[Khellendros]

And Virginia is finally called for Obama.

Concede, dumbass, concede!

This post has been edited by Khellendros: 07 November 2012 - 05:43 AM

[Terez]

NBC hasn't called it yet.

[Una]

What a nailbiter! I was just at the shopping mall and all these people were crowded around the TV screens in the electronics stores all hushed and nervous. Romney was in the lead at that time.

[Terez]

Romney finally conceded.

[Obdigore]

Una, on 07 November 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

What a nailbiter! I was just at the shopping mall and all these people were crowded around the TV screens in the electronics stores all hushed and nervous. Romney was in the lead at that time.

Well yea, because its easier to count 200 votes in a farming town then counting 200,000 in a city.

I was cracking up when people were claiming Romney was going to win the popular vote with CA reporting at 7% and NY reporting at 25%.

[Khellendros]

I'm glad that Romney at least came out and said the two parties have to now reach across the table and start speaking to each other. I mean, I didn't think he would say "let's block them at every turn!", but he could have said nothing at all.

[Terez]

Michele Bachmann has a 340 vote lead, 67.9% reporting.

This post has been edited by Terez: 07 November 2012 - 06:03 AM

[Una]

Obama's actually quite well liked up here. The energy in front of that cell phone kiosk at the time, you'd think everyone was watching to see if a meteor was going to hit the Earth and kill us all or miss narrowly and spare us.

[Terez]

I was chatting with a friend from Oz, and she said her whole office was hanging on every detail. We have a Dutch girl at Theoryland who goes to bed at like 9pm who actually woke up a couple of times to check the results.

[HoosierDaddy]

332 would be far more than I thought Obama would get.

Their organization is just astounding.

[Tsundoku]

Congratulations EmperorMagus, your nation gets at least one more day nuke-free!

@HD
Did/Will Bazza O'Bama get 332 college votes? That's a bit of a dicking in the end isn't it, compared with what we were expecting 24 hours ago?

EDIT: among some funny tweets etc making the rounds, this gem -

“This is the first time all year that I’ve looked forward to hearing a Mitt Romney speech,” @adamisacson

This post has been edited by Sombra: 07 November 2012 - 07:53 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

Looking like it's possible. I'd have said no way it's possible before tonight.

[Terez]

Bluest Red States in 2012 (% Obama, % reporting):

North Carolina (48.4%, 100%)
Georgia (45.4%, 100%)
Missouri (44.3%, 100%)
Indiana (43.8%, 97.6%)
Mississippi (43.6%, 99.5%)
South Carolina (43.5%, 97.2%)
Arizona (43.1%, 96.5%)
Montana (42.2%, 46.5%)
Texas (41.4%, 98.8%)
Alaska (39.9%, 63%)
Louisiana (39.8%, 100%)
South Dakota (39.8%, 94.8%)
Tennessee (39%, 99.4%)
North Dakota (39%, 99.8%)
Alabama (38.3%, 99.9%)
Kansas (38.1%, 96.5%)
Kentucky (37.8%, 100%)
Nebraska (37.8%, 99.7%)
Arkansas (37%, 90.1%)
West Virginia (35.6%, 98.8%)
Oklahoma (33.2%, 99.6%)
Idaho (31.1%, 59.8%)
Wyoming (27.7%, 99.4%)
Utah (24.9%, 99.9%)

Reddest Blue States (% Romney, % reported):

Florida (49.3%, 98.8%)
Ohio (48.2%, 99.7%)
Virginia (48%, 99.3%)
Colorado (47.4%, 70.4%)
Pennsylvania (46.8%, 99.2%)
Wisconsin (46.8%, 96.2%)
New Hampshire (46.7%, 89.7%)
Iowa (46.5%, 99.8%)
Michigan (45.8%, 83.1%)
Nevada (45.7%, 97.9%)
Minnesota (44.9%, 94.4%)
Oregon (44%, 65.3%)
New Mexico (43%, 82.3%)
Washington (42.8%, 51.7%)
Connecticut (41.6%, 84.9%)
Illinois (41.1%, 99.7%)
New Jersey (41%, 98.5%)
California (40.5%, 54.9%)
Maine (40.4%, 75%)
Delaware (40%, 100%)
Massachusetts (37.5%, 95.2%)
Maryland (37%, 98.3%)
New York (35.9%, 96.9%)
Rhode Island (35.2%, 97.1%)
Vermont (31.2%, 94.9%)
Hawaii (26.6%, 50%)

Swing states are bolded. That is, the states that were truly believed to be in play. Indiana, for example, went to Obama last time, but no one expected Obama to have a chance there this time. And while Republicans made noise about Pennsylvania and Romney campaigned there, as well as in Michigan, they were never truly in play. What's funny is that he did better in those states than he did in some swing states.

[worry]

Congratulations, (almost) everybody in the world.

[HoosierDaddy]

Jim Kramer on actual tv is like fucking Quasimodo. Dude is so awkward and I don't like him because of it.

[Shinrei]

I've mostly stayed out of this thread (as I'm sure y'all noticed), because I find only frustration and pukey stomachs over the "choice" we're forced to make as Americans.

Yes, better Obama than Romney, but in a hold my nose sort of way. The Republicans are despicable when it comes to personal freedoms, whether it be what we do in our bedrooms (and who with), their projectile-vomit inducing views on rape or the curbing civil liberties because of TERRORISM. Borrow and spend on bullshit wars is a huge reason America is bankrupt. Not to mention their 'large corporations can do no wrong' mantra. They have managed to smear "corporations" in general, despite the majority being small operations that create jobs and pay their taxes. And they can talk about cutting spending until they are blue in the face, but until they are willing to cut their OWN toys (most notably Defense) I can't take them seriously. And as much as I hate it, the only way we are going to improve some things in the US will involve tax raises of some sort. (I'm not Nordquist fan, basically).

The Dems care far too much about what is in all of our bank accounts. I am not against government taking on social programs (most notably Education), but I obviously draw the line in a different place than most of you on this thread. The opinion I see again and again (here/facebook) is that the rich are to blame for our ills, and we can solve all our problems by taxing them more, and while some CEOs have joined with Washington symapthizers to game the system, the "rich" as a group are as much a problem to the rest of the population as the welfare queens are to the welfare system.* Some of the destructive policies Dems have created have gone largely upreported (easier to sell papers with gay marriage and abortion) and policies created by Dems deserve just as much blame for the housing meltdown-economic shock as the Wall Street goons. I think the Dems have done a great job of bringing in younger voters with their much better/progressive social policies, but galvanizing, energizing issues such as abortion/gay marriage hide their underlying lack of anything tangible to take on the deficit and debt. I know some people (and some of you) see the debt as a non-issue, but I honestly believe that our current system of spending and taxing is unsustainable, even if we take the rich for all they have. Yes, I am absolutely a doom and gloom believer if we stay on our current path (no matter which party has their big spender in office). I've come to believe that the healthcare bill works as a sort of analogy of my views on the Dems. It creates a feel-good system that acts to insure everyone and sell votes, but does almost nothing to address the actual costs of healthcare which will eventually ruin more than just individual families. As Thomas Sowell said, “It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer “universal health care.” Insure everybody, great short term feel good policy. Leave the costs/debt to rise and we can worry about that later...

I'm for a government with a greater accountability to the people. Term limits. Limited and transparent campaign spending (and time to campaign), to make it easier for other parties to become viable and to get elected officials to consider their jobs rather than their re-election. Believe it or not, I love the Greens and had fun watching their party campaign this election. I would love to seem them get a more important place at the table. And of course my very own libertarians.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go polish my gold coins.


*See other thread.

[Shinrei]

Point of above post, sorry, I got rambly

Point: I feel disenfranchised. I feel both parties, although they vary wildly on some social policies and where they decide to spend our money, are basically doing the same fundamental damage (debt/ruinous spending) regardless of who is President or who holds Congressional majority.

Billions of money was spent on these campaigns to change...nothing in Washington.

[Shinrei]

[/whine]

[HoosierDaddy]

I sympathize, Shin. But, we need to elaborate more.

To solve the deficit we have to do at least one of the following: Cut spending or raise revenue.
The problem comes that the great recession kind of dictated massive government spending and thus option one is shot for a little bit with current Republican ideologies.. Rock meet hard place.

I was all for the Obama plan to cut spending two times for every one time of revenue raising. That had no go.

Hopefully we can sort that out, but Mitch McConnell's late night letter last night did nothing to make me feel better. Compromise doesn't mean giving in/surrender. It means negotiation. Some people don't get that.

As for campaign spending: End Citizens United, enact publicly funded campaign, shorten the length for primaries and the general. In our wet dreams.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 07 November 2012 - 01:26 PM

[Shinrei]

HoosierDaddy, on 07 November 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

I sympathize, Shin. But, we need to elaborate more.

To solve the deficit we have to do at least one of the following: Cut spending or raise revenue.

What sort of elaboration you want?

And I am fine with changing the "or" in your last sentence to "and". Negotiation is good.