US Presidential Election

[TheLionKing]

Who will win ?

[WestCoastJoe]

Hopefully opinions won't get hot here.

Barack Obama

Looks like a close election.

Bush vs Gore in 2000 came down to Florida, under dispute. Hanging chads. Settled in part by the Supreme Court. I hope that doesn't happen this time.

It will come down to the Electoral College. Obama might have an advantage there.

But the Republican Party is better at getting out their vote.

Armageddon if Romney wins? Nah ... But not much help for the weaker elements of society. Someone once said, paraphrasing, "What most clearly defines a society is how they care for those at the bottom."

Someone else said, "People get the government they deserve."

And Churchiil said: "Democracy is a terrible system, but it's better than all the others."
..........

Just read an article in the Globe and Mail extolling Canada's virtues relative to the United States, and the election today ...

Mentioned plutocracy. Had to look it up (again).

plu·toc·ra·cy
[ploo-tok-ruh-see] Show IPA

noun, plural plu·toc·ra·cies.
1.
the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.

2.
a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.

3.
a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.

That sounds like the platform of the Republican Party and Mitt Romney.

[prairielion]

For the sake of all Americans, I do hope that Obama does not get re-elected.

[Toppy Vann]

It is going to be a Barack Obama win and possibly a landslide.

Romney will be deemed a pariah and his political career OVER like Sarah Palin as the GOP will make it the night of the long knives fast. Even Karl Rove who called a Romney landslide is preparing the spin these past few days blaming it on Sandy.

Only got to wonder if voter suppression will work for the GOP but I think the guy who called (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com) Some rumours (NOT founded) that machines in some states are changing votes from Obama to Romney. This is not proven yet.


Obama Electoral Vote
313.0 (+14.0 since Oct. 30)

Romney
225.0 (-14.0 since Oct. 30)

Perhaps the most well-known of these aggregators is Nate Silver, who runs the FiveThirtyEight blog -- a reference to the total number of electoral votes available -- for The New York Times and who first established a reputation for accurate election modeling during the 2008 Democratic primaries, and then bolstered it by nailing 49 out of 50 states in that year's general election. This time around, Silver has forecast Obama's re-election consistently since launching the 2012 version of his so-called Political Calculus in June, relying on a complex recipe that starts with endless polls, weights them by historical accuracy, throws in a dash of economic indicators, sprinkles on some demographic data, and stirs it all together in order to run thousands of simulated elections.

But Silver has paid the price for bucking the ever-equivocating national polls. In recent weeks, Silver regularly pegged the odds of Obama winning at more than 70 percent (it's currently at 92.2 percent) -- even when Romney seemed to pull ahead for a time in national polling. Some began to mock Silver's methods, despite (or perhaps because of) his being thought of in Democratic circles as a genius, or a savant.

Silver, though, is a statistician, and to him, his numbers told everything he -- and his readers -- needed to know. "You may have noticed some pushback about our contention that Barack Obama is a favorite (and certainly not a lock) to be re-elected," he wrote on November 2. "I haven't come across too many analyses suggesting that Mitt Romney is the favorite. (There are exceptions.) But there are plenty of people who say that the race is a 'tossup.' What I find confounding about this is that the argument we're making is exceedingly simple. Here it is: Obama's ahead in Ohio."

[notahomer]

I agree with Churchill's perspective about democracy being a terrible system but still better than all the others. It looks like a great system, let the people have a say. But that doesn't happen a lot of times.

Also the one of the real weaknesses of democracy, IMO, is Politicians and Elected Officials (yes there is a difference) saying/doing things based on GETTING ELECTED/RE-ELECTED without really analyzing if what they are doing is good for the people they are hoping to serve....

I think Obama will win....

[prairielion]

Obama is likely to win, since he is the mainstream media darling. But based on ability to lead and the good of the whole country, Romney is a far superior choice. Not saying Mitt has no faults, but he is an experienced manager, and that's what the country needs is someone who can manage. Not a celebrity.

[South Pender]

My guess is that Obama will win, but narrowly. I'm personally hoping for this, but wouldn't be devastated if Romney were to win. First, I think we need to remember that neither guy is nearly as good as his party is portraying him, nor nearly as bad as the other party is claiming. Second, we need to recognize that whoever is elected President will be so severely constrained by the many many checks and balances imposed by requiring two houses of congress to agree on legislation that nothing extreme will be enacted and, in the final analysis, the next four years in the US will not be much different regardless of who is elected President. In this regard, what may be equally important will be the composition of, and majority party in, both the House and the Senate. If the House remains Republican and the Senate Democratic (how things look at this point), it's hard to see either man having success in getting much of anything done. So forget any nightmare scenarios of Romney abolishing Obamacare, and, unfortunately, forget any scenarios of Obama having any truly transformative accomplishments in his second term. I think David Brooks had it right in a recent column in the New York Times (and reprinted in the National Post, and possibly the Vancouver Sun) in which he said that little would be different between either presidency, but that Romney might be able to get a little more bipartisanship than Obama, who is viscerally hated by almost all Republicans. There also have been some opinion pieces by Canadian economists who belief that Romney would be a little better for Canada.

[Sir Purrcival]

I think I will just be glad when the damn thing is finally over. The colossal amount of $$ that go into these campaigns is obscenely wasteful. If they could have taken all the money that both campaigns have sunk into this election and applied it to constructive pursuits like school funding, infrastructure repair and what not, they could have easily accomplished some of their goals of improving the economy and decreasing unemployment. At least if Obama gets in, it will be 4 years of not worrying about the next election for him. He will be able to concentrate on the job of being president. If Romney gets in, in 2 years, he will have to start the process of seeking re-election one again.

[South Pender]

I think I will just be glad when the damn thing is finally over. The colossal amount of $$ that go into these campaigns is obscenely wasteful. If they could have taken all the money that both campaigns have sunk into this election and applied it to constructive pursuits like school funding, infrastructure repair and what not, they could have easily accomplished some of their goals of improving the economy and decreasing unemployment. At least if Obama gets in, it will be 4 years of not worrying about the next election for him. He will be able to concentrate on the job of being president. If Romney gets in, in 2 years, he will have to start the process of seeking re-election one again.

That's a good point. It's really awful, isn't it, that a whole year of a President's first term has to be devoted more to reelection than to actually doing his job. Another way in which our system in Canada is much better. Here, we have a 6-8-week run-up to the election, then it's done.

[TheLionKing]

Wonder if Mitt Romney is wearing his magic underwear today ?

[WestCoastJoe]

If Obama wins Florida and Ohio, IMO then it is a clear Obama win nationally.

As of 545 PDT, in Florida, with 59% in, Obama leads 51% to 49%. That would seem to show the Latino vote for Obama IMO.

In Ohio, with 22% in, Obama leads 58% to 41% over Romney.

These results are stronger so far than I expected for Obama.

Any Electoral Map will show Republican strength in the South, the Center and the SouthEast, aside from Florida, which is a tossup. The Democratic Party is strong in the West and the NorthEast.

With 59% in, Romney has a slim lead in North Carolina, 50% to 49%, a surprisingly strong showing for Obama, IMO.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/result ... pt=hp_t1_5

[Toppy Vann]

I am sticking with Nate Silver - who raised eyebrows with his "wanna bet" such that the NY Times editorial board had to write how that would be inappropriate. Silver blogs for them as well as has his own site - The 538 is the number of electoral votes.

What I find absolutely nuts is that the early exit polls show 62% of regular church goers are voting Romney. What ever happened to "What would Jesus do?" The Romer is not exactly the friend of the sick, crippled and downtrodden or the rest of the 47% of Americans. But then again the modern church seems to have lost its way and is far too politically motivated than caring about the weakest members of society.

One thing you didn't hear the radical right rant on about was war records this time. Obama was the wrong age and Romney evaded Vietnam by being a Mormon missionary in one of the worst places on earth - Paris! LOL. His family - boys - also won't serve as it against their religion. I have no problem with that but remember how the right attacked Clinton. The irony is that Romney sounds a bit like a loose cannon and might start a war none of his family would ever fight in due to faith. I find that hard to square.

Christians are voting large for the Senate candidates who said rape was God's will and if the woman gets pregnant - either the body repels or it is God's love child. Irony or stupidity or the churches have lost their way.

The funny thing about Romney''s pivot to the centre to out moderate Obama is those from Mass. who recalled Romney's Senate run vs liberal Ted Kennedy where he did the same. The folks from Mass. knew this guy would pull the lies out of the bag - they just didn't know it would be that first debate.


The other whacky thing is how they all love Romney like they did George Bush. My very fundamentalist aunt and uncle were huge G. Bush fans even for re-election as he was a "man of God." It would drive my parents nuts who while practicing their faith don't think along those lines.

[MikeAK]

It looks as though Romney didn't win any of his so called "homestates". That can't be good.

[Toppy Vann]

It looks as though Romney didn't win any of his so called "homestates". That can't be good.

I wouldn't read too much into those results as only Michigan was maybe in a bit of a play. Romney knew and didn't campaign or spend money in his now home state of Mass. as he was Governor there and not much liked as other than healthcare he seemed more in love with being Gov. than doing the job.

But I am still seeing Silver's live blog heading to over 300 electoral votes for Pres. Obama.

To me this is the character issue or lack thereof for Romney -

http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/ ... fing-bill/


NOTE: that the system in the quote below that says" Because they’re the same *frig* bill" in the real article actually has Prof. Gruber using the full work for frigging! That 's how much of a pants on fire liar Romney is.

Obamacare Architect on Romney: “It’s the same f’ing bill”
Posted by Admin in News, Other Articles on 06 30th, 2012 s

Jonathan Gruber, a key intellectual architect of President Obama’s overhaul of the American health care system, is a little frustrated.

Gruber, whose ideas also made up the landmark overhaul of health care in Massachusetts that was overseen by then-governor Mitt Romney, thinks that the Obama health care package would still be better than nothing if the mandate were removed, but said that it wouldn’t be nearly as effective. He explained that the requirement to buy insurance puts more healthy people into the overall pool, and that if companies are not allowed to screen for pre-existing conditions, which is one of the more popular aspects of the bill, consumers would simply buy health care once they’re sick, which would in turn drive up premiums.

“Zero difference,” he said. “This is, to my mind, the most blatantly obvious case of politics trumping policy I’ve ever seen in my life. Because this is an idea, that four or five years ago, Republicans were touting. A guy from the Heritage Foundation spoke at the bill signing in Massachusetts about how good this bill was.”

He credited Mitt Romney for not totally disavowing the Massachusetts bill during his presidential campaign, but said Romney’s attempt to distinguish between Obama’s bill and his own is disingenuous.

“The problem is there is no way to say that,” Gruber said. “Because they’re the same *frig* bill. He just can’t have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know, it’s the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he’s just lying. The only big difference is he didn’t have to pay for his. Because the federal government paid for it. Where at the federal level, we have to pay for it, so we have to raise taxes.”

[TheLionKing]

I think Florida might go to the Democrats. Obama is leading. Bad news for the Republicans is that most of their support has already reported in.