It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mandate? Landslide? Just the facts, ma'am. (US SENATE 2014)

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
all of the above.

voter apathy gave Bush his a$$ in the 2006 midterms and Obama lost the house in '10. Just making an observation that the percentages would most likely trend in all of those elections same as this year.

Since you;re cross-eyed at the numbers here is a new calculation...

If I divide the number counties in Texas by the number of women in Colorado and add in the number of farms in Nebraska then divide that by the number of polling places in New Hampshire in off cycles and then square that by the number of illegal aliens deported added to the number of Starbucks in Seattle plus the states that legalized marijuana I think Democrats actually won the house on Tuesday.




posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You may not have stated a position, but yes, I think you're certainly trying to manipulate statistics and influence perception of the GOP's win Tuesday night. That is, indeed, spin.

Again, the result is what it is. The GOP won a Senate majority and strengthened its majorities in the House, state legislatures and governorships around the country. Mandate? Again, I don't know. If they have one, I think its to bring moderate governance back to the federal government and for it to be inclusive and respectful of the opinions and rights of everyone, not just their own partisans. Whether the GOP does that is anyone's guess, but I personally have my doubts that either party is capable or interested in being that anymore.


edit on 6-11-2014 by vor78 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-11-2014 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Please explain how listing numbers of votes, numbers of voters and doing basic mathematical calculations is spin.

It's a really simple question if you wish to pursue it rather than merely providing commentary; demonstrate any calculation errors, errors in numerical facts, or in citations, etc.

I maintain that every vote is important and every vote counts!



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

That's an interesting and complex calculation!

I personally don't think the Democrats won, no matter how the votes are counted.

My calculations, though, are extraordinarily simple and direct:

Margin of victory, number of registered voters, number of eligible voters combined with simple division.

What is the margin of victory compared with the number of registered voters and eligible voters.

Really clear and obvious.

And remember: every vote counts!



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's easy enough.

You've latched onto one statistic, which is the margin of registered voters, and you're framing the entire argument of 'mandate or no mandate' around that number because its the one statistic that makes the GOP victory margin appear insignificant. Furthermore, I know by reading your other posts that you're not happy with this election result, so there's motive.

I'm actually very, very good at doing what you're trying to do here. I know how to manipulate numbers, too.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78

It seems like you may have a personal agenda here, which is fine.

I focus on the margin of victory because that is part of the normal definition of either "landslide" or "mandate."

That's the topic.

Please show how the margin of Republican victory is NOT related to those concepts, then.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Nope, no personal agenda. You asked why I think that, and I explained. But as an example, consider this:


That's the basis of the point made here, and the question is, therefore: does a margin of victory of 1.5% of registered voters or 1.08% of the Electorate make for a landslide or a mandate.


In light of this:


Politico says 10%; New York Times says 20% margin. US Politics .com "What is a landslide election?" So, landslide? Mandate?


The latter is absolute margin with regards to actual voters, but your metric manipulates the data by comparing margins to all registered voters, which is a MUCH larger number in virtually any election, and makes the margin appear much smaller. These two things are apples and oranges and even in your first post, you framed it in a way by tying these numbers back-to-back in the post that suggests to me that you want people to make this erroneous comparison.


edit on 6-11-2014 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78

You discussed your take on my motivation, and assigned opinions to me that I have not expressed here. You want to focus on your take on me rather than the topic at hand.

It is of no moment to me.

Please read the OP more carefully. I very clearly discuss the comparison you wish to focus on. I can quote it for you if needed.

You're merely cherry-picking comments in an attempt to confirm your take on my "motive" ... A bit of bad form there, don't you think?



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I feel as though I've made my argument. If I've misinterpreted your intent, and perhaps I have, I do apologize, but I do standby my statement in the prior post that the metric you are promoting is a different measure from the standard you're holding it to.
edit on 6-11-2014 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
It has always seemed to me that the numbers for eligible voters is a meaningless statistic. If they don't actually take the time to get themselves registered and go to the polls, why bother counting them? Same with turn-out----just because someone fills out a voter registration card at an event, doesn't mean they are going to participate in an election---or perhaps they have a hobby horse to ride in one particular year.
More often than not, turn-out on election day is due to local issues being on the ballot as in our case where there was a proposal for a county-wide property tax that affected every person in the county who owns property of any kind. That issue got more votes than any other race on the ballot.
It seems to me that looking at which races received the most votes would tell more about the issues than simply looking at how few people bothered to cast a vote. In our county the Senate race and the tax question got the most attention from voters. Most of the county races had been settled in the primary or by lack of opposition so the Senate race was the focus of most advertising. Both parties bogged down the US postal system by filling every mailbox with slaughtered trees and overburdened the landlines with their endless robo-calls. Both parties filled the airwaves with negative ads. (Is it any wonder that msm lobbyists want unlimited spending in political campaigns?)
I would love to believe that all my fellow citizens would study the issues involved in any election and then take themselves down to the polls and cast their informed vote. But I know that in the real world, only some sort of threat will move people toward the polling place.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Gryphon66

I feel as though I've made my argument. If I've misinterpreted your intent, and perhaps I have, I do apologize, but I do standby my statement in the prior post that the metric you are promoting is a different measure from the standard you're holding it to.


I really want to thank you for contributing. We can all get distracted with what we think someone else is saying.

I think you'll find the actual reference you're citing about "what is a landslide" from in the OP:


originally posted by: Gryphon66
Not a hard and fast rule, but most describe a landslide to be a case where one opponent beat another by a margin of 15% or more.

Politico says 10%; New York Times says 20% margin. US Politics .com "What is a landslide election?"


Yes? You'll find that in the context of that comment, literally just above in the post I stated:


originally posted by: Gryphon66

Yesterday, in the Senate races:

EDIT: Corrected these numbers at 2:02 AM Eastern, 11/6/2014.

43,126,318 Americans voted.

23,295,639 voted for the Republican Candidate

19,830,679 voted for the Non-Republican (Democrat Except for Kansas)

Difference? 3,464,960 votes.

According to the US Census data, there are 146,311,000 registered voters (that seems to be rounded to the nearest 1,000s)

So the Republicans won by a margin of 3,464,960 / 43,126,318 or 8.03 % of those who voted.


There's the comparison you're looking for ... the percentage expression of the 'margin of win."

No hidden "motive" at all when information is taken in context.

Now, with the updated data that I used to make the subsequent post, later this afternoon, from the Politico data (I don't know if you realize you were trying to compare calculations from two different data-sets):

Using the updated numbers from Politico from this evening ... (my first calculations were based on numbers from Huffpo from early this AM):


originally posted by: Gryphon66
US SENATE

Total Number of Republican votes: 23,470,841

Total Number of non-Republican votes: 21,242,788

Margin of Victory: 2,228,053 votes


I didn't do the math for the second example, because, well, honestly, the numbers are right there, and it makes the situation quite clear:

The margin of victory was only 2,228,053 / 44, 713,629 which is 0.04982, or about 5%.

Not even close to 10% or 15% or 20%.


edit on 19Thu, 06 Nov 2014 19:16:05 -060014p0720141166 by Gryphon66 because: Added a "U"



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I can buy that. My point was that the only valid comparison was the ~8% in the first post to the 10% (or 20%) standard. By introducing registered voters or all potential voters metric in the way you did, I thought it could be potentially misleading to some people. But now that you've clarified, I do not believe it was intentional. We seem to be on the same page.

I wasn't trying to start a pi$$ing contest. I jumped on it a little too soon as I've seen people do that type of thing before as statistical sleight of hand, but again, I don't think it was intentional now. I apologize for that.
edit on 6-11-2014 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Vor78, as I said, I do appreciate your contribution to the thread!

I didn't mention the ratio of Margin of Victory in Yesterday's Election/Total Number of Votes Cast in Yesterday's Election when I introduced the Politico data this afternoon. I realize that could appear to be an oversight, but really, I didn't want to prejudice the discussion ...( as a 5% margin isn't much of a ... landslide or mandate.)

But there is no doubt that the Republicans are in power, not only in Washington but in a good many States as you pointed out.

I am not being facetious at all when I say I am EXCITED to see what they do with that power!



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm more nervous than excited. Although I'm a conservative and I'm glad they won, I'm not overly confident that they've learned anything from the beatings they took in '06 and '08. I'm afraid we've traded one set of incompetent morons for another set of incompetent morons. We shall see.

And I do agree. The GOP does have a mandate of sorts, but its not the one they want. The mandate the public gave them is to bring some moderate sanity back to the government, not to take the ball and run hard right with it.
edit on 6-11-2014 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Even though I voted Democrat, and am now a registered Democrat, Georgia does allow split ballots. I try to vote my conscience above anything else.

Honestly, though, as a matter of fact, I am as disgusted with Congress as any American, liberal, conservative, moderate, etc.

We need ideas. We need action. We need strength. We need rational thought.

GIven the current composition of the Republican party, balancing so many truly extreme points of view under one tent ...

But, they deserve their chance. It has been about 6 or 7 years, and, when I say I'm excited, I'm excited to see whether anything can get done for a change. Even things I don't agree with per se.

At this point, something really is better than nothing. We are choking on nothing.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grimpachi

What those numbers say to me is that

1) The American media, all media, left, right, middle, up, or down, is a propaganda machine for SOMEBODY that means to control the American people rather than inform or educate them. I did not see one left-leaning outlet say a word about "well, folks, you do realize that this Republican win reflects the will of less than 2% of American voters."

Nope, gloom, doom or "well, the People have spoken."

I'm not even going to talk here about what RW media has said, aside from Rush's ... "advice" presented earlier.

2) There is obviously a desperate need for a third, fourth and fifth political party in this country. If the complaint is "no reason to vote, both sides are the same" then let's get other sides in there!

3) No one can claim to represent "the People."

The "winners" this time won with a margin of 2% of the electorate.

Any recognizable "group" --- women, gays, or neo-Catholic-whale-watching-ninjas --- should be able to field numbers equal to that ...

That is what is truly chilling to me.



When I heard the winning margin... there was the disconnect.
We all were hoping for a change, but so few of us went out there
to vote because maybe by now all are demoralized.

For yourself and Grimpachi: this is indicative of the oligarchs
manufacturing an acceptable platform for their boy/girl to
run on, and throwing money (Madison Ave) at it. It looks positive
in some twisted way to me that almost nobody's buying the cider.

I'll put one exception to it.. if there was no money involved,
there is room for one to run. If the platform is already a direct
function of the body politics's needs, and special interests were
removed, that ONE individual would with his platform be supported.
We're talking a perfect world, and everybody talking and not slinging
mud. But remember the 18 year old that won a state rep seat from
her dorm room
. How the heck did that happen?

There were all the ingredients to win the election because she did
it alone... on sufficient points to make the platform palatable. This
also was not one little engine that could, she nailed it... and alone.
edit on 6-11-2014 by derfreebie because: And the machine sat by rusting and discarded.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just curious.

I wonder what the numbers would say if you ran them for the 2012 election.


In 2008, Obama won 53-46. That was a clear mandate according to the Democrats and the media. Some even made the argument when it was 51-47 in 2012.

But that 8% margin Tuesday was nothing special.


What is special is the sweeping nature across the board. That's called a mandate. We can talk numbers but in the win loss figures it was a body slam.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Even though I voted Democrat, and am now a registered Democrat, Georgia does allow split ballots. I try to vote my conscience above anything else.

Honestly, though, as a matter of fact, I am as disgusted with Congress as any American, liberal, conservative, moderate, etc.

We need ideas. We need action. We need strength. We need rational thought.

GIven the current composition of the Republican party, balancing so many truly extreme points of view under one tent ...

But, they deserve their chance. It has been about 6 or 7 years, and, when I say I'm excited, I'm excited to see whether anything can get done for a change. Even things I don't agree with per se.

At this point, something really is better than nothing. We are choking on nothing.


Amen Gryphon. I would however rather the majority party choke into
gridlock on viable controversy rather than partisan bickering as in the
last couple of decades. Maybe a small margin of advantage in numbers
could actually foster a calming period where commonalities instead of
differences prevail. The bane of my existence for half a lifetime has
been watching Congress rail over the colors of their ties... and let the
constituents rot because they didn't ship gifts.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

I agree with you to an extent. But I also think the GOP has to be very careful how they view their 'mandate'. I think the American people are sick and tired of partisan politics, all the bickering and the extremist policies from both sides. If the GOP focuses on the economy, and, at least where they have the power to do so, foreign policy, they can do well. If they make the Dems mistake of focusing on the social crusade, they're going to get hammered in 2016 just like they did in 06 and 08 and just like the Dems did this year and in 2010.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Your figures do not take into account the total drumming dems took in many cases.....not even close.

Besides in a polarized political atmosphere the tale really is in the 5% or 10%. Why that 10% changed its mind by not voting or changing direction. That doesn't speak to party line voting. In fact party line voting is about irrelevant.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join