A lot of Republicans seemed genuinely surprised that they lost, that Mitt Romney was defeated by President Obama, and that Republicans lost seats in both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. They actually thought they were going to win!
How could they have believed this? Scientific polling offered by Nate Silver of the New York Times, the Pew Research Center, and others showed with granular clarity that President Obama had maintained his narrow national lead, and had a high probability of success in most of the swing states.
Throughout the campaign, Republicans had criticized as flawed or biased any polling showing Mitt Romney trailing President Obama. But the recent track record for polling has been very good, which is why campaigns study polls.
What critics of polling fail to understand is that polling is a science. That’s not the same thing as saying that polling, or any other science, is the absolute truth or is always going to be correct. It just means that polling uses a scientific methodology to figure out what works and what fails to work in predicting outcomes.
It’s true that every polling sample is by definition too small. But by aggregating the results of different polls, a larger and more accurate sample can be assembled. It’s also true that every poll is flawed in some way. But again, by aggregating different polls, and adjusting for known variables, those flaws can be minimized.
It is perhaps predictable that those who deny and criticize the science of climate change would also deny and criticize the science of polling, which this year again accurately predicted the election results.
Republicans lost, and will continue to lose, until they recognize demographic trends, and adjust their unpopular ideas accordingly. If only the 19th Amendment to the Constitution could have been repealed and American women disenfranchised, Mitt Romney would be the president-elect. If only young voters, however defined, could have been disenfranchised, Mitt Romney would be the president-elect. If only lower-income voters, however defined, could have been disenfranchised, Mitt Romney would be the president-elect. If only minority voters could have been disenfranchised, and only white Americans allowed to vote, Mitt Romney would be president-elect.
How can Republicans appeal to the growing demographics of women, younger generations, lower-income voters, and minorities?
First, stop threatening to repeal the Roe v. Wade decision recognizing reproductive rights. Everyone is entitled to his or her personal or religious view of the morality of abortion. But Republicans should stop trying to legally impose their views on Americans with a different point of view on reproductive rights.
Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican Party, has proclaimed his party “proudly pro-life”. In that context, the anti-abortion--with no exception for rape--statements of failed Senate candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were not extreme statements at all. They were the logical conclusions of believing that human life begins and must be protected from conception. They were mainstream beliefs of the pro-life movement and its political arm, the Republican Party, though not of the demographics Republicans need to court.
The same is true with same-sex marriage. Again, everyone gets his or her own opinion on the propriety of same-sex marriage. But no one should try to impose his or her personal views on others to deny them equal rights. Younger voters in particular understand this.
Republican candidates and elected officials should stop signing written pledges to outside lobbyists like Grover Norquist, giving up their power to cast independent votes in the best interests of their constituents and the country as they may determine at the time of any vote.
Republicans should clearly oppose President Obama’s plan for a big immigration amnesty, which past experience shows only leads to more and faster illegal immigration. But they should stop blaming the illegal immigrants themselves for responding predictably to the promise of past and future amnesties and the failure to enforce our immigration laws.
Republicans should explain that the only alternative to unlimited immigration is setting and enforcing numerical limits. Pretending we have numerical limits but not enforcing them, as President Obama proposes, and instead giving amnesty to all who violate our laws, is not a serious or practical alternative.
Shipping American jobs overseas to be done by cheaper foreign workers is predictably condemned. Importing unlimited foreign workers to compete for those jobs in America should be equally objectionable to American voters.
Copyright 2012 Jan Ting, professor of law at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law and a former Assistant Commissioner for Refugees, Asylum and Parole, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice. Jan can be reached at janting@temple.edu.
downtownresident posted at 11:27 am on Sat, Nov 17, 2012.
Rich,
Here's, "one scientific truth that is inviolate, undeniably true".
You and Leon are idiots.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 1:30 am on Sat, Nov 17, 2012.
I typed into good old Yahoo "search"....Jan Ting Scandal......and low and behold...there was the smoking gun, bullets (photos) and all.
IT SEEMS THAT OLD ...JAN TING....WAS AT ONE TIME NOT TOO LONG AGO....A DELAWARE ..."REPUBLICAN"....YES, LET ME REPEAT THAT FACT..."REPUBLICAN" COMMITTEEMAN FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE. THIS WAS BACK IN 2008. HE WAS "OUT-ED" IF I MAY USE THAT EXPRESSION JUST A LITTLE OUT OF CONTEXT...WHEN A LOCAL REPORTED WHO WAS COVERING AN OBAMA RALLY JUST HAPPENED TO STAND NEXT TO JAN TING. HE EVEN TOOK PHOTOS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED JAN TING STANDING UNDER THE ...."N"....ON AN OBAMA PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN 20 FOOT LONG BANNER.
THE REPORTER LATER ON REALIZED THAT SOMETHING WAS AMISS AND NOTIFIED THE DELAWARE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE WHICH NATURALLY LED TO THE ...."OUT-ED".....OR SHOULD I SAY....."OBAMA-ED"...JAN TING BEING .....KICKED OUT OF HIS REPUBLICAN COMMITTEEMANSHIP.....AND WHO CAN BLAME THEM.......BEING A ...."R.I.N.O." IS ONE THING.....BUT BEING A ......"DONKEY IS DISGUISE"...IS SOMTHING ELSE ALTOGETHER.............LOL.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 1:20 am on Sat, Nov 17, 2012.
Dear Phd'ers, Descartes lovers, readers of the Bronte Sisters (en Francais, sil vous plais) can climb down from their "ivy-covered" Ivory Towers now.
I remembered an old trick that I have put to use over the last 10 years, a broke California ex-pat looking for a little nido in my wanning years.....[wink]
Rich posted at 9:54 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.
Blue Poet, cool, how delightful someone to argue with. Someone with a mind, So let['s take it a piece at a time.
Can you do more than skip stones, without accepting the water? But the you say is isn't a bad thing, Is it not also valid to not accept the lake?
Of course Scientific methodology has merit,, but it has to be tempered. it hasn't a base beyond you, what you see, sense? It has the same bounds science does.The same bounds religion has.
Religion is the belief in magic, which is what we call what we can't understand, until it becomes technology. It is not necessary, or particularly useful, to employ logic, other than the circular variety, within a belief system. The furtherest advances of logic were Averoes (Moslem) and Maimonides (Jewish) and Acquius (Christian) no scientist has ever come that close to explaining his own disipilne.
Religion is the belief in magic, which is what we call what we can't understand, until it becomes technology. It is not necessary, or particularly useful, to employ logic, other than the circular variety, within a belief system. On no, both are. And the both have value. You believe in Science, fine I,ll tolerate it, but I would appreciate it if you don.t use it to blow up cities.
Now if you haven't something that isn't a belief system, love to see it. Science doesn't even come close,
Bluepoet posted at 2:59 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.
Descartes? Hah....how delightfully classical!
"I think, therefore, I am...I think" is just as valid, in philisophical terms. Philosophy is nothing more than skipping stones, on the lake of knowledge. Which is to say, causing ripples on the stillness is not such a bad thing!
Scientific methodology has merit, because it refines probability to the narrowest of possibilities, without denying or eliminating those possibilities. It's only constant is that there are no constants, only the sum total of the picture, to date. It derives practical use of the physical world, from applied logic (theory and math). As the questions become answers, they only serve to create more questions. Science is not a belief system, based on assumptions. It is applied curiosity, constantly reinventing itself within the scope of discovery.
Religion is the belief in magic, which is what we call what we can't understand, until it becomes technology. It is not necessary, or particularly useful, to employ logic, other than the circular variety, within a belief system.
Science and religion are not necessarily exclusive, nor opposite. However, one is a belief system, and the other is not. That's why you won't see a course in Applied Religion (well, unless it's at Oral Roberts University, maybe).
Leon Ceniceros posted at 1:46 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.
And I though we had all the "Looney-Tune" Phd's here in the "Comments Section"....looks like one escaped and is now a "Guest Commentator".
How does one get from Republicans complaining about the "Polling" to "human conception", "Roe vs Wade", "Same-Sex Marriage", "Grover Norquist" and "Illegal Aliens who criminally enter the United States" ????
Did this "Guest Commentator" get all of his...."REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS"....from MSNBC or the WHITE HOUSE.....or ....BOTH....LOL.
AND BY THE WAY....I SAW THIS SAME EXACT ....."GUEST COMMENTATOR'S ARTICLE"....IN ANOTHER ....."TRIBUNE PUBLISHED NEWSPAPER"....VERBATIM.
ISN'T IT BAD ENOUGH WHEN AN "ARIZONIAN"...LECTURES US....BUT COME ON NOW......TEMPLE UNIVERSITY IN...........T.E.X.A.S.....NOW THAT IS DOWN-RIGHT.....INSULTING........[wink]
Arizona Willie posted at 8:14 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.
VofReason, not true, I acknowledge that there is LOTS of room to cut spending -- but cutting spending ALONE will not pay off the deficit.
We could cut at least 1/3 from the Defense budge.
We don't need many tanks anymore -- they were for a war we fought 40 years ago.
Congressmen keep voting more money for defense than the military even WANTS.
There are many many bases that could be closed down completely.
Especially overseas -- unless our allies want to start paying 100% of the costs of manning and operating it.
We could TOTALLY eliminate all subsidies to oil companies that are making billions of dollars annually.
But no... Republicans won't hear of cutting ONE PENNY from defense or from corporate subsidies.
They only want to cut programs that help the old and the sick.
VofReason posted at 1:36 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.
AZWillie never seems to recognize the need for less spending by the Government. This is the heart of the Republican philosiphy and why AzWillie doesn't understand. There is a big difference for people keeping more of the money they earned versus asking people who take money to get less. Both again bring you back to the Government bneeding to get smaller and spend less. How about a little honesty from anyone in power. We are 1 trillion upside down. Why don't they talk about what it means for everyone to make up that 1 trillion in taxes- not play class warfare talking about increases to the rich that will have no impact against that gap.
Rich posted at 12:45 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.
"If you deny the basis of science then you deny things like we exist and matter has mass and gravity holds us to the Earth and the Earth is round not flat and the Universe is older than 9000 years and about a million other indisputable FACTS."
Actually, the FACT we exist is arrived at rationally, and stands in direct opposition to inductive and scientific thought. "Cogito ergo sum" was the conclusion of Renee Descartes in discovering that he could not doubt that he doubted. Matter may have mass, we simply have so small a sample open to our observation that we may be believing in a rare phenomenon. Gravity is a mutual attraction, not Earth stickum as you suggest. The Earth is as round or as flat as it is perceived and used we build on level (flat) ground. Time and indeed motion, and probably everything else is dependent on the place from which it is observed. If no mind we communicate with in some fashion existed until 9000 years ago, then that is the age of the only Earth we can know. Science cannot produce a FACT, the method can only present a probability from observation. It assumes (believes in) everything without proof of anything.
Being brain-washed into accepting something is hardly proof that the something is at all real. The something can be God or science, but both are only belief systems. Science believes in in constancy of natural law which is in no way a proven fact and there are many reasons to doubt it. Science believes in the efficacy of the senses, again a proposition that is far from a proven fact and has many doubts connected to it.
Stop flinging around terms like ignorant and gullible, they may come back to haunt you. And please, if the big bang is a fact, the universe is devolving, dissembling if that makes it easier for your brain-washed mind to grasp. It is expending energy and will eventually exhaust it, the process is called entropy, and it is an integral part of the picture. Evolution goes the other direction and really isn't possible in a dissembling universe, taken as an isolated picture of a small piece of dissembling matter, it can appear that way is all. The fact is that the two theories are mutually exclusive, if one is true, the other isn't.
This has nothing to do with religion, it didn't come from any religious leader, and is mostly Einstein, with help from Descartes (inventor of coordinate Geometry), Leibnitz (inventor of calculus), and many other thinkers and philosophers. Science and religion are pretty much the same thing, except instead of using 'God' to characterize what they don't understand, scientists use 'probability.'
Arizona Willie posted at 10:55 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.
chatmandu002 --- righties are always complaining about people getting money from the government --- but you never complain about tax cuts for the wealthy or tax credits and subsidies for corporations. Those are give aways to the rich.Why don't you complain about those?For every dollar in tax cuts to the 1%, a dollar is added to the taxes paid by the middle class.The poor don't pay taxes -- as you righties so often complain about people not paying taxes.So where does the money come from?
It either comes from the wealthy or the middle class ( including everyone right up to the people making a million a year ).Righties are always always always complaining about being overtaxed but yet defend tax cuts to the wealthy which only adds to their tax burden.
chatmandu002 posted at 9:47 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.
Jan,
Who knew that the majority of voters where more interested in gay marriage, pot, amnesty, abortion and free birth control rather than the economy, deficit, debt and a job. I guess when the younger voters have grown up getting so much free stuff from the government they want to keep on getting more free stuff.
Just a warning to those of us who have a parachute as we go over the fiscal cliff, those that don't have a parachute will try to take yours away.
mnjcpa posted at 9:44 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.
That's a real mature argument downtown. Destroying the country to prove our point is exactly what has happened by reelecting Obama. Time will tell - but I suspect what you'll see are states that take matters in to their own hands with the fiscal irresponsibility of the Obama administration.
BassAckwards posted at 9:38 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.
First off there are no scientific "truths" there are scientific facts, and they are all inviolate. If you deny the basis of science then you deny things like we exist and matter has mass and gravity holds us to the Earth and the Earth is round not flat and the Universe is older than 9000 years and about a million other indisputable FACTS. All these things are completely inviolate. People that would say something as dumb as "I don't believe in science" proves just how ignorant and uneducated they are. They might as well say they don't believe in the internet while typing in this forum. Religion relies on faith, science on facts. And the fact that science openly and continually admits and confirms that it doesn't know everything is not a weakness, as the small minded might believe, it is the absolute strength. Science is still searching to better understand, religion just chalks everything it doesn't know, which is pretty much everything there is to know, up to some magical, invisible man in the sky that never shows himself. Magical hide and seek game, yeah, really comparable to logic, rational thought, investigation, and the scientific method. Sure, if you're 5 years old it is. The Big Bang absolutely does not present a devolving Universe, but a Dynamic one. People that are wholly and completely ignorant of science in any aspect whatsoever that spout out about science are a real problem in this country. Just because you listened to some preacher bad mouth science for an hour that doesn't make you an expert on disputing science, just a gullible fool.
downtownresident posted at 8:45 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.
Even today, Mitt is making excuses as to why he lost. He refuses to acknowledge that he is an arrogant, out of touch uber-rich man who would be king.
Until the tea party goes away and republicans realize that there are still people who think for themselves, they just won't get it.
"Let's destroy the country to prove our point" seems to be the mantra.
Grow up republicans, quit whining about not being understood, quit making lame excuses(in private to donors) and try compromise for a change.
MOSTLY, JUST GROW UP!!!!!
mnjcpa posted at 8:11 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.
No AZWillie...let's be honest.
It's pretty difficult to beat the opponent when votes buy free citizenship, healthcare, take from the rich like Robin Hood. All the characteristics of Santa Claus.
Arizona Willie posted at 7:49 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.
The Republicans lost the election -- no they didn't ' lose ' it --- they gave it away by insisting on forcing their religious views on everyone else whether they share those views or not ... and by exhibiting their contempt for the bottom half of society ( economically ).
When the video of Romney scorning the 47% came out -- he was toast.
He basically told the 47% to vote Democrat ... AND THEY DID.
Difficult to win an election when you tell almost half the voters to *iss off.
Rich posted at 10:39 pm on Wed, Nov 14, 2012.
My PhD is as good as yours. I don't believe in science, and it is a belief system as is religion. Tell me one scientific truth that is inviolate, undeniably true. Science is inductive, it depends on our observations and they are, given even our estimate of the universe, not even close to a statistically viable sample. No scientific conclusion is more than a probably, without a large enough of a sample to make it much of anything. We live in a dark age of it, we actually think that the big bang and evolution both exist, when the first presents a devolving universe in which you propose an evolution? That is logic? You believe in your senses, fine. Can I believe in a progression from a first mover, first cause, sufficient reason? Do I have your permission? Science is the big bully, has been all my life. It makes no sense. It is not reality, it only runs into brick walls. Because you can use it to build a bomb that destroys cities doesn't make it right, Science had Dewey defeating Truman, did he?
JMJ posted at 10:20 pm on Wed, Nov 14, 2012.
Ting has a point. Science applied to the polls prior to the election showed that Romney was doomed, but the high and mighty don't listen to hard facts or any scientific poll. They are too busy basking in the sunshine from their own mirrors to realize that there are "you people" out here in reality-ville who understand statistics as well as social issues.
They think a Chi Square [test] is something that goes with their Chai Tea at Fourbucks. Mind you don't spill your Chai Latte on their Escalade's leather seats with bun warmers. Cinnabon, of course.
I am so glad the arrogant Republican Party was shocked down to their argyle socks. The people have spoken. Our state is still a sorry place, sadly. But, the people HAVE spoken. I keep hearing that "it was so close". Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
onerebel posted at 8:49 pm on Wed, Nov 14, 2012.
How can Republicans appeal to the same groups that are now voting Democrat ?Continue the downward spiral of our country by promising more freebies then the Democrats are currently offering for votes.
samkat posted at 4:00 pm on Wed, Nov 14, 2012.
Sadly for the republicans, their refusal to compromise led to their demise. They are proudly pro life which is okay as long as they do not try to legislate their ideology onto others who do not feel the same way. You would think that they could see the fallacy of their ways in objecting to women's access to contraceptives since this along with sex education actually are a way to reduce pregnancy terminations. I would much rather pay a few dollars for birth control as opposed to 18 years of welfare for the unintended results. I never see them offering to adopt the unwanted children who languish in CPS custody which would be an ideal way for them to actually show their commitment to their pro life beliefs.
Then, we have the Ryan Romney plan to scuttle Social Security and Medicare. Obviously many folks disagreed with them on these subjects. If Ryan is so adamant about his beliefs, he should give up his cushy congressional health plan and fore go his federal pension.
Brindy posted at 3:42 pm on Wed, Nov 14, 2012.
Logical? Professor Ting was all over the place. There isn't one coherent paragraph in his article Instead, his screed, is likely the result of latent anger for being kicked out of the Republican Party in 2008.
O'Sullivan, Sean (August 2, 2008). "Delaware GOP's Ting pays price for supporting Obama". The News Journal (Delaware). Archived from the original on August 22, 2008. Retrieved December 29, 2010.
Arizona Willie posted at 3:02 pm on Wed, Nov 14, 2012.
Wow, rational logical thought in a featured article!!Take this article to heart Republicans, he is telling you the truth -- REAL truth not Faux News " truth "