Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-18-2012, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,409,456 times
Reputation: 4586

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Oops, they are so easy to mix up with their wild claims....Ed was definitely the one who thought Oregon would go red, instead it went blue by 12%, even higher than I thought it would.
Saying Obama had a 2.34% chance of winning the election and having predicted a Romney victory are two different things. A lot of respected pundits (yes, conservatives, but I'm talking about George Will and the like and not just people like Dick Morris) were predicting a Romney victory even in the few days before the election. Predicting a Romney victory a few weeks before the election would certainly not have been so out there, when even your beloved Nate Silver said he had a ~40% chance.

I don't think Edward thought Oregon would go red, I think he said he thought there was a chance. (I certainly did not agree.) There was at least one poll that had Obama up just 4 there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-18-2012, 09:40 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,409,456 times
Reputation: 4586
As far as the Senate in 2014, it *is* logical to say that the Republicans look more likely to make gains than the Democrats. And it *was* logical to say the same about this election. The Republicans really messed up when they had excellent opportunities for pick-ups. They handed the Senate back to the Democrats and it's their own fault, but that doesn't mean that it was unlikely that the Republicans would take back the Senate before the candidates started to implode. Up until a few months ago, it seemed very likely to any rational person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2012, 09:42 AM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,361,384 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
All due to the 2010 mid-terms, which then took advantage of the 2010 Census to gerrymander control to the GOP until 2022.
Not really gerrymandering tends to lose its potency after mid-decade because of population shifts. E.g. there are several districts in Texas that are solid GOP atm but are expected to become toss up or lean Democrat as they become more Latino by the end of the decade.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2012, 10:43 AM
 
10,854 posts, read 9,274,993 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
Not really gerrymandering tends to lose its potency after mid-decade because of population shifts. E.g. there are several districts in Texas that are solid GOP atm but are expected to become toss up or lean Democrat as they become more Latino by the end of the decade.
By the time 2020 rolls around gerrymandering in states with a large rise in the Hispanic population is going to be harder and harder.

It will be interesting to see what will happen with the Supreme Court ruling on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. If it's voted down watch for southern states to do everything in their power to disenfranchise non-White voters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2012, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
22,140 posts, read 19,354,214 times
Reputation: 5279
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
As far as the Senate in 2014, it *is* logical to say that the Republicans look more likely to make gains than the Democrats. And it *was* logical to say the same about this election. The Republicans really messed up when they had excellent opportunities for pick-ups. They handed the Senate back to the Democrats and it's their own fault, but that doesn't mean that it was unlikely that the Republicans would take back the Senate before the candidates started to implode. Up until a few months ago, it seemed very likely to any rational person.
Yes and no. I do agree it is logical to say the GOP will pick up seats in 2014. With that being said a few months ago I don't think it was logical to suggest the GOP was going to take over the Senate. Pick up seats? Yes, Giving an argument that taking over the Senate was possible a few months ago? Perhaps, but a likely Senate take over? You really need to go back a year for that one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2012, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,037,392 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Saying Obama had a 2.34% chance of winning the election and having predicted a Romney victory are two different things. A lot of respected pundits (yes, conservatives, but I'm talking about George Will and the like and not just people like Dick Morris) were predicting a Romney victory even in the few days before the election. Predicting a Romney victory a few weeks before the election would certainly not have been so out there, when even your beloved Nate Silver said he had a ~40% chance.

I don't think Edward thought Oregon would go red, I think he said he thought there was a chance. (I certainly did not agree.) There was at least one poll that had Obama up just 4 there.
Ed was predicting that there was a good chance Oregon was gonna go red and brought it up repeatedly, no matter how many times I pointed out how false that assumption was.

As for others who were predicting a Romney win, it was because they were going off of 2004 math rather than 2008, as if they thought those voters in 2008 would just disappear and a more white voting block would show up at the polls. This was not the case and the trend is showing that minority voters are growing during the presidential elections and will more than likely show up in even larger numbers in 2016.

Now if only we can get those same minority voters to show up in 2014 and other no presidential elections, then we would see an even more of a shift towards the Democrats on a more consistent level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2012, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,409,456 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
As for others who were predicting a Romney win, it was because they were going off of 2004 math rather than 2008, as if they thought those voters in 2008 would just disappear and a more white voting block would show up at the polls. This was not the case and the trend is showing that minority voters are growing during the presidential elections and will more than likely show up in even larger numbers in 2016.
Not necessarily. Even the PPP poll (national) had Romney up 4 at one point after that first debate. I don't think anyone was going off of 2004 math necessarily (or pundits were necessarily going off of "math" at all). More 2008 math and simply assuming that the minority share of the vote would not increase (despite growth in the Hispanic and Asian populations).

White turnout was actually down from 2008 and 2004 by quite a bit (despite increases in the white voting age population). It was not conventional wisdom that white turnout would be down so much in sheer numbers.

Looking back, there have been roughly 3% gains in the percentage of the vote that is minority in every presidential election when compared to the previous one and in every midterm election when compared to the previous one, but that trend has somewhat slowed, with only about a 1.5% gain between 2006 and 2010 (though one could argue that 2010 was a special case). Will black voters turn out in such large numbers in 2016 (when their share of the population is not increasing) with a Democratic nominee who will probably not be black? Unlikely.. Will the Hispanic vote continue to get larger? Yes. Will whites continue to not turn out? We don't know. The idea that there is some permanent Democratic majority emerging is really a wet dream of the left. While the demographics will get harder for Republicans as the Hispanic population grows, there is no certainty that 70%+ of Hispanics will be voting Democrat in every election. Look at how well Bush did among Hispanics in 2004.

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 11-18-2012 at 02:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2012, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,183 posts, read 22,202,559 times
Reputation: 23807
I think that the voters showed they do not want a one party majority across the board.

I believe the mid-terms may chew down the Republican House majority, but that majority will be kept. The Senate may narrow, but I think the Democratic majority will be kept there in the mid-terms. The Senate, though, had a big bunch of senior members who may decide to retire, so if anything, the Senate is a greater question in my mind.

But, no matter how it's sliced and diced, I think all majorites will narrow. Previous Congresses that have had narrow majorities were very often the ones that got the most stuff done, and some of the most important legislation passed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2012, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,409,456 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Yes and no. I do agree it is logical to say the GOP will pick up seats in 2014. With that being said a few months ago I don't think it was logical to suggest the GOP was going to take over the Senate. Pick up seats? Yes, Giving an argument that taking over the Senate was possible a few months ago? Perhaps, but a likely Senate take over? You really need to go back a year for that one.
I wasn't thinking "Oh, what was the exact date when it no longer looked like the GOP was very likely to take the Senate?" I probably shouldn't have said "a few months." I was just thinking "a while back."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2012, 08:52 PM
 
Location: New York City
4,035 posts, read 10,266,013 times
Reputation: 3753
It's interesting that everyone missed the "enthusiasm" story. The blogosphere (and boards like this) were so angry and nasty that everyone assumed the that enthusiasm was with the Republicans, although no one had hard data to prove it. That assumption was false and many Republicans didn't vote at all.

On the other hand, everyone, including the so-called Liberal Media, assumed that enthusiasm would be down among students and minorities, whereas they maintained or increased previous levels.

The GOP has outsourced its GOTV programs to Rush and Fox News. It worked in 2010, but fell dismally short in 2012. Shoe-leather and personal interaction triumphed over mass-market vitriol and demagoguery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top