November 6, 2012

CNN has Obama winning electoral vote, Romney ahead in popular vote

I would expect Obama to pull ahead in popular vote as West Coast comes in, but, we shall see.
By Steve Sailer on 11/06/2012

12 comments:

WMarkW said...

Obama will win the popular vote by at least 1.5 mil.

Is there any question about it being the Stupid Party? How can it have so few pick-ups compared to last time? Giving back two Senate seats when the other side had 23 in play just shows how poor their ideas are.

They've got to get over the Tea Party, Fundamentalists and military contractors; and create a conservatism suitable for an educated sub/urbanite. More Rudy Giuliani and less Newt Gingrich.

11/6/12, 8:35 PM
HammerHead said...

Well. It looks like I can look forward to a day of hearing all the SWPLs in the office gloating tomorrow.

I have no idea what these people are so happy about. Literally one year ago, these were the EXACT same people talking about how horrible this country is, and how everything was going down the drain, and how the only sensible thing to do in response was to camp out in a park until a revolution happened. They seriously do not remember that far back.

11/6/12, 8:44 PM
tommy said...

More Rudy Giuliani and less Newt Gingrich.

Romney is a Rudi Giuliani-style Northeastern milquetoast conservative. How's that working out for Republicans?

11/6/12, 8:48 PM
Anonymous said...

"They've got to get over the Tea Party, Fundamentalists and military contractors; and create a conservatism suitable for an educated sub/urbanite. More Rudy Giuliani and less Newt Gingrich."

Dude...who do you think Mitt was? He was the anti-Tea Party, anti-Fundamentalist, squishy-wishy-washy-moderate educated suburbanite.

I agree that the right-wing GOP primary candidates were particularly bad this year, but, the whole point of Mitt's nomination was that he was the anti-Newt, the anti-Huckabee, the anti-Palin, etc.

Well you got what you wanted! And failed miserably. So please don't blame this on the Tea Party types and other right-wingers....they would have lost too, but they would have lost honestly for what they believed in, rather than bowing and scraping and flip flopping and trying to be all things to all middle-of-the-road-idiots.

There weren't any right-wingers in this election; you can't blame them for losing an election they were not in.

11/6/12, 8:48 PM
Kaz said...

@Anonymous @ 8:48PM

Mitt had to completely shift his relatively centrist platform to the hard right. The worst parts of the right. Mitt Romney lost because he was flip flopping between far right, and what he did as a governor of Massachusetts (moderate the masses could respect).

11/6/12, 8:55 PM
Anonyia said...

If Mitt had not been a moderate he would have lost by a wider margin. Republicans need to adapt economic protectionism and lay off the trivial abortion nonsense to remain relevant.

11/6/12, 9:11 PM
Anonymous said...

@Kaz

Even the dimmest bulb out there knew that Mitt wasn't a right-winger after the first debate. Him pandering to the right-wing during the primaries is a complete red herring. Turning the GOP into an even more squishy-wishy-washy-stand-for-nothing-believe-in-nothing party is not going to start winning the GOP elections.

Giuliani is an even worse example since he does, like the neocons, believe in something; unfortunately he believes in the police state and more wars for Israeli. Those are "principals" we could do without.

11/6/12, 9:12 PM
Matthew said...

One major problem is that a lot of us are still voting for what we think or wish the Republican Party is, while many have just given up on it.

The GOP is not anti-affirmative action.

It is not anti-illegal immigration.

It is not anti-mass immigration.

It is not even nominally isolationist.

It is not pro-American industry.

It is not pro-middle class.

It is not pro-traditional values.

We vote for that party because we hope it will become it, and because we know the Democratic Party never will.

11/6/12, 9:25 PM
Cail Corishev said...

"They've got to get over the Tea Party, Fundamentalists and military contractors; and create a conservatism suitable for an educated sub/urbanite."

So, a non-conservative conservatism then. Gotcha.

11/7/12, 4:58 AM
Cail Corishev said...

"Dude...who do you think Mitt was? He was the anti-Tea Party, anti-Fundamentalist, squishy-wishy-washy-moderate educated suburbanite."

Yep, Mitt was the moderate one of the bunch, just as GWB was. Remember "compassionate conservative," which was code for "liberal Republican"? Everyone's faulty memory thinks Bush was some sort of divisive gunslinger, but that wasn't the case at all. Part of his appeal was that he'd worked so closely with Democrats in Texas, and he started his administration by buddying up to Ted Kennedy. The war stuff didn't start until after 9/11, and most Democrats were right there with him on it until they realized there was more advantage to being against it.

Mitt was the same way: certainly not as conservative as most of the other candidates, but he did have a track record of getting things done, even if some of those things were more leftist than we'd like. Very much the moderate, non-abortion-obsessed, inclusive, big-tent candidate that we keep getting told we have to settle for.

We've been trying it the "educated, sub/urbanite" way since 1992, barely squeezing out wins when they should have been landslides, and losing big the rest of the time. Now, demographic change and the increase in dependency (of all sorts) on government means we can't even win that way when it should be a slam dunk. Could we try a real conservative, please, just once?

11/7/12, 5:09 AM
Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous Matthew said...

One major problem is that a lot of us are still voting for what we think or wish the Republican Party is, while many have just given up on it.

The GOP is not anti-affirmative action......"

Quite right. The GOP is NOT a conservative party. If you look at the Republican party's entire existence, it could only be called conservative for a forty year period: roughly 1908-1948 (Taft-to-Taft).

11/7/12, 6:48 AM
Anonymous said...

The GOP is not anti-affirmative action.

It is not anti-illegal immigration.

It is not anti-mass immigration.

It is not even nominally isolationist.

It is not pro-American industry.

It is not pro-middle class.

It is not pro-traditional values.

You could probably get a majority behind each of these points, but a party that espoused such a platform would be tarred as one step from Nazism.

Cennbeorc

11/7/12, 7:07 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)