Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I want 269 tie. It'll top off the everyone bucketlist because it be so unexpected. I doubt an alien invasion from Venus will capture the same headlines that day its announce 269 apiece.

The Romeny camp has been working hard to plant the meme that he can win after his first debate performance. Honestly, it is the first intereting or decent thing I have seen his campaign do to try and mobilize his base.

Republicans have a long tradition. If you don't like the current reality, just make up a new one.

Here is composite poll results for 538:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Romney is actually losing ground pretty fast, and an Obama win seems even more likely than ever. The popular vote maybe close, but popular votes are meaningless in Presidential Politics. Just ask Al Gore.

It is clear, that the Electoral College will likely get Obama over 270. However, it's not completely over yet, and Romeny still has a 1 in 4 chance of winning.

 Easy E wrote:


It is clear, that the Electoral College will likely get Obama over 270. However, it's not completely over yet, and Romeny still has a 1 in 4 chance of winning.

Agreed. It is all or nothing for Romney in Ohio. If Obama wins it, it likely means his victory is assured.

Like I said in the prediction thread, I think Romney has clearly gained some momentum in the past month, and I think that'll continue into Nov. 6. But I also don't see Romney winning Ohio, and when you add those EVs to the 21 other states that Obama seems to have more or less locked down, you end up with 271 EVs and re-election.

I predict that the GOP will be very unhappy with the Romney campaign for losing against a very vulnerable incumbent. But I think certain elements of the GOP will overlook the fact that Romney gained his momentum once he started talking like moderate Mitt again.

gorgon wrote:
I think certain elements of the GOP will overlook the fact that Romney gained his momentum once he started talking like moderate Mitt again.

Totally agree here.

I can almost here the cries now:

"Romney lost because he wasn't Conservative enough! He failed to articulate true conservative principles! If the American people only had a cnadidate that strongly espoused and support Conservative principles strongly, they would flock to vote for him. This candidate could not lose. Romney failed to do that."

You have to remember, Conservative Principles never fail, they can only BE failed.

Hey...no complaining till after the election. Your ruining the drama. Sheesh....people these day

Easy E wrote:

gorgon wrote:
"Romney lost because he wasn't Conservative enough! He failed to articulate true conservative principles! If the American people only had a cnadidate that strongly espoused and support Conservative principles strongly, they would flock to vote for him. This candidate could not lose. Romney failed to do that."

You have to remember, Conservative Principles never fail, they can only BE failed.

I don't think the GOP's general zeitgeist actually believes this... their troubles lay with their own primaries, and the fact that the Liars For Jesus camp need to be pandered to because they all vote in droves during the primaries, and as a result no moderate Republican can ever secure the nomination without appealing to the hardcore fundamentalists, and thereby sacrificing their moderate position on the national stage.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Easy E wrote:

gorgon wrote:
"Romney lost because he wasn't Conservative enough! He failed to articulate true conservative principles! If the American people only had a cnadidate that strongly espoused and support Conservative principles strongly, they would flock to vote for him. This candidate could not lose. Romney failed to do that."

You have to remember, Conservative Principles never fail, they can only BE failed.

I don't think the GOP's general zeitgeist actually believes this... their troubles lay with their own primaries, and the fact that the Liars For Jesus camp need to be pandered to because they all vote in droves during the primaries, and as a result no moderate Republican can ever secure the nomination without appealing to the hardcore fundamentalists, and thereby sacrificing their moderate position on the national stage.

I generally agree. Look at the candidates they've rolled out in the last two elections...both relative moderates that the party leadership deemed to be electable. Even Bush was thought to be a "GOP Clinton" early on.

Obviously the GOP is fractured these days, given how McCain and Romney had to spend the primaries and even general elections ruining their long-established moderate brands for which they were chosen.

Why do people keep saying it's a tight race. NO ITS NOT! Obama is going to win a huge landslide if you ask me.

Who in the right mind would vote for some sexist, warmongering biggot. To say that it is close is laughable at best.

We all know Obama has pretty much won. In a weeks time they'll just be one pissed of Republican party and I'm going to turn on Fox News for the first time in ten years just to see their reaction and silly childish comments and attacks on the democrats.

 Poppabear wrote:
Why do people keep saying it's a tight race. NO ITS NOT! Obama is going to win a huge landslide if you ask me.

Who in the right mind would vote for some sexist, warmongering biggot. To say that it is close is laughable at best.

We all know Obama has pretty much won. In a weeks time they'll just be one pissed of Republican party and I'm going to turn on Fox News for the first time in ten years just to see their reaction and silly childish comments and attacks on the democrats.

You spelled bigot wrong.
Don't quit your day job. You might be surprised foreign devil, er I mean compatriot from across the sea.

 Bromsy wrote:

 ENOZONE wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Vote third party

I am. Go green.

Suuuure, throw your vote away!

I actually had someone tell me that today. To be fair, I did tell him I was writing in Vermin Supreme, but. . .

Poppabear wrote:Who in the right mind would vote for some sexist, warmongering biggot.

Other sexist, warmongering bigots.

Also, people who believe that Romney will be better for the economy. And people who believe Romney will be better with international affairs. And people who adamantly are pro-life. And people who vote strictly along party lines. And people who believe Obama will take their guns away. And hypocrites who are afraid of socialism but want their social securty cheques. And people who earn more than $250k each year. And single-issue voters that are attracted to one aspect of Romney such that for them, that one thing is important enough to swallow all the rest that doesn't appeal.

Don't get me wrong, I think every reason to vote for Romney is shortsighted, uninformed, selfish and naive. But I can understand his appeal to lots of voters.

I'm a warmonger?

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm a warmonger?

You do play Chaos armies... eh?

That's alright... I'm a warmonger too!

 whembly wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm a warmonger?

You do play Chaos armies... eh?

That's alright... I'm a warmonger too!

I'm a Nurgle lover, not a Khorne fighter.

Give Nurgle some sugah!

LOL I'm one of the few on Dakka that shot back in anger in little guys running around in manrobe or man jamas. So I guess I'm a warmonger since I picked my career for 23 yrs

 matphat wrote:
When was the last time a presidential race WASN'T neck in neck?
I'm starting to think this is a fabrication of the news industry to keep viewership up.

Your closer to the truth than you think.
I was watching Nate Silver, a statistician, the other day, and he gave Obama a 77.4% to get re-elected. This guy seems to be pretty hard nerd core and is an much of an expert as I think we can expect.

It makes for crap news, however, to say that Obama has a 77.4% chance to get re-elected. That's why news companies are going to spin it as a 'neck in neck' race to get more viewers. More viewers = more money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fivethirtyeight#2012_U.S._presidential_election
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

 azazel the cat wrote:

Poppabear wrote:Who in the right mind would vote for some sexist, warmongering biggot.

Other sexist, warmongering bigots.

Also, people who believe that Romney will be better for the economy. And people who believe Romney will be better with international affairs. And people who adamantly are pro-life. And people who vote strictly along party lines. And people who believe Obama will take their guns away. And hypocrites who are afraid of socialism but want their social securty cheques. And people who earn more than $250k each year. And single-issue voters that are attracted to one aspect of Romney such that for them, that one thing is important enough to swallow all the rest that doesn't appeal.

Don't get me wrong, I think every reason to vote for Romney is shortsighted, uninformed, selfish and naive. But I can understand his appeal to lots of voters.

Don't forget people who don't believe a former moderate Massachusetts governor is in fact a sexist warmonger.

By the Throne of Terra... how is Romney a "sexist warmonger"??

... Binders full of deamonettes?

 Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Poppabear wrote:Who in the right mind would vote for some sexist, warmongering biggot.

Other sexist, warmongering bigots.

Also, people who believe that Romney will be better for the economy. And people who believe Romney will be better with international affairs. And people who adamantly are pro-life. And people who vote strictly along party lines. And people who believe Obama will take their guns away. And hypocrites who are afraid of socialism but want their social securty cheques. And people who earn more than $250k each year. And single-issue voters that are attracted to one aspect of Romney such that for them, that one thing is important enough to swallow all the rest that doesn't appeal.

Don't get me wrong, I think every reason to vote for Romney is shortsighted, uninformed, selfish and naive. But I can understand his appeal to lots of voters.

Don't forget people who don't believe a former moderate Massachusetts governor is in fact a sexist warmonger.

How dare you sir!
Don't you know Mittens Eats Kittens!?!

Whats wrong with a little kitty now and then

Damn it Jihadin we've been over this.

It's ''lick, lick, nibble'', not ''bite and swallow''.

Get it right man!

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
... Binders full of deamonettes?

If true... that's all kinds of awesome!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Damn it Jihadin we've been over this.

It's ''lick, lick, nibble'', not ''bite and swallow''.

Get it right man!

erm... um...

*must* *not* *respond* *!!!*

 Poppabear wrote:
Why do people keep saying it's a tight race. NO ITS NOT! Obama is going to win a huge landslide if you ask me.

Who in the right mind would vote for some sexist, warmongering biggot. To say that it is close is laughable at best.

We all know Obama has pretty much won. In a weeks time they'll just be one pissed of Republican party and I'm going to turn on Fox News for the first time in ten years just to see their reaction and silly childish comments and attacks on the democrats.

"I like this candidate lots more therefore they are certain to win in a landslide" is not how electoral analysis works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 matphat wrote:
When was the last time a presidential race WASN'T neck in neck?
I'm starting to think this is a fabrication of the news industry to keep viewership up.

Your closer to the truth than you think.
I was watching Nate Silver, a statistician, the other day, and he gave Obama a 77.4% to get re-elected. This guy seems to be pretty hard nerd core and is an much of an expert as I think we can expect.

It makes for crap news, however, to say that Obama has a 77.4% chance to get re-elected. That's why news companies are going to spin it as a 'neck in neck' race to get more viewers. More viewers = more money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fivethirtyeight#2012_U.S._presidential_election
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Well, it isn't just that the media likes to show a closer race (though that is certainly a thing), but national level polls are showing a neck and neck race right now. It's just that moving down to state level analysis shows a much stronger picture for Obama. The media reports almost entirely on day by day national polls, while 538 is at it's core a state by state electoral college predictor.

Which wouldn't normally mean much, but as 538 wrote today, but at some fundamental level there is a disconnect between state and national polls in this election cycle. As in, it isn't just an electoral advantage for Obama, but if you weight all the state polls by their voting turnouts and gross them up, the picture quite different to what the national polls are showing. The article he posted today on the issue is really interesting. It's a pretty odd statistical quirk.

Jihadin wrote:I'm a warmonger?

I wouldn't say so.

I think the one thing the Romeny Campaign has done really well sinc ethe first debate, is spin the campaign like Romney is a winner. of course, the this plays really well to the Media's need for some sort of narrative as well, so they gladly eat it up.

If you create the "perception" that Romney can win, then it increases the chances that fence sitters will vote for him. After all, America wants to be on the sid eof winners and not losers.

I'm a bit surprised that the Obama team is letting them get away with it, unless they think that the Romney narrative will help them mobilize thier own base on election day? Which is possible. If Obama seems sur eto win, why bother voting? If it is in doubt, than your vote really matters.

I love this time of year!

 azazel the cat wrote:

Poppabear wrote:Who in the right mind would vote for some sexist, warmongering biggot.

Other sexist, warmongering bigots.

Also, people who believe that Romney will be better for the economy. And people who believe Romney will be better with international affairs. And people who adamantly are pro-life. And people who vote strictly along party lines. And people who believe Obama will take their guns away. And hypocrites who are afraid of socialism but want their social securty cheques. And people who earn more than $250k each year. And single-issue voters that are attracted to one aspect of Romney such that for them, that one thing is important enough to swallow all the rest that doesn't appeal.

Don't get me wrong, I think every reason to vote for Romney is shortsighted, uninformed, selfish and naive. But I can understand his appeal to lots of voters.

I love Canadians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
LOL I'm one of the few on Dakka that shot back in anger in little guys running around in manrobe or man jamas. So I guess I'm a warmonger since I picked my career for 23 yrs

No you're a warmonger for having Winnie the Pooh provide covering fire, when we all know his talents lie more in the sniper realm.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 matphat wrote:
When was the last time a presidential race WASN'T neck in neck?
I'm starting to think this is a fabrication of the news industry to keep viewership up.

Your closer to the truth than you think.
I was watching Nate Silver, a statistician, the other day, and he gave Obama a 77.4% to get re-elected. This guy seems to be pretty hard nerd core and is an much of an expert as I think we can expect.

It makes for crap news, however, to say that Obama has a 77.4% chance to get re-elected. That's why news companies are going to spin it as a 'neck in neck' race to get more viewers. More viewers = more money.

There's kind of an insidious side to this. While the campaigns obviously pay far more attention to polls and whatever "hard" data they can dig up, constant media crowing about tight races, etc. can become a self-fulfilling prophecy by motivating voters on either side. And a tightening race can drive more ad buys by campaigns in those same media outlets.

Note that I'm not suggesting that the media determines outcomes. But it's fairly obvious to me that the media figured out a long time ago that a tight race benefits them financially in multiple ways, therefore giving them a vested interest in selling the narrative about a historically close race.

FWIW, I think the final result will be close, but that Obama almost certainly has the 270 EVs that he needs. Those of you predicting Obama landslides are thinking with your hearts instead of your heads. Obama lost his chance to put Romney away for good in that first debate. Romney does have some momentum, and he'll probably get some "what the heck" votes in booths from a dissatisfied electorate. Still, it appears Romney would have to score a fairly monumental upset somewhere to keep Obama from 270.

Well, I'll do my part.