PDA

View Full Version : Election Day!


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

TheReverend
11-06-2012, 08:17 AM
This has to warrant a thread on the main page, right?

Anyway, Happy Election day. About to hit the polls myself, so soon it'll be +1 vote for Tyrion Lannister.

(no, I'm not seriously voting for a fictional character)

Conklin
11-06-2012, 08:26 AM
go Gary Johnson!

TheReverend
11-06-2012, 08:27 AM
go Gary Johnson!

He and I agree on 92% of "the issues".

pricejj
11-06-2012, 08:32 AM
in on thread

baja
11-06-2012, 08:33 AM
go Gary Johnson!

88% for me

Rabb
11-06-2012, 08:34 AM
mailed mine in last week

Bacchus
11-06-2012, 08:37 AM
Straight ticket!!

Beantown Bronco
11-06-2012, 08:38 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3LPdTXRjIKQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Baba Booey
11-06-2012, 08:40 AM
This has to warrant a thread on the main page, right?

Anyway, Happy Election day. About to hit the polls myself, so soon it'll be +1 vote for Tyrion Lannister.

(no, I'm not seriously voting for a fictional character)

To hell with that. Mance Rayder 2012.

GreatBronco16
11-06-2012, 08:44 AM
I heard that Obama was showing an early lead. That is, until all the Republicans get off work and vote.;D Saw that on FB last night. Thought it was funny.

RhymesayersDU
11-06-2012, 08:50 AM
Voted this morning.

RhymesayersDU
11-06-2012, 08:50 AM
Also, Nuggies home opener tonight. Vote IGGY/LAWSON.

bronco militia
11-06-2012, 08:53 AM
He and I agree on 92% of "the issues".

99% for me

Mogulseeker
11-06-2012, 08:55 AM
I was 79 percent Gary Johnson, 76 Romney, 62 Obama.

Mogulseeker
11-06-2012, 08:56 AM
Also, Nate Silver has been incredibly accurate with his predictions:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

socalorado
11-06-2012, 08:58 AM
He and I agree on 92% of "the issues".

YOU FOOL! Gary Johnson cannot stop me! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
I will destroy this nation and bring your Joe's or Marines or whatever
you call your pathetic little corps to their knees!
YOU WILL KNEEL BEFORE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Also, Garys views on managing marijuana like alcohol and tobacco – regulating, taxing and enforcing its lawful use are just a bit too liberal for me.
Also, i read your book....not bad.
http://lolneed.com/wp-content/uploads/girls/sexy-girls-pics7884.jpg

Old Dude
11-06-2012, 08:58 AM
This isn't over yet? I voted 10 days ago.

Boobs McGee
11-06-2012, 09:00 AM
Happy voting everyone! I'd rather have a one armed badass than a noseless badass, so Jamie Lanister 2012!

Boobs McGee
11-06-2012, 09:02 AM
Oh, and for the conspiracy theorists out there, apparently there's some voter fraud happening already:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/12q6wu/2012_voting_machine_altering_votes/

ColoradoDarin
11-06-2012, 09:09 AM
Also, Nate Silver has been incredibly accurate with his predictions:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Except when he wasn't. Like 2010.

Kaylore
11-06-2012, 09:12 AM
This isn't over yet?

This.

Go Romney! It's a pretty long shot, but I got hope!

ColoradoDarin
11-06-2012, 09:12 AM
Took 30 minutes to vote this morning compared to 2010 (I moved to FL in 2009) where I didn't have to wait at all. The line was longer about an hour ago when my daughter and I went out for walk.

enjolras
11-06-2012, 09:15 AM
Except when he wasn't. Like 2010.

He got every senate race correct except for three (the coin flips in Colorado and Alaska, along with the surprise in Arizona). The one in Arizona was most definitely an issue with the polling data.

He struggled a bit with the house races, but that makes sense. Polling data for individual district races tends to be sparse. It's hard to have a good statistical model without data.

Essentially his models have been shown to work well when there is a lot of data available. For a presidential election that is most definitely true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight#2010_U.S._mid-term_elections

Kaylore
11-06-2012, 09:15 AM
Happy voting everyone! I'd rather have a one armed badass than a noseless badass, so Jamie Lanister 2012!

Tyrion Lanister or nothing!

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 09:16 AM
I was going to vote, until some ****ing nihilist threw a ****ing marmot in my bathtub and ****ed up my rug. And now I'm out of half and half. I don't have time for this ****.

Archer81
11-06-2012, 09:16 AM
Voted last tuesday. I remember seeing alot more Obama signs/stickers in 2008. But I live outside the 6 counties around Denver that decide the direction Colorado goes in.

...

:Broncos:

Archer81
11-06-2012, 09:18 AM
He got every senate race correct except for three (the coin flips in Colorado and Alaska, along with the surprise in Arizona). The one in Arizona was most definitely an issue with the polling data.

He struggled a bit with the house races, but that makes sense. Polling data for individual district races tends to be sparse. It's hard to have a good statistical model without data.

Essentially his models have been shown to work well when there is a lot of data available. For a presidential election that is most definitely true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight#2010_U.S._mid-term_elections


And the data might be wrong. Polls with dems regularly +5 or more skews the polls and supposes voter enthusiasm will side with the democrats, like in 2008. Alot of assumptions to make.

:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 09:19 AM
My mostly non partisan Election Day thoughts! Just cuz...http://peelingtheskin.blogspot.com/2012/11/top-five-election-day-thoughts.html

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 09:20 AM
And the data might be wrong. Polls with dems regularly +5 or more skews the polls and supposes voter enthusiasm will side with the democrats, like in 2008. Alot of assumptions to make.

:Broncos:

History has shown polls have generally been accurate. Even a conservative reading of current ones should have the president winning. But really who knows.

ColoradoDarin
11-06-2012, 09:22 AM
He got every senate race correct except for three (the coin flips in Colorado and Alaska, along with the surprise in Arizona). The one in Arizona was most definitely an issue with the polling data.

He struggled a bit with the house races, but that makes sense. Polling data for individual district races tends to be sparse. It's hard to have a good statistical model without data.

Essentially his models have been shown to work well when there is a lot of data available. For a presidential election that is most definitely true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight#2010_U.S._mid-term_elections

So you're saying he did okay, except for the races he didn't? And I think you mean Nevada instead of AZ (he predicted Angle to win by 3 and Reid won by 5.5). There were only 5 close races in the senate that year and he got 3 wrong, including 1 massively wrong (8.5% off). He gave the Republicans as much chance of picking up 60+ seats as he has given Romney to win (R's picked up 63).

So yeah, he's not all that great.

Archer81
11-06-2012, 09:24 AM
History has shown polls have generally been accurate. Even a conservative reading of current ones should have the president winning. But really who knows.


We'll see.


:Broncos:

ColoradoDarin
11-06-2012, 09:25 AM
History has shown polls have generally been accurate. Even a conservative reading of current ones should have the president winning. But really who knows.

Not really. The aggregate of polls is better, but not perfect either.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 09:30 AM
Not really. The aggregate of polls is better, but not perfect either.

I didnt say it was perfect, i said its generally been accurate

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 09:32 AM
Here's Romney, arriving at his polling station.

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/07/120716_seamus_car_ap_605.jpg

ludo21
11-06-2012, 09:35 AM
GARYJOHNSON2012

Archer81
11-06-2012, 09:36 AM
http://tinyurl.com/av8mdoy


:Broncos:

ColoradoDarin
11-06-2012, 09:37 AM
Here's Romney, arriving at his polling station.

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/07/120716_seamus_car_ap_605.jpg

And Obama...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IKHfG61vJI8/T53A6pDELuI/AAAAAAAABow/rKLgYYv5AZY/s1600/obama+dog.jpg

sisterhellfyre
11-06-2012, 09:38 AM
Dropped off my ballot last week too. (Oregon mail voting -- love it!)

Happy Election Day, y'all, and many happy returns.

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-06-2012, 09:41 AM
CNN poll had it tied at 49 with a +11 democrat sample. In the poll where everyone looks over it had 99% of republicans voting for mitt. 1% voting for Obama. Independents voting 59% mitt 39% Obama. 93% democrats voting for Obama and 5% voting for mitt.

That 5% of democrats voting for Mitt? That could be huge

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 09:44 AM
CNN poll had it tied at 49 with a +11 democrat sample. In the poll where everyone looks over it had 99% of republicans voting for mitt. 1% voting for Obama. Independents voting 59% mitt 39% Obama. 93% democrats voting for Obama and 5% voting for mitt.

That 5% of democrats voting for Mitt? That could be huge

The popular vote is inconsequential. So who cares.

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 09:44 AM
Republican turnout is looking pretty good.

http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2012/06/zombies2.jpg

Rabb
11-06-2012, 09:44 AM
I was going to vote, until some ****ing nihilist threw a ****ing marmot in my bathtub and ****ed up my rug. And now I'm out of half and half. I don't have time for this ****.

It must be exhausting

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 09:51 AM
Democrats decide to walk to the polls to save the planet.

http://vietnamartwork.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/hippie.jpg?w=642

ColoradoDarin
11-06-2012, 09:54 AM
Republican turnout is looking pretty good.

http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2012/06/zombies2.jpg

So is Democrat turnout...

http://alphakilo.net/photoblog/images/20070602091207_graveyard.jpg

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-06-2012, 09:54 AM
The popular vote is inconsequential. So who cares.

Ya why leave it up to the entire population when we only need Cleveland browns fans and people who chew others face off. Obama. The president of 9 states.

Smiling Assassin27
11-06-2012, 10:00 AM
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcz1yyMvLg1qexxtdo1_500.jpg

“Elections should be held on April 16th - the day after we pay our income taxes."---Thomas Sowell

Beantown Bronco
11-06-2012, 10:01 AM
Ya why leave it up to the entire population when we only need Cleveland browns fans and people who chew others face off. Obama. The president of 9 states.

Switching to the popular vote wouldn't increase the number of states needed to win.

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-06-2012, 10:06 AM
Switching to the popular vote wouldn't increase the number of states needed to win.

I'm just not a fan of the electoral. Didnt bush lose the popular vote but still win? Can't remember. Out here in Cali your vote doesn't count unless you're with one party. The measures and propositions out here are more important. Obama says no taxes on the middle class but neither mitt or Romney is going to stop gov brown from taxing everyone

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-06-2012, 10:22 AM
http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/vote-fruity-650x396.jpg

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zTJ0qYR6YFo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

TheReverend
11-06-2012, 10:36 AM
(no, I'm not seriously voting for a fictional character)

^ btw, that was in reference to those of you voting for Obama Ha!

Crushaholic
11-06-2012, 10:39 AM
This.

Go Romney! It's a pretty long shot, but I got hope!

It's not really a long shot. I predict that it will come down to the wire. We may not even be sure, tomorrow. I think there's a lot of people who will look at their job situation, and will want to make a 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue resident change...

24champ
11-06-2012, 10:43 AM
People tend to vote with their wallets.

mkporter
11-06-2012, 10:44 AM
Except when he wasn't. Like 2010.

You know people can look this stuff up, right?

Nate Silver's 2010 track record:

He correctly predicted 34/36 Senate seats whose outcomes were resolved by November 4, 2010
He predicted a net gain of 54 seats in the House for Republicans (the House actually gained 63 Republicans)
Nate correctly predicted the outcome in 36 of 37 gubernatorial elections

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight

ColoradoDarin
11-06-2012, 10:46 AM
You know people can look this stuff up, right?

Nate Silver's 2010 track record:

He correctly predicted 34/36 Senate seats whose outcomes were resolved by November 4, 2010
He predicted a net gain of 54 seats in the House for Republicans (the House actually gained 63 Republicans)
Nate correctly predicted the outcome in 36 of 37 gubernatorial elections

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight

You missed my answer to that?

scroll up, you'll get there....

Crushaholic
11-06-2012, 10:49 AM
A monkey could have predicted Obama beating McCain, in 2008. The sample size for Nate Silver's blog isn't big enough to be credible, yet...

Archer81
11-06-2012, 11:03 AM
I predict high highs and low lows. Maybe some middles. Those tricksy middles.


:Broncos:

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 11:06 AM
“Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe."
Abraham Lincoln

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 11:08 AM
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence – it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master.”
― George Washington

hookemhess
11-06-2012, 11:13 AM
I heard that Obama was showing an early lead. That is, until all the Republicans get off work and vote.;D Saw that on FB last night. Thought it was funny.

Be careful with that joke... it's an antique.

broncosteven
11-06-2012, 11:13 AM
I voted just so I could wear the cool sticker.

Is it true than a Elector in the Electoral College doesn't have to pledge his vote for the candidate that wins the popular vote in my state? That seems pretty f'ed up.

Archer81
11-06-2012, 11:14 AM
I voted just so I could wear the cool sticker.

Is it true than a Elector in the Electoral College doesn't have to pledge his vote for the candidate that wins the popular vote in my state? That seems pretty f'ed up.


They dont have to. Traditionally they go with the wishes of the electorate in the state.

:Broncos:

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 11:15 AM
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
John Quincy Adams

gunns
11-06-2012, 11:16 AM
Voted last Friday. Glad to see so many getting out and voting. Just one stump for those of us here in Utah. Vote for the 2 amendment addendum, to waive property taxes for active military.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-06-2012, 11:22 AM
“Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe."
Abraham Lincoln

"This campaign will not be dictated to by fact-checkers." -Romney campaign spokesman

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-06-2012, 11:23 AM
"This campaign will not be dictated to by fact-checkers." -Romney campaign spokesman

"Well, no ****." -Everyone paying attention

Cito Pelon
11-06-2012, 11:24 AM
Well, whomever wins I'll hope for the best and plan for the worst.

broncosteven
11-06-2012, 11:24 AM
They dont have to. Traditionally they go with the wishes of the electorate in the state.

:Broncos:

Didn't someone abstain recently?

Seems like if we are going to stick to a states rights based system where the president wins based on states he carries the electors should be bound to vote based on the popular vote of their state.

Oh well, we are human, nothing is perfect...

Beantown Bronco
11-06-2012, 11:26 AM
Presidential vote will of course be meaningless here in Mass, but we've got a good senate race and our ballot questions are pretty good this time around:


1. Availability of motor vehicle repair data

A yes vote would require auto manufacturers to make available diagnostic and repair information through a universal software system that could be used by dealers and independent shops.

2. Prescribing medication to end life

A yes vote would make Massachusetts the third state to allow terminally ill patients to end their life with a lethal dose of a drug provided by a physician. Supporters say this law would give patients with less than six months to live more control over their destiny and allow them to die with dignity. Some opponents argue that physicians should not be involved in such an act, while others argue that the law does not include enough safeguards regarding family notification and psychiatric evaluation.

3. Medical use of marijuana

A yes vote would make Massachusetts the 18th state to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. It would create treatment centers that must register with the state. To obtain marijuana, patients would need written certification from a physician that they have a “specific debilitating medical condition.” Supporters say this would bring relief to thousands of patients in chronic pain. Opponents say that medical practice should not be determined by popular opinion, that there has not been rigorous research on the benefits, and that legalization of medical marijuana could lead to more drug abuse and crime.

Archer81
11-06-2012, 11:27 AM
Didn't someone abstain recently?

Seems like if we are going to stick to a states rights based system where the president wins based on states he carries the electors should be bound to vote based on the popular vote of their state.

Oh well, we are human, nothing is perfect...


I like the electoral college. Otherwise you have the coasts deciding who is president.

:Broncos:

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 11:27 AM
Vote for 64, dude! :puff:

Archer81
11-06-2012, 11:29 AM
Vote for 64, dude! :puff:


I voted no on the colorado amendment. It is not written well...plus, you know the federal law trumping state law.


:Broncos:

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 11:31 AM
I voted no on the colorado amendment. It is not written well...plus, you know the federal law trumping state law.


:Broncos:

The states are the laboratory of freedom, man! Let there be smoke! !Booya!

Besides, the federal law is idiotic and we have 80 years to prove it is completely unenforceable.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-06-2012, 11:32 AM
I voted no on the colorado amendment. It is not written well...plus, you know the federal law trumping state law.


:Broncos:

It's also an absolute nightmare to enforce because the legislation to support it in Colorado is simply not there yet. 4-6 years away from getting there.

But the "Yes on 64" folks would not listen to reason. They were probably stoned.

TheReverend
11-06-2012, 11:32 AM
I wish someone in Washington had a pair of balls to really propose legalizing pot.

Archer81
11-06-2012, 11:33 AM
The states are the laboratory of freedom, man! Let there be smoke! !Booya!

Besides, the federal law is idiotic and we have 80 years to prove it is completely unenforceable.


I agree its idiotic. I dont care if someone wants to smoke weed. But at the moment, even if this law passes people will still be arrested and imprisoned for having it. People who open up "weed stores" could have their property seized and their assets frozen. The proposed amendment provides no protections and it cannot possibly overrule the federal government.


:Broncos:

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 11:34 AM
"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate--look to his character. "
Noah Webster

gunns
11-06-2012, 11:34 AM
I like the electoral college. Otherwise you have the coasts deciding who is president.

:Broncos:

Or Utah and the Midwest. God help us

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 11:36 AM
It's also an absolute nightmare to enforce because the legislation to support it in Colorado is simply not there yet. 4-6 years away from getting there.

But the "Yes on 64" folks would not listen to reason. They were probably stoned.

I voted for it for one simple reason: It stirs the pot. It tells Washington that the American people are fed up with their idiotic war on drugs. The cowards in Washington will never be the ones to speak up first. They have to be dragged, screaming into reality. The people have to send the message.

RhymesayersDU
11-06-2012, 11:37 AM
I voted just so I could wear the cool sticker.

America -- making stickers cool once every 4 years!

Archer81
11-06-2012, 11:37 AM
I voted for it for one simple reason: It stirs the pot. It tells Washington that the American people are fed up with their idiotic war on drugs. The cowards in Washington will never be the ones to speak up first. They have to be dragged, screaming into reality. The people have to send the message.


In a perfect world, states would determine for themselves every social issue and leave Washington with defense and commerce.

...


:Broncos:

Vegas_Bronco
11-06-2012, 11:38 AM
I volunteered all week to make polling calls and here are my predictiins for Ohio and Nevada:

- ohioans will answer their phones
- nevadans not so much

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 11:38 AM
In a perfect world, states would determine for themselves every social issue and leave Washington with defense and commerce.

...


:Broncos:

As long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.

Vegas_Bronco
11-06-2012, 11:40 AM
I volunteered all week to make polling calls and here are my predictiins for Ohio and Nevada:

- ohioans will answer their phones
- nevadans not so much

Archer81
11-06-2012, 11:41 AM
As long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.


Indeed.


:Broncos:

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 11:44 AM
Election day makes me feel patriotic.

http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/band/images/ca_fife_and_drum_corps_all.jpg

Let's hear it for the United States of America! Land of the free! Home of the Brave!

:charge:

Binkythefrog
11-06-2012, 11:46 AM
Happy to see this thread - regardless of who you vote for I strongly believe it is important for everyone to voice their opinion by voting - even if I disagree it.

Barack Obama - Sept 25 at the UN:

"Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As president of our country, and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. "

Everyone who wants to vote and exercise their opinion and is legally allowed to vote should be able to and I hope they do.

gyldenlove
11-06-2012, 11:49 AM
Non-voter and proud of it!

Irish Stout
11-06-2012, 11:52 AM
Non-voter and proud of it!

Really? Why does this instill pride?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-06-2012, 11:52 AM
I voted for it for one simple reason: It stirs the pot. It tells Washington that the American people are fed up with their idiotic war on drugs. The cowards in Washington will never be the ones to speak up first. They have to be dragged, screaming into reality. The people have to send the message.

I did likewise, and for the same reason. But I also did so thinking there was very little chance of passage.

gunns
11-06-2012, 11:55 AM
I voted for it for one simple reason: It stirs the pot. It tells Washington that the American people are fed up with their idiotic war on drugs. The cowards in Washington will never be the ones to speak up first. They have to be dragged, screaming into reality. The people have to send the message.

Rep.

houghtam
11-06-2012, 11:57 AM
Non-voter and proud of it!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AVFUpvoOb4A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 11:59 AM
Really? Why does this instill pride?

He's not american. he's making a funny

Beantown Bronco
11-06-2012, 11:59 AM
Election day makes me feel patriotic.


IMO there's nothing more patriotic than killing some redcoats, preferably with a tomahawk.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HLbIKgEj1VY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hulamau
11-06-2012, 12:04 PM
And the data might be wrong. Polls with dems regularly +5 or more skews the polls and supposes voter enthusiasm will side with the democrats, like in 2008. Also of assumptions to make.

:Broncos:

Not true about skewed momentum factors in the better analysis of aggregate poll averages. Those more complete and reliable models account for likely momentum as much as it's possible.

And a very critical factor in this case is that the only sign of momentum direction that gives us any real indication at this point beyond wishful thinking or fantasy, is the fact that in a dramatic majority of polls over the last week, and increasingly so with each passing day up through this morning, there has been a consistent and steady, even if small and incremental, shift in obvious momentum toward Obama.

That is just an objective fact based on the published polls at this point.

Romney's ONLY snowball's chance in hell to win at this point is if there has been a collective statistical bias in nearly all the polls, both individually and when taken in aggregate which, while statistically possible, is 'EXCEEDINGLY' unlikely to happen ...

The polls, of course are not infallible, however they have been, by in large, far more accurate since the mid to late 90's than from the eighties and earlier due to vastly improved understanding and technical improvements in how to model and structure polls.

If the majority of polls over the last week had started to break toward Romney, then your wishful thinking might well have a lot more merit.

But in fact, its been the exact opposite this past week with Obama gaining in momentum almost across the board in swing states as well as moving up in the national polls as well. That is a very hard reality to overcome for anyone trying to find some solace or comfort in the projection of a Romney win at this point.

In essence, Romney's only hope is now down to a Hail Mary TD from Romney's own 20 yard line with 1 second on the clock with Von, Doom and Wolfe crashing the line and with Champ, Darrell Revis and Cromartie locking down the republican receivers. It has happened, it can happen, but I sure wouldn't bet one red cent on it happening tonight at this point!

Regardless of whom nerdy Nate Silver is pulling for personally, I can find no inherent bias or flaw in his methodology or mathematics. Read his book 'The Signal and the Noise', as I did, and you are bound to be impressed at the level of detail and cross-checking he adopts to argue against what his own models might seem to be suggesting at each step of the way. Silver does this in order to continually refine those models and to give more accurate and unbiased prognostications .. his rep depends on it.

Silver isn't running any of these polls himself, his analysis is looking at what the combination of all the polls are saying in total which is a dramatically more powerful and reliable view on what is likely to happen than depending on any one or a handful of individual polls regardless if their 'house effect' leans toward Obama or Romney.

And it is certainly more solid than any amount of wishful spin from either the right or left about 'their guy'.

Those polls with a known consistent bias for either side are adjusted for in his models, such that PPP, Pew, Democracy Corp. and a couple others that tend to skew a few points toward Obama/Democrats are weighted as such, just as Rasmussen, Gallup, Gravis, Zogby and a couple of others that consistently overrate Romney/Republican chances are adjusted and weighted accordingly.

Thus, if Romney wins at this point it will truly be a large shock and upset even though the race is technically close... and I very much doubt that's going to happen. Kind of like the odds of the Broncos coming from behind to win at SD on the road in the second half with a 24-0 half time deficit!

That kind of win happens, obviously, but only once in a very blue moon. Consider that awesome Bronco win was tied, or something like that, for the largest comeback in a 665 game Monday night football history ... and also was tied in all of Bronco history!? That gives you a rough idea of what the approximate odds are. Romney's might be slightly better at this point but not much and the analogy is a good one.

In Silver's last model posted today, prior to us all getting the real results, he ran the total of all polls through his model for 100 repeat elections .. Obama won 91 times and Romney 9 times. That is not no chance for Romney, but I really wouldn't want to be in his shoes right now.

Put it this way, if Obama wins Virginia whose polls close at 7pm EST we can all go to bed early as the fat lady will have already sung.

Its sure to be an interesting evening regardless.

Archer81
11-06-2012, 12:05 PM
IMO there's nothing more patriotic than killing some redcoats, preferably with a tomahawk.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HLbIKgEj1VY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-pUhraVG7Ow" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


:Broncos:

enjolras
11-06-2012, 12:07 PM
I did likewise, and for the same reason. But I also did so thinking there was very little chance of passage.

It was polling pretty favorably as of two days ago....I'd be surprised if it didn't pass.

chickennob2
11-06-2012, 12:17 PM
I don't care which politicians you vote for, but to everyone in Colorado:

VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 64 (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative,_Amendm ent_64_(2012)).

Don't do it for me. Do it for the people whose lives won't be taken by Mexican drug cartels. Do it for the promise of a hemp industry. Do it to keep your cousin, your son, your niece, your neighbor, maybe even yourself from becoming a criminal simply for a choice they make about spending their leisure time in a way that hurts no one!

broncosteven
11-06-2012, 12:17 PM
I agree its idiotic. I dont care if someone wants to smoke weed. But at the moment, even if this law passes people will still be arrested and imprisoned for having it. People who open up "weed stores" could have their property seized and their assets frozen. The proposed amendment provides no protections and it cannot possibly overrule the federal government.


:Broncos:

I am in chronic pain and doubt I would bother using it if it were available. It would have to come in pill form. Not going to carry a one hitter around for pain management.

Plus it is hard enough to get the meds I really need every month. I have to drive all over hell and back to get a script every month. I should be able to get 3 months worth of refills on all my meds and they should accept the scripts electronically.

If you really want to change things for those of us with chronic pain change the law so I can get freaking refills.

oubronco
11-06-2012, 12:22 PM
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThyjpND5GgVhYhDsg6wlsqHAqw2OoHA XYBX5ZIc3G5Bz8Nkd6bchzZ9f4Jkghttp://i.ebayimg.com/t/6-Calvin-Piss-on-Anti-Romney-Vinyl-Decal-Window-Sticker-political-humor-/00/s/NjAwWDYwMA==/$(KGrHqZ,!qsE88gcJLlpBPToTiSnVQ~~60_35.JPG

Houshyamama
11-06-2012, 12:38 PM
Just voted for the first time in my life (I'm 30). Feels good man.

Ralph Nader has at least 1 vote from California now!

ColoradoDarin
11-06-2012, 12:53 PM
Not true about skewed momentum factors in the better analysis of aggregate poll averages. Those more complete and reliable models account for likely momentum as much as it's possible.

And a very critical factor in this case is that the only sign of momentum direction that gives us any real indication at this point beyond wishful thinking or fantasy, is the fact that in a dramatic majority of polls over the last week, and increasingly so with each passing day up through this morning, there has been a consistent and steady, even if small and incremental, shift in obvious momentum toward Obama.

That is just an objective fact based on the published polls at this point.

Romney's ONLY snowball's chance in hell to win at this point is if there has been a collective statistical bias in nearly all the polls, both individually and when taken in aggregate which, while statistically possible, is 'EXCEEDINGLY' unlikely to happen ...

The polls, of course are not infallible, however they have been, by in large, far more accurate since the mid to late 90's than from the eighties and earlier due to vastly improved understanding and technical improvements in how to model and structure polls.

If the majority of polls over the last week had started to break toward Romney, then your wishful thinking might well have a lot more merit.

But in fact, its been the exact opposite this past week with Obama gaining in momentum almost across the board in swing states as well as moving up in the national polls as well. That is a very hard reality to overcome for anyone trying to find some solace or comfort in the projection of a Romney win at this point.

In essence, Romney's only hope is now down to a Hail Mary TD from Romney's own 20 yard line with 1 second on the clock with Von, Doom and Wolfe crashing the line and with Champ, Darrell Revis and Cromartie locking down the republican receivers. It has happened, it can happen, but I sure wouldn't bet one red cent on it happening tonight at this point!

Regardless of whom nerdy Nate Silver is pulling for personally, I can find no inherent bias or flaw in his methodology or mathematics. Read his book 'The Signal and the Noise', as I did, and you are bound to be impressed at the level of detail and cross-checking he adopts to argue against what his own models might seem to be suggesting at each step of the way. Silver does this in order to continually refine those models and to give more accurate and unbiased prognostications .. his rep depends on it.

Silver isn't running any of these polls himself, his analysis is looking at what the combination of all the polls are saying in total which is a dramatically more powerful and reliable view on what is likely to happen than depending on any one or a handful of individual polls regardless if their 'house effect' leans toward Obama or Romney.

And it is certainly more solid than any amount of wishful spin from either the right or left about 'their guy'.

Those polls with a known consistent bias for either side are adjusted for in his models, such that PPP, Pew, Democracy Corp. and a couple others that tend to skew a few points toward Obama/Democrats are weighted as such, just as Rasmussen, Gallup, Gravis, Zogby and a couple of others that consistently overrate Romney/Republican chances are adjusted and weighted accordingly.

Thus, if Romney wins at this point it will truly be a large shock and upset even though the race is technically close... and I very much doubt that's going to happen. Kind of like the odds of the Broncos coming from behind to win at SD on the road in the second half with a 24-0 half time deficit!

That kind of win happens, obviously, but only once in a very blue moon. Consider that awesome Bronco win was tied, or something like that, for the largest comeback in a 665 game Monday night football history ... and also was tied in all of Bronco history!? That gives you a rough idea of what the approximate odds are. Romney's might be slightly better at this point but not much and the analogy is a good one.

In Silver's last model posted today, prior to us all getting the real results, he ran the total of all polls through his model for 100 repeat elections .. Obama won 91 times and Romney 9 times. That is not no chance for Romney, but I really wouldn't want to be in his shoes right now.

Put it this way, if Obama wins Virginia whose polls close at 7pm EST we can all go to bed early as the fat lady will have already sung.

Its sure to be an interesting evening regardless.

We'll take Ohio, because really, whomever wins Ohio is President (though Romney could win WI and NH, lose OH and still win, but that scenario isn't as likely as just winning OH if you look at historical EC/state trends).

The problem I see with the OH polls, especially the final polls is that they are claiming that 35-47% of people have already voted, when the number is closer to 31-32% (32% using 2004 turnout, 31% using 2008 turnout). And those early voters in the polls skew more Democrat, but then the OH Sec of St releases final EV numbers and it comes out with this (http://disreport.net/2012/11/06/ohio-forecast/), "While total early voting in Ohio only increased by 2.44% from 2008, early voting in counties that voted heavily for Kerry/Obama declined 4.1% while counties that voted heavily Bush/McCain increased their early voting by a shocking 14.39%."

Also (same link), "The next important piece of data is what the polls consistently report: Obama leads by huge margins among early voters but trails Romney among those who say they will vote on election day. This inverse in voting segments is why the proportion of early votes in the total votes — and that virtually every poll overestimated this proportion — is so tantamount. In most polls (which usually only have Obama leading by a small margin, although some give him a more comfortable ~+5%), lowering the percentage of early votes in the polling sample means lowering Obama’s lead drastically. And when Obama’s lead is only one or two percentage points, that can mean handing the election to Mitt Romney."

So if the polls show an OH tie, but are wrong by showing more early voters, and those early voters skew Dem, then Romney is winning OH and the presidency.

Boobs McGee
11-06-2012, 12:57 PM
Yes on 64! I completely agree with the previous posters...once the pot has been stirred, more states will follow. Hopefully we can be the first to show the taxation benefits, lowered crime rates, etc. ALSO, I think it will go a long way towards paving the way for a Hemp Industry comeback (one of the most important crops in our country's history).

Broncosteven, you should definitely try out some of the edibles at some point. THC can go quite a ways towards easing your nerve pain...cookies, chocolates, carbonated drinks, chocolates, PILLS, butter...there are a wealth of options out there designed for the non smokers.

For anyone wondering, no, I don't smoke weed anymore. BUT, I firmly believe that it's something that has the potential to be beneficial on a personal AND economic level.

C130Herkload
11-06-2012, 01:04 PM
Agree w/ this 100%.......


"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and s...crew everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." — George Carlin

Pseudofool
11-06-2012, 01:04 PM
So if the polls show an OH tie, but are wrong by showing more early voters, and those early voters skew Dem, then Romney is winning OH and the presidency.But they aren't showing a tie. RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html) says 2.9 lead for Obama. That's without considering early voting, these are simply polls.

I wonder what rhetorical summersaults you'll muster to explain Romney's loss.

Archer81
11-06-2012, 01:07 PM
But they aren't showing a tie. RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html) says 2.9 lead for Obama. That's without considering early voting, these are simply polls.

I wonder what rhetorical summersaults you'll muster to explain Romney's loss.


Rasmussen has OH at 49-49 as of yesterday.


:Broncos:

ColoradoDarin
11-06-2012, 01:11 PM
But they aren't showing a tie. RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html) says 2.9 lead for Obama. That's without considering early voting, these are simply polls.

I wonder what rhetorical summersaults you'll muster to explain Romney's loss.

"While total early voting in Ohio only increased by 2.44% from 2008, early voting in counties that voted heavily for Kerry/Obama declined 4.1% while counties that voted heavily Bush/McCain increased their early voting by a shocking 14.39%."

Edit in case you need more - what I'm saying is that the polls are wrong and the early voting SHOWS that.

The problem I see with the OH polls, especially the final polls is that they are claiming that 35-47% of people have already voted, when the number is closer to 31-32% (32% using 2004 turnout, 31% using 2008 turnout). And those early voters in the polls skew more Democrat

Cito Pelon
11-06-2012, 01:23 PM
In a perfect world, states would determine for themselves every social issue and leave Washington with defense and commerce.

...


:Broncos:

Please. We wouldn't even have this thing called the "United States" if that were to occur.

houghtam
11-06-2012, 01:27 PM
I am in chronic pain and doubt I would bother using it if it were available. It would have to come in pill form. Not going to carry a one hitter around for pain management.

Plus it is hard enough to get the meds I really need every month. I have to drive all over hell and back to get a script every month. I should be able to get 3 months worth of refills on all my meds and they should accept the scripts electronically.

If you really want to change things for those of us with chronic pain change the law so I can get freaking refills.

Dude, it comes in COOKIE form now!

Smiling Assassin27
11-06-2012, 01:31 PM
Jocularity:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SgmARwtptoo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ColoradoDarin
11-06-2012, 01:36 PM
Rumor: Adams County, CO, is on track to go R for the first time since 1984.

Edit link: GOP Likes Early Signals from Adams, Arapahoe, Jefferson Counties (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/332773/gop-likes-early-signals-adams-arapahoe-jefferson-counties)

24champ
11-06-2012, 01:41 PM
Dude, it comes in COOKIE form now!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AdhSChKX2zI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Pseudofool
11-06-2012, 01:47 PM
"While total early voting in Ohio only increased by 2.44% from 2008, early voting in counties that voted heavily for Kerry/Obama declined 4.1% while counties that voted heavily Bush/McCain increased their early voting by a shocking 14.39%."

Edit in case you need more - what I'm saying is that the polls are wrong and the early voting SHOWS that.It'd be pretty remote that ALL the polls would be wrong--as they all have different models.

Early voting isn't necessarily indicative of a change in the overall electorate, it's hard to know what to do with those numbers other than see that more Republican counties are voting earlier (there's still a limited number of votes possible in such counties). What's important are those who are changing there vote from Obama in 2008 to Romney 2012, and early voting gives us no indication of any evidence of that. It'd be a mistake to suggest that early voting debunks the polls.

This is wishful thinking.

Archer81
11-06-2012, 01:48 PM
Rumor: Adams County, CO, is on track to go R for the first time since 1984.

Edit link: GOP Likes Early Signals from Adams, Arapahoe, Jefferson Counties (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/332773/gop-likes-early-signals-adams-arapahoe-jefferson-counties)


That would be huge if the GOP peels off one of the blue counties around Denver. Rest of the state usually goes red.


:Broncos:

Kaylore
11-06-2012, 01:56 PM
Rumor: Adams County, CO, is on track to go R for the first time since 1984.

Edit link: GOP Likes Early Signals from Adams, Arapahoe, Jefferson Counties (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/332773/gop-likes-early-signals-adams-arapahoe-jefferson-counties)

Great news. I could more easily swallow (barely) another four years of Obama if I knew my home state went red.

I've been volunteering nights at the Romney campaign this cycle. We had some many people there every night we to set up extra tables and people were using their personal cell phones for the phone banks. When we walked precincts you could always find at least three people and a car to take you. It has been in and out. Republican engagement has been off the charts here in Colorado. Will that translate to a win in Colorado? No idea. Will it translate into a national win? No idea. But if we can win the turnout vote for a change, that will go a long way toward making this competitive.

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 01:56 PM
Rasmussen has OH at 49-49 as of yesterday.


:Broncos:

Yeah, but Rasmussen is the outlier. Everybody else has Obama ahead anywhere from 3.6 to 4.0.

pricejj
11-06-2012, 01:57 PM
Please. We wouldn't even have this thing called the "United States" if that were to occur.

False.

Hulamau
11-06-2012, 01:58 PM
"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate--look to his character. "
Noah Webster

Totally agree!

pricejj
11-06-2012, 01:58 PM
Yeah, but Rasmussen is the outlier. Everybody else has Obama ahead anywhere from 3.6 to 4.0.

Gallup also has Romney up 49-48. The "everybody else" you speak of (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYTimes) heavily over-sampled Democrats throughout the polling process.

pricejj
11-06-2012, 02:00 PM
Great news. I could more easily swallow (barely) another four years of Obama if I knew my home state went red.

I've been volunteering nights at the Romney campaign this cycle. We had some many people there every night we to set up extra tables and people were using their personal cell phones for the phone banks. When we walked precincts you could always find at least three people and a car to take you. It has been in and out. Republican engagement has been off the charts here in Colorado. Will that translate to a win in Colorado? No idea. Will it translate into a national win? No idea. But if we can win the turnout vote for a change, that will go a long way toward making this competitive.

Awesome job Kahn! :strong:

ColoradoDarin
11-06-2012, 02:01 PM
It'd be pretty remote that ALL the polls would be wrong--as they all have different models.

Early voting isn't necessarily indicative of a change in the overall electorate, it's hard to know what to do with those numbers other than see that more Republican counties are voting earlier (there's still a limited number of votes possible in such counties). What's important are those who are changing there vote from Obama in 2008 to Romney 2012, and early voting gives us no indication of any evidence of that. It'd be a mistake to suggest that early voting debunks the polls.

This is wishful thinking.

You don't think a difference in early voting trends from 4 years ago (D's down 4%, R's up 14%, total swing of 18%...) isn't huge? Wow.

beardedwonder
11-06-2012, 02:01 PM
Wish i could vote yes on something like 64 but i live in a broken state

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 02:01 PM
Gallup also has Romney up 49-48. The "everybody else" you speak of (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYTimes) heavily over-sampled Democrats throughout the polling process.

This guys posts all of them. Check it out:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 02:03 PM
This guys posts all of them. Check it out:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Its all a conspiracy roh. The polls that favor romney are the only ones that matter

But id be incredibly disheartened with Romney won. Incredibly. And im not even a huge Obama fan, clearly everything I believe in falls left of him. But ugh, I personally don't even understand what Republicans see in Romney other than "he's not obama"

ColoradoDarin
11-06-2012, 02:06 PM
In Democratic stronghold Charlottesville,VA at 1 p.m., turnout was 36 percent of registered voters. Obama got 80 percent of the vote there in 2008.

In Democratic stronghold Martinsville,VA at noon, turnout was out 34 percent of registered voters. Obama got 65 percent of the vote there in 2008.

TheReverend
11-06-2012, 02:09 PM
Everyone relax.

Obama promised a change that not only never came, but no steps were even taken towards it.

National gamble. You win some, you lose some. Time to move on.

Kaylore
11-06-2012, 02:10 PM
This guys posts all of them. Check it out:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Remember that more than half of republicans have already voted. In fact Colorado is the one state that is flipped from other areas. Most of Obama's voters have banked their votes early and in absentee votes. It's why they are saying to ignore exit polls. In Colorado it's the opposite where most Republicans have voted and more Democrats here are going to vote on election day.

SpringStein
11-06-2012, 02:12 PM
Great news. I could more easily swallow (barely) another four years of Obama if I knew my home state went red.

I've been volunteering nights at the Romney campaign this cycle. We had some many people there every night we to set up extra tables and people were using their personal cell phones for the phone banks. When we walked precincts you could always find at least three people and a car to take you. It has been in and out. Republican engagement has been off the charts here in Colorado. Will that translate to a win in Colorado? No idea. Will it translate into a national win? No idea. But if we can win the turnout vote for a change, that will go a long way toward making this competitive.

I hope you were one of the 12-15 calls I hung up on every day! Is there a way I can resign from the Republican party and stop getting calls? Seriously, it's beyond irritating.

ColoradoDarin
11-06-2012, 02:12 PM
Remember that more than half of republicans have already voted. In fact Colorado is the one state that is flipped from other areas. Most of Obama's voters have banked their votes early and in absentee votes. It's why they are saying to ignore exit polls. In Colorado it's the opposite where most Republicans have voted and more Democrats here are going to vote on election day.

Yeah, I don't get why people are still focused on the polls when we have votes coming in...

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 02:13 PM
Everyone relax.

Obama promised a change that not only never came, but no steps were even taken towards it.

National gamble. You win some, you lose some. Time to move on.

Not to start a political argument but

1) this isnt true. There is plenty that was accomplished

2) Republican obstructionism played a huge role in this.

3) this country is not "worse" off than it was in 2008, no matter how many times Romney claims it to be.

4) On the whole, American life hasnt really changed. We just love to bitch that it has.

Kaylore
11-06-2012, 02:14 PM
Also, the oversampling is an issue. I often dismiss them because both sides try argue that when they don't like the result. That said, more people identify themselves as Republicans this year, more independts favor Romney, and the sampling size in some of these polls has turnout estimated to be higher for Democrats than it was in 2008. Even the Obama campaign knows that's not going to happen.

So I think there is something the argument that some were oversampled.

razorwire77
11-06-2012, 02:14 PM
Wouldn't be surprised at all if Colorado went red. Colorado, Florida, and NC would be the only swing states where a Romney victory wouldn't surprise me. But ultimately it becomes a moot point when Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Virginia go blue.

Smiling Assassin27
11-06-2012, 02:14 PM
And denial ain't just a river in egypt, apparently.

Hulamau
11-06-2012, 02:14 PM
A monkey could have predicted Obama beating McCain, in 2008. The sample size for Nate Silver's blog isn't big enough to be credible, yet...

Sorry Crush, that statement just disqualifies your opinion on this issue!

The size or duration of Silver's blog has very little to do with its veracity and relative accuracy.

His whole approach is using statistics, logic, past history and present polls then crunches his mathematical models to derive his analysis of what the polls are saying. His track record so far is stellar. You cant name any one else over the same time period that even comes close!

Take off the hurt feelings hat for a moment and look at this objectively. because the reality of the polls to this point mathematically indicate a very high likelihood that as of today we've heard the last of Mitt Romney on the national stage.

Even if by some minor miracle the aggregate of all these polls have all skewed in the same bias toward Obama and Romney wins.. which is still statistically possible (roughly 9% possible) .. that still doesn't invalidate Silver's analysis of what the polls themselves were telling us prior to the election itself.

That's what you seem to be missing. If all the polls are equally biased toward Obama and not some of them biased toward Romney as well, then that is a different story about how the polls themselves selected their likely voters and that, if it should happen will be for everyone, including Silver, THE story of the day to chew on staring tomorrow and to adjust for for future elections.

But at this point, putting preferences aside, the objective poll numbers we have in total very much favor a victory by Obama tonight. Lock, Stock and barrel!

TheReverend
11-06-2012, 02:15 PM
Not to start a political argument but

1) this isnt true. There is plenty that was accomplished

2) Republican obstructionism played a huge role in this.

3) this country is not "worse" off than it was in 2008, no matter how many times Romney claims it to be.

4) On the whole, American life hasnt really changed. We just love to b**** that it has.

Sorry man, I lost it at "There is plenty that was accomplished"

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 02:15 PM
Yeah, I don't get why people are still focused on the polls when we have votes coming in...

Because polls have historically predicted elections?

I do agree there seems to be less enthusiasm for the election this year, for a number of reasons im sure. People are probably pretty jaded by government in general, all the infighting and bickering. This probably wont go away regardless of who is president, though i think Romney has the better chance at cooperation (simply because i dont think the dems will go lockstep against him). THATS SAID, if Romney truly tries to attack healthcare as his first order of business, he'll probably meet similar resistence.

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 02:17 PM
Its all a conspiracy roh. The polls that favor romney are the only ones that matter

But id be incredibly disheartened with Romney won. Incredibly. And im not even a huge Obama fan, clearly everything I believe in falls left of him. But ugh, I personally don't even understand what Republicans see in Romney other than "he's not obama"

Last year they were yelling, "Anybody but Mitt!" ;D

houghtam
11-06-2012, 02:17 PM
It'd be pretty remote that ALL the polls would be wrong--as they all have different models.

Early voting isn't necessarily indicative of a change in the overall electorate, it's hard to know what to do with those numbers other than see that more Republican counties are voting earlier (there's still a limited number of votes possible in such counties). What's important are those who are changing there vote from Obama in 2008 to Romney 2012, and early voting gives us no indication of any evidence of that. It'd be a mistake to suggest that early voting debunks the polls.

This is wishful thinking.

Not only is it wishful thinking, but it also demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding on how election demographics actually work. I lived in Ohio for several years and my wife is from one of the many rural counties that have a long history of voting Republican. But it doesn't take a resident to look at Wikipedia and see the obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Ohio,_2008

The most populous county that went heavy McCain in 2008 was Butler County (home of Hamilton, OH), with just over 100,000 votes cast.

For frame of reference, Cuyahoga County (home of Cleveland, OH) had over 450,000 votes cast for Obama...this is as many votes as the top six counties that voted for McCain.

Furthermore, if you take all the counties that went heavily for Obama in 2008 (>10 points), you have 1.4 million votes. The McCain counties account for about 950,000.

1,400,000 - 5% = 1,330,000
950,000 + 15% = 1,092,500

That gives Obama 55% of the vote, with over half of all votes in Ohio cast, and 2/3 of the counties' votes counted. Romney would have to make up a HUGE amount of ground in the remaining 30 counties which were pretty evenly split in 2008.

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 02:17 PM
Remember that more than half of republicans have already voted. In fact Colorado is the one state that is flipped from other areas. Most of Obama's voters have banked their votes early and in absentee votes. It's why they are saying to ignore exit polls. In Colorado it's the opposite where most Republicans have voted and more Democrats here are going to vote on election day.

I think they are far more sophisticated than you give them credit.

BroncoMan4ever
11-06-2012, 02:17 PM
Thank God it is almost over. Please let Obama win. I'm not a fan of his I just think Romney is the wrong guy for the job.

Kaylore
11-06-2012, 02:19 PM
I love how Obama doesn't get any blame for the bad relationship with congress. When they went to him after the 2008 election and laid out some ideas his exact words were "I won." And they didn't pass a single piece of bipartisan support legislation. They lost the house because of it and he's been unapologetic. He's from a blue state. He has no experience working across the aisle. He is annoyed at the idea he has to earn support for any of his ideas. He thinks he just needs to lay it out there and if you don't like what he says, you're stupid. The culture of give and take in Washington seems to have compeltely baffled him - that or he's so arrogant he's annoyed at the idea that he should need to get consensus from anyone on anything at all.

Crushaholic
11-06-2012, 02:19 PM
Voted last Friday. Glad to see so many getting out and voting. Just one stump for those of us here in Utah. Vote for the 2 amendment addendum, to waive property taxes for active military.

That would be very cool, if that were adopted here. Unfortunately, Kansas hasn't found a tax they don't like...:flush:

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 02:22 PM
I love how Obama doesn't get any blame for the bad relationship with congress. When they went to him after the 2008 election and laid out some ideas his exact words were "I won." And they didn't pass a single piece of bipartisan support legislation. They lost the house because of it and he's been unapologetic. He's from a blue state. He has no experience working across the aisle. He is annoyed at the idea he has to earn support for any of his ideas. He thinks he just needs to lay it out there and if you don't like what he says, you're stupid. The culture of give and take in Washington seems to have compeltely baffled him - that or he's so arrogant he's annoyed at the idea that he should need to get consensus from anyone on anything at all.

Too bad that McConnell stated, even before the inauguration, that his number one job was to make Obama a one term president. That just created a huge credibility issue for the idea that Obama was the problem.

razorwire77
11-06-2012, 02:23 PM
But at this point, putting preferences aside, the objective poll numbers we have in total very much favor a victory by Obama tonight. Period!

Kerry vs. Bush part deux only with the roles reversed. One side is so pissed off at the incumbent that they are looking for any way to stretch, dismiss, or interpret poll numbers in a way that gives their guy a better chance than he has.

Even if you don't believe the poll numbers, look at where the betters are betting.

You'd have a better chance of getting the clap from Tim Tebow than Romney has of winning the electoral college.

Miss I.
11-06-2012, 02:24 PM
Sorry man, I lost it at "There is plenty that was accomplished"

take it for what it's worth since it is clearly a biased source, but they did provide references:

http://obamaachievements.org/list

but this one is my favorite because it's kind of funny how it's presented.

WTF has Obama done (whatthe****hasobamadonesofar.com)

That One Guy
11-06-2012, 02:25 PM
Sorry man, I lost it at "There is plenty that was accomplished"

But when they had lost the house and had one last chance to pass whatever they wanted, they passed the legislation which would turn around the future of this country. They didn't pursue something petty like tax reform, they made sure to get gays to serve openly in the military. And you say he didn't accomplish anything.


Yes, that was sarcasm.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 02:26 PM
Sorry man, I lost it at "There is plenty that was accomplished"

You may not agree with his policies (fair, thats your opinion)..but he didnt do nothing
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php

Cito Pelon
11-06-2012, 02:27 PM
Most creative/outrageous political ad I've seen was last night.

A Chinese guy with his Mao cap and uniform on was speechifying to a Chinese audience (all with their Mao caps and uniforms), lecturing them about the "fall of empires".

The list was the Greeks, the Romans, and the Americans. All fell because of taxing and spending (This is all in Chinese with English sub-titles).

Then, at the end the lecturer says, "We own all of their debt! They work for us now!". And he laughs, and the audience laughs. Gotta hand it to whoever created that ad, that pushed all the buttons.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 02:27 PM
But when they had lost the house and had one last chance to pass whatever they wanted, they passed the legislation which would turn around the future of this country. They didn't pursue something petty like tax reform, they made sure to get gays to serve openly in the military. And you say he didn't accomplish anything.


Yes, that was sarcasm.

Yes, thats the only thing Obama did...repeal dont ask, dont tell. Come on.

And as much as Republicans love talking about the democrats having majorities, they always forget about the blue dogs who were lockstep in obstruction too...demos in name only.

That One Guy
11-06-2012, 02:28 PM
Kerry vs. Bush part deux only with the roles reversed. One side is so pissed off at the incumbent that they are looking for any way to stretch, dismiss, or interpret poll numbers in a way that gives their guy a better chance than he has.

Even if you don't believe the poll numbers, look at where the betters are betting.

You'd have a better chance of getting the clap from Tim Tebow than Romney has of winning the electoral college.

Exactly. For the second time in a row, the not-republican wins. Not necessarily on his merit but due to the clowns being sent against him. Bush-Kerry all over again.

Pseudofool
11-06-2012, 02:31 PM
You don't think a difference in early voting trends from 4 years ago (D's down 4%, R's up 14%, total swing of 18%...) isn't huge? Wow.That's not what those stats mean; there's no voter ID, just how the counties voted over all. If early voting is up in remote, unpopulated Republican counties, I bet turnout on election day is down. Just because they are voting earlier doesn't mean there are more voters in those counties.

Republicans rarely have a problem with turnout (for obvious reasons); Dems have much harder time turning out their voters (labor class, poverty stricken) etc.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 02:31 PM
I love how Obama doesn't get any blame for the bad relationship with congress. When they went to him after the 2008 election and laid out some ideas his exact words were "I won." And they didn't pass a single piece of bipartisan support legislation. They lost the house because of it and he's been unapologetic. He's from a blue state. He has no experience working across the aisle. He is annoyed at the idea he has to earn support for any of his ideas. He thinks he just needs to lay it out there and if you don't like what he says, you're stupid. The culture of give and take in Washington seems to have compeltely baffled him - that or he's so arrogant he's annoyed at the idea that he should need to get consensus from anyone on anything at all.

They didnt pass a piece of bipart legislation because, as Roh mentioned, they had NO interest in doing so unless they got their way 100 percent.

A perfect example of this was the debt ceiling issue. Talk about playing with some severe fire. This probably speaks more to the country being SO divided, but lets not pretend the republicans werent majorly pissed off that Obama was elected, and they were hardly agreeable at any point.

Hey, im blaming everyone here. The political climate is ****.

ludo21
11-06-2012, 02:32 PM
awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

obamacare will ruin the country!!!!!

um, sorry. go GJohnson! 2012

elsid13
11-06-2012, 02:33 PM
Longest wait I have ever had to vote this morning - 2 hours plus. I live in Northern Virginia and everyone I talked to had very similar experiences.

That One Guy
11-06-2012, 02:33 PM
Yes, thats the only thing Obama did...repeal dont ask, dont tell. Come on.

And as much as Republicans love talking about the democrats having majorities, they always forget about the blue dogs who were lockstep in obstruction too...demos in name only.

If they got the repeal through, they could get anything through. If they couldn't get tax reform through then, the whole premise of their solution to our problems is flawed because it won't be happening in the next term either.

Pseudofool
11-06-2012, 02:33 PM
Everyone relax.

Obama promised a change that not only never came, but no steps were even taken towards it.

National gamble. You win some, you lose some. Time to move on.You didn't get your pony? I got mine.

Seriously. Obama did more in his first two years than many do over a full two terms. Healthcare, DADT, student loan reform, stimulus, etc. etc. These weren't small fry bills.

pricejj
11-06-2012, 02:35 PM
Not to start a political argument but

1) this isnt true. There is plenty that was accomplished

Sure, Obama added $5T to the national debt. Healthcare costs have risen $2500 annually. Take home pay has decreased over $4000 in the last four years.

2) Republican obstructionism played a huge role in this.

Not true. Obama had a Democrat super-majority for 2 years. Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in 2010 and have passed numerous bills to cut spending and create jobs...Harry Reid and the Democrat controlled Senate have not passed a budget in 3 years.

3) this country is not "worse" off than it was in 2008, no matter how many times Romney claims it to be.

Sure it is. The price of gas has doubled. There are 23 million Americans unemployed. The cost of food has gone up, and housing prices are on the decline again. Not to mention Obama added more to the debt than any President in history.

4) On the whole, American life hasnt really changed. We just love to b**** that it has.

43 million people are on foodstamps. Obamacare is the biggest tax-hike on the middle-class in history, and national debt increases $80B every month.

Pseudofool
11-06-2012, 02:35 PM
I love how Obama doesn't get any blame for the bad relationship with congress. When they went to him after the 2008 election and laid out some ideas his exact words were "I won." And they didn't pass a single piece of bipartisan support legislation. They lost the house because of it and he's been unapologetic. He's from a blue state. He has no experience working across the aisle. He is annoyed at the idea he has to earn support for any of his ideas. He thinks he just needs to lay it out there and if you don't like what he says, you're stupid. The culture of give and take in Washington seems to have compeltely baffled him - that or he's so arrogant he's annoyed at the idea that he should need to get consensus from anyone on anything at all.How has Republican showed any willingness to compromise. Righties forget that Obamacare was a conservative idea.

Conservatives get their way and then complain that no one compromises with them. It's laughable.

Obama was willing to cut 10 spending dollars for every ONE dollar added in revenue, and the Republicans didn't go for it.

Many conservatives are reasonable, the ones in Congress are not.

Archer81
11-06-2012, 02:36 PM
You didn't get your pony? I got mine.

Seriously. Obama did more in his first two years than many do over a full two terms. Healthcare, DADT, student loan reform, stimulus, etc. etc. These weren't small fry bills.


23 million unemployed wonder where jobs rank the last four years...


:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 02:37 PM
If they got the repeal through, they could get anything through. If they couldn't get tax reform through then, the whole premise of their solution to our problems is flawed because it won't be happening in the next term either.

Its hard to get tax reform done when republicans signed some asinine pledge to NEVER RAISE THEM. Even Saint Reagan raised them

Even though Im obviously not a fan of Reagan, he was still a pragmatist. I dont think he'd be approving of today's modern republican party.

That One Guy
11-06-2012, 02:38 PM
You didn't get your pony? I got mine.

Seriously. Obama did more in his first two years than many do over a full two terms. Healthcare, DADT, student loan reform, stimulus, etc. etc. These weren't small fry bills.

But none actually solved any of the problems facing the country. In the regard of true change, they were all quite trivial. The economy still isn't sound and can't compete with China, there's still not enough doctors, college costs are still skyrocketing, and it'd still be in their best interest for the gay man to not waive rainbow flags in the military. Congrats on all those accomplishments?

Hulamau
11-06-2012, 02:40 PM
I love how Obama doesn't get any blame for the bad relationship with congress. When they went to him after the 2008 election and laid out some ideas his exact words were "I won." And they didn't pass a single piece of bipartisan support legislation. They lost the house because of it and he's been unapologetic. He's from a blue state. He has no experience working across the aisle. He is annoyed at the idea he has to earn support for any of his ideas. He thinks he just needs to lay it out there and if you don't like what he says, you're stupid. The culture of give and take in Washington seems to have compeltely baffled him - that or he's so arrogant he's annoyed at the idea that he should need to get consensus from anyone on anything at all.

I'd like to see that direct quote of him saying only "I won" and made no effort to reach bipartisan support?!

What Obama did get right after his election and even before he took office from nearly every Republican ranging from Mitch Mac to Rush baby was the cold shoulder and a public declaration that their one and ONLY priority the next four years was making Obama's a failed presidency.. screw the country!

That is what lost my respect for this slash and burn total obstructionist policy by the Republicans, and those brighter Republicans who didn't really agree with this approach, lacked the balls to stand up to the nut jobs and only skewed the polarization even further.

Obama, its true, didn't always react properly to that stone walling. But far from the arrogant 'I dont need you' attitude that you assume here, the real issue was taht Obama had been too used to working to bring people together from his days at hte Havard Review on up where he has a long track record of bringing two sides together and mediating a solution.

When Obama's early attempts to reach out were met with a total blockade, instead of finding a way to break the deadlock I do think one of his failings in the first term was to act too shell-shocked by the obstructionism and I think he was literally surprised and unfamiliar with such intransigence. Especially in 2010 when the congress was willing to let the country default rather than extend the debt ceiling.

Anyway, he could have handled that one better.

He should have spoken more directly to the American people about what he was trying to do and remain a good communicator during his term rather than retreating more within the white house and hunkering down in bunker mentality while trying to get some things down in spite of the near total opposition.

Hopefully hes learned his lesson and if teh Republicans try to stone wall him again I suspect he's got some end arounds in sotre and more full on appeals to the public at large using his bully pulpit to break up the log jamb? Anyway, we will find out.

At lesat now he wont have to worry about re-election and will have the vast experience of four difficult years under his belt.

Cant imagine Romney with his wishy washy blow with the wind mentality when and if he had to really face hte real troubles of the world.

Even on things he agreed with Obama with ( like his entire foreign policy debate in which he basically said 'I agree with him'.. he admitted he would have absolutely blown the Bin Laden assassination by first asking for permission and help from the freakin Pakistani's!!!

As Colin Powell said on another Romney head scratcher "Geez Mitt .. 'think'" even after all we know now after the fact , he says he would have done just like Obama did ( even that is doubtful) but I would have asked the Pakistani's first!!

That's not the kind of 'savvy' of leadership I want anywhere near the White House.

I have no problem with Mitt the person. I'm sure he's a perfectly decent guy and good family man and such. He just needs a backbone and some solid convictions that he can stand on and defend and not waffle all over the map to appeal to whatever audience he is going for at the moment.

Archer81
11-06-2012, 02:40 PM
How has Republican showed any willingness to compromise. Righties forget that Obamacare was a conservative idea.

Conservatives get their way and then complain that no one compromises with them. It's laughable.

Obama was willing to cut 10 spending dollars for every ONE dollar added in revenue, and the Republicans didn't go for it.

Many conservatives are reasonable, the ones in Congress are not.


Obama invited republicans up to the WH. Spoke with them. Listened to their ideas. Then said "I won". Then proceeded to jam through nearly everything he wanted on a purely partisan vote. If Obamacare was a conservative idea...you would think at least ONE republican would have voted for it.

As a result of the "stimulus" and Obamacare, dems lost control of the house. The senate has refused to bring house bills to a vote. Now refresh my memory. Who controls the senate?

:Broncos:

Pseudofool
11-06-2012, 02:41 PM
23 million unemployed wonder where jobs rank the last four years...


:Broncos:Oh the government should do more to create jobs? The most significant job loss has occured in the public sector. If you want to build some roads, bridges, etc; I'm all for it. If you want to build some windmills and some cars with tax dollars, let's do it. But if you think simply cutting taxes will spur growth, you haven't been paying attention to the last 30 years.

Some how the previous eight years that led to the recession didn't happen under a conservative president with a conservative ideology reigning. How many jobs did the Bush Tax cut create? Oh right...

That One Guy
11-06-2012, 02:41 PM
Its hard to get tax reform done when republicans signed some asinine pledge to NEVER RAISE THEM. Even Saint Reagan raised them

Even though Im obviously not a fan of Reagan, he was still a pragmatist. I dont think he'd be approving of today's modern republican party.

So that can't be a solution if it'll get blocked. Like it or not, it is what it is. To keep pursuing an end we all know won't happen is asinine. To be able to convince followers that such is still the answer though.. that's amazing.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 02:42 PM
Sure, Obama added $5T to the national debt. Healthcare costs have risen $2500 annually. Take home pay has decreased over $4000 in the last four years.



Not true. Obama had a Democrat super-majority for 2 years. Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in 2010 and have passed numerous bills to cut spending and create jobs...Harry Reid and the Democrat controlled Senate have not passed a budget in 3 years.



Sure it is. The price of gas has doubled. There are 23 million Americans unemployed. The cost of food has gone up, and housing prices are on the decline again. Not to mention Obama added more to the debt than any President in history.



43 million people are on foodstamps. Obamacare is the biggest tax-hike on the middle-class in history, and national debt increases $80B every month.

1) The 2500 is a skewed number, because govt subsidies should cover most that. In fact, all these healthcare numbers are. Plus, i think we should all pay a little more to make it work (thats just me, considering the old system would have america bankrupt)

2) Youre forgetting about Blue Dog democrats who they had to negotiate with...this was hardly a liberal demo majority. Ben Nelson anyone?

3) the 23 percent is a dubious number, because it includes people with part time jobs. Gas prices are a result of the global market. We're drilling more than ever here, blame India and China for indutrializing.

4) He came into office during the worst economic downfall since the depression..and as time went on, they realized it was worse than they ever thought. The economy isnt exactly strong, but its definitely growing (albiet at a slow pace). But guess what wont get it going again? Tax cuts for all!

And show me where Romney Ryan ever care about the deficit?

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 02:43 PM
So that can't be a solution if it'll get blocked. Like it or not, it is what it is. To keep pursuing an end we all know won't happen is asinine. To be able to convince followers that such is still the answer though.. that's amazing.

So whats your answer? Let the baby have their bottle and go back to trickle down economics that got us in this **** in the first place?

or do both sides need to grow the **** up and give a little?

Pseudofool
11-06-2012, 02:43 PM
Obama invited republicans up to the WH. Spoke with them. Listened to their ideas. Then said "I won". Then proceeded to jam through nearly everything he wanted on a purely partisan vote. If Obamacare was a conservative idea...you would think at least ONE republican would have voted for it.

As a result of the "stimulus" and Obamacare, dems lost control of the house. The senate has refused to bring house bills to a vote. Now refresh my memory. Who controls the senate?

:Broncos:Conservatives (Romney was the first to adopt it) came up with the idea of Obamacare. It became politically unfavorable to support their own idea, because it would like a Democratic victory.

Liberals wanted single payer, not a marketplace and a mandate (those are conservative ideas!).

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 02:45 PM
Obama invited republicans up to the WH. Spoke with them. Listened to their ideas. Then said "I won". Then proceeded to jam through nearly everything he wanted on a purely partisan vote. If Obamacare was a conservative idea...you would think at least ONE republican would have voted for it.

As a result of the "stimulus" and Obamacare, dems lost control of the house. The senate has refused to bring house bills to a vote. Now refresh my memory. Who controls the senate?

:Broncos:

I wouldnt necessarily say the public opinion is proof **** doesnt work. The public doesnt know **** about ****. For example, "Obamacare" doesnt poll great, but when you break it down piece by piece, it polls well.

People are morons

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 02:45 PM
Conservatives (Romney was the first to adopt it) came up with the idea of Obamacare. It became politically unfavorable to support their own idea, because it would like a Democratic victory.

Liberals wanted single payer, not a marketplace and a mandate (those are conservative ideas!).

This too.

Obamacare is romneycare is, more or less, what Dole proposed in 94...by the way, ALL to the right of NIXON healthcare!

houghtam
11-06-2012, 02:47 PM
So that can't be a solution if it'll get blocked. Like it or not, it is what it is. To keep pursuing an end we all know won't happen is asinine. To be able to convince followers that such is still the answer though.. that's amazing.

This argument is as asinine as the guy who said we should let Romney win because he's the only one who can work with the Republicans.

No.

Let me repeat that.

NO.

Giving in because one side refuses to negotiate is not democracy, it's holding the country hostage.

houghtam
11-06-2012, 02:48 PM
1) The 2500 is a skewed number, because govt subsidies should cover most that. In fact, all these healthcare numbers are. Plus, i think we should all pay a little more to make it work (thats just me, considering the old system would have america bankrupt)

2) Youre forgetting about Blue Dog democrats who they had to negotiate with...this was hardly a liberal demo majority. Ben Nelson anyone?

3) the 23 percent is a dubious number, because it includes people with part time jobs. Gas prices are a result of the global market. We're drilling more than ever here, blame India and China for indutrializing.

4) He came into office during the worst economic downfall since the depression..and as time went on, they realized it was worse than they ever thought. The economy isnt exactly strong, but its definitely growing (albiet at a slow pace). But guess what wont get it going again? Tax cuts for all!

And show me where Romney Ryan ever care about the deficit?

Hilarious!

It's been pointed out time and time again that the Democratic "supermajority" lasted about...7 weeks.

Miss I.
11-06-2012, 02:53 PM
23 million unemployed wonder where jobs rank the last four years...


:Broncos:

Um 23 million? where might I ask did you get that number?

I looked up 5 different sources and they all indicated around 12 million unemployed. Not that I think that's great, but you doubled the unemployed number.

however, I will say that unemployment spiked very high under Obama. He inherited a 7.8% unemployment rate and it spiked that year at about 10% in October. It has declined ever since and this last month it's back at around 7.9%.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

houghtam
11-06-2012, 02:56 PM
Um 23 million? where might I ask did you get that number?

I looked up 5 different sources and they all indicated around 12 million unemployed. Not that I think that's great, but you doubled the unemployed number.

however, I will say that unemployment spiked very high under Obama. He inherited a 7.8% unemployment rate and it spiked that year at about 10% in October. It has declined ever since and this last month it's back at around 7.9%.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

It's a made-up number that includes people who have supposedly stopped looking for work. The BLS doesn't use those numbers in calculating its unemployment numbers, and never has.

Now that there's a D in the WH though, it's a new argument.

Big surprise there.

Archer81
11-06-2012, 02:56 PM
Um 23 million? where might I ask did you get that number?

I looked up 5 different sources and they all indicated around 12 million unemployed. Not that I think that's great, but you doubled the unemployed number.

however, I will say that unemployment spiked very high under Obama. He inherited a 7.8% unemployment rate and it spiked that year at about 10% in October. It has declined ever since and this last month it's back at around 7.9%.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000


Real unemployment is around 15%. Our illustrious government does not count the people who have run out of unemployment benefits and no longer looking for work.

:Broncos:

Cito Pelon
11-06-2012, 02:58 PM
Its hard to get tax reform done when republicans signed some asinine pledge to NEVER RAISE THEM. Even Saint Reagan raised them

Even though Im obviously not a fan of Reagan, he was still a pragmatist. I dont think he'd be approving of today's modern republican party.

Painted themselves into a corner. Said "goodbye, vaya con dios" to bi-partisanship.

Miss I.
11-06-2012, 03:04 PM
Real unemployment is around 15%. Our illustrious government does not count the people who have run out of unemployment benefits and no longer looking for work.

:Broncos:

okay let's go with 15%, but then why state 23% as that is not even remotely close? I get a 5% plus or minus margin of error, but 23% is hyperbole or an outright falsehood and simply incites unnecessary reactions that distract from addressing the actual problems as one has to discern fact from fiction.

Unemployment certainly is a problem, but to insist Obama and the Federal government have done nothing to address it and don't care whilst proposing a false number is misleading and wrongheaded. The WH, like the prevous admin, has introduced various reforms, stimulus packages, etc in attempts to alleviate some of this, including a substantial bailout of the auto industry who has been creating jobs in the US. I am not convinced the Feds can fix it nor do I necessarily want more US government interference, but we will see what the next 4 years bring, whoever ends up in the WH.

TheReverend
11-06-2012, 03:04 PM
You didn't get your pony? I got mine.

Seriously. Obama did more in his first two years than many do over a full two terms. Healthcare, DADT, student loan reform, stimulus, etc. etc. These weren't small fry bills.

Where's my ****ing pony man?!?!

pricejj
11-06-2012, 03:05 PM
Painted themselves into a corner. Said "goodbye, vaya con dios" to bi-partisanship.

I think you are talking about when Obama and the Democrats rammed Obamacare down our throats without a single Republican vote.

houghtam
11-06-2012, 03:10 PM
okay let's go with 15%, but then why state 23% as that is not even remotely close? I get a 5% plus or minus margin of error, but 23% is hyperbole or an outright falsehood and simply incites unnecessary reactions that distract from addressing the actual problems as one has to discern fact from fiction.

Unemployment certainly is a problem, but to insist Obama and the Federal government have done nothing to address it and don't care whilst proposing a false number is misleading and wrongheaded. The WH, like the prevous admin, has introduced various reforms, stimulus packages, etc in attempts to alleviate some of this, including a substantial bailout of the auto industry who has been creating jobs in the US. I am not convinced the Feds can fix it nor do I necessarily want more US government interference, but we will see what the next 4 years bring, whoever ends up in the WH.

He said 23 million unemployed, with unemployment at 15%.

It's still hyperbole and, once again, based on a number that the BLS does not use nor has it ever used. It's an argument of convenience, just like the $716 million number they've been floating around, as well as many, many more.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 03:14 PM
I think you are talking about when Obama and the Democrats rammed Obamacare down our throats without a single Republican vote.

Kinda hard to negotiate with people who have zero intentions on doing so.

I dont know how you think the republicans are innocent victims in all this

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 03:19 PM
I just hope Americans get out there in huge numbers and vote. I always hate it that some third world country outdoes us in voting. Maybe too many of us take it for granted?

TheReverend
11-06-2012, 03:19 PM
Khan,

Can you PM me a primer of what I need to know for our soon-to-be presidentially mandated magic underwear?

Thanks,
Me

TheReverend
11-06-2012, 03:20 PM
Kinda hard to negotiate with people who have zero intentions on doing so.

I dont know how you think the republicans are innocent victims in all this

In my experience, liberals love to have things crammed down their throats.

That's prob the root of the confusion.

houghtam
11-06-2012, 03:22 PM
Khan,

Can you PM me a primer of what I need to know for our soon-to-be presidentially mandated magic underwear?

Thanks,
Me

Dude, why get it from Khan when you can get it from everyone's favorite conspiracy theorist...?

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=108436

Hilarious!

pricejj
11-06-2012, 03:22 PM
I just hope Americans get out there in huge numbers and vote. I always hate it that some third world country outdoes us in voting. Maybe too many of us take it for granted?

That's funny that you think by attempting to boost turnout, you can convince people who have been brainwashed by the media to vote for Obama.


Say NO to Socialism!

24champ
11-06-2012, 03:22 PM
Khan,

Can you PM me a primer of what I need to know for our soon-to-be presidentially mandated magic underwear?

Thanks,
Me

I'd be more worried about dealing with multiple wives.

TheReverend
11-06-2012, 03:23 PM
I'd be more worried about dealing with multiple wives.

I'm excited to meet all 12 of our new First Ladies.

That One Guy
11-06-2012, 03:31 PM
So whats your answer? Let the baby have their bottle and go back to trickle down economics that got us in this **** in the first place?

or do both sides need to grow the **** up and give a little?

Let the baby have his bottle or continue screaming because the baby won't share his bottle. Both end with the baby having the bottle. Maybe focus on a new solution where that isn't the end?

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 03:33 PM
That's funny that you think by attempting to boost turnout, you can convince people who have been brainwashed by the media to vote for Obama.


Say NO to Socialism!

lulz.

You have no clue what socialism is.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 03:34 PM
Let the baby have his bottle or continue screaming because the baby won't share his bottle. Both end with the baby having the bottle. Maybe focus on a new solution where that isn't the end?

Well at some point someone will have to give. It'd be best if they both do.

But lets not pretend that our entire government has been pulled to the right by some of the republican loonies in the house and senate...our healthcare bill is the perfect example of that

That One Guy
11-06-2012, 03:34 PM
I just hope Americans get out there in huge numbers and vote. I always hate it that some third world country outdoes us in voting. Maybe too many of us take it for granted?

The country isn't set up to require people to go out and vote. That's how the popular vote can differ from the electoral vote. As long as everyone votes in proportion, the same ends are met. Areas where the position is elected by direct election have more incentive to go out and cast votes.

That One Guy
11-06-2012, 03:35 PM
Well at some point someone will have to give. It'd be best if they both do.

But lets not pretend that our entire government has been pulled to the right by some of the republican loonies in the house and senate...our healthcare bill is the perfect example of that

I agree. It just takes a sentiment other than what Obama has previously been spouting. Currently he seems content to smash his head into the wall until he changes what isn't changing.

Smiling Assassin27
11-06-2012, 03:35 PM
QFT

Steve Martin ‏@SteveMartinToGo

After more fact checking, it turns out that voting is not a right, but a consolation prize for not getting to be dictator.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 03:37 PM
I agree. It just takes a sentiment other than what Obama has previously been spouting. Currently he seems content to smash his head into the wall until he changes what isn't changing.

It goes the other way too...obama could propose a distinctly republican bill and the republican response would be nay.

Neither have much interest in working with each other, but there is def more radicalism on the right side.

Meck77
11-06-2012, 04:20 PM
There is a third party. Vote for the Tailgate Party Today!

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/5342/broncosbusstripperpole.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/841/broncosbusstripperpole.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

DENVERDUI55
11-06-2012, 04:22 PM
This.

Go Romney! It's a pretty long shot, but I got hope!

How is feeling in CO? We need the president to be a 4 yr guy.

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 04:28 PM
That's funny that you think by attempting to boost turnout, you can convince people who have been brainwashed by the media to vote for Obama.


Say NO to Socialism!

Since I didn't vote for Obama, that's likely not my motivation, dumbass.

broncocalijohn
11-06-2012, 04:40 PM
I think you are talking about when Obama and the Democrats rammed Obamacare down our throats without a single Republican vote.

Or install executive order any chance he got.

eddie mac
11-06-2012, 04:42 PM
How close is this gonna be??? Can't believe the coverage over here. 2 of our 4 main channels are covering this election live for the next 6 hours. I bet there isn't one non news station in the US that would give a **** about British elections.

Kid A
11-06-2012, 04:45 PM
How close is this gonna be???

Exit polls have a pretty shoddy record on the whole, but so far are matching to the polls we've seen coming in. Even if Obama does carry Ohio by 3 pts, it could take a while before the dare call the election. Just pray it doesn't go recount for either guy, because then we're looking a couple weeks of bull**** due to Ohio's provisional ballot rules.

elsid13
11-06-2012, 04:47 PM
Real time results from VA

http://electionresults.virginia.gov/resultsSW.aspx?type=PRE&map=CTY

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2012, 04:48 PM
How close is this gonna be??? Can't believe the coverage over here. 2 of our 4 main channels are covering this election live for the next 6 hours. I bet there isn't one non news station in the US that would give a **** about British elections.

Its hard to tell. Aggregate polls suggest an obama win, but who really knows.

eddie mac
11-06-2012, 04:48 PM
Was there a similar close election a few years back with Bush that took days/a week or so to sort out???

houghtam
11-06-2012, 04:50 PM
Or install executive order any chance he got.

So you mean less than his predecessor over the same amount of time?

http://m.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-10-05/story/fact-check-obama-has-used-his-executive-powers-not-900-times

eddie mac
11-06-2012, 04:56 PM
Looks like Florida's the big one.

Hulamau
11-06-2012, 04:57 PM
Oh the government should do more to create jobs? The most significant job loss has occured in the public sector. If you want to build some roads, bridges, etc; I'm all for it. If you want to build some windmills and some cars with tax dollars, let's do it. But if you think simply cutting taxes will spur growth, you haven't been paying attention to the last 30 years.

Some how the previous eight years that led to the recession didn't happen under a conservative president with a conservative ideology reigning. How many jobs did the Bush Tax cut create? Oh right...

Tax cuts for the wealthy and trickle down economics have NEVER been shown to increase jobs .. the only ones that benefit are the rich. Or did you miss the Congressional Research report from just two months ago in September that the frantic GOP leaders in Congress had pulled from the record during the election asking for more 'facts' first and challenging some conclusions from a thoroughly Apolitical agency.

It was a 65 year analysis of the GOPs favorite bell cow of economics showing no signs of every really working.... interesting.

And the 23 millions jobless is a giant Rube Goldberg exaggeration and huge reach. It's more like 14, million which is still way too many but modest in the context of the systemic calamity the world economy went through from the party hardy days of no regulation and a 'lets fleece the 'low information voter' mentality.

TheReverend
11-06-2012, 04:59 PM
Looks like Florida's the big one.

I got this, bro.

theAPAOps5
11-06-2012, 05:00 PM
I got this, bro.

Do work!

TheReverend
11-06-2012, 05:05 PM
Do work!

Aren't you for the "false HOPE" guy?

theAPAOps5
11-06-2012, 05:07 PM
Aren't you for the "false HOPE" guy?

Nope.

TheReverend
11-06-2012, 05:08 PM
Nope.

Team Jacob

theAPAOps5
11-06-2012, 05:09 PM
Team Jacob

Rosanne Barr baby!

eddie mac
11-06-2012, 05:11 PM
Did I read somewhere that Obama might be looking to legalise marijuana???

spiralism
11-06-2012, 05:12 PM
How close is this gonna be??? Can't believe the coverage over here. 2 of our 4 main channels are covering this election live for the next 6 hours. I bet there isn't one non news station in the US that would give a **** about British elections.

and yet i'm still watching CNN...

TheReverend
11-06-2012, 05:14 PM
Did I read somewhere that Obama might be looking to legalise marijuana???

People want to fool themselves into believing Obama will finally bring a revolution of civil liberties and freedoms

...you know, the ones he promised 4 years ago

theAPAOps5
11-06-2012, 05:15 PM
Did I read somewhere that Obama might be looking to legalise marijuana???

In Colorado he is! Because its one of our hot button ballot items.

TheReverend
11-06-2012, 05:15 PM
How close is this gonna be??? Can't believe the coverage over here. 2 of our 4 main channels are covering this election live for the next 6 hours. I bet there isn't one non news station in the US that would give a **** about British elections.

The species doesn't hinge on your nation anymore.

:)

eddie mac
11-06-2012, 05:17 PM
In Colorado he is! Because its one of our hot button ballot items.

Denver could become the Amsterdam of the US, all you need is a spike in the sex industry there too and you're off and running.LOL

Dont worry about the windmills and tulips cos no-one gives a **** about them.

eddie mac
11-06-2012, 05:20 PM
The species doesn't hinge on your nation anymore.

:)

It's sad, the world was a much better place when the Brits ruled it.LOL

Now we just tag along after your lot, from bad to worse to terrible.

theAPAOps5
11-06-2012, 05:20 PM
NBC just had some interesting exit poll discussion from Ohio. Of course the auto bailout is pulling a lot of favorable numbers for Obama. Tough for Romney to overcome the goodwill created in that.

TheReverend
11-06-2012, 05:22 PM
It's sad, the world was a much better place when the Brits ruled it.LOL

Now we just tag along after your lot, from bad to worse to terrible.

We're definitely not as good at mercilessly subjugating our spheres of influence for our own private gain, but we did learn some things from you all.

theAPAOps5
11-06-2012, 05:28 PM
I can see it already. Florida is coming down to hanging chads....... and they don't even have hanging chad ballots anymore. Its that close!

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 05:38 PM
Bernie Sanders easily wins reelection. I love having his voice in the Senate. :thumbs:

theAPAOps5
11-06-2012, 05:41 PM
The longer it takes to call a state the less of the chances Romney has in my opinion. He has to be starting to pucker with Florida and North Carolina not coming in leaning towards him.

KevinJames
11-06-2012, 05:45 PM
What channel has the best coverage?

& wheres the damn comedy central election coverage, this can sometimes be really boring watching some of these channels.

TheReverend
11-06-2012, 05:47 PM
What channel has the best coverage?

& wheres the damn comedy central election coverage, this can sometimes be really boring watching some of these channels.

I'm an NBC guy. It seems the least partisan to me... and I can't stand partisan coverage even when it echoes my beliefs.

Kid A
11-06-2012, 05:47 PM
What channel has the best coverage?

& wheres the damn comedy central election coverage, this can sometimes be really boring watching some of these channels.

Would like to here some suggestions, too. I hate Blitzer and some of CNN's bull****, but they do have a very constant stream of updates, so not too bad. The body language on Fox is...not promising for Romney. Flipping back to NBC and ABC a bit.

Kid A
11-06-2012, 05:49 PM
Linda McMahon (of WWE fame) has now spent $100 million on two losing senate runs. Wow.

Kid A
11-06-2012, 05:52 PM
Saying there are still 4 hour lines in parts of Florida? You can still vote if you are in line before closing time. JFC, what is wrong with that state that, 12 years after embarrassing itself, they still can't run a goddamn election.

DHallblows
11-06-2012, 05:57 PM
What channel has the best coverage?

& wheres the damn comedy central election coverage, this can sometimes be really boring watching some of these channels.

CC coverage doesn't start until 10 my time, I guess 9pm in the 3oh3???

theAPAOps5
11-06-2012, 06:02 PM
New York Times has a cool graphic on how each candidate can win. Shows how huge Florida and Ohio are.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/scenarios

KevinJames
11-06-2012, 06:03 PM
^that scenario thing looks bad for Romney.

I honest didn't vote because I haven't took the to explore each candidate and his views deep enough, however I did watch all the debates last month. Another reason I didn't vote is because I feel both of them are way too ego driven and full of themselves.

This has nothing to do with the candidates themselves but I am hating my facebook & twitter timeline right now, its black vs white on some real racist over the top exaggeration ****.

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 06:18 PM
NBC calls Pennsylvania for Obama. That means if Romney doesn't take Ohio, he's toast.

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 06:20 PM
Florida surprises me. I assumed that was going Romney. I'd already put it in the Romney column. But it's still too close to call and Obama is leading. Bizarre.

theAPAOps5
11-06-2012, 06:20 PM
NBC calls Pennsylvania for Obama. That means if Romney doesn't take Ohio, he's toast.

Looking at the spread in the percentage so far in Ohio I can't imagine it will be too much longer before that call comes.

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 06:22 PM
Looks like the lead for Florida has swung back in favor of Romney.

theAPAOps5
11-06-2012, 06:23 PM
Florida surprises me. I assumed that was going Romney. I'd already put it in the Romney column. But it's still too close to call and Obama is leading. Bizarre.

Everywhere I am seeing its too close to call with Mitt leading. But by leading we are talking by a whisker on the end of a whisker of a lead.

OrangeSe7en
11-06-2012, 06:24 PM
Florida surprises me. I assumed that was going Romney. I'd already put it in the Romney column. But it's still too close to call and Obama is leading. Bizarre.

Add to that the fact that in Dade Co., only 15% of the results are in and that has a huge latino vote for Obama.

spiralism
11-06-2012, 06:26 PM
Looks like the lead for Florida has swung back in favor of Romney.

Greater Miami region is only at 20% though, that should offset it imo.

OrangeSe7en
11-06-2012, 06:29 PM
Greater Miami region is only at 20% though, that should offset it imo.

If the % remains consistent in Miami, that will mean 1.2 million votes for Obama. This would also mean around 745,000 votes for Romney. That's a huge swing and when I glanced at the other counties that had a low % of the votes in and it didnt really seem like there could be enough votes to overtake this disparity in Miami-Dade Co. Again, this is based on the numbers at 26% votes being in.

http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2012/florida/president/

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 06:30 PM
Obama takes Wisconsin. That's a biggie. Looks like Ryan couldn't deliver his home state.

baja
11-06-2012, 06:35 PM
what is the best station to watch the returns ?

watching CNN right now

TheReverend
11-06-2012, 06:35 PM
Obama takes Wisconsin. That's a biggie. Looks like Ryan couldn't deliver his home state.

It's huge, yeah. Should've gone with Rubio to help swing Florida and the Latin vote.

Hulamau
11-06-2012, 06:37 PM
I can see it already. Florida is coming down to hanging chads....... and they don't even have hanging chad ballots anymore. Its that close!

Florida is a squeaker so far at 76% votes in but Obama with acvery tight lead and still the cvast majority of Broward and Dade counties are not in yet and those typically go big time for the Dems.... If Obama winds up taking Florida, its turn out the lights time and everyone can get to sleep early!

Bacchus
11-06-2012, 06:38 PM
I think you are talking about when Obama and the Democrats rammed Obamacare down our throats without a single Republican vote.

Big surprise. The Republicans did not vote for anything with Obama. Their agenda from the first day was to get Obama out. No jobs bills passed through the house all other bills were fillibustered in the Senate.

Anyway, this election is over.

Bacchus
11-06-2012, 06:39 PM
what is the best station to watch the returns ?

watching CNN right now

The Daily Show and Cobert Reports!!

Bacchus
11-06-2012, 06:40 PM
NBC calls Pennsylvania for Obama. That means if Romney doesn't take Ohio, he's toast.

Romney needs Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Ohio. He loses any of those it is over.

Dukes
11-06-2012, 06:40 PM
It's huge, yeah. Should've gone with Rubio to help swing Florida and the Latin vote.

Hopefully Rubio is ready to run in 2016.

chickennob2
11-06-2012, 06:42 PM
CBS just called Elizabeth Warren to the Senate! I voted for her!

Rohirrim
11-06-2012, 06:43 PM
Elizabeth Warren wins! :woowoo: