electoral-vote.com

Post by **MediumTex** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:22 am

You might enjoy checking out this site periodically as we get closer to election day:

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/ ... -2012.html

It's got Obama winning pretty easily.

Pointedstick · Post by **Pointedstick** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 2:58 pm

I find http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com to be more reliable, but they too predict a fairly easy Obama win. Sadly, I have to agree.

Pointedstick · Post by **Pointedstick** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:24 pm

Florida's still sort of a toss-up, but I think Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia are prayers in the night. I will be very impressed if Romney can manage to take even one or two of those.

That's as of today, of course. If the economy completely implodes in the next two months, all bets are off and you could easily be right.

Storm · Post by **Storm** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:15 pm

Sadly, due to the way the electoral college works, the entire election will most likely hinge on 3 states, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. These states are also about to have a couple billion in attack ads paid for by both parties dumped on them. Wouldn't it suck to live there without a DVR or a way to skip commercials? I can only imagine the horror of sitting through 2 more months and $2 billion worth of mudslinging...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... nsylvania/

Post by **MediumTex** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:19 pm

Storm wrote: Sadly, due to the way the electoral college works, the entire election will most likely hinge on 3 states, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. These states are also about to have a couple billion in attack ads paid for by both parties dumped on them. Wouldn't it suck to live there without a DVR or a way to skip commercials? I can only imagine the horror of sitting through 2 more months and $2 billion worth of mudslinging...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... nsylvania/

It's nice living in Texas. Very few presidential ads of any kind.

Post by **MediumTex** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:21 pm

Reub wrote: This site is an offshoot of the Democratic Party, so don't get too excited.

Really?

How can a poll tracking site have a bias?

Storm · Post by **Storm** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:21 pm

Actually, this is a really cool site:

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalculator#_

You can instantly see the states that are already pretty much known, and then click on the toss-up states and see how the election will play out in different scenarios. Personally, I think Obama will win with at least 272 votes. I think he will get Ohio, then it is hard (if not impossible) for Romney to win. Even if Romney gets Florida, which I think he will, it's an uphill battle.

It's amazing how one small state can decide the election.

edit: Fixed the link

Post by **MediumTex** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:25 pm

I'm glad we're getting a good collection of the different tracking sites.

notsheigetz · Post by **notsheigetz** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 2:56 pm

MediumTex wrote: You might enjoy checking out this site periodically as we get closer to election day:

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/ ... -2012.html

It's got Obama winning pretty easily.

If Obama wins this election easily, which I think is very possible, then I think we should all begin recognizing that there has been a sea-change in American politics. All of my life it has been assumed that America was basically a right-of-center country and politicians have had to play to that reality. Any way you want to cut it, Obama is far-left - farther left than any president in my lifetime. If he wins re-election, especially with the current economic situation, then things have truly changed.

Post by **MediumTex** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 3:37 pm

notsheigetz wrote:
MediumTex wrote: You might enjoy checking out this site periodically as we get closer to election day:

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/ ... -2012.html

It's got Obama winning pretty easily.
If Obama wins this election easily, which I think is very possible, then I think we should all begin recognizing that there has been a sea-change in American politics. All of my life it has been assumed that America was basically a right-of-center country and politicians have had to play to that reality. Any way you want to cut it, Obama is far-left - farther left than any president in my lifetime. If he wins re-election, especially with the current economic situation, then things have truly changed.

For someone who is supposed to be far left, Obama sure has taken good care of Wall Street and the financial institutions.

I agree that Obama looks like a far lefty, but his actual policies--supporting Wall Street bailouts, assassinations of U.S. enemies in foreign countries, supporting healthcare reform that is a windfall to the health insurance industry (as opposed to single payer), extending the Bush tax cuts and adding his own payroll tax cut--don't look all that liberal to me.

Storm · Post by **Storm** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 8:05 pm

The funny thing about American politics is that even our farthest to the left congressmen, the ones that self identify as liberal, like Bernie Sanders from Vermont, are considered far right by most of the rest of the world.

Obama's policies are very much to the right compared to some past presidents. Remember how he just unilaterally sent forces into Libya, without congressional approval? If that had been a Republican president the left would have been protesting another war.

Post by **MediumTex** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 10:12 pm

Reub wrote: I think that most of these polls are usually skewed way Democratic...

Why would anyone pay to have a skewed poll conducted?

That doesn't make any sense to me.

Isn't the purpose of a poll to actually understand how people are likely to vote?

Lone Wolf · Post by **Lone Wolf** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:53 am

notsheigetz wrote: If Obama wins this election easily, which I think is very possible, then I think we should all begin recognizing that there has been a sea-change in American politics. All of my life it has been assumed that America was basically a right-of-center country and politicians have had to play to that reality. Any way you want to cut it, Obama is far-left - farther left than any president in my lifetime. If he wins re-election, especially with the current economic situation, then things have truly changed.

I'm also concerned about what Obama's reelection would mean. Obama is easily the most statist President since FDR. On top of this, he has governed as a nasty, divisive ideologue and apart from actually showing up has failed at his job in every conceivable way. The economy is in rotten shape, with his "stimulus" stimulating nothing but depression. We've built a mountain of new debt and all we have to show for it is high unemployment. And Obamacare is of course a total horror show of statist meddling and easily the worst piece of legislation in my lifetime.

Against this backdrop, it would be distressing to see such a hardcore statist reelected.

I'm one of those deluded people still crying into his whiskey that the Republicans didn't pick the excellent Gary Johnson to be their nominee. But because of what an Obama victory means in the face of this much fail, a Romney win would still be a big relief.

Post by **MediumTex** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:20 am

Reub wrote: If you don't think that polls can be biased or influenced read this article about how Obama's thugs have pressured Gallup recently:

http://www.dickmorris.com/obama-thugs-r ... =dmreports

But if we are looking at a composite of all polls and they are all pointing in basically the same direction, are you suggesting that all polls are being manipulated in the same way?

That doesn't make sense to me.

Post by **MediumTex** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:24 am

Lone Wolf wrote:
notsheigetz wrote: If Obama wins this election easily, which I think is very possible, then I think we should all begin recognizing that there has been a sea-change in American politics. All of my life it has been assumed that America was basically a right-of-center country and politicians have had to play to that reality. Any way you want to cut it, Obama is far-left - farther left than any president in my lifetime. If he wins re-election, especially with the current economic situation, then things have truly changed.
I'm also concerned about what Obama's reelection would mean. Obama is easily the most statist President since FDR. On top of this, he has governed as a nasty, divisive ideologue and apart from actually showing up has failed at his job in every conceivable way. The economy is in rotten shape, with his "stimulus" stimulating nothing but depression. We've built a mountain of new debt and all we have to show for it is high unemployment. And Obamacare is of course a total horror show of statist meddling and easily the worst piece of legislation in my lifetime.

Against this backdrop, it would be distressing to see such a hardcore statist reelected.

I'm one of those deluded people still crying into his whiskey that the Republicans didn't pick the excellent Gary Johnson to be their nominee. But because of what an Obama victory means in the face of this much fail, a Romney win would still be a big relief.

I don't think that Obama's re-election would be that big a deal. What will happen is the Republicans' control of Congress will become stronger and stronger to the point that Obama will have little to no ability to implement his agenda and we will get that juicy gridlock that allows us to live our lives without worrying about the government imposing its latest set of great ideas on us.

The one situation that worries me is having the same party in control of Congress and the White House. This arrangement seems to lead to bad policy much of the time.

Pointedstick · Post by **Pointedstick** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:24 am

Lone Wolf wrote: I'm also concerned about what Obama's reelection would mean. Obama is easily the most statist President since FDR. On top of this, he has governed as a nasty, divisive ideologue and apart from actually showing up has failed at his job in every conceivable way. The economy is in rotten shape, with his "stimulus" stimulating nothing but depression. We've built a mountain of new debt and all we have to show for it is high unemployment. And Obamacare is of course a total horror show of statist meddling and easily the worst piece of legislation in my lifetime.

Against this backdrop, it would be distressing to see such a hardcore statist reelected.

I'm one of those deluded people still crying into his whiskey that the Republicans didn't pick the excellent Gary Johnson to be their nominee. But because of what an Obama victory means in the face of this much fail, a Romney win would still be a big relief.

What worries me is that I have difficulty seeing how Romney would have done things differently. I think he too would have bailed out the banks and signed a bloated stimulus package as well as several nice tax cuts like the ones Obama signed into law, and Obamacare is basically a national version of a law he championed and is now indicating he likes substantial parts of. I don't think he'd be significantly less warmongering than Obama, nor does he meaningfully differ from Obama in his position on surveillance, wiretapping, or the drug war. Maybe he understands that balancing the budget would drain the private sector's savings, but he seems more than willing to blindly recite the whole "we need to balance the budget by cutting funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood!" stuff that the Republican part of today seems so enamored of.

Gary Johnson, though. That would have been a treat.

Pointedstick · Post by **Pointedstick** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:32 am

MediumTex wrote: I don't think that Obama's re-election would be that big a deal. What will happen is the Republicans' control of Congress will become stronger and stronger to the point that Obama will have little to no ability to implement his agenda and we will get that juicy gridlock that allows us to live our lives without worrying about the government imposing its latest set of great ideas on us.

The one situation that worries me is having the same party in control of Congress and the White House. This arrangement seems to lead to bad policy much of the time.

I'm all for gridlock when things are good. But unfortunately, congress has created several messes like the AMT and perpetually expiring tax cuts whose positive resolution is inhibited by the gridlock. And of course there are always regulations that need rolling back. I would think gridlock to be desirable only once we reach a political state where all the bad things are gone, otherwise it prevents those bad things from becoming gone just like it prevents new bad things from being created.

Pointedstick · Post by **Pointedstick** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:51 am

Reub wrote: This President will bypass gridlock by ruling through Executive fiat. He can do more damage with Executive orders than in any other manner. That plus using his federal agencies can do damage that is devastating to a democracy. How many hollow point bullets did the Social Security Administration recently purchase?

The ammo purchases are a big distraction, IMHO. All the regulatory agencies have their own law enforcement officers, and they have to train with something. These ammo purchases didn't start under Obama's administration and they won't end once he leaves office. Now, I'm wondering why the SSA has armed LE on its payroll in the first place, but that's a separate issue from the agency buying them ammunition.

I'm having a hard time seeing Obama doing anything terrible using EOs, or at least any more than all the modern presidents have. I would imagine a president Romney would use EOs liberally too, if recent presidential history is any guide.

Post by **MediumTex** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:08 pm

Reub wrote: Are they tracking all other polls or only certain ones? And if a majority of these polls have a bias then the tracking service will also have that same bias.

The trouble I am having is with the idea that polls would be biased in a way that would make them misleading in relation to the election's actual outcome.

How could a polling organization sell polling services based on polling methodology that was biased by design?

Who would buy polling results from a process that wasn't rigorous to start with? What value would such results have?

That would be like me selling a service to sports bookies where I predicted the outcome of Dallas Cowboys games, except that I predicted the Cowboys would win every single game. Who would pay me for something like that?

clacy · Post by **clacy** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:25 pm

I'm mostly right of center and typically hold my nose and vote for the "least bad" choice. For the most part that's the Republican.

I think both parties get it wrong much of the time, but I feel like for some reason, the Democrats are hell bent on creating a massive welfare state. They are always looking for excuses why people shouldn't have to work hard to support themselves.

Socialism doesn't work. It may have worked in Europe for many decades, but that was largely due to 4 reasons:

-The US drove the world economy
-The US subsidized the world's military spending and played the role of world cop
-They (along with the entire west) rode a wave of favorable demographics during the past 50 years
-Debt expansion

That is all over now, IMO. We're all going to feel some pain during the next 10+ years as things normalize, and the rich can't pay for it all.

With all that said, I predict an Obama win (very close though). Fortunately the Republicans will control the House, and stand a great chance of taking the Senate (intrade favors them 2-1).

I can probably live with that, as Obama will be fairly muted.

MachineGhost · Post by **MachineGhost** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:08 am

clacy wrote: I can probably live with that, as Obama will be fairly muted.

Great things came out of Clinton as President with both houses gone Republican, i.e. Welfare Queens Driving Cadillacs Reform.

I rather most of the Republican ideas get implemented, but Obama win the Presidency. I trust Romney less than Obama. Romney would LBO the entire US of A. Why the hell else is a superrich white elitist running for President? It surely isn't altruism.

Voters are usually smart about voting for gridlock.

Storm · Post by **Storm** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:34 am

In my opinion, Romney probably could have won this thing, but he had to pander to the GOP's conservative Christian base to win the primaries, which pretty much assured that he would have to take on policies that most of the civilized US find repulsive.

It's 2012, and somehow every GOP candidate (that wants to win the primary) has to go on about overturning Roe v. Wade, opposing gay marriage, taking away women's right to birth control, etc.

If a GOP candidate could just stick to the economic message and forget about all of the religious baggage they would do fine. When you alienate 52% of the population by talking about limiting their access to healthcare, it's pretty tough to win in the general election.

Pointedstick · Post by **Pointedstick** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:48 am

Storm wrote: In my opinion, Romney probably could have won this thing, but he had to pander to the GOP's conservative Christian base to win the primaries, which pretty much assured that he would have to take on policies that most of the civilized US find repulsive.

It's 2012, and somehow every GOP candidate (that wants to win the primary) has to go on about overturning Roe v. Wade, opposing gay marriage, taking away women's right to birth control, etc.

If a GOP candidate could just stick to the economic message and forget about all of the religious baggage they would do fine. When you alienate 52% of the population by talking about limiting their access to healthcare, it's pretty tough to win in the general election.

That's the nature of the primary system. You need to tack hard to the left or the right to win your base, then awkwardly move back to the middle for the general election, hoping people forgot how you told your base you would overturn Roe, ban and confiscate all guns, make sodomy illegal again, double taxes on business, start a trade war with China, invade Pakistan, stop torturing terrorism suspects, torture terrorism suspects even more, etc.

The most successful politicians talk in vague, general terms during the primary to make it easier to disavow everything they just said during the general election. Clearly Romney isn't very good at it.

Post by **MediumTex** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:49 am

The Drudge Report has been posting a lot of stories about the reliability and biases in polls.

I still don't understand how someone can sell polling results if the polling methodology is biased. It seems like all a polling organization has to sell is the lack of bias in its methodology.

Lone Wolf · Post by **Lone Wolf** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:55 am

Storm wrote: taking away women's right to birth control, etc.

Is this some particular statement I haven't heard about? Or is this just a colorful way of describing the position that insurers shouldn't be mandated to pay for contraception?

If so, I'm at a loss as to why I want government forcing my insurance company to pay for anything that's not a catastrophic expense. That's not what "insurance" is for. (I of course like this being an option, but a mandate is just more meddling that I don't need.) Casting this as a "women's issue" seems like just one more way that big government justifies itself, whether it be in the "War on Terror", the "War on Drugs", or opposing the "War on Women".

Pointedstick wrote: start a trade war with China

Great example. And this is one of those very bad ideas that even plays well in the general election!

electoral-vote.com

electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com

Re: electoral-vote.com