My conservative friends/relatives (mostly relatives) were all posting confident predictions of a Romney victory too. My uncle posted an electoral map prediction that had Romney winning every single swing state, including the ones like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that were only “swing states” in some kind of weird Fox News alternate universe. His opinion was that all the polls showing Obama in the lead were heavily biased towards Democrats. He didn’t explain the mechanism by which this biasing would work. Just, you know, biased.
I wish he’d gone silent after the election, but instead he shifted immediately into full-on “blame the moocher class” mode and is posting 5-6x per day about how everyone in this country just wants free cash from the government and welfare queens and how there’s going to be a revolution and his ammo supplier has run out of ammo (HE WONDERS WHY) and 15 states are already talking about seceding from the Union, and THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING.
I know I should probably just hide his posts but I can’t stop reading them. I have this sick fascination with seeing into the mind of a mentally ill conspiracy theorist, I guess. (And to some extent I am worried about my uncle, because he used to seem much more rational, and I don’t know if he used to just hide it better, or whether he is actually experiencing some sort of mental condition.)
thank you for responding to this. I think your point of view is the most valuable posts so far on this thread.
The polls I saw towards the end at best had them dead even in the popular vote, but Obama clearly at an advantage in the electoral vote.
What did you think about the polls? Did you not believe any of them? To me, if my candidate was dead even with the oponent or even slightly ahead…I would still think there was a chance he would lose…so I wouldn’t be shocked.
I can understand being EXTREMELY disappointed (and your post indicates you feel the same way) but I don’t really follow the complete surprise and denial that Romney might actually lose.
As funny as this is, it will only become increasingly true.
What my Mom and other hard core conservatives don’t get, is that many Dems, independents, and Libertarians also think that fiscal conservatism is a good idea (when implemented properly).
I should, and may, start a thread on this. Wanting to settle financial issues should be on everyone’s mind, and it usually is. Wanting to alienate people of certain income levels, genders, and sexual orientations is just not good politics.
A middle ground exists, we just may never get there with our current method of electing leaders.
That said, given the terms "Anger, hatred, shock, vitriol, animosity, and outrage,.. which party most embodies those, both before and after the election?
Maybe the extent of it, but you should see some of my friends commenting on facebook. I’m afraid my one friend is going to have a stroke. He’s seriously convinced that we’re going to become a communist dictatorship – no hyperbole on my part. Nice guy, but dude needs to chillax.
I don’t even know how to put into words how crazy I find it that people are thinking this way AGAIN. Last time, okay, still crazy as hell but there a lot of crazy people out there. This time? I think the DSM-V needs to list a new mental illness called Obamaphobia. Or something.
Even much of the GOP leadership seemed to truly believe that Romney would win. My theory is that they believed the polls were biased because that is how they would be doing things and assumed the “liberal” media would of course do the same thing.
Actually, I was very surprised that Romney lost. I really didn’t think the American public was so incredibly stupid as to re-elect a President with a track record of four years of nothing but fuck-ups.
Yeah, OK, Americans = stupid because they didn’t vote your preferred way, we know. The point is, were you surprised on Election Day and if so, why? Did you not believe the polls or did you think they were biased or what? Or do you just mean you were surprised in general when you saw the way the polls were trending?
This. The one thing in common of the people I know who were honestly shocked is that they are all Fox News watchers. And I don’t think it’s so much that Fox is in denial, but that they’ve never really made any big secret that their watchword is “Tell our viewers what they want to hear.” Hell, Rush Limbaugh has made a fortune from that philosophy.
Obama a secret muslim? We live under tyranny? The presidency captured by moochers and socialists? The Tea Party our last hope? People honestly belive this tripe, and I put 90% of the blame on Fox News.
What really surprised me is that Romney and his gang were “shell-shocked” on election night. With the internal polls and, I assume, quite a lot of information the rest of us couldn’t see, they must have know losing was at least a possibility, and perhaps a probability. But it appears they really thought they had it sewed up. No concession speech, transition website up and running, etc. I almost feel sorry for the guy.
I voted for Romney. I expected him to lose. More and more people in big cities are overpowering us country folk.
I knew he would win in a landslide in my state, and he did, but that it would not matter. We don’t have many electoral votes. I probably would not have voted if there weren’t other more tightly contested races on our ballot.
I wouldn’t say I was a Romney supporter. He was the only viable candidate left by the time my state got to vote in the primaries.
The fact that my state is considered a ‘gimme’ for the Republicans (in presidential elections), has few electoral votes, and has a late primary kind of makes me feel powerless.
I support direct election of the president, which would make everyone’s vote equally important. Of course Romney would have still lost. And it would still be more economical for candidates to spend their money in high-populations areas… but believe me you don’t want more political TV commercials and fundraising calls.
Do you feel that rural interests are being ignored in favor of urban interests, or is it just the defeat of Republican interests that make you say the cities are overpowering the “country folk”? I don’t think the two are the same thing.
I was suprised but not shocked. I would have bet that Romney was going to win, but I thought it was going to be close. When I saw the crop of Republican candidates I thought there was no way Obama could lose, but he campaigned worse than I thought he would and Romney campaigned better than I thought he would.
I thought the polls I read had sampled too many democrats because I thought the turnout would be much lower than 2008 since people would come to their senses a little bit. They did but not in the swing states where it would have made a difference.
The polls were close and almost every year the polling is wrong, for instance in 1980 Gallup predicted a 3 point Reagan win instead of a 9 point win. In 1988 they predicted a 12 point Bush win instead of the actual 7 point win, In 1992 they predicted a 12 point Clinton win instead of the 5.5 point win, In 1996 they predicted a 12 point Clinton instead of the actual 9.5 percent, In 2000 they predicted 2 point Bush win instead of a .5 percent loss, in 2004 the predicted a tie instead of a 2.5 percent Bush win, in 2008 they predicted an 11 point win for Obama instead of a 7 point win.
So in the last 30 years the only race Gallup called correctly was 1984. All of the other races had the actual margin of error outside what the polls for this race were indicating. The polls in 2008 indicated more support for Obama than turned out to actually be the case so I felt in this year of diminished enthusiasm for Obams they would be a similar skew of the polls and turn a tight defeat into a tight victory.
Silver seems to be a very good poll analyst but his model failed him in 2010 in the congressional races and in the last UK election. I do not know if his models have improved or this was just luck.
I think this comment pretty much goes to the heart of why people are surprised; a lot of my Republican acquaintances honestly seem to have no idea that the majority of the population does not perceive Obama as having a track record of four years of nothing but fuck-ups. (I don’t think that this is specifically true of Clothahump and other SDMB posters, since they’ve obviously sought out at least one social venue where they’re in the minority, but in a lot of cases they seem to be so heavily immersed in communities where it is taken for granted that the president has been a failure that they forget this isn’t a universal assumption everywhere.)
No doubt, but that cuts both ways - witness Pauline Kael’s famous remark that she couldn’t understand how Nixon was re-elected, because “nobody I know voted for him.”
And we had Dopers predicting a landslide for Kerry in 2004 as well.
My understanding is that they used demographic data from 2004 to ‘unskew’ the polls, assuming that the high voter turnout among minorities, women and youths in 2008 was an aberration while Silver and others simply used the most recent data available.
For me, it means that Kael knew perfectly well, when she was in a large public place like a movie theater, that there were Nixon voters all around her on all sides, but that she chose (as any sensible person would) to avoid socializing, chatting, exchanging ideas, entertaining Nixon voters when she had that option because of the likelihood that they would behave in boorish, self-centered, obnoxious ways. You know, like Republicans can’t help themselves from doing.