Tonight is a good night!

[vuweathernerd]

Well, finally someone out managed the Cardinals. Matheny instead of LaRussa may be St.Louis' downfall this year.

I'm a fan of the Nationals now. No matter even if I'm just rooting against one team that automatically makes me a fan of their opponent if only for one game. 

it wouldn't surprise me - matheny is a moron as a manager. he makes the same mistakes now that he made in april.

In referencing a team's collapse, it wasn't the bullpen that lost the world series last year...it was Nelson Cruz not being able to read an easy line drive for the last out, and jogging to the ball rather than running to it as an OF should.  A HS kid could have caught that ball in game 6, and I will always wonder what he was thinking until we win a WS  .  Even though it was hit on a line, he had plenty of time to be camped for the ball if he would have just ran to the ball first, rather than coasting from the start

the rangers bullpen does bear some of the blame, though along with nelson cruz (i'll grant you that one - he clearly misplayed that freese line drive in the 9th). they couldn't protect their leads in the late innings, blew the save in the 10th, and then gave up the winning run in the 11th in game six.

[wh]

Last night was a good night...

[crusaderjoe]

Do you have an affinity for California MLB teams in general or just those from the Bay Area?

(Biden won  .)

[wh]

Do you have an affinity for California MLB teams in general or just those from the Bay Area?

(Biden won  .)

[StlVUFan]

Quote from: valpo04 on October 5 at 07:26:38 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
everybody knows the cards are gonna win it all again this year anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I was going to say we shouldn't play into the crusader/flogging/Holy Land thing but when Cardinal fans are involved let the flogging begin! 

And that goes for StlVUFan and any other Cardinal fans (bbtds??) too. 

Not actually a Cardinal fan, just root for them.

What? What is the difference between a fan & rooting for a team? Please explain. 

I root for the Cardinals.

I live and die with my White Sox.

The former is known as "jumping on the bandwagon".  The latter is known as fanaticism.

When the White Sox came to Busch during interleague play, that was the first time in my life I visited Busch stadium and rooted for the visitors.

Basically, the Cardinals are my National League team.

I also like to see the Rays and the Nats win.  Will absolutely root for the Rays against the Yankees or the Red Sox.  Does not make me a Rays fan.

[StlVUFan]

Well, finally someone out managed the Cardinals. Matheny instead of LaRussa may be St.Louis' downfall this year.

I'm a fan of the Nationals now. No matter even if I'm just rooting against one team that automatically makes me a fan of their opponent if only for one game. 

Oops.

[vu72]

Romney played it perfectly, acted Presidential and showed incredible foreign experience and knowledge.  If he doesn't win I'll be shocked.  Not that I'm showing my favorite or anything...just my impressions from tonight 

[mj]

Romney played it perfectly, acted Presidential and showed incredible foreign experience and knowledge.

Were we watching the same debate?

[wh]

Romney played it perfectly, acted Presidential and showed incredible foreign experience and knowledge.

Were we watching the same debate?

The momentum has been in Romney's favor going into the debate.  All he needed to do was look and sound presidential and not have any major gaffes.  I think he accomplished that.  I also agree with '72 that it was a good strategy.  I thought Obama did a good job as well, other than seeming to act overly aggressive and condescending at times (e.g., "We have these things called aircraft carriers, Governor"). Most pundits were saying that Obama needed a decisive win tonight to regain the momentum he lost after the first debate.  I don't think he got it.   

[valpotx]

Obama has been overly aggressive these last 2 debates as wh mentioned, trying to make up for falling asleep in the first one.  His overly critical and condescending tone/words can't counteract his traditional one line zingers he attempts in order to try and woo the young voters.  The Change and Forward slogans are attempts at rallying young voters around a broad concept, as most often they don't have knowledge of more specific topics at stake in the election.  I am not just saying that because I am now 31 and feeling old, but even looking back at why I voted for GW both times in my first 2 elections, I had no clue what issues I really was voting on (neither did most of my undergraduate brethren).  It was the 'cool' thing to vote for Obama last election for young voters, and hopefully we don't make a decision based on that same concept this time. 

I may sound overly conservative in this post, but am truly more of a conservative-leaning moderate since I graduated from Valpo (was much more conservative before I knew what that meant).  I just hope that whoever wins keeps the US as the pre-eminent power in the world, and expands on what the greatest generation started back in/after WWII.  Just thinking about what my grandparents would think about these vicious debates makes me sick, as they were much more about coming together for one cause, making the US a world power and preventing tyranny. 

[valporun]

I have to agree with valpotx about why first time voters usually rally behind the catchphrase, like "CHANGE We Can Believe In" or the moving forward stuff, because they haven't really understood some of the issues because they haven't had to deal with them before, like taxes, health care insurance, home ownership banking issues, things that my parents have had to experience over time. Now that I have more of an idea about policy issues, health insurance, and how the debt can be more of an issue now, than when I was a first time voter, I feel more ready to vote for whichever candidate has a real idea of getting our country back on the right track.

[RS]

Tonight is a wonderful night. President Obama won.

[vu72]

I agree it is sad.  Romney most likely will win the popular vote and we have four more years of snide remarks and not much more. We had the chance to elect a real leader and we failed.  buy gold my friends, there is little other than significantly raised tax rates on all of us or run away inflation that separates us from Greece.

[crusaderjoe]

If Romney wins the popular vote, the ghosts of the 2000 election will have been laid to rest.  For me anyway. 

The Democrats had their shot to regain the presidency in 2004 much like the Republicans had their shot tonight.  Time to move forward now, as was done then.

I'm not surprised Florida was as close as ever...again.  I probably saw 15 Romney signs for every one for Obama in my area.  Not that lawn signs vote, but one could certainly get the impression that the Democrat base down here was somewhat eroded, at least in certain areas of Broward county.

Did I mention that it is time to move forward?

[setshot]

'72 and the Pee Party lost --Hooray! Hooray!  Bachman? I was hoping she would abort her campaign. Maybe next time. FORWARD!

[vuweathernerd]

as the large urban areas rolled in, obama grabbed the popular vote lead and never looked back. as of this morning, it's sitting around 2 1/2 million votes. i wasn't thrilled with the choices this time around, but i'm not exactly heartbroken by the result either. i may not like some of the obama administration's policies, but at the end of the day, i still have a job, a place to live, food to eat, and the ability to provide for myself. and for that, i'm thankful. because there are plenty of people that don't have those things.

[valpotx]

Luckily we only have 4 more years of this guy.  Here's hoping for 2016 that we can right the wrongs that will occur over the next few years (either party, though I lean conservative).  I would have even preferred Biden over Obama

[StlVUFan]

If Romney wins the popular vote, the ghosts of the 2000 election will have been laid to rest.  For me anyway. 

The Democrats had their shot to regain the presidency in 2004 much like the Republicans had their shot tonight.  Time to move forward now, as was done then.

I'm not surprised Florida was as close as ever...again.  I probably saw 15 Romney signs for every one for Obama in my area.  Not that lawn signs vote, but one could certainly get the impression that the Democrat base down here was somewhat eroded, at least in certain areas of Broward county.

Did I mention that it is time to move forward?

I told a co-worker of mine that when I woke up the following morning, there was a voice mail from the State of Florida: "Just kidding!"

[vu72]

Ya know, this is as good a place as any to put out an impression I've got after the results of this election.Here it is: The day when either party nominates a white guy are over.  No Mitt Romneys, No John Kerrys, No John McCains, No white guys.

This election proved that too many people vote based on color alone and both parties will try to avoid large blocks of voters going one way or another while the balance is split.  Think about it. blacks voted 12 out of 13 for Obama in spite of the fact that they, as a group, are worse off with 15% unemployment.  Hispanics voted overwhelmingly for Obama probably because he is part black and a minority, as are they.  They didn't really care about issues as much as color.  In the meantime white males voted largely for Mitt and white women were split.  The overall difference was minimal nationally and Obama was the very first President in history to win reelection by a smaller percentage than his first win.  If Mitt could have won a few more points from blacks or hispanics--boom, he's our next President.

So what will the parties do next?  Democrats will probably nominate a women--not Hilary as she'll lose interest by then and be over 70. Of course, never count her out.  Republicans?  A Marco Rubio, a Bobby Jindal, or maybe a Kelly Ayotte, or possibly Nikki Haley, or some combo of these people. I doubt even a bright guy like Paul Ryan could get the nomination and if Republicans chose another white guy, like Chris Christy, they will have the same result.

Now, the wild card in all this is if the economy craters then all bets are off and then maybe a white guy could win for the Republicans.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Obama was the very first President in history to win reelection by a smaller percentage than his first win.

BZZT!  Woodrow Wilson, 1916.

[valporun]

vu72, I was also hearing such things as Obama's campaign staff was targeting the right demographics, like 25-49 college football fans in B1G Ten country who would watch BTN on Saturday afternoons, or they would targets large areas of minority tv viewers on the stations they typically watched. They didn't just reach out to the major networks, they reached out to those stations that only received viewership from specific groups.

Hilary has already planned to end her work as Secretary of State real soon, and I believe she's ruled out any further political aspirations after these last 4 years. I couldn't tell you who else, besides Biden, will considering running for the Democrats, and the Republicans have to open up to the moderate side of the conservative brand, and get them where they are, not force them to the far right, as though the center/moderates have cooties.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

the Republicans have to open up to the moderate side of the conservative brand, and get them where they are, not force them to the far right, as though the center/moderates have cooties.

...really?  have you been watching the same country as the rest of us? 

Romney was the governor of Massachusetts.  How many conservative Republicans get elected there?

McCain "the maverick" WAS the moderate choice in 2008.

GWB wasn't a fiscal conservative nor even a very good social conservative.

...So where are the "far right" conservatives you speak of...maybe you mean Reagan?  The one who always got more than 90% of the electoral college?

[valpotx]

Romney was definitely more moderate, but had wayyyyyy too many gaffes leading up to the election.  Vu72, I can understand what you are saying, but Romney would have won if conservatives get on the bandwagon with more immigration reform talk.  Polls have shown over the last few years that most hispanics want to vote republican (religion being a big part of it), but cannot support a party that wants to deport people that were brought over by their parents, or just want to build fences.  Living in TX, we definitely see more of the illegal immigration negatives than most of the politicians that talk about it, but there has to be a better solution.  I always find it hilarious when people from the Northeast or Midwest talk about illegal immigration not being a big issue, as most often if there are illegal immigrants in their areas, they are not the troubled ones causing problems like what we see in the south of my state (constant murders, drugs, etc).  It would be like me trying to talk knowledgeably about unions or steel mills, where there are hardly any/none in my area.  Whether it is AZ, NM, CA, TX, FL, etc, illegal immigration is a hot topic, but was not really brought up in the run-up to the election as much as it should have been.  Mexican leaders took extreme offense that neither candidate talked about the drug war going on in Mexico or trade with Latin America, which is of course our southern border, but rather focused on countries far away from our true sphere.  If Romney would have gotten on the bandwagon of supporting Latino initiatives, their political leaning was already there for the taking...

[crusaderjoe]

Where's jj?  We need to hear his expert opinion on the matter of whether whitey will ever win the presidency again. 

Seriously, '72 I guess I can see where you are coming from, but I think you are being too fixated on race or color of skin.  I don't think its really a question of black or white or brown in general. Sure, there are some examples of where people have voted for the candidate only because the guy has the same skin color as they do.  However, what I think is going on right now is more about "R" vs. "D" than it is about one skin color vs. the other.  There are colors involved alright, but those are blue and red. This is forcing independents like myself to take sides and run with them (i.e. I am an independent but I will historically lean more "D" than "R").  Meaning, even Romney's moderate stance was not enough for me to change sides.

I think you're painting with too broad a brush on the Hispanics characterizations as well.  I mean I'm a white guy of Italian descent, and I am darker than some blue eyed/blond haired Hispanics.  And there are also many many conservative Hispanics.  Can't paint that stroke too broadly, IMO.  Electability or non electability isn't just about race or skin color--I think the current issues and political climate are more complicated than that.

Just my .02.

[vu72]

Great thoughts, thanks.  I guess part of the problem as I see it is perception and many people thought Romney just couldn't relate to them because he is rich, even though Obama is also rich (just not nearly as rich as Romney).

Unfortunately most of the electorate are not well informed or even interested until late in the process.  Obama's team did a great job of painting Romney as being out of touch, and that made  the difference.

The problem is deeper than just superficial skin color, however, the democrats couldn't very easily claim that a Marco Rubio (for example) was a rich guy who couldn't relate.  It could put the race back to where it should be focused--on issues.