Since the OP asks how the GOP would react and people have been answering the OP, I don’t understand why you’re expecting an answer about how the Democrats would react. I suspect they would react differently than the Republicans, though, simply because this implies a Republican landslide and nobody outside the true believer category thinks that will happen. 2010 was the single biggest aberration election ever so I can’t use that as a guide. More importantly, the GOP itself hasn’t been using it as a predictor so I can’t imagine why anyone else would.
First, never believe one poll about anything ever. Second, the national polls are irrelevant. Only the few swing states matter. If Romney wins independents but loses the election, why should the Democrats care? They’ve won the swing states exactly as forecast. That will be their guide. Overall, the country’s demographics are improving Democratic chances every year and those are the only demographics that matter.
Sorry, but how was anybody to know that? Nobody uses the numbers that way.
Well, either way the point is that despite the right being convinced the entire world hates Obama as much as the most right wing 10-15% of the US voting public does, how will they react if/when Obama wins the exact same states he won in 2008 minus Indiana and NC since they are convinced the entire world feels the same way they do? That is what the 538 map has been showing pretty consistently for the last few months. That gives Obama a 156 point spread in the EV.
Not only that but 538 shows Obama winning with about 345 EV also being the second most probable (right now it shows that as the most probable, above about 332 which is usually the most probable outcome). I assume that means Obama wins NC, meaning Indiana is the only state he carried in 2008 that he fails to carry in 2012. But even Indiana moved pretty leftward, in 2000 and 2004 Bush carried it by a 20 point margin, in 2008 it was even and in 2012 I think Romney only has a 5-6 point lead here.
No, because that wouldn’t be a blowout. The democrats experienced blowouts in the 70s and 80s, and that caused them to reevaluate and move to the right from what I’ve seen. Bill Clinton tried to triangulate to take the wind out of GOP policies by co-opting lighter versions of them. The left seems to move to the right when they experience a blowout, the right seems to move to the right when they experience a blowout. I don’t like it, but it is what it is.
As far as demographic trends favoring the dems, the GOP seems aware of this which is why they are pushing voter repression laws all over the country.
The 2010 election was about turnout, not about ideology. In 2008 about 70 million people voted for Obama vs 60 million for McCain, a total of 130 million voters. The 2010 midterm had 90 million voters, 50 million GOP voters and 40 million democratic voters. It wasn’t like the public at large decided they wanted what the GOP were offering (cutting medicare and SS and using the money to fund supply side tax cuts). Tons of democrats stayed home while republicans voted. If anything the only thing the dems needed to learn from 2010 was how to keep their base and voters motivated enough to vote. The one thing I learned from the 2008-2009 period when the dems had a supermajority in congress was that the dems were unwilling/unable to play hardball while the GOP was (putting them at a permanent disadvantage), and that all legislation that was passed had to be watered down enough to make it palatable to the most conservative democratic members of the house and senate. Things like that make it hard to care enough to vote.
If the GOP was incompetent and disorganized in congress while they faced a disciplined and efficient opposition, and every bit of legislation the GOP passed had to be made liberal enough to get the support of Snowe and Collins, then republicans would know how we felt in 2010.
Obviously if Obama wins it is the result of voter fraud. New laws will have to restrict voting to only lifetime GOP members, which all REAL Americans are.
I could write a model just as accurate based upon who won the corresponding World Series and Best Picture Award, and that statement would be just as meaningless. It doesn’t matter where the data came from, the only thing that matters is how accurately it predicts things that haven’t happened yet.
I do live in an echo chamber. My info on conservatives comes from 2 sources. Liberal media outlets and people I know in person who are very, very right wing. I don’t really see conservatives either in the media or in person who aren’t on the fringes. So I have a pretty bad bias on this issue.
Since the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, then they will probably react the same this time as last time: with lawsuits (Bush v. Gore, ), extended recounts (Franken), dire predictions of the end of the world as we know it, and will finally blame the voters.
I love to lsiten to the big conservative talkers following any event that happens that they feel strongly about.
When Obama won, Rush Limbaugh was positively speechless the following day. He would start sentences and then let them trail off uncompleted. He lost whole trains of thought! There was a lot of desk thumping and paper rattling. But, mostly he blamed the voters for being too stupid to vote properly.
I also recall some internet aquaintences claiming that voters were actually hypnotized by Obama.
One of my local right wing radio hosts spent the day saying things like “You can kiss the Constitution goodbye!”, “You can kiss your freedom gooodbye!”, and “It’s the end of America as we know it!”
[explanatory hijack]
Sort of like how global warming models use past data to legitimate the model. Then the validated model is used to urge action based upon model predictions for the future.[/explanatory hijack]
To the OP… if Obama wins by 60EV (300 to 238) then the GOP reaction will be mild. No major political shifts in their positions. A good chance a Hispanic candidate is on the ballot in 2016, either top of the ticket or as VP. Marco Rubio? Susana Martinez?
If Obama wins with 60EV more than the minimum (330 to 208) I doubt it would make much difference at all compared to the 60EV margin. It would take a shellacking (think Reagan v. Mondale) to make the party change course.
My suggestion would be for you to gather up all your savings and that of all your family and friends and run out right away and place a wager on Romney to win the election on the Intrade website. You could clean up!
Oh. And no matter what you do, DON’T follow the link in post #53 that GIGObuster provided.
Yes, but in the case of models for climate they indeed test them to see if they can simulate different times in the past (and the “future” when it eventually becomes the past) to validate the model, AFAIK the political model in question has not been used to test other elections older than 1980, a sign of data mining and cherry picking.