Mitt Romney VS President Obama

[kevlray]

On the BBC news last night they said that whoever wins Ohio will be the next president.

How does that work? And why do non Ohio people bother voting? How can one state be the decider?

Col

It is a flaw in the electoral voting system. If California wasn't hard-core democratic (at least at the presidential level), then California might have swayed the vote, but everyone knew that California would go to Obama. The same can be said for some other states (always pro-democratic or pro-republican). But in the end, normally only a few large states can make a difference.

 

[Joe8915]

Obama promised the world to the minorities, they are ones who changed direction of the outcome. But never less, let’s see if he can pull himself out of it. If he can great but if he can’t then they got what they ask for. America will pull out of this, we had the 1930 and that was bad and we pull out OK. Like anything else you have to hit rock bottom before you can come back as a leader

 

[Adam Caramon]

Obama promised the world to the minorities, they are ones who changed direction of the outcome.

How?

But never less, let’s see if he can pull himself out of it.

What is "it"?

If he can great but if he can’t then they got what they ask for. America will pull out of this, we had the 1930 and that was bad and we pull out OK. Like anything else you have to hit rock bottom before you can come back as a leader

Huh? You're making a lot of statements but not explaining them at all.

 

[Steve R.]

It is a flaw in the electoral voting system. If California wasn't hard-core democratic (at least at the presidential level), then California might have swayed the vote, but everyone knew that California would go to Obama. The same can be said for some other states (always pro-democratic or pro-republican). But in the end, normally only a few large states can make a difference.

I wouldn't really call it a "flaw". What we have is an example of extreme sophistication in how to analyze data and allocate resources to manipulate the electoral process.

At the "first" level, many traditional pollsters correctly identified Ohio as being a "key" to a win. But wait, as the commercials go, there was a "second" level that was even more sophisticated. See the Washington Post article "Obama’s ‘Moneyball’ campaign". Obama was able to win through innovative data mining techniques!!! In a sense, Romney was outdone by technology. In this case statistical analysis.

Mar Thiessen, of the Washington Post, wrote:

"While Romney was relying on false signs of Republican “enthusiasm” and “momentum,” Obama was playing a game of political “Moneyball” — using an analytical, metrics-based approach to assemble a winning campaign, the way Billy Beane’s Oakland A’s used rigorous statistical analysis to assemble a winning baseball team. "

 

[Adam Caramon]

Obama was able to win through innovative data mining techniques!!! In a sense, Romney was outdone by technology. In this case statistical analysis.

I'm sure that played a part, but in the end, if your message does not resonate with voters, you will lose.

A lot of people had a view (reinforced by ads) that Romney was cold and disconnected from the average person. He added fuel to the fire with his 47% remark. And now, after the election, he is sticking to that message, saying that Obama won by offering free stuff to people.

Assuming that the economy continues to improve and there are no major disasters or game changers in the next four years, you have to give the edge in the next election to the Democrats. The more diverse the population becomes, the more old people that die off and young people come of voting age, the greater the Democratic edge is going to grow.

In order for the Republican party to be a serious contender in the future, they're going to have to radically change their outlooks and strategies. Based on Governor Jindal's response to Romney, it sounds like they're trying to do that. We'll see how successful they are.

 

[Steve R.]

I'm sure that played a part, but in the end, if your message does not resonate with voters, you will lose.

Quite true. This was a very close election based on the popular vote. So in a general sense, one could say that neither candidate had a (differentiating) message that truly resonated with the voters. Had the Democrats or the Republicans possessed a "resonating" message the election would have been more skewed in favor of that "message". In the end, Obama was simply able to motivate approximately 3 million more people than Romney to get off their couches.

In order for the Republican party to be a serious contender in the future, they're going to have to radically change their outlooks and strategies. ... We'll see how successful they are.

True.


Washington Post Graphic of the Election Results

 

[mraccess101]

Not happy Obama reelected.