• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

The Post Mortem


livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,347
OK, so I thought it would be useful to have a new thread to discuss the political consequences of last night’s results. This isn’t about how awful it is that Barack Obama won, or how awful that those nice Libertarians didn’t win, or how awful drone strikes are. If you want to have a whinge about how the poor white people are being victimised or how much you hate Romney, take it somewhere else. This should be about what lessons are taken from the results.

The Polls Are Right
The polls showed a narrow popular vote win for Obama but a clear advantage for Obama in the EV. As it turns out, the polls have been broadly right. Ohio showed a likely Obama win by a few points, and so it was. VA and FL both showed toss-ups and so it was. There was a lot of clutching at straws on here and elsewhere that the polls were wrong, their sampling was wrong etc. What we can conclude is that polling companies are businesses and have a vested interest in getting it right, and they generally have the tools to get it right. Dismissing the polls (certainly of established firms) is not analytically sound without a real, sound basis.

Party Affiliation Weighting is Bunkum
This was my big bugbear. Poll after poll we saw posters here and GOP folk say that it couldn’t possibly be right because their ‘sample’ of Democrats was too high. The problem is that the number of Democrats and GOP answering polls was a natural figure – i.e. that is what the polls was finding. We repeatedly heard that Democrat turnout would not be the same as 2008, but never an explanation as to why repeated polls were showing strong Democrat turnout. My view was always that the polls should show what the polls show – party affiliation is too fluid a metric to control for. Calls for weighting affiliation at a given level were, essentially, calls for pollsters to ignore the polling data and substitute it with their own subjective judgement of what they thought party affiliation would be. That proved to be very misguided, and it turns out that the reasons polls were showing strong Democratic turnout was because that was what was going to happen. Of course, I’ve also said that this data in itself is difficult to rely on because it is such a fluid metric – I think many people will give the answer that fits most with their voting preferences (e.g. someone who voted for McCain, Bush and Dole but who now votes Obama might affiliate as a Democrat despite all other factors indicating that they are more Republican).

Independents Are More Right Wing

An interesting point was made by Paul Begala on CNN last night. Much has been made about the extent to which Romney won independents. His point is that the Democrats have succeeded in converting independents to Democrats, hence the Democrat advantage in party affiliation stats. But as a result of left-leaning independents coming to identify as Democrats, the collective positioning of the remaining independents will move rightward. The other point was that some on the far right no longer identify as GOP, feeling it is too centrist, and they have come to infiltrate the ranks of independents. So independents are now more right wing and more likely in the future to break for the GOP, but the upside for the Democrats is that the advantage they enjoy in party affiliation is becoming more clear and more solid.

Gay Rights are No Longer Toxic

In 2004, Bush used gay marriage as a tool to bring out the vote. It was unthinkable then that any President could be vocally supportive of gay marriage and still win the Presidency. Last night, for the first time in the US, a public ballot approved gay marriage and a President and Vice President who has been the most pro-LGBT rights President in history won re-election. A year ago when he announced his support, there were questions about how that would play in key swing states, particularly in Virginia, Ohio and Florida. Obama’s win sends a message – it is no longer an electoral liability to be actively supportive of LGBT rights. So more and more national politicians can start to ‘come out’ for gay marriage and other LGBT rights issues. The GOP has lost this particular battle, and it will be interesting to see where they go from here.

The GOP’s Women and Minorities Problem is Real
There should be no doubt – this should have been a blow-out for Romney. The economy is in a poor position, albeit getting better. Romney had a cash advantage and had been running for President for six years. The reason is simple – they lost women and they lost latinos. The latter, in particular, means that Nevada and Colorado are looking increasingly blue, along with New Mexico which now seems solidly blue. The problem becomes that there is nothing to suggest that the GOP will move towards reaching out to women and minorities, and also, the other problem on the horizon is that if Clinton runs in 2016, that coalition of women and minorities will not be unravelled by the GOP.

The Blue Leaning Swing States Aren’t Really Swing States
All the talk of Romney winning Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania was just talk. He won them all reasonably comfortably.

Nate Silver’s Stock is Sky High
Expect to see Nate Silver command tremendous power in what he does next. The NYT did well to get him on board when no one knew who he was. Now he can essentially name his price for political and polling commentary after getting the popular vote almost bang on, along with, it seems, all fifty states.

The threads on here have been really good, notwithstanding the attempts of the lunatics and racists to derail them. Despite disagreeing with them, posters like NYCKY and Skyrocket have been quite informative and analytical. I hope p.ie can continue to have decent posters on US politics (on both sides) and that the lunatics and racists can be ignored.
 

Victor Meldrew

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
7,184
I'd qualify the gay issue in that it was not toxic this time. Wait till Obama steps down in 2016 and see who is running then.

The Republicans need to realise that courting the tea party window lickers killed Romney. As did their competition selecting Mitt versus santorum, bachmann, perry and others... Too much crazy for too long..

They need to realise that faced with a two horse race, the Tea party / flat earth / inbred bible thumpin' nuts will default to REP or stay away.

Romney would have been electable if they had a less religious running mate. If Ryan had just been a secular libertarian / small govt guy, they would have made it.

On top of "legitimate Rape". this sunk it.

You don't win elections by scaring women....
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,347
I'd qualify the gay issue in that it was not toxic this time. Wait till Obama steps down in 2016 and see who is running then.

The Republicans need to realise that courting the tea party window lickers killed Romney. As did their competition selecting Mitt versus santorum, bachmann, perry and others... Too much crazy for too long..

They need to realise that faced with a two horse race, the Tea party / flat earth / inbred bible thumpin' nuts will default to REP or stay away.

Romney would have been electable if they had a less religious running mate. If Ryan had just been a secular libertarian / small govt guy, they would have made it.

On top of "legitimate Rape". this sunk it.

You don't win elections by scaring women....
I don't think any of the likely Democrat nominees in 2016 will row back on the advances in LGBT rights either as a candidate or in the General. The likely candidates, excluding Clinton, are Cuomo and O'Malley - both of whom Govern states that have legalised same-sex marriage; or Biden, who pre-empted Obama's support. If, as I hope, Clinton runs, then her track record is certainly not against gay rights. Being pro gay marriage is going to become the new normal within the Democrats, which I think is a good thing.
 
D

Dylan2010

its going to be a horrible 4 years for Obama , most likey the US fall back into a recession that will make 2008 look like happy days, the rest is just naval gazing.
 

ScreeOrTalus

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
4,036
I don't think any of the likely Democrat nominees in 2016 will row back on the advances in LGBT rights either as a candidate or in the General. The likely candidates, excluding Clinton, are Cuomo and O'Malley - both of whom Govern states that have legalised same-sex marriage; or Biden, who pre-empted Obama's support. If, as I hope, Clinton runs, then her track record is certainly not against gay rights. Being pro gay marriage is going to become the new normal within the Democrats, which I think is a good thing.
Orwellian.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,101
Last nights results give a lot of food for thought as well as probably some indigestion for Republicans.

Absolutely correct in that Gay Rights are no longer the toxic issue they once were. I think two states passed same sex marriage initiatives yesterday which would have been unthinkable even 8 years ago. Tammy Baldwin was elected to the Senate and 3 or 4 openly gay Congressmen were also reelected. Everybody now has a gay cousin/coworker/colleague etc and attitudes have changed across the country. This issue needs to become what gun control became to the Democrats, they don't have to support it or embrace it but they have to learn to live with it and tolerate it.

The Republicans have to do something on immigration and not just out of pandering but because it is a problem and that means compromising on the central issues, offering a path, an amnesty by some other name, but they have to move on it.

The Republicans have to do more to attract minorities. Of the five non white Governors, four are Republicans and of the three Latino Senators, two are Republican, Mia Love came close to becoming the first black female Republican Congresswoman (but fell short) that said there is a dearth minorities in the Leadership and throughout the party that has to be addressed.


Also, the Republican leadership needs to grasp the bull by the horns and start "imposing" candidates by working early to recruit and push electable candidates the way the Democrats did.
 

Paddyc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
9,265
The threads on here have been really good, notwithstanding the attempts of the lunatics and racists to derail them. Despite disagreeing with them, posters like NYCKY and Skyrocket have been quite informative and analytical. I hope p.ie can continue to have decent posters on US politics (on both sides) and that the lunatics and racists can be ignored.
I just wanted to highlight this bit. Both NYCKY and Skyrocket argued their cause in a cogent and always polite manner. I didn't always agree with them (obviously) but I always took what they had to say on board and came away better informed.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,347
Last nights results give a lot of food for thought as well as probably some indigestion for Republicans.

Absolutely correct in that Gay Rights are no longer the toxic issue they once were. I think two states passed same sex marriage initiatives yesterday which would have been unthinkable even 8 years ago. Tammy Baldwin was elected to the Senate and 3 or 4 openly gay Congressmen were also reelected. Everybody now has a gay cousin/coworker/colleague etc and attitudes have changed across the country. This issue needs to become what gun control became to the Democrats, they don't have to support it or embrace it but they have to learn to live with it and tolerate it.

The Republicans have to do something on immigration and not just out of pandering but because it is a problem and that means compromising on the central issues, offering a path, an amnesty by some other name, but they have to move on it.

The Republicans have to do more to attract minorities. Of the five non white Governors, four are Republicans and of the three Latino Senators, two are Republican, Mia Love came close to becoming the first black female Republican Congresswoman (but fell short) that said there is a dearth minorities in the Leadership and throughout the party that has to be addressed.


Also, the Republican leadership needs to grasp the bull by the horns and start "imposing" candidates by working early to recruit and push electable candidates the way the Democrats did.
This last bit is vital. If Boehner and McConnell - and they are now the leaders of their party - want to ensure a future for their party, they absolutely have to find a way to wrest control from the extremists. Two cycles in a row now, winnable Senate seats have been thrown away by having rubbish candidates. The fact is now clear - there is not enough room for both moderates and hardline Conservatives at the top of the GOP and McConnell and Boehner have to decide how they are going to return the GOP to being an acceptable party of the centre right which is grounded in fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility and limited Government (note, I didn't say 'no Government').

How do they do that? Beats me - but the next four years will tell if there is room in the GOP for the two wings or whether they will split into a centre right party and a far right party. One step is to put people like Susanna Martinez and Kelly Ayotte front and centre. The big problem for them is that their next big call is how to avoid a fiscal cliff at the end of the year - and that process will bring out the crazies.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,550
OK, so I thought it would be useful to have a new thread to discuss the political consequences of last night’s results. This isn’t about how awful it is that Barack Obama won, or how awful that those nice Libertarians didn’t win, or how awful drone strikes are. If you want to have a whinge about how the poor white people are being victimised or how much you hate Romney, take it somewhere else. This should be about what lessons are taken from the results.

The Polls Are Right
The polls showed a narrow popular vote win for Obama but a clear advantage for Obama in the EV. As it turns out, the polls have been broadly right. Ohio showed a likely Obama win by a few points, and so it was. VA and FL both showed toss-ups and so it was. There was a lot of clutching at straws on here and elsewhere that the polls were wrong, their sampling was wrong etc. What we can conclude is that polling companies are businesses and have a vested interest in getting it right, and they generally have the tools to get it right. Dismissing the polls (certainly of established firms) is not analytically sound without a real, sound basis.

Party Affiliation Weighting is Bunkum
This was my big bugbear. Poll after poll we saw posters here and GOP folk say that it couldn’t possibly be right because their ‘sample’ of Democrats was too high. The problem is that the number of Democrats and GOP answering polls was a natural figure – i.e. that is what the polls was finding. We repeatedly heard that Democrat turnout would not be the same as 2008, but never an explanation as to why repeated polls were showing strong Democrat turnout. My view was always that the polls should show what the polls show – party affiliation is too fluid a metric to control for. Calls for weighting affiliation at a given level were, essentially, calls for pollsters to ignore the polling data and substitute it with their own subjective judgement of what they thought party affiliation would be. That proved to be very misguided, and it turns out that the reasons polls were showing strong Democratic turnout was because that was what was going to happen. Of course, I’ve also said that this data in itself is difficult to rely on because it is such a fluid metric – I think many people will give the answer that fits most with their voting preferences (e.g. someone who voted for McCain, Bush and Dole but who now votes Obama might affiliate as a Democrat despite all other factors indicating that they are more Republican).

Independents Are More Right Wing

An interesting point was made by Paul Begala on CNN last night. Much has been made about the extent to which Romney won independents. His point is that the Democrats have succeeded in converting independents to Democrats, hence the Democrat advantage in party affiliation stats. But as a result of left-leaning independents coming to identify as Democrats, the collective positioning of the remaining independents will move rightward. The other point was that some on the far right no longer identify as GOP, feeling it is too centrist, and they have come to infiltrate the ranks of independents. So independents are now more right wing and more likely in the future to break for the GOP, but the upside for the Democrats is that the advantage they enjoy in party affiliation is becoming more clear and more solid.

Gay Rights are No Longer Toxic

In 2004, Bush used gay marriage as a tool to bring out the vote. It was unthinkable then that any President could be vocally supportive of gay marriage and still win the Presidency. Last night, for the first time in the US, a public ballot approved gay marriage and a President and Vice President who has been the most pro-LGBT rights President in history won re-election. A year ago when he announced his support, there were questions about how that would play in key swing states, particularly in Virginia, Ohio and Florida. Obama’s win sends a message – it is no longer an electoral liability to be actively supportive of LGBT rights. So more and more national politicians can start to ‘come out’ for gay marriage and other LGBT rights issues. The GOP has lost this particular battle, and it will be interesting to see where they go from here.

The GOP’s Women and Minorities Problem is Real
There should be no doubt – this should have been a blow-out for Romney. The economy is in a poor position, albeit getting better. Romney had a cash advantage and had been running for President for six years. The reason is simple – they lost women and they lost latinos. The latter, in particular, means that Nevada and Colorado are looking increasingly blue, along with New Mexico which now seems solidly blue. The problem becomes that there is nothing to suggest that the GOP will move towards reaching out to women and minorities, and also, the other problem on the horizon is that if Clinton runs in 2016, that coalition of women and minorities will not be unravelled by the GOP.

The Blue Leaning Swing States Aren’t Really Swing States
All the talk of Romney winning Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania was just talk. He won them all reasonably comfortably.

Nate Silver’s Stock is Sky High
Expect to see Nate Silver command tremendous power in what he does next. The NYT did well to get him on board when no one knew who he was. Now he can essentially name his price for political and polling commentary after getting the popular vote almost bang on, along with, it seems, all fifty states.

The threads on here have been really good, notwithstanding the attempts of the lunatics and racists to derail them. Despite disagreeing with them, posters like NYCKY and Skyrocket have been quite informative and analytical. I hope p.ie can continue to have decent posters on US politics (on both sides) and that the lunatics and racists can be ignored.
I can proudly say I was following Nate Silver before the New York Times hired him. I suppose it is a tribute to him that the NYT did not change the name of his blog.

I have different view on Independents Are More Right Wing

Independents have always been consider "Centrist" or midway between the Parties and capable of being voted in either direction. However, there are Independents who are more radical than either party and are farther to the left or right, like Libertarians, or Greens.

At the moment the Democrats occupy the Centre, and have gained that vote. It is a corrective to the criticism of Obama as "Socialist".

In the war of Quants versus Pols, the Quants like Silver won hands down. Pols like Karl Rove have egg all over their face.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,101
One thing I forgot to say here is that is that the Republicans need to go back to the old nominating process with a "winner-take-all" in the delegate stakes as was done in prior contests.

I don't believe its undemocratic as either way Mitt Romney would have won but would have saved time, money and resources and stopped the scramble to the right by all the candidates.

The party had a long bruising fight from which Romney ultimately emerged somewhat damaged which did him or the party no favors especially when fighting an incumbent with no primary.

Given that I don't expect Biden will run, the next election will likely be open as it was in 2008 so it will be interesting to see what has been learned and what will be applied from the last two nominations.
 

jpc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
4,339
I'd qualify the gay issue in that it was not toxic this time. Wait till Obama steps down in 2016 and see who is running then.

The Republicans need to realise that courting the tea party window lickers killed Romney. As did their competition selecting Mitt versus santorum, bachmann, perry and others... Too much crazy for too long..

They need to realise that faced with a two horse race, the Tea party / flat earth / inbred bible thumpin' nuts will default to REP or stay away.

Romney would have been electable if they had a less religious running mate. If Ryan had just been a secular libertarian / small govt guy, they would have made it.

On top of "legitimate Rape". this sunk it.

You don't win elections by scaring women....
Maybe you can't win elections by scaring the electorate would be accurate also.
 

Victor Meldrew

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
7,184
Did Mitt lose because:

a) tea party voters stayed home because they saw him as moderate

or

b) Moderates who think Obama has failed were frightened by Ryan and the Mitt who won the primaries...

If it is "B", the GOP need to impose a party candidate without the freakshow of the primaries...
 

Victor Meldrew

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
7,184
Given that I don't expect Biden will run, the next election will likely be open as it was in 2008 so it will be interesting to see what has been learned and what will be applied from the last two nominations.
It is going to be fascinating.

The Bush hangover will be dead or forgotten. Race probably will not be in play .

Only fear is that you could have an utterly discredited DEM party, as per the GOP in 2008 and it becomes a "get them out" election.
 

44percent

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
2,230
Did Mitt lose because:

a) tea party voters stayed home because they saw him as moderate

or

b) Moderates who think Obama has failed were frightened by Ryan and the Mitt who won the primaries...

If it is "B", the GOP need to impose a party candidate without the freakshow of the primaries...
The GOP don't get the fundamental decency of most Americans. They treat them with contempt born of racism, or their version of social hierarchy but fail to realize that people are beginning to see that.
 

CptSternn

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
3,949
It just goes to show racists and bigots no longer have a place in most of America. I expect the Dems to have an even bigger win next time around, especially if the GOP ignore the lessons learned this time and continue attacking large portions of the American society.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,347
It is going to be fascinating.

The Bush hangover will be dead or forgotten. Race probably will not be in play .

Only fear is that you could have an utterly discredited DEM party, as per the GOP in 2008 and it becomes a "get them out" election.

The Dems problem next time out is that (this is assuming Clinton doesn't run) their only big-name is Biden who is already seen as a bit of a clown and will probably be too old in 2016 anyway. Beyond that, Andrew Cuomo and Martin O'Malley will be the main contenders I suspect. There are some suggestions of Deval Patrick or Elizabeth Warren but I just can't see it.

The GOP on the other hand have a lot of big hitters with instant name recognition lining up to run. Ryan, Rubio, Christie and Bush are all likely contenders. Mitch Daniels and Rob Portman may also be in the hunt.

Long story short, if Clinton decides not to run, the GOP will win the next election and it won't even be close. If Clinton does run, though, I think we're in for a major battle. Imagine the debates if it's Clinton v Christie?! Clinton brings a massive machine, massive fundraising, instant name recognition, sky high favorability and a record of massive experience. She would clear the field in a Democratic primary and would hold massive advantages in the General election, particularly if the economy has improved by then.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,347
Incidentally, we now have Fordham's ranking of the pollsters by accuracy. Terrible results for Rasmussen and Gallup. Very impressive from PPP who called, I think, every state correctly and also came close in the national polling. Their credibility has been seriously enhanced now after two very successful presidential cycles.

1. PPP (D)
1. Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP
3. YouGov
4. Ipsos/Reuters
5. Purple Strategies
6. NBC/WSJ
6. CBS/NYT
6. YouGov/Economist
9. UPI/CVOTER
10. IBD/TIPP
11. Angus-Reid
12. ABC/WP
13. Pew Research
13. Hartford Courant/UConn
15. CNN/ORC
15. Monmouth/SurveyUSA
15. Politico/GWU/Battleground
15. FOX News
15. Washington Times/JZ Analytics
15. Newsmax/JZ Analytics
15. American Research Group
15. Gravis Marketing
23. Democracy Corps (D)
24. Rasmussen
24. Gallup
26. NPR
27. National Journal
28. AP/GfK
 

CptSternn

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
3,949
The Dems problem next time out is that (this is assuming Clinton doesn't run) their only big-name is Biden who is already seen as a bit of a clown and will probably be too old in 2016 anyway. Beyond that, Andrew Cuomo and Martin O'Malley will be the main contenders I suspect. There are some suggestions of Deval Patrick or Elizabeth Warren but I just can't see it.

The GOP on the other hand have a lot of big hitters with instant name recognition lining up to run. Ryan, Rubio, Christie and Bush are all likely contenders. Mitch Daniels and Rob Portman may also be in the hunt.
None of that really matters mate.

Seriously, either you support things like gay marriage, abortion, immigration, and state sponsored healthcare, or you do not.

It doesn't matter which figurehead they roll out, if the GOP do not change their stance on the social issues they will get hammered again in 2016. No amount of charisma will change that.

Add to that the GOP nomination process will once again bring all the loons out of the woodwork - expect another visit from Herman Caine, Michelle Bachmann, and the rest - and you will once again see the GOP chances quickly going down the tubes.

No one is going to vote for the party of crazy that hates science, no matter what candidate you get to be the figurehead to represent them.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,093
Clinton may stay on as Secretary of State

Hillary Clinton leaves door open to stay on at State Dept., rules out 2016 bid.
The secretary of state had been saying for months that she would leave the high-stress job at the end of this term, regardless of whether President Obama wins reelection. She told State employees back in January that "after 20 years, and it will be 20 years, of being on the high wire of American politics and all of the challenges that come with that, it would probably be a good idea to just find out how tired I am."But in the wake of the assault on the American consulate in Benghazi, Clinton is at least leaving the door open on the idea that she could stick around a little longer. The Wall Street Journal:

Mrs. Clinton long has said she would leave the job after one term. Now, however, in a sign of how much the tragedy has shaken her final days, she indicated in an interview that she may be willing to stay a bit longer. "A lot of people have talked to me about staying," Mrs. Clinton said, declining to be more specific. When asked if current events will force her departure date to slip, she said it was "unlikely," but for the first time left open that possibility for the short term.​
 
Top