He has too much support in Philadelphia. And PA has been blue since 1988.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
2012 USA Election Thread: Obama projected winner
- Thread starter THE_IRON_...KENYAN?
- Start date
- Status
obama has just been projected the winner! :D
Been watching the elections, and not only is it looking like Florida could be recounted, but it might just end up being a case of electoral college fuck-up. From what I'm seeing, Obama is currently ahead in the College, but Romney's ahead in the popular vote.
Romney is ahead in the popular vote count right now because the biggest blue state in the country (California) has barely been counted while most of the former confederate states are 50% counted at least.
Inevitable Romney Landslide Prediction:
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bqkM
I make this prediction for two reasons:
First, the reality on the ground is that 2010 was a seismic shift in the playing field. This is for the following reasons:
1. The emergence of the Tea Party as a dominating political force.
2. Redistricting after the 2010 Census by state legislatures and state houses that were made majority Republican in the 2010 wave. This means that almost every single down-ticket race is more favorable to Republicans in every state where this occurred, which is a not insubstantial number of traditional swing states. If you think VA, which has a majority Republican state legislature and Gov. Bob McDonnell is going Dem you are delusional.
Absolutely nothing has changed in Obama's favor since 2010. The Tea Party is still a massive undercurrent in American politics that has been challenging and knocking off incumbents left and right (but mostly left) in primaries in 2010 and even moreso in 2012.
Obama has not done anything to increase his popularity, in fact the reason Democrats were obliterated in 2010 was Obamacare, and Judge Roberts' convoluted ruling has ensured the same wave that fed 2010's tide is going to crash into 2012.
Second: The left has worn out demonization as a tactic.
The left has no arguments. It lives in a fantasy world where human life doesn't begin at conception and there are no significant differences between the relationships between men and men, men and women, and women and women. That's just biologically where the left is completely and totally objectively errant.
Their philosophy is even weaker, consisting of character assassination and false premises in the place of actual arguments. Oppose an Obama policy in the last four years? You're racist, and possibly a bigot and homophobe even if gay pedestal-raising didn't come up in that particular conversation.
Most people know intrinsically that marriage is between one man and one woman and that life begins at conception. They know this because these are institutions that built modern functioning societies and additionally are obvious to people of every level of intelligence, requiring active and deliberate mental energy and not insubstantial sophistry to deny. Most people holding these values choose to remain quiet in voicing these views because demonization is a very effective tactic in small doses. Most honorable and decent people don't like to use it, and they like even less receiving it. But the left has few decent and honorable people - they laud people like Saul Alinsky who dedicated his entire life to destabilizing society in literal tribute to Lucifer himself (to which his book is dedicated) - all to advance his ideology. Used reflexively though, demonization very quickly wears thin and people begin to laugh at it. And once they laugh at the demonization it loses all power.
This is why their ads become increasingly desperate and creepy. It is why the Obama campaign that ran on "Hope and Change" is now running on Birth Control, Big Bird, Binders, and Bayonettes - the smallest, least relevant (or even categorically stupid) issues to an electorate struggling with massive joblessness and the largest expansion in the welfare rolls in living memory. People may like the benefits when they first get them, but they don't want to live that way, and that is what the Obama Administrations policies set out to do. Consequently, they will stay home rather than vote for Romney.
I only wish I could be around to enjoy my prediction coming to fruition in real time here at Smogon, but alas, I will be at the polls all day holding signs, and then I will be enjoying a party where I watch MSNBC, the network whose anchors claimed it was their job to help the president, break down on national television. The left richly deserves this, and while there will be much work to do undoing the gigantic pile of garbage the left always leaves in its wake, Mitt Romney is singularly competent and capable of doing it, provided he has some help. I predict he will get it.
The "shellacking" that was called in 2010 is going to look like a stiff breeze once the Red Maelstrom of 2012 washes over America. I hope you all went to bed, I waited for the 6th to post this. Happy Nightmares!
What up guys, how you doin'?
I'm glad you are as excited as I am about the socialist movement.
Wonder if my vote would have made a difference. Doubt it.
Obama used Hope!
-It's Super Effective!
-Romney fainted!
-It's Super Effective!
-Romney fainted!
I don't think I'll ever understand the point behind the electoral college. On a different note, looks like the results for some of these ballot measures are kind of bullshit, despite being expected. The affirmative action ban is probably the most disappointing one because it's pretty clear the majority doesn't care/know about the stats behind it, just the general feeling of "it seems unfair, so it should be banned!". That's democracy, I guess. Then again, what do I care, I'm not even American.
PS: Deck Knight, congrats on your powers of prediction, they continue to astound everyone with their accuracy.
PS: Deck Knight, congrats on your powers of prediction, they continue to astound everyone with their accuracy.
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Because Virginia was pissed that Rhode Island was getting two Senators just like them.
...Congrats?Curtains said:
Also woman binder. Your arguments are invalid.
Well it appears I have a small amount of crow to eat.
I completely blew the Presidential race, obviously. But I don't think my assumptions were off base, for one simple thing I haven't figured out yet: The House GOP has kept its majority and in fact gained seats.
This is a ticket splitting of unprecedented proportions. At the most local levels, every single GOP House race almost to a man stayed in the same control as it was before the election. This means that the situation on the ground (the basis of my prediction) was such that for some reason people voted for President Obama, then went down ballot and voted for their existing Congressman, even if that person was a Republican.
Yet one of the major Obama campaign themes was Republican obstructionism in Congress. I don't have any rational explanations for this. I do have some irrational ones, which I will share under the premise that these explanations follow from voting not being a completely rational act.
1. People believed the first black president deserved two full terms.
His clear and utter failure in the first term did not prevent people from believing that presidents are somehow entitled to two terms. Since we've had the last two presidents win two terms, there may still be some latent thought that it would be racist to deny Obama a second term.
2. Obama's massive expansion of the poverty and dependent class blame Bush as a specific person rather than Republicans as a party for the economic mess.
This isn't a rational thought to hold in your head based on campaign messaging, but it does make sense if you think that Presidents somehow control the economy and as a President Obama needed two terms to undo two terms of Bush. If you are utterly ignorant of the fact that Congress has the power of the purse, this line of thinking makes total sense.
Now, I still believe the left is going to lose, big time. And that people are tired of the left and will abandon it in droves. This is because Obama's second term agenda will be the same as the first. This means:
1. More poor people dependent on government assistance.
2. Massive civil disobedience from Catholics in particular and the employees of religious organizations that will not violate their beliefs because of government edicts in the HHS Mandate.
3. A death spiral into an economic depression as Obama attempts to borrow, spend, and regulate his way out of a financial crisis.
I'm cool with that. People will get exactly what they voted for. And while it's going to be incredibly nasty to be an American in the next four years, Obama's second term will finally be the wake up call the country needs.
I completely blew the Presidential race, obviously. But I don't think my assumptions were off base, for one simple thing I haven't figured out yet: The House GOP has kept its majority and in fact gained seats.
This is a ticket splitting of unprecedented proportions. At the most local levels, every single GOP House race almost to a man stayed in the same control as it was before the election. This means that the situation on the ground (the basis of my prediction) was such that for some reason people voted for President Obama, then went down ballot and voted for their existing Congressman, even if that person was a Republican.
Yet one of the major Obama campaign themes was Republican obstructionism in Congress. I don't have any rational explanations for this. I do have some irrational ones, which I will share under the premise that these explanations follow from voting not being a completely rational act.
1. People believed the first black president deserved two full terms.
His clear and utter failure in the first term did not prevent people from believing that presidents are somehow entitled to two terms. Since we've had the last two presidents win two terms, there may still be some latent thought that it would be racist to deny Obama a second term.
2. Obama's massive expansion of the poverty and dependent class blame Bush as a specific person rather than Republicans as a party for the economic mess.
This isn't a rational thought to hold in your head based on campaign messaging, but it does make sense if you think that Presidents somehow control the economy and as a President Obama needed two terms to undo two terms of Bush. If you are utterly ignorant of the fact that Congress has the power of the purse, this line of thinking makes total sense.
Now, I still believe the left is going to lose, big time. And that people are tired of the left and will abandon it in droves. This is because Obama's second term agenda will be the same as the first. This means:
1. More poor people dependent on government assistance.
2. Massive civil disobedience from Catholics in particular and the employees of religious organizations that will not violate their beliefs because of government edicts in the HHS Mandate.
3. A death spiral into an economic depression as Obama attempts to borrow, spend, and regulate his way out of a financial crisis.
I'm cool with that. People will get exactly what they voted for. And while it's going to be incredibly nasty to be an American in the next four years, Obama's second term will finally be the wake up call the country needs.
It had more to do with how Virginia (and the rest of the South) wanted to deal with their slave population (which probably did stem in part from wanting "compensation" for disproportionate Senate representation). It was one thing to count them as 3/5ths of a person for census tallies and, hence, electoral votes and house representation. It was another thing entirely to just let them vote (or, more likely, to not count them at all).
- Status