SL Tribune

[socal]

I don't think the results of the popular vote today provide any true insight. How many people live in a state where their vote won't matter, be it a blue or red state? I'd guess that the margin would be much greater if we scrapped the electoral college. I read somewhere that basically a vote in CA counts about half as much as a vote from say Wyoming since the voters per electoral college vote was so much greater in the larger states.

[Harvey44]

Isn't the ratio of popular votes / electorial college votes supposed to be consistent?

I think the electoral college forces the candidates to "pander" to the middle. Probably not a bad thing IMO.

[socal]

The average electoral vote represents 436,000 people, but that number rises and falls per state depending on that state’s population over 18 years of age. (The map above shows the population 18 years and older per electoral vote by state.) The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota. In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote.

In other words, one Wyoming voter has roughly the same vote power as four New York voters. (Mouse over the map and it will show you where your state ranks in voting power.)

http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Harvey44]

I didn't know that. Thank you.

[Tony Crocker]

State electoral votes = numbers of senators (2) + number of representatives. The former factor gives more weight to small states.

There have been 3 instances of electoral vote winner = popular vote loser. One issue to consider with popular vote is that in a close case you'll be recounting the whole country instead of just one state. If there are voting shenanigans, I think they would be most likely in states where one party is dominant.

Skiace and I have discussed his points a few times and I generally agree. There must be six or seven Senate seats at least over the past 2 election cycles that should have easily gone Republican had the party chose to nominate an even halfway reasonable candidate.

[Marc_C]

In a bit of delicious irony and poetic justice that adds the final nail to the coffin that is the resounding defeat of Mittens and America's rejection of the Republican vision, as the final provisional votes are counted in NY and CA, it appears that he was only able to achieve...... 47% of the popular vote.

[socal]

+1

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[jamesdeluxe]

Is Team Obama saying nice things about Huntsman only because he's so similar to them?
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5 ... n.html.csp

[Harvey44]

Is Team Obama saying nice things about Huntsman only because he's so similar to them?
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5 ... n.html.csp

I'll tell you one thing - I LIKE to consider myself a middle of the road type. But in all the years I've voted for Prez, I've never voted for a republican. So that's basically quantitative PROOF that I'm a hard core left winger.

In that context - I would have voted for Huntsman in a heart beat. No two thoughts about it.

So my question is, and I'm asking any republicans, (or anybody)... do I like him because really he's NOT a true republican? Or if he is true to the republican essence (what is that?) then why the hell does a guy like that have no chance in the primaries?

He would have kicked Obamas ass.

[Tony Crocker]

Huntsman would have been comfortably in the Republican mainstream in the '60's and 70's and close to it in the 80's. The Republican party has become much more conservative, monolithic and less tolerant of diverse opinions on non-core issues within the party over the past 2 decades.

[jamesdeluxe]

Tony, what is your educated guess of how the current GOP "proctology exam" (per Haley Barbour) will turn out? Both moderates and the right flank are arguing that the reason Romney came up short was due to too much of the other side's influence.

The Republican party has become much more conservative, monolithic and less tolerant of diverse opinions on non-core issues within the party over the past 2 decades.

Everyone went on about how MR kept tacking back and forth between centrist and very conservative viewpoints -- leading to the criticism that he would change his tune depending upon the audience he was currently addressing -- but did he have any other choice given your description of the party?

[Tony Crocker]

I don't think Romney had much choice given what it takes to get through a Republican primary these days. Just look at those yahoo Senate candidates. IMHO Romney's resume was admirable (Bain, SLC Olympics, MA gov, Mormon church leader) and those of Harvey44's views would have had little to fear from a Romney presidency, as long as at least one house of Congress remained Democratic. Romney's argument that he was able to get thing done in MA with a Democratic legislature was a strong selling point for him IMHO.

Nonetheless I'm not displeased with the results because the Republican party needs a forceful lesson to stop pandering to the extremists. The Senate results should drive this point home even more than Romney's defeat. I am not hopeful in this regard due to the track record here in California. The demographic shifts skiace mentioned happened here 2 decades ago. Pete Wilson (ironically a moderate pro-choice Republican) won reelection as CA gov in 1994 backing Prop 187, which would have denied medical care and K-12 education to illegal immigrants. The proposition passed but was ruled unconsititutional. Since then Latinos have been a growing proportion of CA electorate and they vote lopsidedly Democratic as a legacy of Prop 187. CA used to be a swing state; it voted Republican in 1960 and 1976 when Dems won the White House. It has only been a lopsided Presidential blue state since 1996, not coincidentally IMHO. The remaining and dwindling CA Republicans remain defiantly right wing. Since 1998 they have won 4 statewide offices I think, 2 of those being Arnold's governorships. And Arnold only became gov because he won in a recall and didn't have to go through a Republican primary until he was an incumbent.

[Tony Crocker]

Harold's response on the election:

National polls 9 days ahead (Gallup, Pew, Washington Post) had the race a dead heat. Harold reiterates that Nate Silver's contention of state polls being more accurate than national polls makes no sense. Historically in close races the "out" party tends to gain a bit at the end, thus Harold's "Romney odds are at least 50%" comment. There was in fact a 4 point swing toward Obama in those last 9 days, which was noted by all of the above 3 national polls shortly before the election.

Nate Silver moved his Obama probability from 80% to 90%. In terms of state results Romney did not have any close state wins other than North Carolina. That was by 2.2% and I can't find another one less than 9%. By contrast Obama won Florida by 0.9%, Ohio by 1.9%, Virginia by 3% and a few others by 5-6%. Therefore anyone whose prediction was slight to moderately favorable to Obama was going to get at least 49 states correct. If your prediction missed in favor of Romney by a few points you were going to be wrong by many more electoral votes.

It's always speculation what causes last minute swings like this. The best guess for 2012 is Hurricane Sandy, which tapped into Obama's 80-20 advantage in the polling question, "Who cares more about people like us?" Supporting this theory is the fact that Gov. Christie's approval ratings have also gone up a lot after Sandy.

[Marc_C]

It's always speculation what causes last minute swings like this. The best guess for 2012 is Hurricane Sandy,...

You're completely ignoring the near total alienation by Romney and the American Taliban of women, Latinos, African-Americans, and anyone who desires a candidate who actually has positions that s/he maintains and believes in. Sandy may have helped out a bit, but the prime reasons for Romney's resounding defeat are systemic in a party that has traveled so far to the radical right that even Regan could not be their candidate today because he would be considered too leftist. The American majority heard the same failed policies and economic remedies that favor the wealthy the Rethuglicans have been pushing for over a decade and wisely rejected them. Read what Frum, Sullivan, Jindal, Rubio, et al on the right have said about how Mittens went off the rails, and, especially, this piece by Bruce Bartlett in The American Conservative: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community

[socal]

Tony, I'm surprised a numbers guy like you believed the Fox News interpretation of the polls vs the statisticians. Silver had Obamas odds at over 65% at worst and most times and generally above 70%. If you only talked to republicans and watch Fox News you'd be surprised by the results. If you took all polls into consideration like Silver did the outcome was just as expected.