Why Obama Won

[atypical1]

Voter ID is a red herring. If you don’t have an ID in this country you’re pretty much non-existent because you can’t rent an apartment, get a bank account, buy beer, get a credit card, drive a car, etc. California goes above and beyond to issue people ID cards so that everyone who wants to can participate in society.

In fact I would argue that the push to get everyone an ID card is actually a empowering move and allows people who wouldn’t otherwise be able to do a lot of things participate in society to a fuller extent.

The real problem is all the rhetoric that Repubs use when talking about immigrants and “minorities” in general. Romney has a strong Mexican heritage and instead of capitalizing on it he chose to pretend that it doesn’t exist. That was a mistake because Obama’s multicultural heritage spoke to much of America.

james

[Neuromancer]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

I mean smarter as in able to put together a team, plan, narrative and system that allowed him to get elected then re-tool, build a new narrative and overcome numerous obstacles (economy, Benghazi, RW Radio etc), all the while appearing as if all of the shit flying around him was confetti and flower petals[/quote]

He did none of these things. The campaign was, by any metric, terrible: clumsy, tin-eared, defensive and without intellectual vigor to propose any vision for 2012 forward.

The credit - and there is much to give - is with the state Democratic machines that turned out voters for Democratic candidates. Democratic voters turned out not because of but rather in spite of the terrible Obama campaign.

The Democratic Party knows how to play the game of electoral politics, even when there is an unimpressive candidate on the top of the ticket. They had no business in picking up Senate seats, and they did. Independents voted for Romney - Obama won without them.

The lesson of the 2012 remains - Obama-bots still can’t help projecting. This victory was not the result of Obama’s incredible awesomeness that won the broad swath of the American electorate - it was a base/party-identifier turnout win, and the national Democratic Party knows how to do this, and do it very well.

That isn’t a back-handed compliment either - they did exactly what they needed to do, given both candidates’ weaknesses.[/quote]

So in other words, they have a better political machine at this point? And Obama was/is perhaps a better ‘politician’ than the R candidate that was fielded?

And I don’t mean the better politician as being a superior leader or candidate, just as better in that very narrow sense of the word relating to playing the get elected game.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

So in other words, they have a better political machine at this point? And Obama was/is perhaps a better ‘politician’ than the R candidate that was fielded?

And I don’t mean the better politician as being a superior leader or candidate, just as better in that very narrow sense of the word relating to playing the get elected game.[/quote]

Yes, as to the better machine, and more motivated voters. Democrats understood the importance of keeping a D in the White House, regardless of his name or record. Democratic voters coalesced when they had no particular reason on paper to do so, given Obama’s bad record and bad campaign. The state machines get that as well - they knew that independents were lost, and that Obama didn’t win this campaign unless they got party-identification turnout.

Is Obama a better politician? I’d say maybe, but not really. Romney just can’t overcome the Republican brand. He ran a far better and smarter campaign. And again, I think Obama won despite himself - he’s very lucky he has such a motivated base. I think that is in part to who he is, so he gets some credit for that, although some of that is an indictment of how superficial and frivolous many of the “baselings” are (i.e., they are going to basically vote for him no matter what his record).

[countingbeans]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And again, I think Obama won despite himself - he’s very lucky he has such a motivated base. I think that is in part to who he is, so he gets some credit for that, although some of that is an indictment of how superficial and frivolous many of the “baselings” are (i.e., they are going to basically vote for him no matter what his record).[/quote]

This speaks to his appeals to pop culture. The man is a rock star and the cult of Obama is a strong presence in this nation.

Watching people fall all over themselves to love O is entertaining at lease.

[Mufasa]

30,000 plus Romney Westchester Ohio Rally

TB:

If you could go into this a little deeper (because it led to me calling the Presidential election wrong for the SECOND time):

"…I think Obama won despite himself - he’s very lucky he has such a [i]motivated base[/i]…

The Mid Terms…the Tea Party…the historical reality that GOP voters turn out in greater numbers that DEMS… the absolute hate and disdain of the President by most Conservatives…

The list could go on and on showing a Conservative Base that (IMO) appeared even more motivated than the Liberal/DEM base…(and remember…the GOP also lost numbers in the Senate).

Was this a misperception on my part?

Did the GOP simply not have the numbers?

How does one even judge the motivation of voters after this election…or is this simply an overrated metric?

Mufasa

[ZEB]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And again, I think Obama won despite himself - he’s very lucky he has such a motivated base. I think that is in part to who he is, so he gets some credit for that, although some of that is an indictment of how superficial and frivolous many of the “baselings” are (i.e., they are going to basically vote for him no matter what his record).[/quote]

This speaks to his appeals to pop culture. The man is a rock star and the cult of Obama is a strong presence in this nation.

Watching people fall all over themselves to love O is entertaining at lease.[/quote]

Yet, far less turned out to vote for him this time over last. The only problem is Romney did not get out his vote.

[ZEB]

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
30,000 plus Romney Westchester Ohio Rally

TB:

If you could go into this a little deeper (because it led to me calling the Presidential election wrong for the SECOND time):

"…I think Obama won despite himself - he’s very lucky he has such a [i]motivated base[/i]…

The Mid Terms…the Tea Party…the historical reality that GOP voters turn out in greater numbers that DEMS… the absolute hate and disdain of the President by most Conservatives…

The list could go on and on showing a Conservative Base that (IMO) appeared even more motivated than the Liberal/DEM base…(and remember…the GOP also lost numbers in the Senate).

Was this a misperception on my part?

Did the GOP simply not have the numbers?

How does one even judge the motivation of voters after this election…or is this simply an overrated metric?

Mufasa
[/quote]

This was explained in my original post Mufasa.

Obama locked in:

1. The 18-30 year olds because he’s waaaaaay cool

2. Single women because of the fictitious allegation of republican war on women (brilliant really)

3. Unions who financially benfit by keeping obama.

4. Minorities who were attracted to obama as they were in 08’ as they see him as one of them.

There you have it.

Yes, the right hates Obama but there were simply more who apparently liked or loved him by about 1.5 million.

End of story.

[VTBalla34]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I now have a modified opinion of Mensa.

Anyone who comes on to PWI and brags about having a card from that organization is swimming in the shallow end of the pool. With floatees.[/quote]

That’s not a reflection on Mensa.

Most people who bring up IQ or Mensa are typically lying.[/quote]

That was my very (attempted) subtle implication.[/quote]

Not at all surprised you PWI-wonders are shocked by this…ya know, everyone that isn’t on your side is a fucking moron and all…LOL

Got the closure I need from this forum though, I will let you guys go back to your little circle jerk.

[ZEB]

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
I will let you guys go back to your little circle jerk.
[/quote]

There you go again talking about guys jerking off. I think you have more problems than not being very good at the fine art of debate.

But um…yeah run along for now. If we want to hear from you we’ll lt you know.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

TB:

If you could go into this a little deeper (because it led to me calling the Presidential election wrong for the SECOND time):

"…I think Obama won despite himself - he’s very lucky he has such a [i]motivated base[/i]…

The Mid Terms…the Tea Party…the historical reality that GOP voters turn out in greater numbers that DEMS… the absolute hate and disdain of the President by most Conservatives…

The list could go on and on showing a Conservative Base that (IMO) appeared even more motivated than the Liberal/DEM base…(and remember…the GOP also lost numbers in the Senate).

Was this a misperception on my part?

Did the GOP simply not have the numbers?

How does one even judge the motivation of voters after this election…or is this simply an overrated metric?[/quote]

First, I think the “hatred” of the President is overrated and overestimated. People were very unhappy with the Obama process debacle, and so they “shellacked” the Democrats by overwhelmingly voting them out in 2010 and installing, in some places, the Tea Party types. But all that anger - which was/is real - isn’t the white-hot hatred of recent lore - the Tea Party freshmen were the recipients of that frustration to be sure, but not everyone shared their “hatred” (if it can be called that).

Now, I thought the base and “anybody but Obama” numbers would be higher, though.

I think you said it right - the GOP just doesn’t have the numbers. Party-identification - which can be a solid indicator of your willingness to come out and vote - is low for the GOP. People who are excited to be card-carrying party members turn out for their candidate, even if the candidate is mediocre or imperfect. The party can be bigger than any one candidate - and we saw that with the Democrats.

Most “card-carrying” Democrats are really, really excited about being Democrats. And they go vote - because they are excited about voting Democrat, regardless of the office. The GOP doesn’t have this reliable group, because it doesn’t have robust party-identifiers. Enthusiasm is not high, and so the volumes aren’t there.

Some of this is inevitable - given that Democrats are, more-or-less, “pro-government”, they get more excited about participating in it - they see opportunity to realize important things to them. Republicans tend to be less-enthusiastic about government - and even “anti-government” more recently - and there is naturally less enthusiasm among people who at least somewhat identify with the GOP.

This stark difference - not always so stark, but now it is - demonstrates a huge GOP weakness: no real tradition of public service for party-identifiers to get behind.

The other problem? The GOP brand just sucks. The GOP litmus test is narrower than ever, and is rigid - for example, don’t think you can be a Republican that advocates higher taxes as part of closing deficits, even though none other than Barry Goldwater took this position…you’ll be labeled a traitor. The tent is too small right now.

And I think alot of this has been made worse by the incredibly horrible candidates it has fielded since 2008.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Got the closure I need from this forum though, I will let you guys go back to your little circle jerk.[/quote]

We’ll enjoy the bump in PWI’s average IQ after your departure. Don’t let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you.

[Sloth]

Mufasa

[/quote]

I’m thinking the whole center-right country thing is a fantasy. Yeah, ok, compared to Europe. Anyways, the Democrats can cobble together enough minority groups by presenting themselves as protector of each one’s racial interest, while still still taking enough of the white vote to win it. And I’m not sure big turnouts overall are in the Republican’s best interest. For now on we have to turn out like crazy, hoping the Democrats have an off cycle. Because if both turnout, I see Republicans coming up short from here on out.

It’s a minority interests vs white vote sort of country. And the white part is a shrinking part of the demographic.

[Mufasa]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

TB:

If you could go into this a little deeper (because it led to me calling the Presidential election wrong for the SECOND time):

"…I think Obama won despite himself - he’s very lucky he has such a [i]motivated base[/i]…

The Mid Terms…the Tea Party…the historical reality that GOP voters turn out in greater numbers that DEMS… the absolute hate and disdain of the President by most Conservatives…

The list could go on and on showing a Conservative Base that (IMO) appeared even more motivated than the Liberal/DEM base…(and remember…the GOP also lost numbers in the Senate).

Was this a misperception on my part?

Did the GOP simply not have the numbers?

How does one even judge the motivation of voters after this election…or is this simply an overrated metric?[/quote]

First, I think the “hatred” of the President is overrated and overestimated. People were very unhappy with the Obama process debacle, and so they “shellacked” the Democrats by overwhelmingly voting them out in 2010 and installing, in some places, the Tea Party types. But all that anger - which was/is real - isn’t the white-hot hatred of recent lore - the Tea Party freshmen were the recipients of that frustration to be sure, but not everyone shared their “hatred” (if it can be called that).

Now, I thought the base and “anybody but Obama” numbers would be higher, though.

I think you said it right - the GOP just doesn’t have the numbers. Party-identification - which can be a solid indicator of your willingness to come out and vote - is low for the GOP. People who are excited to be card-carrying party members turn out for their candidate, even if the candidate is mediocre or imperfect. The party can be bigger than any one candidate - and we saw that with the Democrats.

Most “card-carrying” Democrats are really, really excited about being Democrats. And they go vote - because they are excited about voting Democrat, regardless of the office. The GOP doesn’t have this reliable group, because it doesn’t have robust party-identifiers. Enthusiasm is not high, and so the volumes aren’t there.

Some of this is inevitable - given that Democrats are, more-or-less, “pro-government”, they get more excited about participating in it - they see opportunity to realize important things to them. Republicans tend to be less-enthusiastic about government - and even “anti-government” more recently - and there is naturally less enthusiasm among people who at least somewhat identify with the GOP.

This stark difference - not always so stark, but now it is - demonstrates a huge GOP weakness: no real tradition of public service for party-identifiers to get behind.

The other problem? The GOP brand just sucks. The GOP litmus test is narrower than ever, and is rigid - for example, don’t think you can be a Republican that advocates higher taxes as part of closing deficits, even though none other than Barry Goldwater took this position…you’ll be labeled a traitor. The tent is too small right now.

And I think alot of this has been made worse by the incredibly horrible candidates it has fielded since 2008.[/quote]

Damn good stuff as usual, Bolt.

It should be interesting the changes we see (if any) in the GOP AND the President over the next two years. (If they even feel as though they need to change).

The 2014 Mid-Term Elections could be as interesting as the last one(s).

Mufasa

[Mufasa]

The President just (Saturday after the Election!) officially Won Florida…

Seriously…what is the deal with Florida, and the “issues” they seem to have with elections?

Mufasa

[BrianHanson]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
keep working on suppressing voter rights, [/quote]

when did this happen?[/quote]

I guess you weren’t paying attention as they attempted to change the rules regarding ID’s for voters leading up to the election in several contested states. Voter suppression is pretty accurate.[/quote]

Brian, I usually try to ignore your liberal drool since most of it has come from the 90’s and you’ve not had an original thought since then. But I can’t resist this gem.

If someone who may look young attempts to purchase alcohol he is asked for ID, same thing if they want to purchase a gun. If someone even attempts to go into an adult movie they might be asked for an ID. It’s not out of the question to ask someone for an ID before they vote. We can avoid fraud this way. But…that’s not what the democrats want because they like fraud at the voting booth is that it?

What’s wrong Briaaaaan…afraid there will be less dead people voting for democrats if we have some reasonable rules.
[/quote]

Zeb,

At what point did I say we shouldn’t have ID’s presented for voting? Voter suppression by requiring ID’s happens when you change the existing rules (no ID necessary) within a time frame deemed unacceptable for the people being disenfranchised (in this case the poor) to correct the situation, it also occurs when there is a $ cost associated with obtaining the ID in question (in some states non-driver ID’s are free, but the documentation required to get the ID can cost as much as $75 if you do not currently have it.). Go back under your rock Zeb, you are as usual, uninformed.

[BrianHanson]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

I mean smarter as in able to put together a team, plan, narrative and system that allowed him to get elected then re-tool, build a new narrative and overcome numerous obstacles (economy, Benghazi, RW Radio etc), all the while appearing as if all of the shit flying around him was confetti and flower petals[/quote]

He did none of these things. The campaign was, by any metric, terrible: clumsy, tin-eared, defensive and without intellectual vigor to propose any vision for 2012 forward.

The credit - and there is much to give - is with the state Democratic machines that turned out voters for Democratic candidates. Democratic voters turned out not because of but rather in spite of the terrible Obama campaign.

The Democratic Party knows how to play the game of electoral politics, even when there is an unimpressive candidate on the top of the ticket. They had no business in picking up Senate seats, and they did. Independents voted for Romney - Obama won without them.

The lesson of the 2012 remains - Obama-bots still can’t help projecting. This victory was not the result of Obama’s incredible awesomeness that won the broad swath of the American electorate - it was a base/party-identifier turnout win, and the national Democratic Party knows how to do this, and do it very well.

That isn’t a back-handed compliment either - they did exactly what they needed to do, given both candidates’ weaknesses.[/quote]

TB,

Well if you are right (it’s your opinion so feel free) then you needn’t worry about 2016, it is already in the bag for the Dems, if we could run a shitty campaign with a shitty candidate (and all that money) and still win 330+ electoral votes then you are completely fucked from here on out. Enjoy your political irrelevance.

[Sloth]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

I mean smarter as in able to put together a team, plan, narrative and system that allowed him to get elected then re-tool, build a new narrative and overcome numerous obstacles (economy, Benghazi, RW Radio etc), all the while appearing as if all of the shit flying around him was confetti and flower petals[/quote]

He did none of these things. The campaign was, by any metric, terrible: clumsy, tin-eared, defensive and without intellectual vigor to propose any vision for 2012 forward.

The credit - and there is much to give - is with the state Democratic machines that turned out voters for Democratic candidates. Democratic voters turned out not because of but rather in spite of the terrible Obama campaign.

The Democratic Party knows how to play the game of electoral politics, even when there is an unimpressive candidate on the top of the ticket. They had no business in picking up Senate seats, and they did. Independents voted for Romney - Obama won without them.

The lesson of the 2012 remains - Obama-bots still can’t help projecting. This victory was not the result of Obama’s incredible awesomeness that won the broad swath of the American electorate - it was a base/party-identifier turnout win, and the national Democratic Party knows how to do this, and do it very well.

That isn’t a back-handed compliment either - they did exactly what they needed to do, given both candidates’ weaknesses.[/quote]

TB,

Well if you are right (it’s your opinion so feel free) then you needn’t worry about 2016, it is already in the bag for the Dems, if we could run a shitty campaign with a shitty candidate (and all that money) and still win 330+ electoral votes then you are completely fucked from here on out. Enjoy your political irrelevance.[/quote]

No sir. We all are.

[Christine]

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The President just (Saturday after the Election!) officially Won Florida…

Seriously…what is the deal with Florida, and the “issues” they seem to have with elections?

Mufasa[/quote]

Florida really needs to get its shit together.

Also, I don’t get why so many places have long voting lines. It’s insane that people have to wait for hours. I’m lucky enough to live in a state where we do all of our voting by mail. And the elections where I did have to go to a polling place, I never had to wait.

[ZEB]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

I mean smarter as in able to put together a team, plan, narrative and system that allowed him to get elected then re-tool, build a new narrative and overcome numerous obstacles (economy, Benghazi, RW Radio etc), all the while appearing as if all of the shit flying around him was confetti and flower petals[/quote]

He did none of these things. The campaign was, by any metric, terrible: clumsy, tin-eared, defensive and without intellectual vigor to propose any vision for 2012 forward.

The credit - and there is much to give - is with the state Democratic machines that turned out voters for Democratic candidates. Democratic voters turned out not because of but rather in spite of the terrible Obama campaign.

The Democratic Party knows how to play the game of electoral politics, even when there is an unimpressive candidate on the top of the ticket. They had no business in picking up Senate seats, and they did. Independents voted for Romney - Obama won without them.

The lesson of the 2012 remains - Obama-bots still can’t help projecting. This victory was not the result of Obama’s incredible awesomeness that won the broad swath of the American electorate - it was a base/party-identifier turnout win, and the national Democratic Party knows how to do this, and do it very well.

That isn’t a back-handed compliment either - they did exactly what they needed to do, given both candidates’ weaknesses.[/quote]

TB,

Well if you are right (it’s your opinion so feel free) then you needn’t worry about 2016, it is already in the bag for the Dems, if we could run a shitty campaign with a shitty candidate (and all that money) and still win 330+ electoral votes then you are completely fucked from here on out. Enjoy your political irrelevance.[/quote]

Not a student of history I see. And why doesn’t that surprise me?

From 1980-1992 we had a straight run of republican representation in the White House. Many said that the democratic party was dead. But along came Bill Clinton in 1992 to change all that. He won two terms and the dems were saying the republican party is dead. Then along came GW Bush who won two terms and republicans were saying the dems no longer will be able to win the White House. Along came Barack Obamawitz who wins two terms and a tiny little pea brain lefty (that’s you) is saying that the republican party will never win again. The most important thing is having the right candidate at the right time. Romney was not it Obama was and he won.

I could have gone back further than 1980 as well. This has been going on for quite sometime.

As soon as we have a really good candidate, one capable of overcoming the corrupt MSLM we will win again. Maybe 2016 after Obama has completely destroyed the economy (he’s only partly there so far) there will be a republican who can actually put us back together and pull us back from socialism. Maybe the people in four years will look back and say “Why did we reelect a guy who had zero success his first four years?”

The electorate is funny…But one thing you can count on is that they will change just like the weather.

But rest assured my little uninformed one that the republicans will rise up again and win the White House.

Idiot.

[ZEB]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
keep working on suppressing voter rights, [/quote]

when did this happen?[/quote]

I guess you weren’t paying attention as they attempted to change the rules regarding ID’s for voters leading up to the election in several contested states. Voter suppression is pretty accurate.[/quote]

Brian, I usually try to ignore your liberal drool since most of it has come from the 90’s and you’ve not had an original thought since then. But I can’t resist this gem.

If someone who may look young attempts to purchase alcohol he is asked for ID, same thing if they want to purchase a gun. If someone even attempts to go into an adult movie they might be asked for an ID. It’s not out of the question to ask someone for an ID before they vote. We can avoid fraud this way. But…that’s not what the democrats want because they like fraud at the voting booth is that it?

What’s wrong Briaaaaan…afraid there will be less dead people voting for democrats if we have some reasonable rules.
[/quote]

Zeb,

At what point did I say we shouldn’t have ID’s presented for voting? Voter suppression by requiring ID’s happens when you change the existing rules (no ID necessary) within a time frame deemed unacceptable for the people being disenfranchised (in this case the poor) to correct the situation, it also occurs when there is a $ cost associated with obtaining the ID in question (in some states non-driver ID’s are free, but the documentation required to get the ID can cost as much as $75 if you do not currently have it.). Go back under your rock Zeb, you are as usual, uninformed.[/quote]

Briaaaan you are the one who crawled out from under your rock. You post in PWI for a few weeks and then run away after most in here take you apart. Which by the way, is mighty easy.

YOU are the one who questioned the voter ID laws. Now you are claiming that it is a timing issue. “Sniff, sniff the poor people won’t be able to get an ID in time because well it costs so very much.”

You and I both know that is an invalid reason.

An ID could be easily had from a local municipality, or Sheriff’s department. Costs would not be a factor AND YOU KNOW IT! And the fact that in 2012 we have no way of identifying who the voter is is a complete disgrace. How many other industrialized countries are without voter ID laws Briaaaan? Can you name them? Want me to tell you? Can you guess? Run along and google.

fighting against voter ID laws is a good way for dead people to keep voting for democrats. AND YOU KNOW IT!

You’re just stuck in the 90’s Brian and you can’t help it can you?

Run along idiot.