Republican support among white men is increasing fast

Eight more percent, here we come!

Edit: Sorry, three died, now six percent.

I find it strange that Jeb Bush keeps getting brought up as a potential Republican presidential candidate. I just don't see how he could be viable enough in a general election. No, he isn't his brother, but I would think that the Bush name has got to be so toxic right now that it would be impossible for him to not lose a notable amount of the undecided vote to any decent Democratic candidate on the basis of them wanting nothing to do with another Bush in the White House. His name keeps showing up so I guess he's a legitimate challenger in the eyes of the people that judge this stuff but man, I don't see how he'd win a presidential election against a non-crappy opponent.

I don't want to be flippant about this. "Punting white men, and their support among whites as a whole is weakening, not growing. Even as whites become a plurality, not a majority, you still can't afford to be losing them by too much and hope to make it up with the blacks and hispanics."

It is not that "white men" are losing ground in America. It is that racists and bigots are losing ground in America. Often these men are old and white, and thus demographics are against them - and so I kid. But more importantly, our collective idea of America now includes more than just white men. If you want to win the future of our awesome (All Tan tm - I trademarking this) future, argue for America and not just the "white vote."

@Jim: you may be right, but my feeling is that any equivocating will get the next nominee something more like the tepid support that McCain got from the far right. It was only the thought of a black President that moved them as much as they moved.

No one admits that trailing spouses get boosts because they're trailing spouses, either, and yet, somehow they get hired all the damn time.

I don't share your contempt for Warren, but the spouse package largely wrecked my grad department when I was getting my Masters. We got three moderate names for the sake of getting names, and three absolute hacks. In a small department it was extremely destructive.

We got three moderate names for the sake of getting names, and three absolute hacks

Yeah, but that's six profs for the price of four! (You only move if your spouse gets a job too, right?)

No one really cares about the "collective idea of america". They care about winning elections. The point is that a winning Republican coalition is out there with very small tweaks to the Republican platform.

No one really cares about the "collective idea of america". They care about winning elections. The point is that a winning Republican coalition is out there with very small tweaks to the Republican platform.

In theory. In reality, pandering to Latinos costs the GOP white votes; moderating on gay marriage alienates Evangelicals and makes it tougher to attract blacks and Latinos; not moderating on gay marriage makes it all but impossible to make major inroads with the youth vote; etc.

The GOP is better off than it was in 2008, but threading the above needle is easier said than done. If there was a formula that would yield clear gains, the Romney campaign and/or the RNC would have implemented it this year. The main knock against Romney all year is that he'd say anything if it moved the needle somehow, but that needle either didn't move or moved in the wrong direction.

Some incredibly close House races still out there in Calif.:


GOP Rep. Brian Bilbray is up by 13 votes out of 200,000 with 91% counted.
GOP Rep. Mary Bono trailing by 1,300 about halfway thru the count.
Dem. Rep. Henry Waxman is up by 75 votes of 120,000 counted, against an independent.
GOP Rep. (and former governor candidate) Dan Lungren down 184 votes out of 176,000 with 100% in.

Also, Dem Rep. Pete Stark is out after 40 years in Congress, losing to another Dem.

If there was a formula that would yield clear gains, the Romney campaign and/or the RNC would have implemented it this year. The main knock against Romney all year is that he'd say anything if it moved the needle somehow, but that needle either didn't move or moved in the wrong direction.

Couldn't agree less. The formula is obvious - the problem is that the base voters won't allow it to happen. Romney was hemmed in by the positions he had to take in the primary. The obligation of the Party is to move the base ever-so-slightly to where it needs to be to produce a candidate for the general election with positions that can get the extra 3% of the pop vote needed to win the EC. The whole point of a cap-P Party is to work in an directed manner toward big goals, unlike the individual pols who are evolving in a Darwinian way - and therefore not always in the best direction for 2016, 2024, etc.

The demographics, though - are NOT getting friendlier.

Latino vote crept up another two points as a component of the electorate, while the GOP has seen its numbers among Latinos shrink from ~40% in Bush in 2004, to ~32% for McCain, to a cratering ~20% for Romney.

AA numbers continue to rise - they actually came out in bigger numbers in some states than in 2008.

The demographics are important but the impact is being overstated. It's not clear at all that blacks will continue to vote in the same numbers if a non-black candidate is atop the ticket in 2016, plus the black population has been declining in urban areas (and is projected to increase by just 1 percent nationwide by 2050).

As for Latinos, they got crushed in the recession, and they've been increasingly voting for Dems because they've become increasingly dependent on government (e.g., almost 90 percent of Latino infants are on WIC). If this is a permanent trend, then the GOP is in big trouble, but if the economy improves and the trend reverses, then we could see Latinos trending toward the GOP as their economic fortunes improve.

Regardless, it seems like the country's major problems are more likely to bubble over before there's any sort of permanent demographic shift in the U.S. electorate. If 80-plus percent of a growing Latino population becomes permanent wards of the Dem party for economic reasons, a lot of the GOP will be running for the exits, not worrying about winning elections.

a lot of the GOP will be running for the exits, not worrying about winning elections.

Hell, maybe even moving to Mexico for "business" reasons, right?

Hell, maybe even moving to Mexico for "business" reasons, right?

Ha ha. Unlike my Romney pick, I was ahead of the curve with that move. You win some, you lose some.

Couldn't agree less. The formula is obvious - the problem is that the base voters won't allow it to happen. Romney was hemmed in by the positions he had to take in the primary. The obligation of the Party is to move the base ever-so-slightly to where it needs to be to produce a candidate for the general election with positions that can get the extra 3% of the pop vote needed to win the EC. The whole point of a cap-P Party is to work in an directed manner toward big goals, unlike the individual pols who are evolving in a Darwinian way - and therefore not always in the best direction for 2016, 2024, etc.

If the "formula is obvious" but the GOP base won't go for it, then the formula is moot. You're suggesting a Dem-style coalitional party, which might be necessary, but would also be a major departure from what the modern-day GOP purports to be. Otherwise, if there was some minor policy shift that could have yielded 3 percent more votes in 2012, Romney & Co. would have tried it. Romney wasn't afraid to exhibit a "versatility of convictions," as Thorstein Veblen once put it, in his campaign for the White House.

Otherwise, if there was some minor policy shift that could have yielded 3 percent more votes in 2012, Romney & Co. would have tried it.

Right, so where do you go? Romney would have taken virtually any position to get votes - he's a man of virtually no convictions other than wanting to be president - and they couldn't figure it out in the eight years he was running. Another four years will pass, the demographics will continue to work against them and then they will need an even better idea to lure away some latinos or women or youth next time around. Hopefully it's a better idea than transvaginal ultrasounds or legitimate rape.

Put me down with those glad to see Nate Silver's projection system vindicated in the end. Surely the art of polling will only improve as a result. I doubt Silver will stick around the political world to do the same in 2016, though.

I had a lot of fun following the count here in China today. I wound up sick in bed, which meant lots of watching pundits and projections on CNN World, the MSNBC feed we get and BBC World. Whatever the Bloomberg network out here is called (Asia something or other) covered the election live as well, as did the international French and German language channels, NHK and Hong Kong-based Phoenix TV (which is actually owned by people affiliated with the Chinese government, as I understand). Unfortunately, none of the local Chinese channels covered it (not sure what CCTV News' excuse was), though at least CCTV-3 had a big news ticker update when Obama's win was called. Anyway, it was really cool to be able to switch back and forth to see how the world was covering the event live.

I doubt that North Korea's Rodong Sinmun (odd that Korean characters cannot be displayed) is going to have much coverage tomorrow, though I'll certainly be checking out its website just in case.

I've been lurking on the political threads here for quite some time. I found this year's threads generally positive and interesting, and have learned a lot from posters of all sorts of political leanings. We have come a long way from the days of the PETCO thread, which is utterly unreadable.

Congrats to President Obama and his supporters! A lot of my colleagues will be very happy tomorrow. Meanwhile, I'm going to avoid Facebook and my fellow LDS friends (I'm Mormon as well), who are going to bellyache about this for a while.

It will be interesting to see who rises to prominence in both parties in 2016. The GOP certainly needs to do something to improve its image among younger voters and minorities. Over the past few months, Romney honestly did not strike me as significantly different than McCain -- and I think the voting was a good reflection of that.

Anyway, hope to see all of you again on a hockey thread, assuming the NHL can pull its head out of its ass and get back to business. If not, I'll probably be lurking at Fangraphs, longing for the ZiPS injection I need to keep me alive through the cold Shenyang winter.

@4814: Think about how absolutely demented the party is, though, and how close they came, nonetheless, to taking the Presidency. Their candidate was a serial liar, a man of no principles and no intellect; even for a pol he was remarkable in those regards. They only missed having a real shot at taking the Senate, not because of their policies, but because they ran some profoundly incompetent candidates. The have a big majority in the House, and that was never remotely threatened. Four years after their economic policies are the predominant reason for the worst recession since 1929, they announce policies that would do it all over again, and still they miss only by a whisker.

There's no reason at all for the GOP to do anything other than tinker at the margins, continue to filibuster everything that doesn't bring them political gain, and act like political terrorists the next time the debt ceiling needs raising. I can't see this election as any kind of spur for the party leaders to rethink their approach. Granted, damaged, mindless candidates are inevitable when your party's principle's require a disbelief in science, and reason, but they don't see it that way. And won't.

Republican support among white men is increasing fast

Is it? Clinton didn't do all that well among white men. Wasn't he around 43% compared to Bronco 'Bama's 40%?

I find it strange that Jeb Bush keeps getting brought up as a potential Republican presidential candidate.

Wasn't he complaining this year that it was no longer the party of Reagan? Unless the party lurches towards the center, I don't see how he passes muster in the primaries. He strikes me as a nothing intellect, fwiw, and while he's not principled, I never got the impression he would say absolutely anything in order to win. A little skimming suggests that IF the GOP does want to move a little to the left, Bush might be their guy. If not, though, it's hard to see where he'd fit in. Someone else would be better situated to say whether or not he burned any bridges.

His name keeps showing up so I guess he's a legitimate challenger in the eyes of the people that judge this stuff but man, I don't see how he'd win a presidential election against a non-crappy opponent.

I think he's a top candidate for people like David Brooks. With the party in the thrall of Teapers Bush reminds me of John Huntsman or Charlie Crist. Probably fine at the state level, but no shot nationally.

This is off-topic with respect to the current discussion, but hey, it's still the Moneypoll thread...

Nate's presidential model certainly had a good day - better than I expected, honestly. Getting all fifty states right was lucky, particularly given the 50.3% probability he gave to an Obama win in Florida. I'm quite glad it turned out that way, though, since the model's success is going to generate quite a bit of positive press for systematic polling analysis, even if that press does overrate Nate and the 538 model. As someone else mentioned, most of the actual credit we dole out should go to the polling firms, who somehow made all the right assumptions in the face of trends working against them (like minuscule response rates). The aggregated state polls almost perfectly predicted the popular vote, which is extremely impressive when considering just how easy it would be for pollsters to find themselves collectively biased, say, 1.5% too high in Democrats' favor.

Comparisons of 538 and aggregators like RCP (of which I'm not a huge fan, but it was by far the most commonly discussed in this thread, so I'll use it in order to avoid cherry-picking) are probably going to be popping up all over the place in the next couple of days. But the bottom line is this: in RCP's battleground states that currently have 90+% of precincts reporting, Nate's model had almost no bias (0.4 percentage points of spread towards Romney) and an average absolute error of 1.8 percentage points of spread. I'm not quite sure how good or mediocre the latter number is, but regardless, consider the alternative: RCP was biased 1.9 percentage points in Romney's favor and had a 2.6 percentage point average error. Now, you can fiddle with these numbers in a couple of different ways. If you're only interested in each site's relative ordering of the states, you can subtract out the bias from each and recalculate the average error; this gives 1.7 for Nate and 1.9 for RCP, so Nate still comes out looking better. If you only care about the states that were actually kinda contested (OH, FL, VA, NH, NC, WI, IA, CO, NV, PA), both sites' bias increases slightly (to 0.7 and 2.1, both still in Romney's favor) but average absolute error goes down (to 1.3 and 2.3). Nate still looks better. Subtracting out bias as above, the sites' error actually becomes equal: 1.1 percentage points. But given that this is literally the only set of criteria that doesn't result in 538 outperforming RCP, we can at least safely say that there was value added there. Perhaps someone else can do an analogous analysis for a different and less partisan polling aggregator, to give 538 a stiffer test.

Where Nate doesn't come off looking quite as good is in the Senate. He will have missed on a race (ND) to which his model gave odds over 90%, missed by a pretty large margin on another (MT) that he gave 65% odds, and nearly missed on another (NV) with 83% odds. I don't feel like running any numbers right now, so I'll just wait for Nate to self-evaluate in the next few days, but the commonality between his two misses was an apparent overreliance on his "state fundamentals" score as opposed to polling data. It's definitely conceivable that this is a broader flaw in his Senate model, so I'm curious whether he finds that to hold true. I also wonder if he'll find that he was giving too little weight to downballot effects, since the Democrats performed broadly better than expected in the Senate and House in a race where their presidential candidate won by a slightly larger margin than expected.

Lastly, as I've said before, one of the big appeals of the 538 model is its projected probabilities weeks and months in advance. I would love to test these, or at least see them tested, but I don't have the requisite state-by-state data going back in time. Does anyone know if it's easily available?

.
Joe?

So let's start talking about 2016.

Clinton or Cuomo, I figure, for the Dems. GOP will depend heavily on what direction the party goes -- could be a guy like Rubio or Christie, but could just as easily be Ryan.

In the bag for Hillary if she wants it; the Dems' Wall Street-Ivy League power structure will begin to grease the wheels for her very shortly. (Of course, they tried something similar for 2008, and it didn't happen. I'm not convinced she has the political personality to win a national campaign, unlike her husband.) Cuomo might be seen as an acceptable alternative, but they don't want Joe Biden under any circumstances -- he's too much of an old-line urban Humphrey-style Democrat for the techno-cool Route 128-Silicon Valley crowd.

As for the Republicans, they need to reach out beyond the Tea Party and the backward South (which isn't going to slide back to the Democratic column, anyway) and appeal to a more national, moderate crowd -- angry white men are not enough. Who they would do that with remains a mystery, however, and as the GOP primary/caucus setup is currently comprised, it's a very tough course to navigate.

Right, so where do you go? [...] Another four years will pass, the demographics will continue to work against them and then they will need an even better idea to lure away some latinos or women or youth next time around.

Maybe, maybe not. The good news for the GOP, to the extent it's good news, is that the Dems have to be approaching their upper limit of support among blacks and Latinos. It's hard to improve on 96 percent and 80 percent, or whatever the numbers end up at. And for every 1 percent of the white vote the GOP gains, that offsets something like 3 or 4 percent of the Latino vote, since whites, while declining, still outnumber Latinos by a wide margin.

I'm not happy with yesterday's results, but it could have been a lot worse, and I don't believe yesterday is cause for a wholesale change in the GOP platform. The economy made Obama vulnerable and yesterday will forever be seen as a missed opportunity, but it's hard to beat incumbent presidents, and Obama still had a lot of electoral and media goodwill helping to pull him across the finish line.

The GOP held the House, a significant achievement, and while the GOP lost ground in the Senate, the GOP caucus looks to be stronger ideologically. I'm all for winning elections and being in the majority, but I'd rather have a 45-seat Senate minority that's led by principled conservatives such as Coburn, DeMint, Johnson, Cruz, and Flake than a 51-seat GOP majority full of RINOS who give us more bureaucracy (No Child Left Behind) and more entitlements (Medicare Modernization Act).

Four years ago, people thought the GOP was dead and the Dems had achieved their "permanent majority." Two years later, the GOP had arguably its best election ever. Yesterday was disappointing, but it's not a reason to panic or to start chopping up the GOP platform. Hell, with the economy still struggling, it might end up being good for the GOP to let Obama own this mess.

("'We'll see,' said the zen master ...")

I feel like I'm betraying an old friend, but I'm glad Pete Stark lost. Score one for ballot reform! I wrote Pete Stark a letter when I was 7 years old (about endangered species--I was a tree hugger even then) and that was a long, long time ago. My mother is retired and living in Hayward now and so had the time to go to a lot of political events during the election and she said at every one she went to, no matter how small, Swalwell was there working for votes. It's a good day for the East Bay--they get to bring in new blood who will work for the area, oust a politician whose entrenchment had led to a massive sense of self-entitlement and they get to keep the District blue reflecting the political tenor of the area. Score one for ballot reform.

Looks like heavy turnout in Missoula and a 3rd party spoiler did the trick for Tester in Montana. In much worse news, Bachmann is back.

Pete's time had come. His grip on reality was increasingly tenuous.

Pete's time had come. His grip on reality was increasingly tenuous

Yeah, it's a shame he couldn't go out gracefully, but no one has a right to a political office.

4814.

Right, so where do you go?

Separate the Democrat coalition. Which is likely to occur anyway in the coming budget crunches.

Also, make gains among latinos whom, like many ethnic poor voters of the past, are voting Democrat because Spanish-speaking party machine hacks promise them nice things that might get taken away.

Anti-abortion is a winning position among latinos and the post-Roe generations. Requiring regular health inspections, auditing the profit markup on Medicaid-qualified services, or asking why we're directing scarce public health funds away from comprehensive care clinics should not be seen as extreme positions. Or, at least no more extreme than accepting abortionists' PAC money and reducing their regulations to increase the profit margin. However, Republicans rarely ever to get to set the narrative though, and their own leaders undercut them.

Four years ago, people thought the GOP was dead and the Dems had achieved their "permanent majority."

Has that phrase ever been used by anyone but Karl Rove in reference to the GOP?

Also, make gains among latinos whom, like many ethnic poor voters of the past, are voting Democrat because Spanish-speaking party machine hacks promise them nice things that might get taken away.

Just precious.

All the vibrations are right.

Heh.

4825. Yet historically true. Second and third generation Americans register and vote along national averages.

Nats-Homer has made a late run and has pulled the upset for biggest nutjob in the thread award. Good luck with all that, buddy.

Enjoyed the polling stuff and following the returns with you guys. Obviously the GOP isn't dead and I fully expect heartbreaking elections in the future. Been there, done that. The wheel...it spins! Enjoy the victories when you get them and keep working for the next time.

latinos whom, like many ethnic poor voters of the past, are voting Democrat because Spanish-speaking party machine hacks promise them nice things that might get taken away

I think it's fair to call that a stereotyping statement. U.S. Hispanics are an enormously diverse group in every possible respect, including socio-economic and even linguistic (many Texans of Mexican descent don't even speak Spanish). Generalizing about such a vast and diverse group as a bunch of poor people waiting for shiny things off the back of a pickup is just incorrect, not to mention demeaning.

I am a wee bit surprised to see the polls and Nate and co. all turn out to be correct, but hats off to them all for accuracy and objectivity. And congratulations to President Obama.

Just precious.

They should keeping doubling down on this line of thinking-- telling Latino voters that they only vote Democrat because they want free stuff is a surefire way to win them over to your side. And doesn't sound the slightest bit racist, either.

Edit: Coke to Bob

Just precious.

Really? I feel a definite pull towards "accepting abortionists' PAC money and reducing their regulations to increase the profit margin". Has a certain, je ne sais quoi sort of charm to it.

Same here, Shooty. I enjoyed politicking with you all.

The book about this election cycle I think I'd most want to read, if it was done by a writer with a good sense of humor, is the story of Linda McMahon's quest to be a senator. Does she try again in 2 years or will the CT GOP say enough is enough?

I think it's fair to call that a stereotyping statement. U.S. Hispanics are an enormously diverse group in every possible respect, including socio-economic and even linguistic (many Texans of Mexican descent don't even speak Spanish). Generalizing about such a vast and diverse group as a bunch of poor people waiting for shiny things off the back of a pickup is just incorrect, not to mention demeaning.

And yet ~80 percent voted for Obama, despite overwhelmingly self-identifying as religious, anti-abortion, and anti-gay marriage, and despite immigration not cracking the top five concerns in pre-election polling of Latino citizens (i.e., voters).

People tend to vote their wallets, and Latinos are no different.

Speaking of McMahon...even CNNSI chimes in

WWE, as the wrestling extravaganza is now known, tried to clean up its image during the Senate campaign in an attempt to make itself more presentable as family fare. Still, Democrats found ways to remind the electorate of an online scene featuring a wrestler simulating sex with a corpse in a casket.


Bwahahahahahaha!

voting your wallet =/= voting for free stuff. Most Latinos probably felt that Obama would be a better steward of the economy.

voting your wallet =/= voting for free stuff. Most Latinos probably felt that Obama would be a better steward of the economy.

That would be an interesting statistical anomaly, since Romney consistently led in that category in polls conducted over the last month of the campaign.

Still, Democrats found ways to remind the electorate of an online scene featuring a wrestler simulating sex with a corpse in a casket.

That necrophilia was simulated? Crap! I knew wrestling was fake!

The economy made a small difference with winning over Hispanic voters, but the gap in the race is simple. It's the racism, stupid. If the Republicans want to win the votes of minorities, they can't accept bigoted arguments like Nats-Homer's. For several election cycles now, they've pandered to anti-Hispanic bigots. They can either stop now or lose the Hispanic vote for generations.

I'm with zop that the Rs don't have to make huge changes to win.

Hell, if the next D nomineee can't hold the blacks, Latinos and ground game, the R may well win with the same plan and effort.


The Rs can hold onto anti-abortion (and will) but if they'll give a little on contraception (!) and acknowledge, sincerely, that rape is a horror, they'll gain ground. That move, this year, would have won the Senate. Give a little on immigration reform and they win it all.

Basically the question is this: the tea party has been told to grow up and make some, really fairly small, concessions; can they?


If so, they win a lot. If not, they lose more and more as the years pass. Seems simple to me but, then, I'm not a moron.

And yet ~80 percent voted for Obama, despite overwhelmingly self-identifying as religious, anti-abortion, and anti-gay marriage, and despite immigration not cracking the top five concerns in pre-election polling of Latino citizens (i.e., voters).

How does the obvious institutional racism of the national GOP factor into these analyses?

It's the racism, stupid. If the Republicans want to win the votes of minorities, they can't accept bigoted arguments like Nats-Homer's.

Yes. White Republicans constantly insist that blacks and Latinos are mishearing Republican dog-whistling, rather than listening to their complaints and adjusting their rhetoric accordingly. Which is all well and good as far as I'm concerned. Statements like "Latinos vote Democrat because they want free stuff" are uttered to court the votes of whites, not Latinos.

How does the obvious institutional racism of the national GOP factor into these analyses?

When your worldview is built on denying the existence of institutional racism, it conveniently doesn't factor in at all.

How does the obvious institutional racism of the national GOP factor into these analyses?

Or even more casual and ad hoc stuff. Romney proudly saying that nobody ever asked to see his birth certificate – that was a way to remind people that his opponent's dad was African, but imagine how it plays among people who are continually asked for their birth certificates, even if they and their parents and grandparents were born in Tucson. Not to mention the crack about "it would be helpful to be Latino."

I agree that the fixation on Obama's birth certificate comes across as blatantly racist. I was actually shocked when Romney briefly tried to make hay with that. Ah well.

I'm still feeling kind of bad about Pete Stark going down though it was definitely necessary and I would have voted for Swalwell if I lived in the district. It's sad to lose a guy who wanted to create a Department of Peace and called the invasion of Iraq for what it was. We all get old, though.

So is there 13 million ballots out there still that have to get counted? The totals seem awfully low.

Hell, if the next D nomineee can't hold the blacks, Latinos and ground game, the R may well win with the same plan and effort.

Ignoring/insulting Blacks, Latinos, and insulting women is not a winning strategy unless the other side is doing that even worse.

The World reacts!

My favorite is from Netanyahu:

"I will continue to work with President Obama to preserve the strategic interests of Israel's citizens." — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Linda McMahon's quest to be a senator. Does she try again in 2 years or will the CT GOP say enough is enough?

It's her money they can't really tell her to do much of anything at this point.

I will continue to work with President Obama to preserve the strategic interests of Israel's citizens

That's great. Meanwhile, I will work with President Obama to help support the Arlington Public Library and cheer the Rangers on to the 2013 pennant :-D

I need to go to Kenya in the next 4 years.

I've always wanted to go, so it seems like a good time! U-S-A! U-S-A! If your a villager in the middle of nowhere in Kenya, it must be surreal that Obama is leader of the free world. That must just be quite a mind ####.

Their candidate was a serial liar, a man of no principles and no intellect

I think the shame of Mitt Romney is that he is a man of great intellect and competency who was undone by his lack of principles. In some ways, I actually think more of him than that - I think he is just somebody who spent the first 50 or so years of his life without giving great thought to public policy. Then when he had accomplished what he wanted to accomplish in business, he moved on to political office, as it was the next thing to accomplish. In a different climate, he could have been a successful, moderate technocrat. But in this climate he had to pick sides, and he chose the side that does not especially value moderate competency. Had he made other choices about party affiliation, I think he could have been a viable contender for national office in the Democratic party. I often think this about northern, moderate Republicans (Giuliani and Christie qualify as well) and I am always surprised when they see more political opportunity to be gained by tacking right. But then again, Romney came within a sliver of the Presidency, so what do I know.

If there was a formula that would yield clear gains, the Romney campaign and/or the RNC would have implemented it this year.

I'm astounded the RomneyPrayer didn't work. It was validated scientifically and everything.

"I will continue to work with President Obama to preserve the strategic interests of Israel's citizens." — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

If I am an Israeli I want Bibi out now. He and Obama have a not-good relationship and Isreal really can't afford that. It was dumb of Bibi to go where he did, but we'll see if it is a bridge too far for his voters or not.

Well, in Dem dominated political states it often easier to get on the November ballot by being on the other side. Don't know if that is true anymore as the Republican party gets crazier and crazier but it was certainly true during the era when Romney picked a side. So if you are a moderate it is generally better to go to the other side as it is unlikely that the base of a party controlled state is going to accept a moderate on the ticket. Plus you'll almost always be facing an incumbent in the primaries.

The reason FDR was a Democrat was because he felt he had a chance as a Democrat whereas if he was a Republican it would have been a crowded place in NY.

Hey, let's check in on "Pretty Pathetic Polling"...

These are major swing states, the last PPP poll and the result on the ballots counted so far.

CO 51-47 / 52-46 (PPP +1 to Dem)
FL 50-49 / 50-49 (PPP on the money)
IA 52-46 / 50-48 (PPP +2 to Rep)
NC 48-51 / 49-49 (PPP +1 to Dem)
NH 52-47 / 50-48 (PPP +2 to Rep)
NV 52-46 / 51-47 (PPP +1 to Rep)
OH 50-48 / 52-47 (PPP +2 to Dem)
PA 52-47 / 52-46 (PPP on the money)
vA 51-48 / 51-47 (PPP +1 to Rep)
WI 53-46 / 51-48 (PPP +2 to Rep)

They were within two points on every result, with a slight lean overall to Romney. And Rasmussen?

CO 51-47 / 47-50 (Ras +3 to Rep)
FL 50-49 / 48-50 (Ras +1 to Rep)
IA 52-46 / 48-49 (Ras +3 to Rep)
NC 48-51 / 46-52 (Ras +2 to Rep)
NH 52-47 / 50-48 (Ras +2 to Rep)
NV 52-46 / 50-48 (Ras +2 to Rep)
OH 50-48 / 49-49 (Ras +1 to Rep)
PA 52-47 / 49-46 (Ras +2 to Rep)
vA 51-48 / 48-50 (Ras +2 to Rep)
WI 53-46 / 49-49 (Ras +4 to Rep)

In case anyone was wondering was bad, biased polling looks like, see the chart above. Scott Rasmussen embarrassed himself this election. It'll be interesting to see how his polls respond, and if he goes back to being the normal, corner-cutting but overall pretty good pollster he was before 2009, or if he sticks with being the house pollster for the fever swamps of right blogistan.

Scott Rasmussen embarrassed himself this election.

I wouldn't say that at all. I think he has a clear and consistent bias that a stat guy can reasonably factor into his calculations whereas PPP looks like a standard poll with random errors that one would normally expect. I'm no stats guru but I was using an off-the-cuff 2 point adjustment whenever I looked at Rasmussen and it looks like doing so would have created a very accurate picture of the election.

They should keeping doubling down on this line of thinking-- telling Latino voters that they only vote Democrat because they want free stuff is a surefire way to win them over to your side. And doesn't sound the slightest bit racist, either.

Maybe they could tell the various groups (Mexicans, Island Mexicans, South Amerimexicans, etc) that they need to get out of the liberal barrio.

As noted previously herein, we shouldn't confuse the multiplicity of outlets to analyze and blab about a presidential race with underlying drama about that race.(*) The fundamentals of this race were in place by mid-to-late September and barely moved, even with Obama's awful first debate performance. This wasn't a particularly dramatic race; people had decided that Romney wasn't the right guy to fix whatever's ailing the country months ago, and barely wavered in that conviction.

By the last weekend, Obama was ahead in 19 of 20 swing state polls. You don't need Nate Silver to tell you the way thet wind is blowing.

(*) Polls aren't more likely to be "biased" because they're more frequent and because they're more blabbed about. Modern technology makes polls, ceteris paribus, more dependable than ever.

CO 51-47 / 47-50 (Ras +3 to Rep)
FL 50-49 / 48-50 (Ras +1 to Rep)
IA 52-46 / 48-49 (Ras +3 to Rep)
NC 48-51 / 46-52 (Ras +2 to Rep)
NH 52-47 / 50-48 (Ras +2 to Rep)
NV 52-46 / 50-48 (Ras +2 to Rep)
OH 50-48 / 49-49 (Ras +1 to Rep)
PA 52-47 / 49-46 (Ras +2 to Rep)
vA 51-48 / 48-50 (Ras +2 to Rep)
WI 53-46 / 49-49 (Ras +4 to Rep)

He almost got a couple right.

For 2016 my predictions are:

HRC: Does not run
Gore: Does not run
Biden: Runs. Probably does not win primary, but is likely the favorite (ie. the field is likely to win, but right now he has the highest percent change of anyone to win).

I want to see someone else though. There are a couple candidates that would be good. If a reasonably charismatic outsider (non-federal or can run as non-federal) wins the primary I think they win if the economy is OK.*

On the GOP side I have no idea. I think they likely lose as demographics continue to move against them and that combined with a likely white Dem candidate (I think racism cost the dems a percent or two) means a loss for team red. Then they will begin to change the their party direction, but not until then. If folks on this board (a smart group) think the GOP only needs to tweak at the edges then the hard core primary folks KNOW no changes need to be made.

* I am not sure about the economy. Here the slow recovery helps as the recovery may be going strong in 4 years. If I had to guess I think the US will do OK unless their is a Europe or China collapse. Even then there is likely time to have a bump and recover (though 2014 may be kind of brutal again I guess).

Shortly after midnight on Wednesday morning a disturbance started near the center of the University of Mississippi campus, where students gathered to protest the Tuesday night re-election of President Barack Obama.
[...]
Students were heard shouting racial epithets about Obama and African Americans in general.

Police were called to the scene and the crowd broke up around 12:30 a.m.
[...]
The Daily Mississippian, the student newspaper, reported students were throwing rocks at cars and using racial slurs. - The (Jackson, MS) Clarion-Ledger

Stay classy, Mississippi.

By the last weekend, Obama was ahead in 19 of 20 swing state polls. You don't need Nate Silver to tell you the way thet wind is blowing.

Apparently some people did. I recall the google document Random Transaction put together noted that there were confident projections on both sides of the bar. Though perhaps that's just standard operating procedure and punditry projections are purely an exercise in partisanship. But it sure seemed like there was genuine confidence among some Republicans (even those aware of Nate Silver's projections).

Oh yeah, regarding the various reasons for supporting SSM, looking over the list I admit to hitting a couple categories but I have decided to own being a transhumanist. Mostly because I like the sound of the word and I am a big sci-fi fan. And I suspect there was alcohol involved in several of those posts.

I do think the election showed the fraudulence of the pundits and media and their desire to create narratives to drive ratings instead of actually reporting facts and the truth. The media and a good chunk of the pundits tried to drive a narrative that the race was too close to call and that Romney was making it close in NH, Minn, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and PA. The only state that was close was Ohio and Obama won it by 3 points. Plus you had the networks practically calling the states for Obama as soon as the state polls closed. Yet 4 years from now we'll still be having debates because some political hack on some site/network wishing to drive a narrative will create arguments that people will back despite flying in the face of the numbers.

Stay classy, Mississippi.

The Ole Miss student body isn't as racist as this makes it seem, but this is pretty pathetic on their part. I won't deny there is still a strain of nasty racism at the school and in Oxford, despite the presence of a bunch of Lib artsy types.

Apparently some people did.

Sure -- the right and the rightest punditry have seceded from the reality-based community and their clownish performance in this election is the definitive evidence thereof. You had the former chairman of GE, at one time one of the most celebrated men in the countery, allege that the government's employment data was being consciously and intentionally falsified. It's truly a sorry spectacle; as fun as it is to mock, it isn't healthy for the country.

I think the relevant questions are, what is the grand re-design of humanity that you transhumanists seek to implement, and is it feasible within a pantisocratic society?

Gore will be 68 in 2016; HRC turns 69 a few weeks before the '16 election. Biden turns 70 in a couple of weeks – i.e. a couple of weeks from right now. This is McCain/Dole territory in terms of seniority. I know 70 is the new 40 and all that, but it's also been the case that the Democratic party at all levels likes newcomers. Like you, Mouse, I'd like to see somebody new, and I also think that new candidates have a much better chance in the DEM primaries than in the GOP.

HRC: Does not run
Gore: Does not run
Biden: Runs. Probably does not win primary, but is likely the favorite (ie. the field is likely to win, but right now he has the highest percent change of anyone to win).

I'll believe HRC isn't running only after she makes an official announcement. The nomination is hers for the taking. Her favorability ratings among Dems are impregnable. So long as the country hasn't been driven into a ditch and an election victory is plausible, how do you pass that up?

The Ole Miss student body isn't as racist as this makes it seem, but this is pretty pathetic on their part.

Meh, you can find a handful of ########## anywhere. I'm annoyed that this sort of non-story detracts from consideration of how pretty thr girls are at Ole Miss.

how do you pass that up?

She seems very tired to me. I honestly don't think she has the stomach for another run and she's been adamant that she won't run.

Auburn students "rolled" Toomer's Corner in celebration. Makes me proud enough to forgive the tragic football season.

She seems very tired to me. I honestly don't think she has the stomach for another run and she's been adamant that she won't run.

I think she is right now. She probably won't be with a couple of years off.

I'm still not sure she can win a general election, though I'd be fine with her being president. Wish she would've won in 08.


That isn't to say I think she's running. Who really knows?

Is there anyone down-ballot that hasn't been discussed? It seems like the Rs have lots of potential candidates who are either too deep in Teaper country or may not win a primary while the Ds have candidates but they're all ancient.

And why do people keep bringing up Gore? He had his moment and he sat it out.

For 2016 my predictions are:
HRC: Does not run

I agree with Bunyon in dissent. I'd be pretty surprised if she doesn't run.

I edited, Lassus, so I'm not totally in dissent. I really have no idea as I think there are lots of things that go on behind the scenes we never learn (such as why Gore didn't run in 04).

However, if forced to predict, I'd say she runs and wins the nomination.

HRC: Does not run
Gore: Does not run
Biden: Runs. Probably does not win primary, but is likely the favorite (ie. the field is likely to win, but right now he has the highest percent change of anyone to win).

My not very bold prediction: None of these people will even be in the conversation. The nominees, both Republican and Democratic, will be people almost no on is talking about right now.

Auburn students "rolled" Toomer's Corner in celebration.

Well, that's good to hear, at least. Here in Montgomery I'm something like 50 miles west of Auburn. The entirety of the Deep South feels, as ever, like a fascist cesspool from looking at the results maps.

(Not that I have even the slightest interest in ever living anywhere else [even on the extreme off chance that that possibility ever presented itself], probably in the vein of not wanting to join a club that would have me as a member.)

I'm with zop that the Rs don't have to make huge changes to win.

As am I - for what could have happened in 2012 (and what could in '14).
A lot of what goes on in the economy, however, is independent of who's in the Oval Office and, while the Bush's year pro-cyclical behavior put a crimp in the current admin's ability to prop up the economy - a slow, irregular recovery should continue. If that happens, people's stance on the Dem's econ policy could shift more in their favor... complicating the right's quest for votes.

Don't get me started on Mississippi.

TDF - Agree with you on relatively unknown front runners.

RomneyPrayer: I've *got* to call my mom today.

None of these people will even be in the conversation.

I think Biden will try! I'm convinced the man will curl up and die if he he's not politicking.

matt

at about 5 this morning the very downbeat exchanges in my world brightened up when somebody brought up the prospect of sec clinton running.

i am just sharing so at minimum you and others can revel in my party's misery.

but that was a pretty good hour of clinton jokes and jabs.

for us anyway.

congrats to the president, etc.

Speaking of Biden, and maybe this is just post-election highness or the fact I'm on no sleep for two days, but I think he's been as good a vice president as you could imagine for Obama.

I think it's a safe bet that in 2016, if either party runs a candidate we're familiar with right now, that party will lose.

The Republicans will definitely make a game of it, demographics or no. They can certainly win if they can drum up another demagogue. The reason I called this election back in April was because nobody wants to vote for Mitt Romney, some people just feel like they had to.

Dammit now I've got Cult of Personality stuck in my head again.

zack

very briefly the ceo/wall street/business leader class very much wanted to vote for the governor.

i realize that is maybe 3000 votes

but still..........

How old will Chelsea be in 2016 ;-)

'course - if memory serves, she's working in an industry that's going to get all the love of Romney's PE background (I think she works for a hedge fund, no?)

My not very bold prediction: None of these people will even be in the conversation. The nominees, both Republican and Democratic, will be people almost no on is talking about right now.

Obviously the time for half-measures has passed. The Republicans need to run a ticket featuring their actual leaders for the benefit of the American people. Limbaugh/Norquist 2016!

My money - and hopes - are still on former MT-Gov Brian Schweitzer...

It appears at least an even-money shot that Tester hangs on and the Dems might have miraculously held the gov's mansion... I really think a lot of that is testament to the popularity of Schweitzer.

I'll readily admit - there are probably going to be 3-4 candidates better ideologically aligned with me than Schweitzer - but I gotta admit... it's a charisma pick for me. The guy just hits a sweet spot on the personality front - he's the very definition of a happy warrior.

Hillary will be 69 y.o. in 2016. Only Reagan has been elected at that age.

James Buchanan was 65; Zachary Taylor and Bush I were both 64.

The nominees, both Republican and Democratic, will be people almost no on is talking about right now.

I think this is probably true of the Democrats - they like young people who kind of come out of nowhere (Carter, Clinton, Obama). Republicans, though, very much like the orderly-succession, pay-your-dues model of nominating guys (Dole, McCain, Romney). I'd be at least a bit surprised if the Republicans nominate somebody who hasn't been named in this thread.

In fact, if the Republicans go with a relative newcomer, that more than likely means they've doubled down on the Tea Party movement and the national leadership has lost even more control of the process. I think that if most people in this thread haven't heard of the 2016 Republican nominee by now, the Republicans will lose in 2016.

Speaking of Biden, and maybe this is just post-election highness or the fact I'm on no sleep for two days, but I think he's been as good a vice president as you could imagine for Obama.

Wholeheartedly agree. He's at that apex right before the Peter Principle kicks in, so if he's smart he'll not try for advancement.

Anyone talking up Harveys for the R nomination?

He'd probably carry the BBTF contingent; what say you Mr. Wallbangers?

My not-so-bold prediction...

A substantial immigration reform bill - that will include a path citizenship/amnesty, if you like - will be the signature legislative achievement of Obama's term 2.

I am also fairly certain that we will see an '86 style tax reform bill - it will be a good bill (as the '86 reform was), it will happen with surprisingly little rancor, and not nearly the appreciation it deserves.

We might have to wait until the 2014 midterms for immigration, but I'm betting that tax reform happens next year.

kiko

you guys focus on the tea party is interesting.

Anyone talking up Harveys for the R nomination?

He'd probably carry the BBTF contingent; what say you Mr. Wallbangers?

I'd cross the aisle for HW... his appreciation of Hendricks gin sealed that deal.

Dupe.

Noted conservative intellectual Ted Nugent has weighed in:

Pimps whores & welfare brats & their soulless supporters hav a president to destroy America

Since Nugent promised to be dead or in jail within a year if Hussein X was elected I can't blame him for his less tactful statement above.

Obama's win sparked riots last night at Ole Miss.

The reason I called this election back in April was because nobody wants to vote for Mitt Romney, some people just feel like they had to.

Yes, there is something about this, but the man did get 56 million plus votes. Speaks to the power of our mental insistence on reducing things to a elementary dualism--in this case, that winner takes all. Somehow, the guy who only gets 56 million plus votes becomes a nothing loser.

i doubt my views on social security (needs to be significantly curtailed like yesterday), fracking, corporate tax rates (go away) just to name a few will win me much of a following.

Obama's win sparked riots last night at Ole Miss.

Well of course. The election was stolen. Everybody they knew voted for Romney.

but the man did get 56 million plus votes

And hundreds of thousands of yard signs!!