The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on September 19, 2014, 11:14:16 AM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025558206
Oh my.
And yes, I was surprised, and enormously gratified, the way the vote went; I'm now sort of mildly cautiously optimistic about the mid-term elections here.
MohRokTah (4,230 posts) Fri Sep 19, 2014, 08:21 AM
So for what was supposed to be a "close race"...
The Scottish Independence vote turned out to have No win in a landslide of 55.3% to 44.7%.
This tells me pollsters and pundits the world over have no ****ing clue what's going to happen. This should have been a foregone conclusion.
aikoaiko (19,463 posts) Fri Sep 19, 2014, 08:25 AM
1. That's really not a landslide, but the polling was off.
Uh, "landslide" is usually defined as one side getting 55% or more of the vote.
In case the primitives have forgotten, the elder George Bush in 1988 was the last American president elected in a landslide.
CJCRANE (15,714 posts) Fri Sep 19, 2014, 08:28 AM
3. You assume that every voter had a firm opinion. This had never been done before in Scotland.
There were a lot of unknowns and the "No" campaign made a lot of last minute promises.
MohRokTah (4,230 posts) Fri Sep 19, 2014, 09:47 AM
13. Anything with more than a 10% difference is a landslide.
^^^right.
aikoaiko (19,463 posts) Fri Sep 19, 2014, 09:52 AM
16. maybe to some people.
No, to people who know what they're talking about.
CJCRANE (15,714 posts) Fri Sep 19, 2014, 08:26 AM
2. Not necessarily.
It's possible a lot of peope changed their minds at the last minute.
There were also a bunch of undecideds who may have swung a particular way at the last minute.
There were a lot of swings and turns in the campaign especially in the last week.
But the "No" vote was always ahead in most of the polls.
JI7 (48,177 posts) Fri Sep 19, 2014, 08:32 AM
4. I think some who supported independence didn't
Come out to vote.
They got scared of economic troubles which might result. But they also didn't want to vote against independence because in their heart it's what they want.
Given the turnout, <<<doesn't think many Scots were "scared" to come out and vote.
MohRokTah (4,230 posts) Fri Sep 19, 2014, 09:48 AM
14. This was the largest Scottish turnout for an election since 1951.
^^^knows what's talking about.
socialist_n_TN (10,348 posts) Fri Sep 19, 2014, 08:33 AM
5. Well, it WAS a pretty radical proposition.....
I could see a situation where a goodly number of people flirted with the idea and then decided that it was a little TOO radical for comfort.
From just a cursory reading of the situation, it seemed a lot of the impetus towards separation was because of the neo-liberal agenda of both the Tories AND Labour in London. When there seems to be no other way out, radical solutions get considered. One thing to take away from this is that the radical solution WAS seriously considered, even if it was rejected. This time.
Personally I think the Scots need to consider the more permanent solution, a socialist Great Britain as a whole.
As if the U.K.'s not already socialist?
MH1 (13,685 posts) Fri Sep 19, 2014, 08:33 AM
6. Well ... I think people started to think about the unknown consequences, and
reverted to the conservative* option, which was the "no" vote. Why jump into something new that you don't understand, when you're okay with the status quo? People start thinking of "what ifs" and "what would happen with x", realize they don't know, and decide they don't want to make the change.
* by conservative, I mean the non-political meaning, as in "resistant to change; choosing what seems to be the safer course rather than an option with more potential upside". Not being Scottish I have no idea what the political alignments were.
The political alignment was that the primitives wanted independence.
Too bad for the primitives.
CK_John (6,751 posts) Fri Sep 19, 2014, 08:34 AM
7. Your missing the great secret, 10-12% change their minds in the polling booth.
So the polls are only good up until the day before the election.
I would advocate doing away with them but they provide jobs and provide hours and hours of entrainment for keyboard pundits.
HereSince1628 (28,757 posts) Fri Sep 19, 2014, 08:45 AM
8. Considering it's a question allowing only 2 sides...that's actually a 5% difference.
I would think any society that has a 85% turnout and you end up with a decision hanging on a 5% swing would recognize it has a serious concern needing to be addressed.
We are trained to see these things in terms of winning and losing, but that's not the only way to perceive it.
Look at it as public opinion. 45% of Scots don't want some aspect of the historic union. That level of objection can't be swept under the rug, it's got to be addressed. And when the UK addresses it, Northern Ireland, Wales, as well as Scotland will be looking for broad application of the fixes. The UK is pretty much going to have to change the way it treats its constituent members or admit it doesn't give a damn about such a large proportion of dissatisfaction. The later is a low fire perfect for simmering unrest.
randome (22,251 posts) Fri Sep 19, 2014, 08:53 AM
9. What will be just as interesting on DU...
...is the disappointment of some who thought independence at any cost was a referendum on the rest of the world. This was a Scottish/U.K. matter, nothing more.
hfojvt (34,869 posts) Fri Sep 19, 2014, 08:57 AM
10. 55-45 is pretty close
I'd feel more comfortable at 60-40 or 65-35.
65-35 would be a landslide. 55-45 is not.
"55-45" is not pretty close; it's a wide chasm.
But I'd feel more comfortable if it'd been much wider, like 80-20 or 90-10.
MineralMan (67,067 posts) Fri Sep 19, 2014, 09:42 AM
12. Well, not a landslide, but decisive.
Personally, I think what it demonstrates is that people faced with a major decision that involves significant change, tend to vote to stay on the current path. That's one of the reasons that elections in the US, too, are often close. From the perspective of most DUers, change is a desirable thing. That isn't the opinion of the majority of people who vote, though, in most races and most places.
So, in Scotland, roughly 45% of the people who voted did vote for change. That wasn't enough for the change to occur, which is what happens in democratic elections. The majority voted to stick with the current arrangement. That's not surprising, really.
There really is no 99%, when it comes to things like elections. In most societies, people are about evenly divided on issues that mean significant changes. Sometimes they vote for the change, but more often they do not.
Those are the political realities. They aren't always satisfactory for those who want major changes. By insisting that only those significant changes will do, we often end up getting no change at all. That's the risk. When people will be voting on for change, incremental changes are easier to achieve most of the time.
^^^has no idea the scientific definition of "landslide."
-
Damn it, I had to look it up, finding myself wrong about Bush in 1988.
It depends upon whether one's looking at total vote, or just the vote between the (R) and the (D), no other parties.
In the total vote:
2012
0bama 51.1% -- the Bostonian Drunkard once called this a "landslide"
Romney 47.2
2008
0bama 52.9
McCain 45.7
2004
Kerry 48.3
Bush 50.7
2000
Gore 48.4 -- includes, of course, votes created out of thin air by the machine bosses
Bush 47.9
1996
Clinton 49.2
Dole 40.7
1992
Clinton 43.0
Bush 37.4
1988
Dukakis 45.6
Bush 53.4
1984
Mondale 40.6
Reagan 58.5
1980
Carter 41.0
Reagan 50.7
1976
Carter 50.1
Ford 48.0
1972
McGovern 37.5
Nixon 60.7
1968
Humphrey 42.7
Nixon 43.4
1964
Johnson 61.1
Goldwater 38.5
1960
Kennedy 49.7
Nixon 49.5
-
2012
0bama 51.1% -- the Bostonian Drunkard once called this a "landslide"
Romney 47.2
Thus why the primitives are unreliable when it comes to truth and accuracy. When it's in their favor then .0000000001% is a landslide. When not, even 20%-30% are close races.
.
-
JI7 (48,177 posts) Fri Sep 19, 2014, 08:32 AM
4. I think some who supported independence didn't
Come out to vote.
They got scared of economic troubles which might result...
That's the same as saying they like the sound of the idea but they refuse to put it into practice -- which is essentially: No.
-
Ha ha......yesterday they were rooting for independence.
If you ever want to know if something is wrong, just go to the DUmp to see who/what they are for.... :rofl:
-
It wasn't going to happen... too much money involved.
-
Thus why the primitives are unreliable when it comes to truth and accuracy. When it's in their favor then .0000000001% is a landslide. When not, even 20%-30% are close races.
You might, or might not, remember when we were at our old home, that Atman alleged Clinton had won in 1992 and 1996 by Reaganesque landslides.
The fact of the matter is, Clinton's been the only two-term president who didn't win at least one election by a majority of votes. He's the only one, a minority president both times.
-
It wasn't going to happen... too much money involved.
I'm appalled that 45% of the Scots aren't aware of their history.
Before 1707, Scotland was a backwater, a then-equivalent of a third-world small country. A very tiny country (in population); about one-eighth the population of England at the time.
If one looks at the great British statesmen, politicians, businessmen, explorers and settlers, military geniuses, academicians, prominent religious figures, artists, writers, scientists, &c., &c., &c., since 1707, it's obvious Scotland took over England.
If I were English, I'd get pissed off about the white male Scots privilege this minority enjoys.
-
So the Occupy Scotland crazies hoped that allowing 16- and 17-year-old kids to vote would help them destroy Britain.
Didn't work.
Nevertheless, in no time the democrat crazies here will be agitating for the same thing.
-
You might, or might not, remember when we were at our old home, that Atman alleged Clinton had won in 1992 and 1996 by Reaganesque landslides.
McGrath has said a lot of stupid things over the years, frank. I think that one might have gotten lost in the background noise.
-
Before 1707, Scotland was a backwater, a then-equivalent of a third-world small country. A very tiny country (in population); about one-eighth the population of England at the time.
I have Scottish ancestors. They were good fighters. Mine came over with the British for the French Indian wars. They stayed then went to Canada. I'm assuming that's because they were loyalists at the time.
-
So the Occupy Scotland crazies hoped that allowing 16- and 17-year-old kids to vote would help them destroy Britain.
Didn't work.
Nevertheless, in no time the democrat crazies here will be agitating for the same thing.
If they want to take a little chunk of the country and attempt their utopia, i'm all for it as long as they leave us normal people alone.
-
If they want to take a little chunk of the country and attempt their utopia, i'm all for it as long as they leave us normal people alone.
I'm all for that.
-
Make sure it's below sea level. Fill it with water.
-
If they want to take a little chunk of the country and attempt their utopia, i'm all for it as long as they leave us normal people alone.
What I meant was the DUmmies trying to lower the voting age to sixteen.
Kids that age will still believe whatever their union schoolteacher tells them.
The younger (dumber) the voter, the more likely a democrat vote.
-
Make sure it's below sea level. Fill it with water.
You know, the primitives include among their icons some of the biggest "re-settlers" in the history of the world, socialist dictators who forcibly moved populations around--and so I'm sure the primitives would have no problem with my idea.
It's to collect and shove all the primitives into the state of Vermont, and then to dump all the nuclear waste that's been dumped on environmentally-fragile Nevada the past several decades--Vermont's already irretrievably ruined anyway--and cutting its moorings with New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York, floating the state through the St. Lawrence Seaway out to the Atlantic Ocean.....after which the primitives can vote on something.
To dock the state at Cuba, or at North Korea?
-
I'm all for that.
Move them all to Kommiefornia, its fooked anyway.
-
You know, the primitives include among their icons some of the biggest "re-settlers" in the history of the world, socialist dictators who forcibly moved populations around--and so I'm sure the primitives would have no problem with my idea.
It's to collect and shove all the primitives into the state of Vermont, and then to dump all the nuclear waste that's been dumped on environmentally-fragile Nevada the past several decades--Vermont's already irretrievably ruined anyway--and cutting its moorings with New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York, floating the state through the St. Lawrence Seaway out to the Atlantic Ocean.....after which the primitives can vote on something.
To dock the state at Cuba, or at North Korea?
New York's pretty much at least two states anyway.
-
Personally I think the Scots need to consider the more permanent solution, a socialist Great Britain as a whole.
(D)Ummie thinking sOcIaLisM!!!! is the permanent answer. Until it fails, inevitably. Then, the right people can do it. Again....and again......and again.....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025558206
As if the U.K.'s not already socialist?
I can't think of too many places more Socialist. Hey, (D)Ummies....they've got your single payer HHS nightmare....what else do you want?
"55-45" is not pretty close; it's a wide chasm.
But I'd feel more comfortable if it'd been much wider, like 80-20 or 90-10.
For Yes or For No? You don't want Scottish Independence?
^^^has no idea the scientific definition of "landslide."
Obviously.
Ha ha......yesterday they were rooting for independence.
That's what I thought......
-
You might, or might not, remember when we were at our old home, that Atman alleged Clinton had won in 1992 and 1996 by Reaganesque landslides.
The fact of the matter is, Clinton's been the only two-term president who didn't win at least one election by a majority of votes. He's the only one, a minority president both times.
..and they wonder why we think they are diseased imbeciles. Never achieved 50% of the vote, primitives. Bank it. The science is settled.
-
What I meant was the DUmmies trying to lower the voting age to sixteen.
Kids that age will still believe whatever their union schoolteacher tells them.
The younger (dumber) the voter, the more likely a democrat vote.
Course they will. 80% + are living La Dolce Vita de Socialista on the parents dime. A politician promising fReEsHiTeLeBiNty!!!!! would be their new God.
I would think the same way had I not had parents that, while paying for all the essentials until 18, pounded Conservative reality into myself and my siblings at the same time. Still, it took til about 24-25 before the light bulb firmly glowed bright and I realized that they were absolutely correct. The (D)Ullards' problem is...no bulb.
-
I would think the same way had I not had parents that, while paying for all the essentials until 18, pounded Conservative reality into myself and my siblings at the same time. Still, it took til about 24-25 before the light bulb firmly glowed bright and I realized that they were absolutely correct. The (D)Ullards' problem is...no bulb.
I grew up in a Democrat home. Although looking back, my parents were conservatives by today's standards. I was a registered Dem for a few years, but I didn't particularly vote for the things they were pushing and eventually changed parties. My sis did too.
-
According to exit polls, over seventy percent of sixteen- and seventeen-year-old children voted to destroy the United Kingdom.
Of course, in 2012 over half the electorate here voted to destroy the United States.
-
I'm appalled that 45% of the Scots aren't aware of their history.
Before 1707, Scotland was a backwater, a then-equivalent of a third-world small country. A very tiny country (in population); about one-eighth the population of England at the time.
If one looks at the great British statesmen, politicians, businessmen, explorers and settlers, military geniuses, academicians, prominent religious figures, artists, writers, scientists, &c., &c., &c., since 1707, it's obvious Scotland took over England.
If I were English, I'd get pissed off about the white male Scots privilege this minority enjoys.
Scotland or Alba made UK a powerhouse. It led the world in manufacturing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/7219799.stm
The Famous Grouse is made in Scotland. Rock ptarmigans or in UK ptarmigan makes its home in the Cairngorm Mountains.
http://www.rspb.org.uk/discoverandenjoynature/discoverandlearn/birdguide/name/p/ptarmigan/
The ptarmigans and red grouse have called Scotland home for millenia and have prevailed in spite of many changes in history. They will always be for the UK no matter what. It is their home and they will defend it. They fought valiantly against all enemies.
-
If I were English, I'd get pissed off about the white male Scots privilege this minority enjoys.
Plenty of us are getting pissed off about it.
Had England alone voted in 2010 we'd have had a Conservative (Party) government, whilst this is very far from real conservatism (so much so that I spoilt my ballot paper) it would still be miles ahead of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition which we've ended up with.
The old saying is that the problem with socialism is that one runs out of other people's money - Scotland's socialism has been running on England's money for years, and that looks to continue.
-
Plenty of us are getting pissed off about it.
Had England alone voted in 2010 we'd have had a Conservative (Party) government, whilst this is very far from real conservatism (so much so that I spoilt my ballot paper) it would still be miles ahead of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition which we've ended up with.
The old saying is that the problem with socialism is that one runs out of other people's money - Scotland's socialism has been running on England's money for years, and that looks to continue.
I've always found it amusing, that the general perception of the English seems to be that they want to run everything; that they've run roughshod over the Welsh, the Irish, the Scots.
There hasn't, for example, been an English king (or queen) of England since Richard III in 1483-1485; they've been Welsh, and then Scots, and then German, and now Scots again.