Juror#8

It's not a strawman because Mitt Romney likely would have had a Supreme Court appointee or two. Do you think that Romney would have nominated a justice that interpreted a right to privacy to be within the penumbras or emanations of other enumerated constitutional protections? Probably not. Therefore, Roe could have been outright overturned or distinguished into obscurity. I'm personally against abortion so I'll leave that discussion to anyone who wants to have it. But for Obama to use the abortion issue offensively against Romney was not fallacious or even logically attenuated.

1. Obama will likely get one, maybe two additional opportunities to nominate Supreme Court candidates that reflect his judicial philosophy. Andecdotally, Ginsburg (75) was to retire if Obama won re-election. Breyer (72 - I think) may call it quits as well. At 77, can Scalia hold out until 2016? 2020? 2. Will the GOP continue to bet on the white vote being dispositive? Minorities made up 29% of the vote this go around. Last election it was 27%. Obama was the recipient of 71% of the Hispanic vote and 93% of the black vote. The hispanic vote, which incidentally is the fastest growing minority group in the country, is up 4% points from 2008. An energized Puerto Rican community galvanized the hispanic vote and will likely do the same in bigger numbers if the GOP doesn't realize that there are other impactful voting demographics outside of white males. Romney won the white vote by 20 points. The election still wasn't close. Why? To say that Hispanics and Black folks will only vote Democrat is to miss an opportunity to expand the electoral map. There are interests that affect different cultural groups uniquely. The GOP needs to consider whether or not the platform can sustain some movement towards inclusion. That may mean making some concessions or becoming the ideological leaders on immigration, healthcare reform, or the education revolution. In large measure, this election was a referendum on Obamacare. Mitt said that he would repeal it day 1. However the country re-elected Obama overwhelmingly. So.....what are the chances that the republicans query: "Hey, what can we do with Obamacare that fits within the framework of efficiency, efficacy, and solvency?"? It's better than, "destroy it," it shows a modicum of seriousness around the core issue, AND it endeavors towards a resolution to the same. For a variety of reasons that I've discussed ad infinitum, I'm a HUGE supporter of Obamacare. 3. The Obama ground game is exemplary. It was described last night as one of the finest turnout and strategy machines that politics has ever seen. David Plouffe is a genius. He is an automaton. He never smiles. He is obsessed with politics. He will be the most in demand campaign operative going into 2016. I wouldn't doubt it if he has already been contacted by a burgeoning Biden/O'Malley/Clinton operation. 4. We've known for nearly a decade that Romney was waiting in the trenches for the nomination. The only old guard seasoned vet in the GOP ranks now is Gingrich. But he's an also-ran. Can he win against a Clinton machine? I don't think so. I think that this is the perfect time for the GOP to let the fresh talent off the leash. They have no established candidate waiting in the wings. All the primary figures had significant negatives or were too much a throw back to social conservatism to attract an evolving electorate. I know that you hate them, but this may be the time for a Chris Christie or Jeb Bush. 5. The Fox News commentariat was VERY wrong. Not the news folks (Wallace, Ingram, Baier), the editorial guys (Rove, Morris, Coulter, Limbaugh [not Fox, I know]). They weren't just editorializing, some (Rove and Morris) were offering projections supported by analytical models, and metrics. Do their pathetic results color your opinions of them, their opinions, their data, going forward? 6. Where is DCTom? Apparently, 9% of DC voted for Romney. Therefore, one can assume where he was between 6 am and 7 pm on election day, but he is unaccounted for since. 7. What kind of lame duck will he be? Will he rebuff the base because he doesn't fear a re-election backlash? 8. What happened to the tea-party?

Romney not conceding Ohio. Hmmmmmm.....

What specifically are you referring to? Oh ****, it's 11:40. Bedtime. I'll respond tomorrow to your response.

1. Yes. I agree that Rev. Al and a bunch of other race-baiters would Uncle Tom a black GOP candidate. I don't think that the GOP would be too accepting. But I also think that there would be a lot of angst amongst the black political pundit establishment. 2. Yes. Romney was a bad choice.

I think that you hit both of these points squarely and correctly. The GOP has a lot of young talent that see things differently and that should be allowed to come off the bench and ball. Steve Fisher eventually had to let those 5 freshman start though convential wisdom (and Dick Vitale) said otherwise. Most importantly though, Mitt Romney was a really bad candidate. He had too many relatability issues to overcome in too short an amount of time. I was told 17 months ago that the WH wanted to go against Mitt and that they were the least concerned about him as a challenger. I told Magox at the time and he pushed that sentiment to the side.

Black GOP candidate for President. Not sure that a gay GOP candidate for any national political office would be supported.

He was booed. I commend him for going. Look at my post# 190 for the answers to your other questions. Obama wins OHIO and will be re-elected. Congrats Barak Obama. You're a good man. Do a good job for us over the next 4 years.

Fair enough. But a gun owning, pro second amendment Dem can get the nomination; the opposite is not true for Republicans. A Dem who is personally against abortion (but not against it as a matter of policy) can get the nomination; the opposite is not true for Republicans. I don't think that a black candidate NOW would get the GOP nomination. I don't think that a gay candidate would be supported by the GOP. I could go on and on... These little differences suggest that the Dems are a more ideologically tolerant party. GOP needs to consider being attractive beyond it's current demographic base.

Mitt Romney wins NC +1,000,000 I've been saying that since the primaries.

Not necessarily. GOP needs to be more ideologically tolerant. That doesn't mean folding on it's core values, but it does mean they need to be more expansive and accepting of diversity. GOP platform has a lot to offer folks - black, white, and brown folks; ideologically centrist folks; young folks; lower income and up and coming folks. But you know what they say about first impressions... And those stalwarts of republican traditionalism, it's time for them to go. They're an albatross around the neck of GOP efforts towards expansion and inclusion. Tim Kaine wins in VA.

Minnesota to Obama

...they field a competent candidate who isn't a degenerate liar (because Romney is a despicable person), make efforts to attract minority folks, stop demagoguing social welfare issues, and make a commitment to building upon the Affordable Care Act so that we can address the healthcare crises in a meaningful way.

No beating chests here. I just think that the inconsistency in the rhetoric leading up to today is interesting - and that is based on what is known (PA, WI). And, as you know, I HATE Mitt Romney (I've been calling him "despicable" for 8 months). So this is laugh out loud funny.

OC is busy crafting a 25 paragraph exigesis about how Nate Silver just guessed. I've been following Silver's blog OC, and he hasn't changed his projections like you said he would.

I said earlier today that I've been collecting up the innane commentary from people here and in the media - the OCs, Oxyrocks, GaryMs, VABills, here and the Roves, Ingrams, Limbaughs, there who have made declarative statements that didn't comport with even a slight indicia of reality. Just remember that when these folks try to be convincing again... I'm wondering what the excuses will be: Hurricane Sandy Popular vote

This **** is laugh out loud funny. Where is OC, and everyone else who were oddly questioning the polls? Where are the" tea party resurgence, 'remember 2010' crowd"? Folks should remember this when those same folks try to make arguments in the future. OC, wrong. Rove, wrong. Oxyrock, wrong. Fox, wrong. *Many* "conservatives" here are not indicative of the country at large. They're outliers. They're ideas are predicated on dissaffection and personal hatred. In fact, it's not "ideas," it's contrarianism. The GOP has an identity crises. They are losing the battle of black and brown faces that are making up an impactful voting demographic. They don't even listen to differing (minority) opinions. You can see it here. I've been hearing for weeks (and I've mentioned it here) that the WH was confident. It's because they bet that a diverse electorate would overwhelm an electorate almost singularly made up of white males (as an interest group). The best thing about this (in addition to Obamacare being maintained, which is GREAT) is that MITT WILL NEVER GET THE NOMINATION AGAIN!!!!!! Claire McCaskill just won in Missouri by the way.

I'm more asking why people are so insistent that the Bills win every game, even insignificant ones that only hurt draft stock. Aren't you, in actuality, creating the monster that you desire so desperately to defeat by winning meaningless games. Isn't that withdrawing all your money from your 401K to pay a couple of late bills? Do you want to see a good game and a fortuitous win or a good team and a successful on-field product? Because with this team, the two are mutually exclusive.

Dee

A really good appraisal around interpreting these polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/06/2012_a_close_race_with_a_high_degree_of_uncertainty.html

You may be right. I posted those electoral stats off memory so please double-check my facts.

Every year, for the past 5 or so years that I've browsed this forum, an interesting phenomena happens at right around week 11. There are a contingent of folks (myself included) who advocate for a tanking of the season so that we can vastly improve our draft stock. Every year, there are just as many - if not more - voices who say: [they]"will always root for the Bills to win;" "let the draft positions fall where they may;" (and my personal favorite) "winning that insignificant game helps the team to learn how to win and promotes a culture of winning." There has been a lot of winning insiginificant games. It hasn't engendered an atmosphere of winning. Winning that insignificant Jaguars game in 2006 didn't help the team learn how to win, but what it did do was help us NOT get Patrick Willis. That feel good Miami game late in the 2010 season hasn't begotten any "winning spirit," but it was the difference between Cam Newton/Von Miller and Marcel Dareus. Last year, it felt really good to stomp Tebow in that insiginficant game after we had lost 200 games straight and we had been eliminated from the playoffs for what seemed like 2 months. Beating the Broncos didn't teach any "winning" lesson, but it did teach us that 8 and 9 is better than 10 and that we could have had Kuechly or Tannehill if we would have left well enough alone. EVEN THOUGH this is academic - cause none of us can affect how the team performs or what games they win or lose, I still want to know what value there is in winning insiginficant games? I think that I've proven why we still end up losing; can you tell me why we win? Edit: Please no "they would have messed the draft up anyway" stuff. You can't prove a negative. But what is factual is that AT LEAST those folks would have been options to choose from had our record been one game worse.

This election has prompted some of the weirdest responses that I've ever seen. What I'm doing is noting responses, posters, pollsters, and pundits, both here and in the media, so that I can find out post-election who ends up being entirely wrong. That way I can discount everything that they have to say going forward and have an articulable reason for doing so.

Wow. That's bold. Love the 'Rakim' signature line by the way.

Are you ready to go on record with what you feel that the outcome will be - the electoral count, the states and for whom, percentages, something?