A few colleagues and I have a U.S. Presidential Election pool going. I thought it would be interesting to see what predictions we might get here.
In our pool, we gave the winner, electoral count, and the popular vote, plus a short rationale.
Here is my prediction:
- Winner: Obama
Electoral Votes: Obama: 290; Romney: 248
General Vote: Obama: 51.0%; Romney: 47.8%; Other: 1.2%
Rationale: Obama wins Ohio and Pennsylvania, loses Florida, wins Colorado, but loses Virginia. The Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson pulls enough votes from Romney to give Obama a narrow wins in Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire, but does not have the effect in Virginia and Florida. The GOP is soul-searching, pulled between libertarian economics and conservative religious views. Obama's turnout is lower than 2008, which costs him in Virginia, but Romney is too much of a compromise candidate, and ultimately, woman and Hispanics support Obama in greater numbers, giving him the Western swing states of Colorado, and Nevada.
(Apologies to non-US Hubskiers. This nonsense will shortly pass. However, feel free to make a prediction!)
Obama: 280 Romney: 258 general vote:
Obama: 48.3%
Romney: 47.9%
Other: 3.8% Rationale: I have none. Source of information: My gut Precedence for source:
Libertarian the bulk but also Green. It's probably WAY too big. Again, not much rationale for my numbers. I seriously have no idea who is going to win this. I will be bummed out if Romney wins but not shocked.
I'm going to be disgusted if it's that close. But I'm going to be really, extremely disappointed if Romney wins. I'm even going to be afraid, because the kind of garbage I hear coming out of Republican mouthpieces lately reeks of the same messages and tactics seen in pre-war Germany. The entire Republican platform is running on promises, not facts; and often promises contrary to facts. Regardless of party affiliations, Romney's proven himself to be a deceitful opportunist. That's all that matters. I'm not going to make any ridiculous, childish threats like, 'If he wins, I'm going to Canada!' However I will say that I'm thankful that I have a career where I actually do have that kind of portability. My only barriers to emigrating anywhere in the civilized world are paperwork and whatever cultural adaptations my family will have to make (including speaking the native language).
That's outrageously hyperbolic and dramatic. All you have is overly alarmist partisan rhetoric. People act as if every election is the most important election in history, the world is ending, and the opposition is the sheer embodiment of Nazi principals. Romney's just some ordinary politician. And Obama's the same. You may not being making childish threats, but you certainly sound childish.
I take deep offense at being dismissed as being 'childish' and 'dramatic' for thinking this election matters and that politics matter. In my life I've been staunchly independent and critical of politicians on the whole. Recently however the entire Republican party has gone completely off the rails. If you think I'm hyperbolic, what of the 68 Nobel laureates who signed a letter stating, ["[Romney] supports a budget that, if implemented, would devastate a long tradition of support for public research and investment in science at a time when this country's future depends, as never before, on innovation."](http://www.americanprogressaction.org/wp-content/uploads/201...) And the LA Times for writing, "+Voters face a momentous choice+ in November between two candidates offering sharply different prescriptions for what ails the country. Obama's recalls the successful formula of the 1990s, when the government raised taxes and slowed spending to close the deficit. The alternative offered by Romney would neglect the country's infrastructure and human resources for the sake of yet another tax cut and a larger defense budget than even the Pentagon is seeking." The New York Times: "The economy is slowly recovering from the 2008 meltdown, and the country could suffer another recession if the wrong policies take hold. +The United States is embroiled in unstable regions that could easily explode into full-blown disaster+." The Washington Post: "So voters are left with the centerpiece of Mr. Romney’s campaign: +promised tax cuts that would blow a much bigger hole in the federal budget while worsening economic inequality+. His claims that he could avoid those negative effects, which defy math and which he refuses to back up with actual proposals, are more insulting than reassuring." The Chicago Tribune: "One of these decades, the children in which we now invest our hope, and our love, will speak with today’s adults about the America that we bequeathed to them. +They will praise us for avoiding the financial ravages they watch other nations endure. Or they will condemn us for living ruinously beyond our means and forcing the enormous payback onto them+ -- a criminal act no previous American generation has committed against those that came next." The Economist: "All politicians flip-flop from time to time; but Mr Romney could win an Olympic medal in it." Bill Nye: "This is +the most important election of my life+." The Sacramento Bee: "+The scariest part of a Romney victory+ is the potential that he and Paul Ryan would attempt to shape the U.S. Supreme Court to match their religious and political beliefs..." The Winston Salem Journal, a Republican stronghold in my own state: "Romney’s policies — +warmed-over trickle-down economics — will make matters worse+." I find the majority of instances in which I try to be fair, I end up suffering for it. However, I'll go ahead and also cite the Los Angeles Daily News which endorses Romney, writing, "The nation's budget problems remain unsolved, +portending a new financial crisis ahead+."
(I do find it ridiculous that they claim Romney is a "seasoned leader" and they blame the partisanship divide on Obama rather than obvious programmatic obstructionism on the part of Republican congressmen, but that's another topic.) There's a lot of strong language out there. Plenty of people find this election to be of critical importance. You can't dismiss it all as political shenanigans from which you are largely immune. To think you can float above it all is a nice lie. What happens today will come to affect us, maybe not next week, but eventually, and tangibly. Now, the Nazi reference. The Republican agenda has seriously regressed in areas of civil and religious rights. The fact that Republican politicians keep coming up with acts that have broad, far-reaching powers with little oversight -- like the Patriot Act and SOPA -- as well as casting 'others' (homosexuals, women, blacks, gypsies, or whatever) as leeches and enemies do draw poignant parallels to Nazi political tactics. If you want to attack my views based on facts, historical trends, law, science, or any other meaningful thing, go for it. All you have is an attack on my character, which is stupid because this is the internet and you don't know jack about me. Moreover, it's what people do when they're empty-handed but want to win an argument by style.
I actually went to bed only a little later than usual. It always takes hours for all precincts to report, and typically the more populous ones are later to report owing to logistical issues. So I'm fine with waiting. Falling asleep, I consoled myself with the hopes that if Obama won things would continue on their present course, whereas if Romney won a Democrat-controlled Senate would mitigate the amount of damage he could do in four years. I'm naturally happy Obama won, but I'm pretty disappointed that we still have a Republican-controlled House and now have a more Republican-dominated state. I used to pride myself on being fiercely independent, a 'switch hitter' I told people. But in the past few years Republicans have seriously gone off the rails with their hypocrisies, obstructionist tactics, blame shifting, support of utterly discredited economic theories, and their backwards moral agenda. I'm really happy Elizabeth Warren won in Massachusetts. I hope she goes far.
I started to write a rational, researched response to your challenge, showing direct parallels and comparisons; but in that research, I've come to realize that there's an immense danger of getting hung up on labels and party-isms rather than focusing on acts. Broadly speaking, Hitler rose to power by turning the disenfranchised working class against the existing republic. As Nazism grew in popularity, Hitler used false news reports, ram-rodded legislation that gave his government sweeping powers, and revisionist history to solidify his place. That led to (forcible) disarming of civilians, property and asset seizures of people deemed "threats," book burning, then genocide, eugenics and war. The big question then, is who does that sound more like: modern-day US Republicans or Democrats? Even if we're able to keep ourselves in a debate from getting distracted by terms like "republic" and "socialist," it's too easy to cherry-pick from the timeline to support whatever position it is that you already have. My view is that US Republicans are far more guilty than Democrats of: - trampling on civil rights (the Patriot Act was a reactionary act authored by Republican congressmen and signed into law by a Republican president -- it reeks of Hitler's "Emergency Anti-Terrorist Act") - consolidating governmental power despite being elected on a platform of fighting 'big government' and 'the existing corrupt, effete government' Republican congressmen refusing to work with Obama and Democratic congressmen, then blaming Obama for 'not getting anything done' More of the same - false flag attacks and projection (vastly overstating concerns of voter fraud in order to pass draconian voter registration laws which target groups more likely to favor non-Republican candidates More voter registration fraud Training poll watchers to mislead voters More of the same Elimination of early voting days
) The religious issue is a dicey one. I think it's clear that our Republicans are vastly more interested in pursuing religious agendas, or at a minimum to letting their decisions be guided by their alleged religious principles: Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" statement Richard Mourdock's rape pregnancy as a "gift from God" statement The mega-storm Sandy a result of human sin rather than anthropogenic climate change Texas replacing Thomas Jefferson with Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin in textbooks in order to question the foundation of this country's secular government... ... as well as replacing the word "democratic" with "constitutional republic" and other such Newspeak However I've found conflicting accounts of just what role religion played in Nazi Germany. Apparently the Nazi party as an entity denounced Christianity in favor of pagan symbolism, though Hitler himself was a fervent Christian and worked to restrain anti-Christian elements. What matters to me is that the Nazi regime enforced any religion at all and that they used religion to justify and bolster their stances. I feel strongly that government should neither draw from nor endorse any religion. I realize religious people tend to be offended when their faith is lumped together with all others as generic "religion" so I tend to avoid this topic. But it does matter to me. I'll finish by saying that all politicians lie. Calling it "lying" is really just a harsh way of saying "pandering." And all politicians pander to some extent. I'm also careful to distinguish between pandering (lying) and honest mistakes, because no one can reasonably be expected to perfectly remember everything. Plus, people sometimes genuinely change their minds about topics as they gain knowledge, responsibility and experience. It's harder to do that when you bear some authority, because it inherently makes you look like you are unsteady, can be influenced, and can't be trusted. But it's important (among thinking people, anyway) to be mature enough to keep taking in new information and to admit when you've been in error. As an example I can cite Obama's change in his stance on gay marriage. Is he pandering to a newly emerging majority? Is he legitimately, maturely changing his view after having had some years to consider the issue and gain experience? Maybe he's merely trying as a politician to follow the will of the people? No one can know his inner motivations, and it's all highly debatable. As another example I could call upon Romney's recent decision to cancel a swing state (Ohio) political rally in the face of a huge storm, then to replace it with a relief drive, only to have that event look very much like the political rally they planned from the beginning. Any rational person has to admit it looks bad. But one could argue from the POV of the event planners, that once you had a place set, staffers hired, food bought, music decided and so forth, why not go ahead and use all that? It's debatable. Better not to waste time on moot topics. What I'm concerned with is not changing of mind, nor mistakes in recall, nor basic pandering or questionable judgement. I'm talking about blatant misdirection, obvious and extreme cases of pandering, and getting facts (not views, FACTS) incorrect when they really are in your supposed area of expertise.
I meant to include a few sentences explaining just what I meant by the danger of getting hung up on labels. I couldn't quite figure where to include it in my missive, then I forgot about it. It's simplistic and incomplete to look at WWII from a current perspective and say something like, "Hitler disarmed the citizens and grew his governmental power -- just like Democrats want to do! And Hitler was a socialist! Fuck Democrats and their socialist Nazi agenda!" It's a ridiculous and sad misconception that Democrats are socialists. Equally so that Republicans favor small government, that Obama is a Muslim, and so forth. Those are all simplistic, inaccurate misconceptions -- lies spread by organizations whose best interests lie in getting you to consume their materials. Maybe those organizations are just selling the drama, or maybe they want you to feel and vote a certain way, or maybe part of their business plan includes significant income from benefactors who themselves have agendas that are unknown. Regardless, you can't trust them. The best any of us regular people can do is take in information from a variety of sources and assemble the truth from that. Blind men and the elephant, you know.
Nazi stuff is always hyperbole. It was when they did it to W, and it certainly was when they did it to Obama in those ridiculous anti-health reform ads that featured him with a Chaplin mustache. I think the reason right wingers think Mitt is moderate, and left wingers think he's conservative is because its not difficult to find a sound bite of him saying moderate things and extreme things about the exact same issues. If not for his Mormonism, I would think he is a Nihilist, as he seems to hold no conviction too close to his chest.
I don't have the same level of detail behind my prediction. I think Romney will take it, but it will be silly close. I think people are upset. I think they're tired. I think people are uneducated and unforgiving. I think the Romney folks been capitalizing on the "we can't handle/afford four more years" mantra. That's the incumbent's dilemma. The challenger gets to paint with broad strokes and talk about hope and change and grand new ideas. The incumbent is stuck with his/her results, track record, and current status - even when most of that stuff is inherited. And I believe that whichever side wins, we are getting ready for the most ridiculous circus yet. I predict a messy election day/week/month. I think there will be allegations of cheating and wrongdoing on both sides. I hope I am wrong.
I also hope you're wrong too, but I think you're right that it will be messy. While I don't think a ton would change, as both candidates are fairly centrist, I definitely think Romney would be a step backwards. Fortunately, as a US citizen going to school in Canada, I have an easy out :).
You wanted the map from hootsbox, so here it is: http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=... Winner: Romney
Electoral Votes: Romney 290; Obama 248
General Vote: Romney 52%; Obama 47% Other 1%
Rationale: States up for grabs: Romney wins: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Virginia and New Hampshire. Obama wins: North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Iowa
Yes, he didn't say he wanted the auto industry to go under, just a different bankruptcy avenue. I agreed with the auto bailout (which differs from many from my camp), but I don't agree with what happened to the preferred bondholders who got "screwed" in favor of the UAW. They should have gotten their cut somehow. However, I did agree with the bankruptcy judge, "In the absence of a manufacturer, the rest is a mute point". Remember, Mitt's dad was President of American Motors prior to becoming governor of Michigan. So, Mitt is a car guy too! I think he clarified this issue in the debates if one can "throw their partisan bias" aside and listen.
Eh, Romney said that Detroit should not get a federal injection of capital and should literally go bankrupt. He said that the Federal loan Obama approved would seal their fate. That clearly and unequivocally did not happen. A LOT of jobs were saved directly because of Obama on that one. Not just at the automakers, but at the hordes of auto suppliers in the rust belt. Michigan is a labor state that usually goes with the Dem in the election, and none of them have forgotten what Obama has done here. Romney can attempt to go into minutiae all he wants, but he had a VERY different prescription than Obama for our auto industry, and he delineated it with a giant bold lettered headline that read 'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt'. I find it rather amusing that his conscious choice of bombast and bravado in choosing that headline is rightly biting him in the ass. You reap what you sow, and now he is battleing his own rhetoric. But as I said, it's really besides the point. They had very different policies, which was the whole point of Mitt's article, no matter how much he tries to spin it as the President adopting his policy now.
I then I stand corrected. He had no say in that, huh? At any rate, as I said, the whole confrontational headline isn't the issue as his solution was very different than the adminsitration's on substance. If he wasn't allowed to overrule that headline or have any say in it, then he certainly isn't guilty of rhetorical bombast, and in this case, he is getting flack for words that were not approved by him. Although I think it is totally insane that papers run editorials by authors word for word, except the title itself. I had no idea that was common, -really stupid in fact. Guess every publication need their own version of link bait. This is, after all, a business, isn't it?
I only know that because they had a story about the editorial in another newspaper recently and they pointed that out. But you're right that a rose by any other name still smells as, well, terrible in this case. Private capital was as good as dead at that time. Ford did themselves a service by hedging a year or two previous. Bush and Obama did what they had to do for GM and Chrysler. Anyway its not as if precedent doesn't exist. Bush bailed out the airlines after 9/11, and that was the right choice there, too edit: sorry tons of typos on draft one of this post. Its really hard to type on a phone while flying through heavy turbulence. Thank god for autocorrect.
You should complain to the stewardess, "look, I don't mind a little turbulence, but its really fucking with my ability to comment on Hubski". You flying Delta? Have a ginger cookie for me. LOVE those things.
That's what Xanax was invented for -they go particularly well with alcohol. Good luck pal.
Sorry you had a bad flight, I don't get "scared" either but Xanax can be fun ;) Never really tried it much but I have a buddy that swears by it for flying purposes. Sleep, wake up and you're there.
I can see the perspective, but I doubt it will win Michigan for him. The problem with Mitt's argument, IMHO, was that the private capital wasn't there at that moment of freefall. Due to the credit crunch, it would have been a very disorderly bankruptcy, and a lot more suppliers and dealers would have gone under as a result. But in any case, I don't think Romney has much of a shot here in MI. He hasn't been running ads for some time.
Interesting. I'd be shocked if Romney won Michigan. I'd also be shocked if Obama won North Carolina. It will be an interesting evening, no doubt about it.
I predict that the Libertarian, Green, Communist (but I repeat myself), Socialist, and "Other" candidates will not win. _XC PS - I do predict that this will be the election cycle where people finally wake up and go: Darn, man, voter fraud all over the place!
I think Obama by a hair, but who cares. One candidate will savage the economy, the other will continue to savege our civil rights. I don't feel like I can pick the lesser of two evils, except that there is no evidence that Romney will turn back any of the advances in the trimming down of our civil liberties, so maybe Obama is the better terrible candidate. On the other hand, who knows maybe Romney could do alright on the economy. He has certainly not said what he intends to do yet and maybe he could push some decent subtle improvements through. I think that lowering the corporate tax rate, getting rid of loopholes and simplifying the tax code would be great. I don't think that we need more tax cuts unless we are aggressively cutting the deficit, I certainly don't think that investment income needs to be more sheltered from taxes which are policies that he seems to embrace.
Yes, I recall in 2008 when he was asked if water-boarding was torture, he said he'd have to consult Erik Prince, the head of Blackwater about it. I don't think he's worried about Obama's erosion of civil liberties. But, I'm just looking for predictions. It's interesting to me how people see the same race differently.I don't feel like I can pick the lesser of two evils, except that there is no evidence that Romney will turn back any of the advances in the trimming down of our civil liberties, so maybe Obama is the better terrible candidate.
Vote from non-US and speeding_snail : http://vidberg.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2012/10/034_Obama1.gif The scientist tells Obama: "there is one state (country) on the left where the result is not so obvious yet, but basically your election to president of the world looks promising"
Ha ha ha! That's pretty funny and sums it up pretty well I think. It's kind of absurd for Mitt Romney to suggest that Pres. Obama does not have the support of the international community. It's pretty clear to me that he does, however he certainly has a lot of work to do in order to get the complete support of the US. If this were a global election, I think it would be a hands-down victory for Obama.
No state by state analysis for me, there are only two possible outcomes as far as I can tell. 1) The election follows current polling trends relatively closely and Obama wins by a decisive (though not exactly large) margin. Or 2) the Republicans can disenfranchise groups likely to vote Democrat through voter ID laws, ballot shortages, or what-have-you, and enough Republicans are energized and able to get to the polls that Romney wins by a small margin. The aftermath of which drags on for weeks or months in the courts until the establishment decides it's time to get past the petty partisanship and support our new president Romney.
"the Republicans can disenfranchise groups likely to vote Democrat through voter ID laws, ballot shortages, or what-have-you, and enough Republicans are energized and able to get to the polls that Romney wins by a small margin" What proof do you have that this is happening? I would argue that both the Right and the Left are going to do all they can to keep their opponents at home come election day. Both sides will point fingers. May the best candidate win and that candidate is Willard Mitt Romney.
Are you Nate Silver? I predict you win the pool.
No, but I do read 538. On a related note, I really want to start an election poll that takes advantage of group estimation, rather than simply asking people who they will vote for. That is, I want to ask people who they think will win. IMHO this is a similar question, but rather than only reflecting their own opinion, it also brings in their social circle into the equation. I might vote for Obama, but if everyone I meet is voting for Romney, I would be more likely to guess that Romney will win. Maybe Nate will use my polling firm in 2016. :) BTW, I see you use snow.
Intrade is analogous to that if you add money into the mix. the have the O-man at 63%.
They have a long shot bias (because of folks buying the odds) I think Barry has about a 70% chance of a second term.
I would be relieved if this ended. In the Netherlands we did the elections in less than 6 months after the government resigned. And only 3 months of active campaigns. As I have said before, the US general election is one big media feast... I personally hope that Obama wins. I think that would be best for the US internationally. I mean, a lying candidate as president? C'mon, you can't be serious. On the other side, I might be biased because of the Dutch media, which kinda portray Romney as a lying rich guy who seems to think religion is a part of government. But no prediction from me, I don't know enough about the US and the elections to make one (and I ain't going to make predictions like this )
The Obama camp just passed $1B in fund-raising. Also, more than 1M commercials will be run this election. The Citizen's United Supreme Court ruling is a big reason why so much money has been poured into these campaigns. Given the way that the US government actually works, it now means that media corporations will probably be lobbying to block any legislation that threatens Citizen's United. USA Inc.As I have said before, the US general election is one big media feast...
No, what I mean is that the polls we see in the news are generally spun numbers or designed to drive media cycles. But I can observe that Obama has dropped out of NC and that the Romney/Obama signage ratio is pretty close to 1:1 when last time it was 10:1 for Teh w0n. I can draw a conclusion from that. I also see that Obama is having to campaign and spend heavily in states that were for him last time, which means some of them are lost and many are very close. For example, I think NH went +10 for O last time and it's at least tied up right now. That is not good for the Donks. -XC
I don't think Obama has a chance in NC. However, Romney almost certainly needs Ohio. I agree that this will be much closer than 2008, but close doesn't mean a Romney win. Romney needs to flip Ohio (assuming he gets Florida, which I think he will). I really see this coming down to "Who gets Ohio?". Of course NH, Nevada, Iowa, etc. can make up for an Ohio loss, but I can't imagine a candidate winning Ohio and yet losing most of those. It will be close, and I am glad I don't live in Ohio.