Exit polls, results, coverage and all things election night.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

And I think that’s the kind of simplistic, naïve and ignorant thinking that got Obama elected to a second term.

Naïve and simplistic thinking is why coal operations in the apps are ruining the environment. Also, do you think McCain would have got four more years if he was elected under drill baby drill and the bp oil spill happened?

Naïve and simplistic thinking: 'regulation is inherently bad'

MadsL

Amerika wrote: »

Please be so kind as to point me to where I advocated for "unrestrained unregulated fracking." The state of Pennsylvania on their own merit has done a pretty good job, based on numerous studies, of controlling the utilization of hydraulic fracking.

First point me to where Overheal said anything which you characterise as "simplistic, naïve and ignorant thinking" in relation to fracking. I think Americans have a reasonable expectation that their water supply should not be flammable.

Overheal

MadsL wrote: »

I think Americans have a reasonable expectation that their water supply should not be flammable.

Should this sentence ever need to come up in a political discourse??

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

Should this sentence ever need to come up in a political discourse??

I want to know what on Earth posessed someone to take a lighter to their tap just on the off-chance that it would catch fire.

Amerika

MadsL wrote: »

First point me to where Overheal said anything which you characterise as "simplistic, naïve and ignorant thinking" in relation to fracking. I think Americans have a reasonable expectation that their water supply should not be flammable.

Didn’t state regulators note that some of those cases were "anecdotal," and said they were either unconnected to drilling activity or were an isolated problem? Now, IMO... if it were somethig that was rampant, then there should be the type of concern the EPA is considering in taking over.

And don’t gas lines occasionally explode? Should we stop using natural gas and dig up all the pipelines because of a few "incidents?" Do people occasionally get electrocuted in their homes? Should the EPA or another government agency take over all uses of electricity, and stop the use of electricity in homes until we find a way for no person to ever get electrocuted again?

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

I want to know what on Earth posessed someone to take a lighter to their tap just on the off-chance that it would catch fire.

Probably an odor? Think about how they discovered penicillin, weird **** just happens.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Didn’t state regulators note that some of those cases were "anecdotal," and said they were either unconnected to drilling activity or were an isolated problem? Now, IMO... if it were somethig that was rampant, then there should be the type of concern the EPA is considering in taking over.

And don’t gas lines occasionally explode? Should we stop using natural gas and dig up all the pipelines because of a few "incidents?" Do people occasionally get electrocuted in their homes? Should the EPA or another government agency take over all uses of electricity, and stop the use of electricity in homes until we find a way for no person to ever get electrocuted again?

Build that strawman high! You can even use water to ignite it now.

Let me ask this: you're happy with state regulation but unhappy with federal regulation? Is this correct?

MadsL

Amerika wrote: »

Should the EPA or another government agency take over all uses of electricity, and stop the use of electricity in homes until we find a way for no person to ever get electrocuted again?

If local mining activity caused your home voltage to spike to 50,000V - would you not want that investigated? Would you also consider it an acceptable side effect for your TV to explode now and then?

Duck Soup

Karl Rove's Rage Against The Statistical Machine moment from last night on Fox.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Didn’t state regulators note that some of those cases were "anecdotal," and said they were either unconnected to drilling activity or were an isolated problem? Now, IMO... if it were somethig that was rampant, then there should be the type of concern the EPA is considering in taking over.

And don’t gas lines occasionally explode? Should we stop using natural gas and dig up all the pipelines because of a few "incidents?" Do people occasionally get electrocuted in their homes? Should the EPA or another government agency take over all uses of electricity, and stop the use of electricity in homes until we find a way for no person to ever get electrocuted again?

I just got shocked the other day by a cable supplying a pc, something around 19 volts, 4 amps. Not enough voltage to kill me, certainly enough amperage , by several factors of ten. Course I wonder if that was 120 volts or 19 since it was at the plug, but with the way ac works it could have been either. Interested in that science now.. Regardless, I'm not dead. I probably tripped the earth and the Live. Not sure how I'd feel right now if I tripped love and neutral. Oh btw earth wires I'm pretty sure were a regulatory measure.

Gas lines do explode but in bp's case we found they seriously lapsed on their regulations with that drill. The regulating body was no flower either, which had become corrupt from being too friendly with the oil companies they were regulating. Coke and hookers (literally) type friendly. And the USDA wants tog give free passes to companies like Tyson to regulate themselves!

You could also research nuclear reactor disasters and find that most if not all directly or indirectly resulted from lapsed or poor regulation.

And everybody drives at a 'safe' speed. Well if that were true there would never be an accident on 26. Oh you mean those tires are NOT rated for 120mph? Well egg on my face, and several other biological substances.

Speaking of power though Ive heard of supply companies, namely a local in my area called Santee Cooper, running their voltages deliberately lower in order to drive up the heat and amps used by appliances. This translates into being able to charge customers more for energy, as their appliances consume more energy. That excess energy thanks to ohms law becomes heat in the line, causing electronics to burn out sooner than designed. Legal recourse? None, because the voltage is still 'within spec', if the voltage range is allowed to be 100-120v.. so do you think tighter regulation (narrower spec range) or deregulation would help in that situation? Your thoughts, please.

Amerika

MadsL wrote: »

If local mining activity caused your home voltage to spike to 50,000V - would you not want that investigated? Would you also consider it an acceptable side effect for your TV to explode now and then?

To answer your question (and Brian?'s)... Absolutely! But I wouldn’t want the federal government authorizing a dozen or so federal agencies to work on finding ways to regulate all mining at the federal level, so that they can limit and eventually stop the practice altogether becasue of my unfortunate incident. Would you?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

To answer your question (and Brian?'s)... Absolutely! But I wouldn’t want the federal government authorizing a dozen or so federal agencies to work on finding ways to regulate all mining at the federal level, so that they can limit and eventually stop the practice altogether becasue of my unfortunate incident. Would you?

If the problems happen inter-state and those states aren't stepping up then unfortunately yes.

Keep in mind the individual states can and have gotten federal waivers for things when theyve demonstrated they are both willing and capable of doing something for themselves, Obama did this most recently with that issue related tö work and social security, I forget the particulars and the state but I recall the media trying to hype it up as something it wasn't.

Amerika

Overheal, we’re getting way off topic... not that it isn’t a thought provoking discussion. My original comment on the EPA and regulations had to do with ramifications of Obama being reelected and therefore on topic. And before I get the inevitable Mod warning about staying on topic, we should end it here.

Stheno

May I please ask a stupid question?

I've always been confused about the difference between electoral college system and popular vote, and the debates about the two.

I think I've figured it out, in that in the electoral college system, the winner takes all regardless of whether they get 100% or 50.1% of the vote, so they get all the points from each state? Is that correct?

Also how are states allocated their points? Is it on a population basis?

And why are some states classed as swing states? Is it due to there being a close number of registered democrats and republicans?

Thank you!

P_1

When are we expecting a final result from Florida?

eyeball kid

Stheno wrote: »

May I please ask a stupid question? No such thing!

I've always been confused about the difference between electoral college system and popular vote, and the debates about the two.

I think I've figured it out, in that in the electoral college system, the winner takes all regardless of whether they get 100% or 50.1% of the vote, so they get all the points from each state? Is that correct?
Generally yes. I think there are two state, Maine and Nevada that allocate it differently depending on the popular vote

Also how are states allocated their points? Is it on a population basis?
Yeah, based on population as far as I know!

And why are some states classed as swing states? Is it due to there being a close number of registered democrats and republicans?

I think these states regularly swing between voting for Rep or Dem in the presidential elections.

Thank you!

See more info here

Thats my understanding, I'm sure there's people here with a far better understanding of the process.

Manic Moran

I think Nebraska and Maine are the two split States. I'm too lazy to check.

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

May I please ask a stupid question?

I've always been confused about the difference between electoral college system and popular vote, and the debates about the two.

I think I've figured it out, in that in the electoral college system, the winner takes all regardless of whether they get 100% or 50.1% of the vote, so they get all the points from each state? Is that correct?

Also how are states allocated their points? Is it on a population basis?

And why are some states classed as swing states? Is it due to there being a close number of registered democrats and republicans?

Thank you!

They don't have to get 50.1% in a state, just a plurality. Each state has at least 3 votes because each state has 2 senators + a number of congressmen, 1 in the case of the smallest states. Seats in congress are divided up based on population but since each state is guaranteed 2 votes for the senate seats this means the smaller states have an added weight.
There's a few exceptions, DC gets 3 electoral votes despite not being a state. Maine and Nebraska divide their votes so that the 2 statewide votes go for the statewide winner while the winner in each congressional district gets the vote for that district.
As for swing states, they're ones that aren't guaranteed. There's now 242 votes among states that the Democrats have won for the last 6 straight elections and 270 is needed so the Republicans really need to get into those swing states, I think the equivalent figure for Republicans would be around 120 or so, again underlining the advantage the Democrats have.

Stheno

Deleted User wrote: »

They don't have to get 50.1% in a state, just a plurality. Each state has at least 3 votes because each state has 2 senators + a number of congressmen, 1 in the case of the smallest states. This means the smaller states have an added weight.
There's a few exceptions, DC gets 3 electoral votes despite not being a state. Maine and Nebraska divide their votes so that the 2 statewide votes go for the statewide winner while the winner in each congressional district gets the vote for that district.

What do you mean by a plurality?

Gandhi

Stheno wrote: »

What do you mean by a plurality?

More votes than anyone else. Usually there is a third (and sometimes fourth and fifth) candidate that you never hear about. You could have only 48% but still have more than anyone else as the Libertarian or Constitution candidate got a few %.

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

What do you mean by a plurality?

The most votes. If there's 3 candidates and they get 35/34/31 the one with 35 got a purality rather than a majority but gets the votes for that state. I think way back in the day a majority was necessary but it's not the case now. There'll be times when neither candidate will quite reach 50%, especially if it's a tight state. I added a little more to my last post that might help as well.

Stheno

Gandhi wrote: »

More votes than anyone else. Usually there is a third (and sometimes fourth and fifth) candidate that you never hear about. You could have only 48% but still have more than anyone else as the Libertarian or Constitution candidate got a few %.

Deleted User wrote: »

The most votes. If there's 3 candidates and they get 35/34/31 the one with 35 got a purality rather than a majority but gets the votes for that state. I think way back in the day a majority was necessary but it's not the case now. There'll be times when neither candidate will quite reach 50%, especially if it's a tight state. I added a little more to my last post that might help as well.

Thanks, sorry I forgot that you have the marginal candidates who attract little attention but can affect the results.

So basically it's winner takes all regardless of their overall majority, they who come first get all the points.

I now have another stupid question.

Is the argument that Obama e.g. didn't win the popular vote based on the fact that overall he might have gotten e.g. 45% of the overall vote based on multiple candidates?

I find this confusing given it tends to be trotted out by the republican or democratic opposition

Thanks for your patience in explaining this, I do read a lot about US politics but don't really understand it.

KyussBishop

Overheal wrote: »

I just got shocked the other day by a cable supplying a pc, something around 19 volts, 4 amps. Not enough voltage to kill me, certainly enough amperage , by several factors of ten. Course I wonder if that was 120 volts or 19 since it was at the plug, but with the way ac works it could have been either. Interested in that science now.. Regardless, I'm not dead. I probably tripped the earth and the Live. Not sure how I'd feel right now if I tripped love and neutral. Oh btw earth wires I'm pretty sure were a regulatory measure.

Completely off topic, but this reminded me of this particular Darwin award, which is a good read: Apparently it's possible to kill yourself with a 9 volt battery:
http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-50.html

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

Thanks, sorry I forgot that you have the marginal candidates who attract little attention but can affect the results.

So basically it's winner takes all regardless of their overall majority, they who come first get all the points.

I now have another stupid question.

Is the argument that Obama e.g. didn't win the popular vote based on the fact that overall he might have gotten e.g. 45% of the overall vote based on multiple candidates?

I find this confusing given it tends to be trotted out by the republican or democratic opposition

Thanks for your patience in explaining this, I do read a lot about US politics but don't really understand it.

He did win the popular vote, though he could well have lost it and still won overall. Someone can lose the popular vote nationally (Bush in 2000) but win on the electoral college.
Even aside from different states having different weights, anything other than a direct vote can lead to such a situation. Look at England as an example, generally a party getting 40% of the vote nationally will have over 50% of the seats. 2005 Labour got 35.2% of the vote but got 55% of the seats.
Like I said, Obama did win the popular vote this time but the way things are he's pretty much guaranteed around 242 electoral votes. After that he only needs 2 of the close states and can forget the rest.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Overheal, we’re getting way off topic... not that it isn’t a thought provoking discussion. My original comment on the EPA and regulations had to do with ramifications of Obama being reelected and therefore on topic. And before I get the inevitable Mod warning about staying on topic, we should end it here.

Fair enough.

I do have a question that is inline with the topic though: I don't think you've ever said what type of business you operate? Is it related to EPA regulations or is that just an interest of yours?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Fair enough.

I do have a question that is inline with the topic though: I don't think you've ever said what type of business you operate? Is it related to EPA regulations or is that just an interest of yours?

We provide certain specialized product to the elderly. Not Medicare billing, but decreases in Medicare indirectly affects sales. A high percentage of our overhead costs involve labor, fuel and transportation related costs. Our product is directly and indirectly affected by the price of petroleum. Inordinate increases in these factors should cause us to increase prices. Unfortunately as the vast majority of our clientele are on very fixed incomes, price increases only cause them to purchase less, or not at all, of our needed product. We care about our customers, so we are forced to find ways to decrease costs, and only increase prices as a last resort. And there is a delicate balance between price points and them making the decision to purchase substitute, non-specialized product which does not support the caregiver and patient need that we provide.

Memnoch

Nate Silver predicted 50 out of 50 states correctly. He also came closest to predicting the national popular vote.

Rasmussan have serious egg on their faces and Gallup don't look to great either.

I have to say that even though I discovered Nate's blog in 2008 where he was once more spot on (as he was in the 2010 midterms) I had my doubts about his Obama's chances of winning at 90% the day of the election. Mainly because every single news media outlet kept repeating 'it's a toss-up, it's a dead heat, anyone can win.' Makes you really sit up and take notice of media sensationalism.

I'm going to put a lot more faith in his predictions going forward.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

No it's not. Most stocks were up in after hours trading, post Obama being declared the winner but pre ECB announcement.

I don't think the market actually gives a flying **** whether a deal can be done on raising the debt ceiling. It does however care that there will be fewer people in Europe buying the stuff companies make.

I do this for a living, il trust my judgement on the behaviour of the markets before your pro Obama bull agenda.

The ecb does not affect the USA markets nearly as much as jumping off a fiscal cliff does.

I would equate it as a 70/30% split on what shook the markets with the 70% shake coming in the wake of the re election.

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote: »

Nate Silver predicted 50 out of 50 states correctly. He also came closest to predicting the national popular vote.

Rasmussan have serious egg on their faces and Gallup don't look to great either.

I have to say that even though I discovered Nate's blog in 2008 where he was once more spot on (as he was in the 2010 midterms) I had my doubts about his Obama's chances of winning at 90% the day of the election. Mainly because every single news media outlet kept repeating 'it's a toss-up, it's a dead heat, anyone can win.' Makes you really sit up and take notice of media sensationalism.

I'm going to put a lot more faith in his predictions going forward.

Cursory reading of polls past the headlines would make 48 or 49 states obvious.

Memnoch

Deleted User wrote: »

Cursory reading of polls past the headlines would make 48 or 49 states obvious.

And yet not one of the major news outlets were willing to come out and say this outright. Easy to say this in hindsight though. I wonder if you posted something similar PRIOR to the election. If so, please feel free to link me to aforementioned post.

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote: »

And yet not one of the major news outlets were willing to come out and say this outright. Easy to say this in hindsight though. I wonder if you posted something similar PRIOR to the election. If so, please feel free to link me to aforementioned post.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81609280&postcount=82
Just North Carolina I got wrong it seems.

Hell a look back shows that McCain actually broke 270 at one point in polling in 2008: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/ec_graph-2012.html while Romney never broke 250 even including the obviously broken Rasmussen polls.

Brian?

Hailee Rapping Goon wrote: »

I do this for a living, il trust my judgement on the behaviour of the markets before your pro Obama bull agenda.

The ecb does not affect the USA markets nearly as much as jumping off a fiscal cliff does.

I would equate it as a 70/30% split on what shook the markets with the 70% shake coming in the wake of the re election.

I don't care what you do for a living and it's not a pro Obama agenda to state simple facts. The Market drop was immediately after the ECB announcement

jank

Brian? wrote: »

That's some top notch spin there. The drop has nothing to do with Obama being re elected. The head of the ECB announced a projected .4% contraction in the eurozone economy next year.

There's more to the world than the US.

Oh really?

Stocks fall off the fiscal cliff

Investors turn their attention from the presidential election back to Europe's recession and America's looming fiscal cliff of tax increases and spending cuts.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets-live/markets-live-investors-fret-over-fiscal-cliff-20121108-28zhc.html#ixzz2Bb8sXmgy

Australian investors are worried now that there will be no deal on the budget because of the re election of Obama.

Brian? wrote: »

No it's not. Most stocks were up in after hours trading, post Obama being declared the winner but pre ECB announcement.

I don't think the market actually gives a flying **** whether a deal can be done on raising the debt ceiling. It does however care that there will be fewer people in Europe buying the stuff companies make.

Look mate, you dont know what you are talking about, why not leave it at that.

jank

Overheal wrote: »

I don't place stock in inauguration day arguments. 'when Obama took office gas was 1.89!!' being the most loathsome and deceptive.

however if you look at the data, yes, the NASDAQ is higher than any time in the last 10 years under Obama, the DOW is slightly lower but on the same territory, and S&P is again not where it was, but still on a steady upward trend.

America, if you ignore the intraday drama, the economy has actually been growing ever since the crash

Dont forget that one of the reasons why stocks are doing well is because of 3rounds of QE.

Raphael

Stheno wrote: »

Is the argument that Obama e.g. didn't win the popular vote based on the fact that overall he might have gotten e.g. 45% of the overall vote based on multiple candidates?

I find this confusing given it tends to be trotted out by the republican or democratic opposition

No, not quite. What it means is that because of how the electoral college works, the popular vote (percentage of people voting for each candidate) doesn't always match up with the electoral college votes. Say, hypothetically, only one guy had voted in California (and he voted Obama). That would recude Obamas popular vote by ~5.6 million and Romneys by ~3.6 million - a 2 million vote shift in the popular vote, but zero effect in the electoral college. Say it happened in New York as well, suddenly Obama is down 3.5m votes against Romney, and as such loses the popular vote while taking the election.

Obviously this is a very drastic example - a more likely possibility is for the states that go for the winner to do it by small margins, and the states that go for the loser to do it by large margins, but hopefully it demonstrates how it's possible

Capt'n Midnight

While we are waiting for Florida

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/election-puerto-rico/index.html

In an overshadowed Election Day contest, Puerto Ricans voted in favor of statehood in a nonbinding referendum, marking the first time such an initiative garnered a majority.
...
The roughly 4 million residents of the Puerto Rico are American citizens but couldn't vote for president.

Brian?

Look mate, you dont know what you are talking about, why not leave it at that.

Oh the irony.

What do you think is currently of more concern to the markets: a contracting Europeon economy next year or the possibility Congress will stone wall Obama?

I'm also not your "mate".

jank

Brian? wrote: »

Oh the irony.

What do you think is currently of more concern to the markets: a contracting Europeon economy next year or the possibility Congress will stone wall Obama?

A contracting or stagnant European economy is a perpetual reality for the foreseeable future (5 years or so) and in fact most of the markets have already priced in such an event like Greece leaving the euro zone. Does it have an effect, well of course it makes people/invetors nervous however I never said figures coming out of the ECB could not move markets.

However, it was YOU who basically said the market could not give 2 ****s about Washington coming to a deal regarding the fiscal cliff. Now do you really think that is true, when there is so much evidence to the contrary. I suppose as a socialist you have a weak grasp of the markets.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/07/wall-street-fiscal-cliff-obama
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/08/investing/premarkets/index.html?iid=HP_LN

Brian?

jank wrote: »

A contracting or stagnant European economy is a perpetual reality for the foreseeable future (5 years or so) and in fact most of the markets have already priced in such an event like Greece leaving the euro zone. Does it have an effect, well of course it makes people/invetors nervous however I never said figures coming out of the ECB could not move markets.

However, it was YOU who basically said the market could not give 2 ****s about Washington coming to a deal regarding the fiscal cliff. Now do you really think that is true, when there is so much evidence to the contrary. I suppose as a socialist you have a weak grasp of the markets.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/07/wall-street-fiscal-cliff-obama
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/08/investing/premarkets/index.html?iid=HP_LN

Well done on turning an argument about a specific incident into one about a general Market trend.

The point I was rebutting was that markets dropped in response to Obama being re elected. They did not. The dropped in response to the ECB announcement. So no, at the moment the markets dropped they didnt give a **** about the debt cliff Europe was the cause.

Saying I don't understand the markets because I'm socialist is like saying I can't understand selfishness because I am not selfish. I understand them perfectly well.

Amerika

I see Boeing announced a major restructuring of its defense division on Wednesday, the day after the election, that will cut 30 percent of management jobs from 2010 levels, close facilities in California and consolidate several business units to cut costs.

Good thing they bowed to pressure from the administration, with offers to reimburse contractors at taxpayer’s expense for any legal costs incurred in not legally informing their affected employees, and waited, eh?

Couldn’t take the slim chance some rogue media outlet might actually do their jobs and report on things like layoffs, cutbacks and restructuring before the election I figure.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't know whether they did or not. I am talking the specific example of the Dow and s&p dropping post ECB announcement. Keep up.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

With an Obama victory, would purchasing stocks in Smith and Wesson or Sturm Ruger, and holding onto them for about 6 months make sense? Or is it perhaps already too late to get in on them? What about ammunition companies?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

If Romney had won then stock in green energy and other stuff would have gone down and oil up. I know which I prefer.

Amerika

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Thanks. What about ammunition company stocks? With Obama winning reelection there are renewed reports about efforts to tax ammunition into levels where their purchase would become cost prohibitive (getting around the 2nd ammendment). I foresee a rush of people stocking up on ammunition.

edit: Whether it’s true or not, perception is everything... and I believe people will be stocking up, regardless if any efforts by the government will take place.

FatherTed

Memnoch wrote: »

And yet not one of the major news outlets were willing to come out and say this outright. Easy to say this in hindsight though. I wonder if you posted something similar PRIOR to the election. If so, please feel free to link me to aforementioned post.

Well that's because all these networks, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, etc were in Swing State TV mode meaning they just ratcheted up the entertainment level because of these "too close to call" states for months on end. In all reality, the game was over once Clint started talking to an empty chair, probably 6 months ago in all reality.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Goodies for you. It doesn't change the facts of what actually happened.