2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Dark Sage]

Brian, I saw electoral maps in early 2008 that showed every single state red, even Illinois and Hawaii. Apparently, whoever conducted those polls expected McCain to do something that only Gearge Washington has done.

As for this poll you are speaking about, which shows Romney winning every swing state, including ones that he is far behind in most other polls right now... Let's say I am very skeptical about it.

[Roy Karrde]

http://thepage.time.com/2012/10/27/c...tive-argument/

Well Obama has put out his closing argument, and to no one's surprise it is a negative ad. If you listen closely you can possibly hear the last bit of his 2008 Hope and Change Campaign being strangled to death.

[DarkestLight]

:/ Looked at all those maps. While not as statically analytical as Mr. P, I have some points.

1) lol@ Montana slightly toward Romney. Ha. Has either candidate even been up here this go round? XD

2) Uhh I'm sorry. No joke, that 353 Romney map is not happening. Real talk

3) What happens if neither person reaches 270 (which is a ridiculous number btw, who makes up these stupid rules?)

[Dark Sage]

3) What happens if neither person reaches 270 (which is a ridiculous number btw, who makes up these stupid rules?)

The closest that ever came to happening was in 1877 when Rutherford B. Hayes won, and because the election was so close, he was declared the winner due to a deal made with the Democrats: He'd be declared winner and be President, and in return, he'd end all the Reconstruction laws that the former Confederate states hated.

It's not likely to happen again.

Edit: Btw, Roy, have you heard about Romney's new ad?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ce...b_2018663.html

Likely the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard from his lying mouth.

[kurai]

3) What happens if neither person reaches 270 (which is a ridiculous number btw, who makes up these stupid rules?)

good q

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

270 = (50% + 1) of (Representative Count + Senator Count + DC)

tie goes to the incoming house of representatives

[DarkestLight]

>.> See, normal people would not have picked that apart. Took me three re-reads to get that formula. Stuffy ass language.

Interesting. Didn't know that it was all a rock paper scissors game :/ And tie to the incoming H of R? That's crazy.

So now wait. If the electors meet, and vote, what does popular vote have to do with the electoral vote? I know I learned this before....

Arent the popular (standard people voting) a guide for how the electoral college is supposed to vote? Like, take Cali. 54 EC votes right? If, by some weird ness, everyone in Cali voted Romney, but every Electorate voted Obama, it would go to Obama, right? Or do they really take the average of the people's vote, and depending on the district represented, put up the nomination of the higher vote count of the candidates?

[ex. People vote. 35 districts go Obeezy, 21 Romney. 35 beats 21 so Cali goes to Obama)

Whoever has the higher number of votes then gets the college for that state? Is that how I'm supposed to be reading into this?

[Dark Sage]

Yeah, the people elect the Electors, and then the Electors elect the President.

Yeah, I know... It... Well...

It's the sort of thing that sounded like a good idea at the time...

On a more serious note...

Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, had this to say about his former boss’s endorsement about the President, mostly to address accusations that Mr. Powell had been motivated by race.

“My party, unfortunately, is the bastion of those people -- not all of them, but most of them -- who are still basing their positions on race. Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists, and the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin, and that's despicable.”

He took the words right out of my mouth.

[mr_pikachu]

3) What happens if neither person reaches 270 (which is a ridiculous number btw, who makes up these stupid rules?)

To me, the most entertaining part of the tiebreaking procedure is this basic summary: the House effectively selects the next president, while the Senate chooses the vice president. As others have pointed out, this scenario -- which could arise, for instance, if Romney wrests Iowa and Nevada from the Obama column -- would likely lead to a Romney-Biden victory. How's that for freaky?

Yeah, the people elect the Electors, and then the Electors elect the President.

Yeah, I know... It... Well...

It's the sort of thing that sounded like a good idea at the time...

Well, there are reasons for maintaining the electoral college. The whole idea behind the system was about maintaining states' rights, eschewing a pure popular vote in favor of having the states speak for their people. There are definitely pros and cons to it, though.

[Roy Karrde]

Edit: Btw, Roy, have you heard about Romney's new ad?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ce...b_2018663.html

Likely the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard from his lying mouth.

I do want to point out the irony of you getting on to me for posting partisan links, and then you post this.

But lets get into the ad.

You know what Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and Mitt Romney all have in common?

They were all strong executives, they knew how to work with a opposition party to pass through bipartisan legislation. Obama's lack of experience shows here, he was used to being in a position where he did not have to lift a finger to get anything done. That allows the extremes in his party to propose legislation, and the extremes in the Republican party to block it.

The Democrats in their primary choose some one with no executive experience, instead of some one who had 8 years seeing the inner workings of the White House. So do not whine to me about how badly that choice turned out for your party.

[Dark Sage]

Romney was blaming Mr. Obama for the Republicans fillibustering all of the bills he tried to pass.

I have no further comment.

In other news, early voting opened today in Florida. People waited as long as two and a half hours for the polls to open, and the lines were blocks long in some places in Miami.

Even GOP pundits that I've heard from have admitted that clearly, things are already starting to look good for Mr. Obama.

[kurai]

Huh. Well, that's a... different approach, I suppose.

I might be a little more inclined to buy into their analysis if I could find their results from 2008. I haven't been able to find anything of that sort, though, which suggests that this is the first year they've tried this analysis which is "expected to be spot-on accurate for predicting the outcome in all 50 states and the District of Columbia."

Somehow it just makes me wonder if they're ignorant of stratified sampling techniques. I agree that most of the polls have a slightly inaccurate stratification -- mathematically, if one poll is exactly correct, the others must be a little off -- but that doesn't mean we should throw out basic stratification as a whole. I also hesitate to accept their idea to average the last four elections together as one of their factors, as the political climate has changed quite a bit since 1996. (It also discounts reactionary effects, like the discontent with Bush -- who won two straight elections -- which contributed to Obama's 2008 victory.)

The more I look at this, the more this reeks of overfitting a statistical model. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe they'll prove me wrong and Romney will carry two-thirds of the electoral college. But I'll believe it when I see it.

they did not exist before july of this year, but their methodology is fairly straightforward

they are trying to correct for "oversampling" based on "actual electorate composition"

so they took a bunch of polls and surveys themselves (or so they claim) and determined that the registered electorate is 36 D / 34 R / 30 I

then they also expect turnout values at 35 D / 37 R / 28 I

so they adjust every poll outcome to fit with these characteristics and then come up with a map projection as above

obviously this sets aside the entire process of random sampling & margin of error, party affiliation & turnout dynamism

while this approach puts the outcome before the data (probably not a scientific approach), it is not impossible that its turnout model will fit the actual results (but this is not the same thing as an estimate of the vote)

a historical survey:

2010 midterm exit polls indicated a split of 34 D / 36 R / 29 I @ 41% turnout
2008 pres. exit polls indicated a split of 39 D / 32 R / 29 I @ 62% turnout

2006 midterm exit polls indicated a split of 38 D / 36 R / 26 I @ 40% turnout
2004 pres. exit polls indicated a split of 37 D / 37 R / 26 I @ 60% turnout

2002 midterm exit polls indicated a split of 38 D / 40 R / 22 I @ 40% turnout
2000 pres. exit polls indicated a split of 39 D / 35 R / 27 I @ 54% turnout

[Roy Karrde]

Romney was blaming Mr. Obama for the Republicans fillibustering all of the bills he tried to pass.

I have no further comment.

Except that is the problem, Obama did not try to pass any bills, he let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid try to pass the bills.

How honestly different is this Congress from the one in 1996 that tried to impeach Clinton, or in 2006 that threatened to impeach Bush, or in the 80s that threatened to impeach Reagan? The only difference is there is a real lack of leadership at the top trying to rangle out a bipartisan deal. Bush did it, Clinton did it, Bush Sr. did it on taxes, even Reagan did it. Obama? He takes a hands off approach.

In other news, early voting opened today in Florida. People waited as long as two and a half hours for the polls to open, and the lines were blocks long in some places in Miami.

Even GOP pundits that I've heard from have admitted that clearly, things are already starting to look good for Mr. Obama.

Just saying early voting is up is meaningless. Early voting is up in Wisconsin, but it is in the Republican districts, while the Democratic districts are depressed. You need to explain which districts they are in, and more importantly if they are truly new voters, or if like in Cash for Clunkers it is voters who would already vote on election day.

[Dark Sage]

This endorsement just came from the Salt Lake Tribune. (You know, Salt Lake? Utah? The place where Mormons have more influence than anywhere else?)

Anyway:

"In considering which candidate to endorse, The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board had hoped that Romney would exhibit the same talents for organization, pragmatic problem solving and inspired leadership that he displayed here more than a decade ago. Instead, we have watched him morph into a friend of the far right, then tack toward the center with breathtaking aplomb. Through a pair of presidential debates, Romney’s domestic agenda remains bereft of detail and worthy of mistrust.

Therefore, our endorsement must go to the incumbent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first."

In other words, Romney cannot even get the most influencial periodical representing his own faith to support him. And that's just sad.

[Roy Karrde]

In other words, Romney cannot even get the most influencial periodical representing his own faith to support him. And that's just sad.

And when exactly did the Salt Lake Tribune become the most influencing periodical representing the mormon faith? By the way if you want to start throwing out endorsements, Romney has picked up more than a few of his own in key swing states, which last time I checked... Utah wasn't

[Dark Sage]

Utah is the most Republican state in the country.

The Salt Lake Tribune is the biggest newspaper in Utah.

The Salt Lake Tribune just endorsed Mr. Obama instead of Mr. Romney.

Do the math.

[Roy Karrde]

Utah is the most Republican state in the country.

The Salt Lake Tribune is the biggest newspaper in Utah.

The Salt Lake Tribune just endorsed Mr. Obama instead of Mr. Romney.

Do the math.

So the answer to your math is that the Salt Lake Tribune picked their own liberal beliefs over the Conservative beliefs of the populous. Mind you it is not unusual for a liberal editorial board to go against their own conservative readers. The Dallas Morning News endorsed a Democrat for the Texas U.S. Senate Seat despite the populous clearly favoring Ted Cruz.

[Dark Sage]

I just find it ironic, Roy. The Salt Lake Tribune was the last newspaper in the country that I would have expected to endorse Mr. Obama.

[Roy Karrde]

I just find it ironic, Roy. The Salt Lake Tribune was the last newspaper in the country that I would have expected to endorse Mr. Obama.

* Shrugs * Like I said the news paper does not always reflect it's readers, and more than likely the readers will rebel against it.

[Dark Sage]

I'm not saying that Utah will go blue because of this.

I would expect New York to go red before THAT happened.

By the way, speaking of newspapers, Mr. Obama also got an endorsement from one with quite a few more readers...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...tml?ref=topbar

[Roy Karrde]

Yet unlike New York, or Utah, the Des Moines Register in the swing state of Iowa endorsed Romney today, and smacked around Obama in the process.

"The president’s best efforts to resuscitate the stumbling economy have fallen short. Nothing indicates it would change with a second term in the White House.

The president’s prescription upon entering office was a dose of government stimulus, which was the right call because it put cash in the pockets of consumers, made investments in vital infrastructure and kept millions of teachers and police officers on the job.

That stimulus was necessary to bridge the nation from recession to recovery, but the time is past for more government stimulus.

Consumers must feel more confident about their own economic futures to begin spending on the products and services that power the economy. A renewed sense of confidence will spark renewed investment by American companies. Industry will return to full production and hiring will begin again.

That should come with Mitt Romney in the White House."

The Des Moines Register is one of the many news papers who have previously endorsed Obama and jumped ship. By the way this is the first time since 1972 and Nixon that the paper has endorsed a Republican.

[Dark Sage]

The New York Times is not limited to New York readers, Roy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...l#slide=923677

And I'm certain that the endorsments Romney got from Ten Nugent, Hank Williams Jr, Lindsay Lohan, and now Meat Loaf are helping him MUCH better than the endorsment that Mr. Obama got from Mr. Powell.

[Roy Karrde]

The New York Times is not limited to New York readers, Roy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...l#slide=923677

And I'm certain that the endorsments Romney got from Ten Nugent, Hank Williams Jr, Lindsay Lohan, and now Meat Loaf are helping him MUCH better than the endorsment that Mr. Obama got from Mr. Powell.

You realize the NY Times has picked a Democrat since the 50s, it would be a much bigger surprise if they picked a Republican such as the Des Moines Register endorsement.

[kurai]

FiveThirtyEight - Now-cast



RealClearPolitics - General Election: Romney vs. Obama



Intrade - 2012 Presidential Election Winner (Individual)



Votamatic [no change]



electoral-vote.com



RealClearPolitics Electoral College Map [no change]



Talking Points Memo - Electoral Scoreboard



Huffington Post - Electoral Map [no change]



Karl Rove [no change]



UnSkewed Polls - Unskewed Projection [no change]



Princeton Election Consortium - Electoral College Map [no change]



Washington Dispatch - Electoral College Count [no change]

[Roy Karrde]

A interesting note from Politico in terms of Obama's so called Ohio lead in early voting...

There are normally three signs you know a campaign metrics memo is purely spin.

1. Anecdotes: “We have seen groups as big as 100 voters going to vote in Athens, Ohio.” Only 604 democrats have voted in person in the entire county and no more than 40 in a single precinct (that would be Athens 3-5, for those scoring at home).

2. Unverifiable Data: “Precincts that Obama won in 2008 are voting early at a higher rate”: This is unverifiable and misleading because there is no such thing as an “Obama precinct.” Every ten years, the entire country rebalances its voting districts based on a constitutionally mandated census. In 2010, this process redrew the lines of reportable voting areas that were used in 2008. So this year, we have entirely new precincts, thereby making it impossible to validate their claim.

3. Cherry-picking random sub-poll data: “Time poll shows the President up 60-30” among early voters. That sub-sample was asked of 145 people and was one of many of similar ilk (with a huge variation in results). Their central data argument is that 43 more people told Time’s pollster over a two-day window they supported Obama. If that is their best claim to a lead in Ohio, it is a troubling picture for the president.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...2-3D644B43C2D4

Looks like that big "lead in early voting" Obama has is nothing more than fuzzy math.

[mr_pikachu]

Yeah, I saw that article too, Roy. I don't necessarily think it spells doom for Obama -- he's still leading or tied in every major Ohio poll, so gauging the results based on early voting alone may be a mistake -- but it really underscores how little we'll know about this election until votes are being counted in nine days.

[Dark Sage]

I'm not going to argue with you anymore Roy. I'm just going to wait for the election, and part with these words:

You compared Romney's campaign to the Death Star. As I've said before, that means that Romney is Darth Vader, and it also means that Mr. Obama is Luke Skywalker at the helm of an X-Wing Fighter.

Will the outcome be the same as it was in the movie? I can't say for sure.

But I will say this of Mr. Obama: As Darth Vader himself admitted in that fateful battle, "the Force is strong in this one".

[Leon-IH]

You know what Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and Mitt Romney all have in common?

Lets see..

Dubya and Reagan left the economy in a steaming pile. So lets not talk about them as though they got good things done.

The major policies of Clinton's first term were passed with pretty much zero republican support, Clinton would end up rubber stamping some tax cuts in his second term when republicans had house and senate.

Romney as governor of Massachusetts basically rubber stamped Democrat legislation.

[Dark Sage]

By the way, Roy, here's the CIA's response to Fox New's "breaking story" on Benghazi:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/globa...denied/58419/#

The question is, who do you believe, them, or a network who has a history of being caught lying?

By the way, as for your "worse that Watergate" claim? That's what Limbaugh said. When you start to quote him, I stop taking you seriously.

[Roy Karrde]

Lets see..

Dubya and Reagan left the economy in a steaming pile. So lets not talk about them as though they got good things done.

Well I could go in how that the economy was doing pretty well into around 1990 when a number of factors including the Gulf War slowed it down. Or the fact that Reagan actually lifted the economy after the steaming pile left by Jimmy Carter. Or that Bush warned Congress repeatedly about the Subprime Crisis, only for Democrats to rebuff him multiple times. But I honestly do not see how a bad economy undoes all the bipartisan work they did.

The major policies of Clinton's first term were passed with pretty much zero republican support, Clinton would end up rubber stamping some tax cuts in his second term when republicans had house and senate.

You realize that the Republicans got the House and the Senate midway through Clinton's first term, and that the only big policy that he really tried to get through before that to my memory was Hillarycare. But two major accomplishments ascribed to the Clinton Presidency: Welfare Reform, and the Balance Budget/Surplus. Were done with work between Clinton and the Republicans. Clinton vetoed Welfare Reform multiple times, and the Balance Budget/Surplus caused the Government to shut down once, and threaten more shut downs.

Romney as governor of Massachusetts basically rubber stamped Democrat legislation.

Proof?

By the way, Roy, here's the CIA's response to Fox New's "breaking story" on Benghazi:

The question is, who do you believe, them, or a network who has a history of being caught lying?

Note what they say, the CIA did not deny it, that leaves the White House and DoD on the hook as people who were involved in it and possibly denied the help. Also if your "History of caught lying" includes the court case you love to site, it should be noted that wasn't Fox News in the court case but a local affiliate of WTVT.

By the way, as for your "worse that Watergate" claim? That's what Limbaugh said. When you start to quote him, I stop taking you seriously.

I don't listen to Limbaugh, and he is not the only one who has come to that conclusion.

[Dark Sage]

When does Fox tell lies?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...by-News-Corpse

Those are just the eight most recent ones.

[Roy Karrde]

When does Fox tell lies?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...by-News-Corpse

Those are just the eight most recent ones.

I never said "When" I merely asked if your list included the previously mention Court Case. All News Stations "Lie" or are caught misstating information, there is not one that hasn't.

And dude seriously Daily Kos? What ever happened to getting on me for posting Hot Air.

Also I thought you were not "Arguing" with me until after Election Day.

[Dark Sage]

When I saw the CIA deny what so many people are claiming is "bigger than Watergate", it was too good to pass up.

[Roy Karrde]

When I saw the CIA deny what so many people are claiming is "bigger than Watergate", it was too good to pass up.

When I am saying it is bigger than Watergate I am speaking of the Benguazi situation as a whole. Also the CIA denied that they did not have a hand in it, they did not deny that requests were made and denied by another group that was involved.

[Dark Sage]

Their response clearly states that they DID NOT refuse any requests for help or order any soliders to do so, which is what the story claims happened.

It's that simple.

[Roy Karrde]

Their response clearly states that they DID NOT refuse any requests for help, which is what the story claims happened.

It's that simple.

This is the story:

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

This is what the CIA says

" Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."

Note the CIA does not control Sigonella Air Base, Tier One Special Operations Forces, or Delta Force operators.

Mind you no matter what you believe of the Fox News Story the fact that they were watching the situation unfold in real time, and had the ability to scramble jets and did not, shows they were not willing to provide significant U.S. assets to help them.

It's that simple.

[Dark Sage]

Believe what you want Roy.

If there's one thing I've learned from the past 76 pages, you tend to be wrong far more often tha you are right.

It took a month of falling gas prices for you to admit that the Republicans wouldn't be able to use high gas prices as a weapon against Mr. Obama.

You were so sure that the Affordable Health Care Act would be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court up to the very day it wasn't.

Most recently, you were sure that they'd appeal the voter ID laws that have been overturned or put on hold. The supporters of those laws haven't even tried, and it's too late to get them reinstated now.

I should have just stuck to my original decision and stopped when I had the chance. See you again on the 7th.

[Roy Karrde]

If there's one thing I've learned from the past 76 pages, you tend to be wrong far more often tha you are right.

Got a statistical percentage on that? Or did you just make it up.

It took a month of falling gas prices for you to admit that the Republicans wouldn't be able to use high gas prices as a weapon against Mr. Obama.

I believe it remains one of their talking points

You were so sure that the Affordable Health Care Act would be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court up to the very day it wasn't.

The Supreme Court changed it to a taxation method in a attempt to make it constitutional, I was merely going off the law presented, and did not believe the Supreme Court would change it in such a way.

Most recently, you were sure that they'd appeal the voter ID laws that have been overturned or put on hold. The supporters of those laws haven't even tried, and it's too late to get them reinstated now.

I said they could try to implement it in the way that the law was originally passed, they decided not to.

I should have just stuck to my original decision and stopped when I had the chance. See you again on the 7th.

Uh-huh...

[mr_pikachu]

The only thing I'll say about that last exchange is that a lot of political commentators on both sides of the aisle thought that the Supreme Court was going to strike down the mandate component of the Affordable Care Act, based on the way the justices seemed to respond. Many analysts, including those who adored the bill, thought that Verrilli completely bungled the oral arguments. I, at least, really can't blame Roy for expecting the Supreme Court to strike down the mandate. While he certainly had some personal biases there, he wasn't the only one surprised by the ruling.

In any case, getting back to the election itself, I'm growing ever more anxious to see the early returns on Ohio. That's clearly Romney's easiest route to crack the presidency, although something like an Iowa-Wisconsin tandem would also get him there -- as long as he holds other gains like Florida. That's all very much in question, of course. Looking at the RCP average, Obama currently holds a fairly steady lead around 2% in Ohio.

Now, it's possible that some of the Ohio polls are a little skewed, especially if you're more inclined to trust Rasmussen's call of a tied race (they've had it within 1% since August). But still, Romney hasn't been able to actually take a lead there, which makes you wonder. Unlike the national polls, I haven't seen any real momentum for him in Ohio. He's kept it close, but he hasn't made a lot of progress.

[Roy Karrde]

In any case, getting back to the election itself, I'm growing ever more anxious to see the early returns on Ohio. That's clearly Romney's easiest route to crack the presidency, although something like an Iowa-Wisconsin tandem would also get him there -- as long as he holds other gains like Florida. That's all very much in question, of course. Looking at the RCP average, Obama currently holds a fairly steady lead around 2% in Ohio.

Now, it's possible that some of the Ohio polls are a little skewed, especially if you're more inclined to trust Rasmussen's call of a tied race (they've had it within 1% since August). But still, Romney hasn't been able to actually take a lead there, which makes you wonder. Unlike the national polls, I haven't seen any real momentum for him in Ohio. He's kept it close, but he hasn't made a lot of progress.

I have to agree I think that the White House goes through Ohio, I would say the polls are tighter if not slightly more in Romney's favor than what we see. If only because of the nationwide polls ( I've seen reports saying Republicans usually do better in Ohio than they do nationally ). Not to mention there has been some serious problems with them, the latest being a D+8 advantage.

Either way we may know this early or.... we may not know for weeks as power outages from the Hurricane could cause states to resort to paper ballots.

One interesting note! There is a possibility that Obama will become the first incumbent to win the electoral college, but lose the popular vote. Such a thing would immediately rob Obama of any mandate, cause more hyper partisanship, and probably turn Obama into a lame duck.

[mr_pikachu]

So, I was thinking about the post I made earlier about the gap in economic perceptions between Democrats and Republicans. It's probably fallen back a good dozen pages now, and I don't feel like sifting through hundreds of posts to find it at the moment. Basically, though, it was a poll showing that the majority of Republican voters think the economy is in terrible shape, while most Democrats think it's doing reasonably well.

With that in mind, I have to wonder whether those perceptions will play into any enthusiasm gap on election day. Those who think that the economy is in a crisis may flood the polls in nine days with the idea that they need to do their part to save the economy. Those who think we're doing just fine might lack that same sense of urgency. I suppose it's more important than ever, then, that Obama mobilize voters this election. That might make the difference in states like Ohio, where Obama's winning with "likely voters" but might falter if Republicans see this election as being more crucial than their Democratic counterparts. Obama's legendary for driving voters across demographics to the polls in 2008, of course, so if he can do that again next week then he may yet be safe in those toss-up states.

Anyway, I just thought I'd muse about that for a moment. Carry on.