Obama is not the first US President to be re-elected by a smaller numbers than before. FDR's numbers (votes, vote share and EC vote), went down in 40 and again in 44 (and Truman's were lower still in 48). Going further back, in 1832 Andrew Jackson got a lower share and EC vote than in 1828. Lincoln's margin of victory in vote share was lower in 1864 than in 1860. Wilson got a higher vote share in 16 than in 12, but had a far lower margin of victory and a lower EC vote.

Perhaps you meant 'post-war'.

Interestingly, the story of the election is that Obama maintained a 'coalition' of women, the young, and 'minorities'. The Republicans didn't break out of their white, male, middle-aged ghetto, and by failing to retain Latino support, or appeal to one clear majority group (women), lost crucial races.

Anyway, how does that make any difference? The Republicans in Congress are also going to be smaller than before, and don't tell me that there wasn't a load of mud and dissembling about Obamacare and other aspects.

Given that both sides were behaving badly, and that both can be observed to have pandered to sectional interests, I repeat my question - does it matter who makes the first move? All that matters is that someone has the guts to do it, and the other side has the gut to reciprocate.

danivon wrote:Obama is not the first US President to be re-elected by a smaller numbers than before. FDR's numbers (votes, vote share and EC vote), went down in 40 and again in 44 (and Truman's were lower still in 48). Going further back, in 1832 Andrew Jackson got a lower share and EC vote than in 1828. Lincoln's margin of victory in vote share was lower in 1864 than in 1860. Wilson got a higher vote share in 16 than in 12, but had a far lower margin of victory and a lower EC vote.

Perhaps you meant 'post-war'.

Bingo.

Interestingly, the story of the election is that Obama maintained a 'coalition' of women, the young, and 'minorities'. The Republicans didn't break out of their white, male, middle-aged ghetto, and by failing to retain Latino support, or appeal to one clear majority group (women), lost crucial races.

The WSJ sums it up nicely. (no firewall)

Anyway, how does that make any difference? The Republicans in Congress are also going to be smaller than before, and don't tell me that there wasn't a load of mud and dissembling about Obamacare and other aspects.

I think the misrepresentations by the GOP pale in comparison to what the Democrats did. Outlaw abortion? Paid no taxes? Was involved in the death of a woman?

Given that both sides were behaving badly, and that both can be observed to have pandered to sectional interests, I repeat my question - does it matter who makes the first move? All that matters is that someone has the guts to do it, and the other side has the gut to reciprocate.

The President never has. If he does, it might work--surprise is often effective.

Guapo wrote:How many checks is Doctor Fate writing today?

Millions.

Thankfully, the President has offered me a bailout. He says I'm too big to fail and that somehow Dodd/Frank missed me.

LOL. But Romney wouldn't have...you apostate.

Guapo wrote:LOL. But Romney wouldn't have...you apostate.

He loves me!

I have many emails from him, his sons, Ann, Paul, and others personally telling me that.

Rand Paul 2016!

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... more-37396

The results of the election provide the opportunity to examine how accurate all the polling was.... Nate Silver does his analysis (link) and it seems to indicate that Internet Polling (emailing questionnares) is bloody accurate.
Gallop and Rasmussen....not so much.
The world is changing...

rickyp wrote:http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/#more-37396

The results of the election provide the opportunity to examine how accurate all the polling was.... Nate Silver does his analysis (link) and it seems to indicate that Internet Polling (emailing questionnares) is bloody accurate.
Gallop and Rasmussen....not so much.
The world is changing...

Meh.

To me, this election came down to organization. Obama spent a hundred million demonizing Romney. That worked to turn the blue collar white vote in Ohio and other states.

The Obama turnout machine was probably the greatest in Presidential history. They took the Chicago Way (turnout and personal attacks) national and made it work.

Do Republicans have to adjust? In some ways, yes. I think you'll see some gains in 2014 and then we'll see. I think this was more about Obama the man and not the beginning of a movement.

fate

Obama spent a hundred million demonizing Romney. That worked to turn the blue collar white vote in Ohio and other states

.

Too funny. How much money and Republican media went to demonizing Obama?

I'm talking about the time before Romney had the ability to respond.

And please, whatever "Republican media" is, it is far outweighed by the liberal media.

He had no ability to respond? When was that. During the primaries, perhaps?

I am a believer that the Repubs have to change their message AND their messaging. But to the immediate question, the argument that I've read is that after the primaries, the Romney campaign was broke and Romeny spent all of his time raising money and was conserving ad dollars. He wasn't campaining for a couple of months when Obama's team was blasting the message that Romney is Montgomery Burns.

In other words, his financing was badly planned. Or he overspent in the primaries, going off-plan. Looks like a self-inflicted period of being 'unable' to respond, then.

danivon wrote:In other words, his financing was badly planned. Or he overspent in the primaries, going off-plan. Looks like a self-inflicted period of being 'unable' to respond, then.

yes; it's also hard to fathom how Romney was unwilling to use his own funds.

I think that the real issue is that the tacked too far right in the primaries, specifically with immigration and 20% marginal tax rate cuts. He then had to tack back to the left, which he did very well, but not quite well enough given his previous announcements AND the heavily negative campaigning of Obama.

I add that last part because I think that Democrats have to admit that Obama ran an incredibly negative campaign and that's going to hurt him now that it's time to govern.

ray

yes; it's also hard to fathom how Romney was unwilling to use his own funds.

His business experience tells him to use other peoples money when taking big risks/...

I think that the real issue is that the tacked too far right in the primaries, specifically with immigration and 20% marginal tax rate cuts. He then had to tack back to the left, which he did very well, but not quite well enough given his previous announcements AND the heavily negative campaigning of Obama

.
Well, that and voters ability to remember and recall his pronouncements.
did anybody actually predict this a long time ago? (say April 10)
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1059

I add that last part because I think that Democrats have to admit that Obama ran an incredibly negative campaign and that's going to hurt him now that it's time to govern

.
Then why does he have such high approval numbers today?
+9 on Rasmussen?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
His image is fine.....the mud ddn't splatter. In large part, because he was able to go negative without abandoning reality. That is, the negatives generally used Romney against himself, and with one or two exceptions weren't out right fabrications.. Romneys negative ads were repeatedly debunked, often by republicans...
He wasn't a very good candidate. The fact his political career consisted of only one victory and several losses should have been a clue. And he was advised by a lot of Bush retreads.
An ability to get out of the bubble and view the situation from a distance is required....
One other reason that "his ability to govern" won't be hampered...Americans like winners.
Watch him use that advantage to get much of what he wants on the fiscal cliff negotiation.... That politcal capital, and resonsible republicans worry that intransigence on the issue would explode in their faces...... means he is likely to cruise for awhile.
If avoiding the cliff, also means the economy does't retank, maybe for an extended period of time.

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:In other words, his financing was badly planned. Or he overspent in the primaries, going off-plan. Looks like a self-inflicted period of being 'unable' to respond, then.

yes; it's also hard to fathom how Romney was unwilling to use his own funds.

Romney is rich, but he's not Bloomberg rich. It would have taken a sizable portion of his money to do this. I don't think it's quite fair to talk about money management. If he had not spent a good bit of money during the primaries, Santorum or Gingrich would have been the nominee.

I add that last part because I think that Democrats have to admit that Obama ran an incredibly negative campaign and that's going to hurt him now that it's time to govern.

They may not want to admit it, but vote totals show it. Talk about "voter suppression!" There were, what, 8 or 9 million fewer voters?