Who do you think will win the US presidential election?

See, that's better.

I wouldn't venture to guess who will win. I can envision all manner of scenarios that might play out resulting in a win for either one of them.

That said, whichever of them wins doesn't matter much to me, as there is not much difference between the two of them from my perspective.

From Earth, Sirius and Canis Major look to be right next to each other, though they are actually many light years apart.  Jazz, if you can't see the differences between Obama and Romney, the problem is your perspective is completely out of whack.

Conservatives will likely win either way.

If Romney wins, there will likely be real, substantial action on the U.S. national debt, forced by Congress.

If Romney loses, that will make it two establishment moderates in a row that will have failed miserably.

The conservative wing of the party will be at the helm in 2016.

I think Obama will win. In a close race you have to assume the incumbent will win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack 

I think Obama will win. In a close race you have to assume the incumbent will win.

That's inaccurate.  Undecideds break towards the challenger.  Also, Obama has a very serious problem with early voting.  Democrats typically lead early voting.  In OH, his early vote margin was the margin of victory in the election.  With additional GOP early voting (+75,000 v. 2008) and less Dem voting (-180,000 vs. 2008), that lead is gone.  And the GOP will definitely turnout better on election day.  They even did that in 2008.  OH is going for Romney.  

PS:  Did you see the pictures of "RNC II" in West Chester, OH?  30,000 people showed up.  There's another rally expected to be that size in Yardley, PA.  

Here is my prediction map:  Note that OH is not the lynchpin.  Romney can actually lose both PA and OH and still win, as long as he wins the other swing states and WI.   Not sure why it's coming out black and white...it's not a black and white file.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

If Romney wins, there will likely be real, substantial action on the U.S. national debt, forced by Congress.

 

Nah, if Romney wins, it will be just as with George W. Republicans will instantly stop caring about the debt, while insisting that they do care. Tax cuts that will supposedly mythically increase revenues will be jammed through, and the debt will grow, grow, grow. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

That's inaccurate.  Undecideds break towards the challenger.  Also, Obama has a very serious problem with early voting.  Democrats typically lead early voting.  In OH, his early vote margin was the margin of victory in the election.  With additional GOP early voting (+75,000 v. 2008) and less Dem voting (-180,000 vs. 2008), that lead is gone.  And the GOP will definitely turnout better on election day.  They even did that in 2008.  OH is going for Romney.  

 

PS:  Did you see the pictures of "RNC II" in West Chester, OH?  30,000 people showed up.  There's another rally expected to be that size in Yardley, PA.  

Yea I've been reading up on the early voting numbers. Suffice to say that if Romney wins I'll be mildly shocked and of Obama wins it will be what I expect.

I see it as too close to call. You might as well flip a coin, and I certainly wouldn't wager any money on the outcome. If I was going to wager on something, I'll just play poker, as that gives me far better odds. We'll see what happens on Tuesday. I know who I'd like to see lose, but that is not what the poll is asking.

I am prepared for either outcome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack 

Yea I've been reading up on the early voting numbers. Suffice to say that if Romney wins I'll be mildly shocked and of Obama wins it will be what I expect.

I'm not sure how you can conclude that if you're looking at early voting.  Obama is underperforming by HUGE margins vs. 2008.  GOP early voting is way, way ahead.  Remember, early voting is how Dems win elections.  Right now they are losing early voting nationally, and underperforming locally.  

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

I see it as too close to call. You might as well flip a coin, and I certainly wouldn't wager any money on the outcome. If I was going to wager on something, I'll just play poker, as that gives me far better odds. We'll see what happens on Tuesday. I know who I'd like to see lose, but that is not what the poll is asking.

 

I am prepared for either outcome.

I'm not.  I think Obama is an absolute disaster.  I am going to be legitimately upset and highly disappointed if he wins.  I somehow can't believe we'd be so stupid as a nation to reelect this guy.  I'm hopeful we're not.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I'm not.  I think Obama is an absolute disaster.  I am going to be legitimately upset and highly disappointed if he wins.  I somehow can't believe we'd be so stupid as a nation to reelect this guy.  I'm hopeful we're not.  

I agree that Obama is an absolute disaster.

I do somehow believe that we are that stupid and ignorant, as a whole of course. Not all of us are.

I bet that even many of the people in New York right now, scavenging in garbage bins for food, with no electricity, no water, with their houses lost, with looters prowling at night, are the same liberals who blamed Bush for Katrina, the same liberals who voted for nanny Bloomberg, and the same people who will give Obama a pass on everything, and they're the same morons who will be voting for Obama again. Even many of the people who are totally unemployed will be voting for Obama again, as many of them just want free handouts and free Obamaphones. Plus, there's also the issue of most of the media being totally in the tank for Obama. They might as well be working for his campaign.

I do of course believe that there is hope, and Romney definitely stands a good chance of winning, but I am certainly not going to call it one way or the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

Fivethirtyeight:

 

Obama now has an 83.7% chance of winning

 

303 to 232 electoral votes  (+10 and -10 respectively since October)

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com

 

They have a run down of the swing state polls released Friday.

I love how certain people claim that he's never been wrong, as if he's been around for ages predicting things. He's been right how many times? Oh, one time? 

He also got the 2010 elections wrong.

If Obama were to lose, the best thing that would come out of that is Obama losing of course.

But the second best thing would be that it would also be the end of that liberal shill's career. He used to blog on the radical, left-wing, trashy Daily Kos site. The guy is merely an Obama cheerleader and propagandist, now writing for the extremely left-wing NYT.

A lot of liberals are going to be devastated if Obama were to lose. Some of them will even blow their brains out. If I recall correctly, there was one liberal who blew their brains out at ground zero after Bush got re-elected in 2004. Expect more of the same this time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

Fivethirtyeight now has Obama with an 85.1% chance of winning.

 

Must really drive some people nuts.  Sadly, it might make others passive.

Quite honestly, tho I don't favor current policies in many cases, I do hope Mr. Obama wins this election. The danger of a Republican win is that with so many traps already set for the next Presidency, items beyond their control (Medicare recipient cost increase, penalties for not buying health insurance, tax code changes) whichever party wins may not have a realistic chance of winning again for a long time. The Democrats put these into play, so let them own 'em rather than bogus-ly blaming the Republicans when they're triggered right on schedule (and by design) after the elections.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

Quite honestly, tho I don't favor current policies in many cases, I do hope Mr. Obama wins this election. The danger of a Republican win is that with so many traps already set for the next Presidency, items beyond their control (Medicare recipient cost increase, penalties for not buying health insurance, tax code changes) whichever party wins may not have a realistic chance of winning again for a long time. The Democrats put these into play, so let them own 'em rather than bogus-ly blaming the Republicans when they're triggered right on schedule (and by design) after the elections.

You just wait and see. If Obama were to win, which certainly is possible, and when things continue going to shit, which they will, him and the democrats and liberal loons will still be blaming Bush, even in Obama's second term.

It is a really sad indictment of the general state of the nation, and the "awareness" of the public, to find myself rooting for a man - Obama - for whom I have a profound disrespect, on account of his lies and betrayals. The alternative - Romney - is, if that can be possible, even worse. Germany faced a similar situation in the 1930s.

And as regards the mechanics of the election process: If we had a civilized electoral system, with election campaigns that lasted two months instead of two years (!), with public funding, proportional representation, hard copy paper ballets (no computers involved) with a verified means of recounts in close calls, and having a national HOLIDAY on election day, then democracy in America might be in with a chance of maintaining/surviving, perhaps even getting stronger. But no, we're too hidebound by stupid, idiotic, fucking, traditions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

It is a really sad indictment of the general state of the nation, and the "awareness" of the public, to find myself rooting for a man - Obama - for whom I have a profound disrespect, on account of his lies and betrayals. The alternative - Romney - is, if that can be possible, even worse. Germany faced a similar situation in the 1930s.

 

And as regards the mechanics of the election process: If we had a civilized electoral system, with election campaigns that lasted two months instead of two years (!), with public funding, proportional representation, hard copy paper ballets (no computers involved) with a verified means of recounts in close calls, and having a national HOLIDAY on election day, then democracy in America might be in with a chance of maintaining/surviving, perhaps even getting stronger. But no, we're too hidebound by stupid, idiotic, fucking, traditions.

How exactly would "proportional representation" work?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

And as regards the mechanics of the election process: If we had a civilized electoral system...

I think you're sounding a little off the rails when you claim the electoral system we have right now is uncivilized. It might not be to your liking, and it may have certain disadvantages to be sure, but uncivilized?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

...with public funding...

So you want the State to steal money the populous (presumably more from the rich of course) in order to pay for people to campaign for how they are going to steal more money from the populous? Seems odd. I vote no for taxpayer funded elections.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

...with election campaigns that lasted two months instead of two years (!)...

So you want to restrict campaign speech to a certain period of time?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

...then democracy in America might be in with a chance of maintaining/surviving, perhaps even getting stronger...

Ohhh. It's democracy you want? Well then I'm opposed to all of those things if it will maintain or strengthen democracy. We don't need democracy, we need liberty. These are not the same thing. The best pathway to liberty might be a written constitution that everyone follows regardless of what the voters whims are at any given time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

But no, we're too hidebound by stupid, idiotic, fucking, traditions.

Which traditions are these? Let me guess, you don't like the Electoral College because you think it is an outdated and antiquated thing (as is if were some kind of technology that becomes obsolete) rather than a deliberately implemented process that has already been subverted by allowing the people to elect the president in the first place.

I think sammi should be taxed to pay for Palin's election.

A couple of articles that remind everyone that Nate Silver isn't a perfect prognosticator.

Tarnished Silver

On Polling Models

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

When the election process involves the mandate for $billions of dollars to be thrown into...

You are looking at the symptom and think it is the disease. The problem is that the government has so much power that people are willing to spend years and billions trying to gain control of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

A two month publicly funded campaign would be chicken feed compared to the ridiculous two-year-campaign-status-quo. Perhaps those elected to work for we the people may have some time to do that work, instead of being distracted by the constant burden of taking off time to fund raise for the next campaign.

Yes, I'm sure it will happen that way. Sammi, wishful thinking isn't going to get this country where it should go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

The formal election campaign should be no more than two months. That doesn't restrict anyone's first amendment rights

It certainly would if your plan attempts to restrict anything that looks like "formal election" activity outside of those two months? How exactly would you define this "formal election" period?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

Yeah, I know the difference between liberty and democracy. The kind of liberty that we now have is more akin to the liberty to choose between 100 brands of breakfast cereal. The kind of democracy we now have is the best that money can buy, courtesy of a system that only includes those with access to billions of dollars.

I don't think you get it. Democracy is simply another pathway to tyranny. We don't need democracy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

Shame that the huge majority of our elected representatives have voted almost unanimously to trash the liberties that really count.

Yes it is a terrible shame. But often it is done in the spirit of the will of the people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

The Electoral College was set up when the US was a very different animal to what it is now.

That's not really an argument against it. One of the reasons it was setup was to avoid direct election of the president. That was probably a good idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

The bottom line, is that nothing is going to change. The system is owned by the Democrats and the Republicans... and to change things on behalf of the electorate requires Democratic and Republican lawmakers to make modifications that will weaken their own stranglehold on the system.

I agree. Short of a revolution or a systematic collapse...both of which may be in the not too distant future, nothing will change.

I've said this before, but the quickest way to ignite a new American Civil War is to drop the Electoral College.

When the American President is chosen on election night by New York and California, and the small and middle American states truly become 'flyover country' that does not matter, the country will unravel. Period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

I've said this before, but the quickest way to ignite a new American Civil War is to drop the Electoral College.

 

When the American President is chosen on election night by New York and California, and the small and middle American states truly become 'flyover country' that does not matter, the country will unravel. Period.

You are probably right. When you look at the electoral map, it seems more and more clear that there are two Americas. It's possible that a splitting of those two might not be a bad thing, presuming it could happen peacefully.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

 and having a national HOLIDAY on election day

Forgot to point this out, but this is an insanely bad idea. Giving the day off work pretty much turns election day into a long weekend for many.

And the Tuesday will become travel-home-day, meaning less people will actually go out to vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

Forgot to point this out, but this is an insanely bad idea. Giving the day off work pretty much turns election day into a long weekend for many.

 

And the Tuesday will become travel-home-day, meaning less people will actually go out to vote.

Hadn't thought about that, but it's a good point.

Fact is that with early and mail in voting, anyone who wants to vote has very little excuse.

I'd be fascinated to see how much these things have affected turn out. Probably not much though. The thing that affects turnout is how seriously people consider the choice of President.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

The media (what I get is CNN, BBC, some CBS and Japanese networks) is foaming about how close the election is.  Ensures people will watch.

 

- - - - -

 

Fivethirtyeight, though, continues to slog through data and now has Obama with an 86.3% chance of winning (of course if people actually go and vote).  307 electoral.

 

Of course, this is from a commie socialist liberal anti-American who works for an elite liberal media company, so I guess it is meaningless, but it will irritate the heck of some real Amercians.

 

These are predictions based on polling data.  That does not mean they are 100% correct.  But, if they are wrong, expect the Right to shout it out from the mountain tops till eternity.

 

 - - - - -

 

Am debating staying up tomorrow night (we are 14 hours ahead of NYC) to watch the results as they happen, but I don't know if I can stand watching news casters and pundits babble for more than an hour at a stretch.

538.com continues to slog through TOP LINE data. It ignores the underlying data and trends that the polls point to like voter enthusiam, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Hadn't thought about that, but it's a good point.

 

Fact is that with early and mail in voting, anyone who wants to vote has very little excuse.

 

I'd be fascinated to see how much these things have affected turn out. Probably not much though. The thing that affects turnout is how seriously people consider the choice of President.

I think low voter turnout has much to do with general lack of interest and even ignorance, but I also think many do not vote because they genuinely don't support any of the choices before them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

I think low voter turnout has much to do with general lack of interest and even ignorance...

To paraphrase a great character: "A lot of ignorant people do an awful lot of voting."

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

To paraphrase a great character: "A lot of ignorant people do an awful lot of voting."

Touché.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

 

Forgot to point this out, but this is an insanely bad idea. Giving the day off work pretty much turns election day into a long weekend for many.

 

And the Tuesday will become travel-home-day, meaning less people will actually go out to vote.

Point taken. But whats so goddamned sacred about Tuesday? Its so *arbitrary*. Make polling day Monday, and lets have a long weekend of it. Or failing that, perhaps hold the election on a Saturday or Sunday. Isn't election day an important enough event to warrant a day in recognition of it? A presidential election happens but once every 4 years, or just 15 times in an average voting lifespan, so its not exactly as if its going to be a huge problem for the economy... We have national holidays in recognition of certain religious observances that are not even relevant to many people. 

On reflection, since those in Congress and the White House do not properly represent we the people when it comes to practicalities, maybe Election Day (certainly at the national level) really isn't that important after all... the outcome, regardless of the winner, will always be some form of neo-corporatism - with the current system we have in place.

Democracy, as I am sure MJ1970 would concur, has been described as "the rule of jackasses by jackals". How about we abandon it altogether and have an oligarchy or plutocracy? Oh wait... we're already there. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

Democracy, as I am sure MJ1970 would concur, has been described as "the rule of jackasses by jackals". How about we abandon it altogether and have an oligarchy or plutocracy? Oh wait... we're already there. 

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.