Who's gonna win?

[MSimon]

http://hillbuzz.org/think-squad-chicago ... year-87735

http://www.globemagazine.com/story/895

[djolds1]

Obama, Mitt failed to sell himself to the independents a long time ago.

Republicans / Conservatives vote for Republicans / Conservatives, Democrats / Liberals vote for Democrats / Liberals, that's just how it is. Mitt could be a pedo ex-con and Conservatives would still vote for him. President Obama could be a socialist revolutionary from the DPRK and Liberals would still vote for him. Both sides will make tons of excuses using various selected data for their champion.

Actually, no.

"No enemies on the Left" rules that side of the aisle, but the conservative base will punish its leaders for misbehavior - see the conservative base sitting out the elections of '06 and '08.

Ultimately it falls to the independent moderates to chose which way to vote, and most of those are in the Obama camp.

Were. Not are, were. Obama's non-performance in the first debate gave Romney what he was unable to generate on his own - credibility as a viable alternative POTUS. Numbers have been avalanching towards Romney for two weeks. May not be enough to win the EV count, but the center are no longer trapped in the Obama camp.

[MSimon]

Obama, Mitt failed to sell himself to the independents a long time ago.

Republicans / Conservatives vote for Republicans / Conservatives, Democrats / Liberals vote for Democrats / Liberals, that's just how it is. Mitt could be a pedo ex-con and Conservatives would still vote for him. President Obama could be a socialist revolutionary from the DPRK and Liberals would still vote for him. Both sides will make tons of excuses using various selected data for their champion.

Actually, no.

"No enemies on the Left" rules that side of the aisle, but the conservative base will punish its leaders for misbehavior - see the conservative base sitting out the elections of '06 and '08.

Ultimately it falls to the independent moderates to chose which way to vote, and most of those are in the Obama camp.

Were. Not are, were. Obama's non-performance in the first debate gave Romney what he was unable to generate on his own - credibility as a viable alternative POTUS. Numbers have been avalanching towards Romney for two weeks. May not be enough to win the EV count, but the center are no longer trapped in the Obama camp.

d'accord.

I believe Mitt will avalanche this election. See my above Hill Buzz link. Blacks are sitting this one out. Or actually voting for Romney. Illinois may be closer than I think.

Carter II.

Colorado - where the pro legalization vote looks to win on that issue - is trending Romney. Why? Because Obama has gone after med pot. My guess is that the thinking is, "Romney will be no worse and we may get 'Nixon to China'. "

There is also a lot of interest on the D side in the Johnson/Gray Libertarian ticket. From my admittedly unscientific observation.

[TDPerk]

While I hope not to rain on your parade pointlessly, MSimon, I recall your predictions of a pot policy based apocalypse for the GOP this time around--how's that going for you?

I believe I said in contrast that the economic policy questions would dominate the general electorate--I believe that is being born out.

Best current estimates is that as opposed to about 98% of the African-American electorate being racist enough to vote for Obama like last time because of his skin color, now only 85% will. Those that don't seem bound to stay home instead of voting for Mitt.

This will cost Obama around 2% of the popular vote.

He can't spare it.

The question is whether this looks more line Reagan V Carter or Reagan V Mondale.

Palladin, you are a lefty hack and very silly, Obama's going down in massive flames.

[Carl White]

So, what do you think? Obama or Romney? Make your prediction now.

Does it even matter?

[Diogenes]

Obama, Mitt failed to sell himself to the independents a long time ago.

Republicans / Conservatives vote for Republicans / Conservatives, Democrats / Liberals vote for Democrats / Liberals, that's just how it is. Mitt could be a pedo ex-con and Conservatives would still vote for him. President Obama could be a socialist revolutionary from the DPRK and Liberals would still vote for him. Both sides will make tons of excuses using various selected data for their champion.

Ultimately it falls to the independent moderates to chose which way to vote, and most of those are in the Obama camp.

Now if Mitt wouldn't of tried to be "more righteously conservative" during the primary's (when his election campaign really starts) then he might of won over more independents.

And of course you show up and post utter crap not worthy of notice.

[Diogenes]

I predict a win for Socialism.

A comment on another site (not named for good reason) sums up my thoughts on the 2nd debate:

So Romney is against tax cuts for job creators,[the top 5% will STILL pay 60% of federal income taxes] favors affirmative action,[for women, but not gays of course] is proud of getting the uninsured down to near zero with a mandate,[the original Romneycare] loves Mexicans, favors protectionism,[China only, but free trade with South America - a kind of expanded Nafta] and wants more money for people to go to school.[Pell Grants] We are all Democrats now.

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/10/the- ... ment-68581

It appears to be baked in the cake. The question is, do we do it faster with Democrats, or more slowly with Republicans? A pox on both their houses.

[Diogenes]

Obama, Mitt failed to sell himself to the independents a long time ago.

Republicans / Conservatives vote for Republicans / Conservatives, Democrats / Liberals vote for Democrats / Liberals, that's just how it is. Mitt could be a pedo ex-con and Conservatives would still vote for him. President Obama could be a socialist revolutionary from the DPRK and Liberals would still vote for him. Both sides will make tons of excuses using various selected data for their champion.

Actually, no.

"No enemies on the Left" rules that side of the aisle, but the conservative base will punish its leaders for misbehavior - see the conservative base sitting out the elections of '06 and '08.

Ultimately it falls to the independent moderates to chose which way to vote, and most of those are in the Obama camp.

Were. Not are, were. Obama's non-performance in the first debate gave Romney what he was unable to generate on his own - credibility as a viable alternative POTUS. Numbers have been avalanching towards Romney for two weeks. May not be enough to win the EV count, but the center are no longer trapped in the Obama camp.

d'accord.

I believe Mitt will avalanche this election. See my above Hill Buzz link. Blacks are sitting this one out. Or actually voting for Romney. Illinois may be closer than I think.

Carter II.

Colorado - where the pro legalization vote looks to win on that issue - is trending Romney. Why? Because Obama has gone after med pot. My guess is that the thinking is, "Romney will be no worse and we may get 'Nixon to China'. "

There is also a lot of interest on the D side in the Johnson/Gray Libertarian ticket. From my admittedly unscientific observation.

Something you might find encouraging.


http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/firing_offense/

[Diogenes]

So, what do you think? Obama or Romney? Make your prediction now.

Does it even matter?

Yes. With Obama we face certain economic collapse and massive death as a result. With Romney, and the Oil boom he will engender in the Gulf, in Alaska, and the one already going in North Dakota, we might actually, just barely possibly be able to grow ourselves out of this massive (Mostly) Democrat created debt.

Likewise, until Businesses feel confident that they aren't going to be burned by even more burdensome taxes and regulations, they are not willing to put out the sweat equity or capital to improve things in this nation financially.

Atlas has been Shrugging.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/artic ... anic-.html

[MSimon]

While I hope not to rain on your parade pointlessly, MSimon, I recall your predictions of a pot policy based apocalypse for the GOP this time around--how's that going for you?

As well as can be expected given that Obama is now worse on the subject than the GOP.

OTOH. Conservative Tom Tancredo came out in favor of legalization. Maybe he sees the handwriting on the wall (H/T to D).

And a bunch of clergy in Colorado just signed on.

Perhaps Reverend Bill Kirton put it best:

“How we punish people and what we punish them for are central moral questions. If a punishment policy fails to meet its objectives and causes harms to humans, I believe we have a moral obligation to support change. Our laws punishing marijuana use have caused more harm than good to our society and that is why I am supporting replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of strict regulation with sensible safeguards.

“As we seek to teach compassion and love, it seems inconsistent to support, in cases of private personal adult marijuana possession, the use of police, guns, and courts. The faith community, parents, peers, and educators are the appropriate institutions in society to address this kind of personal behavior.”

Echoing Milton Friedman:

Friedman: No, it's not an economic problem at all, it's a moral problem.

Paige: In what way?

Friedman: I'm an economist, but the economics problem is strictly tertiary. It's a moral problem. It's a problem of the harm which the government is doing.

I have estimated statistically that the prohibition of drugs produces, on the average, ten thousand homicides a year. It's a moral problem that the government is going around killing ten thousand people. It's a moral problem that the government is making into criminals people, who may be doing something you and I don't approve of, but who are doing something that hurts nobody else. Most of the arrests for drugs are for possession by casual users.

Now here's somebody who wants to smoke a marijuana cigarette. If he's caught, he goes to jail. Now is that moral? Is that proper? I think it's absolutely disgraceful that our government, supposed to be our government, should be in the position of converting people who are not harming others into criminals, of destroying their lives, putting them in jail. That's the issue to me. The economic issue comes in only for explaining why it has those effects. But the economic reasons are not the reasons.

Obama dug a big hole for himself by attacking med pot. Something supported by 70% to 80% of Americans. A political stupidity I could never in my life have imagined.

What it has done is to converted a number of Democrats at least temporarily into Libertarians. Expect the Libertarians to do quite well in a few weeks. I'm going to vote for them myself. I live in Illinois. I have a "free" vote.

This post I did recently:

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/10/the-people-suck/

convinced at least one person to vote Libertarian.

Obama can't throw the election now by promising legalization. No one would believe him.

[MSimon]

I predict a win for Socialism.

A comment on another site (not named for good reason) sums up my thoughts on the 2nd debate:

So Romney is against tax cuts for job creators,[the top 5% will STILL pay 60% of federal income taxes] favors affirmative action,[for women, but not gays of course] is proud of getting the uninsured down to near zero with a mandate,[the original Romneycare] loves Mexicans, favors protectionism,[China only, but free trade with South America - a kind of expanded Nafta] and wants more money for people to go to school.[Pell Grants] We are all Democrats now.

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/10/the- ... ment-68581

It appears to be baked in the cake. The question is, do we do it faster with Democrats, or more slowly with Republicans? A pox on both their houses.

I'd vote for slow if it mattered. Fortunately (well unfortunately actually) I live in Illinois and have a "free vote". I'm voting Johnson/Gray.

[djolds1]

This years election is looking to be a repeat of 1980. November 7 forward, however, may look more like 1860.

The generations are not arrayed for another 1860 - that took unassertive senior leaders (parallel to the Silent generation), fanatic Generals/ middle managers (parallel to Boomers), and nihilist cannon fodder (parallel to Xers). That was a fatal constellation of generations, which is why the American Civil War is not remembered as "Glorious" compared to the Revolution or WW2. Boomers are now transitioning to "principled-inspiring" senior leadership positions, Xers are entering the "sober-ex-nihilist" Generals/ middle managers stage of life, and the "protected-become-confident" GenY/ Millennials are taking up the cannon fodder young-adult role.

An economic lost decade, a significant reorganization of civil society institutions, and major existential war in the mid 2020s are probable, however. Weimar-style street-combat politics is possible. A "civil war" on the model of the American Revolution, when half the American nation was read out of the nation (and are now called Canadians) is vaguely possible but improbable. There are no longer alternative centers of military force to the USG in America, so that Weimar-style street war is as far as violence (if any) is likely to go.

Does it even matter?

Yes. With Obama we face certain economic collapse and massive death as a result. With Romney, and the Oil boom he will engender in the Gulf, in Alaska, and the one already going in North Dakota, we might actually, just barely possibly be able to grow ourselves out of this massive (Mostly) Democrat created debt.

Overstatement. The US can survive as Europe - but it won't prosper, and it won't be what it drove it to global power.

[paperburn1]

[/quote]

I'd vote for slow if it mattered. Fortunately (well unfortunately actually) I live in Illinois and have a "free vote". I'm voting Johnson/Gray.[/quote]


the problem with that can be explained in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfh ... plpp_video

[MSimon]

I'd vote for slow if it mattered. Fortunately (well unfortunately actually) I live in Illinois and have a "free vote". I'm voting Johnson/Gray.

the problem with that can be explained in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfh ... plpp_video

You mistake my intent. I'm not hoping for a win for my candidate and I wouldn't change our system. It insures a certain amount of stability and it makes the parties govern towards the center.

I wish to register my dissatisfaction and indicate the direction I prefer.

I also know that the fault is not the politicians. It is the people. Until we get a "better" people we will not get better politicians. My main effort is to educate the people. The politicians will change when the people do.

My ideal would be for a people who were not as passive as the current generations. Who were not always clamoring for government to "do something" because they were willing to do it themselves.

[MSimon]

djolds1,

I believe America is still rising and dominant. We have just hit a temporary snag in the road.

I have a few ideas for eliminating that snag and I am implementing a solution which I believe will revolutionize the industry I'm targeting. It all has to do with education. I have the means and I know the end.