By The Associated Press - Thursday, November 29, 2012 - 0 Comments
President Barack Obama will host his former political rival Mitt Romney for a private lunch at the White House on Thursday.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will host his former political rival Mitt Romney for a private lunch at the White House on Thursday, their first meeting since the election.
Obama promised in his victory speech earlier this month to engage with Romney following their bitter campaign and consider the Republican’s ideas.
Obama aides said they reached out to Romney’s team shortly before Thanksgiving to start working on a date for the meeting. The two men will meet in the White House’s private dining room, with no press coverage expected.
In the days after his loss, Romney told top donors that the president was re-elected because of the “gifts” Obama provided to blacks, Hispanics and young voters, all of which are core Obama constituencies.
Many Republican officials, eager to move on quickly after the loss, disputed Romney’s comments and urged the party to focus on being more inclusive.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama was looking forward to having a “useful discussion” with his former competitor. But he said there was no formal agenda for the lunch.
While in Washington, Romney will also meet with his former running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, according to a Romney campaign aide. Ryan is back on Capitol Hill, where he’s involved in negotiations to avert a series of automatic tax increases and deep spending cuts that have come to be known as the “fiscal cliff.”
Much of that debate centres on expiring tax cuts first passed by George W. Bush. Obama and Romney differed sharply during the campaign over what to do with the cuts, with the Republican pushing for them to be extended for all income earners and the president running on a pledge to let the cuts expire for families making more than $250,000 a year.
The White House sees Obama’s victory as a signal that Americans support his tax proposals.
Obama and Romney’s sit-down Thursday will likely be their most extensive private meeting ever. The two men had only a handful of brief exchanges before the 2012 election.
By Luiza Ch. Savage - Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 7:00 AM - 0 Comments
The stakes were never so high, the battle never so bitter. With America’s future in the balance, Barack Obama overcame a surprising surge from Mitt Romney to re-capture the presidency. The inside story, by Luiza Ch. Savage
As he stood in Chicago, claiming his second victory, Barack Obama had made history yet again.
He was the first president to be re-elected since Franklin Delano Roosevelt with an unemployment rate higher than 7.4 per cent. The jobless rate on Election Day, 7.9 per cent, was actually a notch higher than when he took office amidst the financial crisis and unfolding recession.
But as achievements go, it lacked the magic of 2008. And the man was different too: not the inspiring and redemptive figure—America’s first black president—he then was, but a toughened, hard-knuckled politician who had to scramble to preserve victory. In 2008, ecstatic throngs of Americans had swept him into the White House believing he was the one who would take them to a better place. In 2012, a slimmer majority kept him in office because he had convinced them his Republican rival would take them somewhere worse.
In 2008, Obama offered a broad vision of national unity and a promise of post-partisan healing that appealed to a cross-section of Americans. In 2012, his strategists cobbled together a narrow victory out of pockets of scientifically micro-targeted subgroups of voters across the swing states—women in Virginia, Latinos in Nevada and working-class whites in Ohio who liked the auto bailout. Continue…
By macleans.ca - Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 12:26 PM - 0 Comments
After he correctly predicted the winner of the presidential election in all 50 U.S….
After he correctly predicted the winner of the presidential election in all 50 U.S. states, Nate Silver has become more than just another election prognosticator: he’s a full-fledged meme industry.
The most popular Silver-related game on Twitter is “Drunk Nate Silver,” where people imagine how Silver would use his powers of prognostication when intoxicated: “Drunk Nate Silver is riding the subway telling strangers the day they will die,” wrote Brooklyn-based consultant Dan Levitan in the meme’s most popular tweet.
Silver responded to the meme by saying that when he is drunk, all he does is argue about stuff with his friends: “I don’t become dark and ironically evil.”
By macleans.ca - Sunday, November 11, 2012 at 9:04 AM - 0 Comments
Fresh off his election night showing — not “a tirade” — Donald Trump took to Twitter this weekend to explain himself …
By Scott Feschuk - Thursday, November 8, 2012 at 6:00 AM - 0 Comments
Election night, U.S.A., 2012: Democracy? Check. Hyperbole? CHECK! But where, oh where, were the dazzling technological innovations in broadcast coverage?
Four years ago, the guy from the Black Eyed Peas appeared via hologram for an interview on CNN. Surely this election season would produce nothing less than a trio of Anderson Cooper clones being attended to by a robot butler. Surely by now the technology would exist to beam up an actual live person from a spaceship or, at minimum, make James Carville not look like he just wandered in from the set of The Walking Dead.
Or maybe CNN spent all its money this time around on a robust supply of exclamation marks for Wolf Blitzer: “We are about to make a really major projection! . . . These are ACTUAL numbers coming in! . . . WOW, THE NUMBERS JUST CHANGED AS WE! WERE! LOOKING! AT! THEM!!!!” Believe me, if Election Night 2012 proved nothing else, it proved that Wolf Blitzer is amazed by numbers suddenly becoming other numbers. “Wow,” he said, more than once. “WOW!” Continue…
By Nick Taylor-Vaisey - Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 12:57 PM - 0 Comments
So, as it turned out, neither Ohio nor Florida really meant anything special last night. Their votes were only as important as anyone else’s, and that’s what we shouldn’t forget. Even though everyone was watching a dwindling number of “battlegrounds” last night, millions of Americans in places that didn’t matter still cast ballots. We might have assumed—rightly, it turns out—that we knew how they would collectively vote. But, just because we can, let’s spend a few minutes paying attention to their part of the world. Here’s what newspapers in places that didn’t matter last night were saying this morning. All front pages are courtesy the Newseum.
Capital Journal — Pierre, South Dakota
What [the Founding Fathers] did understand very well was that they could set up a government based on unalienable rights that continually draws us back to our roots, in that radical sense. And the truly radical thing about America is that we can adjust; if we realize we have misunderstood freedom, we can extend the full rights of citizens to those we once left out. We trust you exercised your right to vote on Tuesday. America is still in need of such radicals, who continually go back to the root of things to protect what is good and to change what needs changing.
The Chicago Sun-Times — Chicago, Illinois
If your man gets re-elected, we recently asked a top aide to President Barack Obama, how will he accomplish anything in the face of continued unyielding opposition from House Republicans?They’ll come around, the aide said, if only to save their own skins. Having failed in their most cherished goal, to make Obama a one-term president, they will warm to the art of compromise, fearing the wrath of the voters in 2014 if gridlock continues. They will discover their inner statesman.
As they say in church, let us pray.
The Times-Picayune — New Orleans, Louisiana
To its credit, Louisiana’s delegation has worked across party lines to get funding for levees and restoration work. They have had some success — despite the recalcitrance of this Congress. For the good of the nation, that sort of cooperation needs to spread. President Obama must lead the way.
Albany Times-Union — Albany, New York
Voters favored Mr. Obama’s more sober, responsible message that government can, as we’ve all seen, play a role in recovery, that people who can afford to pay more should do so for the good of the country, and that Social Security and Medicare are vital programs that should not be radically tinkered with. They agreed that we can end foreign conflicts and turn to nation building at home.So four more years it is. But please, not a rerun of the last four.
We hardly expect Republicans and Democrats to embrace each other in a post-election group hug. But we do expect them to do what Americans for generations have taught their children to do when a competition is finished: shake hands, get over it, and move on.
Billings Gazette — Billings, Montana
The key word for businesses as well as individual taxpayers is “certainty”. This nation needs certainty. It needs leadership. The president is key, but he cannot get this job done alone. At least 60 senators and a majority of representatives must come together with a plan that averts the fiscal cliff and provides certainty to Americans and the world.
Star Tribune — Minneapolis, Minnesota
Gone are 2008′s unrealistic hopes that Obama would usher in an era of bipartisan good feeling. What remained was voters’ sense that he sides with average Americans and is willing to employ the muscle of the federal government to improve their lives.The components of his victory included the slowly but steadily improving economy; his success in reviving the U.S. auto industry, especially in Ohio, and Hurricane Sandy’s harsh reminder that there are times when Americans need a robust federal government.
But while the wishful thinking of 2008 has evaporated, a realpolitik reality remains: Obama’s success — and the nation’s — in a second term will depends in large part on his ability to forge a bipartisan governing consensus.
Idaho Statesman — Boise, Idaho
If there’s one point of consensus, one place where we can agree, it’s this: By Tuesday, this election season had gone on long enough.Perhaps there a few dissenters and holdouts — perhaps the same sort of people who yearn for a longer appointment at the dentist or a longer line at the grocery store. For most of us, though, the 2012 election will be not soon forgotten, but not much missed.
It was a long, cantankerous ride of an election. Costly and caustic, its tenor reflecting the tension of the times.
And reflecting our divisions.
The Star-Ledger — Newark, New Jersey
At the start of his second term, Obama will face another round of daunting challenges, beginning with the urgent need for a deal on the national debt.Without an agreement, huge spending cuts and tax increases will take effect on Jan. 1, as agreed to during last year’s crisis over the debt ceiling. That would slam the brakes on this weak recovery, sending the nation back into recession.
The core political reality he faces is that no deal is possible without bipartisan agreement. And that has been hard to come by, given the intransigence of House Republicans the past two years.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch — St. Louis, Missouri
[Missouri] voters sent a message loud and clear on Tuesday: They are happy in the middle.The two Democrats on the top of Missouri’s ticket, Mr. Nixon and U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, won by convincing margins even as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney easily won the state over President Barack Obama.
The Missouri that had been a national bellwether showed itself in its statewide election results, the presidential race aside. Moderation won over extremism. Messages that brought people together prevailed over those that divided.
The Dallas Morning News — Dallas, Texas
Barack Obama blew past Mitt Romney last night in a presidential contest that shows Americans still prefer Democrats to handle social and economic issues. After surging in October, Romney lost in a blow to the GOP, which has more rethinking to do after losing a second straight presidential race.Still, the big story was Obama’s re-election victory, which looked easier than predicted from late polling with so many swing-state triumphs. Americans have given their young commander-in-chief the honor of leading them again, making him the third consecutive president to win a second term.
Second terms are often treacherous, something George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and even Ronald Reagan learned. But no American, including those who supported Romney, can afford to see Obama fail. Our nation’s economic challenges are too great for partisan animosity to intervene more than they have already.
San Francisco Chronicle — San Francisco, California
Voters again have put their faith in Obama to take on the challenges of our times, albeit with a tempered expectation of what might be possible. There were many good reasons to believe that he, more than Romney, has the leadership skills and priorities that are needed at this critical time. His first term accomplishments were achieved despite a determined effort by Republicans to stymie him at every turn.The onus is on Obama, as the freshly re-elected president, to take the lead in overcoming this polarization that seems to have turned almost everything into a partisan fight in Washington.
The Arizona Republic — Phoenix, Arizona
At times it seemed the president was running against multiple opponents. He had highly partisan fights with Republican leaders in the House over the deficit, health-care reform, job creation and taxes.And, of course, Obama became the savior of Sesame Street, securing the airwaves for Big Bird.
The weak economic recovery, especially, seemed to continually drag on his re-election chances. Yet Obama successfully identified core constituencies that turned out in amazing numbers on Tuesday, while at the same time stigmatizing Romney as a rich elitist. Strategically, the president won out.
By Emily Senger - Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 11:04 AM - 0 Comments
Not only did Americans elect the first openly gay Senator Tuesday, (congratulations Wisconsin candidate…
Not only did Americans elect the first openly gay Senator Tuesday, (congratulations Wisconsin candidate Tammy Baldwin) four states also moved closer to legalizing same-sex marriage in what is being viewed as a huge step forward for gay rights.
It’s a historic moment, notes The Atlantic, and marks the first time same-sex marriage has won on a U.S. ballot question.
“The results in Maine and Maryland broke a 32-state streak, dating to 1998, in which gay marriage had been rebuffed by every state that voted on it,” writes The Associated Press.
Here’s how it went down:
Fifty-three per cent of voters chose “yes” to legalize same-sex marriage and 47 per cent said “no,” says The Huffington Post. The decision marks a victory for gay and lesbian couples in the state, where the legislature passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage in 2006 and voters overturned it in 2009. Same-sex couples in Maine should be able to get marriage licences by December.
A referendum to approve same-sex marriage narrowly passed, with 51.9 per cent of voters approving same-sex marriage. “It was a little bit pins and needles,” Human Rights Campaign’s Kevin Nix told CNN. “It was going to be a close call all along.” Maryland’s vote makes it the first state below the Mason-Dixon line to approve same-sex marriage, reports the Los Angeles Times.
Voters were asked to vote on a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage by defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman only. That amendment was rejected, but only narrowly, with 51 per cent of voters voting “no.” Whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage in the state will likely be back up for debate in January, reports the Duluth News Tribune.
Legislators have already approved a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Washington State. But in a last-ditch attempt to thwart the bill, opponents were able to get a question onto the ballot, asking voters if they wanted to uphold the law. Due to a high number of mail-in ballots, the results of that ballot are not yet conculsive and “the vote count was expected to stretch on for days,” reports the Wall Street Journal, but early results showed voters were 52 per cent in favour of the same-sex marriage bill.
By Emily Senger - Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 9:21 AM - 0 Comments
He ‘has driven well past the last exit to relevance,’ says NBC host
By macleans.ca - Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 2:44 AM - 0 Comments
Transcript of the U.S. president’s victory speech
What follows is a transcript of U.S. President Barack Obama’s victory speech on Tuesday night in Chicago:
Tonight, more than 200 years after a former colony won the right to determine its own destiny, the task of perfecting our union moves forward.
It moves forward because of you. It moves forward because you reaffirmed the spirit that has triumphed over war and depression, the spirit that has lifted this country from the depths of despair to the great heights of hope, the belief that while each of us will pursue our own individual dreams, we are an American family, and we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people.
Tonight, in this election, you, the American people, reminded us that while our road has been hard, while our journey has been long, we have picked ourselves up, we have fought our way back, and we know in our hearts that for the United States of America, the best is yet to come.
By Jaime Weinman - Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 2:41 AM - 0 Comments
The moment most people will remember from the TV coverage of the U.S. election was Karl Rove contesting his own network, Fox News, on its decision to call Ohio for Obama.
Megyn Kelly, who has good instincts for what makes good TV, chose to take us on an impromptu visit to Fox’s secret vault full of stat nerds, who explained why they were calling Ohio and why they knew the incoming counties better than Karl did. Seeing the rest of Fox turn on Rove was definitely something you don’t see every day. And in an election where we couldn’t stop arguing about Nate Silver, Kelly provided a glimpse at Fox’s own in-house analysts. Maybe the narrative of this election will be “triumph of the nerds” or something like that. Here are some excerpts, via YouTube:
By The Canadian Press - Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 2:23 AM - 0 Comments
WASHINGTON – Barack Obama avoided a pink slip Tuesday, marching to victory against his Republican challenger despite a slow-as-molasses economic recovery and a bitterly contested election that had the U.S. president’s supporters fearful he was doomed to the indignity of a single term.
WASHINGTON – Barack Obama avoided a pink slip Tuesday, marching to victory against his Republican challenger despite a slow-as-molasses economic recovery and a bitterly contested election that had the U.S. president’s supporters fearful he was doomed to the indignity of a single term.
Obama was declared the winner after several gut-wrenching hours that saw the president and his White House rival, Mitt Romney, spend election night much as they did their bruising, $2.6 billion campaign — in a tense nail-biter.
By macleans.ca - Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 1:28 AM - 0 Comments
Transcript of the Republican nominee’s concession speech
Here’s what Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said Tuesday night as he conceded defeat:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have just called President Obama to congratulate him on his victory. His supporters and his campaign also deserve congratulations.
His supporters and his campaign also deserve congratulations. I wish all of them well, but particularly the president, the first lady and their daughters.
This is a time of great challenges for America, and I pray that the president will be successful in guiding our nation.
By The Associated Press - Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 11:39 PM - 0 Comments
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama stepped to the brink of re-election Tuesday night, capturing battleground Ohio from Mitt Romney and edging ahead in other pivotal states despite a weak economy and high unemployment that crimped the middle class dreams of millions.
WASHINGTON – Barack Obama has been re-elected as president of the United States, narrowly edging Republican challenger Mitt Romney in a hard-fought battle for the White House.
Results from the critical battleground states — especially Florida and Virginia — were still unsettled by mid-evening.
But Obama took Ohio, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Iowa, four of the seven battlegrounds that were expected to determine the outcome of the election.
At home in Chicago, the president all but claimed victory. “This happened because of you. Thank you” he tweeted to supporters.
Romney was in Massachusetts after a long and grueling bid for the presidency. He led in the national popular vote with 41 million votes, or 50 percent. Obama had 40 million, or 49 percent, with 59 percent of the precincts tallied.
By Mitchel Raphael - Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 11:06 PM - 0 Comments
The U.S. Embassy held an election party at the Château Laurier. Obama-Biden and Romney-Ryan…
The U.S. Embassy held an election party at the Château Laurier. Obama-Biden and Romney-Ryan buttons were given out. Attendees could also have their pic taken with Barack Obama and/or Mitt Romney cutouts.
By The Canadian Press - Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 10:34 PM - 0 Comments
OTTAWA – Canadian politicians watching the outcome of the U.S. presidential election came together…
OTTAWA – Canadian politicians watching the outcome of the U.S. presidential election came together across party lines Tuesday as they denounced the record $6 billion US spent in the bitterly divisive political race south of the border.
The sentiment permeated a returns-watching party hosted by the U.S. embassy in Ottawa at an historic downtown hotel, just steps from Parliament Hill.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird praised the U.S. as Canada’s best friend and closest ally, saying the Harper government would work well with a Democrat or a Republican administration.
But when pressed on the long, expensive U.S. campaign, Baird said: “The one thing I’m tremendously pleased with in Canada is that fact that Stephen Harper and our government have taken the influence of big money out of politics. That’s something we should take great pride in, in Canada.”
The Center for Responsive Politics has estimated this week that the 2012 fight between President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney will likely cost $6 billion, shattering previous records.
The American political spending floodgates were opened by the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case that removed previous spending limits on business and labour unions.
Baird touted Canada’s Federal Accountability Act, which among other things banned contributions by corporations, unions and organizations, and lowered the individual annual limit of donation to a political party to $1,000 from $5,000.
“Through the Federal Accountability Act, we’ve taken the influence of big money out of politics. The Canadian people are very fortunate to have that,” he said.
The NDP and Liberal MPs were scathing by comparison in their condemnation of U.S. election spending.
“Big money has bastardized democracy in the United States,” said New Democrat MP Pat Martin.
“It’s only a mere shadow of democracy. They’ve let it get away from them to the point where, it’s just an illusion of democracy, really.”
Asked for his view on the record U.S. campaign spending, Liberal MP John McKay said: “Obscene. Obscene.”
Martin and McKay agreed the more modest spending limits for Canadian MPs prevent lawmakers from becoming beholden to special interests.
“I thank God every day that we live in this egalitarian society where a guy like me, a carpenter, can aspire to be a member of Parliament because our spending limits are $70,000,” said Martin.
“If I was in the United States, I’d have to raise a million and I’d be beholden to some big special interest.”
McKay said he doesn’t feel hampered by campaign spending limits.
“To think that money doesn’t influence politics is naive in the extreme,” he said. “Some people will give you a cheque for $10,000, they’re not really expecting anything. But most people, they have a quid pro quo in mind.”
David Jacobson, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, has criticized the fallout of the Citizens United ruling in recent public appearances.
And for months on end, during the grinding presidential race, Jacobson stuck steadfastly to his current job description — as the ambassador for all Americans, be they Democrat or Republican.
“Even Sarah Palin,” the U.S. envoy to Canada once quipped.
But as Jacobson — also a close friend of Obama — welcomed a few hundred politicos, diplomats, business people and politicians to Tuesday’s returns-watching party, that neutrality fell to the side.
“I hope, quite honestly, that the American people give my boss — and me — the opportunity to continue to serve,” Jacobson told the packed room before the polls began closing.
“And I hope we have that opportunity because there really is so much left to do.”
Jacobson predicted that his country’s presidential election likely won’t be decided until the wee hours of Wednesday.
Regardless of who wins, Jacobson told the crowd relations between Canada would remain strong for generations to come.
Jacobson, a Chicago lawyer, became Obama’s chief of appointments after his historic 2008 win. He assigned himself to the Canadian ambassador’s post, a political appointment that would come to an end if Romney were to win the White House.
In a quieter moment earlier, before the throngs started pouring into the Drawing Room of the historic Chateau Laurier hotel, Jacobson fondly recalled the historic events of four years ago.
Jacobson was in a Chicago hotel with Obama, “and we were making calls to voters because everyone was too nervous to do anything else.
“Then we went out to Grant Park with 200,000 people, and it was really one of the most moving and exciting nights I’ve ever seen in my life.”
Jacobson said he believed Obama has enough of a lead in this race to capture key swing states and win a second term, but not before a nail-biting finish.
“I think it’s going to be close,” he said against a backdrop of red, white and blue balloons, four large flat screen televisions, as two disembodied cardboard cutouts of the two grinning candidates.
“I wouldn’t make any plans for early tomorrow morning. This election was going to be close from the start.”
By Jaime Weinman - Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 5:11 PM - 0 Comments
The interesting thing about this U.S. election’s impact on U.S. television is the fact that its had any impact at all. Remember all the references TV made to the election of 2004? No? That’s because there were hardly any. Even though it was a close, hard-fought election in a deeply divided country–just like this one–TV mostly stayed away from it. It was a very timid time for TV: networks were panicked by 9/11, by the FCC, by the shrinking audience (it’s still shrinking now, but they’re used to it).
And so open political references were almost taboo unless they were done obliquely, like Arrested Development‘s parallels between the Bluth and Bush families. The Simpsons famously never had a caricature of George W. Bush on the show, let alone John Kerry. South Park‘s election episode in 2004 portrayed the election allegorically as “a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich,” making the episode a perfect capsule of how mindless Trey Parker’s centrism was at the time.
Since then, there’s been something of a thaw in television, and while it’s hardly become daring or anything, there are a lot more direct references to this election than eight or even four years ago. At least three half-hour comedies have done episodes where characters argue over the election, and mention the candidates by name. The New Normal was the first, then came 30 Rock. Then came Tim Allen’s Last Man Standing, a show that I thought was developing into a pretty good innocuous family sitcom; Allen apparently didn’t think so, though, because the show is back this year retooled (at his behest) into an All in the Family imitator, and the season premiere was about Allen arguing with his daughters over the election, and he thinks Obama is from Kenya, and makes “community organizer” jokes, and the whole episode sounded like a couple of politically-opposed Twitter feeds mashed together into a script.
Well, most political arguments on scripted TV (or unscripted, for that matter) sound like Twitter feeds, since there’s no room for nuance or developed arguments, even assuming the writers have any on hand. Usually what happens is one character says something that’s a grotesque caricature of the Republican or Democratic position, and the other character either a) responds with an equally grotesque caricature of a reply, or b) is completely stopped in his tracks by the incredible all-consuming logic of an argument any real person could rebut in five seconds. This is why 30 Rock was the best of these three episodes: apart from having the funniest writers, it was intentionally silly and caricatured, and made the political arguments more about the characters’ personal issues.
But even if those other two shows were trying to be All in the Family and failing, the fact that they even tried is a sign that television has emerged a little bit from the defensive crouch of the ’00s. Of course there are other reasons why shows might choose not to deal with topical issues like elections, most obviously the fact that an election episode dates the show for all time. (However, I think producers are naive to believe that avoiding topical references will help them be “timeless” in syndication. I watched shows in the ’80s that mentioned the election without ever mentioning the candidates’ names, but they still had the hair, the clothes, and the brick cellphones, and nothing was going to keep them from becoming dated.) And, as noted, these issues are usually beyond what the show is capable of dealing with anyway. But all in all, it’s probably better to see shows deal with issues rather than avoid them, so I think I’m glad we live in an era when the words “Obama” and “Romney” are not among the seven words you can’t say on TV.
By Erica Alini - Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 3:33 PM - 0 Comments
With the U.S. election drawing to a close today (barring any recounts, that is), here’s a look at four years of Barack Obama in numbers. The U.S. economy sure changed a lot since January 2009—but not necessarily the way you’d expect:
1. Private vs. public sector employment.
By Aaron Hutchins - Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 12:12 PM - 0 Comments
Aaron Hutchins finds little patience for voters who can’t make up their minds
By Luiza Ch. Savage - Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 10:46 AM - 0 Comments
With both Republicans and Democrats arguing that their candidate has what it takes to win, it’s going to be an interesting night. Here is handy map of poll closing times.
Of all the important swing states, Virginia and Florida close first, at 7 p.m. ET. The last swing state to close is Iowa at 10 p.m. ET.
There are a variety of ways each candidate could rack up the necessary 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency. The NY Times has a very cool interactive graphic here. It shows that because Obama starts out with a lead in Electoral College votes from solidly Democratic high-population states (with high Electoral College vote allocations,) Obama has 431 ways to win the election—while Romney has only 76.
The graphic illustrates why Ohio is so important. If Obama wins Ohio, then he only needs to win North Carolina to clinch the presidency. Failing that (Romney has a polling lead in N.C.), then Obama can still win if he gets only Virginia and Wisconsin in addition to Ohio. Virginia is a deadlocked. Wisconsin is the home state of vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, but is still considered to lean to Obama. So if Obama wins Ohio and Wisconsin, then he only needs one more swing state: either Colorado or Iowa or New Hampshire, for victory. If you play around with the graphic, you can see how Obama has much more room for error than does Romney. Even if Romney wins Ohio, he still needs a combination of several other swing states to win. If he loses Ohio, he has to have a near-perfect night elsewhere.
Forecasters who build their models using published polls predict an Obama win: Romney wins North Carolina and Obama wins all the other swing states (see Nate Silver’s map) or Romney wins North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia and Obama wins the other swing states and the White House (see Larry Sabato’s map.)
But many Republicans don’t trust these projections. They argue that the polls this year can’t be taken at face value because they overestimate Democratic turnout. They argue that enthusiasm among Republican voters is much higher, that Romney is winning Independent voters, and that the polls are missing a pro-Romney movement that will turn into a tidal wave election. Here is one projection of a Romney sweep of most of the swing states. Here is another projection of a big Romney win from the University of Colorado that has received a lot of attention. It factors in economic data as well as polls.
The state everyone will be watching is Ohio, where the polls close at 7:30. It’s an important swing state to Romney’s path to 270 votes, but polls suggest Obama has consistent but slim lead there. Back in 2004, John Kerry didn’t concede Ohio — and the election — until the day after the election. This time, if the race is extremely close, there is a chance the outcome would not be settled for weeks.
When returns start being announced in Ohio, Obama is expected to be ahead after early voting (people who voted before Election Day) because polls suggest Obama was ahead among those voters. If he’s not, then that’s an early sign that Romney won the state. If when additional votes are counted and there is a tie or a slim Romney lead, then the result may not be a result for weeks. That’s because there will be thousands of “provisional ballots” to count — and those are expected to favour Obama. The state won’t start counting those ballots for at least ten days and the winner of the election could remain undecided. The Washington Post explains the details of Ohio’s procedures and counties to watch in detail here.
Meanwhile, results have already been announced in the traditional first-vote village of Dixville Notch, NH, which cast votes shortly after midnight: it was a 5-5 tie. A second early voting village went handily for Obama. Should be an interesting night.
By John Parisella - Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 6:28 AM - 0 Comments
In politics, the general thrust is that campaigns matter. While the outlook at the…
In politics, the general thrust is that campaigns matter. While the outlook at the outset is often similar to the outcome, events and circumstances can affect the result. The poor debate performance of President Obama on October 3 transformed a campaign, which he seemed to be winning handily, into a horse race.
Hurricane Sandy allowed Barack Obama to show his steady hand as the Commander-in-Chief. The support, which he later obtained from NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, reinforced the perception of a President in control of the situation. Republican Governor Chris Christie was also effusive in his praise for Obama. Both the independent Bloomberg and the GOP Christie brought a measure of bipartisanship at a crucial moment.