The 2012 Electoral Map revisted

The map we're used to seeing exaggerates the size of the Republican vote, since there are a lot of red states that are large in area but small in population. In this cartogram, where 1 square = 1 electoral vote, Obama's mandate becomes easier to see.

332-206


MANDATE!

and remember a few weeks ago when FOX News had these retards thinkin this was a horse race? Mu ha ha ha ha ha

Keep trying to convince yourself Raees. By any objective measure, Obama's "mandate" is less than it was 4 years ago. In 2008 he won the election with 365 electoral votes, this time he had 332, nearly a 10% drop and he only just avoided a drop significantly larger than that. In 2008 he was elected with nearly 53% of the popular vote, this time around it was closer to 51%. While sufficient to prevail in the election, the numbers show that Obama has some fence mending to do given the drop in support for his presidency compared to 4 years ago.

Obama prevailed on Colorado by 9 points in 2008, this time around it was by half that amount. Same in Wisconsin and in many other areas his margin of victory wasn't even half what it was the first time around. As lopsided as California was he even lost support there compared to 4 years ago. Obama's "mandate" has shrunk regardless of the spin you are attempting to put on the election.

Of course, Printsmith is the expert on electoral prognostication. We can only hope he and other Republicans stay the course.

"We'll find out later tonight. I'm still betting that control of the Senate shifts Republican. I'm also optimistic that Romney carries the day. In Colorado Republicans outnumbered Democrats in early voting and Republicans generally outnumber Democrats in casting ballots on election day. With Romney leading among independents not only in Colorado but across the rest of the Union as well, this has the potential to be a very, very good day for the future of our Union."

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" www.285bound.com/285forum/viewtopic.php?...hilit=senate#p255027 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=6&t=24291&p=255027&hilit=senate#p255027<!-- l -->

Sounds like YOU'RE the one trying to convince yourself, PS. OK, he won but it wasn't as big as last time. Last time, remember the Republican president had sent the economy into a death spiral? The vote for Obama then was not only "vote for the first black" but also "vote for the not-Bush guy." Of course he got more electoral votes then. He was running against a different candidate who had different baggage but the same GOP message and who wasn't as popular as Mitt.

In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes

t's one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. Zero. Zilch.

These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst, but such results may not be so startling after all.

"We have always had these dense urban corridors that are extremely Democratic," said Jonathan Rodden, a political science professor at Stanford University. "It's kind of an urban fact, and you are looking at the extreme end of it in Philadelphia."

Most big cities are politically homogeneous, with 75 percent to 80 percent of voters identifying as Democrats.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/polit ... votes.html

Not one vote for Mitt? Sounds more like massive voter fraud to me. Even just by mistake, someone should be casting a vote for Mitt.

But while Electoral looks like a mandate, via popular vote, more than 40% of Americans voted against Obama, so not a mandate.
And only a couple years ago, Obama and his policies were soundly rejected in midterm elections.

Yeah, forget the facts. It's voter fraud. Wait for it, on Fox News.

Raees wrote: Sounds like YOU'RE the one trying to convince yourself, PS. OK, he won but it wasn't as big as last time. Last time, remember the Republican president had sent the economy into a death spiral? The vote for Obama then was not only "vote for the first black" but also "vote for the not-Bush guy." Of course he got more electoral votes then. He was running against a different candidate who had different baggage but the same GOP message and who wasn't as popular as Mitt.

I don't accept your premise Raees. It wasn't Bush who sent the economy into a death spiral after all, it was the "solid gold" mortgage backed security assets sold by Fannie and Freddie that turned out to be a gold alloy instead of solid gold. Add in federal accounting rules that required those implicitly guaranteed gold alloy securities that were sold be valued at $0 on balance sheets when in reality they had at least 85% or more of their original value remaining, along with the federal regulations on loans to assets for financial institutions, and you have yourself a made to order financial crisis courtesy of the federal government's ineptitude.

The rest of your argument seems to follow the line that Obama wasn't the stronger of the two candidates, but he was the candidate from the stronger of the two major parties. Is that what you are trying to say?

PrintSmith wrote: The rest of your argument seems to follow the line that Obama wasn't the stronger of the two candidates, but he was the candidate from the stronger of the two major parties. Is that what you are trying to say?

No, it's not. It's the MESSAGE, PS, not the candidate or the party, IMO. Whichever one resonates with the larger electorate wins. Of course you're free to not accept my premise. Since the election, I've seen many conservatives discount what happened on Election Day for all sorts of reasons. The excuses are fascinating to read.

Here's my message to the Rightwingnuts here..It's a simple one:

Its a win or lose election. WE WON, YOU LOST


Deal with it