Electoral & Popular Vote Split

[TheMason]

I think Ericho asked this question on another topic. I think it deserves its own thread. I came across the following article on RCP:

Article

Basically it says that there is a chance that Obama could lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote. In key swing states like Ohio; Obama has run an effective attack campaign on Bain and promoted the auto bail-out to a une to the point that it may be immune to Romney's momentum.

However, the author does think that this is an outside possibility.

I think a split where Obama only wins the electoral vote (EV) would be good in that it could heal the divide left over from the 2000 election. On the other hand, it could deepen partisan divides. The Republican House is fairly rigid; and Obama is not effective with dealing with ideological divides within his own party...much less reaching across the aisle to the opposition party. This makes the prospect of another impeachment a possibility (NOTE: an extreme possibility).

On the other hand; I am concerned a split in which Romney only wins the EV could lead to increased racial tensions and the (extreme) possibility of rioting.

[TheMason]

Another interesting read.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/12/12 04:58 PM, TheMason wrote: I think a split where Obama only wins the electoral vote (EV) would be good in that it could heal the divide left over from the 2000 election. On the other hand, it could deepen partisan divides.

I don' know if it will necessarily do much in regards to the 2000 election. The problem that many had with 2000 election went much further than merely splitting the popular and electoral vote. It largely came from the way into which Florida was handled from the ballots to the long wait to the Supreme Court. It may create a sentiment like "well, at least..." but 12 years is a long time and for most who cared so much time has pretty much healed the wounds.

The Republican House is fairly rigid; and Obama is not effective with dealing with ideological divides within his own party...much less reaching across the aisle to the opposition party.

This isn't an Obama problem. This is the nature of the US political climate for the past 12-20 years. The conservative bloc has been very lock step, while the liberal bloc has been looser and very reluctant to place party over country.

This makes the prospect of another impeachment a possibility (NOTE: an extreme possibility).

I don't see this at all. Creating a another impeachment mockery will do little to help the image of the Republicans who largely have a reputation of being obstinant. After Gingrich got chased out of office, very few politicians would be willing to follow the same path.

On the other hand; I am concerned a split in which Romney only wins the EV could lead to increased racial tensions and the (extreme) possibility of rioting.

Again, I don't see this either. May be some Bush era style protests here and there, but I seriously doubt that any real rioting would take place.

[TheMason]

At 10/12/12 05:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I don' know if it will necessarily do much in regards to the 2000 election. The problem that many had with 2000 election went much further than merely splitting the popular and electoral vote. It largely came from the way into which Florida was handled from the ballots to the long wait to the Supreme Court. It may create a sentiment like "well, at least..." but 12 years is a long time and for most who cared so much time has pretty much healed the wounds.

I don't think the wounds are healed completely; and I think this could rip the wounds off them.

The Republican House is fairly rigid; and Obama is not effective with dealing with ideological divides within his own party...much less reaching across the aisle to the opposition party.

This isn't an Obama problem. This is the nature of the US political climate for the past 12-20 years. The conservative bloc has been very lock step, while the liberal bloc has been looser and very reluctant to place party over country.

Clinton began the 1995-1997 Congressional sessions very ideologically rigid; it was only after his polling and focus group scores did he 'triangulate' to the center. Obama, likewise is ideologically rigid and/or incompetent when dealing with inter- and intra-part divides. In short he lacks the ability to keep his party together when dealing with the opposition...and he lacks much of the will.

Furthermore, thinking that liberals are 'looser and very reluctant to place party over country' is incredibly naive. Political scientists have studied the question of which side has more political empathy. Come to find out that conservatives can more accurately describe the liberal's positions and arguments...while liberals tend to negatively stereotype conservative arguments (ie: Republicans are for the rich/corporations/evangelicals). The problem with that is they tend to be dismissive of their opponents and underestimate them. The proof can be seen in: 1) the administration's disbelief that they lost the House so badly in 2010 and 2) Obama's attitude towards debate prep, disdain of Mitt Romney, and belief that when he walked off that Denver stage he had won it handidly.

So the idea that liberals are not blindly partisan and/or ideological is an absurdity.

And yes, when I get the time to look up the journal articles I will provide sources (I'm at drill this weekend).

This makes the prospect of another impeachment a possibility (NOTE: an extreme possibility).

I don't see this at all. Creating a another impeachment mockery will do little to help the image of the Republicans who largely have a reputitation of being obstinant. After Gingrich got chased out of office, very few politicians would be willing to follow the same path.

1) Gingrich was chased out of office for several different reasons. Part of it was when the credibility of his private polling on how many seats the Republicans would win in '98 and public support for Clinton's impeachment proved highly erroneous. However, part of why the latter was erroneous was the successful defense Clinton put up and the rallying of Democrats who wanted him to resign a la Nixon before he could be impeached. But the point is: Clinton's impeachment is only a fraction of the reason he got chased out of office...not the hole kit and kaboodle.

2) In two years if the economy is still stagnating and we are in a double dip recession...Republicans may feel froggy especially if they feel the election was stolen from them. Obama's approval ratings, if he wins a second term, are more likely to go down than up (historical trend)...which will only add to the Republican's frogginess.

3) I can say it about my own side: they are politicians with an ideological worldview on what is best for the country...which is the other side is wrong and their policies are wrong and must be undermined because they will destroy 'Merica. (If you think the libs are any better...may I refer you to any recent Paul Krugman op ed piece?)

On the other hand; I am concerned a split in which Romney only wins the EV could lead to increased racial tensions and the (extreme) possibility of rioting.

Again, I don't see this either. May be some Bush era style protests here and there, but I seriously doubt that any real rioting would take place.

Again, I think you're looking through some rose colored glasses here. Afterall, I can tell you as an authority...that Emergency Management agencies are preparing for the possibility.

[TheMason]

At 10/12/12 11:00 PM, TheMason wrote: I don't think the wounds are healed completely; and I think this could rip the wounds off them.

Oops made a gaffe:

I don't think the wounds are healed completely; and I think this could rip the scars off them.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/12/12 11:00 PM, TheMason wrote: I don't think the wounds are healed completely; and I think this could rip the wounds off them.

I was actually thinking of adding this point. If Obama wins in such a manner I don't think it will erase the memory, or be brought up much at all. However, I do agree that if Romney wins in such a manner the wound will be ripped off, no doubt.

Furthermore, thinking that liberals are 'looser and very reluctant to place party over country' is incredibly naive. Political scientists have studied the question of which side has more political empathy. Come to find out that conservatives can more accurately describe the liberal's positions and arguments...while liberals tend to negatively stereotype conservative arguments (ie: Republicans are for the rich/corporations/evangelicals). The problem with that is they tend to be dismissive of their opponents and underestimate them.

That is definitely true in part, but as a whole liberals in Congress have been far more willing to break ranks for their own personal views than the conservatives. Hence why Bush was able to get far more done in his terms than Obama even though he was disliked just as much by the Democrats then as Obama is by the Republicans now.

So the idea that liberals are not blindly partisan and/or ideological is an absurdity.

The Democrat sin Congress are less Liberal than the Repuclicans are Conservative.

And yes, when I get the time to look up the journal articles I will provide sources (I'm at drill this weekend).

But the point is: Clinton's impeachment is only a fraction of the reason he got chased out of office...not the hole kit and kaboodle.

But it was definitely a part, and the Republicans left the whole shabang with a major black eye. They actually had a good legal reason to impeach: perjury. Unless Obama does something flagrantly illegal like that, impeachment will be hit with major negative repercussions.

2) In two years if the economy is still stagnating and we are in a double dip recession...Republicans may feel froggy especially if they feel the election was stolen from them. Obama's approval ratings, if he wins a second term, are more likely to go down than up (historical trend)...which will only add to the Republican's frogginess.

And? So the answer to a President you don't agree with is to impeach? What was this Republicans aren't lock step thing you were saying?

3) I can say it about my own side: they are politicians with an ideological worldview on what is best for the country...which is the other side is wrong and their policies are wrong and must be undermined because they will destroy 'Merica. (If you think the libs are any better...may I refer you to any recent Paul Krugman op ed piece?)

I still don't believe that they will go to impeachment. I do this with the whole "impeach Bush" pressures and grassroots campaign in my mind. I seriously doubt the conservatives would risk such political suicide over the possibible, but extremely unlikely conviction of Obama.

Additional point: Biden. More than enough to chill the sentiment.

Again, I think you're looking through some rose colored glasses here. Afterall, I can tell you as an authority...that Emergency Management agencies are preparing for the possibility.

Yeah, that's their job. Hell, the CDC issued a Zombie Apocalypse Plan. That hardly means that we are on the verge of an undead infestation.

It takes a long string of fairly flagrant and open racial issues combined with an overtly racist or at least very borderline overtly racist incident. Take the Watts and King riots. They both had long build ups of racial discrimination by the City and the police, and both were sparked by events in which a blakc man was physically beaten by members of the police department. This election has neither. Sure, it's a black guy. But while Romney has been stupidly racist, he's never been overtly and hatefully racist. On top of that, there's enough out there about Obama for the dislike of him to be rooted in policy. The mere existence of racial overtones is not enough to spark riots, especially race based riots.

[Memorize]

At 10/12/12 05:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

The conservative bloc has been very lock step, while the liberal bloc has been looser and very reluctant to place party over country.

You're still an idiot.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/12/12 11:45 PM, Memorize wrote: You're still an idiot.

Sorry Leanlifter, merely posting a youtube video makes just as insufficient an answer as it does a topic starter. Fascist.