How many Electoral Votes will Obama get?

[matmat]

if one is to believe the football gods, obama will win tomorrow.

[jchiu]

$10 on 338 at 20, anyone willing to match this with $190?

[hrothgar]

I'll tell the world, Wed. I'll even take a picture of the vote I had in the office pool.

And is there any particular reason that you're keeping this such a secret?

[luke warm]

Bush has destroyed the Republican party for the coming decade..I wish us all the best under Democratic domination but while it will be liberal I hope it won't be radical or American will be on the road to what will, by 2020 be, at best mediocrity.

this is true, but don't forget his dad - he began the dismemberment, his son merely continued it

[TimG]

Bush has destroyed the Republican party for the coming decade..I wish us all the best under Democratic domination but while it will be liberal I hope it won't be radical or American will be on the road to what will, by 2020 be, at best mediocrity.

What do mean by mediocrity? How are you measuring that?

[jonottawa]

I'll go with 291. He picks up Virginia and a couple of states out west but still loses FL, MO and OH.

[Al_U_Card]

Bush has destroyed the Republican party for the coming decade..I wish us all the best under Democratic domination but while it will be liberal I hope it won't be radical or American will be on the road to what will, by 2020 be, at best mediocrity.

this is true, but don't forget his dad - he began the dismemberment, his son merely continued it

Seems to me that if you look at Obama's stances and voting history, he is more conservative than liberal (like say Hilary or.....Maverick McCain.)

[cherdano]

This guy lacks the experience to be our nation's leader. OK OK Sarah Palin also lacks said experience, but she is not running to be president.

How many years in Washington do you think a presidential candidate requires?

At least 6 years(one term) actually trying to do things for their constituancy back home for a senator.

 

Obama has spent the first 4 years of his 6 year term trying to get elected president, noting that this country's shockingly liberal media basically crowned him as our next president, king, demi-god or whatever after his speech at the 2004 Dem convention.

 

Our president needs to be able to do more than speak well and look good presenting a rehearsed speech that he likely had almost no input in writing.

 

Obama has done nothing for us in Illinois and unless I am wrong, he will do nothing for us as Americans except to redistribute wealth to those too lazy to work.

 

Neither candidate properly addresses what I feel is the most pressing need to maintain America's future.. EDUCATION..... why can't anyone get a gov't sponsered student loan for college and then have it deducted from his paycheck just like taxes 'til it is paid off. I am an aging man..but years ago I paid off my student loan while so many didn't or stalled or still are in default.

 

My fear is that if Obama wins, I may as well go to the nearest bridge and tear up hundred dollar bills and toss them into the wind as that will be same good as my increased taxes will do. Unfortunately that is the same good as Bush's war in Iraq has done, but McCain is NOT Bush. McCain is experienced, and practical and knows how to get things done on both the national and world stages.

 

Bush has destroyed the Republican party for the coming decade..I wish us all the best under Democratic domination but while it will be liberal I hope it won't be radical or America will be on the road to what will, by 2020 be, at best mediocrity.

Very nice we didn't have someone like you in the watercooler yet, welcome! :)

 

And congratulations on making more than 250,000$ a year! (Too bad 95% of Americans are too lazy to work as hard as you do!)

 

Btw, did you look at the plans of the candidates with regards to education and college tuition? Just wondering.

[Lobowolf]

I'll be pleasantly surprised if nobody making under $250,000/year pays more taxes under Obama than he would have under McCain.

[jdonn]

I'll be pleasantly surprised if nobody making under $250,000/year pays more taxes under Obama than he would have under McCain.

I don't believe anyone has claimed that, the claim is merely that those people will not pay more under Obama than they pay now. However I have seen two independant conclusions, one in the wall street journal and one on cnn, that concluded people who make approximately $66,000 or less will pay less under Obama than under McCain, on average. Which is of course the vast majority of Americans.

 

I think neilkaz has forgotten that misplaced bitterness is bad for his liver. It's too bad most of Illinois doesn't seem to agree with him. I apologize for my own misplaced sarcasm, I didn't mean to bring on apoplexy about the millions of dollars you are going to lose as you are obviously quite wealthy to feel the way you do.

[jdonn]

BTW to get back on topic, I will post on behalf of Karl Rove.

 

338

[cherdano]

BTW to get back on topic, I will post on behalf of Karl Rove.

 

338

Yeah we need to commerate the moment. Hrothgar and Karl Rove agree.

[hrothgar]

BTW to get back on topic, I will post on behalf of Karl Rove.

 

338

Yeah we need to commerate the moment. Hrothgar and Karl Rove agree.

I saw Rove's prediction of 338 this morning. It was almost enough to make me change my entry... However, that didn't seem sporting.

 

Anyway, I'm at home now. (Take the day off work, cleaning and cooking up a storm for what I hope will be an EPIC celebration)

 

Serving a sichuan style hotpot, with all the fixins (meaning, I have 8 pounds of assorted tongues simmering on the stove and REALLY need to start trimming the ox hearts)

 

http://debfood.pbwiki.com/Sichuan+Hotpot

[Lobowolf]

the claim is merely that those people will not pay more under Obama than they pay now.

That'll be a pleasant surprise, too!

[cherdano]

I'll be pleasantly surprised if nobody making under $250,000/year pays more taxes under Obama than he would have under McCain.

Something I wanted to ask you for a while: You say you used to be a Democrat. When you started posting in the political threads in the watercooler, I think you claimed you were an "undecided voter".

 

With the exception of gay marriage, any political opinion you have voiced that I can remember was a conservative one. Everything you ever wrote on McCain and Obama was meant to put McCain in a more favorable light, and Obama in a less favorable.

 

I find this combination very hard to believe. Does my selective memory forget all the positive things you have said about Obama? Or do I misremember about you being undecided/former Democrat? If not, what on earth caused you to check "Democrat" on you voter registration years ago?

[Lobowolf]

I'll be pleasantly surprised if nobody making under $250,000/year pays more taxes under Obama than he would have under McCain.

Something I wanted to ask you for a while: You say you used to be a Democrat. When you started posting in the political threads in the watercooler, I think you claimed you were an "undecided voter".

 

With the exception of gay marriage, any political opinion you have voiced that I can remember was a conservative one. Everything you ever wrote on McCain and Obama was meant to put McCain in a more favorable light, and Obama in a less favorable.

 

I find this combination very hard to believe. Does my selective memory forget all the positive things you have said about Obama? Or do I misremember about you being undecided/former Democrat? If not, what on earth caused you to check "Democrat" on you voter registration years ago?

My comments in this forum have been disproportionately one-sided, as you point out. That's mainly a response to the forum, which is similarly one-sided (pretty much all-pro-Obama, all the time. Yes, that's an oversimplification, but I think a percentage breakdown of a Forum poll would be disproportionately (as compared with today's nationwide results) Obama-heavy). Similarly, when I discuss politics with my conservative friends, they find me overwhelmingly liberal. I'm not making this up.

 

I don't much prefer either Obama or McCain. There are things I like and dislike about both, and while I'll be going to the polls tonight to vote on several state (California) ballot initiatives, I won't be voting for either McCain or Obama.

 

Some of the things I like about Obama include his education, his intelligence, what Josh would call his "style of governance," and his position on some social issues, which I presume will translate to what I view as more favorable Supreme Court nominations. There's also an intangible "vibe" that I'm not sure what to attribute it to...charisma, or genuineness. I like Obama the most of the 4 candidates.

 

My transition from Democrat to decline-to-state/independent was partly a function of the fact that I'm less liberal than I have been in the past, and partly a function of either (both) a change in liberalism/Democrats in general and my perception of them. A couple of semi-recent Supreme Court decisions should illustrate what I mean. One of them is the Kelo eminent domain case from Connecticut, in which the City of New London, CT used eminent domain to condemn a home that nothing was wrong with and give it to a private developer for a commercial project. When I became a Democrat, I never would have considered that the liberal justices would back the city, and the conservative ones the individual (though maybe it should have, with respect to private property rights). The other case is the Oregon medical marijuana case, in which the conservative justices sided with the sick woman, and the liberal justices in favor of the federal government, invoking the Constitution's Commerce Clause, despite the fact that the marijuana had never been bought, sold, or crossed state lines.

 

I'm with most Democrats in thinking the government shouldn't be our bedrooms, but I also think they shouldn't be in my car (seat belt laws), my motorcycle (helmet laws), or my privately owned restaurant (smoking laws). No, I'm not a smoker, but if I don't like it, I'll eat somewhere else. And if enough people don't like it, non-smoking restaurants will open voluntarily. That's still how I think it should be, although at the time California's smoking ban passed, I was a non-smoking bartender in a restaurant that permitted smoking, and the ban benefitted me greatly. All of which is to say, I find about as much government intrusion coming from the left as the right. I also still can't quite believe that Al Sharpton got a featured speaker spot at the DNC.

 

So, I once checked "Democrat" because I used to be more to the left, and the party used to be more to the right. Yes, Dan Quayle was no Jack Kennedy, but John Kerry wasn't remotely close, either. On other hand, I still don't check "Republican" because, in addition to gay marriage, I also side with liberals on things like abortion, animal rights, most 1st and 4th Amendment issues, and more. But in venues that are overwhelmingly liberal (such as the Water Cooler), it's my conservative side that comes out more. I voted for Bush (yes, the current one) and Schwarzenegger, but I also voted for Clinton twice. During the course of this campaign, I moved from leaning McCain to leaning Obama, but in the end, not enough to vote for him. I'm not a believer (for me, personally) in voting for A just because you prefer him to B; there's a certain threshold for me that a candidate has to be beyond, because I see my vote as not only a preference but to some extent an endorsement. While I like Obama (from what I can judge) a great deal as a person, I neither like him enough as a candidate, nor dislike McCain enough, to vote for him.

[jdonn]

Similarly, when I discuss politics with my conservative friends, they find me overwhelmingly liberal.

Of course, you aren't Karl Rove so you are therefore part of the liberal media elite.

 

BTW you sure seem to have a knack for voting for winners.

[Lobowolf]

Similarly, when I discuss politics with my conservative friends, they find me overwhelmingly liberal.

Of course, you aren't Karl Rove so you are therefore part of the liberal media elite.

 

BTW you sure seem to have a knack for voting for winners.

I also had the Giants on the moneyline in the most recent Super Bowl.

[mikeh]

I'm with most Democrats in thinking the government shouldn't be our bedrooms, but I also think they shouldn't be in my car (seat belt laws), my motorcycle (helmet laws), or my privately owned restaurant (smoking laws).  No, I'm not a smoker, but if I don't like it, I'll eat somewhere else.  And if enough people don't like it, non-smoking restaurants will open voluntarily.  That's still how I think it should be, although at the time California's smoking ban passed, I was a non-smoking bartender in a restaurant that permitted smoking, and the ban benefitted me greatly.

 

This passage could warrant an entire thread on its own! I am against the government intervening in our homes, but (strongly) in favour of them intervening in our behaviours outside of our homes, when that behaviour threatens societal interests.

 

My arguments would be slightly different in the US than they are in Canada, because our social safety net is far broader.. so taxpayers pay more, in Canada, than they do in the US in terms of the consequences of no seatbelt, no helmet, smoking in restaurants, etc.

 

But, and this is a big but, even when individuals are on the hook for 100% of the losses they suffer from smoking, or not using a seatbelt or a helmet, society still pays a price.

 

Not all hospital and medical bills are paid, even in the US, by the non-helmeted, non restrained injured person. The government pays a huge part of the cost... emergency room treatment for uninsureds, under-insured and the like. The cost of training the healthcare professionals is subsidized to some degree. Insured claims drive up the cost of health care insurance for everyone.

 

An injured worker results in his or her loss of income, and the loss of tax revenues, and the loss to the employer (if any) of productivity.. with a ripple effect of related losses. An injured student may never complete his or her education: as a lawyer who regularly defends brain damage cases, I can tell you many stories of people's lives being destroyed by minor carelessness. As a former (and severely injured) motorcyclist, I can tell you of the benefits of a helmet. Brain injury, which occurs far more frequently in unrestrained vehicle occupants than those who use seat belts (no ejection, no head-first contact with the windshield), wreaks havoc on far more than the victim, and the government has the right and, in my opinion, the duty to take reasonable steps to minimize these losses.

 

Smoking is somewhat different.. were it not for a couple of factors. One is that nicotine is a highly addictive drug. One of the factors behind banning restaurant or other workplace smoking... yes, a restaurant is a workplace... is to lower its profile in society. A neighbour of mine is the chief medical officer for the area of the country in which I live...and an ardent (his critics would say rabid) opponent to smoking. He makes some very powerful points about this factor, as well as pointing out that second-hand smoke is a very serious workplace hazard. It is one thing to argue that customers can choose a different restaurant, but the reality is that jobs are not as easy to come by... and the dishwasher, kitchen helper, waitress, bus boy etc are usually unskilled and have a tough time finding work. Also, they are economically disadvantaged in terms of being able to negotiate with their employer to provide them with a safe environment, and to add insult to injury, many will not have health care in the US... so when they get sick, they are in real trouble.

[jdonn]

Mike I'm not saying I totally disagree, but in that case why not ban donuts, or at least have some sort of tax relative to the health of food people buy? I would argue fatty food is a lot more detrimental to members of society that don't abuse them than motorcycle accidents are.

[Lobowolf]

Mike I'm not saying I totally disagree, but in that case why not ban donuts, or at least have some sort of tax relative to the health of food people buy? I would argue fatty food is a lot more detrimental to members of society that don't abuse them than motorcycle accidents are.

Might be next...check out Japanese waistline measurement law:

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../MNLV118ISH.DTL

 

 

 

I agree with Mike about the societal benefits, on balance; I just don't think the societal benefits override the autonomy interests.

[mike777]

"My arguments would be slightly different in the US than they are in Canada, because our social safety net is far broader.. so taxpayers pay more, in Canada, than they do in the US in terms of the consequences of no seatbelt, no helmet, smoking in restaurants, etc."

 

 

I note Australia is having a huge debate about banning a Down's Syndrome child from being able to move to Aust because it would cost the government too much.

 

I will see if I can find a link.

 

edit:

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/30/2405731.htm

[Lobowolf]

Yeah, an arguable problem is the extent to which the government says, "We're going to buy you dinner...with X, Y, and Z's money." The bigger problem (and logical continuation) is when they say, "Well, since we're buying, here's what you're going to have..."

[nickf]

I note Australia is having a huge debate about banning a Down's Syndrome child from being able to move to Aust because it would cost the government too much.

Yes, it's deplorable but not really a huge debate. Some minion in the Dept of Immigration made that decision but as soon as the Health Minister found out it was expected to be overturned.

 

nickf

sydney

[nickf]

Just what has Senator Obama done for the state of Illinois, other than trying to get himself elected president, basically since his first day in office ?

How about sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health for starters?

 

Oh and I forgot to add: Brought peace.

 

nickf

sydney