or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Who do you think will win the US presidential election?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Who do you think will win the US presidential election? - Page 2

Poll Results: Who will win?

Poll expired: Nov 6, 2012  
  • 88% (15)
    Obama
  • 11% (2)
    Romney
17 Total Votes  
post #41 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

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.

 

You seem to be assuming a couple of things that may not be valid:

 

  1. The limitation of voting to one day (a Tuesday...employers are generally required to allow people time to go to vote and it really isn't so limited to one day any more) is a key factor in turn out.
  2. That the people who make and change the laws (in general, let alone around election rules) actually want more people to vote.
  3. That more people voting would fundamentally change the results we keep getting.

 

I think all three of those are dubious assumptions.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #42 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

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. 

 

So what do we do then? What is the solution? We tried a constitutional republic in this country where the rulers were to be constrained by a written constitution (lol.gif) but that doesn't seem to have worked. What do we do? How do we solve this problem?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #43 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

So what do we do then? What is the solution? We tried a constitutional republic in this country where the rulers were to be constrained by a written constitution (lol.gif) but that doesn't seem to have worked. What do we do? How do we solve this problem?

 

Perhaps the real question is how do we get enough people to realize that it's a problem that needs solving?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #44 of 65
im from the uk, but id hope obama wins 1smile.gif
post #45 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Perhaps the real question is how do we get enough people to realize that it's a problem that needs solving?

 

True. They say that the first step is admitting you have a problem. I'm not sure most people see the problem or, if they do, they don't all agree on what the real problem actually is. Naturally, these will be impediments to solving the problem.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #46 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

So what do we do then? What is the solution? We tried a constitutional republic in this country where the rulers were to be constrained by a written constitution (lol.gif) but that doesn't seem to have worked. What do we do? How do we solve this problem?

 

Perhaps the real question is how do we get enough people to realize that it's a problem that needs solving?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Perhaps the real question is how do we get enough people to realize that it's a problem that needs solving?

 

True. They say that the first step is admitting you have a problem. I'm not sure most people see the problem or, if they do, they don't all agree on what the real problem actually is. Naturally, these will be impediments to solving the problem.

 

 

Hey this sounds like our "How do you get the drunk out of the bar first?" issue we discussed several weeks ago.1biggrin.gif

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #47 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Hey this sounds like our "How do you get the drunk out of the bar first?" issue we discussed several weeks ago.1biggrin.gif

 

I must have missed that one. Good analogy. Don't know the answer. At some point you expect some responsible behavior from the bartender to stop serving. But he, generally, does not have much incentive to do so until the drunk becomes so disruptive and belligerent that he has little choice and, besides, the drunk will go to another bar anyway.

 

Then I'm not sure who the drunk and the bartender/bar are.

 

1wink.gif

 

What conclusion did you come to?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #48 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I must have missed that one. Good analogy. Don't know the answer. At some point you expect some responsible behavior from the bartender to stop serving. But he, generally, does not have much incentive to do so until the drunk becomes so disruptive and belligerent that he has little choice and, besides, the drunk will go to another bar anyway.

 

Then I'm not sure who the drunk and the bartender/bar are.

 

1wink.gif

 

What conclusion did you come to?

 

I believe in our discussion the drunk represented the state of our country.

 

trumpt argued that Romney would at least get the drunk out of the bar or move things in that direction.

 

From my point of view, Romney would offer to buy the drunk a light beer instead of hard liquor and claim it made a monumental difference.

 

I don't think we defined who the bartender was, but you raise a great point: who/what does the bartender represent and why aren't they taking some responsibility and refusing to serve the drunk?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #49 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

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.

Remember that fiftythirtyeight is a very democratically biased survey. Not that I am in favor of an idiot winning the election (Romney). I will not be participating in this conversation anymore.

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #50 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by logandigges View Post

Not that I am in favor of an idiot winning the election

 

That's about the only thing we can be 100% certain of...an idiot will win the election.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #51 of 65

Reality does have a liberal bias, if that's what you mean.  Otherwise, no, Nate Silver isn't coloring the statistics.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #52 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

I believe in our discussion the drunk represented the state of our country.

 

trumpt argued that Romney would at least get the drunk out of the bar or move things in that direction.

 

From my point of view, Romney would offer to buy the drunk a light beer instead of hard liquor and claim it made a monumental difference.

 

I don't think we defined who the bartender was, but you raise a great point: who/what does the bartender represent and why aren't they taking some responsibility and refusing to serve the drunk?

 

Now my head hurts. Thanks for that!

 

1wink.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #53 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

That's about the only thing we can be 100% certain of...an idiot will win the election.

 

Now that's completely ignorant.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #54 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Reality does have a liberal bias, if that's what you mean.  Otherwise, no, Nate Silver isn't coloring the statistics.

 

I don't see how you can look at polls that show D+11 turnout (and a tie) and conclude they are accurate.  I don't see how you look at state polls with Dem+6 sampling when the state is widely expected to go R+1 to R+3 and conclude Obama wins the state.  It's nothing more than the Obama Mania Media and its puppet masters in the campaign trying to douse GOP turnout, which is going to be a tsunami.  I'm telling you...look at the correctly sampled polls.  Romney is tied in PA and WI, up in OH, MI, NH, VA, FL and Minn.  Even Gallup is underestimating turnout (they have the race 49-48 Romney, but the sample is only R+1.  The race is more like 52-48 Romney.  

 

I'd also ask you to look at the anecdotal evidence.  Here in PA we see far more Romney signs than Obama signs, particularly in the Philly collar counties.  Romney drew 30,000 to Buck county yesterday for an even announced only days prior.  He drew the same or more in West Chester, OH the day before.  Paul Ryan drew 9,000 the other day.  These polls simply cannot measure enthusiasm.  This, in fact, is 2008 in reverse.  Looking at Obama and Romney on the stump, I think they both know where they are.  Really look at them.  Romney looks happy, confident and optimistic.  Obama looks tired, angry, and small.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #55 of 65
Thread Starter 

Fivethirtyeight now has Obama at a 92% chance of winning with 315 to 228.

 

 

Forgot to add:  this will likely be harshly attacked by the Right.  


Edited by Bergermeister - 11/5/12 at 9:50pm

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #56 of 65
Thread Starter 

A number of reports of efforts to disrupt the election:

 

You can vote on Wednesday, you are a good voter so you can vote by phone

 

Tea Party group checking voters at site where 80% are black compared to 13% national.

 

 

- - - - -

 

This stuff is making news around the world.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #57 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Fivethirtyeight now has Obama at a 92% chance of winning with 315 to 228.

 

Well, why even have an election then? I mean Nate said it so thus it will be so!!

 

Too bad President Obama didn't have Nate Silver run his numbers for expected outcomes for the Stimulus Plan. Perhaps then he wouldn't have promised to cut the deficit in half instead of doubling it and he wouldn't have promised so many more jobs that have never arrived during his first term.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #58 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

A number of reports of efforts to disrupt the election:

 

You can vote on Wednesday, you are a good voter so you can vote by phone

 

Tea Party group checking voters at site where 80% are black compared to 13% national.

 

 

- - - - -

 

This stuff is making news around the world.

Real news or lefty bullshit HuffPo bloggy news?

post #59 of 65
Thread Starter 

Well, Election Day is here, and this thread is almost at a close.

 

Interesting that of those who chose to vote here, 85% said they think Obama will win, which is along the lines of Nate Silver's projection.  Sure, it may be right and Obama wins.  Sure, it may be wrong and Romney wins.  That's why the numbers are not 100% to 0%.

 

But that reality probably hasn't saved many GOPpers from feeling extremely stressed and choosing to vent it through profanity and dismissing large portions of the population and various institutions.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #60 of 65

Bergermeister must have BR on ignore.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #61 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Bergermeister must have BR on ignore.

 

lol.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #62 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Fivethirtyeight now has Obama at a 92% chance of winning with 315 to 228.

 

 

Forgot to add:  this will likely be harshly attacked by the Right.  

 

It will be attacked because it doesn't make any sense.  An incumbent under 50% nationally that wins 315?  No way.  Silver is looking at top line data.  If that data was correct, he'd be correct.  But doubt it's correct.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Well, Election Day is here, and this thread is almost at a close.

 

Interesting that of those who chose to vote here, 85% said they think Obama will win, which is along the lines of Nate Silver's projection.  Sure, it may be right and Obama wins.  Sure, it may be wrong and Romney wins.  That's why the numbers are not 100% to 0%.

 

But that reality probably hasn't saved many GOPpers from feeling extremely stressed and choosing to vent it through profanity and dismissing large portions of the population and various institutions.

 

What in the world are you talking about?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #63 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Bergermeister must have BR on ignore.

lol.giflol.giflol.giflol.gif

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #64 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

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

 

Searches For ‘Who Is Running For President?’ Skyrocket. Wow.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #65 of 65
Thread Starter 

OBAMA WINS

 

 

Nate was right. (about Obama winning and possibly 50 for 50 on the states)  Not bad; it might be enlightening to visit his site.

 

Mitch failed.

 

And all the efforts to curb the vote in Florida were for naught.


Edited by Bergermeister - 11/6/12 at 11:35pm

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Who do you think will win the US presidential election?