Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

#277 Jan 09 2012 at 8:26 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
I really liked how McCain called Romney Obama over the weekend.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#278 Jan 09 2012 at 10:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I really liked how McCain called Romney Obama over the weekend.


Looks like he's entering his own Reagan years now.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#279 Jan 09 2012 at 3:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Allegory wrote:
I did a little looking around on that, and while I didn't find anything that confirmed either way, I did find some evidence leaning in the direction of that--low GOP turnout--being false.

This publishing shows that although few people voted Republican than in 2004, The democrats increased their count by more than the Republicans lost, more than twice as much. Overall voter turnout was at a fairly high amount compared to previous presidential elections.

This suggests it was more about Democrats getting more people to show up and vote democrat than Republicans loosing their base.


Um... Which precisely supports my statement that it was a combination of low GOP turnout and PRIMARILY swing votes going the Dems way. You did catch that I listed two things, and labeled one of them as the more significant of the two. GOP turnout was lower than normal, right? And *also* a bunch of people swung their votes Dem (for the reasons I listed elsewhere in my earlier post).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#280 Jan 09 2012 at 3:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:

This. Young and/or first time voter turn out had close to zero to do with Obama's victory.


That were 3.4 million more voters than 2004. Assuming 23 million 19-29 year olds voted (the middle of the 22-24 million figure), that means 15.2 million voted for Obama; if it had been the other way around, and 66% had voted for McCain, he would have won the popular vote. Obviously they weren't the only reason Obama won, but without their votes (and especially the effort, like the "Get out the Vote" drives in the months leading up to the election), the election could likely have gone the other way.


If presidential elections were won by popular vote alone, you *might* have a point. You have to look at where the Dems get 66% of the youth vote and compare that to states they normally win anyway, versus states they picked up which allowed them to win in 2008. When you pick up states which normally send their Electoral Votes to the other party, it's the swing voters in that state which made the difference. This is really not rocket science.



The point of my earlier post was that the biggest factor was voters in the middle, who swung Dem because of a combination of those factors I listed. And this time around, those factors are either not present or have been more or less reversed. Which means that most likely, those votes will go the other direction this time, just as they did in the 2010 mid-term. No amount of getting out the youth vote is going to change that if it happens.

Edited, Jan 9th 2012 1:52pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#281 Jan 09 2012 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
I guess it's a lot easier to see a GOP victory if you completely ignore their offered candidates.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#282 Jan 09 2012 at 4:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I guess it's a lot easier to see a GOP victory if you completely ignore their offered candidates.


/shrug

That's easy and cheap rhetoric though. And somewhat meaningless. The voters that matter in this next election aren't going to care about that rhetoric. They aren't looking for flashy. They got that with Obama and have been supremely disappointed. They're looking for anyone who looks like they might have a shot at undoing the mess the country is in. And frankly, anyone with an "R" after their name automatically has a huge boost in that regard.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#283 Jan 09 2012 at 4:59 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
And somewhat meaningless.
Of course it is sunshine.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#284 Jan 09 2012 at 5:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And somewhat meaningless.
Of course it is sunshine.


Isn't it? What about the GOP candidates (or ****, Romney if you want to be specific) do you think will make swing voters ignore the actual polices and actions that Obama has taken over the last 3 years that they've disliked? Swing voters tend to be swing voters exactly because they don't fall into neat partisan lines. They're the least likely to be influenced by the sorts of candidate characterizations which the left and right often put so much stock in.

They're certainly unlikely to be swayed to vote Obama because they just aren't excited about how devoutly conservative and/or perfectly aligned with the Tea Party the GOP candidates are. Seriously. Think about it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#285 Jan 09 2012 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
Seriously. Think about it.
Ahh yes, your usual fall back. Telling people they're not thinking but that's all you're doing. You're the only one capable of thinking according to you, anyway. Because what you're doing isn't simply crowing "REPUBLICAN GOOD DEMOCRAT BAD!" as hard as you can. Smiley: laugh

Just so you know, swing voters are the biggest group of idiots in existence, so personal traits are the biggest factor to their voting practices. But I'm sure you'll pretend that's wrong, even though it isn't. After all, it has to be wrong for your precious religion to stand a chance. Smiley: smile

Edited, Jan 9th 2012 6:18pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#286 Jan 09 2012 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And frankly, anyone with an "R" after their name automatically has a huge boost in that regard.

Approval ratings as of Dec 16-18:
Republican Party: 43-52
Democratic Party: 55-41
Republican Congress: 20-72
Democratic Congress: 27-66

Also: lol


Edited, Jan 9th 2012 5:57pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#287 Jan 09 2012 at 6:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... Which precisely supports my statement that it was a combination of low GOP turnout and PRIMARILY swing votes going the Dems way. You did catch that I listed two things, and labeled one of them as the more significant of the two. GOP turnout was lower than normal, right? And *also* a bunch of people swung their votes Dem (for the reasons I listed elsewhere in my earlier post).

It doesn't show a GOP turnout lower than normal, and it's very strongly nodding to the opposite.

The percent of eligible citizens to vote GOP in 2008 was at the second highest level in two decades. Out of the 13 presidential elections presented in that publishing, it was fifth greatest percentage of votes they have received. Overall it was a good turnout for both parties.

So your claim is not only unproven, but also unlikely.
#288 Jan 09 2012 at 6:30 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,526 posts
oh that movie looks exciting Joph... though when I saw the storm clouds I was sure it was another anti-***** marriage commercial.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#289 Jan 09 2012 at 6:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... Which precisely supports my statement that it was a combination of low GOP turnout and PRIMARILY swing votes going the Dems way. You did catch that I listed two things, and labeled one of them as the more significant of the two. GOP turnout was lower than normal, right? And *also* a bunch of people swung their votes Dem (for the reasons I listed elsewhere in my earlier post).

It doesn't show a GOP turnout lower than normal, and it's very strongly nodding to the opposite.


Are you smoking crack?


Allegory wrote:
I did a little looking around on that, and while I didn't find anything that confirmed either way, I did find some evidence leaning in the direction of that--low GOP turnout--being false.

This publishing shows that although few people voted Republican than in 2004, The democrats increased their count by more than the Republicans lost, more than twice as much. Overall voter turnout was at a fairly high amount compared to previous presidential elections.

This suggests it was more about Democrats getting more people to show up and vote democrat than Republicans loosing their base.


I'm assuming you meant to say "fewer people voted Republican than in 2004". Is that correct? Either that, or you've invented a new language to communicate in which no one else understands.

Assuming you did mean "fewer" in that sentence, then your own interpretation of your own linked source says that GOP support decreased by X, but Dems increased their votes by 2x. And that's what made the difference in the election.


Which is kinda exactly what I said in the post you claimed to be refuting. I said that GOP turnout was relatively low but a more significant factor was swing votes going to the Dems. I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how your "1/3rd was GOP getting less votes, and 2/3rds was Dems getting more" post in anyway contradicts that. It's like I'm saying that there's 6, and you're insisting I'm wrong because it's really a half dozen. Smiley: oyvey

Edited, Jan 9th 2012 4:50pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#290 Jan 09 2012 at 6:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And frankly, anyone with an "R" after their name automatically has a huge boost in that regard.

Approval ratings as of Dec 16-18:
Republican Party: 43-52
Democratic Party: 55-41
Republican Congress: 20-72
Democratic Congress: 27-66


Approval ratings with regard to what? Bit vague there, isn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#291 Jan 09 2012 at 7:00 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And frankly, anyone with an "R" after their name automatically has a huge boost in that regard.

Approval ratings as of Dec 16-18:
Republican Party: 43-52
Democratic Party: 55-41
Republican Congress: 20-72
Democratic Congress: 27-66


Approval ratings with regard to what? Bit vague there, isn't it?


Heh.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#292 Jan 09 2012 at 7:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
You know you're awesome when half the people who approve of you start to dislike you the minute you try to do the job they hired you for. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#293 Jan 09 2012 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm assuming you meant to say "fewer people voted Republican than in 2004". Is that correct? Either that, or you've invented a new language to communicate in which no one else understands.

You're correct on my typo, but incorrect on what it means. I'll post the data here so we can all see it very clearly.
Quote:
2. Partisan Turnout Trend: Percentage of eligible citizens who voted for the presidential candidate of each major party. The vote percentage in 2008 is based on near final but unofficial counted returns. Percentages for previous years are based on final and official results:

Year  Democratic Republican Other 
2008  31.3       28.7       0.8 
2004  28.5       30.0       0.5 
2000  26.3       26.0       2.0 
1996  25.3       21.0       5.2 
1992  25.0       21.8       11.4 
1988  24.2       28.3       0.5 
1984  22.7       32.9       0.4 
1980  22.4       27.8       4.5 
1976  27.6       26.5       1.1 
1972  21.2       34.4       1.0 
1968  26.5       26.9       8.6 
1964  38.6       24.2       0.2 
1960  32.3       32.2       0.6


Yes, Republicans had more voters in 2004 than they did in 2008, but that because they won the swing voters in 2004 and lost them in 2008. If you compare votes they earned in 2008 to the past few decades you'll see they are beating their median in votes earned. Only in 4 out of the 13 elections shown here did they get a higher percent of the population to vote for them.

2008 was a good year for the GOP, they got more people to vote for them than in 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988. They've won 4 elections in the last 13 elections with fewer votes than they got in 2008. And one election with fewer votes than the Democrats. It was a good year for both parties, but it just happened to be much better for the Democrats.

Edited, Jan 9th 2012 7:18pm by Allegory
#294 Jan 09 2012 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
That's kind of vague, Allegory. What were those people voting for?

I genuinely, earnestly don't understand the answer to that question.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#295 Jan 09 2012 at 7:25 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
Presidential candidates. Those percentages represent the percent of eligible voters that voted for each candidate.

So for example, Ronald Reagan won in 1980, but he did it with only 27.8% of eligible voters voting for him. John McCain lost in 2008, but he actually had a higher percentage of people voting for him--28.7%--than Reagan did.

In other terms, think about a foot race. Say you beat me in the first race and I win in the second race. Using a stop watch, you compare the two and see that you actually ran faster in the second race. You improved, so how did you lose? Well, you improved, but only a little. I improved much more than you did.

The GOP turnout wasn't lower than normal, they did pretty well. But the Dems just happened to improve by much more.

Edited, Jan 9th 2012 7:27pm by Allegory
#296 Jan 09 2012 at 7:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Allegory wrote:
Yes, Republicans had more voters in 2004 than they did in 2008, but that because they won the swing voters in 2004 and lost them in 2008.


Yes. Hence my use of the word "relative" in my original statement about this.

Quote:
If you compare votes they earned in 2008 to the past few decades you'll see they are beating their median in votes earned.


So are the Dems. Voter turnout is higher overall over the last decade than the previous one (in terms of partisan voting at least). What is your point?

Quote:
Only in 4 out of the 13 elections shown here did they get a higher percent of the population to vote for them.


And only 2 out of that same 13 elections shown did the Dems get a higher percentage. You really suck at analysis if you thought that your statement above is significant within the context of what we're talking about here (turnout within a party and swing voters switching from one party to the other).

Quote:
2008 was a good year for the GOP, they got more people to vote for them than in 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988. They've won 4 elections in the last 13 elections with fewer votes than they got in 2008. And one election with fewer votes than the Democrats. It was a good year for both parties, but it just happened to be much better for the Democrats.



Ok. But if we're asking the question "why did the GOP win in 2004, but lose in 2008", isn't the fact that basically 4-5% of the total votes shifted from one to the other kinda the most important (or "primary" even!) thing? The total percentage of eligible voters who voted only increased by about 1.5% (and we'd need more data to see if that was actually more people voting, or less people eligible, or some combination of the two). In any case, by far the most significant factor wasn't new voters but voters shifting from one party to the other.


How the **** can you look at that data and not see this? When you shift from 28/30 in one election to 31/28 in the other, you're clearly looking at voter shift. That should be the first and most immediate result you conclude from that data, right? It's by far the most straight forward explanation. You could assume that a whole bunch of people who voted GOP last time around just didn't vote this year and at the same time, a whole bunch of people who'd never voted before ever all signed up and voted Dem, but there's no data to support this. It's certainly reasonable to assume that *some* people didn't vote who voted before, and clearly *some* people did vote who hadn't voted in the previous election, but to assume that is a more significant factor that people changing their party votes is a pretty incredible stretch.


Occam's razor sort of applies here. The simplest model assumes that mostly the same people voted (plus/minus some small number), but that a couple percent of them switched from one party to the other.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#297 Jan 09 2012 at 7:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Allegory wrote:
The GOP turnout wasn't lower than normal, they did pretty well. But the Dems just happened to improve by much more.


It was lower than it was in 2004, which is the only data point that really matters in terms of what I was talking about in my original post.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#298 Jan 09 2012 at 8:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Allegory wrote:
Presidential candidates. Those percentages represent the percent of eligible voters that voted for each candidate.

So for example, Ronald Reagan won in 1980, but he did it with only 27.8% of eligible voters voting for him. John McCain lost in 2008, but he actually had a higher percentage of people voting for him--28.7%--than Reagan did.

In other terms, think about a foot race. Say you beat me in the first race and I win in the second race. Using a stop watch, you compare the two and see that you actually ran faster in the second race. You improved, so how did you lose? Well, you improved, but only a little. I improved much more than you did.

The GOP turnout wasn't lower than normal, they did pretty well. But the Dems just happened to improve by much more.

Edited, Jan 9th 2012 7:27pm by Allegory


Sorry, I was actually engaging in a sarcastic mockery of gbaji's claim not to understand opinion polls.

Edited, Jan 10th 2012 2:04am by Kavekk
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#299 Jan 09 2012 at 8:06 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
gbaji wrote:
So are the Dems. Voter turnout is higher overall over the last decade than the previous one (in terms of partisan voting at least). What is your point?

Exactly my point. Dems had a higher than normal voter turn out and so did the GOP. You said they had a low voter turnout. By "low GOP turnout" did you mean they lost the election? If that's all you meant, then yeah I guess losing an election is a major factor in losing an election.
gbaji wrote:
Occam's razor sort of applies here. The simplest model assumes that mostly the same people voted (plus/minus some small number), but that a couple percent of them switched from one party to the other.

Yeah, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable assumption. It does invalidate your claim though. If only a couple percent of each nominee's votes are swing voters, that means the bulk of his votes are his base. Therefore the GOP had a high turnout for 2008, just not high enough.
#300 Jan 09 2012 at 8:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
Allegory wrote:
By "low GOP turnout" did you mean they lost the election? If that's all you meant, then yeah I guess losing an election is a major factor in losing an election.

gbaji wrote:
It was lower than it was in 2004, which is the only data point that really matters in terms of what I was talking about in my original post.

Ah, so that is what you meant. Well why didn't you just say so?
#301 Jan 09 2012 at 8:12 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
Being to the point makes it harder to try to wiggle out of a comment when it is inevitably proven wrong.

Edited, Jan 9th 2012 9:13pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 74 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (74)