The election....
Poll
 | 33 votes (51.56%) | ||
| | 31 votes (48.43%) |
64 members have voted
Quote: AZDuffmanI review boring docs daily and still pick out errors. This is for HOURS on end. Eyes glazed over. So it blows my mind they cannot look at a ballot for 30 seconds to fill it out right.
Sounds like fun! :-P That's what you do 40 hours/week. My grandma votes once every 2 years. Glazed over or not, you're going to be more familiar with things than she is.
it should have been done. Thats why it was entertaining.
Quote: rdw4potusSounds like fun! :-P That's what you do 40 hours/week.
It is weird how your mind feels turned off then you see an error and realize you are watching. One good part is my job does not come home with me. Old job I would be thinking of work in bed and seeing random deed numbers in my sleep. This one I leave at the door. I still like the old work better.
Quote: rdw4potusIf there's a recount, what happens in the UK of the intention is clear? Like if there's a cross with a "NO!" written next to it, and another cross with a "Yes!" written next to it...will they fix that in the recount process?
Fix? Nothing to fix. Its a spoiled ballot and is counted as such.
If you make a mistake, you must return the paper to be destroyed and get a new one.
Ballots in the UK are counted by hand... normally takes about two to six hours per constituency, witha clear result by the next morning. Recounts are more accurate as much more cross checking occurs.
Quote: rdw4potus
If Dukakis was sunk by that tank picture, .
Short people seldom get elected president. Dukakis was 5'8"
and we haven't had a president that short since the 19th
century when everybody was 5'8. Every president in the
20th century was 5'10" or taller, except Truman, who was
5'9. Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington were all over 6' tall,
when the average height then was about 5'6.
Edit. I just read Lincoln was 12" taller than Douglas in
the 1860 election. Thats a bigger difference than Penn
and Teller. Douglas must have looked like a midget
standing next to Lincoln in the debates.
Some might not agree there is little voter fraud in the UK
1) Voter steps up to an electronic terminal and makes his chocies. if he tries to vote for more than one candidate, the machine corrects him.
2) Voter reviews his choices and presses a "VOTE" button.
3) Machine spews out a ballot fit for an optical reader. The Voter can review that his choices are the right ones (or at elast the desired ones). If not, the officials destroy the ballot and the voter goes back to step 1.
4) Ballot is dropped in a locked urn
5) When voting closes, the people manning the polling stations feed the ballots to optical readers and send the results somewhere else.
6) All paper ballots are kept for recounts.
There. problem solved.
It would be very expensive, but you'd get everything you want.
Quote: slytherOne of our big problems is that every county selects their own voting system. It seems that it would be better if there was a single unified standard.
Although the it seems like the disadvantage of a unified system is the 'frauders' can concentrate their efforts on it to defeat it instead of being confronted with multiple methods.
Quote: NareedI've never found a reason to vote for any candidate, except that all the others are worse.
That's pretty jaded! :)
Seriously, though, am I the only person who thinks Romney is actually a good candidate and will make a great president if elected?
1. People say he's "rich" like that's a bad thing: Do we want someone who failed in business in the white house or someone who is self-made and unbelievably successful? When did all of this class-warfare talk start to matter to people? I'm glad he's rich and it proves that he's not an idiot. And no, he didn't just inherent his wealth- he earned it and that says something.
2. People are prejudice because he's a Mormon: Generally speaking as a group, Mormon's are successful, productive people, so how should that be a negative?
3. People may oppose him because on certain social issues, you may not agree with him. On many of those same issues, he's on the same footing with the Clintons and even Obama. People vilify Romney but did they vilify Clinton or Obama?
4. He's been married once and raised a family and has dealt with personal challenges- such as his wife's cancer and MS. All of those life experiences contribute to his character in a positive way.
More and more, especially in the Internet age, people seem to want a rock star who is cool and takes drugs growing-up, and disregard someone who's self-made with a nice family who actually accomplished something in their lives.
Quote: TheBigPaybakThat's pretty jaded! :)
Any candidate worth voting for either isn't running or has no chance of winning.
Besides, if you expect little or nothing from a candidate, he can't disappoint you too much alter (it's a given he will disappoint you).
Quote:Seriously, though, am I the only person who thinks Romney is actually a good candidate and will make a great president if elected?
Have you asked his wife?
Quote:1. People say he's "rich" like that's a bad thing:
That's actually the only good thing I see in him.
Well, not really. His other good point is that he's to the right of Obama, but that describes 99.9% of the population.
Quote: NareedAny candidate worth voting for either isn't running or has no chance of winning.
Besides, if you expect little or nothing from a candidate, he can't disappoint you too much alter (it's a given he will disappoint you).
Throughout history, most people would agree that there have been some outstanding presidents, that since Washington, some have been worth voting for and proved themselves to be the right candidates for their time.
I'll take an optimistic attitude and say that beyond the year 2012, more presidents will be added to that list, and that list is not currently zero.
Quote: TheBigPaybakThroughout history, most people would agree that there have been some outstanding presidents, that since Washington, some have been worth voting for and proved themselves to be the right candidates for their time.
Most people are not me.
But I'll grant you some of the early US presidents were worth voting for, even at the time.
Quote: TheBigPaybakThat's pretty jaded! :)
While cynicism in America of politics is no short supply, it is balanced by some Americans who worship politics with an almost religious zealotry. From an outsiders perspective there are two things that I see: (1) Mexicans, for the most part, love their country deeply and (2) They see no conflict between this love, and being very cynical about their politicians and government.
The list of past presidents that are held in universal reverence is pretty short. Benito Juarez, Francisco I. Madero and Lázaro Cárdenas are the best known.
Probably because of the overwhelming influence of Roman Catholicism, the other big difference is the reverence for the martyr in Mexico. American history has only a few martyrs that were high up in government. The image of the martyr is prominent in Mexican history.
The Roman Catholisism there-- I agree. Great morals taught and adhered too by the Mexicans- along with loyalty that goes with those morals.
They are a Nationalist society. The US is multi National with many religions. Even though we are a wealthier Nation I admire what little they have that bonds them together. (NOT REFERING AT ALL TO THE DRUG CARTELS).
You better not "bond" with anyone here they'll "grab your wallet" if they can-- and smile while doing it!
Quote: pacomartinThe list of past presidents that are held in universal reverence is pretty short. Benito Juarez, Francisco I. Madero and Lázaro Cárdenas are the best known.
Figures. Two thieves and a back-stabbing martyr.
Quote: scireWe are a "fragmented" nation.
Indigenous languages are almost extinct in the USA. Navajo speakers are the largest and there are only 178K people who can speak that language.
Mexico still has roughly 6 million people who speak an indigenous language. As a total number, that is fairly large, but as a percentage it is small compared to Central American and the northern portion of South America.
Mexico did not have the large scale immigration that defines the demography of the USA, Canada, Brazil and Argentina. There is a lot of geographic diversity. The northern portion of the country (1/4 of total population) is often not that different from portions of Southwestern USA. Monterrey Mexico and nearby San Antonio Texas are in many ways very similar.
My vote goes to Gary Johnson / Jim Gray.
Quote: INkyatariBad poll. There's more than two people running.
My vote goes to Gary Johnson / Jim Gray.
Really???? The question was who do you think will win, not who do you want to win. You think I should have included Johnson/Gray? That ticket has as much chance as Logan/Singer.
The report by Urban League suggests that lower black turnout (i.e. 5% drop) may affect Obama's chances for a win in North Carolina, Virginia, and Ohio. Personally, I don't think Obama is going to win in Virginia and North Carolina anyway. That was just icing on the cake the last election. I do believe those states were won in a last minute euphoria about electing our nation's first black president. Now more traditional sentiments (like concern for debt) will dominate.
A lower turnout might cost Obama Ohio, which in turn could easily cost him the election. There are 1.4 million African Americans in Ohio (and 2.0 million African Americans in North Carolina).
looks like Alred E Newman. Aparrently others have thought
so too.
Quote: SOOPOOReally???? The question was who do you think will win, not who do you want to win. You think I should have included Johnson/Gray? That ticket has as much chance as Logan/Singer.
I disagree. They could win, I just give them less than a 1 percent chance. Because they have major hurdles first to get on the debate stage, and then to convince people to vote for them.
I think most Americans will find, if they get in the debates, that they prefer Johnson/Gray, but the question then becomes whether enough people will be willing to vote for them. I will be voting for them, but we need to win an electoral college to win the Presidency. Right now it's more about setting up Libertarian candidates in the future, and IMO, especially for Congressional seats. Still there is a small chance the Libertarian party can win this election. Small, but present.
For the record, though, I think Romney's more likely to win than Obama. I know InTrade, and almost every other outlet puts Obama at over 50%, but I put Romney at 65-70% with about 1% as "other" and the rest going to Obama. (So I say Obama's 30-35%, Romney's 65-70% with a small chance of a third party win.)
Quote: Boney526I disagree. They could win, I just give them less than a 1 percent chance. Because they have major hurdles first to get on the debate stage, and then to convince people to vote for them.
I think most Americans will find, if they get in the debates, that they prefer Johnson/Gray, but the question then becomes whether enough people will be willing to vote for them. I will be voting for them, but we need to win an electoral college to win the Presidency. Right now it's more about setting up Libertarian candidates in the future, and IMO, especially for Congressional seats. Still there is a small chance the Libertarian party can win this election. Small, but present.
For the record, though, I think Romney's more likely to win than Obama. I know InTrade, and almost every other outlet puts Obama at over 50%, but I put Romney at 65-70% with about 1% as "other" and the rest going to Obama. (So I say Obama's 30-35%, Romney's 65-70% with a small chance of a third party win.)
Of course they 'could' win! But saying less than 1% doesnt really narrow it down. I'll give you 125-1 odds, on every dollar I have, if you want it! I think fair odds would be in the neighborhood of a billion to one against. I'll be honest, I don't know much about them, or how much support they will get, but I am willing to bet they don't get even 4% of the popular vote, and not 10% in any state.
Quote: SOOPOOI am willing to bet they don't get even 4% of the popular vote, and not 10% in any state.
What odds will you give on the 10% bit? Texas, Montana, and New Mexico exist:-)
Quote: rdw4potusWhat odds will you give on the 10% bit? Texas, Montana, and New Mexico exist:-)
Well... since I made the comment, I'll back it up. I'll give you even money that the Libertarians do not get 10% of the vote in any state, but I'll cap my bet at $50 per forum memeber, first 2 members who show interest. What state had the highest Libertarian % vote last election, and what was that percentage?
Quote: SOOPOOWell... since I made the comment, I'll back it up. I'll give you even money that the Libertarians do not get 10% of the vote in any state, but I'll cap my bet at $50 per forum memeber, first 2 members who show interest. What state had the highest Libertarian % vote last election, and what was that percentage?
I do think you are probably wrong on both counts. I think Johnson will get more than 4% of the popular vote, and will cross 10% in New Mexico. I really should have said around 1%, is the chance any 3rd Party to take this election. It's small - but it does happen every once in a while. I'd say that it's not the most likely event, but it's still within the realm of possibility.
Quote: Boney526I do think you are probably wrong on both counts. I think Johnson will get more than 4% of the popular vote, and will cross 10% in New Mexico. I really should have said around 1%, is the chance any 3rd Party to take this election. It's small - but it does happen every once in a while. I'd say that it's not the most likely event, but it's still within the realm of possibility.
How about 3 $10 bets, then. I'll risk $1000 against your $10 that either a Democrat or Republican wins the election. And $10 that no third party candidate gets 4% of the popular vote. And that no third party candidate gets 10% of the New Mexico vote. We on?
Quote: SOOPOOHow about 3 $10 bets, then. I'll risk $1000 against your $10 that either a Democrat or Republican wins the election. And $10 that no third party candidate gets 4% of the popular vote. And that no third party candidate gets 10% of the New Mexico vote. We on?
I'm usually not one to take bets with people I don't know personally, but I'll think about it.
I'll message you soon if I agree.
Quote: Boney526I'm usually not one to take bets with people I don't know personally, but I'll think about it.
I'll message you soon if I agree.
I'm willing to let the Wiz hold my $1020 and your $30 until the bet is resolved. It looks like I'll be paying off HotBlonde, so I'll have experience paying off large WizardofVegas bets!
isn't easy, ask them why their voting for Obama
again. They will invariably say its to keep Romney
out, anybody but Romney. They never say anything
positive about Obama, cause there is nothing to
say.
Quote: EvenBobWhats fun to do is, when you corner a Dem, which
isn't easy, ask them why their voting for Obama
again. They will invariably say its to keep Romney
out, anybody but Romney. They never say anything
positive about Obama, cause there is nothing to
say.
Right...as if Romney's entire campaign isn't completely centered around being not-Obama. Good joke, Bob:-)
Quote: rdw4potusRight...as if Romney's entire campaign isn't completely centered around being not-Obama. Good joke, Bob:-)
So tell us, RDW, what could we expect, IYO, with 4
more years of Obama? What did you like in the last
4 years that you want continued.
Its amazing thats all you see with Romney, I laughed
out loud.
Quote: EvenBobSo tell us, RDW, what could we expect, IYO, with 4
more years of Obama? What did you like in the last
4 years that you want continued.
Oh, I don't want it continued. I just also don't want to see right-wing misinformation spewed as though it's fact. The idea that a sitting president would run solely on a not-the-challenger platform was a weak enough argument to require rebuttal.
yesterday. I was in Santa Barbara, I owned
a business. Santa Barbara was where Reagan
had his ranch.
There was no talk radio. On cable there was
CNN, which launched in 1980, and they
were totally for Carter. On TV we had the
3 major networks and they were all for Carter.
Most newspapers were Liberal, just like today.
Of course, no internet.
How the heck did Reagan get elected? The
mood in the country was nothing like it is today.
Nobody was desperate, shopping malls weren't
half empty. We had inflation, high interest rates
and about 7% unemployment. But nobody was
underwater in their houses, foreclosures weren't
high. The value of your house wasn't dropping.
Reagan was seen as a terrible candidate. Too
old, too extreme. A movie star president? Endless
references to Bedtime for Bonzo.
Yet he beat Carter by 10 points. With a totally
Liberal press against him. The election wasn't
even close.
Quote: rxwineI could vote for Obama just on the potential Supreme Court appointments alone.
I guess I have enough guns. And whats wrong with
12 year olds getting abortions without their parents
knowledge. Of course legalizing marijuana can be
nothing except a good thing. And people should be
able to marry anybody or anything. Freedom of
speech and religion? Outdated concepts. A world
class military? Waste of money.
Yes, there's a lot to be done.
Ryan cosponsored a bill that could ban in-vitro fertilization, as well as many common forms of birth control, including the pill. It could also ban all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. He supported letting states prosecute women who have abortions and doctors who perform them.
Paul Ryan would take us backward on equal rights:
Ryan voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which helps women fight for equal pay for equal work. He voted against repealing the discriminatory policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and supports writing discrimination into the Constitution by amending it to ban gay marriage.
Quote: buzzpaff
Paul Ryan would take us backward on equal rights:
Ryan voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which helps women fight for equal pay for equal work. He voted against repealing the discriminatory policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and supports writing discrimination into the Constitution by amending it to ban gay marriage.
It does not do that, what it does is extend the statute of limitation on a lawsuit to near endless. So a busienss can be sued because a woman thought she was not getting fair pay for 20 years. Kind of silly to wait that long to speak up.
Women get equal pay for equal work.
This is from July 25th, just a little info on the side bet since it has been offered and cannot be rescinded, I wouldn't think. It seems that, according to this Democratic Poll, (factor that in how you will) Johnson is getting 12% of New Mexico. I think even money on it is a pretty fair bet, but I would not wager on it either way.
What were those odds being laid that no third-party would win the election? I could probably lay better odds than that, I like free money.
Quote: Mission146http://www.capitolcolumn.com/news/gary-johnson-ron-paul-supporters-wont-vote-for-mitt-romney/
This is from July 25th, just a little info on the side bet since it has been offered and cannot be rescinded, I wouldn't think. It seems that, according to this Democratic Poll, (factor that in how you will) Johnson is getting 12% of New Mexico. I think even money on it is a pretty fair bet, but I would not wager on it either way.
What were those odds being laid that no third-party would win the election? I could probably lay better odds than that, I like free money.
As far as the 10% New Mexico bet, it is for $10 at even money. I did state that I am not really knowledgeable on actual %'s a third party candidate might get, but if he takes the other 2 bets I'll be happy to include that one, too. I also stated I thought fair odds were like a billion to one, but I offerred 100 -1 on a $10 bet, too.
Quote: SOOPOOAs far as the 10% New Mexico bet, it is for $10 at even money. I did state that I am not really knowledgeable on actual %'s a third party candidate might get, but if he takes the other 2 bets I'll be happy to include that one, too. I also stated I thought fair odds were like a billion to one, but I offerred 100 -1 on a $10 bet, too.
I wasn't saying anything about the quality of your lay, just that I would lay better odds. The quality of your lay is just fine, as it is with any prop bet, because there is agreement amongst both of the parties in taking the bet. If you wanted to lay 2:1 against Johnson winning the whole thing, and he took it, then it's still a fair bet.
I think the other two even-money bets make the overall wager more than fair, because even though he is likely to lose the main bet, I think the 10% in any given state gives him a really good hedge. I think he might be getting the worst of it on the even-money for 4% Popular Vote, but I'm just assuming that Johnson is not on the ballot in every state. I'd be interested in knowing how many states in which he appears on the ballot. The only states I have seen where he is solidly over 4% are Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico, and I don't think the limited populations in those states will be enough to offset the States in which he will get 0-1% of the vote.
I think he loses the main bet, wins the 10%+ any state (NM) bet, and probably loses the 4% Popular vote bet. The numbers (true odds) are probably pretty subjective on the main bet because every election is different from every other, but I'd say the EV on a lottery ticket is probably better.
You forgot drowning kittens and punching granny in the face. Because that's ultimately what all people in the democrat [sic] party want.Quote: EvenBobI guess I have enough guns. And whats wrong with
12 year olds getting abortions without their parents
knowledge. Of course legalizing marijuana can be
nothing except a good thing. And people should be
able to marry anybody or anything. Freedom of
speech and religion? Outdated concepts. A world
class military? Waste of money.
Yes, there's a lot to be done.
Quote: s2dbakerYou forgot drowning kittens and punching granny in the face. Because that's ultimately what all people in the democrat [sic] party want.
Thats what the RIGHT is always accused of wanting.
That, and starving kids at school, and cutting off mom
and dads social security. Its the Right that wants bad
things for poor people and unwed mothers. Its the
Right that wants bad air and polluted rivers and global
warming. Even though we have to live here too, we
still want all those things because we're evil.
electoral votes. Just 10 days ago Obama was quite a bit ahead
of Romney, now its almost a dead heat. Neither are anywhere
close to getting 270 yet.
Quote: EvenBobThis is a very accurate site for following whats going on with
electoral votes. Just 10 days ago Obama was quite a bit ahead
of Romney, now its almost a dead heat. Neither are anywhere
close to getting 270 yet.
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania have voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate for 6 straight elections. I realize that Paul ryan is from WI. I think declaring those three states as battleground is stretching the battleground idea pretty far.
Quote: pacomartinI think declaring those three states as battleground is stretching the battleground idea pretty far.
I see everybody doing it. though, based on recent polling results.
They are usually on Obama's side, what gives. I know
he stinks, but if he's pissing off the mainstream media too,
he's toast.
Quote: EvenBobHoly crap, look at the cover of Newsweek thats upcoming.
They are usually on Obama's side, what gives. I know
he stinks, but if he's pissing off the mainstream media too,
he's toast.
They could just be hedging, so if he loses they can point to it and say, "SEE!" Or they might want to look something other than a total left wing rag before they cease print publication soon.
Either way it is wild.
Quote: AZDuffmanThey could just be hedging, so if he loses they can point to it and say, "SEE!" Or they might want to look something other than a total left wing rag before they cease print publication soon.
Either way it is wild.
The article is just scathing. Talking about how
a couple of Obama cabinet members realized
in 2009 that they were 'home alone', there was
a child in charge of the country. They had to
reverse just about everything Obama tried to
do because it was so radically clueless.
