2012 Elections in the USA

Obviously the world will not self destruct if one candidate wins and the other loses. Likewise, we will not receive 18 year old playboy bunnies if one candidate wins and the other loses.

However, the process is fascinating.

My prediction, without saying one candidate is the devil and the other is Jesus Christ, is as follows: I think the number of Democrats registered to vote is about the same as the number of Republicans registered to vote. I think the Republicans will have a slightly higher turnout. Among independent voters, which accounts for about 25-30% of voters, I expect Romney to win by 6-8%.

Consequently, I think Carl Rove is about right. 51-48 Romney. However, a more accurate number, in my opinion, is closer to 52-47 Romney.

I could be dead wrong. I would be interested to hear other projections.

In case you want to learn?

[url]http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/sneak-attack/Content?oid=3378778[/url]

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 428694]Obviously the world will not self destruct if one candidate wins and the other loses. Likewise, we will not receive 18 year old playboy bunnies if one candidate wins and the other loses.

However, the process is fascinating.

My prediction, without saying one candidate is the devil and the other is Jesus Christ, is as follows: I think the number of Democrats registered to vote is about the same as the number of Republicans registered to vote. I think the Republicans will have a slightly higher turnout. Among independent voters, which accounts for about 25-30% of voters, I expect Romney to win by 6-8.

Consequently, I think Carl Rove is about right. 51-48 Romney. However, a more accurate number, in my opinion, is closer to 52-47 Romney.

I could be dead wrong. I would be interested to hear other projections.[/QUOTE]It still depends on the key states. In California, Independent is just a code word for Republican. It does not mean they are clear thinking looking at both sides of the issue. Maybe they think they do but they always side with the Republicans. For example, in my congressional district, the Republican is running as an Independent although he seems to oppose everything the current Democratic incumbent stands for and takes mostly Republican positions.

Romney will win he popular vote easy. It really depends on the electoral college. Ironically, Obama is for doing away with the electoral college but he is going to play by the rules in this election according to an interview I heard on NPR. Doing away with the electoral college would force the candidates to campaign in all the states. El Alamo you have an advantage because you live in Florida and can see what is going on. I cannot recall one Romney ad in California and just a few Obama ads.

I thought this was interesting.

It's a parody of the quintessential liberal politician.

Thanks,

Jax

I spent some time trying to get at winners and losers based on campaign interruption and the need for Obama to prioritize the disaster. I didn't come up with a clear winner. But what I did NOT think about is the effect of suspending the Gallup poll. I think it will increase turnout because the lack of information may convince people they need to weigh in. But who does that help? We know Republicans have a better turnout but will this narrow the difference in turnout or widen it? I think it might help Obama a **** hair because the marginal Republican voters will be working and might say fuck it, while the marginal Democratic voters will be hanging around the liquor store cashing their welfare checks and might not have anything better to do that day, or might think there are free doughnuts.

Somehow I think the hurricane helps Romney because it is obviously the incumbent's fault if there is a hurricane, psychologically, but I think the suspending of the polls helps Obama.

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;428700]Ironically, Obama is for doing away with the electoral college but he is going to play by the rules in this election according to an interview I heard on NPR. Doing away with the electoral college would force the candidates to campaign in all the states.[/QUOTE]Doing away with the Electoral College would be the absolute best thing that could ever happen to the country. I don't like Romeny but if he gets one more vote than Obama then he should be president and that is that. It is also among the most unlikely things to happen because it would require a constitutional amendment. So the whole point of abolishing the Electoral College would be to prevent senators from states with low populations to have disproportionate influence. But since in the case of constitutional amendments each state has one vote, they have disproportionate influence over the process over which they have disproportionate influence. So you can be "in favor of" abolishing the electoral college until you bleed out your ears and it will never happen in our lifetimes nor in our children's lifetimes.

Now is probably the best time (while all is still up in the air as to who will win), to finalize the bet with the often blocked Toymann. Since it is for an evening at Madaho's I am estimating around $200 or $250. If I am off base, maybe someone could suggest a reasonable amount. If the Mormon wins, then I will give the money to Jackson to pass on (since I'm not eager to meet the other individual involved), and if Obama wins, Toymann can do the same.

To further illustrate my point about Independents leaning towards Romney being meaningless unless in a key state, here are some statistics from my County. 48% registered Democrat. 25% registered Republican and 25% decline to state. 2% are registered to the fringe parties. Obama won 66% of LA County in 2008. I suspect Obama will be under 55% in LA County in 2012. California electoral votes will still go to Obama but in national polling it will show up as many independents voting for Romney. It is an essentially meaningless shift in Independent voting at the national level.

Most oddsmakers (intrade odds, Barrons money manger poll) have it at 60-40, Obama winning the electoral college. I suspect we will see Romney carry New Jersey due to lack of ability to vote in the cities. I think Ryan will pull Wisconsin through for Romney. Romney wins with about 300 electoral votes.

I think the Democratic pundits are awfully quiet right now. Almost everything I read is from the Republican side Rowe, Will, Noonan. Republicans seem surer of themselves.

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;428713]I suspect we will see Romney carry New Jersey due to lack of ability to vote in the cities.[/QUOTE]The "lack of ability to vote" is called voter suppression. Luckily, President Obama's best new friend, GOP Gov. Christie, is allowing early voting for those affected by the storm. Needless to say, Gov. Christie's order has created an uproar with other Republicans since voter suppression is part of their game plan to win. The idea of any political party or organization scheming to suppress the rights of citizens to vote is nauseating.

[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/03/us-storm-sandy-christie-idUSBRE8A20BC20121103[/url]

[QUOTE=Yujin;428721]Needless to say, Gov. Christie's order has created an uproar with other Republicans since voter suppression is part of their game plan to win. The idea of any political party or organization scheming to suppress the rights of citizens to vote is nauseating.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 428696]In case you want to learn?

[url]http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/sneak-attack/Content?oid=3378778[/url][/QUOTE]What a bunch of bull shit. Where do you see Christie's order creating an uproar? Meanwhile the woman profiled in WT69's article can post a provisional ballot if she doesn't have her ID when she votes. They verify her identity later and her vote is counted.

I meant to say that people will not vote in New Jersey cities because they have too much other stuff going on. Suburbs were not hit as hard. People in suburbs have more resources to handle the difficulty. I did not mean that anyone was trying to suppress a vote. I was just trying to channel my inner Byron Wien.

Voter suppression is a pretty sensitive issue, given that it was used to win the 2000 election (and a couple of others as well). I don't see any evidence of it occurring YET in this election. Anybody who doesn't have to, who waits to vote until election day is a hell of a fence-sitter, I would say.

'He who casts a vote decides nothing. He who counts the vote decides everything.'
[i]Joseph Stalin[/i]

Well, as one who is not going to jump off a high building if the wrong candidate wins I have a few observations. Romney is becoming a better and better candidate with an articulate message. Obama is becoming angrier and angrier and his comment about 'revenge' puts chills up some voters spines (the dangers of getting off the telepromptor)

I do not think there are many people voting for Obama. Maybe 10% of the population. However, there are a lot of people voting against Romney and Republicans. Obama has been a disaster but most people voting for Obama would vote for a lamppost rather than vote for Romney and Republicans.

I am sticking with my prediction of a 51-48 or 52-47 Romney win.

[QUOTE=El Alamo;428737]Well, as one who is not going to jump off a high building if the wrong candidate wins I have a few observations. Romney is becoming a better and better candidate with an articulate message. Obama is becoming angrier and angrier and his comment about 'revenge' puts chills up some voters spines (the dangers of getting off the telepromptor)[/QUOTE]Actually, El Alamo, in my most cynical moments, Romney sounds to me like he is articulating a message of competence which reminds me a whole helluva lot of Dukakis.

I think his message works if you think Obama is incompetent but most Democrats do not think so.

Many analysts say this election is about appealing to and turning out your base rather than capturing the middle.

Interesting, I nor the people I consult with are not changing are economic forecasts for a Romney victory. In California, we are fairly close to the 250, 000 a month job growth that Romney is promising. I imagine California will continue on its own path on the energy issues which is where Romney is going to get his job increases.

I will be interested to see how "immoral" deficits continue to be under a Romney administration.

Personally I will vote for Obama because of the tax issue. I calculate the 25k limit on Schedule A will increase my taxes. I do not see how raising my taxes while lowering others will help the economy.