User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7733 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
No, but when the GOP talks about those issues, it inevitably is accused of racism and all sorts of other -ism's. Beyond that, there's nothing that can be done between now and 2014 or even now and 2016 that will put a huge dent in either of the above problems. The idea that laid-off factory workers can become software designers after just a little retraining was always a pipe dream, and finding gainful employment for high school dropouts and people with criminal records is even tougher.
Not if you need to steal 50 cars in one night, just to save your brother's life.
It's amazing that you're able to read minds like this.
I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10 ...
Is it unskewed?
It's not reading minds; it's simple literary criticism/analysis, using the tools of those crafts.
I have an open mind about it, but my working conclusion is "revealed as racist."
Clap.
Clap.
Clap.
Obama has been elected president twice now, and people promised his first election would lead us into a post-racial America. Unless liberals have withdrawn that premise, then it seems a little good faith should be assumed when parsing passages in a political column written by a guy who has millions of words in print.
No they didn't.
You're right that Latino immigrants generally aren't a representative cross-section of the populations in the countries from which they emigrate. They tend to be almost entirely from the lowest-education, lowest-skilled segments of the population, which makes them precisely the types of people for whom big government is attractive in the U.S. (Middle- and upper-class Latinos generally don't want to emigrate to the U.S., but the ones who do almost always do so legally. These are the Latinos who fall into the 25 to 30 percent* who voted for Romney.)
(* On Election Day, the number being tossed around was "20 percent," but now I'm seeing 25 and 29 percent. It looks like Romney didn't underperform as badly with Latinos as originally suspected. Perhaps the lack of exit polling in 16 states won by Romney affected the early estimates.)
***
Aside from this being an apples-to-oranges comparison, nobody said they were fleeing big government. They also weren't seeking big government, because big government didn't exist. There was no welfare state to speak of back in the late 1800s and early 1900s — no welfare, no WIC, no disability, no Medicaid.
***
I haven't taken any "absolutist stances." I've never claimed 100 percent of Latinos (or blacks) want or believe the same things. But this notion that generalizations are beyond the pale is just P.C. nonsense. When we have polls that show 75 percent of Latinos want bigger government with more services, and we've seen leftism sweep across almost the entirety of Central and South America over the past 20 years, it's not some sort of thought crime to mention that "most Latinos want bigger government." It's bizarre how stating the obvious so often inspires controversy here at BBTF.
All of that might very well be true, but blacks were going overwhelmingly for Dems long before Obama was in office and being disrespected. This idea that huge numbers of blacks and/or Latinos would be open to voting for the GOP if not for the Minutemen or the Tea Party is contradicted by the preceding three decades of electoral voting patterns.
That didn't stop Eisenhower.......... allegedly.
The only affair you ever have is the affair you get caught having, chief.
**Not that there was anything wrong with that Obama ad campaign, but you can hardly expect Krauthammer to agree to that proposition.
Yeah I guess the worse thing that can happen is to have someone write a "Illiad" about it.
An estimated 8 million white voters stayed home on Tuesday. I like the GOP's odds of making gains with them better than I like the GOP's odds of making major gains with blacks and Latinos between now and 2016.
Yet another union taking taxpayers for a ride ...
TSA uniform perks more expensive than Marine Corps
How many of them were working class men?
How many of them are going to want to have their Obamacare taken away once they've seen that it's not the boogeyman that it's been presented as being?
How many of them voted against Obama on racial grounds and might well vote for Hillary in 2016?
And of the ones who might not vote for Hillary, how many of them live in swing states? You can have every white person in Idaho, Oklahoma and Kentucky vote Republican, and it won't move a single vote in the electoral college. When it comes to voting for president, all those white folks in the already-guaranteed red states have z-e-r-o say in who'll be the next president. They might as well be living in Kenya for all the good their votes will do a Republican in 2016.
That "8 million" can shrink pretty damn fast when you start---pardon my French---unskewing it.
In the spirit of bipartisan comity, may I say that I agree completely with the chairman of the Hardin County Republican Party.
Yup, that was a treat. I think he means, the art of telling people of color what they want to hear, and distinguishes that from clean, white rhetoric that appeals to one's intelligence.
You know what, not voting is a vote in of itself. Nobody gets to claim how the unvoted would have voted.
My favorite bit is the concern trolling for the Marines.
The simple point was that the GOP is doing much better with whites than with non-whites. The 8 million whites who stayed home on Election Day are likely to yield more electoral fruit for the GOP than trying to reduce the Dems' share of the black vote from 96 percent to 92 percent.
Did someone make this assumption on some other site? No one made it here.
What they need to do is put together some sort of fashion wear statement that *identifies* them as the party of good, Christian, white folk. Maybe something with a hood...
Givers and takers, real world version:
United States Tax Dollars By State
Of the 32 states that took in more federal tax dollars than they paid out, 23 just voted for Romney, including 8 of the top 10.
Of the top 14 states who paid out more in federal taxes than they took back, every one of them voted for Obama. Among the 17 non-mooching states, only Texas voted for Romney.
(Rhode Island took in and paid out the same amount.)
As of yesterday, Obama had ~8 million fewer votes than he received in 2008. Turnout was way down this year.
Well, the 2012 GOP presidential campaign was nothing special, but a super-rich Mormon from the Northeast who flip-flopped on all sorts of issues, was saddled with his own version of Obamacare, and had trouble connecting with voters still came within ~2 percent of beating an incumbent president. The death of the GOP is greatly exaggerated.
I'm not your researcher. If you want the numbers, go find them. #6629 was simply to show how much turnout was down this year compared to 2008.
This isn't all that helpful given it doesn't make clear the nature of the allotments. We know the federal government isn't cutting every resident of D.C. a check for $65,000, for example.
I once saw a table that included just entitlements/welfare type payments and the table looked very, very different.
The danger of creating a completely enclosed epistemic bubble is that you begin to live within a completely closed epistemic bubble. At some point you stop treating the "what if that bus is just a figment of an evil demon's imagination sent to tempt me" as a hypothetical and step out in front of a bus.
Well, the 2012 GOP presidential campaign was nothing special, but a super-rich Mormon from the Northeast who flip-flopped on all sorts of issues, was saddled with his own version of Obamacare, and had trouble connecting with voters still came within ~2 percent of beating an incumbent president. The death of the GOP is greatly exaggerated.
It may be exaggerated for now, but I have great confidence in your ability to finish the job, if only my Christmas wish is granted.
-----------------------------------------
It wasn't just the semi-functionals like Joe who were unskewing the polls, even snapper and Ross Douthat and Michael Barone were getting into the game. But man, I really thought Romney was smarter than that.
Don't ever underestimate the power of longing to take down the brain in mortal combat. Romney's no more immune to that than anyone else. When he can produce the sort of objective projections that Nate has done and not confine his listening to a bunch of political yes-men, I'll take his vaunted intelligence a lot more seriously.
EDIT: How on Earth did snapper wind up with Barone and Douthat rather than with Kehoskie? Is his little winning streak on Jeopardy really all that big a deal, and when has he ever displayed even Douthat's level of political knowledge, let alone Michael Barone's?
You would sure think so, with all his talk about what a hard-headed, no-nonsense, clear-eyed businessman he was supposed to be. What kind of a venture capital CEO genius gets caught basing his investment decisions upon egregiously bad data? It's almost enough to make one think that perhaps Romney really isn't quite such a hard-headed, no-nonsense, clear-eyed businessman after all.
This looks an awful lot like one of those personal attacks that MCoA supposedly doesn't engage in. Maybe it needs to be unskewed.
Actually, yes it is. It comes with the Obamaphone.
Thanks to the Electoral College, that's not how it works. As of the last numbers I've seen, Romney needed to get an additional ~400,000 additional votes in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado (or flip half as many). Everything else aside, a better GOTV effort likely could have done so.
The idea of giving the nomination to the 69 year old who's "paid their dues" and has been next in line is largely a Republican one, while historically the Democrats have gone for the young, vigorous, up and comer. There have been exceptions on either side (Dewey for the Republicans, Kerry for the Democrats), but it's been a pretty consistent pattern throughout history.
Thanks to the Electoral College, that's not how it works. As of the last numbers I've seen, Romney needed to get an additional ~400,000 additional votes in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado (or flip half as many). Everything else aside, a better GOTV effort likely could have done so.
So then what was the point of citing those "8 million white voters" to begin with, since it's only the ones in the swing states whose votes are going to matter?
Good grief. The question was: Where does the GOP go looking for votes? And I answered that between now and 2016, the GOP likely will find it easier to make inroads with the millions of white voters who stayed home on Tuesday than to convince large numbers of blacks and Latinos to abandon the Dems.
If you're going to take this stance, you need to cite just how many white people in each state to tip the scale. BTW, White people aren't the voting monolith you or anyone here are portraying them to be.
Think about this realistically. Al-Qaeda or North Korea comes to this steely PhD superspy general and says "tell us how to avoid your drones or we'll …" what? Tell your wife you're sleeping with a reporter? Tell the press you're sleeping with a reporter? (A) as I said above, who in their right mind cares, and (B) unless the general is delusional, he knew somebody was going to find out about the sleeping with the reporter anyway, without any blackmail, and he's figured out how to address it.
Now, if he's delusional, that's a problem, granted.
I don't expect Republicans to moderate on economic issues (they should) or foreign policy (sadly, they don't have to), but I expect we'll see some not-insignificant moderation of immigration and some of the fringe-right social policy should go away (contraception is not going to be an issue again if the elites can do anything about it, for instance).
The idea of giving the nomination to the 69 year old who's "paid their dues" and has been next in line is largely a Republican one, while historically the Democrats have gone for the young, vigorous, up and comer. There have been exceptions on either side (Dewey for the Republicans, Kerry for the Democrats), but it's been a pretty consistent pattern throughout history.
Those are all good points, but it's countered by (for now, anyway) Hillary's enormous popularity both among the Democratic base and among women as a whole, regardless of party. As a significant historic "first" with presumed inheritance of the Obama mailing lists, and the added energy of every liberal woman's group, I can't believe she wouldn't pose an enormous challenge to any cookie cutter Republican "new face" in 2016. And unless the economy tanked, I'd bet she'd wipe the floor with any of them.
Someone may have made this point upthread, but: Romney did better, by percentage of both popular & electoral votes, than McCain. Ergo, moving right made up some of the 2008 deficit, so why not keep moving right?
It's analogous to the Angels. Sure, they lost the division again, and may be rethinking their grand strategy. But they improved over 2011, ergo they should sign Josh Hamilton to go with Albert Pujols.
EDIT: That said, MCoA makes a great point in #6651. Immigration reform is a political winner, no matter what. It's the position of 43 and Perry and (once) of McCain, and it's pragmatic, and it's hardly some sort of weak-kneed move unless you're a raving Teaper.
Good grief. The question was: Where does the GOP go looking for votes? And I answered that between now and 2016, the GOP likely will find it easier to make inroads with the millions of white voters who stayed home on Tuesday than to convince large numbers of blacks and Latinos to abandon the Dems.
But again, what significance does that "8 million" number have, if the great majority of these "new" white voters are in states where their net added votes would be utterly meaningless?
Of course McCain was totally saddled with the Bush economy, whereas Romney was only saddled with the Bush economy in the minds of slightly over half of the voters. Romney also jumped up in the polls after putting on that "Moderate Mitt" act in the first debate, which seemed to impress a lot of low information voters. But the Democrats' strategy from Day One was to tie Bain and the Tea Party around Romney's neck, and obviously it worked.
You seem to imagining comments that haven't been made here. No one here has claimed whites are a "voting monolith."
***
I have thought about this realistically. Petraeus stands to lose big money in a divorce, as well as suffer major embarrassment. History has shown us that people betray secrets for far less than what Petraeus stands to lose. It's not remotely a given that 100 percent of the people in Petraeus' position would go public and say, "Yup, I messed up," rather than make a deal with the devil.
Yeah, the whole blackmail angle regarding marital infidelity or being outed as gay or illicit drug use or whatever has struck me as generally overdone, at least since, I don't know, the late 1990s or something. I have to think the power of that sort of scandal is a hell of lot less than it used to be, however big it might have once been.
But, still, Petraeus was really being a dolt here. Talk about reaching to find a way to besmirch what would otherwise have been one of the more glittering military careers in recent decades, as well as letting down your President and your agency.
I'll give him credit for being a human steam calliope programmed by the RNC. Not that there's anything unimpressive about that, and he also takes his slings and arrows pretty good-naturedly.
Well, no. The margins Obama ran up in CO, VA, OH and FL (in that order descending) were driven by those Latino voters you say the GOP can never win. So in order to flip those states the GOP has to find 400K votes IN THOSE STATES. Which makes the references to 8 million national votes (with the caveat that the count isn't complete yet) completely irrelevant.
In CO, for example, Obama garnered 1,238,490 votes. Romney totaled 1,125,391. To flip CO electorally the GOP has to flip the difference: 113,099 votes.
Given your assumptions that Latinos aren't going to vote for the GOP regardless, you have to find 114,000 more white people to vote in CO.
Good luck with that, Joe.
How can the inference not be that you think Whites are a 'monolith'? You certainly think most whites would vote for Romney if forced to.
The trick is to do this without pissing off the minority voters who also stayed home. The GOP has given no evidence that it is capable of doing this.
Given your assumptions that Latinos aren't going to vote for the GOP regardless, you have to find 114,000 more white people to vote in CO.
Good luck with that, Joe.
And that doesn't even take into consideration that the Latino percentage of the population in those swing states is going up, while the white percentage is going down.
Eh, I'm of mind to think that Petraeus was going to resign to do something else anyway within the year. Its how these things work after all. As for the affair, "Lest he without sin cast the first stone", and all that. I'm not sure why anyone could care that he was unfaithful in his own marriage. That should be an issue between him, his wife and his mistress. There's no blackmail angle considering how public this ordeal has been.
Immigration reform is only a political winner for the GOP if (1) the GOP totally ignores history and (2) Latinos inexplicably credit the GOP for the amnesty rather than Obama.
***
From the results I've seen, 100,000 white votes in places like Colorado, Florida, and Virginia would have made a big difference.
Again, the question was about the best possible source of new GOP votes assuming the GOP doesn't abandon its core ideology of reducing the size of government. If you want to argue that blacks and Latinos are better targets, feel free, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
You're not nitpicking, but in my defense I was just expressing Obama's strategy in more generic terms, and specifically I was thinking of that devastating anti-Bain ad that featured the guy who felt that he'd just built his own coffin.
How many of these are under the age of 30, which went Obama 60-37? Generally younger groups have lower turnout, so I bet that is a significant number.
Anyone have a good link to raw numbers of national turnout? I can find a lot of analysis and breakdowns (such as the 60-37) but not the counting stats.
From the numbers I've seen, turnout in Colorado was around 70 percent, which left over a million voters sitting at home. A good microtargeting and GOTV effort can find or flip 50,000 to 100,000 votes out of a pool of over a million potential voters. This is the exact same thing that Obama & Co. are credited for being geniuses at doing.
***
No, the point is that the GOP needs to do a better job of what Obama did in 2008, which is to target non-voters and get them to the polls. If Obama could find 5 or 8 million first-time voters (or whatever the number was) in 2008, then the GOP should be able to find 500,000 or a million.
And again, for the fifth or sixth time, this was simply an answer to someone else's hypothetical. If the GOP doesn't abandon its core ideology, as Johnny Sycophant hypothesized, then whites are a better bet for the GOP than blacks or Latinos.
This is beginning to devolve a bit into a discussion similar to the great poll debates of October. In this back and forth weed-eating about what is or is not a political winner for whom, it might get lost that amnesty will improve the lives of millions and millions of human beings within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America.
Sure there was - it may have just operated as adjunct to the church, which certainly had plenty of state influence, if not acted as a quasi-state, in many of those places immigrants left. They had poor homes and orphanages, and sanitariums - no, they certainly weren't bastions of safety-netty goodness, but I'm sure to people who remembered (or their parents remembered) things like debtor's prisons, indentured servitude, and the like - they were an improvement.
We tend to overstate, relative to the total numbers in those immigrant waves, the true achievers -- those that became commercial, industrial, etc successes. For every one of them, there were 99 who built their little plot in the urban neighborhoods that still dot America's population centers... for better or worse, a slightly more democratic - but pure democratic by any stretch - little system that was similar to the one they came from sprung up.
It's why I keep going back to Royko's words on Daley, Rostenkowski, etc...
There was more bad than good to those old machines, but just like the sheriff or earl back home, you had to provide something in return to the general populace... you couldn't just squeeze.
Life gets a little less nasty, a little less brutish, and little less short with each successive generation. We went from blue bloods born into power to landholders passing down power to currency holders passing down power to whatever continuing transformations we have today -- there's always been a hierarchical arrangement to any society and we have been moving closer to a merit-based arrangement, but there's always been symbiosis to individuals on the top and the vast masses that aren't... otherwise, the masses tend to find new individuals to occupy the top of the strata.
The fact that now, more than ever, you can be the one living in that fine manor on a huge estate through hard work, intelligence, and occasionally - a fair bit of luck - hasn't changed that fundamental symbiosis that existed back when the villagers could gather at the manner with pitchforks and torches rather than megaphones and placards.
The welfare state has always existed, we just called it different things and we didn't have it codified... as society has shed off things like church-based states, peasant revolts, and corruption - we've simply codified it above boards, rather than implying it through institutions.
I presume many of those missing votes are Hurricane Sandy related, which wouldn't have helped Romney at all. When I looked, New York was down about a million votes and New Jersey was down about 1/2 a million votes.
California is also down a lot of votes, and might just have a lot more sitting around to be counted or something weird. (Seriously, they had 13 million votes in 2008 and 9.6 million votes this year.) Oregon and Washington supposedly have a lot more ballots as well.
Sorry, I didn't intend it as evidence of anything. It was outdated and lacked specifics in the same way that the particular graphic lacks specifics. Beyond that, I'm not sure it would prove much of anything beyond showing where in the US poor and old people live in disproportionate numbers.
The snark was appreciated (in all sincerity).
One is a tragedy, a million is a statistic, etc.
I'm arguing here strictly from the standpoint of electoral politics, the future of the GOP, and the future of the U.S. as we now know it. It would be great if there were no poor people struggling in the world, but that hasn't been the discussion here. It's not possible for the U.S. to take in all of the world's poor (or even all of Mexico's poor). I also see no reason why the 12 million illegal immigrants who are in the U.S. have some sort of greater claim to U.S. residency or citizenship than any of the hundreds of millions of other poor people who'd like to come here.
The "it was voter suppression/low turnout from white people" meme is the post-election equivalent of "the polls are skewed and oversampling Democrats" pre-election. You're telling yourself what you want to hear and then claiming your own voice as a quotable source.
The primary differentiation is that they're already here. Being within the territorial boundaries, they are a US problem and a US responsibility. Politics is the art of the possible. You're right when you say we can't really do anything to help the entire world. But we're not talking about the entire world. We're talking about 12 million human souls who currently live in our national boundaries.
Way to bury the lede - the dude is named Batman!
It reminds me of the scene in Mitt Romney's favorite movie (seriously, it is) -- 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' -- "A lot of people seem to like that reform, daddy... maybe we should get us some of that."
The Obama operation is highly technical, but it's not a 'killer app' and it's not especially complex. Frankly, as an IT professional, the Obama campaign does technology better than a lot of private companies (in a lot of ways, I'd say better than my own, even). They use technology not as a centerpiece unto itself, but they use it properly to supplement the still as it ever was basically model of identifying your people and getting them to the polls. Multiple conduits with redundancy to centralize information and then, most efficiently distribute it back out into a dispersed system directly into the hands of those who can best act upon it.
Honestly - there are some really good MBA case studies to be done based on things large corporations could learn from the Obama campaign operation.
ORCA was an attempt to solve what is fundamentally a management problem, not a technology problem, with software.
Frankly, I've seen this sort of thing from Mitt Romney's before:
1. Gather data and identify supply chain and delivery needs
2. Create a clever-acronym'ed system or program that be more efficient than motivated, competent individuals on the org chart
3. PROFIT!
The Obama operation worked a fair bit differently.
1. Gather data and identify chain and delivery needs
2. Find and deploy motivated individuals up and down an org chart, supplementing them with technology, tools, and people
3. PROFIT!
I have little doubt that when people write about the Obama campaign operations, they're going to get it wrong and call it a triumph of technology... they're gonna be wrong, at least in identifying a prime mover.
Like Steve and Tripon, I instinctively doubt that Petraeus would really have truckled to our enemies over a secret that in any event has come out anyway, and that he being a smart guy knew would come out. But you're right in this, Joe, that we can never say for sure what a given person will get into really tight vises over: witness Bill Clinton and that slimy blue dress.
Sorry; no sale. I have no idea if turnout will be down 10 million or 5 million or 2 million, but nobody's expecting 2012's final turnout to exceed 2008's, and U.S. voter participation is abysmal in the first place. If Obama could find 5 or 8 million first-time voters in 2008 (or whatever the number was), then I have to believe the GOP could get a fifth of that if it got better at GOTV.
2. Create a clever-acronym'ed system or program that be more efficient than motivated, competent individuals on the org chart
3. PROFIT!
My gosh, you've described most academic administrators. Except they skip steps 1 and 3 :)
It's even better than that. There was a report (I'm digging through my web history to find it) that said Romney believed his polls so much that they thought they were so far ahead in Ohio, THAT'S the reason why they decided to take a run at a "close" Pennsylvania. They didn't think they had to worry about Ohio. It was already easily theirs, so let's get Pennsylvania and try to pad the total.
That would definitely explain the Romney camp (through Rove) fighting against everyone calling Ohio for Obama when they did. In their polling fantasyland, they were POSITIVE that a large swath of Romney votes were still coming in. After all, how could their internal polls be that wrong?
I'm not saying I agree with the spin, but that's the spin that's heading Obama's way.
Edit to add that I'm probably wrong on this. They've likely counted all the presidential ballots. Only the down ballot races have lots of outstanding ballots.
Two thoughts. First, as someone who has been involved in big-think data mining projects that are designed to solve Life, The Universe & Everything (and still come in under budget) I can attest: that #### takes on a life of it's own, and much like Fox News, eventually reaches a point where the players absolutely have to believe it's providing good intelligence, because they've invested so damned much time and money into building it as the perfect intelligence gathering tool. What it says must be true, because it was designed to decode what is true.
Second, this is actually a really fantastic example of why a career as a C-level in the private sector is #### experience for cat-herding and politics. This is your classic corporate management, top-down, centralized decision making management technique. The fact that it was pulled off by the guy running on "decentralizing government" is just icing.
Yes, and they've somehow survived here for years and years — or, in some cases, decades — without amnesty or a path to citizenship. In a country with over 300,000,000 citizens, 23 million of whom are unemployed or underemployed, it's absurd that lawbreakers are somehow at the top of the list in terms of legislative imperatives.
The Dems know they have 10 million potential votes just a piece of legislation away, and they've done a fine job of demagoguing the issue. But amnesty for illegal immigrants doesn't crack the top 20 when it comes to the urgent issues facing the United States, and pretending otherwise is little more than political flimflammery by people on the left. The fact these same people are fighting the U.S./Mexico border fence and otherwise trying to undercut immigration enforcement betrays their lack of seriousness on this issue and exposes their efforts as little more than naked political ambition. The Dems want amnesty now, and they'd be thrilled to do another amnesty 10 years from now.
This came up on the radio on my drive home. There's ~3 million mail and provisional ballots remaining and California has until sometime in December to finish counting them.
Two thoughts:
1) Obama found those new voters in *new markets.* That is to say, he found them in the Millenials, and the burgeoning Latino demo, and by turning African-Americans out in volume. All of which are markets, by your own admission, that are closed to the GOP barring significant rethink on policies and tactics. There's just not a lot of marginal white voters - specifically white men; thanks Rape Senators! - to squeeze out. That's the way Rove eeked out 2000 and 2004. It doesn't work if the Dems successfully turn out the new, *growing* demos on their side.
2) The part where you say "then I have to believe..." is the real truth nugget in your statement. It's something you should cogitate on.
As others have noted, you're getting way ahead of yourself here. Based on Google's results, Washington is only 51.7% reported, Oregon is at 73.0%, and California is at 92.5% - and that's just the West Coast (e.g., Maine's at 76.0%, Montana's at 81.9%, et al.). If you just blow up Obama's and Romney's numbers in WA, OR, and CA based on the above percentages, that adds 3 million more total votes (and extends Obama's lead by an additional 400,000 votes), and that probably doesn't count mail and provisional votes (and ignores 47 states).
Put it this way: as of right now, Mitt Romney has fewer total popular votes (58.4 million as I type this) than John McCain got in 2008 (59.9 million votes). Do you really think that Romney got fewer total votes than McCain? (And if so, isn't that extremely worrying for the Republican party?)
The problem is that for probably the first time in U.S. History, there are a significant number of people who would argue with you on the "Now, more than ever" part of what you just wrote. If you're talking on the scale of centuries, sure, but pretty good case can be made that there's less upward mobility now than there was 30-60 years ago.
I don't claim to have any inside information on voter turnout in 2012. I've simply seen a plethora of articles from news outlets at all points on the political spectrum that claim a lot of white voters unexpectedly stayed home on Tuesday. If the articles are right, then the GOP has some upside potential for 2016 in that demographic.
If A implies B and B implies C, then, yes, I have to believe that A implies C.
There was nothing religious about the statement you quoted. It was simply premised on the information that's been published since the election, as well as the fact that millions of eligible voters remain unregistered, and millions of registered voters don't vote. I simply don't buy into the idea that 100 percent of the electoral upside potential lies with the Dems.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main