US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Excal said:
He's either gonna look pretty smart or pretty stupid in 5 days.
Click to expand...

Whatever happens on Tuesday, he will definitely be looking stupid:

dean-chambers.jpg
 
Waaaaah...I've got the horrible feeling that they'll steal the election, and the talking heads will say: "Well, whaddya know? It just goes to show that we shouldn't set great store by polls! Now here's Buffy with the weather..." :(
 
Don't think it's that good an article Plech. He's basically saying "72.9% isn't that good a chance". First of all, Silver has it at 80.8% now. Secondly, Silver points out that leads of 2 or 3 points, as Obama is ahead in the key states, hold up almost always with this much time left. Therefore I would think most of the probability of a Romney victory depends on a quite big late swing, and/or turnout problems for the Dems, not random variance.

The author also seems to think that Romney needs to gain about 1% to win the election. The state polls, which Silver declares to be more accurate in determining the winner than the national polls show he actually needs to gain about 2-3%.

Tomorrow's jobs report is probably the last chance to swing things the amount Romney needs. Unemployment is projected to tick up to 7.9%, not the best news for Obama, but not bad enough to change things the amount necessary I would think.

EDIT: Romney victory, not Romney picture. I reckon it's time for bed.
 
Baffled that so many republicans seem to be convinced that Romney will win in a landslide - absolutely convinced.
 
There's always the chance that the polls are off, especially given the divergence with the nationals (even if state ones tend to be more reliable), and he really only needs to gain slightly more than one point himself, assuming he takes it from the Obama vote.

It is literally "too close to call", because there's still enough uncertainty that you can't call the inevitable result yet. Obama's the favourite, even the likely winner, but I'm still going to be a nervous wreck on election night. Romney can still win.
 
It's a complete, unfunny joke that a candidate like Mitt Romney has a chance of winning. Will people never learn?
 
Damn I've got some explaining to do....

radd said:
Kingcon, while I do not want to engage in an ideological debate, I just want to ask if you acknowledge that when you compare share of income, and share of taxes paid (both by income group), the result is only slightly progressive?

And yes, that's ALL taxes, not just income-taxes.
Click to expand...

I do acknowledge, see below.

peterstorey said:
Well he's a nice choice as a posterboy: 'I am not, heaven forbid, a “Holocaust denier.” I lack the scholarly competence to be one. ... Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination? Surely these are controversial conclusions; but if so, let the controversy rage'.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I didn't realize by using one of his quotes pertaining to greed and wealth in a political thread that I was also endorsing his ignorant views on the Holocaust. I certainty am not trying to use him as a poster boy for my views on anything but that quote.

Excal said:
Leading the economy out of recession is both more important and, as the effects of austerity in Europe have shown, a necessary precursor to debt reduction.

As in you want to abolish taxation or you want to eliminate the government agency responsible for enforcing tax laws? If it's the latter, what would you replace it with? If it's the former, or your answer to the second question is "nothing", please elaborate on why we should consider you to be a sane person.

The top 1% of the country owns 42% of the wealth in the country, and pays 36% of the income taxes, (and significantly less of the payroll and sales taxes.) Which direction are you saying the current system is unfair in?

You realize you're quoting the guy who got fired from the National Review for being anti-semitic?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for not elaborating further on this. I personally wish to abolish the agency responsible for tax laws and replace it with a Fair Tax system (www.FairTax.org):

1)Enact the Fair Tax to tax expenditures, rather than income, with a 'prebate' to make spending on basic necessities tax free.

2)With the Fair Tax, eliminate business taxes, withholding and other levies that penalize productivity, while creating millions of jobs.

I don't understand why we are asking the top 1% to pay more when we have illegals using loopholes like the Child Tax Credit to gain massive returns of up $1000 per child. In some cases as many as 10 to 12 dependents! If we want to ask those in the top 1% of society to pay a little more I think we should also ask those receiving benefits to receive a little less. Why are we encouraging them to reproduce when they can't take care of themselves?

(This article makes me sick http://www.wthr.com/story/17798210/tax-loophole-costs-billions)

By eliminating the IRS tax code and switching to a Fair Tax we now have a way to collect tax revenue from EVERYONE who spends money within our borders. This includes everyone from drug dealers to wall street bankers to summer vacationers.

I simply feel this is a logical approach yet no one in either party is willing to touch it simply because the Government would lose it's ability to track exactly what you make and what you do.

Feeky_Magee said:
Cutting 15% off the deficit is a nice start. Obama says he'll cut the debt (currently $16tn) by $4tn in his second term, thanks to budget agreements from a year ago, the end of Afghanistan war combined with end of Iraq war (total cost approaching $3.5tn), and lower interest payments from a reduced deficit. Whether he actually gets there is another question, but even if he falls short the deficit and debt is going to drop, probably substantially.

In any case, there's far too much emphasis on the debt and deficit right now, getting the economy going again is far more vital. The debt and deficit will follow, as we saw in the good years in the States. More people working > more spending > more tax intake. More people working > less need to invest in economy (stimulus, potential Jobs Act etc.) > less government spending. More tax intake + less government spending = lower deficit/debt.
Click to expand...

Obama promised to cut the deficit in half during his first term. I get it, it was an impossible statement but why aren't politicians held to their word?

TARP was passed with the promise unemployment wouldn't exceed 8%, it did. Gitmo was supposed to be closed by now, it's not. Congress has passed to raise the debt ceiling...again. None of the transparency that was promised during the debate on healthcare was given to C-Span. Also it should come as no surprise that lobbyist still run Washington.

I understand that he is doing the best he can possibly do considering the state of the economy he was given. I'm simply arguing that the recycle of politics has grown stale and I simply want real reform and change.

Term limits, true transparency, smaller government, the list goes on. I just hate the fact that so many feel this is impossible and decide to vote for the lesser of two evils for which I feel is a massive myth.




Red Dreams said:
Kingcon...supply side/trickle down economics is simply excellent propaganda.

Its just not true.

its simply common sense to want the average person to have sufficient disposable income.

Its not just good for the average joe, its good for busines. More potential customers.

So progressive tax system actually helps everyone. And it is a completely untrue that if you raise tax rates on the top few %, they will leave this country...and go where? Caymans ;) nah... they would be willing to pay the 'tax' to live in the US.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19626188

No I think Brussels or Geneva.
 
Suedesi said:
If anything, Sandy has widened the lead for Obama. Oh the power of the incumbency:D
Click to expand...
It's more than just incumbency though. It's the fact that the challenger and his running mate never miss a chance to talk about how the private sector does everything better than "government", which is almost a dirty word to a large chunk of the Republican party.

But disaster preparedness and response is something the private sector will never do better than public institutions. Unless those public institutions get taken over by people who believe in dismantling them (heckuva job, Brownie).
 
I'm a little concerned that if power and help doesn't get to a lot of people soon that the "bromance" between Obama and Gov. Christie and others will start to sour and if that happens before Tuesday all the positives that Obama has got this week will start to disappear. If Obama and FEMA continue to do a good job I can't see Obama losing now unless a lot of Democrats cannot or don't vote.
 
Chris H said:
It's more than just incumbency though. It's the fact that the challenger and his running mate never miss a chance to talk about how the private sector does everything better than "government", which is almost a dirty word to a large chunk of the Republican party.

But disaster preparedness and response is something the private sector will never do better than public institutions. Unless those public institutions get taken over by people who believe in dismantling them (heckuva job, Brownie).
Click to expand...

Well, it's more basic than that. Elections in the US are all about theater (otherwise the contest would have been long over) and in times of a national crisis / devastation / force majeure, the incumbent can look presidential, strong, in charge, while the challenger will struggle to get airtime...
 
Suedesi said:
He didn't pass any meaningful reforms - e.g on Wall Street, where a massive fraud was perpetrated with seemingly none held accountable. It's sad that his DOJ didn't pursue any criminal charges against Goldman, Morgan Stanley, BOFA, Citi etc.

He didn't pass an adequate fiscal stimulus, which is badly needed (Sandy anyone?), and would have created some much needed jobs.

Not impressed by the drone attacks, his his lack of leadership on gun laws and not sure his foreign policy has changed that much in substance from W.
Click to expand...

You're basically cherry picking issues that would have made an ideal four years. Given the circumstances he inherited, getting a dumbed down version of health care passed, de-escalating in Iraq and Afghanistan and avoiding further conflicts, and slowly turning the economy around are a decent return for four years when you factor in the circumstances. He could have done more when he had Dem congress with a slim supermajority. That's my only gripe, but again, given that the economy was in freefall when he swore in, he has done a decent job.
 
Saliph said:
Baffled that so many republicans seem to be convinced that Romney will win in a landslide - absolutely convinced.
Click to expand...

It stems from a sense of self-rightousness and wishful thinking that Obama can't possibly get elected again given his weak performance.
 
The final numbers probably hinge on turnout and whether Obama's momentum between now and election day will be sufficient to catch Romney in Florida.
 
Penna said:
No, and I'm amazed that things are still so close at this point in the campaign. I thought Obama would have left Romney miles behind by now.
Click to expand...

Maybe people expect instant changes for the better - surely a lot of the mess was caused by eight years of having a President who was a moron. Still is a moron probably. How much money did he spend on an unnecessary war in Iraq, which surely made the war in terrorism even harder.
 
Feeky_Magee said:
Don't think it's that good an article Plech. He's basically saying "72.9% isn't that good a chance". First of all, Silver has it at 80.8% now. Secondly, Silver points out that leads of 2 or 3 points, as Obama is ahead in the key states, hold up almost always with this much time left. Therefore I would think most of the probability of a Romney victory depends on a quite big late swing, and/or turnout problems for the Dems, not random variance.
Click to expand...

Your second point is the same as your first: the chance of a Romney turnaround is baked into his 20% probability of winning.

All he's saying is, keep it in perspective: 1/5 events happen, you know, 1 out of every 5 times, and that's pretty often.
 
Only americans can vote in a vulture capitalist to fix an economy broken by vulture capitalists.
 
Plechazunga said:
Your second point is the same as your first: the chance of a Romney turnaround is baked into his 20% probability of winning.

All he's saying is, keep it in perspective: 1/5 events happen, you know, 1 out of every 5 times, and that's pretty often.
Click to expand...

Here's a pertinent comment from one of his readers:

Dr. Gelman's article seems to be more about semantics than substance. His argument is: "a prediction above 90% is likely, between 50-60% is generally accepted as 'too close to call' by conventional wisdom", and between 60-90% is a grey area, but he chooses to consider this 'too close to call', as well.
Click to expand...

This is also where the sports analogies break down - there's a reason you never hear anyone say 'That's the beauty of elections. Anyone can beat anyone else on any given day.'
 
Final jobs report is good, that hurdle cleared.
 
I did not have to look at polls this morning to know Obama is going to win...

All I had to do was look at David Gregory and Chuck Todd's faces. :lol:

Doom and gloom. Still spinning this can go either way bollocks.

If Gregory was half as good as the average journalist and Todd had half the knowledge of most of us here, they would be pretty decent at their jobs....
 
The U.S. economy added an estimated 171,000 jobs in October, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly employment report released Friday — exceeding analysts expectations, and sparing President Obama from lackluster economic news days before the election

The figures suggest a strengthening labor market, and include significant upward revisions to previous months’ employment estimates. BLS now estimates that the economy added an impressive 192,000 jobs in August, up 50,000 from a primary September revision and up even more from the initial, weak August estimate of 96,000. Likewise, BLS estimates that the economy added 148,000 jobs in September, up 34,000 from its initial estimate of 114,000.

Those revisions reflect an accelerating recovery, but also illustrate the report’s significant uncertainty. That uncertainty hasn’t stopped members of both parties from spinning the initial figures for partisan advantage. The report comes just four days before polls open Tuesday, lending additional salience to the unemployment rate, which ticked upward from 7.8 to 7.9. for the promising reason that over 578,000 people entered the work force.

Growth was strongest in professional services, health care, and retail trade, which added 51,000, 31,000, and 36,000 jobs respectively.

However, private sector gains were offset slightly by 13,000 government job losses, split nearly evenly between postal service and state government retrenchment.

The report is consistent with other improving economic indicators, showing growing consumer confidence, increased manufacturing, and a strengthening housing market. It’s also capstone to a stack of good headlines for Obama, whose handling of Hurricane Sandy earned praise from New Jersey’s Republican governor Chris Christie, and who on Thursday earned the endorsement of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/economy-adds-171000-jobs-in-october.php?ref=fpa
 
Jobs reports are weird. They just said today "oh yeah, by the way, there were 84k more jobs added in August than we thought." I remember articles written about the initial poor August figures damning Obama.
 
Jaz said:
Unemployment rate is higher at 7.9%

Not sure how that can be classified as "good".
Click to expand...

Because they added around 170,000 jobs. It's good, no matter how you try and spin it. No more, no less.
 
Feeky_Magee said:
Jobs reports are weird. They just said today "oh yeah, by the way, there were 84k more jobs added in August than we thought." I remember articles written about the initial poor August figures damning Obama.
Click to expand...

Romney will try and spin.0.1 tick up...but all the indicators are that the economy is strengthening. Consumer confidence translates to votes. And as you say Aug and Sep job numbers were adjusted upwards.
 
Jaz said:
Unemployment rate is higher at 7.9%

Not sure how that can be classified as "good".
Click to expand...

From the article:

The report comes just four days before polls open Tuesday, lending additional salience to the unemployment rate, which ticked upward from 7.8 to 7.9. for the promising reason that over 578,000 people entered the work force.
Click to expand...
 
It really amazes me how Romney can really win this elections, considering the fact that Bush was president not that long ago.
 
Does Romney have any chance at all?
I'd be funny if he somehow manged to pull it off. Looks unlikely though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.