2012 Elections in the USA

I went here:

[url]http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp[/url]

and pulled the real GDP figures for as far back as they had them, which was 1929. I then calculated the rates of change for each annual period. Then I separated those years into Republican versus Democratic presidents (in the year following election I assumed the new guy was in for the entire year; somewhere in there, fairly early on, we switched from March 4 to Jan. 20 inauguration so it shouldn't make TOO much difference) , and averaged the rates of change in real GDP for all the years with a Democratic president and all the years with a Republican president. I had no idea what I would find. I will send the spreadsheet to anyone who wants it but it is simple to do.

Average (arithmetic mean) rate of change in real US GDP for all years ending with a Republican president. 1929-2011: 1.80%

Average (arithmetic mean) rate of change in real US GDP for all years ending with a Republican president. 1929-2011: 4.77%

Furthermore the coefficient of variation is about twice as high under the elephants as it is under the donkeys, 222% to 113%.

So I looked at this and smiled. I then felt sorry for the poor Republicans with the stagnant growth rates their policies obviously produce, and I decided to throw out the Great Depression and just look at 1933-2011. That is pretty charitable given that the Republicans were in power the entire decade preceding the Depression (which they then exacerbated by not listening to Keynes and doing pretty much what Romney proposes to do if elected).

Average (arithmetic mean) rate of change in real US GDP for all years ending with a Republican president. 1933-2011: 2.73%

Average (arithmetic mean) rate of change in real US GDP for all years ending with a Republican president. 1933-2011: 4.77%

The coefficient of variation is now a bit better under the elephants, I must admit, 113% to 85%. The compound return implied is still way, way higher for the Democratic regimes even if you throw out the Republicans' one biggest fuck up.

What do you Republicans and supply-siders have to say to these figures?

[QUOTE=Dickhead;428290]What do you Republicans and supply-siders have to say to these figures?[/QUOTE]Including the great depression and World War II in your figures is misleading. Sure, FDR's results are going to look great, starting when he did.

You're not taking into account Congress.

How much difference was there between the positions of the presidents? FDR, Carter, and Obama were left of center on economic issues. Reagan was a supply sider. Other than that the rest of the presidents could have switched parties and no one would have noticed.

As countries get richer GDP growth rates slow. The presidents from 1933 to 1969 were predominantly Democrats. As the USA became wealthier, there was a more even mix of Democrat and Republican presidents.

You're not taking into account changes in technology and demographics and many other extraneous variables.

The past is not necessarily an indication of the future. Putting Romney in the same category with Bush Jr. or Obama in the same category with Bill Clinton is a mistake, IMHO.

I looked at 1946-2011: Dems 3.71% vs. Reps. 2.73%, and during my lifetime, Dems 3 65% vs. Reps. 2.66%. I'd sure be interested to see the analysis with the Congress instead of the president but the presidents I know off the top of my head and the Congress I don't. Your other points are well-taken although I don't think I compared Clinton to Obama. You can see the growth slowing and the difference narrowing. It's true FDR benefited from a high base point but that doesn't explain the post WW-II results. If you did look at Congress you'd have to look at stuff like what was passed by lame duck Congresses and it could get messy. You could argue that you should look at the growth with a one year lag as well (this year is implementation of last year's policy). That is easy to do so I will.

Okay, if you credit this year's growth or lack thereof to last year's admin, the numbers don't change too much:

Rep Dem
Avg real GDP growth 1929 to date 1.762% 4.878%
Avg 1933 to date 2.666% 4.878%

Std dev 1929 to date 3.983% 5.368%
Std dev 1933 to date 2.375% 5.368%
Coefficient of variation 1929 to date 226.042% 110.039%
Coefficient of variation 1933 to date 89.090% 110.039%

Avg 1946 to date 2.776% 3.156%

LBJ was left of center to my way of thinking. Lots of fiscal stimulus and transfer payments. That was still Bretton Woods so no monetary policy.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;428294]Avg 1946 to date 2.776% 3.156%[/QUOTE]That's the one I'd go with. The difference doesn't look signficant in light of the other considerations. You'd never make it politics, you're honest. You're probably right about LBJ. I was thinking of his foreign policy, when I said he could have switched parties and no one would have noticed. But that's faulty thinking on my my part, as it's not relevant to what we're talking about.

Here is a regime by regime breakdown since WW II (starting with Truman in '46) :

Truman 4+ years (GDP growth) and 3. Years (GDP shrinkage or recession) ; Eisenhower 6+ years and 2- years; Kennedy-Johnson 8 straight plus years; Nixon-Ford same as Ike. 6+ and 2-; Carter 3+ and 1- which surprised me since he was such a ninny economically; Reagan-Bush I 10+ 2-; Clinton 8 straight plus years hint hint; Bush II 7+ 1-; BO 2+ 1-

Overall Dems 25+ and 5- for an. 833 batting average; Reps 29+ and 7- or. 806 batting average. These are good numbers and I think would compare favorably with most countries, but that is a guess.

Dems will point out no R ever got out of office without a recession year. Repubs can point to less volatility under Repubs. For example, if you look at the best and worst years, the Rs only had one year. 1982, with a GDP decline of greater than 1% (-1. 92%). The Dems' two worst GDP declines were. 10. 94% in 1946 (which could be explained away pretty easily) and. 3.07% in 2009 (which may have been partially inherited, but that could be true of a lot of these years and I didn't look at each individual year). But, the Dems had a bigger high side; the two best years were 8. 74% in 1950 and 7. 74% in 1951 versus the R's best years of 7. 20% in 1955 and 7. 17% in 1959.

A little less volatility or variability under the Rs but not enough to offset the superior absolute numbers under the Ds, is what I see from these numbers. Now I'm going to look at unemployment.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;428297]That's the one I'd go with. The difference doesn't look signficant

[/QUOTE]Well let's look at the difference over a 75 year lifetime. 1.032175 to the seventy-fifth power = 10.7016; 1.027375 to the seventy-fifth power = 7.5387; 10.7016 / 7.5387 = 1.4196.

Therefore you'd have more than 40% more economic growth in your lifetime if you would just switch parties. Now this ratio is slightly overstated. Why?

[QUOTE=Dickhead;428299]Now this ratio is slightly overstated. Why?[/QUOTE]Because you punched the wrong numbers into your calculator? (1. 0315675^75) / (1. 0277675^75) - 1 = 32%

I'd still argue there are so many other considerations that the difference isn't significant.

GDP growth in Argentina has been great under the Kirchners. Castro did very well when he was receiving massive aid from the Soviet Union, from about 1970 to the early 1990's. I don't think you'd want to make a correlation between their parties and GDP growth though. Time caught up with Castro and probably will with Cristina's party someday. That's not to make a comparison between either of them and Democrats or Obama. I'd (reluctantly) take Obama any day.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;428301]Because you punched the wrong numbers into your calculator? (1. 0315675^75) / (1. 0277675^75) - 1 = 32%[/QUOTE]No, those are the numbers when I lagged by a year. The numbers I used are the unlagged numbers. If you don't think they are significant in proving the Dems better, I'd still argue they are significant in refuting they are worse. I say it's overstated because if you use the compound average instead of the arithmetic mean, the gap will close some. I'll do that later if I have time. What I mean is, the variability of the D's return is greater so the difference between the simple average and the compound average will be greater for D than for R.

Also, from 1946-2011 unemployment averaged 5.92% in years that ended with a Republican president versus 5.47% in years that ended up with a Democratic president. So, during that 65 year period, Democratic administrations provided both faster economic growth and fuller employment. I guess I could look at inflation but since I looked at real GDP I don't see why inflation matters.

[QUOTE=Dickhead; 428302]No, those are the numbers when I lagged by a year. The numbers I used are the original ones I presented. If you don't think they are significant in proving the Dems better, I'd still argue they are significant in refuting they are worse.

Also, from 1946-2011 unemployment averaged 5. 92% in years that ended with a Republican president versus 5. 47% in years that ended up with a Democratic president. So, during that 65 year period, Democratic administrations provided both faster economic growth and fuller employment. I guess I could look at inflation but since I looked at real GDP I don't see why inflation matters.[/QUOTE]In fact, your analysis really suggests that it appears there is little relationship between political party and any of your indices. Maybe a factor analysis using your key economic measures is in order. Just my dos centavos. Toymann

P. especially true when you consider how both parties screw with the unemployment numbers, especially recently

[QUOTE=Toymann; 428303]In fact, your analysis really suggests that it appears there is little relationship between political party and any of your indices. Maybe a factor analysis using your key economic measures is in order. Just my dos centavos. Toymann.

P. Especially true when you consider how both parties screw with the unemployment numbers, especially recently[/QUOTE]"In fact" based on what? I could do a regression with dummy variables and sign changes but every way I have sliced and diced it so far points in one direction. You want to present some numbers in the other direction, go ahead. I don't have the software to do factor analysis. I also don't think the regression slopes matter, either. Better is better. More betterer would be gooderer but why would it change one's voting decision IF one bases their decision on economic factors?

BTW inflation is higher under the Dems, which is probably no surprise. Again looking at 1946-2011 and using year-end to year-end (to more properly affix responsibility than the average-to-average that is used for government inflation adjustments) , the average inflation in years ending with Republican presidents was 3.68% and in years ending with Democratic presidents it was 4.25%. But, again, that all washes out in the real GDP figures so who cares.

I've never really looked at these numbers before and probably should have done so long before I formed my political ideology, but the numbers certainly serve to reinforce it. You can interpret them otherwise if you like.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;428302]If you don't think they are significant in proving the Dems better, I'd still argue they are significant in refuting they are worse.[/QUOTE]Look, I wouldn't even be trying to make a correlation on the basis of parties. During my life since puberty, I thought Reagan did an excellent job, Clinton and Bush Sr did well, and Carter, Bush Jr and Obama sucked. Reagan was supply side, although government expenditures grew more more than they should have during his terms. Clinton did most things right. Trade policy, welfare reform, balancing the budget, lowering the tax on capital gains. The only thing he did wrong was increase taxes on ordinary income. So I attribute the superior performance of the economy during their terms largely to following policies I favor.

Bush Senior gets high marks because of execution of the war in Kuwait. And leaving when it was over. The economy didn't perform so well, in part because of the oil price shock from the war and in part because a Democratic Congress forced him to raise taxes. While tax rates were reasonable, spending got completely out of hand under Bush Jr and Obama. Carter, I don't remember a lot about.

I think Romney / Ryan are more likely to be able to implement tax reform along the lines of Reagan (eliminate deductions that distort the economy while keeping tax rates at reasonable levels) while reducing the budget deficit. They're more likely to combine the best of Reagan's and Clinton's terms in office, when economic growth was strongest, once you filter out the 1981/1982 recession / stagflation. I attribute that to high oil prices, and to high interest rates to bring down inflation that kicked up during Carter's time in office.

I realize I'm being a hypocrite here, based on what I just said about the Kirchner's and Castro.

You have a lot of subjective statements but not much that's objective. You can't really start a war and then say the resulting oil price spike shouldn't be attributed to you, I don't think. But anyway in the interest of being objective and unbiased, I re-ran the GDP numbers with the compound average and the Dems' advantage drops from over 40% to 12.3%, which I will still take. That is considering the mean and the standard deviation. If you looked at skew the Dems' advantage would rise just slightly, as I can see visually it has more positive skew, but I forget how to make that conversion and I can also tell visually it isn't that significant. But the variability is, and it mattered more than I would have guessed. You do have a bit of a data problem because there are 25 "D" years and 29 "R" and I also forget how to adjust for that, but it would also raise the Dems' advantage if I did.

I'm not saying vote solely on economic numbers. I am just saying all the trickle down stuff sounded like bullshit to me and now I am even more sure that it is. IF the Republicans' policies do, in fact, lead to higher economic growth, I would be hard pressed to explain the results I got. IF the Republicans' policies do, in fact, lead to job creation and lower unemployment, I would be hard pressed to explain the results that I got. I mean, I don't really care if the Republicans' numbers look worse because they always start wars or for some other reason. I just care about better GDP growth and that's clearly associated more with Democratic administrations going all the way back as far as reliable data exist and looking at periods of 50 years and since WWII.

Anyway, vote early and vote often, as they say in Cook County.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;428298]Overall Dems 25+ and 5- for an. 833 batting average; Reps 29+ and 7- or. 806 batting average. These are good numbers and I think would compare favorably with most countries, but that is a guess.[/QUOTE]This one has about an 80% success rate in predicting an outcome too,

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_indicator[/url]

I'm giving you a hard time. As you say it really comes down to what you think will work.

The polls and the betting odds are all over the board.

Today an ABC poll conducted by some Research Organization came out with a Romney 49 to 48 lead nationwide. Looking deeper, the breakdown of the poll participants was 35-28-34 democrat / republican / independent which mirrored the 2008 actual breakdown of 39-32-29. The real question is not whether the 49 to 48 romney lead is correct. The real question is whether the 35-28-34 breakdown of voters is realistic. If it is not this poll is simply garbage in. Garbage out.

A month ago the media was trying to convince everyone the election was over, go home, Obama will win. There were polls, CNN for example, that showed a huge Obama lead. When you looked at the breakdown of those polled it was laughable. 49% democrats. 31% republicans and the rest independents.

Most likelly Rasmussen is correct. Rasmussen says there has been very little movement in the polls since the first of the year. Rasmussen said that romney was ahead by 2 or 3 points in May/June and Romney will probably win by the same 2 or 3 points. My guess, with Benghasi, voter enthusiasm, money that will pour into the Romney campaign this final week, Romney becoming friendly and fuzzy while Obama becomes a visibly angry and out of control candidate, it was be a Romney win by about double 2 to 3 points.

"One day, I hope I'm rich enough to become a Democrat."

Right, because Fox News doesn't have a dog in the fight. Anyway I saw Libertarian VP candidate Jim Gray today. Nice guy, seems sincere. Grasp of economic concepts non-existent. I also read the Libertarian Party's entire platform for the first time. It is thoughtfully set out but not for me. I like about a third of it. Gray said he wanted to eliminate Medicare and I asked if I would be refunded the 1. 45% of my salary I have been paying for 41 years and he said 'absolutely. ' Then I asked him where the money would come from to refund everyone's past contributions and that is where it got all fuzzy and stuff. He said we could eliminate the corporate tax, the federal income tax, and state income taxes and replace it with a 10% flat tax. Come on. Anyway then the scheme is to give some half ass credit such that the first I think he said $10, 000 a year but maybe it was $1, 000 a month would not be taxed, and if you made less than that you got money back. So that is not a flat tax, although it could sure be simpler. He used the term 'revenue neutral' to describe their scheme but I am not sure if he meant a revenue neutral situation with all spending cuts going towards the deficit, or what. I mean, if it is revenue neutral then there is no tax cut, right? He got all bogged down explaining the credit they propose for health care. Something about three tiers of need. However he did give 'assurances' that 'the citizens would be taken care of. ' He made a big deal about going to public schools but last I checked USC Law is not a public school. He talked about how they are going to audit every government agency and that 'has never been done before. ' Umm yeah it has; it was called the Grace Commission Report and nothing ever came of it. Then there was the National Partnership for Reinventing Government. Nothing came of it. Anyway, not a new idea. I agree many federal agencies could be eliminated so fuck the audit and just DO it already. He said bring all the troops back immediately which is fine by me but then he said that if the Straits of Hormuz were closed, that should be considered an attack on the US. Last time I looked the Straits of Hormuz is pretty far removed from the US. So that was really kind of an inconsistent bit of ideology there.

Anyway, a moderately articulate guy but he showed his age a few times and did not know much about our community. He was talking about legalizing drugs because legalization (not decriminalization) of marijuana is on our state ballot this year, and he said, 'I guess in this state there are only dispensaries in [our state capital]. ' No, there are like ten in this little town alone, and if you want to get elected, don't guess; prepare. This was not in response to a question, either. He was talking about economics and he said, 'We could all grow our own tomatoes but who bothers to do that? ' Well, not rich assholes from Orange County but probably 1/4 of our community does. So really just another out of touch rich guy.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 428341]The polls and the betting odds are all over the board.

Today an ABC poll conducted by some Research Organization came out with a Romney 49 to 48 lead nationwide. Looking deeper, the breakdown of the poll participants was 35-28-34 democrat / republican / independent which mirrored the 2008 actual breakdown of 39-32-29. The real question is not whether the 49 to 48 romney lead is correct. The real question is whether the 35-28-34 breakdown of voters is realistic. If it is not this poll is simply garbage in. Garbage out.

A month ago the media was trying to convince everyone the election was over, go home, Obama will win. There were polls, CNN for example, that showed a huge Obama lead. When you looked at the breakdown of those polled it was laughable. 49% democrats. 31% republicans and the rest independents.

Most likelly Rasmussen is correct. Rasmussen says there has been very little movement in the polls since the first of the year. Rasmussen said that romney was ahead by 2 or 3 points in May / June and Romney will probably win by the same 2 or 3 points. My guess, with Benghasi, voter enthusiasm, money that will pour into the Romney campaign this final week, Romney becoming friendly and fuzzy while Obama becomes a visibly angry and out of control candidate, it was be a Romney win by about double 2 to 3 points.[/QUOTE]What effect if any do you think Sandy will have?

I am not sure. Most of the states affected by Sandy, New York, New Jersey, PA, are generally considered to be solid Obama states. However, I predicted months ago that New Jersey, PA, Michigan and Wisconsin would be toss up states.. In PA and New Jersey, at least, voters will probably be less focused on the election because of Sandy.. This might not be good news for Obama.

But who knows. That is why we have elections.

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.

I couldn't give a fuck who wins this election. I believe it is important to be able to thrive no matter which publicly sanctioned entity is granted their allotted term to siphon their fill. What I do care about is that someone on this board be able to gloat and someone else choke down some humble pie for all the posturing going on in this thread for what feels like forever.

[QUOTE=David_33;428711]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.[/QUOTE]

I agree with Córdoba Dan; it is very important to have a plan to fuck the system no matter who wins. In fact, I already won and have beaten the system and will prosper under either president. To me, the funniest thing about this whole debate has been seeing how many mongers are willing to vote for a Mormon. Of course a lot of those same people appear to actually believe Obama is a Muslim so perhaps that explains some of it.

I doubt Romney will make everybody wear the funny underwear but he sure might crack down on mongering. OTOH maybe he will raise the cigarette tax by $50 a pack or so. That would be excellent.

'When is this bet going to be finalized?" Maybe when the winner is declared. Does that make sense? By the way it was Toymann's bet and I took him up on it. Read back and learn.

As far as gloating is concerned; as I have mentioned many times my problem with the Mormon wienie is that he is a Mormon (not with his constantly changing political policies), and that I suspect his religion (like the radical Muslims), is more important to him than his country is. Its my opinion and why I truly hope that he loses.

In an interview with the Washington Post, Republican Karl Rove admitted that hurricane Sandy helped President Obama's re-election since it distracted voters.

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/02/hurricane-sandy-helped-obama-politically-karl-rove-says/[/url]

In the interest of equal time to Mr. Romney, here's how he would have responded to a disaster like hurricane Sandy if he was the President (after he eliminated FEMA) :

Romney's disaster management tips:

1. If your home is in the path of Sandy, evacuate to your second or third home immediately.

2. If your home sustains damages from Sandy, ask your parents for money to fix it.

3. Make sure you've moved your cars to the top floor of your garage.

4. Sandy is so violent because she was raised by a single mother.

5. Don't worry about evacuating. It it's a legitimate storm, your house has a way of shutting itself down to protect itself from damage.

6. My prayers and thoughts go out to 53% of you.

7. 53% of you will be fine. The other 47% I couldn't care less about.

8. If you survive, I'll take credit for it.

9. If you must drive in the storm, use extra-strength rope to secure your dog to the roof of the car.

10. Everyone chill out. Sandy will end earlier than male-named storms. She has dinner to get on the table.

11. I actually have a bunch of storm survival tips, but I'm not going to tell you any of them until after the election.

12. Everyone in the path of the storm: Don't be a victim and stop looking for handouts!

I blame the natural disaster on Donald Trump. He is so outrageous I think he even pissed off the Higher-Ups.

Joking aside, I think Donald Trump is a natural for Ambassador to China or the United Nations under Romney. A reality show in the making right there.