The market isn’t happy.
We’re getting there. Old white people are not going to be here forever. The country is trending demographically younger, browner and femaler, all of which favors the Democrats. A few more election cycles and the angry white male voter will be irrelevant. Bye-bye Ted Nugent!
Los Angeles is a bunch of front-runners, no surprise there.
We’re trending female? Yowsah!!
Something to do with Europe (again), I believe. It’s not always about us.
I voted for and support Obama but I don’t doubt his election is immediately contributing to the market.
Obama as president and a Democratic senate means more fighting with the GOP House over the pressing fiscal issues on the horizon. We already saw one credit downgrade due to that bickering and now we’ll see more of the same.
Had the GOP won the presidency and took the Senate, the market would feel much more secure. Maybe the nation wouldn’t like the GOP “slash-and-burn the domestic policy” answers but they’d at least be answers.
It’s also because the GOP’s policies of almost exclusively benefiting rich, white men’s interests and only tangentially at best those of anyone else, simply aren’t resonating with the changing demographics of the country.
Romney was never going to win with the GOP as it is. If the GOP tries harder to continue pandering to the exclusive interests of rich, white men, it will continue losing national elections.
This year, none of the GOP candidates could have won, at least no one who could get through the GOP primaries.
Market did fine the first four years after Obama. 
A 1-day sell-off (which could be for any of a number of reasons) doesn’t mean much.
It’s mostly the bad economic projections from Europe. I may go on a killing spree if I am subjected to another round of the-market-hates-Obama stories.
This - the Senate part especially - already unlikely by the time people actually began voting. Some investors may have expected it or wanted it, but I don’t think that many people expected it.
We’ll get them, and it won’t take all that long. The Tea Party’s base will be mostly gone in 10-15 years.
As much as I like to believe this, and am enjoying this day immensely: Romney did get 49% of the vote, and any of several slight nudges/fewer missteps here and there, and he’d be our next president. So I’m reluctant to draw sweeping conclusions about Our Changing Electorate.
48.1% is what I see right now–not that it changes your point.
Let it sulk in a corner; it’ll be over it tomorrow.
Here’s why: minority electoral participation has lagged behind that of whites. In short, whites are more likely to be registered and go vote. As minority populations increase, correspondingly we’re also seeing higher (albeit not yet equal to white) participation in the voting process. As minorities realize they can have a real voice and elect people who promote their interests, participation will continue to increase. In the end, the GOP is facing a serious problem in alienating everyone besides white men.
ETA: Obama would have had to blow it big time for enough of a nudge for him to lose. Something like a major gaffe. It seems close, but it wasn’t really, and it will be less close in the future if the GOP continues alienating people who aren’t white men.
And he alienated some of us real good.
Here’s the President’s acceptance speech, for those who missed it in the wee small hours: http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_rr_7#/video/politics/2012/11/07/election-obama-victory-speech.cnn
Interesting question. How’s this for a what-if Romney Cabinet?
State - Richard Lugar
Treasury - Chuck Grassley
Defense - John McCain
Justice - Rudy Giuliani
Interior - Lisa Murkowski
Agriculture - Rick Perry
Commerce - Lamar Alexander
Labor - George Allen
Health and Human Services - Betty Sutton*
Housing and Urban Development - Tom Latham
Transportation - Rick Santorum
Energy - Kay Bailey Hutchison
Education - Judy Biggert
Veterans Affairs - Ann Marie Buerkle
Homeland Security - Jon Kyl
*Obligatory bipartisan appointment; she just lost her House race.
Goodbye to the Romney campaign, which was not only dishonest, but astonishingly, flagrantly, almost gleefully dishonest about almost every major issue. In terms of pure bullshit they went above and beyond what I expect from a presidential campaign, and not by a little bit. And congrats to Mitt Romney on keeping his pre-2010 tax records private. Nobody will ever be able to take that victory away from you.
Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up getting leaked anyway now that there is no campaign to ruin, but hey, Romney stuck to his principles on that issue and that issue alone. If you figure Massachusetts Gov. Romney is the actual Mitt Romney, actual Mitt Romney could’ve made a pretty tolerable Republican president. Instead he spent most of his time sucking up to the far right and lost moderates just like John McCain did four years ago. Good strategy.
Yeah, I’ll be reading with interest his post-mortem on the model, especially versus Wang’s approach. If I understand Wang correctly, his approach is completely poll-based, while Nate Silver puts in additional features such as economic factors, “state fundamentals,” and that sort of thing. Is the added complexity adding predictive power, or is it making the predictions somewhat noisier? Would it be better to pare down the feature set? Nate’s model may well be the better one, even if his scorecard ends up being not quite as impressive as Sam’s, but I’m curious to hear what he has to say about those things.
Donald Trump was just chewing out Karl Rove on Twitter. It’s awesome. It’s like the end of a bad action movie where the villain blames all of his failures on the henchman who carried out his orders. Usually that ends with the henchman kicking the villain in the groin and walking out of his lair, but I don’t think we’ll see that this time.