[BunnyGo]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-07, 03:53, said:

\
It was in Republican states!

No. Slavery was legal and practiced throughout the Union. Some Northern states gave it up sooner than than the Civil War, and you should note that those were the Republican states.

[PassedOut]

cherdano, on 2012-November-07, 04:16, said:

I think that yes, Nate Silver can be correct.

Yep.

[Winstonm]

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

[MrAce]

The moral of this election results for me is...i am seriously considering to move to Colorado or Washington.

[kenberg]

I went to bed around midnight and watched the victory speech this morning. I have not always been a fan of Obama's speeches but this was a fine, generous, optimistic speech. I believe it will go down in history for its strength and, quite possibly, its influence. I highly recommend watching it in its entirety.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2012-November-07, 06:33, said:

I went to bed around midnight and watched the victory speech this morning. I have not always been a fan of Obama's speeches but this was a fine, generous, optimistic speech. I believe it will go down in history for its strength and, quite possibly, its influence. I highly recommend watching it in its entirety.

I also thought Romney gave a good concession speach

[y66]

I stayed up to hear Romney and Obama. I thought Obama's "And whether I earned your vote or not, I have listened to you, I have learned from you" line was memorable and credible. I think he really did learn a few things about himself from this campaign as we all have, no doubt, here in the water cooler. Yo.

[TimG]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-07, 03:53, said:

It was in Republican states!

You mean some states that are Republican in 2012? From wiki:

"[The Republican Party] emerged in 1854 to combat the Kansas Nebraska Act which threatened to extend slavery into the territories, and to promote more vigorous modernization of the economy. It had almost no presence in the South, but in the North it enlisted former Whigs and former Free Soil Democrats to form majorities, by 1858, in nearly every Northern state."

But, of course, I did not intend "OK" to mean "legal".

[phil_20686]

BTW: I was thinking about the intrade numbers, and their large discrepency with bet fair. I suspect that they may have been used as a hedge.

Its one of the fundamental rules of finance that as soon as an instrument becomes widely used as a hedge, it becomes ineffective as a predictive instrument.

Suppose that I am a professional gambler, and after the first debate I see obama trading at 60%, and I think I have a big edge, so I bet big. I bet half my whole bank roll. The election gets nearer, and i fell good, Obama up at 80% or so on bet fair, and then I start to worry. One big loss and I lose the ability to make further bets, and so I lose my income, I have taken on more risk here than I feel comfortable with, so I decide to hedge. I start buying Romney, every time I buy a Romney contract to offset an obama contract that I already own I lock in a 20% risk free profit. So I can sleep easier, in fact, I would be happy to hedge out most of my position at even a ten percent gain, so I put in a big limit order at 30% on romney to win, and every one who buys obama helps me hedge without moving the position. If I look at the intrade markets I see pretty significant volume between the first and sixth of November without moving the price much at all, which is suggestive of a large player buying romney.

I like the hedging explanation much more than I like the conspiracy explanation.

[blackshoe]

In NY, I remember voting machines. Then a few years ago we went (back?) to paper ballots, scanned by a reader. Yesterday I screwed up the first two tries, once I guess I colored outside the lines, the second time I voted for two candidates for the same office. In my defense, this was about 1 PM, and a friend of mine was driving me home from out-patient surgery. Anyway, when they gave me the third ballot, they told me that was all I get. Screw that one up and I don't get to vote. I understand the reasoning, I think (limited supply of ballots), but I wonder if it's legal.

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on 2012-November-07, 07:13, said:

I also thought Romney gave a good concession speech

I thought so too. I hope that he actually does sit down with Obama and work with the president to help mend some fences.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-07, 08:31, said:

Anyway, when they gave me the third ballot, they told me that was all I get. Screw that one up and I don't get to vote. I understand the reasoning, I think (limited supply of ballots), but I wonder if it's legal.

In Michigan that would not have been legal (unless they've changed the here law since I last worked an election). You don't lose your franchise for bad penmanship!

[luke warm]

kenberg, on 2012-November-06, 23:02, said:

Obama has won re-election, Boehner has announced that the Republicans in Congress will continue to paralyze America.

kinda like what harry reid said would happen had romney won?... oh well, looks like america has spoken... i thought both r and o gave excellent speeches... i hope both parties can now find some common ground, but i'm not hopeful...

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-07, 03:53, said:

Luke, you know the base better than anyone here. Let's say a serious, charismatic candidate came along who said:
"I am pro-choice for abortion in the first trimester only, so long as the full consequences and all other possibilities are explained to the woman before the decision is made."

i think the closest you'll get to this is one who says "i don't think it's the business of gov't to interfere in the legal choices of its citizens, and i don't believe the fed gov't should legislate in this matter at all"... i've actually had discussions w/ some pretty well-known people on these issues, and most of what i'm saying now are things i've said to them... such an attitude would win more elections and would have the added benefit of not allowing idiots like murdoch and akin a chance to f up their "unlosable" races

Quote

"I believe in lower taxes but will not do this until the debt is under control and we can afford them."

this would be tougher, mainly because most conservatives don't believe raising taxes on one group is intellectually defensible, and because they are convinced it will do no good... however, a clear-cut, well articulated tax reform based on a flat(tish) tax is doable... if it is understood by the candidate and can be defended, it can be a winner as a more equitable solution... many believe that such a tax would actually increase revenue... conservatives need to take terms back that liberals have claimed as their own, such as "fairness"...

Quote

"Government spending must be lower to help lower the debt. I will look at all government programmes for cost savings including defence."

another toughie... see, a lot of what you're saying, and i agree they are good and reasonable, are honestly believed by conservatives to make the u.s. a weaker, less sovereign nation... this isn't a partisan argument, to them, it's a sincere belief... they believe that nat'l defense is one of the very few things the fed gov't is actually supposed to handle...

i do believe a candidate can get a lot of support by understanding and articulating a plan that caps spending in some way, maybe as a % of gdp, on *all* programs, while selling to the people a plan to use technology more and people less in the military... this is actually happening now, and the idea should be preempted by conservatives as their own

Quote

"I want the military to be strong but will generally only intervene overseas when this is necessary for our national interest, for example to prevent an enemy getting nuclear weapons."

absolutely... putting things in terms of our nat'l interest is perfect... i've advocated an almost isolationist view, except expressed in terms such as "we need to take care of america first, we have problems to solve here"... i agree with something obama said in his campaign along these lines, concerning nation building at home, if he meant it and will stick to it... language is important, and the effectiveness of emotional appeals should not be minimized... "no elderly person should have to choose between medicine and food" etc...

along with this, i think the american people do not want foreign aid going to america's enemies, to those who hate america... the problem is, the money is not going to make anyone hate us less... yes, there is a humanitarian aspect to this, but monetary aid should come with preconditions...

Quote

"I am opposed to Obamacare but healthcare must be available to all and it will remain until a suitable alternative can be implemented."

this could be sold along with what i said above, as an aspect of taking care of america before taking care of others... a conservative could *maybe* sell a plan whereby states are req'd to provide healthcare to all their citizens rather than an obamacare type plan, which is not suitable for all states, all people... had obama done this he would have 90% of the people support it, imho... that's frankly the only way universal healthcare would work, unless a single payer system is implemented on a nat'l level (which maybe will be one day)

Quote

In other words, a candidate slightly to the right of centre who would be extremely attractive to independant voters. Would they have a snowball's chance in Hell of becoming the Republican nominee?

yes, if such a candidate explained to the people just why we are a constitutional republic and must remain so, and could show how those things do not harm the legacy of the founders... when i say "the people" above, i mean those who nominate the candidate... they're the ones needing selling...

if repubs want to survive they're going to have to change in some way, and my view is they need to frame the argument more in terms of constitutional liberty... almost all things that cause argument can be appealed to the people in terms of "you should have control of this issue at the state/local level... you don't need washington forcing something on you"... i realize that is a simplistic way of saying it, but there are better and more convincing ways

you didn't mention two issues i think reps *have* to get a handle on, one of which romney for some reason was unable to sell... energy and immigration

on energy, romney was right to push the view that we can and should be independent of foreign influence, even if that influence comes in the form of imported necessities such as oil... however, reps can't leave alternative energy to the dems, they just need to pay for it in a more acceptable manner... if you're going to give money for "new" technology, do so in the form of grants to think tanks, not in the form of loans to businesses, loans that will never be paid back... the fed gov't is notoriously incompetent at this... reps should articulate the necessity of such research, but should sell the truth that the technology must be cost effective to be implemented... they have to make people understand that the future is away from fossil fuels and toward more renewable sources

on immigration, it's a shame that obama preempted rubio on his version of the dream act... it was a brilliant move, and had he waited just a few weeks this would have been a "problem more-or-less solved" issue for repubs... as i said, brilliant... anyway, reps should say something along the lines of "illegal immigration is a problem that needs solving, and we begin solving it immediately... i don't care if we have to put troops on our borders, illegal immigration has become a nat'l security issue... however, for those non-criminal immigrants already in our country, none will be rounded up and sent home... all who wish to stay and become american citizens will have the right and opportunity to do so, either thru existing citizenship avenues or military service"

[lalldonn]

Did Nate get 50/50 states correct presuming Obama takes Florida? How did he do in the Senate races? I'm having trouble finding info online on my phone.

[ArtK78]

I was just about to post on the electoral map.

Nate Silver is 49/49 with Florida pending. If Florida goes for Obama, which appears likely, then Nate Silver will be 50/50.

Unless I am missing something, Silver got all of the Senate races correct.

[Phil]

PassedOut, on 2012-November-07, 08:43, said:

I thought so too. I hope that he actually does sit down with Obama and work with the president to help mend some fences.

What would be the point of that? Romney isn't a Republican leader. He won the primary of misfit toys.

Romney will be remembered (or not) as a footnote in the most divisive and expensive presidential election in history.

[TimG]

Phil, on 2012-November-07, 09:29, said:

Romney will be remembered (or not) as a footnote in the most divisive and expensive presidential election in history.

Most expensive until the next one, right?

[ArtK78]

Phil, on 2012-November-07, 09:29, said:

Romney will be remembered (or not) as a footnote in the most divisive and expensive presidential election in history.

Until 2016.

Reminds me of a quote from MASH. Col. Potter was expounding on history. He referred to WWI as "the war to end all wars." And then he referred to WWII as "the war after that."

[PassedOut]

ArtK78, on 2012-November-07, 09:15, said:

I was just about to post on the electoral map.

Nate Silver is 49/49 with Florida pending. If Florida goes for Obama, which appears likely, then Nate Silver will be 50/50.

Unless I am missing something, Silver got all of the Senate races correct.

But it looks to me like Nate underestimated the "Others" vote by a full 0.7%: The chart I'm looking at now (with Florida incomplete) shows "Others" at 1.6% instead of Nate's 0.9%. As a result, Romney only got 48.1% instead of the 48.3% that Nate had projected and Obama only got 50.3% instead of the 50.8% that Nate had projected.

[y66]

Triumph of the Nerds: Nate Silver Wins in 50 States