2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Roy Karrde]

What he said in Ohio was not only a lie, it was a very unconvincing lie. If you lived in a Ohio, you'd have to be a hermit who has not had any contact with people for about ten years to believe it. Like the anchor said, the people there follow the auto industry like they do a local baseball team.

Then they should have read Romney's article in 2008 and know that Obama was telling them a boldface lie when he said Romney would have let the auto industry go under in 2008.

[Dark Sage]

Romney was in favor of letting them fail. He opposed the auto bailout.

[Roy Karrde]

Romney was in favor of letting them fail. He opposed the auto bailout.

Incorrect Romney's article stated that he was willing to allow them to go through a structured bankruptcy with Government support.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main

By the way Romney's ad? As Forbes put it, it is factually accurate. The same cannot be said about Obama's claim on Romney.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrode...n-of-campaign/

[Dark Sage]

Forbes thinks that Romney was technically right and that what he said was technically the truth?

I doubt that the average voter technically cares.

[Roy Karrde]

Forbes thinks that Romney was technically right and that what he said was technically the truth?

I doubt that the average voter technically cares.

Right now the average voter is going on emotion, that is why having a President act so childish in the last month from Big Bird, to saying "Vote for Revenge" does not help Obama.

[Plantae]

Forbes may be technically right, but either way, the report is disingenuous. Romney wanted the bailout to be provided for by minimal government assistance (the definition of which is never actually explained, anywhere) and private funds, which weren't reasonably available during a meltdown. The likely result of this would have been greater liquidation and disarray. Without the government bailout, the managed bankruptcy that Romney did indeed suggest was not really possible. Actually, it's quite possible that without the bailout, the auto industry would have gone belly up.

Also, on Jeeps in China: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ans-china-ame/

On Obama's "voting is the best revenge" comment.
1. Should there really be such a thing as an "average voter," I doubt they saw this clip. That, and they're probably not interested in watching any attack ads Mitt Romney might use to spin it into something painting Obama as unpatriotic. Which just isn't true in this instance.
3. There is nothing truly heinous about the "voting is the best revenge" comment. The suggestion seems to be that it is the reasonable, even civic, way to disagree with the other side. What exactly is wrong with this idea?
4. The only people who will be scared by this tactic are white, working class Republicans who think Obama's "revenge" means "racial comeuppance."

[Leon-IH]

Romney is up 6 in Florida

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/0...-6-in-florida/

The averaging of polls has a slight lead to either candidate in Florida or even, I think we all know at this point that single polls don't mean much. Most recent polling shows a close race, and with Clinton campaigning there for Obama it is certainly getting closer than it was a few weeks ago.

And in which crowd has Romney said Obama is a Muslim?

I can't be bothered tracking down the videos (because listening to stupid rednecks talk makes me want to put my fist through a wall), but on several occasions Romney has been at events where Obama has been declared to be a 'Muslim' or an 'Arab' and made no effort to refute the inaccurate characterisations.

As for McCain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRq6Y4NmB6U

Say what you like about his campaign strategy, his choice of running mate, at least he campaigned with integrity and class on an actual solid set of plans, unlike Romney who seems to chameleon to be whatever he thinks the crowd in front of him will support.

You know what, Romney could go out and say Obama is the most Christian American to ever walk this Earth. And the left and the media would willingly go along with Romney being looney and out of touch.

Oh geez, the 'liberal media' argument?

I thought you were smarter than that.

[Roy Karrde]

The averaging of polls has a slight lead to either candidate in Florida or even, I think we all know at this point that single polls don't mean much. Most recent polling shows a close race, and with Clinton campaigning there for Obama it is certainly getting closer than it was a few weeks ago.

The "Average" of polls, includes polls that are days if not weeks old, nor does it get rid of polls that have massive over sampling ( One in Ohio today for example had a D +9 sample ). As such using it, especially this late in the race is wrong.

I can't be bothered tracking down the videos (because listening to stupid rednecks talk makes me want to put my fist through a wall), but on several occasions Romney has been at events where Obama has been declared to be a 'Muslim' or an 'Arab' and made no effort to refute the inaccurate characterisations.

As for McCain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRq6Y4NmB6U

Say what you like about his campaign strategy, his choice of running mate, at least he campaigned with integrity and class on an actual solid set of plans, unlike Romney who seems to chameleon to be whatever he thinks the crowd in front of him will support.

No, no, no. I said when has Romney said it, you say he has "Shifted positions" or "Chameleon" himself infront of a crowd, that insinuates that he supports those positions. I want proof, saying he does not refute what a idiot says in a crowd does not mean he supports that position. Idiots in crowds say things at both events, both for Romney and Obama, neither has gotten up to shout down the crowd. But to say he has shifted positions, suggests that he actually supports what the crowd is saying.

So either provide proof, or retract the statement.

Oh geez, the 'liberal media' argument?

I thought you were smarter than that.

So you suggest that the media does not carry water for Obama?

As say lets look at the study that came out on Benghazi which shows the media largely went along with what Obama said happened.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...nghazi-attack/

Forbes may be technically right, but either way, the report is disingenuous. Romney wanted the bailout to be provided for by minimal government assistance (the definition of which is never actually explained, anywhere) and private funds, which weren't reasonably available during a meltdown. The likely result of this would have been greater liquidation and disarray. Without the government bailout, the managed bankruptcy that Romney did indeed suggest was not really possible. Actually, it's quite possible that without the bailout, the auto industry would have gone belly up.

What the creditors would do, how GM would react, how the Government would step in if things did not go to plan is all speculation. The fact is that Obama's claim that Romney would let GM go under based on what he wrote however is a bald face lie, period.

Also, on Jeeps in China: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ans-china-ame/

You know what is sad about Politifact is that they have stopped dealing with facts the only thing they can come up that they believe is non factual about the ad, is "what impression it leaves". Maybe Politifact should stick to the facts and stop psychoanalyzing ads.

On Obama's "voting is the best revenge" comment.
1. Should there really be such a thing as an "average voter," I doubt they saw this clip. That, and they're probably not interested in watching any attack ads Mitt Romney might use to spin it into something painting Obama as unpatriotic. Which just isn't true in this instance.

Hmm taking a cherished American freedom, one that people have fought and died for, and resorting to use it in a petty attempt for "revenge" and you say that is unpatriotic?

3. There is nothing truly heinous about the "voting is the best revenge" comment. The suggestion seems to be that it is the reasonable, even civic, way to disagree with the other side. What exactly is wrong with this idea?

Disagree? Yes. Seeking Revenge? That puts a significant negative connotation to it, it suggests that you have been personally wronged, to again phrase a political disagreement as revenge is petty and childish.

4. The only people who will be scared by this tactic are white, working class Republicans who think Obama's "revenge" means "racial comeuppance."

Yeah I wonder where they get THAT idea

Maybe with the death threats, and the threats of rioting, and the other racial scare tactics getting thrown around if Obama loses, maybe Obama should choose better words?

[mr_pikachu]

I'll say one thing. This country seems as divided as it's ever been -- or at least as divided as it's been during our lifetimes. (The Civil War was probably worse, but that's not saying much.) I don't think I've ever seen such a deep division between Americans.

Even when W. was in office, things weren't this volatile -- you had snide jokes all over the place, and even shows like "Lil' Dubya" or whatever openly mocking the president, but it never went beyond snarkiness. Open threats of violence are... different. And so is the sense from both sides that the country will be decimated if the other party holds the presidency through 2016.

It's kind of scary, honestly, to see the deep chasms between Americans, and to see people treat others as though they're sub-human if they don't share the same political affiliations.

This is why, when I'm on campus, I make a rule not to disclose my political beliefs. There are only a couple of people whom I know largely agree with me, and we only talk politics a) off campus or b) in hushed voices behind locked doors. It may sound a little paranoid, but it's honestly not: the last guy in our department who openly said he leaned right was treated as a pariah. Granted, he was okay with being treated that way, as he deemed the open hostility a worthwhile in order to have a free voice. But still, the point stands. That really doesn't seem like it should be an exchange anyone has to consider in the first place.

[mattbcl]

^ This.

[Leon-IH]

The "Average" of polls, includes polls that are days if not weeks old, nor does it get rid of polls that have massive over sampling ( One in Ohio today for example had a D +9 sample ). As such using it, especially this late in the race is wrong.

Perhaps an average of relevant polls is what I'm suggesting -- throw out the obviously wrong ones and take an average. Last election PPP fell a few points too far democrat, Rasmussen fell a few points too far republican, Quinnipac was the most accurate but still had errors both ways enough to be the difference between some close races. Single polls don't really mean much.

Obama has been gaining lately -- he's even nationally in a recent Rassmussen poll for the first time since early October.

No, no, no. I said when has Romney said it, you say he has "Shifted positions" or "Chameleon" himself infront of a crowd, that insinuates that he supports those positions. I want proof, saying he does not refute what a idiot says in a crowd does not mean he supports that position. Idiots in crowds say things at both events, both for Romney and Obama, neither has gotten up to shout down the crowd. But to say he has shifted positions, suggests that he actually supports what the crowd is saying.

So either provide proof, or retract the statement.

Romney shifting positions..

Various ones in the Debates: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZfXvFAeHVo
Gun Laws: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj8Nk3p1wyY
Abortion, Global Warming and Healthcare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyp2QIGejq4

By failing to speak out against lies that are right in front of you, you're offering a tacit approval; Romney is working with people like Donald Trump and making birth certificate jokes -- he's far from doing what McCain did and telling the inaccurate loony bin part of his party to stop spreading falsehoods.

I've never said Romney has offered an explicit approval, but he's certainly got no interest in quelling the bullshit either.

So you suggest that the media does not carry water for Obama?

As say lets look at the study that came out on Benghazi which shows the media largely went along with what Obama said happened.

The media will follow the white house line on *most* events of this nature, at least at first, many newspapers had Hussein having WMD pre-Iraq invasion -- which had zero credibility as we all found out later.

I'll say one thing. This country seems as divided as it's ever been -- or at least as divided as it's been during our lifetimes. (The Civil War was probably worse, but that's not saying much.) I don't think I've ever seen such a deep division between Americans.

Funny you mention the civil war, I was reading the other day that this election has a good chance of ending up with all the former confederate states being in the same block -- a near literal return to the civil war albeit in cold war form.

[Asilynne]

I'll say one thing. This country seems as divided as it's ever been -- or at least as divided as it's been during our lifetimes. (The Civil War was probably worse, but that's not saying much.) I don't think I've ever seen such a deep division between Americans.

Even when W. was in office, things weren't this volatile -- you had snide jokes all over the place, and even shows like "Lil' Dubya" or whatever openly mocking the president, but it never went beyond snarkiness. Open threats of violence are... different. And so is the sense from both sides that the country will be decimated if the other party holds the presidency through 2016.

It's kind of scary, honestly, to see the deep chasms between Americans, and to see people treat others as though they're sub-human if they don't share the same political affiliations.

This is why, when I'm on campus, I make a rule not to disclose my political beliefs. There are only a couple of people whom I know largely agree with me, and we only talk politics a) off campus or b) in hushed voices behind locked doors. It may sound a little paranoid, but it's honestly not: the last guy in our department who openly said he leaned right was treated as a pariah. Granted, he was okay with being treated that way, as he deemed the open hostility a worthwhile in order to have a free voice. But still, the point stands. That really doesn't seem like it should be an exchange anyone has to consider in the first place.

I agree, for the longest time I felt like I had to hide how I felt about certain things because when I didn't I got abuse hurled at me, whether it was anonymous (like the nasty letter on my car because of my bumper sticker in the 2008 election) or personal (some friends of mine knowing full well my leanings and yet making generalised statements about people with my leanings). Its really sad. Especially since I had learned in my late teens that you can have different beliefs than people and still be their friends by respecting their opinions, unfortunately some people haven't learned that yet.

Now, I don't seek out arguments still but I'm not afraid to tell people how I feel and what my leanings are. If they are my friends they can choose to value our friendship even if we disagree and if they can't seem to move past it then that will be their choice but I would hope that we can agree to disagree. Honestly I feel the country is being played, by how divided it is, to what end though I have no idea. Still doesn't stop me for seeing it as sad. I think I speak for a lot of people though that I can't wait until this election is over with.

[Roy Karrde]

Perhaps an average of relevant polls is what I'm suggesting -- throw out the obviously wrong ones and take an average. Last election PPP fell a few points too far democrat, Rasmussen fell a few points too far republican, Quinnipac was the most accurate but still had errors both ways enough to be the difference between some close races. Single polls don't really mean much.

Obama has been gaining lately -- he's even nationally in a recent Rassmussen poll for the first time since early October.

Except places like RCP does not do such a average, and when it comes to states, such a average is even harder to find.

Romney shifting positions..

Various ones in the Debates: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZfXvFAeHVo
Gun Laws: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj8Nk3p1wyY
Abortion, Global Warming and Healthcare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyp2QIGejq4

Nice try but you continue to avoid the point. When has Mitt Romney shifted positions on Obama being a Muslim.

By failing to speak out against lies that are right in front of you, you're offering a tacit approval; Romney is working with people like Donald Trump and making birth certificate jokes -- he's far from doing what McCain did and telling the inaccurate loony bin part of his party to stop spreading falsehoods.

Or maybe you just do not want to take the time to address idiots? Or maybe he feels the need to not stick up for a campaign that has called him a criminal, and who's supporters have said he is complicit in murder?

Obama's own campaign has people on it that says that Romney is a criminal, that is a "loony" as you put it, yet the people are still hired. Obama has not publicly gone after them yet. Does that mean that Obama approves of it?

At a Obama rally, one of his supporters called Romney a "Traitor"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ers?CMP=twt_fd

Obama did not correct him, does that mean Obama supports trying Romney for treason? By your own argument it does.

I could go on and on and on...

I've never said Romney has offered an explicit approval, but he's certainly got no interest in quelling the bullshit either.

You said this, when we were speaking of members of the crowd attacking Obama for being a Muslim.

"shift positions based on the crowd he's standing in front of." Now what should I draw from the word "shift positions" other than Romney changing from saying that Obama isn't a muslim to a position that he is.

The media will follow the white house line on *most* events of this nature, at least at first, many newspapers had Hussein having WMD pre-Iraq invasion -- which had zero credibility as we all found out later.

Actually it had alot of credibility, as it was built up from 1993 onward, and was a main selling point of two administrations, specifically the Clinton Administration when they bombed Iraq in 1998 for refusing UN weapon inspectors.

[kurai]

FiveThirtyEight - Now-cast



RealClearPolitics - General Election: Romney vs. Obama



Intrade - 2012 Presidential Election Winner (Individual)



Votamatic [no change]



electoral-vote.com [no change]



Talking Points Memo - Electoral Scoreboard [no change]



Huffington Post - Electoral Map [no change]



Karl Rove [no change]



UnSkewed Polls - Unskewed Projection [no change]



Princeton Election Consortium - Electoral College Map



Washington Dispatch - Electoral College Count [no change]

[Magmar]

Hey kurai, thanks for posting all of those poll summaries so consistently. It's interesting to see how different perspectives result in different results. Good on you!

[Plantae]

Now, I don't seek out arguments still but I'm not afraid to tell people how I feel and what my leanings are. If they are my friends they can choose to value our friendship even if we disagree and if they can't seem to move past it then that will be their choice but I would hope that we can agree to disagree. Honestly I feel the country is being played, by how divided it is, to what end though I have no idea. Still doesn't stop me for seeing it as sad. I think I speak for a lot of people though that I can't wait until this election is over with.

I wish everyone could be this positive. But there are times when agreeing to disagree just doesn't cut it. Argument is the only useful, rational way to solve problems and resolve differences. The problem isn't that Americans disagree on the issues. It's that they can't disagree civilly. But how could they? As a middle-class American, I'm lucky enough to be able to ride out the storm; whomever may be elected president, I don't think my life will change too much. But there are people who don't have that luxury. And it's understandable, even expected, that those people can't be friends with their ideological opponents, who may be actively working to disenfranchise them.

Hey kurai, thanks for posting all of those poll summaries so consistently. It's interesting to see how different perspectives result in different results. Good on you!

I agree. Thanks kurai. I've been checking this thread now for my daily update.

What the creditors would do, how GM would react, how the Government would step in if things did not go to plan is all speculation. The fact is that Obama's claim that Romney would let GM go under based on what he wrote however is a bald face lie, period.

The auto industry going under is a plausible outcome of Romney's lack of forethought as to what kind of government intervention was required. But I won't disagree that Obama saying that Romney wanted GM to go under is a stretch.

You know what is sad about Politifact is that they have stopped dealing with facts the only thing they can come up that they believe is non factual about the ad, is "what impression it leaves". Maybe Politifact should stick to the facts and stop psychoanalyzing ads.

Genetic Fallacy.

Hmm taking a cherished American freedom, one that people have fought and died for, and resorting to use it in a petty attempt for "revenge" and you say that is [sic] [not] unpatriotic?

Disagree? Yes. Seeking Revenge? That puts a significant negative connotation to it, it suggests that you have been personally wronged, to again phrase a political disagreement as revenge is petty and childish.

People have fought and died for the right to vote, not for a specific way of using that right.
Some people do feel personally wronged by the other side's politics. And it is exactly patriotic to expect that they will want to use every legal method to rectify their situation. People who feel that they were harmed by the economic policies of the past administration should use voting as an outlet for their frustrations. This is what voting is for.

Revenge can have a negative connotation, but it can also be an essential component of justice. Consider that our modern legal system enacts "vengeance" on criminals. People who think politicians have committed non-criminal, but still significant, wrongs against society should be entitled to this same form of justice.

Yeah I wonder where they get THAT idea

Maybe with the death threats, and the threats of rioting, and the other racial scare tactics getting thrown around if Obama loses, maybe Obama should choose better words?

Link 1: Since when is racial comedy off-limits? Don't tell the stand-up comedians.
Link 2: Hasty Generalization. No doubt similar extremists exist on the other side. Plenty of white folks said they'd lynch Obama if he was elected back in 2008. Thankfully, these types of people are the minority.

[Heald]

Unfortunately, debate and reasonable argument can't really exist where one side is unwilling to concede even marginally that their side could possibly be in the wrong. Both of the two main people in this thread have more or less refused to acknowledge that the candidate they have been supporting could in any way be flawed in comparison to the other. Amplify that by a hundred million and you have the basic electorate. Either Obama is a saint or Obama is the devil, there is no middle ground. The truth is Obama hasn't been a great President but he has been handed the worst economic legacy since the Second World War, and an America that had the deepest social and class divisions for generations, to the point where multi-millionaires created a movement that demonised the poor and socially deprived so they could still control the country's wealth. The argument has become whether Obama has managed to play a shitty hand well, and whether Mitt Romney can take up the cards Obama has left and play them better. Either way, come Wednesday, this will hopefully all be over and we will likely either face two new candidates, or President Romney defending a term I imagine will not be too dissimilar to Obama's first term. Time will tell, but if Obama loses on Tuesday then, as with most one-termers, history will not judge them favourably.

[MToolen]

Revenge can have a negative connotation, but it can also be an essential component of justice. Consider that our modern legal system enacts "vengeance" on criminals. People who think politicians have committed non-criminal, but still significant, wrongs against society should be entitled to this same form of justice.

I'm not sure I agree with your (or Mr. Obama's) terminology choice. The justice system, in my opinion, isn't supposed to dole out revenge, but rather consequences. I worry heavily about the pervasiveness of vengeance in our culture because it directly conflicts not only with my personal spiritual beliefs but also the virtue of compromise that is so integral to the functionality of our government. Yes, the law protects those who are wronged and punishes those who have wronged them, but I don't believe it gives an opportunity for vengeance.

On a more general note, looking forward to this election's close. I can't wait for the parties to stop campaigning and start working together. Ha, almost got through that with a straight face. Here's hoping, though.

[mr_pikachu]

I'm not sure I agree with your (or Mr. Obama's) terminology choice. The justice system, in my opinion, isn't supposed to dole out revenge, but rather consequences. I worry heavily about the pervasiveness of vengeance in our culture because it directly conflicts not only with my personal spiritual beliefs but also the virtue of compromise that is so integral to the functionality of our government. Yes, the law protects those who are wronged and punishes those who have wronged them, but I don't believe it gives an opportunity for vengeance.

I like the way you put that, MToolen. I can't claim to know Obama's frame on mind, so I can't say whether or not he really feels that his victory will be some sort of "revenge" against his Republican challenger. But if his words are to be taken at face value -- as some undoubtedly will, just as some took Romney's verbal slips to be verbatim indications of his core beliefs -- then they really don't agree with how I feel.

It sort of goes along with the whole division-between-the-political-parties thing. I've heard others say, in a similar vein, things like "I hate Romney" or "I hate Obama," and both quotes make me cringe. (I've heard more of the former, really, based on my profession of choice.)

I would personally argue that Obama failed as a leader, that he was given a bad situation (largely due to the last year or two of W's presidency) and made it much worse through policies that were extremely ill-advised, if well-intentioned. But just because I want him out of office as soon as possible doesn't mean I'm looking to wreak vengeance on Obama. I'm not planning to start riots in the streets, regardless of who wins in two days. For the most part, I'm just hopeful that Romney can bring more effective policies that will keep our economy from disintegrating further.

And, on a side note, the introduction of new-and-improved policies may or may not be possible with the current bipolar state of the political arena. I would expect the president to struggle through the next four years, unless one side manages to take control over both houses of Congress. As a matter of personal opinion, I think Obama has made matters worse in this regard as well (just as his predecessor did -- bipartisanship wasn't one of W's strengths), but the question still remains whether Romney could do a lot better. Based on his history as governor, I'd like to have some faith in his ability to get both sides to work together, but based on the tone of this campaign cycle and the volatile national political scene as a whole, I'm really not so sure.

[Heald]

On a more general note, looking forward to this election's close.

A sentiment that seems to be shared by at least one wise little 4-year old:

[kurai]

It is 735 days until Tuesday, November 4, 2014.

[Dark Sage]

It is 735 days until Tuesday, November 4, 2014.

A little early to start thinking about that, isn't it?

[mr_pikachu]

Well, maybe kurai's thinking about creating the next election thread. This one did start almost 15 months ago, after all.

[Roy Karrde]

Before I start this off I want everyone to know that it is a lock that Romney will win. The election is over. Period

The Redskins lost today at home, as stated if the Redskins lose at home, the incumbent loses the election ( If the Incumbent won the popular vote in the previous election ).

The auto industry going under is a plausible outcome of Romney's lack of forethought as to what kind of government intervention was required. But I won't disagree that Obama saying that Romney wanted GM to go under is a stretch.

Well atleast we agree with that.

Genetic Fallacy.

Alright lets dive deeper.

Politifact says this constitute the "Pants on Fire' definition

Pants on Fire – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.

Now what does accuracy mean?

the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accuracy

Now Politifact's gripe about Romney's article is that it leaves out information, or "leaves the wrong impression". Neither of those address if what Romney is saying is true or correct.

Now if Politifact has gotten into judging ads by what it leaves out, or what impression it leaves. And not if it is merely factually correct or not. Then every ad fits into that category, and should be deemed as "Pants on Fire"

Revenge can have a negative connotation, but it can also be an essential component of justice. Consider that our modern legal system enacts "vengeance" on criminals. People who think politicians have committed non-criminal, but still significant, wrongs against society should be entitled to this same form of justice.

Lets look at what Vengeance means.

"infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person;"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vengeance

By your definition, our Justice System is stacked by those who have been harmed, that there is no semblance of impartiality. That the victims of the crime are the ones who dole out the punishment.

Link 1: Since when is racial comedy off-limits? Don't tell the stand-up comedians.

Lets flip this around, lets say that there have been threats made from Whites to Blacks when it comes to supporting Obama. There have been numerous threats of riots being made. There is even worries the KKK or other extremists may fuel the fires if Obama wins.

And lets say that Rush Limbaugh came on the air. This is a guy who is a known partisan, known for saying inflammatory things, and has alot on the line when it comes to a Romney win. And with all of these threats happening he says.

"You know what Blacks, you better vote for Romney, or else White people know where you live."

Is anyone in their right mind going to say he is joking? That he is not making a racial threat at a time in which racial violence could break out? No one would believe that. So why should we believe Bill Maher was making a joke?

Link 2: Hasty Generalization. No doubt similar extremists exist on the other side. Plenty of white folks said they'd lynch Obama if he was elected back in 2008. Thankfully, these types of people are the minority.

Yeah difference is that when the White Community feels slighted, they usually do not engage in mass rioting and racial vengeance. On the other hand you have... Rodney King

[Dark Sage]

Before I start this off I want everyone to know that it is a lock that Romney will win. The election is over. Period

The Redskins lost today at home, as stated if the Redskins lose at home, the incumbent loses the election ( If the Incumbent won the popular vote in the previous election ).

Roy, when the "Curse of the Bambino" was lifted and the Red Sox won the World Series in 2004, their weren't any earth-shaking repercussions.

Lord, I hate sports superstitions.

[mr_pikachu]

Before I start this off I want everyone to know that it is a lock that Romney will win. The election is over. Period

The Redskins lost today at home, as stated if the Redskins lose at home, the incumbent loses the election ( If the Incumbent won the popular vote in the previous election ).

The funny thing is, I used to think of elections in much the same way that I look at sports contests. I definitely get behind my favorite teams, and I feel great if they win and a little down if they lose, but it didn't always feel like there were such great consequences from the outcome. Now it feels like the future of the country hinges on who wins, and that brings a very different sort of anxiety than waiting to see the outcome of a baseball game.

Maybe my perspective has just shifted because I've seen enough to appreciate the nuances in what's happening. Or maybe it's because something fundamental has changed about American politics itself. I couldn't tell you, but either way, it's not a great feeling.

Roy, when the "Curse of the Bambino" was lifted and the Red Sox won the World Series in 2004, their weren't any earth-shaking repercussions.

Hey, hold on a second! The Red Sox winning that year meant that the Cardinals lost. How is that not earth-shaking?

Jerk.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, when the "Curse of the Bambino" was lifted and the Red Sox won the World Series in 2004, their weren't any earth-shaking repercussions.

Lord, I hate sports superstitions.

True but it is just a cute little superstition that if accurate, leaves Romney as the winner.

The funny thing is, I used to think of elections in much the same way that I look at sports contests. I definitely get behind my favorite teams, and I feel great if they win and a little down if they lose, but it didn't always feel like there were such great consequences from the outcome. Now it feels like the future of the country hinges on who wins, and that brings a very different sort of anxiety than waiting to see the outcome of a baseball game.

Maybe my perspective has just shifted because I've seen enough to appreciate the nuances in what's happening. Or maybe it's because something fundamental has changed about American politics itself. I couldn't tell you, but either way, it's not a great feeling.

To tell the truth I think it is because we all got older. When we were kids and teens, we always had our parents, we may be partisans, but at the end of the day we were safe and felt the world would be okay. Now we are all out on our own, we have a greater understanding of the world around us, and the risks involved.

[Dark Sage]

Sorry, Brian, I didn't know you were such a big St. Louis fan.

I'm not overly fond of the Red Sox, although if I had to choose between them and the Yankees, I would likely choose them.

[Roy Karrde]

Just wanted to note two things

A: I wont be here on election night until probably a winner is announced. I will be at my Grandmother's, as this is the first election my Grandfather will not be here to watch with her and I do not want her to be lonely.

B: Because of Obama cannibalizing his likeliest voters through early voting, putting up "Obama is winning X state" early on would be a mistake. As the early voting comes in, and then the normal voting where Romney will have the advantage will begin to come in.

[ChobiChibi]

Voting Romney in will be a massive backwards step for America. Good luck to you all if that happens.

I'm also not looking forward to the "I told you so" that is inevitable once this is over. There's potential for that to get as ugly as this thread has been.

[Roy Karrde]

Voting Romney in will be a massive backwards step for America. Good luck to you all if that happens.

I'm also not looking forward to the "I told you so" that is inevitable once this is over. There's potential for that to get as ugly as this thread has been.

Don't worry we will hear the "I told you so" in 2016 if Obama wins, this time from Clinton and her supporters.

[kurai]

looking at electoral college math, it basically works out like this when projecting from the current public polling leads:

romney winning florida, north carolina; obama winning wisconsin, nevada; everything else as a toss-up

obama wins ohio? no path to victory. therefore it receives the highest attention.

but otherwise, romney victory conditions are as follows:

romney wins OH, VA, CO
romney wins OH, VA, IA
romney wins OH, VA, NH
romney wins OH, CO, IA, NH

-

PPP's final polls of the 2012 election cycle in Iowa and New Hampshire find Barack Obama with identical 50-48 leads. These small advantages for Obama are consistent with what PPP's found since the first Presidential debate- 5 Iowa polls have produced an average Obama lead of 1.8 points and 3 New Hampshire polls have produced an average Obama lead of a single point.

In Iowa Obama's already built up a large lead among people who participated in the early voting period, 61/39. Romney's up 56/41 with people planning to cast their ballots on election day but he'll need to win by an even wider margin than that if he's going to take the state. Obama's leading in Iowa thanks particularly to strong support from independents (51/43) and women (52/46). He trails 53/45 with seniors but is winning with every other age group.

In New Hampshire the candidates are tied with independents but Obama has the slight overall advantage because he's winning over 9% of Republicans while just 4% of Democrats are planning to vote for Romney. Just as in Iowa Obama's relying on strong support from women (54/45) and winning across most of the age spectrum. Democrat Maggie Hassan is looking like the favorite to be the next Governor of New Hampshire. For the second week in a row we find her with a 4 point lead over Ovide Lamontagne- the breakdown this time is 51/47. Voters have a positive opinion of Hassan (44/39) while Lamontagne is quite unpopular (40/46). Hassan's winning 51/46 with independents and taking 11% of Republicans to Lamontagne's 5% of Democrats.

-

it turns out that nevada might be almost as good a place for contestation as iowa (but they are both worth 6 EV anyhow):



-

PPP's final polls in Ohio and Virginia find Barack Obama ahead in both states, 52/47 in Ohio and 51/47 in Virginia. PPP has conducted four polls in each of these states over the last three weeks and has found an average lead of 3.75 points for Obama in Ohio and an average advantage of 3.5 points for him in Virginia.

In Ohio Obama's already built up a large lead during the early voting period. He's up 60/39 with those who already cast their ballots. Romney's ahead 51/48 with people who plan to vote on election day but he's going to need a much wider margin than that to take the state. Obama's winning thanks to leads of 54/44 with women, 86/11 with African Americans, and 61/33 with voters under 30. And although he trails Romney with independents (49/47) and white voters (51/47), he's holding Romney to margins well below what he would need to win those groups.

It's a similar story in Virginia. Obama's up 56/43 with women and 92/8 with African Americans and he's holding Romney to a 58/40 advantage with whites, which is below what we've generally been finding for him nationally recently. When you combine Obama's relative strength among white voters with Virginia being one of the more racially diverse states in the country it's the formula for a lead. Democrats are also well positioned to win the US Senate races in each of these states. Tim Kaine leads George Allen 52/46 in Virginia's open seat race and Sherrod Brown's up 54/44 for reelection against Josh Mandel. It's a similar story in both states. Voters like the Democratic candidates- Brown has a 48/43 approval rating and Kaine has a 50/40 favorability rating. And they don't much care for the Republican contenders- Mandel's favorability is 36/50 and Allen's is 42/48.

There is one piece of good news for Republicans in these polls- Ohio's proposed independent redistricting commission is headed for defeat with 39% of voters planning to support it compared to 49% who are opposed.

[else]

[mr_pikachu]

Wow. So, Becky just sent me an image that a graduate student in her department posted on Facebook. I actually find myself wishing that politics worked like this.

[ChobiChibi]

Don't worry we will hear the "I told you so" in 2016 if Obama wins, this time from Clinton and her supporters.

Not exactly what I meant. I'm not talking about 4 years time, I'm talking right now. Here are the two outcomes I'm foreseeing:
1) Obama wins, Romney loses. Roy sulks, continuing to slate Obama, regardless of the fact people obviously like his leadership. Dark Sage gloats, with an "I told you so" like attitude. This thread still goes on for another couple of months.

2) Romney wins, Obama loses. Dark Sage is less verbal about his disappointment, but will send PM's asking for the thread to be closed or to get Roy to stop harassing him. Roy, however, becomes more big-headed, and his "I told you so" attitude becomes unbearable. This thread is closed a lot sooner due to everyone's irritation.

When I was younger, I used to be really jealous of you Americans. I woulda loved to live in America, to be closer to you all, but as much as I adore most of you, I don't think I could ever live in America. I'm glad I live in a country where politicians seem to be working towards the same goals across all the parties. I know they get criticised for that, but at least they're all trying to take the country forward. I'd rather vote on how someone's going to run the country rather than their opinions on the rights of homosexuals, abortion, religion (that "God's will" stuff is bullshit. Even the British Monarchy has mostly dropped that, with the religious ceremonies being more formality than anything else), or their gender, race or again religion (that "Obama's a Muslim" thing going around. It shouldn't matter what religion he practises, and just firmly cements the idea that some (I stress, not all) Americans believe that Muslims are terrorists. Equally, it shouldn't matter that Romney is a Mormon). I would much rather they said exactly how they were going to sort out the economy, for example, than whether they're going to change women's healthcare rights, or whether homosexuals get the same rights in marriage as heterosexual couples do.

So in conclusion, glad to have shitty British Politics where most people are reasonably content than to have a country divided radically in 2. Good luck America.

[RedStarWarrior]

Fuck me. I hate being in a battleground state.

Anyway, I dislike Romney, but will support whoever wins as my President.

[Dark Sage]

Chibi, gloating is FAR beneath me. Seriously, it is.

If Romney wins, and Roy does sink to that level, I'm just going to ignore him, and hope that Heald has the sense to finally lock this accursed thread.

Election Day is tomorrow, so I'm going to part with a paraphrase of the same words I said on this day in 2008:

Tomorrow, vote for Obama, or vote for Romney. Vote for whoever you like. It's your right as an American citizen.

But be sure to vote.

Because if you don't vote... Then you aren't allowed to complain.

Nuff said.

[ChobiChibi]

Oh, that's why I only said gloating. I imagine if you did, it wouldn't be anywhere near the level of Roy XP

[RedStarWarrior]

If Romney wins and Roy becomes a prick, I'll just infraction him.

This applies to anyone either way.

[kurai]

FiveThirtyEight - Now-cast



RealClearPolitics - General Election: Romney vs. Obama



Intrade - 2012 Presidential Election Winner (Individual)



Votamatic [no change]



electoral-vote.com



Talking Points Memo - Electoral Scoreboard



Huffington Post - Electoral Map



Karl Rove [no change]



UnSkewed Polls - Unskewed Projection [no change]



Princeton Election Consortium - Electoral College Map



Washington Dispatch - Electoral College Count [no change]

[Roy Karrde]

Not exactly what I meant. I'm not talking about 4 years time, I'm talking right now. Here are the two outcomes I'm foreseeing:
1) Obama wins, Romney loses. Roy sulks, continuing to slate Obama, regardless of the fact people obviously like his leadership. Dark Sage gloats, with an "I told you so" like attitude. This thread still goes on for another couple of months.

2) Romney wins, Obama loses. Dark Sage is less verbal about his disappointment, but will send PM's asking for the thread to be closed or to get Roy to stop harassing him. Roy, however, becomes more big-headed, and his "I told you so" attitude becomes unbearable. This thread is closed a lot sooner due to everyone's irritation.

Wow that... really does not describe either of us. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the thread was closed by the time I get back from my Grandmother's as I expect that Ohio would be resolved by then and a winner announced.

Interesting note CNN has Romney and Obama both tied at 49 today, with a D/R/I of 41/30/29 and Romney getting 22% more independents than Obama. I think its easy to say if Romney gets 22% more independents than Obama, the election is over.