Who's gonna win?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:23 pm

hanelyp wrote:
MSimon wrote:There is no perfect system.
...
The real problem is people. ...
True. But how best to deal with the situation needs to account for the system in effect. A better system wouldn't hurt. Plurality voting happens to be the worst of the simple methods for democratic elections, making it difficult to express dissatisfaction at the ballot box without throwing away your vote.

Which is why "Full Option Voting"; i.e., the ability to ACTUALLY vote "No" would be such a help, and in truth SHOULDN'T even need a change of law.

I am torn between voting Libertarian or writing in "Against Barak Obama".[/u]

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:16 pm

palladin9479 wrote:Ultimately it falls to the independent moderates to chose which way to vote, and most of those are in the Obama camp.

I thought Romney had a substantial lead in the polls with independent voters? Where does "most of those are in the Obama camp" come from?

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:30 pm

MSimon wrote:
djolds1 wrote:
palladin9479 wrote: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.

palladin9479 wrote: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.

I am not convinced that issues like drug legalization and Obama bathhouse rumors are going to have a significant impact on this election. Just saying. The economy seems like it may be a more significant issues.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:16 pm

I am not convinced that issues like drug legalization and Obama bathhouse rumors are going to have a significant impact on this election. Just saying. The economy seems like it may be a more significant issues.

Depends on the location. Drug legalization will matter in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Arkansas, and Massachusetts where they are on the ballot.

Yes the economy. If you read the "bath house" article the complaint was "he has done nothing for blacks" - economics. The rest is just frosting. You will pardon the expression.

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:48 pm

MSimon wrote:
I am not convinced that issues like drug legalization and Obama bathhouse rumors are going to have a significant impact on this election. Just saying. The economy seems like it may be a more significant issues.
Depends on the location. Drug legalization will matter in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Arkansas, and Massachusetts where they are on the ballot.

Yes the economy. If you read the "bath house" article the complaint was "he has done nothing for blacks" - economics. The rest is just frosting. You will pardon the expression.

Won't matter in Washington, Oregon, Arkansas or Massachusetts.

Colorado? If it is very close, I suppose anything could be an influence.

palladin9479 · Post by **palladin9479** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:50 am

seedload wrote:
palladin9479 wrote:Ultimately it falls to the independent moderates to chose which way to vote, and most of those are in the Obama camp.
I thought Romney had a substantial lead in the polls with independent voters? Where does "most of those are in the Obama camp" come from?

Ohio / Florida mostly amongst a few others. Independent are not libertarians but those who claim "no affiliation" on their registration slip.

Libertarians are against Obama the same way Tea Party crowd is against him, he is a liberal therefor he is evil. I hold no such compunction, both parties are evil, it is now as it has been for a long time, merely a choice of the lesser of two evils. Romney scares me because he has no platform, his way is whatever the Republican leadership tells him it is. He is completely loyal to the Republican Party. Him being President would remove one of the checks and balances in place. I would vote for Bush again before I'd vote for Romney, heck I'd vote for Newt or Santorum first.

As for the election layout, it's simply down to the number of starting EC votes both candidates have. It takes 270 to win and Obama starts off close to that number and only requires a few swing states to win. Romney starts off much further and needs to take the majority of them to win. If Romney doesn't win Ohio he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning. If he does win Ohio he still needs to pick up Obama favored states to win.

So while I have a negative impression of Romney, mostly due to how disgusted and disillusioned I've become over the GOP of which I was formerly attached to, rational logic see's Obama as have the higher winning chance. Or simply put, Obama has much less distance to run then Romney does. Not only does Romney need to beat Obama in the race, he needs to beat him badly, otherwise Obama still wins due to having more starting Democrat votes (states that highly favor Democrats and always vote Democrat).

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:26 am

"Ahh typical "with me or against me" mentality. "

Given that you are equivocating about the disastrousness of this President, yes, you are.

palladin9479 · Post by **palladin9479** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:11 am

TDPerk wrote:"Ahh typical "with me or against me" mentality. "

Given that you are equivocating about the disastrousness of this President, yes, you are.

Why I didn't know you had appointed Romney to the office of President. Wow all this time here I thought we had voting and campaigns and primary's, how wrong was I. All along it was just TD choosing someone and calling it a day. And WTF are you smoking anyway?

Calling me leftist is insane, I disagree with liberals as much as if not more then I do with conservatives. Again, anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a "leftist" and therefor evil and "THE DEVIL!!!". Next you'll be attempting to tell me about my beliefs in AGW and the cult of mann.

You'd think there would be more substance and rational thought on a board populated with individuals from the upper 100th percentile of human intelligence. You can sit here and demonstrate amazing math and analytical ability, yet the moment politics comes up it's like a switch gets flipped and that analytical part goes into hibernation. I would absolutely love to know the programming that must happen to create such a mental kill switch.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:49 am

So clearly there is not just one dimension to intelligence ("100th percentile"). As with politics - at least two dimensions (social/fiscal). As you yourself showed, arguing skirt dynamics (not 100th percentile).

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:35 am

Politics is about dividing the pie. Engineering is about making the pie bigger.

I have more or less given up on politics.

http://www.ecnmag.com/blogs/2012/10/power

palladin9479 · Post by **palladin9479** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:09 am

MSimon wrote:Politics is about dividing the pie. Engineering is about making the pie bigger.

I have more or less given up on politics.

http://www.ecnmag.com/blogs/2012/10/power

This I agree with. Each side is just looking for ways to cut the power base out from the other side while simultaneously further empowering it's own power base. Political rhetoric gets tossed around and lots of excuses are create for what amounts to power grabs from both sides. Neither side is for small government, they each just want to enrich the parts of government that support their power bases. Thus their both evil and it becomes a matter of ensuring the least amount of Patriot Act / No Fly List / Citizens United / Carbon Tax / Anti-Nuke Laws / ect. bull sh!t get implemented. Compromise and moderation are the keys to a functional government, otherwise everything turns into measured power grabs that are veiled in obscure sub text on various laws. And the idiots called me a liberal.

On another note, realized that conservatives take themselves entirely too seriously. (Liberals aren't much better)

http://leasticoulddo.com/comic/20111013

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:17 am

Why I didn't know you had appointed Romney to the office of President.

Never did claim Romney was president, did I? When you have to lie, deceive, and distort to have the pretense of making a point--you should know you're a leftist.

"Wow all this time here I thought we had voting and campaigns and primary's, how wrong was I. All along it was just TD choosing someone and calling it a day. And WTF are you smoking anyway?"

Nothing and never have, as I've said repetitively before. It's the elected President who's policies who are disastrous.

"Calling me leftist is insane, I disagree with liberals as much as if not more then I do with conservatives."

Bull.

"Again, anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a "leftist" and therefor evil and "THE DEVIL!!!". Next you'll be attempting to tell me about my beliefs in AGW and the cult of mann."

No, I don't recall what they are. If you think AGW exists is any demonstrable way, that is evidence you are an evil idiot, or are easily deceived.

"You'd think there would be more substance and rational thought on a board populated with individuals from the upper 100th percentile of human intelligence. You can sit here and demonstrate amazing math and analytical ability, yet the moment politics comes up it's like a switch gets flipped and that analytical part goes into hibernation. I would absolutely love to know the programming that must happen to create such a mental kill switch."

Yes I believe I remember you claiming partisanship is all so awful and we ought to be more middle of the road.

No. That's just what we'll A) get too much of and B) what leftists say when they realize they can't get what they want right away, they can only get it more slowly.

We're already far too far in the socialist direction, bi-partisanship is only covering up further drift in that direction.

To the extent stupidity can't be the explanation, malice works.

The left is malice, envy, and the desire to control for it's own sake. Hasn't changed since Robespierre, and is all part and parcel of the same philosophical error.

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:26 am

MSimon wrote:Politics is about dividing the pie. Engineering is about making the pie bigger.

I have more or less given up on politics.

Hah! In USSA, politics gives up on you!

And when that really happens, then come the ovens.

To "give up" on politics means you can't be bothered with how the pie is sliced and how much you get to keep. Including the "pie" which is your own life and how you live it.

Somehow, I can't believe you are actually that apathetic.

Not that bright on a few topics...

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:17 pm

palladin9479 wrote:
seedload wrote:
palladin9479 wrote:Ultimately it falls to the independent moderates to chose which way to vote, and most of those are in the Obama camp.
I thought Romney had a substantial lead in the polls with independent voters? Where does "most of those are in the Obama camp" come from?
Ohio / Florida mostly amongst a few others. Independent are not libertarians but those who claim "no affiliation" on their registration slip.

Libertarians are against Obama the same way Tea Party crowd is against him, he is a liberal therefor he is evil. I hold no such compunction, both parties are evil, it is now as it has been for a long time, merely a choice of the lesser of two evils. Romney scares me because he has no platform, his way is whatever the Republican leadership tells him it is. He is completely loyal to the Republican Party. Him being President would remove one of the checks and balances in place. I would vote for Bush again before I'd vote for Romney, heck I'd vote for Newt or Santorum first.

As for the election layout, it's simply down to the number of starting EC votes both candidates have. It takes 270 to win and Obama starts off close to that number and only requires a few swing states to win. Romney starts off much further and needs to take the majority of them to win. If Romney doesn't win Ohio he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning. If he does win Ohio he still needs to pick up Obama favored states to win.

So while I have a negative impression of Romney, mostly due to how disgusted and disillusioned I've become over the GOP of which I was formerly attached to, rational logic see's Obama as have the higher winning chance. Or simply put, Obama has much less distance to run then Romney does. Not only does Romney need to beat Obama in the race, he needs to beat him badly, otherwise Obama still wins due to having more starting Democrat votes (states that highly favor Democrats and always vote Democrat).

My point was that MOST independents are NOT in the Obama camp. You are factually incorrect.

I don't understand how any of what you wrote has anything to do with that.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:59 pm

palladin9479 wrote:Libertarians are against Obama the same way Tea Party crowd is against him, he is a liberal therefor he is evil.

Tea Party is for fiscal responsibility. That aligns more closely with the Republicans, but the reason it is a separate movement is the Republicans have sold out on fiscal responsibility long ago. Thus there is a separate movement. There's no need to call anyone "evil". We merely want to see the country begin to act responsibly by balancing the budget and not spending more than it takes in.

The Republicans have reaped the greatest advantage from the Tea Party mobilizing, but they will be thrown out just as the Dems were on the first sign they betray their responsibilities. Unlike Republicans, we have no problems with raising taxes on the top couple percent wage earners if that's the compromise it takes to get the Democrats to cut government.