Not to mention CO, IA, and NM!
The Donald, Ted Nugent, Meat Loaf?
That’s quite a wall of numbers Dick “the dick” Morris has put up there. Sadly, not a single one is specific to his claims about Sandy. What a moron.
We’re still waiting on the North Dakota Senate race, but it looks like Heidi Heitkamp was somehow able to pull off an upset and win that race.
I don’t know how many people were expecting this either, but Democrat John Tester has held onto his Senate seat.
People should stop paying attention to Dick Morris. He’s good for a laugh but I doubt he believes anything he says. It’s just too stupid. For the record, turnout in New York and New Jersey were both down more than 10 percent - Sandy had a bigger effect than I thought. Obama still won with a majority of the popular vote but it would’ve been a bigger win if not for the weather. (Turnout overall was down, though.) Given the results in the House and Senate I don’t think Republican leadership will be able to convince a lot of thinking people that Romney lost because of Sandy. It didn’t help him, but he’d already lost.
No, sir. What this country needs is a different two-party system, with the two parties being the Dems and some new progressive-left party, and the Pubs/conservatives completely and permanently marginalized.
Sam Wang picked both of those, thereby entitling him to kick sand in the face of Nate Silver if he ever sees him on the beach.
The Montana senate race was one of the few things that Silver got wrong. Tester had been ahead in almost all the polls the week leading up to the race, had raised a ton of money, and was running as the incumbent. Yet Silver’s “state fundamental” adjustment added an entire eight points to the polls in Rehberg’s favor, making him a roughly sixty five percent favorite. I’d like to see him explain why his adjustments were so far off the mark.
He called tons of races, many of them with 90% probabilities, many with 60-some% probabilities.
He called this one 66% Republican and 34% Democrat.
*That’s not wrong.
*
If anything, he’s too conservative. He got nearly all of his hunches right - whether he claimed it was ‘on the bubble’ or ‘near certain.’ He got more right than he predicted he would.
He also, once again, where he erred, erred on the side of over-estimating the Republican.
This is kind of picky, isn’t it? If he said Tester was probably going to lose in spite of the polls and Tester won as the polls predicted, he did at least get some significant things wrong in that race.
Uh yeah that’s what I said.
And when the smoke cleared, and Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and Colorado all went for Obama, California, for the 25th consecutive time, was irrelevant. Not since Woodrow Wilson in 1916 has the winner not had a majority without California.
I think what you really mean is that this country needs different people.
I was disappointed, but now, after reflection, I accept the results. For me, my goal is to avoid losing my savings and assets. I don’t care about any reforms to government any more, as I accept that reforms are impossible (with the Federal gov consuming 40% of GNP). Frankly, I hope Obama piles on spending and taxation to the point where things collapse-only that will cause any real reform. Think of this period as akin to the end of the pre-WWI world order. The whole structure is rotten, and needs to be razed to the ground.
Haha! Stop horsing around olives and help me with this crow stew. Pass me that big ceramic bowl. And don’t forget to tell OMG not to get his ass up until he’s finished every bite.
So which is it?
I’m sorry to say, but your assets are probably a lot safer under Obama than any Republican, at least until this foolish supply-side/job creator nonsense gets thrown away.
Yeah - he could replicate the spending and taxation of the early 1940’s. That would have a devastating effect on the economy for decades to come, just like it did before, right?
If the lesson that you’re taking away from this election is that the US is now “D+6”, then you’re still missing the point. You’re still stuck in “the electorate is wrong” mode, and you’re continually going to lose elections if you try to chane what the electorate is. The way you change that party ID margin is by crafting a message that 50% or more of the electorate likes. Perhaps that seems obvious, but it’s something that Republicans seemed to be denying or resisting the entire time. Think about all the harping about independents - OK, Republicans won them by 5, per CNN’s exit poll. But if you were using that as a proxy for moderates - well, Obama won those by 15.
That sums him up perfectly.
The speech was certainly gracious, appreciative, and congratulatory towards Obama, with the standard “let’s work together” line. But to be honest, it felt like a speech that had been put together with a checklist:
- State outcome
- Thank wife
- Thank kids
- Thank running mate
- Reaffirm values /w generic statement
- Wish Obama luck
- Generic statement of needing to work together
- Thank assembled party members
- Wave, smile, exit stage right
I got absolutely nothing from the guy that told me what Mitt Romney actually felt at the moment. He must have been horribly, bitterly disappointed, because despite the apparent 332-205 EV count the truth is that he came VERY close to winning. And it was all over. He could have said a lot of things. He could have apologized to his party, he could have trumpeted Paul Ryan for 2016, he could have begged Republicans to really work with Obama, he could have picked an issue and demanded action, whatever. But he basically said nothing.
And really, that’s why he lost against a beatable opponent. He never gave the people an affirmative reason why they should vote for him.
The problem was not just that Romney was dull and uninspiring and lacked any semblance of conviction, it’s that even with those flaws, Romney was by far the best Republican presidential candidate in 2012.