Page 3 of 7
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:42 pm
by taki15
And in another symbolic development, it seems like Obama will win one electoral vote from Nebraska.
Another state, after Indiana and Virginia, which hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1964.
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:01 pm
by Heksagon
Congratulations to those people here to whom this means the end of an eight-year nightmare. Suddenly the U.S. president is one of the world's most popular statesmen.
What was the voter turnout, especially in those states with the higher rates? I think that the U.S. voter turnout is reaching European numbers.
...Now let's just hope good things last. The economy is not suddenly going to get better just because there is a new president.
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:15 pm
by Mister Tee
Sonic Youth wrote:taki15 wrote:It seems that the final result will be around 53-46.
Sonic Youth mentioned that it was a bit underwhelming, considering the circumstances.
I could agree with him, until I read something interesting today.
This is the biggest percentage won by a non-incumbent since 1952 when Eisenhower got 55%. You could mention Bush father, but he was the incumbent vice-president, running explicitly for a third Reagan term.
So, it turns out that Obama's performance is rather impressive.
Yeah, but you can pick and choose any statistic that happens to conform to very narrow conditions that don't really address a larger context. Obama did have the highest percentage for a non-incumbant since Ike, but that doesn't mean its as significant as all that. Reagan beat Carter with 50.7% of the vote, but he won by a margin of 9.7%, greater than Obama's win. Plus, there were third-party spoilers in 1980, as well as in '68 and '92.
And considering how much the Bush administration all but destroyed the reputation of the GOP, not to mention the country, a 7% margin is disappointing in my book. I could be wrong, but my point is a statistic doesn't tell the whole story.
Obviously there are many ways to diddle the statistics -- from what we're hearing from criddic and Fox News World (but I repeat myself), this was a virtual squeaker.
Reagan '80 was a similar electoral environment, the worst of my lifetime till now: an ongoing foreign policy humiliation (the hostage crisis) and an economy not only in recession but with double-digit inflation. And it's true Reagan's margin was much wider, but his popular vote total was noticeably lower, and the margin was clearly inflated by the success of the(comparatively) well-funded Anderson campaign. Everyone I know who voted for Anderson (including my wife, and my college roommate) voted for Mondale in '84, so there's no question thos tallies came out of Carter's hide. Reagan would still have had a comfortable win without Anderson, but the notion that he'd won a landslide would never have emerged, and that, more than anything, gave the Gipper his momentum in the early months of his administration.
Here's another number to chew on: Obama carried every Kerry state -- plus NM and NV -- by more than 10%. That's 262 Electoral Votes that are now pretty much the Democratic baseline. As I said earlier, an unsuccessful administration can undo gains, but if you couple that base with the actuarial/demographic advantages built into the Democratic voting blocs, you can see the Dems extending their majorities in the years ahead (though they'll no doubt lose Congressional seats in '10, esp. if the recession is deep).
The only reason the GOP has life today is, bluntly, the South. In 2004, Bush carried the states of the Confederacy by 5.5 million; Kerry carried the remainder by 2.5 million. I'll be anxious for the final numbers to go up. Obama's results in VA, FL and NC will of course lower the margins in the South, but I'll bet his margin in the rest of the states will be upward of 10 million. The GOP is now mostly a regional party (something like half its House delegation is from the South), and there's not much chance of that changing in the near future.
Greg had mentioned earlier, the difference between the Southeast (VA, NC, FL, even to some extent GA) and the rest of the South. The gap is rural vs. urban. You may remember, back when Return of the King won the best picture Oscar, I said it won not because of the parts that were unlike Oscar winners past (the fantasy) but because of the parts that WERE (big battle scenes). Similarly, Democrats compete in the states Obama won, and GA, not because of the parts that are like the rest of the South, but because of the growing university/Research Triangle areas that are not. (This is also why WV, AS and KY -- states Clinton carried -- were among the few areas of the country to move further GOP this cycle)
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:20 pm
by taki15
North Carolina now officially an Obama state. 364 -- just 6 shy of Bill Clinton '92, where Perot no doubt helped with a few.
Lindsay Graham said Monday that he will beat Michael Phelps at swimming before Obama wins North Carolina.
I wonder what he has to say now.
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:01 pm
by Sonic Youth
taki15 wrote:It seems that the final result will be around 53-46.
Sonic Youth mentioned that it was a bit underwhelming, considering the circumstances.
I could agree with him, until I read something interesting today.
This is the biggest percentage won by a non-incumbent since 1952 when Eisenhower got 55%. You could mention Bush father, but he was the incumbent vice-president, running explicitly for a third Reagan term.
So, it turns out that Obama's performance is rather impressive.
Yeah, but you can pick and choose any statistic that happens to conform to very narrow conditions that don't really address a larger context. Obama did have the highest percentage for a non-incumbant since Ike, but that doesn't mean its as significant as all that. Reagan beat Carter with 50.7% of the vote, but he won by a margin of 9.7%, greater than Obama's win. Plus, there were third-party spoilers in 1980, as well as in '68 and '92.
And considering how much the Bush administration all but destroyed the reputation of the GOP, not to mention the country, a 7% margin is disappointing in my book. I could be wrong, but my point is a statistic doesn't tell the whole story.
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:48 pm
by Mister Tee
North Carolina now officially an Obama state. 364 -- just 6 shy of Bill Clinton '92, where Perot no doubt helped with a few.
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:42 pm
by Sonic Youth
FilmFan720 wrote:Sonic Youth wrote:Also, you don't need me to tell you the other reason why Illinois turnout was high. :p
The great weather we had?
Bingo!
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:48 am
by FilmFan720
Sonic Youth wrote:Also, you don't need me to tell you the other reason why Illinois turnout was high. :p
The great weather we had?
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:45 am
by Sonic Youth
OscarGuy wrote:The total might have been more impressive if more East Coasters had voted. I know you guys will think this ludicrous, but look at the vote tallies for New York. They are severely anemic compared to votes in Illinois and Texas and even in Virginia. It seems like a lot of New Yorkers knowing the outcome for their state and having no suitable ballot initiatives to really jump out to vote for decided to stay home.
I'd like to see those 2004 vs. 2008 state turnout numbers. Do you have a link?
The only thing I can think of that would account for the difference is that Illinois, Texas and Virginia all had early voting. New York did not. I'd bet there's a general discrepency between early voting and non-early voting states, but I'll leave the number-crunching to someone else.
Also, you don't need me to tell you the other reason why Illinois turnout was high. :p
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1225990012
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:12 am
by Mister Tee
Penelope wrote:Franz Ferdinand wrote:On a side note, Palin as GOP heir presumptive in 2012 makes me sick.
She's toast; even Fox News has it in for her--earlier today, they were reporting about aspects of her behavior and personality that were previously kept hidden--she thought Africa was a country, not a continent; she didn't know what countries are in NAFTA; she had to be smacked down when she requested a concession speech last night as well; and revealed that their internal polling--Fox's--indicated the collapse of McCain's campaign began right after the Katie Couric interview (for which she refused to prepare), rather than after the economic meltdown (which began 4 days after the interview).
I have to say even I question whether this stuff is completely accurate, or the slanted spin of McCain loyalists looking to get back at her for perceived perfidy.
Meantime, some of the far-right bloggers are announcing they'll make lepers of anyone who actively disses Palin. This is really going to get entertaining.
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:49 am
by OscarGuy
The total might have been more impressive if more East Coasters had voted. I know you guys will think this ludicrous, but look at the vote tallies for New York. They are severely anemic compared to votes in Illinois and Texas and even in Virginia. It seems like a lot of New Yorkers knowing the outcome for their state and having no suitable ballot initiatives to really jump out to vote for decided to stay home.
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:10 am
by taki15
It seems that the final result will be around 53-46.
Sonic Youth mentioned that it was a bit underwhelming, considering the circumstances.
I could agree with him, until I read something interesting today.
This is the biggest percentage won by a non-incumbent since 1952 when Eisenhower got 55%. You could mention Bush father, but he was the incumbent vice-president, running explicitly for a third Reagan term.
So, it turns out that Obama's performance is rather impressive.
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:39 pm
by Penelope
Franz Ferdinand wrote:On a side note, Palin as GOP heir presumptive in 2012 makes me sick.
She's toast; even Fox News has it in for her--earlier today, they were reporting about aspects of her behavior and personality that were previously kept hidden--she thought Africa was a country, not a continent; she didn't know what countries are in NAFTA; she had to be smacked down when she requested a concession speech last night as well; and revealed that their internal polling--Fox's--indicated the collapse of McCain's campaign began right after the Katie Couric interview (for which she refused to prepare), rather than after the economic meltdown (which began 4 days after the interview).
Edited By Penelope on 1225946388
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:09 pm
by Franz Ferdinand
Thank you Americans! This entire election cycle was great entertainment, and seeing Obama elected was a truly historic moment. Whatever happens from now, at least we'll always have November 4, 2008 to remember. Great speeches from both McCain (very dignified and stoic, a true class act speech) and of course Obama, with his references to Lincoln, Kennedy and MLK. It was a magical moment for America, and they can be proud of what they have achieved last night! All the best!
On a side note, Palin as GOP heir presumptive in 2012 makes me sick.
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:19 pm
by taki15
But, man, he's really got to work on smiling when he does TV.
Maybe you'll teach him when the two of you start your own show. The new Carville-Begala team. 
Seriously though, Obama's election seems to be an almost cathartic moment for the Democratic party.
He won the states who inflicted so much pain in 2000 (Florida) and 2004 (Ohio), along with three southern states (Virginia, North Carolina, Florida) where the Dixiecrats wouldn't even allow to someone like him to vote, just a few decades ago.
And a nice anecdote from Kos:
I saw Justice Ginsberg speak in March of 2007. She said that Justice Stevens knew then exactly how many days there were until January 20, 2009.