What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

LynahFan said:
Well, in case YOU are one of the people who cares, you come off like a jerk of a fan whose team just won on a bad deflection in 4OT screaming, "YOU SUCK! YOU'RE HORRIBLE! YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO WIN ANYTHING EVER AGAIN!" at the opposing players' moms as they leave the rink. In case you care.
Click to expand...
Well you certainly suck as analogies, unless you've been buying into conservative media's attempt to spin Romney's campaign as anything more than a money sink. Which I'm sure he'll somehow get to be a big tax write off.

This is more like a 9-1 blowout with the losers thinking they kept is close.
 
Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

ScoobyDoo said:
*sigh* You and Bob still don't get it.

No one on the left says it will fix the problem by itself. You can't run around having Mitt Romney paying only 13% in taxes while the rest of us are paying more than that just in payroll taxes. Especially when he's using Tax Havens to hide income from any US taxation at all that I don't have any access to.

So, please stop rattling on and on about how taxing the rich won't fix the deficit. I don't give a flying **** if it does or not. I care about fairness and logic in the tax code and right now there is none and that starts at the top.
Click to expand...

Mitt doesn't have a job. he hasn't for quite some time. how are you going to increase income tax and touch him?
 
Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

Shirtless Guy said:
No, he just believes that Obama wants to make as many people as possible dependent on something from the government, to keep them voting for the party that gave them whatever that dependent something is...
Click to expand...

4.4 million received TANF funds by way of their state in 1996 and by 2008 it was 1.6 and the government was turning them away despite the recession. 68 families out of 100 received funding in 1996 which dropped to 27/100 by 2010. And perhaps like Romney you don't understand that, "the 47%" includes members of the military, the elderly, the working poor, those looking for work and college students". And why the hell would someone like me that has a household income of 6 figures, owns a home and has two children ever clamor for handouts from the government? I'm sure as hell nowhere near receiving them. btw last I heard Obama wanted to extend the current tax rates.

And when it comes to Federal spending I also believe Congress is far more the problem than whomever would occupy the Oval Office. We need term limits, we need to curb the lobby industry, we need to limit military spending, we need to gut the IRS, but whatever I didn't see Romney being any more capable of solving these issues, we never knew what we would get from him, he would have been a foreign policy nightmare and Ryan is a snake. Romney should have won but he deserved to lose.


Bob Gray said:
You only see it going one way, as displayed by your postings around here. You just see it going the other way.
Click to expand...

I didn't vote for Obama, don't like Obamacare, didn't like his handling of the debt ceiling and there other concerns. I wanted to vote for Romney too but he turned me away. I've never seen you post anything similar about conservative leaders.


geezer, whatever.
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

And that's where the fundamental flaw in Brainless Guy's logic comes up. The so called "dependent on govt" people ARE older voters, who vote overwhelmingly Republican! Same thing for people in the military, and the working class whites out there. Feel free to keep calling out your own supporters as bums and layabouts. No wonder Mittens won less votes than McCain. The Dem coalition is college educated younger people who are now dominant but who are also most likely the ones in the workforce, not the retirees sitting around collecting Social Security while railing against the gubmint.
 
Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

Slap Shot said:
geezer, whatever.
Click to expand...

Hey there Slap Shot! What's up?
(You'll have to excuse the lapse, I posted about 7 zillion times today and forgot most of it :p) (if we were arguing about something; in any case, you were wrong and I was right.)
 
Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

How is he different from the tax cheat and felo nthat you wanted to put in the White House?
 
Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

Slap Shot said:
I didn't vote for Obama, don't like Obamacare, didn't like his handling of the debt ceiling and there other concerns. I wanted to vote for Romney too but he turned me away. I've never seen you post anything similar about conservative leaders.
Click to expand...
Uh, yah. That basically doesn't match anything you ever post. You are entertaining though I have to say.
 
Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

People that point to the popular vote to decide how close an election is as opposed to the electoral are the same ones that point to yards gained in a football game when their team lost 35-20.

The goal is points, not yards. You didn't see Romney in Texas and Obama in California trying to boost their popular vote.
 
Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

bronconick said:
People that point to the popular vote to decide how close an election is as opposed to the electoral are the same ones that point to yards gained in a football game when their team lost 35-20.

The goal is points, not yards. You didn't see Romney in Texas and Obama in California trying to boost their popular vote.
Click to expand...
So from this, I guess it must be true that it was in the SWING STATES (where Obama campaigned hard) where Obama took what, 60, 70% of the vote? I mean, that would constitute a butt-kicking worthy of crowing about, right?

Let's see:

NC: 48% (oops!)
Ohio: 50%
Florida: 50%
Colorado: 51% (ooooh!)
Virginia: 51%
Iowa: 52% (now we're talking!)
Nevada: 52%
NH: 52%
Wisconsin: 53% (peaked out)

You could win the popular vote by 51 votes nationwide and take all 538 electoral votes. People who point to the electoral votes as the measure of the closeness of the election are just plain stupid.
 
bronconick said:
People that point to the popular vote to decide how close an election is as opposed to the electoral are the same ones that point to yards gained in a football game when their team lost 35-20.

The goal is points, not yards. You didn't see Romney in Texas and Obama in California trying to boost their popular vote.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Lynah, I didn't call it an a ss kicking. I said liberals wiped their a sses with conservatives faces. Get it right, will ya? ;)

Okay, which one of you righty posters is this guy:

Former Ron Paul aide Eric Dondero says the only recourse to President Obama's re-election is "outright revolt" and is launching a "personal boycott" of Democrats.

He writes: "All family and friends, even close family and friends, who I know to be Democrats are hereby dead to me. I vow never to speak to them again for the rest of my life, or have any communications with them. They are in short, the enemies of liberty. They deserve nothing less than hatred and utter contempt."

"I strongly urge all other libertarians to do the same. Are you married to someone who voted for Obama, have a girlfriend who voted 'O'. Divorce them. Break up with them without haste. Vow not to attend family functions, Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas for example, if there will be any family members in attendance who are Democrats."
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

Rover said:
Okay, which one of you righty posters is [the doppelganger of] this guy:

"All family and friends, even close family and friends, who I know to be Republicans are hereby dead to me. I vow never to speak to them again for the rest of my life, or have any communications with them. They are in short, the enemies of liberty. They deserve nothing less than hatred and utter contempt."

"I strongly urge all other progressives to do the same. Are you married to someone who voted for Romney, have a boyfriend who voted 'R'. Divorce them. Break up with them without haste. Vow not to attend family functions, Thanksgiving dinner or The Winter Solstice holiday for example, if there will be any family members in attendance who are Republicans."
Click to expand...

You are a funny guy.
 
Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

LynahFan said:
People who point to the electoral votes as the measure of the closeness of the election are just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The Electoral College does not do a very good job of showing the closeness of an election. From a historical perspective...

1940 - FDR wins 85% of Electoral Vote (55% of Popular Vote)
1944 - FDR wins 81% of Electoral Vote (53% of Popular Vote)
1948 - Truman wins 57% of Electoral Vote (50% of Popular Vote)
1952 - Ike wins 83% of Electoral Vote (55% of Popular Vote)
1956 - Ike wins 86% of Electoral Vote (57% of Popular Vote)
1960 - JFK wins 57% of Electoral Vote (50% of Popular Vote)
1964 - LBJ wins 90% of Electoral Vote (61% of Popular Vote)
1968 - Nixon wins 56% of Electoral Vote (43% of Popular Vote)
1972 - Nixon wins 97% of Electoral Vote (61% of Popular Vote)
1976 - Carter wins 55% of Electoral Vote (50% of Popular Vote)
1980 - Reagan wins 91% of Electoral Vote (51% of Popular Vote)
1984 - Reagan wins 98% of Electoral Vote (59% of Popular Vote)
1988 - Bush wins 79% of Electoral Vote (53% of Popular Vote)
1992 - Clinton wins 69% of Electoral Vote (43% of Popular Vote)
1996 - Clinton wins 70% of Electoral Vote (49% of Popular Vote)
2000 - Bush wins 51% of Electoral Vote (48% of Popular Vote)
2004 - Bush wins 53% of Electoral Vote (51% of Popular Vote)
2008 - Obama wins 68% of Electoral Vote (53% of Popular Vote)
2012 - Obama wins 62% of Electoral Vote (51% of Popular Vote)

On average, over the past 19 elections, the winning candidates Electoral Vote share is 20% more than their Popular vote share. The big ones that jump out are the 1980 and 1992 elections. In 1980, Reagan barely edged over 50% of the popular vote, but won 91% of the Electoral Vote. The 1992 Election was very similar (no surprise, both elections featured a relatively strong independent candidate). Certainly, the electoral vote is not a good measure of the closeness of the election. This is especially true for the loser. For example, Mondale won roughly 41% of the popular vote, yet captured just 2% of the Electoral College.

That being said, in today's politics, winning by 2.5% of the popular vote is a pretty solid victory. That is nearly identical to the margin that Bush won by in '04 that supposedly gave him a "mandate." Democrats need to keep that in mind when touting this victory...i.e. Obama basically duplicated Bush's 2004 victory.
 
Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

FS23, you are losing third party pull. Off my head I can think of Clinton and Ross, George Wallace, and John Anderson (in you 80 Reagan example).

Better graph would be 2nd place popular vote total and winners electoral college.
 
Re: Elections 2012.2 - Congressional and Gubernatorial

mookie1995 said:
FS23, you are losing third party pull. Off my head I can think of Clinton and Ross, George Wallace, and John Anderson (in you 80 Reagan example).

Better graph would be 2nd place popular vote total and winners electoral college.
Click to expand...

How about disparity between Popular Vote % and Electoral Vote %?

1940 - Electoral Vote - 70% (85%-15%) Popular Vote - 10% (55%-45%)
1944 - Electoral Vote - 62% (81%-19%) Popular Vote - 7% (53%-46%)
1948 - Electoral Vote - 21% (57%-36%) Popular Vote - 5% (50%-45%)
1952 - Electoral Vote - 66% (83%-17%) Popular Vote - 11% (55%-44%)
1956 - Electoral Vote - 72% (86%-14%) Popular Vote - 15% (57%-42%)
1960 - Electoral Vote - 16% (57%-41%) Popular Vote - 0.2% (49.7%-49.5%)
1964 - Electoral Vote - 80% (90%-10%) Popular Vote - 22% (61%-39%)
1968 - Electoral Vote - 20% (56%-36%) Popular Vote - 0.7% (43.4%-42.7%)
1972 - Electoral Vote - 94% (97%-03%) Popular Vote - 23% (61%-38%)
1976 - Electoral Vote - 10% (55%-45%) Popular Vote - 2% (50%-48%)
1980 - Electoral Vote - 82% (91%-09%) Popular Vote - 10% (51%-41%)
1984 - Electoral Vote - 96% (98%-02%) Popular Vote - 18% (59%-41%)
1988 - Electoral Vote - 58% (79%-21%) Popular Vote - 7% (53%-46%)
1992 - Electoral Vote - 38% (69%-31%) Popular Vote - 5% (43%-38%)
1996 - Electoral Vote - 40% (70%-30%) Popular Vote - 8% (49%-41%)
2000 - Electoral Vote - 02% (51%-49%) Popular Vote - (-0.5) (47.9%-48.4%)
2004 - Electoral Vote - 06% (53%-47%) Popular Vote - 3% (51%-48%)
2008 - Electoral Vote - 36% (68%-32%) Popular Vote - 7% (53%-46%)
2012 - Electoral Vote - 24% (62%-38%) Popular Vote - 3% (51%-48%)

Over the last 19 elections (no particular reason for starting in 1940, other than that's where I decided to start), the average Electoral College Victory was by 47%. The average Popular Vote Victory was by 7.86%. In other words, roughly, a 1% popular vote victory should equate to a 6% Electoral College victory. Comparing the 2004 and 2012 elections, Bush underperformed in the Electoral College, while Obama slightly over-performed. It still makes no sense to judge the closeness of an election by the Electoral Vote.

To put it a different way, (on average) had Romney done 1.5% better (thus Obama 1.5% worse), Romney would have won Virginia, Ohio, and Florida, but still have lost 272-266. Romney needed to basically take away about 2.4% of Obama's Vote (on average) to win the election (would have been a 275-263 victory). This means that had Romney increased his Popular Vote #s by 2.3% (up to 50.3%) and Obama would have dropped 2.3% (down to 48.2%), Romney would have won the popular vote by 2.1%, but still have lost the election 272-266. Basically, as of the 2012 election, the Electoral College is slanted towards the Democrats. As a result, a small Democratic Victory in the popular vote will translate into a larger than normal victory in the Electoral College.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top