2012 Presidential Campaign

[Ben E Lou]

Curse you, old man, for breaking my dola.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Dola:

Obviously, the GOP controls the state legislatures around here. I don't get why they don't try to just split all the demographics up equally when they draw the lines. Draw up every district in SC as 65% white, 30% black, 5% other, and they'd be able to win all the House seats, I would think.

Kinda like this: Maryland redistricting maps: Maryland's New Congressional Districts - The Washington Post

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Curse you, old man, for breaking my dola.

Hey...you're only 6 years younger than I.

[Ben E Lou]

On a related note, it was a big "wow" point for all of the news station when Obama was in the SC Democratic primary that would be at or near 50% black voters. Without looking up the numbers, of the list above (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia,) I'd guess that Alabama is the "whitest" of the bunch, I believe at around 25% black. So just do the math. 93-99% of black people vote Democrat, and those stats all skew red in the 52ish-60ish percent range. So just by the basic math there we know that roughly half or more of the Dem voters are black.

[JPhillips]

The Voting Rights Act forces southern states to create districts where blacks have a chance to win. The corruption of both parties has led to extreme disparity in racial breakdown for districts. The GOP doesn't want two or three competitive districts and the Dem incumbent is happy to support a district that makes it a safe seat for life.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Voting Rights Act forces southern states to create districts where blacks have a chance to win.

This.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The GOP doesn't want two or three competitive districts and the Dem incumbent is happy to support a district that makes it a safe seat for life.

Heh...I was going to make a comment about how the whole thing smells like both sides are agreeing to work the system, but I decided that it sounded too tinfoil hat-ish. Maybe not.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Why? I mean, how is that much different from newspapers doing that?

I understand the comparison to newspapers endorsing a candidate. Newspapers however, endorse through their editorials. This was not done as an op-ed, but comes off more like if a newspaper were to splash across each page "VOTE ROMNEY" or "VOTE OBAMA"

It just came off as a bit tacky to me, as it is run at the same time as paid commercials. How can anybody compete with unpaid adverts? Why do candidates actually pay for them? If this precedent were followed, you could turn on your TV to watch your favorite football game and have a crawl across the screen telling you who to vote for, all for free courtesy of the station management.

[stevew]

I can't decide if it's better for a southern state to elect 2 or 3 Cynthia McKinney types and for the AA constituency to be represented or if it is better not to gerrymander. Hopefully it won't be this way forever.

[cuervo72]

Hrm. Actually, I guess it's possible that there *may* be FCC rules against that regarding equal rates, now that you mention it (I am not well-versed in the FCC rules). It does look like there have been similar complaints filed in the past, so maybe you have something.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just because it might be of interest to someone in the thread.

Here's some basic stuff about elections & broadcast law covered in individual blog topics. I haven't parsed every word but a quick review of the info appears accurate enough for a primer.

Broadcast Lawyer & Attorney : Davis Wright Tremaine Law Firm : Campaigning & Politics : Political Broadcasting : Broadcast Law Blog

[cuervo72]

Actually, that seems like it might be an interesting blog on a few other fronts too. Thanks.

[RainMaker]

I just found out that not only can I bet on the election results at 5dimes, I can bet on specific states. Oh boy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I just found out that not only can I bet on the election results at 5dimes, I can bet on specific states. Oh boy.

You can get Obama -1500 in Minnesota and Oregon. So if my math (i.e., online parlay calculator) is right, you can bet $1,000 to win $137.78 if you parlay those. Not bad.

Edit: And thinking about that more, if you're allowed to parlay states in the same way you can parlay football games, there's probably a really great bet in there somewhere. Because unlike games which are all separate and all subject to an upset here and there, the states are all connected. Obama's not going to win the election comfortably but randomly lose Oregon, for example.

[RainMaker]

They aren't letting me parlay them. I think I'll take Obama to which win Ohio which I think is a good bet. Maybe Romney to take Florida as well. Something to make election night a little more exciting.

[larrymcg421]

I think Romney is going to win FL, but I wouldn't take a -230 bet on it. Obama +170 seems like a great bet to me especially if you believe Nate Silver that Obama has a 46% chance to win FL.

I like the Dems retaining the Senate at -400. Currently RCP has it at 45-43 with 12 tossups. So the Dems just have to win 5 of the 12 tossups and they currently lead the poll averages in 8 of them.

[PilotMan]

I have 3 copies of Political Machine 2012 to gift on Steam to the first 3 guys to PM me their info. May you vote wisely.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Kinda like this: Maryland redistricting maps: Maryland's New Congressional Districts - The Washington Post

The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th and 8th districts make my head hurt. That makes some of the jacked up districts we have out here make perfect sense.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

The radio station(s) I work at now have a "promo" running on the air by the general manager where he says why the radio station(s) are urging the listeners to vote for Romney.

I don't happen to agree with the politics of the station(s,) but regardless, I find that sort of open bias by station management incredulous. Rupert Murdoch doesn't even do this on FOX.

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Why? I mean, how is that much different from newspapers doing that?

Only different in the sense that if the newspaper endorses a candidate, it's in there once and I may or may not read it depending on whether or not I read the opinion pages. But if I hear the same message repeatedly on a radio station, it's going to annoy me much more.

If that's what you believe, great. But as long as the station is OK losing some listeners, whatever.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I have 3 copies of Political Machine 2012 to gift on Steam to the first 3 guys to PM me their info. May you vote wisely.

Id like it, Flasch186...

thanks!

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I have 3 copies of Political Machine 2012 to gift on Steam to the first 3 guys to PM me their info. May you vote wisely.

3 gone. Enjoy guys.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Only different in the sense that if the newspaper endorses a candidate, it's in there once and I may or may not read it depending on whether or not I read the opinion pages. But if I hear the same message repeatedly on a radio station, it's going to annoy me much more.

If that's what you believe, great. But as long as the station is OK losing some listeners, whatever.

I meant from a standpoint of being permitted to do it. I agree that it could be very annoying as a listener.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

"Small government" means nothing. It has no meaning. Just another bullshit sound blip.

And what I mean by this (as I was so rudely trolled about) is that I hear a lot of radio and TV people use terms small government, big governmen t and that's all they say. "You should not vote for blahblah because big government is bad". IT's all horseshit as most of the time they don't specify what they are even talking about. Just hiding behind a catchphrase/buxxword that smallgovernment/biggovernment is.

Presumably small government refers to government that does nothing, makes few laws, upholds few laws. Well that's silly. Why have a government at all . Well that's equally silly. You have to have a government. And a government needs to make laws. What directly is frequently the case is that people using the SG/BG arguyments are actually mean something else. "I want government to make laws that _I_ want them to make and get rid of laws that affect "me". "

That is frequently true, mostly when you're talkinga bout big BUSINESS. Big Business is afraid of government because government means less profiit for them and the more they can get around paying their fair share of things and make mo money the better. How they created this following of people that continue to spout Big Government/Small govbernment is just mmore marketing genius really. A scary kind. Yet many that say this also say that they want government to make laws against people's privacy and personal rights, which really seems to be a 1984 version of "Big Government".

I really don't think there is anyone that really feels they want government to make fewer laws and restrictions. They just want it to affect "the other guys" all the time.

[CrimsonFox]

So Romney is now being charged with Ethics Violations from the UAW and CREW for concealing an over 15 million dollar windfall from autobailout money in his wife's account.

UAW Files Charges Against Romney on His Auto Bail-out Profiteering | NationofChange

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Kinda like this: Maryland redistricting maps: Maryland's New Congressional Districts - The Washington Post

I've wondered if there's a logical way to write laws to prevent most cases of gerrymandering. This would be some way of setting up some sort of game theory that worked in real life like a shortest path algorithm.

For instance, in Maryland, you could do 8 little strips of the state based on longitude: 1/8th of the population for each. However, I'm guessing the western half of the state would be all one district so where would you put the voting location (then again, that's what Maryland's 6th looks like)? Even worse would be that there's no way that works in, say, Texas where someone on the far western or northern edge of the state has to travel to the middle. So you can't do simple geometric shapes.

Could you make some set of rules based on population centers and that all parts of a district must touch (i.e. you can't have huge fingers of population in one district or another just to get a certain demographic makeup)?

SI

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I've wondered if there's a logical way to write laws to prevent most cases of jerrymandering. This would be some way of setting up some sort of game theory that worked in real life like a shortest path algorithm.

For instance, in Maryland, you could do 8 little strips of the state based on longitude: 1/8th of the population for each. However, I'm guessing the western half of the state would be all one district so where would you put the voting location (then again, that's what Maryland's 6th looks like)? Even worse would be that there's no way that works in, say, Texas where someone on the far western or northern edge of the state has to travel to the middle. So you can't do simple geometric shapes.

Could you make some set of rules based on population centers and that all parts of a district must touch (i.e. you can't have huge fingers of population in one district or another just to get a certain demographic makeup)?

SI

What are you talking about with voting locations? Why would everyone need to travel to a central voting location?

No matter what your gerrymandering rules (the term comes from 18th century Massachusetts politician Elbridge Gerry), you're still going to have places like Wyoming with their at-large seat, covering a huge land area.

Also, it already is a rule that districts must be contiguous.

[DaddyTorgo]

The problem is the definition of "contiguous."

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

The problem is the definition of "contiguous."

What's the problem? The definition is quite simple. If you want to use a different standard, that's fine -- use a different word that means something different. But contiguity is objective and straightforward, and is presently the one and only criteria that governs partisan gerrymandering.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

What are you talking about with voting locations? Why would everyone need to travel to a central voting location?

No matter what your gerrymandering rules (the term comes from 18th century Massachusetts politician Elbridge Gerry), you're still going to have places like Wyoming with their at-large seat, covering a huge land area.

Also, it already is a rule that districts must be contiguous.

D'oh- I knew I should have hit the spellcheck and it's been edited above.

I suppose that's true as there's not just one central voting location for a district. There are lots of voting locations for each district.

So should we just say that districts should just be strips across each state, based on longitude or latitude and population from the most recent census?

I guess that introduces the problem of having multiple districts voting at the same location but we have some of that not. So why not?

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

What's the problem? The definition is quite simple. If you want to use a different standard, that's fine -- use a different word that means something different. But contiguity is objective and straightforward, and is presently the one and only criteria that governs partisan gerrymandering.

I was just trying to make a one-line quip about it.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

D'oh- I knew I should have hit the spellcheck and it's been edited above.

I suppose that's true as there's not just one central voting location for a district. There are lots of voting locations for each district.

So should we just say that districts should just be strips across each state, based on longitude or latitude and population from the most recent census?

I guess that introduces the problem of having multiple districts voting at the same location but we have some of that not. So why not?

SI

But even with that simple principle, there are problems. Where do you start the strips from? If you just start at the western edge of a state and go as far as you can east until you get a spot-on number (Congressional districts within a state have to be exactly equal in population, subject to some very minor exceptions -- see Wesberry v. Sanders), continuing for all the districts, you'd tend to end up with very Republican-friendly maps. "Cracking" urban areas would be codified. Part of the furor of the present districting scheme is that cities get cracked, placing a subset of urban voters in a rural district with whom they have little in common. Not only would your proposal perpetuate that scheme, but it would make it mandatory.

By the way, I don't disagree at all with your general position that gerrymandering sucks. But, just like federal "job-killing" regulations and tax "loopholes" about which people go on and on whining and moaning, there is most often a sound reason we ended up with them and getting rid of them causes many (or more) problems -- the kind of problems that lead us to adopt the supposed evil in the first place.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I've wondered if there's a logical way to write laws to prevent most cases of gerrymandering. This would be some way of setting up some sort of game theory that worked in real life like a shortest path algorithm.

For instance, in Maryland, you could do 8 little strips of the state based on longitude: 1/8th of the population for each. However, I'm guessing the western half of the state would be all one district so where would you put the voting location (then again, that's what Maryland's 6th looks like)? Even worse would be that there's no way that works in, say, Texas where someone on the far western or northern edge of the state has to travel to the middle. So you can't do simple geometric shapes.

Could you make some set of rules based on population centers and that all parts of a district must touch (i.e. you can't have huge fingers of population in one district or another just to get a certain demographic makeup)?

SI

FWIW......there is an approval system already in place in most states. It's not perfect, but there are lots of cases where district maps are rejected and sent back. In Missouri, the district maps this year were rejected several times. There was some question whether state House Representatives would be allowed to file on filing day simple because they weren't sure if they'd have an approved map in time.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I've wondered if there's a logical way to write laws to prevent most cases of gerrymandering. This would be some way of setting up some sort of game theory that worked in real life like a shortest path algorithm.

For instance, in Maryland, you could do 8 little strips of the state based on longitude: 1/8th of the population for each. However, I'm guessing the western half of the state would be all one district so where would you put the voting location (then again, that's what Maryland's 6th looks like)? Even worse would be that there's no way that works in, say, Texas where someone on the far western or northern edge of the state has to travel to the middle. So you can't do simple geometric shapes.

Could you make some set of rules based on population centers and that all parts of a district must touch (i.e. you can't have huge fingers of population in one district or another just to get a certain demographic makeup)?

SI

http://www.rangevoting.org/SplitLR.html

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

The means to make objective, non-gerrymandered districts already exists. The parties have no incentive to do it b/c it reduces the number of "safe" districts for both sides.

[BrianD]

We have talked about whether the campaigns have been more negative than in past history, but I am curious how the state of "voter fraud" compares to history. It seems like there have been a ton of reports of intimidation, misinformation, and disenfranchisement this election cycle. Is there really more of those activities going on, are we getting better and spotting it, or is it being overblown?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

So Romney is now being charged with Ethics Violations from the UAW and CREW for concealing an over 15 million dollar windfall from autobailout money in his wife's account.

UAW Files Charges Against Romney on His Auto Bail-out Profiteering | NationofChange

So Obama paid off Romney to get his auto-bailout through, is that what I read?

[miked]

This made me laugh too. I oppose the auto bailout, unless you funnel money through the companies I own.

[mckerney]

On the eve of election day it's tough to argue with The Onion's endorsement of John Edwards.

The Onion Endorses John Edwards For President | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Furthermore, Mr. Edwards conducted a protracted extramarital affair with a younger woman while his wife was dying of cancer, and we like that he did this. Our reasons for liking that he did this are tenfold:

1. It was a brave thing to do, given the possible consequences

2. The woman in question was more attractive than Mr. Edwards’ wife

3. He did what he did without compromising his ideals, at least not to any illegal extent

4. He enjoyed himself, and good for him

5. The Onion believes sex is a natural and healthy biological function

6. Women have a weakness for men in powerful positions, and Mr. Edwards expertly exploited that weakness

7. Mr. Edwards’ “Two Americas” premise is very appealing

8. Again, his wife was dying of cancer, and thus was not an ideal partner for sexual intercourse

9. Mr. Edwards is attractive, and it is pleasing to imagine him having sexual intercourse with another attractive person

10. Every employee of this newspaper would have done the exact same thing, given the opportunity

Those who oppose John Edwards’ rightful ascent to our nation's highest office are, in no uncertain terms, cowards and hypocrites.

They are also fools.

Those who disagree with our editorial board on this issue have neither our respect nor our tolerance. Furthermore, let it be known that the political endorsement of The Onion is not a thing to be taken lightly. On the contrary, it should be viewed as a sort of line in the proverbial sand, and those who find themselves on the wrong side of that line will henceforth be marked as enemies of this newspaper, and will be taken out with the most extreme forms of violence.

[larrymcg421]

Nate Silver has Obama up to 91%.

Originally Posted by Nate Silver

Obama gained an average of 1.5 points between 12 national polls published today. Big sample sizes. That's a pretty big deal.

[lungs]

Dick Morris has it going to Romney 325-213.

[larrymcg421]

Jim Cramer has it going Obama 440-98. At least Dick Morris has the excuse that it's his job to make Romney appear stronger.

[lungs]

The question is whether I could get better predictions by going down to the local tavern?

[Shkspr]

You can't get a better prediction than betting against Dick Morris.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Jim Cramer has it going Obama 440-98. At least Dick Morris has the excuse that it's his job to make Romney appear stronger.

Jim Cramer's excuse is that he's dumb

SI

[M GO BLUE!!!]

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by lungs

Dick Morris has it going to Romney 325-213.

This is why people like him hate Nate Silver. He makes them look really stupid. In the past pundits could make whatever bad predictions they wanted because everyone was off and it didn't matter. Now people are accurate and they lose more and more credibility with each hilariously bad miss.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

You can't get a better prediction than betting against Dick Morris.

Betting against Mark Penn?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

All I know is if Romney is elected, he damn well better make me a billionaire by this time next year as he has promised us.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

All I know is if Romney is elected, he damn well better make me a billionaire by this time next year as he has promised us.

Romney Airdrops Two Billion in Small Bills Over Ohio : The New Yorker

He got started already.

[SirFozzie]

So, the final 538 forecast has Obama at 92 % to win, and uses the analogy that Romney is drawing to an inside straight in hold em. Same odds.