Romney vs. Obama

[kenberg]

One final scientific analysis of the election before I go to bed and vote in the morning, as seen on Facebook.

 

"I am predicting Obama will take an early lead tomorrow, until all the Republicans get off work"

-Will Ferrel

 

This is great!

[mike777]

The final Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll of Election 2012 shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 49% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 48%. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate

----

 

 

538:

 

 

314-223

 

50.9%-48.3% for the President

 

 

91% for the President

 

---

 

 

49-48 for Romney per Gallup

[kenberg]

This is wild: Pundit accountability: The official 2012 election prediction thread

 

Both Ezra Klein and Larry Sabato predict that Obama will win with 290 electoral votes. But what really caught my eye was that if you average the predictions of George Will, Dick Morris, and Jim Cramer, you also get exactly 290 electoral votes for Obama. Is Mother Nature's hand in this?

:P

 

As the man said, this will be a fun thread to re-visit after the election. George Will predicts Minnesota to go for Romney. As we say back home in St. Paul, that's different.

[mike777]

Just got back from voting

 

 

The biggest thing I noticed here in NC is it took less than one hour compared to almost 2 hours in previous years.

 

I noticed as I came out from voting the line was much shorter than 6:30 am.

 

I live in a very heavy Democratic City/County that went big for Obama in 08.

[ArtK78]

Going to vote shortly. My vote is more important in state wide and local races, as New Jersey is one of Obama's safest states. But it is nice to be voting for a candidate that I expect to win. That hasn't happened too often for me. :)

[kenberg]

No doubt Barack Obama and Mitt Romney regularly read the forum, or at least they read all of my posts, so I want to say a few words to them.

 

Dear Mr. President,

 

 

We really need to get this entitlement stuff under control. It is not reasonable to think that the burden can fall exclusively (as at least one of you has stated) on those under 55. It is also not reasonable to drastically cut benefits to those who are beyond the age when they can reasonably be expected to hold a decent paying job. So how to address it?

 

First, you have to get your head out of your butt and look around. Times have changed.

 

Example: My father came to this country when he was 10, finished eighth grade, and entered the full time work force when he was 13. I was born here, went to elementary school, high school, college and graduate school. I am all for education, but it costs money. Elementary school and high school were free (to me), college was heavily subsidized by the state, in graduate school I was supported by the NSF and various research grants. At the other end of life, we live longer, on average much longer. Someone has to be working, we cannot all either be in school preparing to work or else retired from work We have been shielded from this fact of life bu women entering the workforce. If society were still structured as it was when I was young, with women mostly at home taking care f the kids, almost no one would actually be out there working. There is no third sex to make up the slack as these demographics get worse.

 

Example: Medical costs have become ruinous. I handled the costs when my father died in 1977. A lot, but manageable. Now, few could handle medical costs if they were not paid for by medicare. But of course there is some sort of moral hazard here, if that overworked phrase is the right one. I have some medical issues (I'm 73, I am allowed to have medical issues) and so I get various tests and such. I have only the vaguest idea of the cost. I don't pay it, so I don't much look at the bill.

 

So what are my thoughts?

 

 

People have to work longer. I realize that the age for social security is going up. Good start, more is needed. I retired when I was 65 because a cold hearted calculation of my benefits and pension showed that basically I would be working for free if I continued. Some serious thinking is needed. Having able bodied people retire early on is not the way to boost national prosperity. I know that a 70 year old bricklayer may find the bricks starting to get heavy, but most of us are not bricklayers and there are already disability rules that will, for that matter, cover a 50 year old bricklayer if he can show he needs it. And, regrettably, often for those who do not need it. This disability crap has also gotten out of hand. If you keep in mind that the default is that people take care of themselves, help is provided as needed, you have the right direction.

 

Further, there probably has to be some adjustment in social security benefits for those who would barely would notice the adjustment. Don't go overboard with this, we are not going to be happy to have to prove that cutting benefits would reduce us to poverty, but some adjustment will probably be needed. Btw, there already is something in medicare that expects people with quite good incomes to pay somewhat more. This makes sense.

 

On the health front, "death panel" should be an absolutely forbidden phrase. I long ago accepted that my family has no obligation to spend themselves into bankruptcy to slightly prolong my life. I don't expect the taxpayers to do so either. We who are older are going to need more frequent and more expensive medical intervention. That cannot be helped. But we need to be realistic about what can and cannot be done. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett will have access to care that will be out of my price range, and out of the tax payer's price range as well. I wish them well, I feel no envy.

 

Mr. President, you've got a tough job ahead of you. It is not clear to me why on Earth you want this job. But you got it. I actually don't know how to solve this entitlement problem, but you are supposed to have some ideas. May I make one more observation. People of my age understand about the consequences of spending money we don't have. Starting with my first car in 1954, I have always bought the car that I can afford to buy with the cash I have on hand. I took a mortgage to buy a house, I borrowed some money for my education, that's it. So an honest plan, with honest numbers, to bring the deficit under control will have our support. We do not expect a miracle, we expect ("expect" in the sense of "wish for", but the more cynical among us may not really expect) a serious approach to a serious problem.

[luke warm]

Can I (the donn half of lalldonn) get in on that?

if you read a few posts back you'll see that this goes back to a bet hrothgar and i made concerning romney's choice of ryan as a running mate... it was only to him i was offering a straight up $300, double or nothing, bet based on this conversation... for you or anyone else, i'd have to take the correct odds... since you're the one who places so much faith in silver, i'm thinking 4:1 is about right

 

Sure. $300 that Obama wins the electoral vote

ok, $300 double or nothing from previous bet... you're down

[helene_t]

Or, 290 is:

Obama gets OH, PA, VA, NV, IA, WI, MI

Romney gets NH, CO, FL, NC

Maine and Nebraska could split their electors so 290 electors could be composed in dozens of ways, couldn't it?

[luke warm]

May I make one more observation. People of my age understand about the consequences of spending money we don't have.

i'd like to take a moment or two to talk about this, and i'm trying to do so without being particularly partisan, though i'm sure some will think that's not true... it seems to me that the more people we have who don't subscribe to your view, the farther we get away from america and the closer we come to a more european society... we've even seen some posters here who would prefer that, and who have said so... not as many people believe as you and i do as used to, and i see the population of those "disbelievers" growing... it's my view that the more who become gov't dependent, the less likely we are to remain what we were founded to be... spending money we don't have, individually and socially, and confiscating other people's money has become the norm

 

when i see the sheer number of people who not only rely on gov't subsistence, and i'm not speaking here of social security and/or medicare (though even these things need addressing), but who view such aid as a right, an entitlement, i see an almost unstoppable slide... when i see the central gov't amass more power unto itself, which of necessity lessens the power of the people, i see a tipping point on the horizon, one which will fundamentally change america

 

i'm not saying the republicans have the answers... in many ways they are as much the problem as their liberal counterparts... imo, gingrich was right when he said that social engineering from the right is just as much social engineering as that from the left... taking just one example, the defense of marriage act is just as wrong as any other federal law that limits the power of the states to decide for themselves, as determined by the people who reside in those states... if MA wants to legalize gay marriage, it should be legal in MA - imo neither LA nor MS nor the fed gov't should have the power to interfere in that... however, the same goes for abortion... we can't have it both ways, and both liberals and conservatives think they can

 

by the same token, the fact that MA passes universal healthcare for the citizens of that state is a perfectly acceptable action... but to do so on a nat'l scale is, to me, an unwarranted interference by the fed gov't - a breech of liberty, not to sound too melodramatic

 

i know there are those here, you can see it in most every thread, who probably believe that a stronger central gov't is the way to go... that's fine, it's simply a philosophical disagreement, and people of good faith can have those... but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that such a thing won't reduce personal freedoms, won't make america a very different country, because eventually it will...

 

both parties are guilty... i just truly believe that the republican party is the lesser of two evils

[ArtK78]

 

both parties are guilty... i just truly believe that the republican party is the lesser of two evils

 

Whereas I view the Republican Party as the evil of two lessers.

 

I disagree with almost everything in your post. But that's life.

[Bbradley62]

Maine and Nebraska could split their electors so 290 electors could be composed in dozens of ways, couldn't it?

Yes.

[lalldonn]

since you're the one who places so much faith in silver, i'm thinking 4:1 is about right

That's actually more than fair, but I'm in no mood to risk a lot to win a little even with odds that I feel are in my favor. No hard feelings.

[kenberg]

As we went off to vote I mentioned we must now choose between the Muslim Socialist and the Vulture Capitalist. Becky forbade me to repeat that at the place where we vote. As of a bit before noon there had been about 800 people who had come in to vote. A ste4ady stream, they said. It took maybe half an hour or a little less, they were very organized.

 

I finally got off the fence about the referendum to expand gambling. I voted no. Four years ago a referendum passed to allow a limited number of casinos with no table games. Now they are back for another casino, a super casino, table games at all casinos, and a tax break for the existing casinos to compensate them for the new competition. I find the whole thing repugnant. There are, perhaps, economic reasons for voting yes and Becky did so. I just couldn't do so without throwing up. As e e cummings said, there is some .... I will not eat.

 

I suspect that another place where my vote and Becky's vote cancelled out was with approving congressional redistricting. I voted for it. The gerrymandering is extreme and offensive but I am so pleased to now be in Chris van Hollen's district instead of Roscoe Bartlett's that I just could not say no. I'm easily seduced. Maybe some Dems will move into the neighborhood now. We need them.

 

If I understand it correctly, Maryland may become the first state to vote approval of gay marriage when the law is submitted to referendum. Becky and I agree here, both voting yes. The times they are a changin'.

[PassedOut]

When preparing to vote yesterday, I was pleased to see that we had an online means to bring up the sample ballot for any precinct in Michigan. All I had to do was to type in my name, although I suppose that those with more common names had to enter a bit more.

 

When the sample ballot appeared, you could click on icons by each name to view more about the candidate and his or her positions on issues. Along with the ballot was the address of and map to our polling location.

 

But most interesting to me was a series 4-5 minute videos, one for each proposal and constitutional amendment on the ballot. The presenter in each case was the same relaxed, articulate, non-partisan lady (I'm guessing that she is a Wayne State political science professor). She explained in plain, understandable language exactly what the proposal would accomplish (and what it would not). Then she summarized the arguments of both the proponents and opponents of the proposal or amendment.

 

Some things about the online world can be distracting and irritating, but this impressed me. I'm wondering: Is this type of site new, or is it common and I've just now stumbled upon it?

[barmar]

Really lucky in my town. Population is 42,000, and we have 21 precincts, so there are never any long lines -- I think the most I've ever seen in almost 30 years is 2 people ahead of me. "Talk of the Nation" just read an email from someone saying they waited 2.5 hours, with the line growing from 350 when they got on line at 9am to 500 when they finally voted -- that would be more than half the eligible voters in one of our precincts (I'm estimating at least 1/3 of the population is minors, who can't vote).

[nigel_k]

Mr. President, you've got a tough job ahead of you. It is not clear to me why on Earth you want this job. But you got it. I actually don't know how to solve this entitlement problem, but you are supposed to have some ideas. May I make one more observation. People of my age understand about the consequences of spending money we don't have.

I no longer have confidence that the problem is solvable at all. My country is further down this track than the US. Our debt isn't proportionally bigger but the entitlement mentality is more entrenched. During my adult life (the last 25 years) we have gone from a centre-left government committed to fiscal responsibility to a centre-right government that has no intention of ever balancing the budget. We must eventually reach the point where Greece is now and go past it.

 

There is a long term personal cost to spending money you don't have. But there is no such cost to spending other people's money, especially when those people cannot vote and may not even have been born. To refuse this money requires a strong sense of personal responsibility and a moral worldview that just won't permit you to take more out of the country than you put in. This has to be reinforced by a critical mass of others with the same views. Once that critical mass is lost, I doubt very much there is any way of getting it back.

 

The best we can do know is understand how we got this way so other countries such as China can have a chance to stop the disease before too many are infected.

[Vampyr]

As we went off to vote I mentioned we must now choose between the Muslim Socialist and the Vulture Capitalist.

 

Did you have a Muslim running for Congress?

[TimG]

taking just one example, the defense of marriage act is just as wrong as any other federal law that limits the power of the states to decide for themselves, as determined by the people who reside in those states... if MA wants to legalize gay marriage, it should be legal in MA - imo neither LA nor MS nor the fed gov't should have the power to interfere in that...

If the Federal Government offers an income tax filing status of "married filing jointly" which provides some benefit to married people, doesn't the Federal Government have to take a position on same sex marriage? Or, are these benefits supposed to be enjoyed by those in Massachusetts, but not those in Texas?

[kenberg]

This is a reply to PassedOut (there were several messages inserted in the short time it took me to reply!): Maryland has some of that, I just checked. There is a sample ballot. The referenda are explained in writing, as they are in the sample ballot that was mailed to us, and there is a spoken version. The arguments for and against do not appear, or at least I did not find them.

[lalldonn]

When preparing to vote yesterday, I was pleased to see that we had an online means to bring up the sample ballot for any precinct in Michigan. All I had to do was to type in my name, although I suppose that those with more common names had to enter a bit more.

 

When the sample ballot appeared, you could click on icons by each name to view more about the candidate and his or her positions on issues. Along with the ballot was the address of and map to our polling location.

 

But most interesting to me was a series 4-5 minute videos, one for each proposal and constitutional amendment on the ballot. The presenter in each case was the same relaxed, articulate, non-partisan lady (I'm guessing that she is a Wayne State political science professor). She explained in plain, understandable language exactly what the proposal would accomplish (and what it would not). Then she summarized the arguments of both the proponents and opponents of the proposal or amendment.

 

Some things about the online world can be distracting and irritating, but this impressed me. I'm wondering: Is this type of site new, or is it common and I've just now stumbled upon it?

We have something like that which arrives in the mail with our sample ballots ahead of the election. It states each proposal, the argument for, the argument against, and a rebuttal of each argument. It's actually pretty entertaining to read, watching the sample ballot have a debate with itself.

 

In Nevada there were only two such proposals up for a vote. One was to increase the ability of the state legislature to convene "special legislative sessions" if they feel the need, and the other was for a slight tax increase to fund schools. Nothing all that controversial IMO no matter which side you fall on.

[nigel_k]

Really lucky in my town. Population is 42,000, and we have 21 precincts, so there are never any long lines -- I think the most I've ever seen in almost 30 years is 2 people ahead of me. "Talk of the Nation" just read an email from someone saying they waited 2.5 hours, with the line growing from 350 when they got on line at 9am to 500 when they finally voted -- that would be more than half the eligible voters in one of our precincts (I'm estimating at least 1/3 of the population is minors, who can't vote).

This is something I don't understand about the US. According to this link, in New Zealand's 2005 election we had 6094 polling stations for a population of about 4.1 million so a ratio of 673:1, three times better than your 'very lucky' town. It also says: '71% of voters voted in less than 5 minutes and 92% in less than 10 minutes. 98% of voters are satisfied with the waiting time.'

 

If people complain about disenfranchisement from voters having to prove who they are, how much worse is it when people choose not to vote because they aren't willing to wait in line for 2 hours?

[luke warm]

That's actually more than fair, but I'm in no mood to risk a lot to win a little even with odds that I feel are in my favor. No hard feelings.

not at all

 

Whereas I view the Republican Party as the evil of two lessers.

 

I disagree with almost everything in your post. But that's life.

fine, so you support the defense of marriage act, you favor more people dependent on the fed gov't and a more european-styled america, along with "almost everything" else in my post... as you say, that's life

 

If the Federal Government offers an income tax filing status of "married filing jointly" which provides some benefit to married people, doesn't the Federal Government have to take a position on same sex marriage? Or, are these benefits supposed to be enjoyed by those in Massachusetts, but not those in Texas?

if MA passes same sex marriage and TX does not, then yes...

[kenberg]

Did you have a Muslim running for Congress?

 

Under the old districting we only had Vulture Capitalists. I have not yet learned the accepted way to summarize Chris Van Hollen. Commnunist Dupe is a bit outdated. I'll let you know.

 

Or, if you want a more serious response, I don't know. Actually I would be delighted to never know the religious beliefs of anyone running for Congress. Or of anyone else, for that matter.

[barmar]

Actually I would be delighted to never know the religious beliefs of anyone running for Congress.

Even if they allow their religious beliefs to bias their decisions?

 

I'm all for religious tolerance, as long as their belief doesn't affect other people.

[Vampyr]

Or, if you want a more serious response, I don't know.

 

OK; I assumed you did know, since you mentioned a Muslim.