Obama said he was going to leave states alone on this, and he didn't: the buck stops with him.

And futhermore, why are their 435 Representatives and 538 EC votes. Just make them the same thing. This would actually be a USEFUL case of gerrymandering - since the Rep districts would proxy presidential votes. They are already proportional and there are regulations for expanding them as the population changes.

Heidi Heitkamp a little over 3,000 votes up for N.Dakota Senate, with about 6,400 ballots remaining.

Sheldon Anderson spent approximately $70million to support first Newt Gingrich, and then Mitt Romney.

Wait, what? Politico had an article on the white vote? Must have missed it.

bachmann up by 1,690 w 81% in.

If you need any more clear proof that one man/one vote in this country is a silly fairy tale: look no further than the electoral college and the popular vote. Despite whatever Calif. does later tonight, as it stands now Obama is up 0.3% in the pop. vote and has already won a fairly strong majority (300 ish) in the EC to end this game not long after midnight.

I assume these numbers are preliminary and are still subject to change, but to go back to a question Joe kept asking: Does anybody expect the partisan split of the electorate to be the same as in 2008?

CNN Exit Polls, 2008 (D-R-I): 39-32-29
CNN Exit Polls, 2012 (D-R-I) 38-32-29

So, to answer Joe, pretty much, yeah, same partisan split.

No. Joe consistently asked "Does anyone here actually believe the 2012 electorate will be more Dem than in 2008?" Turns out, it was!

The fact is, the current count in the EC is still a done deal in Obama's favor and this with a statistical dead heat.

bachmann up by 1,690 w 81% in.

Now less than 700 w/ 83% reporting.

More updated than my source. What's your site?

Despite whatever Calif. does later tonight, as it stands now Obama is up 0.3% in the pop. vote and has already won a fairly strong majority (300 ish) in the EC to end this game not long after midnight.

On the plus side, the GOP is in much better shape today than it was on Election Day 2008. No one will be talking about the "death of the GOP" tomorrow, like they were in 2008.

while the up 0.3% doesn't include California. Apples to Oranges.

Percentage of the Hispanic vote:
Bush 40%
McCain 31%
Romney 21% (provisional)

but yeah. a probable dem majority in the senate for the next few elections (tough holds in 2014, great chances in 2016)

Yeah, their in great shape. Couldn't beat a black man coming off a four year recession and a major foreign policy #### up. Great shape indeed. They are getting crushed in cities (which are only going to become more prevalent), crushed with minorities (becoming less minor every day), crushed with the youth vote (they'll turn some of them, but it's an uphill battle), and losing women (more and more a stronger force in this society). They need to rethink everything. Maybe adopt a social policy or two that isn't based on the Old Testament.

2014 will be hard for the Dems in the Senate, but if they need to win 4 or 5 seats, that's hard to do. And frankly, your oracular powers look dingy at the moment.

I mean, I appreciate you're talking your book, Joe, and you're spinning as hard as you can, but seriously. We can just look back through literally hundreds of posts where you were wrong within the past month.

Meanwhile, Silver was 50 for 50. But I understand why you don't trust him.

He makes you look like the snake oil salesman you are.

Interesting--Chris Hayes is claiming that the Tea Party cost the GOP five Senate seats. Good news if it causes the Republicans to calm the #### down, but is he right? Hayes also claims we're seeing a notably different electorate showing up every four years, for the presidential election years, than we are for the midterms. Someone upthread mentioned carrying Obama's ground game into the Democratic party's future. I'd love to see him call on his GOTV people for the 2014 midterms.

Yeah, their in great shape. Couldn't beat a black man coming off a four year recession and a major foreign policy #### up. Great shape indeed. They are getting crushed in cities (which are only going to become more prevalent), crushed with minorities (becoming less minor every day), crushed with the youth vote (they'll turn some of them, but it's an uphill battle), and losing women (more and more a stronger force in this society). They need to rethink everything. Maybe adopt a social policy or two that isn't based on the Old Testament.


I didn't say "great shape," I said "better shape." In 2008, the GOP lost the White House, became a smaller minority in the House, and watched the Dems achieve a near-filibuster-proof Senate (which became a filibuster-proof Senate a few months later). Today's GOP faces challenges, but it's in much better shape than it was in 2008.

The fact that they weren't able to make any progress should clue them in to how toxic their message is to much of America.

She's a nice lady. And a Senator.

All that's needed is a couple of points nationally and 4-5 points in the key states. Stop spewing the anti-immigrant ugliness and they're there.

Jack @4740: Akin, Mourdock, Christine O'Donnel, Joe Miller in Alaska (though that's still Republican), and that "chickens for check ups" nutter who lost Harry Reid.

If Romney could have avoided the social platform albatross that the party hung around his neck and actually been able to make the election a referendum on the economy then he would have won.

...and a major foreign policy #### up

It is toxic, but that's fine. You lose 95% of the blacks and 95% of the gays, that's OK as long as you bring in 60% of the white men and 30% of the hispanics. 45% of the country can hate Republican guts with the fire of Armenians hating the Kurds, but all that matters is bringing in 5% to augment the base. Incremental changes.

It's going to take more than tossing the nativism to win.

Yes, because someone who's worked their whole life trying to help the disenfranchised and who didn't actually say #### about their heritage when getting hired

Yes, as opposed to the brilliant political analysis you've bestowed on us here. LOL.

Hooray. RCP was 49 for 50.

That base gets smaller every day. Punting so many groups isn't a winning strategy long term.

Strip away the ugly racism (yes, other than that),

True, but I think it might be more of a zero-sum game than you're suggesting. It would have taken very little movement for Romney to have lost the evangelicals' enthusiasm, for example. I don't think he had any room at all to move on gay rights, and anything less than a strong, unwavering prolife position would have been unthinkable. My guess is he would have lost more by moving to the center on social issues than he would have gained, but I could be missing something. Where do you think he had some wiggle room?

If you can read, you malaflicted muppet, I said Dems would have a hard election in the senate in 2014, and an excellent map in 2016. But I don't want to make a bet on Republicans winning 5 seats 2 years from now. Because frankly, Joe, your prognostications are ####, and you're an easy mark.

Settle down, tough guy. Nobody likes a sore winner.

Sure they got crushed in 2008 but that was inevitable with the Bush stench culminating in a collapsed economy.

Obama's ability to frame himself as the man of the middle class against Romney, man for the rich, was a total winner - the best possible narrative for the election. Paid off down ballot, too. You'd think the Republicans would get the message and cut the tax cut #### out.