Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Paul Ryan: "We thought we had it won until all those urbans started voting"   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, election days, WISN 12 News  
•       •       •

7106 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Nov 2012 at 11:29 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



323 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-13 08:37:16 AM  
And I'm supposed to feel bad why?
 
2012-11-13 08:38:26 AM  
These reactions are driving me up the wall. No one hid the numbers from the Republicans. Nate Silver's methodology is pretty basic AND he explained it frequently. It's like deciding to go with the rheumatism pain in your shoulder over a detailed satellite photo - "They say a hurricane's coming? My shoulder don't say that. I don't care about no satellite nonsense. I'm staying put."

You would think the "pro-business" party could do math.
 
2012-11-13 08:49:24 AM  

LaViergeNoire: These reactions are driving me up the wall. No one hid the numbers from the Republicans.


You would think simple curiosity would have led one of them to pull up the NY Times website and take a look. I can excuse Romney - I doubt he spends much time doing anything for himself. But is it absolutely mystifying that Ryan had no indication of what was coming.

Thank God neither of these incompetent, obtuse, arrogant people won.
 
2012-11-13 08:52:25 AM  
They would have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids.
 
2012-11-13 08:54:04 AM  
See, we were working under the impression that these, uh,,, these voters would have had lower-than-normal turnouts because, you know, we had all those voter fraud reduction efforts that Mitt and I thought would mean diminished numbers, but it didn't work out that way, unfortunately.
 
2012-11-13 08:54:53 AM  
"The polling we had. The numbers we were looking at looked like we stood a pretty good chance of winning," Ryan said. "So, when the numbers came in, going the other direction. When we saw the turnout that was occurring in urban areas which were really fairly unprecedented, it did come as a bit of a shock. So, those are the toughest losses to have -- the ones that catch you by surprise."

Maybe if you'd taken your f*cking head out of the echo chamber once in a while and didn't discount anything that didn't fit with what you wanted to be true, it wouldn't have been a surprise.
 
2012-11-13 08:55:19 AM  

vartian: LaViergeNoire: These reactions are driving me up the wall. No one hid the numbers from the Republicans.

You would think simple curiosity would have led one of them to pull up the NY Times website and take a look. I can excuse Romney - I doubt he spends much time doing anything for himself. But is it absolutely mystifying that Ryan had no indication of what was coming.

Thank God neither of these incompetent, obtuse, arrogant people won.


I have a theory that even though many saw the writing on the walls, they pretended otherwise in order to keep morale among their base high so they'd go out and vote.

At least, that's what I hope.
 
2012-11-13 08:56:04 AM  
That's because folks refused to actually look beyond their own press releases.

That's what happens when you cherry pick your reality.
 
2012-11-13 08:56:36 AM  
Ryan: It 'Looked Like We Stood A Pretty Good Chance Of Winning' On Election Day
thabto.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-13 08:58:41 AM  

Cythraul:
I have a theory that even though many saw the writing on the walls, they pretended otherwise in order to keep morale among their base high so they'd go out and vote.


But why not just say that if it was true? Ryan could grin sheepishly at the camera, scrunch his widow's peak and be all "Yeah, look...we knew we were probably going to lose, but we had to keep spirits high. There was still a possibility of a win, but not if we admitted defeat a week before people voted."

Maybe I am asking too much from them.
 
2012-11-13 09:00:27 AM  
Hmm, and just who happens to live in the inner city?

About damn time one of these morons just snapped and said it was all the Attractive and Successful people's fault.
 
2012-11-13 09:01:19 AM  

vartian: LaViergeNoire: These reactions are driving me up the wall. No one hid the numbers from the Republicans.

You would think simple curiosity would have led one of them to pull up the NY Times website and take a look. I can excuse Romney - I doubt he spends much time doing anything for himself. But is it absolutely mystifying that Ryan had no indication of what was coming.

Thank God neither of these incompetent, obtuse, arrogant people won.


And Ryan is their 'numbers guy.'
 
2012-11-13 09:07:19 AM  
The willful ignorance of the Republican party in this last election is maybe one of the most comical things we'll ever see in American politics. Their numbers weren't just wrong; they were the complete opposite of reality. They made up the numbers and lied to their supporters, they lied to their donors, and they lied to themselves, and anyone with even a toenail in the big, ugly, real world saw their inevitable loss bearing down on them.

It just amazes the hell out of me that they can be at all surprised that they lost. Did they actually think that if they just lied hard enough, that lie would become truth?

Seriously, Republicans. You're competing in a world that has all but taken your doors off as it blew past you. You are not qualified to exist as a political party in an age that has steadily moved beyond your rigid beliefs. You're an anachronism, and Americans are starting to see your adherence to the previous century as something of a joke.
 
2012-11-13 09:11:16 AM  
Wait, how is the turnout in the urban areas unprecedented?

Wasn't it even higher in 2008?
 
2012-11-13 09:13:14 AM  

vartian: Cythraul:
I have a theory that even though many saw the writing on the walls, they pretended otherwise in order to keep morale among their base high so they'd go out and vote.

But why not just say that if it was true? Ryan could grin sheepishly at the camera, scrunch his widow's peak and be all "Yeah, look...we knew we were probably going to lose, but we had to keep spirits high. There was still a possibility of a win, but not if we admitted defeat a week before people voted."

Maybe I am asking too much from them.


Seems to me that might motivate the base to vote. "We're going to lose unless more people vote", "ooh I better get out and vote", rather than "We're going to win :D", "ah they don't need my vote then", times a bajillion.
 
2012-11-13 09:16:36 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Seriously, Republicans. You're competing in a world that has all but taken your doors off as it blew past you. You are not qualified to exist as a political party in an age that has steadily moved beyond your rigid beliefs. You're an anachronism, and Americans are starting to see your adherence to the previous

19th century as something of a joke.

FTFY
 
2012-11-13 09:17:31 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Did they actually think that if they just lied hard enough, that lie would become truth?


um....it's kinda what they do.

reality-based-community be damned.
 
2012-11-13 09:17:33 AM  

RexTalionis: Wait, how is the turnout in the urban areas unprecedented?

Wasn't it even higher in 2008?


No, minorities and the under 30s turned out in greater numbers this year. Overall, turnout was down around 10%
 
2012-11-13 09:22:23 AM  
That's what happens when you take Adam Savage's maxim to heart; "I reject your reality and substitute my own" Problem is, there's only one reality, and that reality never had Romney/Ryan winning the election. That reality relied on math and statistics and nerd stuff that actually works.

TL;DR - Sucks to be you, Paul. Now go and get your farking shine box.
 
2012-11-13 09:22:27 AM  
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Paul Weyrich, co-founder of The Heritage Foundation
 
2012-11-13 09:34:18 AM  
In an interview with WISN 12 News in Milwaukee on Monday, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) admitted that he and Mitt Romney were indeed caught off guard by the results of last week's election, claiming that the campaign's internal polling all pointed to a triumph for the Republican ticket.

I have little sympathy for people who flat out ignored reality and listened to their own press releases.
 
2012-11-13 09:36:05 AM  

clancifer: "I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Paul Weyrich, co-founder of The Heritage Foundation


"I guess I really actually feel we shouldn't contort the voting process to accommodate the urban-read African-American-voter-turnout machine."
-- Doug Preisse, chairman of the Republican Party in Franklyn County (Ohio)
 
2012-11-13 09:36:34 AM  
When we saw the turnout that was occurring in urban areas which were really fairly unprecedented, it did come as a bit of a shock.

It having happened last time makes it precedented.
 
2012-11-13 09:39:56 AM  
I believe that the faith-not-facts ethos of conservative christians has been so thoroughly absorbed by the Republican party that they are incapable of understanding what happened to them and why.
 
2012-11-13 09:43:27 AM  
Has Karl Rove conceded Ohio yet?
 
2012-11-13 09:45:12 AM  
Somehow I get the feeling that their internal polling was limited to either people on the Romney donor list, or old people in very, very conservative areas.

Or maybe they actually unskewed polls that didn't show them winning..
 
2012-11-13 09:45:26 AM  
How long until a Republican openly calls for the repeal of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments? You know it's coming.
 
2012-11-13 09:46:01 AM  
Where is Brick-House and the derp?
 
2012-11-13 09:46:38 AM  

Aarontology: Somehow I get the feeling that their internal polling was limited to either people on the Romney donor list, or old people in very, very conservative areas.

Or maybe they actually unskewed polls that didn't show them winning..


They were counting non-answers as Romney voters when they were knocking on doors in Florida I believe. But recall their internal polling showed them losing Ohio by 5, which leaked out election night.
 
2012-11-13 09:50:12 AM  
They were lying to themselves, they were lying to their base. Everybody knew they were lying. And yet, the GOP base shouted for even more, bigger lies.
 
2012-11-13 09:50:15 AM  

GAT_00: They were counting non-answers as Romney voters when they were knocking on doors in Florida I believe


It's like they were trying to get the wrong results.

But recall their internal polling showed them losing Ohio by 5, which leaked out election night.

You have to wonder why they decided to make that last ditch effort in Pennsylvania, then.
 
2012-11-13 09:52:03 AM  

LaViergeNoire: You would think the "pro-business" party could do math.


Based on what? This is the same "pro-business" community that thought leveraging themselves 30-to-1 based on a misunderstanding of a complex derivatives equation was a good idea.
 
2012-11-13 09:54:04 AM  

Aarontology: GAT_00: They were counting non-answers as Romney voters when they were knocking on doors in Florida I believe

It's like they were trying to get the wrong results.

But recall their internal polling showed them losing Ohio by 5, which leaked out election night.

You have to wonder why they decided to make that last ditch effort in Pennsylvania, then.


Probably figured that since Ohio had long since been blanketed, but Pennsylvania was derp free, that a big push could swing people. It isn't the worst logic. And if you assume they banked on Virginia and Florida, then all they'd need is one other state. The real question was who was the idiot who conceded Pennsylvania? They weren't going to get it but they had money and keeping the race close there could have gotten more horse race stories.
 
2012-11-13 09:55:58 AM  

Mentat: LaViergeNoire: You would think the "pro-business" party could do math.

Based on what? This is the same "pro-business" community that thought leveraging themselves 30-to-1 based on a misunderstanding of a complex derivatives equation was a good idea.


What "pro-business," Republican math-wizards look like:
farm3.static.flickr.com
 
2012-11-13 09:57:53 AM  
affordablehousinginstitute.org
"When we saw the turnout that was occurring in urban areas which were really fairly unprecedented...."
"Ha ha... wrong person. Forgive me. No offense intended."
 
2012-11-13 09:58:47 AM  
They fooled themselves into believing -wrongly- that the huge swath of "Independent" voters meant that those folks were truly independent. Whereas anyone who has even skimmed a FARK Politics tab thread knows that "Independent" really means "I'm just too embarrassed to let my neighbors know I'm still a Republican."
 
2012-11-13 09:59:25 AM  

GAT_00: Probably figured that since Ohio had long since been blanketed, but Pennsylvania was derp free, that a big push could swing people. It isn't the worst logic. And if you assume they banked on Virginia and Florida, then all they'd need is one other state. The real question was who was the idiot who conceded Pennsylvania? They weren't going to get it but they had money and keeping the race close there could have gotten more horse race stories.


It's not the worst logic, but they probably would have been better off trying that in Florida or Virginia. Given how close those states were, especially Florida, a last minute push might have helped them.

Wait. They probably believed they had Virginia and Florida in the bag.
 
2012-11-13 10:00:28 AM  

Aarontology: "The polling we had. The numbers we were looking at looked like we stood a pretty good chance of winning," Ryan said. "So, when the numbers came in, going the other direction. When we saw the turnout that was occurring in urban areas which were really fairly unprecedented, it did come as a bit of a shock. So, those are the toughest losses to have -- the ones that catch you by surprise."


Remember people - elect Romney/Ryan because they are data wonks who know how to interpret information to achieve a goal!
 
2012-11-13 10:00:55 AM  

clancifer: Where is Brick-House and the derp?


He still posts the occasional racist pic.
 
2012-11-13 10:02:48 AM  
This feigning of ignorance might work if right-wing pundits didn't publicly excoriate Nate Silver before the election. As if the election wasn't competition enough, Republicans decided to make it a referendum on polls as well. They shined the spotlight on their failure more than anyone.
 
2012-11-13 10:03:06 AM  

Aarontology: Somehow I get the feeling that their internal polling was limited to either people on the Romney donor list, or old people in very, very conservative areas.

Or maybe they actually unskewed polls that didn't show them winning..


Neil Newhouse, head of Public Opinion Strategies (and Mitt Romney's pollster), made the assumption that the 2012 electorate would not look like the 2008 election (because 2008 was an electoral fluke). The assumption Newhouse and other Romney polling strategists made was that the electorate would look like a hybrid of 2004 and 2008, with lower black, Asian and Hispanic turnouts and lower young voter turnout.

Because of this assumption, the model of the electorate built by Newhouse weights the demographics so that it would be in line with a result that was between 2004 and 2008 (as opposed to most other public polling places which weighted the demographics so that it was at least at 2008 levels or having slightly higher minority and youth voters than 2008 - Rasmussen, alone, weights by party identification demographic and made the assumption that the 2012 voter poll will be more Republican than it was in 2008).
 
2012-11-13 10:03:19 AM  

mrshowrules: clancifer: Where is Brick-House and the derp?

He still posts the occasional racist pic.


a lot of our more fanatical GOP shills seem to have gotten very quiet since election night. has anyone checked on them? I wouldn't want them to hurt themselves.
 
2012-11-13 10:04:23 AM  

Aarontology: GAT_00: Probably figured that since Ohio had long since been blanketed, but Pennsylvania was derp free, that a big push could swing people. It isn't the worst logic. And if you assume they banked on Virginia and Florida, then all they'd need is one other state. The real question was who was the idiot who conceded Pennsylvania? They weren't going to get it but they had money and keeping the race close there could have gotten more horse race stories.

It's not the worst logic, but they probably would have been better off trying that in Florida or Virginia. Given how close those states were, especially Florida, a last minute push might have helped them.

Wait. They probably believed they had Virginia and Florida in the bag.


Exactly. If they thought they might swing Pennsylvania, they must have assumed that Virginia and Florida were safe.
 
2012-11-13 10:04:24 AM  

Lumpmoose: This feigning of ignorance might work if right-wing pundits didn't publicly excoriate Nate Silver before the election. As if the election wasn't competition enough, Republicans decided to make it a referendum on polls as well. They shined the spotlight on their failure more than anyone.


Limbaugh was one of the guys who screamed the loudest about Nate Silver....and has not breathed a word about the guy since election day.
 
2012-11-13 10:08:06 AM  

propasaurus: They fooled themselves into believing -wrongly- that the huge swath of "Independent" voters meant that those folks were truly independent. Whereas anyone who has even skimmed a FARK Politics tab thread knows that "Independent" really means "I'm just too embarrassed to let my neighbors know I'm still a Republican."


If you look at the party identification of 2012, something like 35% of voters identified themselves as conservative, 24% identified themselves as liberal and the remaining 41% or so identified themselves as moderate (my numbers might be wrong, I'm basing this off of something I read a while ago, but the general gist is right.)

Actually, if you look at the moderate group, most of those broke for Obama. The reason? Republicans have made "liberal" such a dirty word in the last 30 years that many liberals self-identify as "moderate".
 
2012-11-13 10:17:28 AM  

DamnYankees: Remember people - elect Romney/Ryan because they are data wonks who know how to interpret information to achieve a goal!


That needs to be repeated over and over. Paul Ryan is the GOP "numbers guy" after all.

And apparently those numbers are imaginary.

RexTalionis: Because of this assumption, the model of the electorate built by Newhouse weights the demographics so that it would be in line with a result that was between 2004 and 2008 (as opposed to most other public polling places which weighted the demographics so that it was at least at 2008 levels or having slightly higher minority and youth voters than 2008 - Rasmussen, alone, weights by party identification demographic and made the assumption that the 2012 voter poll will be more Republican than it was in 2008).


That probably wasn't an unreasonable assumption to make, but not enough to base an entire national campaign off of. Especially when those stories started to appear about early voting going heavily towards Obama. A few adjustments after that could have saved them a lot of trouble. But I guess they jsut decided to ignore that.
 
2012-11-13 10:19:28 AM  

Aarontology: DamnYankees: Remember people - elect Romney/Ryan because they are data wonks who know how to interpret information to achieve a goal!

That needs to be repeated over and over. Paul Ryan is the GOP "numbers guy" after all.

And apparently those numbers are imaginary.



Why not? His budget numbers are imaginary, too.
 
2012-11-13 10:30:31 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-13 10:35:11 AM  
I don't know why anyone would expect them to understand the electoral math. This is the same party that has pushed trickle down economics for 30+ years. Math is not their strong suit.
 
2012-11-13 10:38:36 AM  

ginandbacon: RexTalionis: Wait, how is the turnout in the urban areas unprecedented?

Wasn't it even higher in 2008?

No, minorities and the under 30s turned out in greater numbers this year. Overall, turnout was down around 10%


This makes me happy for my generation. An active electorate leads to a better country.
 
Displayed 50 of 323 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report