The election....
Poll
 | 33 votes (51.56%) | ||
| | 31 votes (48.43%) |
64 members have voted
Quote: WizardUltimately, I think it will come down to Ohio, and Obama will carry it by about 5,000 votes.
Well 5000 votes out of 5 million will virtually guarantee a recount and a protest. The only state that was that close in 2008 was Missouri (went to McCain).
In general, I think it is commonly predicted that Obama will not gain any new states, and he will lose some of the narrow ones to Romney.
At the very least Indiana and Nebraska 2nd district went for Obama in 2008, but are leaning strongly Republican in 2012. The commonly sited 9 battleground states were all won by Obama in 2008.
Florida
Ohio
North Carolina
Virginia
Colorado
Iowa
New Hampshire
Wisconsin
Nevada
If Obama wins (Ohio, Colorado, and New Hampshire) or (Florida and New Hampshire) of these swing states that gives him a victory of one vote.
Quote: pacomartinWell 5000 votes out of 5 million will virtually guarantee a recount and a protest. The only state that was that close in 2008 was Missouri (went to McCain).
In general, I think it is commonly predicted that Obama will not gain any new states, and he will lose some of the narrow ones to Romney.
At the very least Indiana and Nebraska 2nd district went for Obama in 2008, but are leaning strongly Republican in 2012. The commonly sited 9 battleground states were all won by Obama in 2008.
Florida
Ohio
North Carolina
Virginia
Colorado
Iowa
New Hampshire
Wisconsin
Nevada
If Obama wins (Ohio, Colorado, and New Hampshire) or (Florida and New Hampshire) of these swing states that gives him a victory of one vote.
Realclearpolitics and Pollster both also list Arizona and Missouri as toss-ups.
I think team Obama will remind the voters of Nevada that Mitt Romney wanted the housing crisis to "run its course", as in "everyone into the foreclosure pool!! The water's nice!!" Voters care more about stuff like that.Quote: WizardNevada will be tight. Yes, the anti-Vegas comments cut Romney's way. However, it is hard to understate how badly Vegas homeowners were hurt from the housing meltdown. The causes of that are easily traced to Bush's watch. Then again, voters aren't know for being able to think back very far. If forced, I think Nevada will go to Obama, but it will be very tight. I give the chances about 52% to Obama.
Reid won by 5.6%, you make it sound like there was a recount.Quote: PokeraddictThis [Nevada] is a state so fed up with how things are that they nearly tossed out Harry Reid.
I'm not so sure about New Hampshire, although it does actually look good for team Obama at the moment, it's still pretty sad. Not even Massachusetts likes Romney. The more people get to see and hear Mitt Romney, the more people will realize that he's Thurston Howell the Third but less charming.Quote: Steve BenenAccording to the Boston Globe's analysis, if Romney wins, he'll be the "first presidential candidate elected without carrying his home state since before the Civil War. James K. Polk lost Tennessee en route to the White House -- 168 years ago."
In case you're thinking it's unfair to characterize Massachusetts as Romney's home state -- he also owns mansions in New Hampshire and California -- the Republican is expected to lose all three of his home states.
This is a person with no principles and who is very bad at lying about it.Quote: Mitt RomneyUh, I'm actually going to to, I'm not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was. And with regards to, uh, I'll go back and take at what was said there.
Quote: rdw4potusRealclearpolitics and Pollster both also list Arizona and Missouri as toss-ups.
I suppose so.
Missouri went to McCain by the narrowest margin of any state in the 2008 election.
Arizona has a mere 45.1% of the vote go to Obama in 2008, not much better than 43.7% that voted for him in Texas. It is difficult to believe they have had that much of a change of heart.
But Obama made it pretty clear last time that he will campaign everywhere. He may go to Utah just to prove a point.
Quote: pacomartinI suppose so.
Missouri went to McCain by the narrowest margin of any state in the 2008 election.
Arizona has a mere 45.1% of the vote go to Obama in 2008, not much better than 43.7% that voted for him in Texas. It is difficult to believe they have had that much of a change of heart.
But Obama made it pretty clear last time that he will campaign everywhere. He may go to Utah just to prove a point.
Obama ran against a sitting U.S. Senator from Arizona in the last election. And, while Obama isn't impressive, the GOP's stand on immigration is - and there are a lot of Latinos in AZ.
Quote: pacomartinI think that is entirely an Appalachian phrase. Your west-coasters and foreigners have probably never heard it. I suppose it is from the sound an angry cat makes, but it is primarily a "tantrum".
I don't know about it's origins but I have heard hissyfit used in BC for at least 30 or 40 years maybe since I was a kid.
Quote: rdw4potusObama ran against a sitting U.S. Senator from Arizona in the last election. And, while Obama isn't impressive, the GOP's stand on immigration is - and there are a lot of Latinos in AZ.
So what are you saying, to get the Latino vote you have to be in favor of illegal immigration?
Quote:CHANDLER: Man if you tried something like that on my birthday, you'd be starin' at the business end of a hissy fit.
Nother reference -From season 1 of Friends, so the Internet says.
I think he's saying that in order to get the Latino vote, you have to appear to hate Latinos less than the other guy.Quote: AZDuffmanSo what are you saying, to get the Latino vote you have to be in favor of illegal immigration?
Quote: s2dbakerI think he's saying that in order to get the Latino vote, you have to appear to hate Latinos less than the other guy.
As cynical as that sounds, the CNN article (February 12, 2012) on the subject basically agrees with you.
Quote: cnnPresident Obama broke his promise to introduce an immigration reform bill during his first year in office. He deported 1.2 million Latinos, including 46,000 parents of American citizens. His draconian policies left thousands of frightened children languishing in foster care, which brought an onslaught of negative Spanish-language media. Heading into the presidential campaign, President Obama's approval rating among Latinos has plunged 36 points since April 2009 -- from 85% to 49%, according to a recent Pew survey.
Republican front-runner Mitt Romney, wants to make life so unbearable for Hispanics working here illegally that they will "self-deport." Passing apartheid-like laws to pressure Hispanic undocumented workers to leave the country is central to Romney's platform. Witness the laws passed in Alabama, Arizona and South Carolina, whose chief architect, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, happily endorsed Romney, advises the campaign and acts as a surrogate.
Quote: s2dbakerI think he's saying that in order to get the Latino vote, you have to appear to hate Latinos less than the other guy.
Kind of a sad state we are in when enforcing immigration laws is classified as "hate." But Obama has clearly taken that stand with his lawsuits against states that have said "enough." In a sane world, the "sanctuary cities" would be the ones seeing federal funding held up, but we see the opposite effect here.
A weird world we live in where if a state does not raise the drinking age to 21 the feds hold highway funding hostage but if you enforce federal immigration laws the feds take you to court.
There are some "republicans" in the United Kingdom that object to the government spending some $60 million a year (population 60 million) to maintain a royal family. The republicans consider them an artifact of an earlier era and want them replaced with an elected head of state.
But the cost of the US presidential election, and the billions of dollars that will be raised to convince a handful of people in Ohio and Florida to vote for them, makes the cost of royalty look like pocket change.
Quote: pacomartin
There are some "republicans" in the United Kingdom that object to the government spending some $60 million a year (population 60 million) to maintain a royal family. The republicans consider them an artifact of an earlier era and want them replaced with an elected head of state.
But the cost of the US presidential election, and the billions of dollars that will be raised to convince a handful of people in Ohio and Florida to vote for them, makes the cost of royalty look like pocket change.
Other than the potus campaign fund on your 1040 what does one have to do with the other?
The uspotus final two will not spend $10 per person in the USA. Which begs the question: expensive campaign--compared to what?
Proctor and gamble may spend more on advertising. Surely some consumer company does over 4 years.
Quote: SOOPOOPeople have been mentioning Ohio as an important state. I say it will all be about Florida. Whoever wins Florida wins the election. I'll offer 2-1 odds. Any takers?
Whoever won Florida won the election every time, except 1992, in the last 50 years. Bush won Florida, but Ross Perot split the vote and Bush lost most of middle America and Clinton won the election. I think someone would want more than 2-1 odds to take that bet.
It is my personal opinion (shared by almost no one) that Florida has a very vocal well organized gay population, while the older population is mostly retired urbanites who are less likely to organize over gay marriage. Obama will secure the election by winning Flordia with his stand on gay marriage.
Ohio has gone with the winner in every election since 1960.
Quote: SOOPOOPeople have been mentioning Ohio as an important state. I say it will all be about Florida. Whoever wins Florida wins the election. I'll offer 2-1 odds. Any takers?
Give me 3 to 1 and I'll take it.
Quote: SOOPOOPeople have been mentioning Ohio as an important state. I say it will all be about Florida. Whoever wins Florida wins the election. I'll offer 2-1 odds. Any takers?
To be clear, are you saying that Florida will be a/the marginal state (without Florida, the other guy wins), or are you simply saying that the winner of Florida will win the election?
Quote: WizardAlthough I've just booked two bets with forum members on Romney at +180, I still think Obama will win. +180 implies a probability of 35.7% chance Romney will win, and I think it is a bit higher. More like 40%.
The reason I think Obama is over 50% is that he is simply more charismatic. Look at every presidential election since the television age (Nixon vs. Kennedy) and the one that came off better on television won. Granted sometimes it is debatable who is more charismatic, but I think Obama clearly shines brighter than Romney.
Ultimately, I think it will come down to Ohio, and Obama will carry it by about 5,000 votes.
If this was Facebook, I would "like" this.
As much as I hate Obama's policies, he's clearly much more charismatic than Romney, and most Americans don't sit their studying economics and political policy like I do.
My last hope for the 2012 election is that maybe Gary Johnson will pick up traction. He won't win, but the Libertarians truly are, IMO, the last true Americans who believe in real freedom.
I give Obama an advantage, like the Wiz said, about 40/60.
Obama's not exactly in a strong, strong, position, but that's early in the process, where only the politically informed really care to be involved. Once it comes to voting time, and electoral college time, I give him an advantage.
Quote: Boney526Once it comes to voting time, and electoral college time, I give him an advantage.
You have to think about electoral college votes, because the final percentages are so close. Plus a lot of people don't vote, but they can give their opinions to a pollster.
If you look at the 2008 results:
4,804,701 to 2,752,728 Obama beat McCain in New York state
4,282,074 to 4,045,624 Obama beat McCain in Florida state
the first thing you notice is that there are about 10% more votes in Florida then New York despite NY being slightly larger. Of course, people are much more aware that the New York result is a foregone conclusion.
So even if you see a headline that says "53 Percent of Floridians Still Think Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal", the question is how avid are they, and how many will vote on this single issue.
Quote: WizardGive me 3 to 1 and I'll take it.
I don't have the emotional stake in this bet that I do in the general election winner. But I'll give you 11-5 if you want it. Final offer.....
Quote: SOOPOOBut I'll give you 11-5 if you want it. Final offer.....
Sorry, I'll have to decline.
Quote: RasmussenThe Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows President Obama earning 46% of the vote and Mitt Romney attracting 45% support. Four percent (4%) would vote for a third party candidate, while another five percent (5%) are undecided.
Quote: s2dbakerWe haven't seen anyone quote a Rasmussen poll here in awhile. Not to worry, I'm on it:
Quote: RasmussenThe Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows President Obama earning 46% of the vote and Mitt Romney attracting 45% support. Four percent (4%) would vote for a third party candidate, while another five percent (5%) are undecided.
Although interesting, the total popular vote is not what matters. What difference does it make if Obama wins NY by 1,000,000 or 400,000? Or California by 2,000,000 instead of 800,000? How they are faring in the 'battleground states' is all that practically matters. Any article that does not mention how they are doing specifically in Florida is lacking.
Quote: SOOPOOAny article that does not mention how they are doing specifically in Florida is lacking.
Ugh, as I'm currently living in Florida I can hardly wait until the carpet bombing of negative ads start fulltime from both these campaigns.
Quote: s2dbakerFive percent (5%) would vote for a third party candidate, while another five percent (5%) are undecided.
5% of all third party candidates combined sounds very high. Didn't Ross Perot in 92, and Ralph Nader in 00, get about 1% of the vote only? This year I don't see anybody making a serious run for that vote, except perhaps if Ron Paul goes that route, which would pretty much eliminate any doubt about Obama winning.
Quote: Wizard5% of all third party candidates combined sounds very high. Didn't Ross Perot in 92, and Ralph Nader in 00, get about 1% of the vote only? This year I don't see anybody making a serious run for that vote, except perhaps if Ron Paul goes that route, which would pretty much eliminate any doubt about Obama winning.
In 1992, Ross Perot got a whopping nineteen percent of the popular vote. He failed to win any states however, and thus got zero votes in the electoral college. Source
It was the best showing by a 3rd party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. He probably would have gotten even more votes if he hadn't withdrawn from the election and then quickly reneged and joined the race again...I often think what would have happened had he not had that little gaffe...maybe we'd be closer to a viable 3rd party in this country.
I agree 5% for all combined 3rd party candidates is not likely.
Don't read into it too much. You have to consider the source. It's Rasmussen which pretty much makes up numbers to fit a narrative.Quote: Wizard5% of all third party candidates combined sounds very high. Didn't Ross Perot in 92, and Ralph Nader in 00, get about 1% of the vote only? This year I don't see anybody making a serious run for that vote, except perhaps if Ron Paul goes that route, which would pretty much eliminate any doubt about Obama winning.
Quote: AcesAndEightsIn 1992, Ross Perot got a whopping nineteen percent of the popular vote. He failed to win any states however, and thus got zero votes in the electoral college. Source.
Wow, I stand corrected. As I look back he seems like more of an asterisk on that election, but played a bigger role than I thought. I recall wanting to vote for him, but didn't want to waste my vote on somebody with no chance to win.
Quote: WizardWow, I stand corrected. As I look back he seems like more of an asterisk on that election, but played a bigger role than I thought. I recall wanting to vote for him, but didn't want to waste my vote on somebody with no chance to win.
President H.W. Bush won 40 states in 1988 , but he only won 18 in 1992 as incumbent. Perot beat Bush in only one state (Maine), which went to Clinton. However, Perot won a significant percentage of the popular vote in a number of states that HW Bush won in 1988. As a result they all went to Clinton.
HW Bush would have needed 102 electoral votes to just eke out a victory. Although Perot may have taken the victory away from Bush (i.e. been a spoiler), it is not absolutely clear that Bush could have won all those states if Perot had not run.
| State | Elec '92 | Perot | 1988 | 1992 | 1996 | 2000 | 2004 | 2008 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Georgia | 13 | 13.4% | H Bush | Clinton | Dole | Bush | Bush | McCain |
| Montana | 3 | 26.1% | H Bush | Clinton | Dole | Bush | Bush | McCain |
| Louisiana | 9 | 11.8% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Bush | Bush | McCain |
| Kentucky | 8 | 13.7% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Bush | Bush | McCain |
| Missouri | 11 | 21.7% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Bush | Bush | McCain |
| Tennessee | 11 | 10.1% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Bush | Bush | McCain |
| Colorado | 8 | 23.3% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Bush | Bush | McCain |
| Ohio | 21 | 21.0% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Bush | Bush | Obama |
| Nevada | 4 | 26.2% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Bush | Bush | Obama |
| New Hampshire | 4 | 22.6% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Bush | Kerry | Obama |
| Maryland | 10 | 14.2% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Gore | Kerry | Obama |
| Total | 102 |
Other states that Bush won in 1988.
| State | Elec '92 | Perot | 1988 | 1992 | 1996 | 2000 | 2004 | 2008 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arkansas | 6 | 10.4% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Bush | Bush | McCain |
| New Mexico | 5 | 16.1% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Gore | Bush | Obama |
| California | 54 | 20.6% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Gore | Kerry | Obama |
| Pennsylvania | 23 | 18.2% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Gore | Kerry | Obama |
| Illinois | 22 | 16.6% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Gore | Kerry | Obama |
| Michigan | 18 | 19.3% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Gore | Kerry | Obama |
| New Jersey | 15 | 15.6% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Gore | Kerry | Obama |
| Connecticut | 8 | 21.6% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Gore | Kerry | Obama |
| Maine | 4 | 30.4% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Gore | Kerry | Obama |
| Vermont | 3 | 22.8% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Gore | Kerry | Obama |
| Delaware | 3 | 20.5% | H Bush | Clinton | Clinton | Gore | Kerry | Obama |
| Total | 161 |
The most likely 3rd party candidate in 2012 would be Ron Paul. I think he could run without campaigning and still get enough votes to be a spoiler.
It is unlikely we will have a 3rd party candidate of his popularity in 2012.
However, in the year 2000 in Florida when Bush won by 537 votes, there were a total of 138,067 votes cast in Florida for "other" candidates. Many people believe that Nader spoiled Gore's victory.
Quote: s2dbakerDon't read into it too much. You have to consider the source. It's Rasmussen which pretty much makes up numbers to fit a narrative.
I'm starting to think that narrative might be compelling. Who is the Libertarian candidate? Who is the Constitution Party's candidate? If either or those parties chooses Paul, 5% is realistic. Even with Gary Johnson as the Libertarian candidate, he'll pull from the extreme fiscal right of the GOP.
What happened to the old days when candidates only pressed for votes going state to state?
Quote: AcesAndEights
It was the best showing by a 3rd party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. He probably would have gotten even more votes if he hadn't withdrawn from the election and then quickly reneged and joined the race again...I often think what would have happened had he not had that little gaffe...maybe we'd be closer to a viable 3rd party in this country.
That and the total joke of a running mate he had. I actually voted for Perot because Bush both raised taxes and just let himself be hit by attack after attack by Bill Clinton on the economy. If he isn't going to stand up for himself, how can he stand up for the country? Bill Clinton I just could not bring myself to vote for someone so far left. I knew my vote would be "wasted" but in fact it probably was not. No GOP leader since HW has caved to Democrats on raising taxes with the Democrats fake "spending cuts" as a compromise. They all see what happened to HW. The refrain, "so where else are they going to go?" was answered.
BTW: Perot still got about 8-10% of the vote in 1996 and in 2000 the shell of his party in some states picked up Nader and matching funds. Saved us from the horror of an Al Gore Administration.
Quote: s2dbakerDon't read into it too much. You have to consider the source. It's Rasmussen which pretty much makes up numbers to fit a narrative.
Yes, the narrative that likely voter polls though more expensive are more accurate.
Quote: WizardQuote: AcesAndEightsIn 1992, Ross Perot got a whopping nineteen percent of the popular vote. He failed to win any states however, and thus got zero votes in the electoral college. Source.
Wow, I stand corrected. As I look back he seems like more of an asterisk on that election, but played a bigger role than I thought. I recall wanting to vote for him, but didn't want to waste my vote on somebody with no chance to win.
Voting your conscience is not a wasted vote.
If you're voting for someone just because you want to vote for a winner, IMO, you're then wasting your vote. If you like a candidate you should vote for them. Voting for the lesser of two evils will only result in more evil.
BTW, there is a serious 3rd party candidate this year, I'm just waiting to see if he can get his name recognition up. Gary Johnson is polling around 8-12% in certain mid western states, with only about 20% name recognition. That's very good. He's also a candidate I can get behind.
Remember that every once in a while the party system does change. I feel as if this is the first time in a while we have a chance of putting a president in the White House outside of the Democratic and Republican parties. (A chance, I'm not saying it's the most likely event).
Quote: Boney526Voting your conscience is not a wasted vote.
There is a scenario that no one really talks about much. The possibility of a major meltdown in Europe where Greece, Spain, Portugal are all trying to exit the Euro at once. The 25% increase in US currency in circulation since Obama was inaugurated is way to little as hundreds of million of people are trying to secure US banknotes out of fear for their own currency. Obama orders the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to move all production into hundred dollar notes to meet the international demand.
Suddenly in light of global financial meltdown, Ron Paul becomes a favored son. He runs as a third party candidate and instead of being a spoiler, he wins half a dozen states denying everyone a majority. The election goes into the House, but voters demand that their state vote for Ron Paul if he won a majority. No one can win 26 states.
I'm thinking, though, that Gary Johnson can do quite well if he gets his name recognition up. Both social progressives (whose main issues are civil liberties) and fiscal conservatives agree with him on the major issues, and I think most Americans can fall into some mix of those categories, and agree with Johnson most of the time.
And I don't think the US dollar will hold much muster if the world stops using it as their reserves, which is slowly happening now. At some point there will be TOO MANY dollars in circulation, and the dollar will not do well then.
Quote: Boney526I feel as if this is the first time in a while we have a chance of putting a president in the White House outside of the Democratic and Republican parties. (A chance, I'm not saying it's the most likely event).
You don't really believe this, Boney, do you? I can't see any scenario between now and election day that will have both the Republican and Democratic nominee so in disfavor that they wont both crush any 3rd party candidate. What odds would you want on the 'field'?
Quote: SOOPOOYou don't really believe this, Boney, do you? I can't see any scenario between now and election day that will have both the Republican and Democratic nominee so in disfavor that they wont both crush any 3rd party candidate. What odds would you want on the 'field'?
Start with a global financial meltdown, then add in global thermonuclear war...then I would give a 3rd party candidate maybe a 10% chance ;)
Not this year, but I hope within my lifetime we'll see a viable 3rd party emerge.
1) A schism in one of the two big parties that sees a third party formed with the remains of the split. If this happens, though, chances are the new party will replace the old one.
2) A major meltdown inside America, on the scale of what happened in Germany with hyperinflation and the great Depression.
Quote: AcesAndEights
Not this year, but I hope within my lifetime we'll see a viable 3rd party emerge.
Why do people think 3rd party candidates are so
great? All they do is muck up the process, what
good are they.
Quote: Boney526If you like a candidate you should vote for them. Voting for the lesser of two evils will only result in more evil.
I disagree. Suppose the situation were this:
| Candidate | Prob. Win | Evil Points |
|---|---|---|
| A | 50.00% | 37 |
| B | 49.99% | 15 |
| C | 0.01% | 14 |
Voting for the least-evil candidate would be C. However, I think your vote does greater good cast for candidate B.
Quote: WizardI disagree. Suppose the situation were this:
Candidate Prob. Win Evil Points A 50.00% 37 B 49.99% 15 C 0.01% 14
Voting for the least-evil candidate would be C. However, I think your vote does greater good cast for candidate B.
100% agree. I think I would do better than either man running, but I'm not going to write in my name. Didn't Nader help Bush win? If he would have said.... just vote for the damn democrat while thinking of me.....
The Sixth Party System pretty much started with the death of the southern Democrats as a force (the third party there was an Independent group who campaigned on pro-segregation policies). This split the Democrat vote, and Nixon won (he might have done well enough without the third party).
I would expect there to be a re-alignment at some point where a sharper distinction between the parties gets drawn again.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: WizardI disagree. Suppose the situation were this:
Candidate Prob. Win Evil Points A 50.00% 37 B 49.99% 15 C 0.01% 14
Voting for the least-evil candidate would be C. However, I think your vote does greater good cast for candidate B.
100% agree. I think I would do better than either man running, but I'm not going to write in my name. Didn't Nader help Bush win? If he would have said.... just vote for the damn democrat while thinking of me.....
Also 100% agree. And even if Nader didn't help Bush in '00, Perot definitely helped Clinton in '92.
