New Testingstan

Theodore wrote:Predicted totals: Romney 281, Obama 257.

MikeKozlowski wrote:....I'm calling it either a Romney squeaker in the EC or - and this would be a true horror show - an Obama EC victory with Romney winning the popular vote and the GOP holding the House and cutting the Dem majority in the Senate to near zero.

Mike

S. Murray wrote:Here's mine:

I think Romney will do much better than the polls and MSM predict. That CNN poll that came out today showing they were tied? Sample was +11 D, which would mean if the D turnout was higher than 2008, then Obama still couldn't get to 50%. Something's not right there. If Obama does win, I think it will be a very close race--ie 270 or 271 EC votes. It's possible that he could loose the popular vote and still win the EC, like Bush in 2000. Hopefully Romney does well enough to where we don't have to deal with "it all comes down to Ohio recount recount recount" situation. Of course, if you want to dream, might as well dream big...(from Vodkapundit http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2012/11/ ... epage=true)

OSCSSW wrote:FM: OSCSSW

1. The only polls that count don't even close in the East until 7/8PM and have not even opened in most of the country yet.

2. You aint seen nothing yet!

3. To my conservative default GOP shipmates/ US citizens I say
"Now General quarters, General Quarters! All hands man your battle stations."
"Nail the ensign to the main truck!"

Today, my condition one Station is our local polling place, the same high School my daughters attended. IMO, the Best and most important f....ng battlefield I ever fought on.

Make no mistake shipmates, we must keep the guns firing until we win or are setting flooding boundaries on the 06 level---)))

May my Christian God stand with us today (despite all the reasons we have given him not to) because we are truly doing HIS WORK in preserving OUR Republic from those who would trash our Constitution and turn us into europe!

May I hear an Amen Shipmates?

The Admiral wrote:Amen.

JPaulMartin wrote:

an Obama EC victory with Romney winning the popular vote and the GOP holding the House and cutting the Dem majority in the Senate to near zero.

Yeah, that would be Bad.

Just remember folks, if O wins we're likely going to have an impeachment attempt over Benghazi.

Jeff

JPaulMartin wrote:My own predition: Romney wins. I think he will carry PA, OH, and WI.

I also predict O and Co will be singularly sore losers.

Jeff

Linna von Spielsdorf wrote:I expect that Obama will win the election because the democratic machine in Ohio cities will still produce a victory, and I don't think that anyone here should be foolish enough to be optimistic toward any contrary result. It's better to be surprised than depressed.

Theodore wrote:We've lost. Florida is going to go for Obama, and that means Virginia and Ohio no longer matter.

The Bushranger wrote:Given the margin, assuming that happens, looks like Johnson was the spoiler.

Linna von Spielsdorf wrote:And there the MSM goes calling for Obama when only 65% of precincts in Ohio are reporting and he's only leading by 12,000 votes in Florida.

Theodore wrote:Yup. Doesn't really matter though. Ohio is going Obama, Iowa, Colorado, others. Romney may win Virginia but it doesn't matter. Obama has won a solid victory.

At least the GOP is going to hold the House, although we've lost ground in the Senate. We'll just have to keep fighting Obama and his band of progressive socialists every step of the way. We must save the Republic from itself.

S. Murray wrote:

Linna von Spielsdorf wrote:And there the MSM goes calling for Obama when only 65% of precincts in Ohio are reporting and he's only leading by 12,000 votes in Florida.

And they waited until 98% in NC before calling that one.

Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:I honestly fear the next 4 years...

Rob Herrick wrote:Ohio is within 2,000 votes, and there's lots of provisional and absentees still to be counted. That won't be over for a week or more, and Romney, wisely, will not conceed until every vote is counted. Florida is in automatic recount land, and also has lots of absentee ballots out. The shindig ain't over yet.

More importantly, we got a mandate too - he gets to sit in the chair, but we hold the purse strings. Shut the treasury. That's OUR mandate - if the people wanted Barack Obama to do anything but look pretty, they would have elected a Democratic Congress. They didn't - they elected more of US. No compromise till he's crippled and impeached by Democrats desperate to not be labeled as the party that parties while they left our boys to die, or their failed policies mean people prefer jobs over handouts and we sweap 'em in 2014 and 2016.

Linna von Spielsdorf wrote:I've seen tallies that put Romney up in Ohio as of now. "Called for Obama" like hell.. Though the problem Romney now faces is that he will have to hold on to the Old Dominion and wrest back Florida and Colorado to win it.

Zablorg wrote:didn't a lot of them have elaborate back-up plans involving moving away or starting revolutions or supervillainy or something

Theodore wrote:

Chris Mathewson UK wrote:Isn’t that a very immature approach to politics, Rob? I realise the US is very polarised (the popular vote was pretty much split 50/50) but surely now is to put partisan politics aside and try to come up with reasonable policy compromises between the GOP House, the Dem Senate and the President? Your boy lost and lost big, time to put your big boy pants on, grow up, do what’s best for your nation and find an electable (i.e. centralist) candidate for 2016. Clearly the mult-millionaire businessman with all the personality of a wet carrot didn’t strike a chord with the average voter.

Surrendering to the Left - which is what "reasonable policy compromises" will amount to, because when the Right gives an inch the Left steals a mile - is not what's best for the country. Fighting Obama and his wrong-headed, misguided policies that are leading us down the road to ruin is what's best for the country.

Rob Herrick wrote:

Chris Mathewson UK wrote:Isn’t that a very immature approach to politics, Rob? I realise the US is very polarised (the popular vote was pretty much split 50/50) but surely now is to put partisan politics aside and try to come up with reasonable policy compromises between the GOP House, the Dem Senate and the President? Your boy lost and lost big, time to put your big boy pants on, grow up, do what’s best for your nation and find an electable (i.e. centralist) candidate for 2016. Clearly the mult-millionaire businessman with all the personality of a wet carrot didn’t strike a chord with the average voter.

303 EVs were decided by less than 200,000 votes. That ain't close. That could easily have flipped the other way. He didn't win no landslide - his pants were set on fire, and he was carried across the finish line by suppressing the scandal that will explode and destroy his second term.

Chris, you don't seem to understand how a first past the post system works. This isn't your election, where the party that wins gets all the marbles and the loser sits on the other side and does nothing but carp.

The Republicans expanded their House majority, and retained control. If the electorate wanted Obama to do anything but look pretty, then they would not have kept a Republican House. We went to our voters, and more of us than them were sent back to Washington. That's voter confirmation to keep doing what we're doing: not doing what the Democrats want.

Obama doesn't compromise. He dictates. He squelches compromise. He looks at bipartisan solutions to the big problems of the day and ignores them. He expects everybody to be good little yes men and do exactly as they're told, so he can continue spending our money to entrench his political power. You do not compromise with somebody who cannot compromise and who firmly rejects compromise and being an adult in favor of his own political gain. Compromising with Democrats in the Obama Administration is like Charlie Brown kicking the ball when Lucy's holding it. She's just gonna yank it away.

We were elected to tell them no until we can go Iraq on their worthless asses and take full control. That's EXACTLY what we should do, exactly what we will do.

Theodore wrote:In the American system, gridlock is a feature, not a bug.

Chris, I don't know how much farther the GOP can move to the center without turning into the Democrats. McCain was a centrist candidate. Romney was a centrist candidate. Didn't work out too well.

All this election proves is that you really can buy off half the voters with the tax dollars paid out by the other half.

The Bushranger wrote:One thing the Republicans have to do is to stop rolling over. Attack-attack-attack. Both outright, and counterattacking - most of my liberal gaming friends take the "Repubicans are racist" "Republicans are sexist" "Republicans are rapists" memes hook, line, and sinker, because the Republicans do little to nothing to counter them.

Beastro wrote:

Chris Mathewson UK wrote:Your boy lost and lost big, time to put your big boy pants on, grow up, do what’s best for your nation and find an electable (i.e. centralist) candidate for 2016.

I'd hardly call Romney the "boy" of any American on this board.

The is really what was the core problem this time around, just like last time around, the Republicans simply didn't field any inspiring candidates. I remember clearly that the first reaction this boards American community had when this was winding up was pursed lips and mutters over the developing field of Republican candidates with Romney low on everybody's list. He only became their "boy" when they decided to hold their noses and dive in with him when it became clear that he was the only one left with a shot at taking Obama down.

Chris Mathewson UK wrote:Theodore, would you think moving further to the right into the arms of the teabaggers is going to help their chance of electorate success? The results of this election suggest not. If you have to become Democrats to get elected then become Democrats.

Theodore wrote:

Chris Mathewson UK wrote:Theodore, would you think moving further to the right into the arms of the teabaggers is going to help their chance of electorate success? The results of this election suggest not. If you have to become Democrats to get elected then become Democrats.

Chris, if you're going to use such slurs I see no point in continuing the discussion.

Losonti Tokash wrote: but it's especially funny when conservatives plan to flee to canada to escape our socialist president

edgeplay_cgo wrote:Good luck on that with the Democrats in power. Their path to power is dead and otherwise unqualified voters. There was some evidence of that in this election. That is something we will not change as long as they are in power. Actually, I expect them to expand their efforts to open the polls to non citizens and other electoral frauds. We'll be fortunate to stave that off.

I am concerned that they will become so entrenched as a result of their machine politics, that only rivers of blood will remove them.

shermpotter wrote:Indeed, Dennis. Those times may be coming. Also, I am a bit befuddled by the actual numbers in play here. Everywhere in the USA, Dem turnout was down from 2008 by a significant amount (in terms of both early voting as well as the actual polls) while Republican turnout was significantly up. This really doesn't seem to add up to the result we got last night. It also bears upon the problems of places like California and New York where sizable minoroites of Republicans are feeling extremely ill-served by the Dem majority. There was the half jesting proposal to carve out the Republican central/southern areas of Cali from the rest. Look at the Red/Blue map of the final electoral count, and tiny little areas of land are blue compared to the Red parts. Unfortunately, that also relfects the population issues. It gets a lot more interesting when one goes down to county levels. It shows the problems even more starkly. There are large AREAS of the US that also feel ill-served by the way this plays out.

Rob Herrick wrote:Agreed. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out where the D votes came from, given low turnout and massive swing of independents against Obama. When you look at the House races, Republicans swept almost as much as they did in 2010 - picking up almost all the NC, Delegation, all the Ohio Delegation, and only losing the gerrymandered seats in Illinois and a few in New England. We picked up the Murtha/Critz seat in PA, we picked up the Chandler seat in KY we didn't get last time, we picked up Gabby Giffords' seat. We held almost all the gains of 2010.

The public has not endorsed Obamaism - they've endorsed doing nothing.

They will feel the full effects of Obama's policies. When the Obamababies of 2008 are turning 30 and still living in their parents basements, as people's health care premiums go up and the quality of their care goes down, as the layoffs hit, the sequester hits, and the tax raises go into effect and they see Obama looting their retirement funds, their kids' college funds, and the like, when they're unable to get a job because there are no jobs and they see the full consequences of their votes, there will be a backlash. The pendulum will swing, and they will say 'you were right.'

Then, in 2016, we will have the votes to set it right.

Stuart Slade wrote:The culprit appears to be early voting. Listening to the commentary last night, it seemed apparent that in all the battleground states, the early (pre-election day) vote was almost entirely Democrat and gave them a 3 to 4 percent lead before the votes cast on the day were counted. That seems to have been the single most decisive factor. The validity of those early votes is, to put it mildly, highly questionable.

However, there is an element of truth in some of the comments made by the left. The Republican Party does need to broaden its appeal. Since a key element of the Democrat vote is either dead or non-corporeal, we need to evolve policies that will bring vampires and ghosts around to our way of thinking.

Oxymoron wrote:wth is that shtick about dead electorate or whatever ??

David Newton wrote:Unless there is a legitimate reason for an absentee ballot then you should not be able to get one. A legitimate reason is being out of town on the day of the election and thus unable to cast your vote in person at the polling station. Early voting pre-judges the election. The election voting should be based on things at the time of the election and not two to three weeks beforehand.

Another thing that boggled my mind about this election was the stories of hours of queueing to vote. We did have some problems list during the last UK general election, but previously it had not happened on a large scale. There are clearly not enough voting slots in polling stations in the US. Something that I suspect might well not help is the massive combination of things that get voted for during US general elections. Mandating that federal and state/local elections take place in different years might be a help with that, with ballot initiatives etc only allowed during state/local election years.

I certainly know that during the police commissioner elections next week I'm not expecting massive queues to vote!

Scott Brim wrote:My take on the election is that the voting public was presented with an opportunity to step back from the fiscal cliff; that Romney and Ryan made as clear a case for near-term action as anyone could have made; but that a majority of voters in the presidential contest made a conscious decision to kick the fiscal can down the road and risk the consequences of not dealing with the problem while we still can.

In any case, the regulatory agencies, especially the EPA, now have a blizzard of regulations pending that will add significant cost burdens to American business. And whatever Obama can't do through legislation or through the regulatory agencies, he will do through executive orders.

Oxymoron wrote:wth is that shtick about dead electorate or whatever ??

Dooey Jo wrote:heinous agents of fraudulence supposedly somehow use dead people who are by accident still registered as voters, to vote for the bad guys.

Rob Fox wrote:The current Republican party, like it or not, is the party of white men. That is unarguable. Look at the representatives, look at the breakdown of the turnout, hell look at a picture of a Romney rally.

This is no longer enough to beat everyone else. The GOP needs to appeal to Latinos, (as it did with some success under Bush), to women, to African Americans, and several other sectors of society.

It's current policy platform just doesn't do that. Some of the candidates it nominates don't do that either.

The Latinos, African Americans, Women, aren't to your right flank, they are to your left flank. The further you tack to the right the longer the wait till the next Republican President.

As the demographics continue to move away from the GOP, unless they move with them then building a winning coalition nationwide becomes even harder. It isn't inconceivable that at this rate that the 2020 swing states include places like Texas and Arizona.

clancyphile wrote:The real problem is not so much the issues. It's a branding issue. To wit, the Democrats have successfully branded opponents of the GOP as racist. Looking back, the seeds were sown when during the first Tea Party protests, Jeanine Garafolo said it was about "hating a black man in the White House." Then, they added the War on Women/Sandra Fluke. Don't forget immigration. They also got help due to dumb comments from Akin and Mourdock.

You can have the right message, but if those hearing it have been barraged with claims you are a racist, it will fall on deaf ears. Same if women are convinced you're waging war on them. And the Dems have allies in Hollywood and the media who pound that message in daily.

Until a way around this is discovered, the trends will continue, barring undeniable proof of the Democrats' incompetence - which the media will now cover up (see Benghazi, Fast & Furious, and Solyndra).

Worse, our guys walk into the traps, and then, too many people see that as standing on principle. The Tea Party at the Senate level has picked far more duds than successes. Rubio, Lee, and Cruz are nice pickups, but the losses of seats in Nevada, Colorado, Delaware, Missouri and Indiana put the Tea Party down two seats. We need to insist on competent candidates.