    There were rumors that they tried to do that, but Rice wasn't interested. Priming for presidential run in 2016?

  8. #1968
    Just curious, but why hasn't Florida been called for Obama?

    Not that it matters except to the Nate Silvers of the world? Wait I said Silvers in plural - there is only one Nate Silver.

    Edit: At the risk of distracting someone from answering the above question:

    Nate Silver of the New York Times’ FiveThirtyEight blog drew 20% of the New York Times’ total traffic during election night.
    http://allthingsd.com/20121106/heres...om-looks-like/
    Last edited by rthomas; 11-07-2012 at 06:51 PM.
    ~rthomas

  9. #1969
    Quote Originally Posted by rthomas View Post
    Just curious, but why hasn't Florida been called for Obama?
    I assume the networks are terrified of calling Florida since 2000. I'm not even sure what's left to count - the state icon shows 97% of the vote in, but the counties all show 100%.

  10. #1970
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Udaman View Post
    So, I've thought a lot about why Romney lost. I see it as (in descending order, and in no way attacks on any positions)

    ...

    2. The economy. There is no doubt we are in a recovery period. The last two job's reports really helped Obama.
    Some political scientists will tell that it's pretty much that - an incumbent with tepid but positive economic growth should get about 51 percent of the two-party vote.

    Maybe we should have skipped the campaign and read some books instead.

  11. #1971
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    Some political scientists will tell that it's pretty much that - an incumbent with tepid but positive economic growth should get about 51 percent of the two-party vote.

    Maybe we should have skipped the campaign and read some books instead.


    I'm convinced that we could have a bunch of candidates that spend billions of dollars on advertising and everything else they spent money on, take a bunch of polls (and I mean a bunch) for a couple months, and then let Nate Silver tell us who the next President is. No actual voting necessary.
    ~rthomas

  12. #1972
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    Seriously, John Huntsman seemed like a very appealing candidate with a wealth of foreign policy experience. I couldn't understand how he could only get 1% of the vote in the primaries...I guess the fact that he was appointed by Obama to serve as Ambassador to China was a kiss of death. Clearly, having anything to do with somebody across party lines is frowned upon these days in the primaries unfortunately.
    He was far and away my first choice. I was extremely tepid on Romney until the first debate.

  13. #1973
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    Seriously, John Huntsman seemed like a very appealing candidate with a wealth of foreign policy experience. I couldn't understand how he could only get 1% of the vote in the primaries...I guess the fact that he was appointed by Obama to serve as Ambassador to China was a kiss of death. Clearly, having anything to do with somebody across party lines is frowned upon these days in the primaries unfortunately.
    I think we ended up with a guy in the Republican primaries talking about the reality of climate change more than Obama (or Romney) did.

  14. #1974
    Quote Originally Posted by rthomas View Post
    Just curious, but why hasn't Florida been called for Obama?
    I think they're still counting absentee ballots, of which there were many, and if the final margin drops to below 0.5% (it's close but above that now), then there's a recount - or at least, the chance for one. I think I read that Romney has the right to request a recount at that point, but given the electoral results elsewhere, he may decline. Still, it would be interesting to know, for history, should it be that close. In FL they might as well practice recounts when nothing is on the line. They might get better at it.

  15. #1975
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by wilson View Post
    This, to me, is the crux of the question as to where the GOP goes next. I agree with much of the analysis in this thread of what's ailing the GOP, your analysis included.
    What I can't understand is why anyone in the GOP would think that the answer is go tack further to the right. How many voters do they think took a look at the presidential candidates and said, "That Romney, he's not conservative enough. So I'm going to vote Obama instead."? That just makes not one shred of sense to me.
    I think you are being overly simplistic about this. A conservative's assessment of Romney (and McCain) might be that both candidates were masquerading as true conservatives and the voters saw through that. As a result, the voters did not trust them and did not get excited about them as candidates. A true conservative, who honestly believes in what he is saying and can defend it/explain it with a passion will connect with more voters. A true conservative will also galvanize the base even more and make them want to vote for him and work for him.

    At least I think that is the rationale here. Elections are not won by positions as much as they are by passions... or something like that.

    -Jason "I actually think this rationale makes a lot of sense... and think it is one of the things that hurt Ryan. Mitt tried to contain some of Ryan's passion and change Ryan to fit the mold of the Mitt candidacy. As a result, Ryan's impact on the race was very muted" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  16. #1976
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by bjornolf View Post
    There were rumors that they tried to do that, but Rice wasn't interested. Priming for presidential run in 2016?
    From what I have heard, Rice is not interested in running for office at this time. Sorta like Colin Powell, who everyone saw as a shoe-in to be a major player on the national stage. Just because someone appears to have the profile and background that would make them an outstanding candidate, that does not mean they want to be a candidate. Frankly, when you see the way the Oval Office ages everyone who occupies it, I am not surprised.

    -Jason "Rice is unmarried and has no children. I think it would be really hard for an unmarried person to win over middle America... I am serious" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  17. #1977
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I think you are being overly simplistic about this. A conservative's assessment of Romney (and McCain) might be that both candidates were masquerading as true conservatives and the voters saw through that. As a result, the voters did not trust them and did not get excited about them as candidates. A true conservative, who honestly believes in what he is saying and can defend it/explain it with a passion will connect with more voters. A true conservative will also galvanize the base even more and make them want to vote for him and work for him.

    At least I think that is the rationale here. Elections are not won by positions as much as they are by passions... or something like that.

    -Jason "I actually think this rationale makes a lot of sense... and think it is one of the things that hurt Ryan. Mitt tried to contain some of Ryan's passion and change Ryan to fit the mold of the Mitt candidacy. As a result, Ryan's impact on the race was very muted" Evans
    For a non-conservative, you make the conservative argument quite well. Breaking down the conservative stances by issue (and these are the Conservative beliefs I'm outlining, not arguments I'm making)...

    1) Small fiscal government - Conservatives believe in the power of the individual, and that government intervention in the economy, whether by taxation, policy, regulation, etc, is much more likely to be a detriment than a benefit. This was the argument that Reagan argued both passionately and effectively, and Conservatives (correctly or not) point to the mid-to-late 80s boom as proof he was right.

    2) Strong military - The US must be an active and potent force in the world. This belief goes right back to pre-WWII years and the idea that an earlier and more active intervention against both Japan and Germany would have made the conflict shorter and less costly and prevented tremendous human suffering...and the extension of that belief that the US is, on the whole, a force of good in the world. Again, I'm not arguing correctness of these beliefs

    3) Abortion - Conservatives believe that human life begins at conception, unborn human life is as valuable as any other human life, and therefore all other arguments are secondary. First and foremost comes the moral imperitive to protect innocent human life.

    4) Gay Marriage - The bible says it just ain't right

    5) Illegal Immigration - it's breaking the law. Laws should be enforced. Border security is a major issue and illegal immigration compromises border security.

    6) The Debt - it's going to end up killing the economy, and passing it along to our kids and grandkids is reprehensible.

    7) Entitlements - Conservatives don't want people starving in the streets, but they feel the federal government is grossly inefficient at providing the necessary safety nets. They prefer local governments, on the whole, to manage this, and they prefer tight guards against abuse of the system.

    There it is. Right, wrong, popular, unpopular, those are the major tenets of the Conservative credo. Can a charismatic candidate who passionately and effectively makes these arguments win on a national level...that's the unanswered question. My personal opinion, point by point:

    On the appropriate fiscal size of government, debt, military, and entitlements, Conservatives can win.

    On illegal immigration, particularly with changing demographics of the country, the hard-line stance will cost the Conservative candidate votes, no matter how passionate he/she is. The related issue of border security, however, is one that they can argue without alienating Latino or independent voters...if they do it right and separate the issue from the question of illegal immigrants currently residing in the country.

    On Gay marriage, the Conservative view is not going to be a majority view anymore, no matter how passionately it's argued. And, more importantly, it makes Conservatives look bigoted, mean, and petty to independents, and it distracts from their more effective arguments.

    Abortion remains the tough one. If you really believe life begins at conception, giving any ground on that is tantamount to allowing murder of the most most innocent lives (not trying to make that argument...just stating what's at stake from the view of the life-begins-at-conception people). It would be fundamentally the same as giving in on slavery to end the Civil War or letting Hitler do what he wants with Jews in Nazi occupied territory to end WWII - making a politically expedient concession that sacrifices the basic rights of a group of people that the candidate sees as equal humans with equal rights to life. But the reality is that life-at-conception is NOT a majority held belief among American voters, and it's a big enough issue to cost votes, possibly elections. So, life-at-conception Conservatives may have to decide between principle and winning. Tough situation. You can't change the laws if you're not in office, but are you willing to campaign away from your principles to get in office?

    Edit: I should note that I personally think there is room in the Conservative ideology for an abortion argument along the lines of: "I believe life begins at conception, but I cannot prove it, and the law needs to be about what we can prove. I believe, however, there is ample proof that a fetus at x weeks of development IS human and therefore abortion should be outlawed from that point on" Whether that is a viable argument either among Conservatives or independents, however, is another issue entirely. IMHO, from a practical standpoint of succeeding in national elections, that's a tactic that Conservatives need to at least consider...
    Last edited by davekay1971; 11-08-2012 at 09:46 AM.

  18. #1978
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    From what I have heard, Rice is not interested in running for office at this time. Sorta like Colin Powell, who everyone saw as a shoe-in to be a major player on the national stage. Just because someone appears to have the profile and background that would make them an outstanding candidate, that does not mean they want to be a candidate. Frankly, when you see the way the Oval Office ages everyone who occupies it, I am not surprised.

    -Jason "Rice is unmarried and has no children. I think it would be really hard for an unmarried person to win over middle America... I am serious" Evans
    Not sure about your quote. In my personal experience, having relatives and in-laws that are strong social conservatives and blue-collar types...they love Rice and could give a whit about her marital status. She has a broader appeal than I think even Repubs appreciate. She may be uninterested in running for office, but she was obviously willing to be publicly supportive of Romney and Ryan around the time of the Repub Convention. If she doesn't want to run, she can still really benefit the Repubs as a much more public speaker, particularly in reaching out to women and minorities. She may not be interested in playing that role for the Repubs, however...nor should she unless she really believes the party is earnestly interested in addressing the issues of those groups.

  19. #1979
    Dev11's Avatar
    Dev11 is offline Commissioner of Statistics, DBR Podcast
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    Breaking down the conservative stances by issue...

    3) Abortion - Conservatives believe that human life begins at conception, unborn human life is as valuable as any other human life, and therefore all other arguments are secondary. First and foremost comes the moral imperitive to protect innocent human life.

    4) Gay Marriage - The bible says it just ain't right
    I believe that every time these issues get brought up at the national level, it hurts the Republicans more. This election put the full Republican platform at a crossroads, and I think we will see a less socially conservative platform next time around. Look at the Akin and Mourdock races as proof that these issues simply don't win elections, except perhaps in a few deeply religious states.

    This country is becoming less religious and more diverse every day. In my opinion, if the Republicans embrace that and incorporate it into a platform, they will win a lot more elections. It's easy for a voter who doesn't have a lot of time or patience to dig into economic policy to look at an issue like gay marriage and declare (as I believe we saw up-thread) that one candidate, regardless of their potentially beneficial fiscal plan, is unfit to hold the office because of his or her views on that one issue. Ideally, every voter is educated to the point where he or she can evaluate an entire policy plan and choose the one that seems best, but sadly, not every citizen is an intellectual DBR reader.

    (Insert plug for voter aptitude tests here)

  20. #1980
    The reason for this thread doesn't exist anymore and several people cannot resist the urge to put their personal politics before a dispassionate discussion of the events. So I'm closing it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •