From Fox News, a surprising metric from exit polls. They write:
Many analysts felt that the arrival of Hurricane Sandy gave the president a boost last week by allowing him to display leadership in front of the American people, as well as taking away valuable campaigning days from Gov. Romney.
###
Chris Christie’s bear hug didn’t help either.
President Obama in his acceptance speech:
“We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet,”
Looks like “dirty weather” is here to stay because the public just can’t see past this monstrous fabrication. “Tabloid climatology” may be a new career path for many.
Btw: Are not hurricanes still classified as an “Act of God”… just asking? GK
As I said in an earlier post, it’s ironic if Sandy did just tip the balance. Maybe the Republicans will come to their senses and start being grown up about AGW. It’s clear that the debate is changing. You wouldn’t want to be seen as irrelevant now, would you?
President Obama said in his acceptance speech, ““We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt,”
? Was the speech written by Lewis Carroll?
– MJM
Since nobody asked, I’ll be glad to give my opinion of why the GOP has lost the last two Presidential elections. Both in 2008 and this year, their nominating system produced a Presidential nominee who did not have the wholehearted support of their own party – neither
McCain nor Romney had more than a quarter of the party’s support. And the reason this came about was because the GOP fielded almost a dozen prospective candidates, all of whom were conservatives except for one guy – in this case Romney – and the overwhelming conservative majority was split 10 or more ways, allowing a guy with less than 30% support from GOP party members to win a lot of winner-take-all primaries and get the nomination. The winner-take-all system is allowing this ridiculous situation to occur and those types of primaries should be banned. The GOP paid the price for using a non-democratic method of choosing their candidate. From my perspective, Gingrich was the only talent the GOP had in the primary field and was clearly the only one who could energize his party and make clear and forceful arguments that resonated. You have to convince the voters why your ideas are better and Gingrich was the only convincing speaker the GOP had. But there were so many candidates that he was often provided little opportunity to be heard during the debates.
Hooray! California Proposition 39 passed, so now our bankrupt state has more money (to spend on clean energy).
Ok, it swallowed my ‘/sark’
Yes, H Sandy interrupted Romney’s momentum, but did it affect Florida’s vote or Colorado’s? Did it cause 3 mill fewer “Republican” voters to turn out for Mitt than for McCain? (This one astonishes me.) Was the immediate problem H Sandy or did the administration-controlled press give Obama a photo-op and then refuse to follow-up with investigation into his heartlessness and “his” (fed gov) agencies’ pitiful inadequacies in helping people destroyed by the disaster.
As to C Christy. Egotists rule in his book. He saw an advantage and he took it. Why Romney made him keynote speaker at the Rep Conv is beyond me — and omitted Palin and Huckabee.
Big tent?
I am a former Democrat (classical liberal) who has great difficulty with “conservative’s” moralism and holier-than-thou attitude — toward women and abortion (strictly limit it, but leave women choice over their own bodies and lives); toward immigrants, most of whom come here to work and work hard they do (we are a nation of immigrants; and yes, they might desire too much of a government handout, but they are good people); toward homosexuals having a dignified place and partnership rights (not defined as “marraige” is my preference); toward those who are not “Christians” but believe in Western Civilization as something that freedom-loving people (human beings, not a god) have fought for across the generations. Most of these are areas that Obama went small and ugly about, but he spoke to “individuals” with needs and desires.
Big question: will AGW “agencies”and grant funding slowly be defunded? Will H Sandy be seen as a circumstance of weather? The nation seems very narrowly divided.
Ya know, Republicans serious about getting into the Whitehouse are going to have to stop pandering to their own nut fringe. Go for good government, business-like economic policies and the like that are a strength and forget the antidiluvian stuff. Hey, horrors of horrors, maybe a safety net health care system is a good idea (certainly repubs lose votes over it). The cost and violence in America re the war on drugs even has a sensible solution (that the fringe won’t like). Buy the Afghan heroin crop by outbidding the Taliban and offer to pay them $1.00 per stick of asparagus in the future. Same with the Columbians. Legalize marijuana and collect a marijuana tax – even let your own farmers profit. Give addicts a free shot. This will remove the incentive for organized crime, starve out the Taliban, and chop law enforcement budgets by hundreds of billions – hey you will make a profit on it. The fringe will vote for you anyway – what’s their choice. I hope I haven’t awakened too many angry beasts.
Did Hurricane Sandy help Obama? Of course. Was it decisive? I don’t think so. Romney was already hamstrung by having flip-flopped from moderate to right wing (to win the primaries) to moderate again. Too much right wing evangelical baggage, and endorsing people like Mourdock didn’t help his campaign either.
Going forward, Obama’s mention of a warming planet (after having maintained a Trappist like silence on the subject) is an ominous sign. He doesn’t control the house, of course, but does control the EPA, and the legal challenges have already been made (and lost). The next few years will be interesting, but the Chinese saying “may you live in interesting times” was meant as a curse not a blessing. We shall see.
Olavi says:
November 7, 2012 at 6:42 am
Do you really believe, that selfish multimillionaire like Romney is, would be better to USA as nation? Better for average person? While he thinks that all the money should be in rich people’s pokets. Only one thing in Obamas policy is bothering me. His belief in AGW.
You obviously know nothing about Romney. If you said the oppposite of what you say here you would be nearer the truth but not near enough. Romney gave his inheritance to charity, all of it. He has donated $30 million over the years. Biden and Obama. Last year Biden gave $215. Obama $00000.
Get the facts. Engage the brain before opening the mouth the result will always be better.
I drove through the projects last night —– big block party. Obama money for all!
I am just sick.
Had Romney discussed substantive issues rather than fluff, he would have decimated Obama. The empirical evidence for rebuking his presidency was within his grasp. But it just goes to show that the commission on presidential debates and the establishment, eschew any contentious issues like debt, war, civil liberties and and the imminent crash of America, caused by central economic planners and the two centre left political factions. Romney just looks like another creepy backward conservative, while Obama gets to make another of his ridiculous sentimental Americana speeches and peddle all that progressive shit about blacks Hispanics and gays. The fact that he got away with that rhetoric a second time beggars belief. Are people really that stupid?
I’m not saying Romney’s any better but at least be half as gullible.
In honour of Obama’s re-election, here’s Doug Casey on what to expect in the coming years 😉
It will be fascinating to watch Obama and the Democrats (socialists) trying to negotiate with people they can’t stand, the Republicans (capitalists). Well he’s not been able to do it over the last four years. Get ready for more EPA like laws being brought in undemocratically…
Mark Hladik says:
November 7, 2012 at 6:46 am
Hope everyone enjoyed the last election ever to be held in the United States.
Well, certainly the last open & free election for a while. We have General Elections every 5 years max, sometimes the incumbent Prime Minister will take a snap election in 4 years if the signs are right, it’s a gamble but can increase majority rule, but you usually need a war in the South Atlantic for that. However, in the last 15 years it hasn’t really mattered who we voted for, we are simply exchanging one bunch of half-wits for another, we live in the PDREU or UESR I don’t mind which term is used, they’re the same post-democratic bureaucratic leviathons, accountable to nobody, like your EPA! Enjoy it while it lasts chaps & chapesses!
pyromancer76 says:
November 7, 2012 at 7:18 am (Edit)
” . . toward immigrants, most of whom come here to work and work hard they do (we are a nation of immigrants; and yes, they might desire too much of a government handout, but they are good people) . . ”
—————————————————————-
Hi, please forgive me asking this but I am genuinely trying to understand this stance on illegal immigration.
If I, as a white western middle aged professional civil engineer, have to apply for a visa before I can even visit America on holiday and jump through the most amazing number of hoops to apply for a work permit or a green card with very little chance of success, why should someone who walks in over the Southern border be given the right to settle? If you really do believe that America is a nation of immigrants and that is her strength why have immigration controls at all?
If I was to fly into Mexico and then walk across the Rio Grande into Texas without being caught would it then be OK for me to settle in the USA. I ask as serious guy who would love to move to the states, so much so that I would do so tomorrow if at all possible. It just seems strange that all liberals would allow unrestricted illegal immigration from the South yet support strict immigration controls on those coming from the old world.
Would liberals support unrestricted immigration from anywhere in the world because that is really what this tolerance and acceptance of illegal economic migrants is. Would that be in the best interests of the USA.
Big Government – the gift that keeps on giving. In this case, a gift for people who are bad at math.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-07/obama-may-levy-carbon-tax-to-cut-the-u-s-deficit-hsbc-says.html
Olavi says:
November 7, 2012 at 6:42 am
Do you really believe, that selfish multimillionaire like Romney is, would be better to USA as nation?
_______________________
As far as I am concerned Romney is Obamalite. He was marketed as a ‘Venture Capitalist’ but he was not. He was a ‘Corporate Raider’.
The difference is a real venture capitalist risks his OWN WEALTH when he funds start-ups or failing businesses. A ‘Corporate Raider’ borrows printed on the spot
funnyfiat money as bank loans using the corporate assets as collateral. He uses assets in a corporation HE DOES NOT OWN to borrow the freshly printed $$$ and grab controlling ownership. In other words the banks and the raider make out big time by acquiring real concrete assets (Real Wealth) they did not own by trading it for worthless paper. See link and link and http://www.leveragedloan.com/consolidated-container-readies-370m-term-loan-backing-lbo-by-bain/ Rebuttal of sorts: http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-bain-bailout-not-quite.htmlUnfortunately we were never given a real choice as usual. I only voted for Romney because a President NOT SEEKING re-election is a heck of a lot more dangerous. He has nothing to loose by screwing the American people and everything to gain by pleasing the power-brokers who are in a position to reward him well in the future.
So why doesn’t the party institute instant-runoff voting in its primaries (where possible), so the ideological majority can converge on a single candidate?
Obama won the same way Chicago politicians have won for years. Handing out money. Sandy was just another opportunity. He’s been handing out checks to the tune of trillions a year for four years. He hasn’t even attempted to pass a budget as that might have put some cap on the slush funds. The worst part is that he still controls the Senate and will soon own the Supremes with two near retirement. Not much hope for change.
Jimmy Haigh November 7, 2012 at 6:25 am says:
Wow. Maybe He can change the climate…/sarc
The thing is, I’ve heard in the last few days that members of the UK Parliament figure that we will have to change the climate. Which sentiment raises the rather awkward question: what if it were possible for scientists to change the climate – and they got it wrong?
Who is John Galt?
garymount says:
November 7, 2012 at 6:47 am
I’ll make this short, I’ve started studying Mandarin. And I’m not kidding.
—–
You have chosen… Wisely.
In politics, the truth does not matter.
If you tell the same lie often enough, it becomes fact in the minds of many. He who lies most often and persistently wins.
Throw enough lies against the wall and some will stick.
If you are going to lie, really lie, tell it from the floor of the Senate or House so you are protected from legal issues.
Never answer a question, because anything you say can and will be used against you. If you do get forced to answer a question, lie. Your opponent then will have to accept your lie or spend all his time refuting it.
The aid of the media is essential. To gain that aid, lie to them, often and repeatedly, especially about your opponent. They will eventually accept what you say as truth rather than spend all their time refuting it.
The most effective lie is to say that your opponent is lying. Say it loudly and often. Remember, facts don’t matter so there is no need to be specific. The lie about lying will spread and take hold. Then all future statements made by your opponent will be assumed to be lies.
Sandy was not decisive, if you were watching Nate Silver’s analyses. He was projecting 303 electoral votes for Obama even before the storm. His final projection on Nov. 5 was 313, and if Obama’s lead in Florida holds, the number will exceed that.
For a good analysis of why the election went as it did, see here:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/11/07/why-2012-election-was-a-message-election/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog
G. Karst says:
November 7, 2012 at 6:54 am
(…) The important question for this forum is: What effect will another Obama term have on Climate dictated policy? Can skepticism survive 4 more years of institutional propaganda and government bias? Some prognostication please. GK
—-
I’ll tell you one word. Just one word: EPA. Hm… not a word.