Quake3World

Every single senate and house seat in New England are now held by democrats

What's the TV coverage like in other countries? Over here both ITV and the BBC seem to both be car crash TV, not knowing when they're cutting to speaches, etc.

ps: McOwned.

tnf wrote:If this were the John McCain from 2000 and with someone other than Palin (maybe Lieberman or something) I agree with whoever said this whole thing would have been very different. I wouldn't have voted for him, but I am sure a hell of a lot more independents would have.

I meant to make the "2000 McCain" point as well, but forgot. I don't think "2000 McCain" would have won the republican nomination, though. He had to pander to the base to get the nomination, then couldn't go back to being a "maverick" for the general election. Being a "flip-flopper" killed Kerry and likely would have done the same for "2000 McCain."

The popular vote still isn't that different. A different VP really would have changed the game considerably.

BAM HEADSHOT

ps... I assume you're not asking what coverage is like in the US.. because obviously that's all that on right now.

gratz.

you guys managed to not fuck this one up.

I thought a McCain win would have been a great social experiment

werldhed wrote:
BAM HEADSHOT

ps... I assume you're not asking what coverage is like in the US.. because obviously that's all that on right now.

I mean what is the quality of the reporting like? Our coverage seems pretty awful, they just lost another report's audio link .

Don't celebrate too soon.

Just in case anyone forgot:



Dubya and Cheney can still create a bigger clusterfuck before they leave.

A good day.

Listening to Obama's acceptance speech, I can't help but think of Lawrence Fishburn's cave speech as Morpheus in the Matrix.

Therac-25 wrote:gratz.

you guys managed to not fuck this one up.

Mind boggling really.

BTW anyone else see the massive Soviet flag waving in the crowd in front of the White House?

Perfect speeches from both candidates (shame McCain had to calm down his supporters yet again - some of them even booed Palin). And what a blowout in the electoral college. If that's not a mandate, there's no such thing.

Fender wrote:This could have turned out very differently if not for the Palin effect.

I had this same conversation with a friend of mine earlier. It definitely would have turned out differently, but I wonder how much. On one hand, he would have lost a lot of his base, but he would have also picked up some independents. But then, a lot of his base would have returned to vote for him because he was running against a black man. And he still wouldn't have picked up the crazy youth vote that Obama got - not to mention blacks and hispanics.

Maybe we'll have to see some exit poll analysis to answer that question.

Either way, I'm finally happy with an American political outcome - this is the first election that I've found myself getting a little bit excited about, to be perfectly honest.

Let's hope he can live up to maybe half of what people expect from him now.

Aye, I'm afraid he'll have the opposite problem as Palin -- the bar has now been set so high for him, he'll never do right in some people's eyes.

still waitin on the Franken and Stevens results.

w/ 27% reporting in Cali, popular vote is roughly Obama 52% and McCain %47.

R00k wrote:... And what a blowout in the electoral college...

So wait a second.. the President is chosen based on an indirect vote of the people?

kat..yes, it's an archaic holdover from a time when the majority of people were uneducated and could not even read....they were afraid to really let the people have too much democracy. It's really outdated now, and there has been a lot of debate about getting rid of it and just having the popular vote.

How it works is there is an electoral college, and each state gets a number of representatives based on their population numbers. Whichever candidate
wins the popular vote in that particular state gets all the representatives for that state.

A few states have split electoral votes (Nebraska, Maine).

@ ajerara : I was looking at the BBC coverage and couldn't makes sense of the numbers.. the colleges gave Obama twice the hits as OvenChips, but the actual 'popular' vote numbers has, more or less, just a 5% difference in numbers... that made this a much closer election than it appears based on the college - almost the same as the previous elections? Which I find surprising and confusing

well, kat, the heavily democratic Pacific Western states haven't fully reported yet, since the polls only closed a couple of hours ago, so I expect that the percentages will widen a bit when the results of these states are in. But, you are right, the popular vote is a lot closer than you would expect. So, it isn't quite a landslide after all. But the Democrats are winning lots more seats in the Senate and House of Representatives, so there is definitely a mandate from the American people happening.

R00k wrote:And what a blowout in the electoral college. If that's not a mandate, there's no such thing.

Dunno if I'd call 5% popular vote victory a "mandate."

werldhed wrote:Aye, I'm afraid he'll have the opposite problem as Palin -- the bar has now been set so high for him, he'll never do right in some people's eyes.

Yup. What I expect from Obama's presidency: To be disappointed.

R00k wrote:Perfect speeches from both candidates (shame McCain had to calm down his supporters yet again - some of them even booed Palin). And what a blowout in the electoral college. If that's not a mandate, there's no such thing.

Yeah, i watched that in amazement too. More proof the republican machine has been running on a highly refined fuel of hatred, i guess...

But yeah, Obama's speech was pretty good

fucking mccain supporters really showed their true selves...proves that most republicans are un-american cry babies. they will abandon their country cuz they don't get their way. talk about cut and runners. they will try and kill obama...

Fender wrote:

tnf wrote:If this were the John McCain from 2000 and with someone other than Palin (maybe Lieberman or something) I agree with whoever said this whole thing would have been very different. I wouldn't have voted for him, but I am sure a hell of a lot more independents would have.

I meant to make the "2000 McCain" point as well, but forgot. I don't think "2000 McCain" would have won the republican nomination, though. He had to pander to the base to get the nomination, then couldn't go back to being a "maverick" for the general election.

I'm not sure this is true. After getting the nomination, he could have easily selected a moderate as a running mate and re-affirmed his status as a maverick while appealing to independent voters.

He should have fished in the much bigger pond of moderates, independents, and unaffiliated voters instead of throwing all of his eggs in the conservative basket. He still would have lost though - after the economic collapse, this race was pretty much un-winnable for any republican.

What's scary now is that Stevens is ahead in AK by 1.6%. Of course, he'll probably never make it to office because of his recent convictions. But that really opens the door for Palin to take his seat (McCain won AK easily 62% to 36%), giving her another feather in the hat for a 2012 run.