patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,364,385 comments by 15,735 users - SouthMtn, TheAntiPanicanLearingCenter online now
« First « Previous Comments 21 - 36 of 36 Search these comments
A Rubio / Portman ticket would have won.
I can't imagine Ron Paul standing up in a national election.
Bottom line is the Republicans ticket didn't win any of their home states. No Wisconsin, no Mass, no Mich, no CA.
Utah doesn't count.
bdrasin
@
2012 Nov 6, 1:24pm
You people are way too hasty - Scott Rasmussen hasn't applied his likely voter filter to the election results yet!
Dan8267
@
2012 Nov 6, 1:28pm
Ron Paul wouldn't have stood a chance. No way.
Which states that voted for Romney would have voted for Obama had Ron Paul been the Republican nominee?
Peter P
@
2012 Nov 6, 1:35pm
Ron Paul wouldn't have stood a chance. No way.
Which states that voted for Romney would have voted for Obama had Ron Paul been the Republican nominee?
I love Ron Paul. :-(
lostand confused
@
2012 Nov 6, 1:36pm
A Rubio / Portman ticket would have won
Rubio the guy who charged his minivan repairs and groceries to the republican party credit card. Try that in a corporation and they would call you a thief.
Portman who?
Ron paul on his facebook this weekend
Voting for the lesser of two evils, is still evil
I doubt he would have beaten bama but he wouldn't have done worse than romney. I might have bothered to go vote had paul been an option, even though I still don't think much anything would change had he been elected prez
curious2
@
2012 Nov 6, 1:49pm
Which states that voted for Romney would have voted for Obama had Ron Paul been the Republican nominee?
North Carolina, but that wouldn't be enough to change the overall result.
Dan8267
@
2012 Nov 6, 1:56pm
Which states that voted for Romney would have voted for Obama had Ron Paul been the Republican nominee?
North Carolina, but that wouldn't be enough to change the overall result.
I would have said maybe Montana and Indiana, but those wouldn't have matter either.
I could see Ohio and Florida maybe voting for Ron Paul instead of Romney. So even if he lost Montana (3) and Indiana (11) or North Carolina (15), but gained Ohio (18) or Florida (29), he would have done better than Romney.
If Ron Paul got both those swing states, which isn't implausible, he would have gotten 47 more electoral votes and this election would still be going on at least if he didn't lose NC.
Heck, Ron Paul might have picked up Virgina's 13 votes as well.
Vicente
@
2012 Nov 6, 2:44pm
How can these people expect anyone to take themselves seriously when their predictions weren't any better than those of our resident douchebag troll here on Patrick.net?
Because they get paychecks to be wrong. They don't care as long as they give the "right" answers.
Vicente
@
2012 Nov 6, 3:09pm
On the other hand, some really highly paid people "experts" came up with projections that have absolutely no basis in reality
Nate Silver however, kicked ass and took names.
lostand confused
@
2012 Nov 6, 10:18pm
Looks like that crazy congresscritter from FL, Allen West has lost?
zzyzzx
@
2012 Nov 6, 10:32pm
You people are way too hasty - Scott Rasmussen hasn't applied his likely voter filter to the election results yet!
ON the news last night they pointed out that the people showing up fit the profile of "registered voters" instead of the profile of the "likely voter". Seems to me that somebody needs to fix their model for a "likely voter".
Dan8267
@
2012 Nov 6, 10:40pm
Almost final count. Just excluding Florida because that's the one state that can't figure out who its voting for even after the election is done.
Senate went to Democrats. House went to Republicans. Both chambers close to evenly split.
Bellingham Bill
@
2012 Nov 6, 10:44pm
Republicans got shellacked in the Senate races.
Democrats had tons of seats on the line, Republicans won none of them.
They did pick up Ben Nelson's seat, but no big loss.
If I had my way, I'd throw all the bums out, but that's not how politics works generally.
The House is gerrymandered all to hell which helps the Republicans keep their majority there.
Not that they didn't win a lot of votes vs. the Dems this time around again.
bdrasin
@
2012 Nov 6, 10:55pm
On the other hand, some really highly paid people "experts" came up with projections that have absolutely no basis in reality
Nate Silver however, kicked ass and took names.
From xcd.com:
zzyzzx
@
2012 Nov 6, 11:01pm
I did not expect this:
http://www.kypost.com/dpps/news/national/turnout-shaping-up-to-be-lower-than-2008_7991483
Turnout shaping up to be lower than 2008
Preliminary figures suggest fewer people voted this year than four years ago, when voters shattered turnout records as they elected Obama to his first term.
In most states, the numbers are shaping up to be even lower than in 2004, said Curtis Gans, the director of American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate. Still, the full picture may not be known for weeks, because much of the counting takes place after Election Day.
With 95 percent of precincts reporting, The Associated Press figures showed more than 117 million people had voted in the White House race. In 2008, 131 million people voted.
« First « Previous Comments 21 - 36 of 36 Search these comments
OK, I stayed up to late. Here's just about the final tally. Obama won regardless of the few popular votes (electoral votes) left to count. Here's the map as of 12:30 a.m. EST.
As of 11:15 pm EST
Looks like the Dems have control of the Senate. The House is still up for grabs. Obama leading considerably in the electoral college even though it's neck-in-neck in the popular vote.
I'll be hitting the sack soon as I got work tomorrow, but Google is providing excellent election coverage at http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results
Here's a snapshot of that page. Good job Google.
As of 10:30 pm EST
As of 9:45 pm EST
#politics