Kilmer17s non confrontational election prediction-

Jumbo et al, asking for leeway to keep this as a seperate thread specific to talk about election mechanics, and not political banter.

So here is my thought.

We wont know who won until at least 10-14 days after election day.

There will be multiple Court challenges, recounts, and nasty, angry divisive and ultimately destructive fights that will cripple whoever wins.

IE- The loser will be all of us.

First up will be Ohio. Which has a law that says that any "contested" ballot, cannot be counted until 10 days after the election day. Both sides will have dozens if not hundreds of lawyers ready to go to fight tooth and nail for each one.

I plan on going to bed early on election night. Because I dont think it will tell us anything.

We will know at 1 am on Nov. 7th who won the election. Nothing will be contested.

I think Obama will be re-elected with about 300 electoral college votes.

I'm with Kilmer on this one. It's going to be ugly.

I agree with Hersh. I think Obama is re-elected with a large number of EC votes.

The closer the media outlets can frame this election the higher their ratings

I'm not convinced this will be close

I predict GOPers will discover a newfound hatred for the electoral college after Romney wins the popular vote and loses the election handily.

First up will be Ohio. Which has a law that says that any "contested" ballot, cannot be counted until 10 days after the election day. Both sides will have dozens if not hundreds of lawyers ready to go to fight tooth and nail for each one.

Damn.

I thought I'd already heard about all the stupid laws that Ohio had passed, or tried to pass.

That one, to me, sounds like it's designed for the purpose of "I can just contest a million ballots, and then spend ten days yelling 'I won! I won!', and trying to get the public to accept my 'victory' as a fact"

----------

I've been reading several articles about people contesting votes and/or registrations. The impression I get is that the "plaintiff" doesn't have to have any reason to contest something (and both Parties have extensive databases that will allow them to tell that Voter John Doe has an 84% chance of voting for Party X). The voter has to show up, and contest being contested, or his vote/registration gets tossed.

Seems, to me, like a system that's designed to allow the major Parties to selectively disenfranchise large swaths of the population.

I've been wondering if maybe there needs to me some higher threshold, for challenging. Something like throwing the red flag in the NFL.

Maybe a requirement that the "plaintiff" has to show probable cause, with his initial complaint? Or maybe some form of "loser pays", if a vote/registration is challenged, and doesn't stand up?

Have we ever had a vote here on es?? Like a private poll? Just a question...

I'm with Kilmer on this one. It's going to be ugly.

Get ugly?

I'm thinking that, in a moral country, the Ohio Sec State should have been lynched by an angry mob, 3-4 months ago.

I predict the election to be a blowout. I also think it could go either way. I don't think it will be too close to call.

Get ugly?

I'm thinking that, in a moral country, the Ohio Sec State should have been lynched by an angry mob, 3-4 months ago.

I didn't say "get" ugly.

I said "be" ugly. Because it's all ugly now.

I think Nate Silver has a pretty good grasp on the numbers in all this and based on his past predictions I expect him to be one of the most accurate people in all this.

As of today he has Obama winning the OC by 55 votes and the popular vote by about 1.7%.

Romney has to win too many tossup states that he's currently trailing in to make this close. I wouldn't be shocked at all to see Obama win both the OC and popular votes by enough to kill most of the post election fighting over who won what.

Somebody made a point, a while back, that I agreed with.

This election is a LOT more important than most. (And, probably a lot closer than most.)

Main reason: The economy is going to get better, over the next four years. (Well, it's been getting better for three. But Average Joe hasn't seen it. The public's perception of the economy is going to get better.)

Whichever political Party is in control is going to get credit for it.

This recovery is going to translate into 20-30 years of political capital.

And that's over and above the other, usual, reasons why Presidential elections are important, like the SC. (Frankly, I'm rather surprised that the Dems haven't replaced at least some of their side's judges, last four years. I mean, if Romney wins, then we might well have like 7 conservative justices, for the next 25 years.)

Somebody made a point, a while back, that I agreed with.

This election is a LOT more important than most. (And, probably a lot closer than most.)

Main reason: The economy is going to get better, over the next four years. (Well, it's been getting better for three. But Average Joe hasn't seen it. The public's perception of the economy is going to get better.)

Whichever political Party is in control is going to get credit for it.

This recovery is going to translate into 20-30 years of political capital.

Whoever that was is definitely a genius. Most likely exceptionally handsome, as well

Romney will get a little over 300 EVs and win.

I don't agree that an improved economy will translate into a two to three decade period of political capital for the GOP, though. Sometime during the Romney Administration (whether in his first or second term) or a potential Ryan presidency, there will be a downturn which will cost the Republicans a presidential election. Its just cyclical, and inevitable.

I pretty much agree with the OP almost to the letter.

Good to have you back

~Bang

Romney wins popular vote by .5%

Obama wins 294 - 244 in EC.

Obama: NH, IA, PA, VA, NV

Romney: CO, NC, FL

Closest state is CO which is decided with less than 1%.

I dont know who will win - I do hope that it ends like this:

Romney 269

Obama 269

House votes in Romney

Senate votes in Biden

That would be so freaking cool in a historical type thing....

I predict GOPers will discover a newfound hatred for the electoral college after Romney wins the popular vote and loses the election handily.

This is exactly the type of parstisan bull**** I hoped would stay out of this thread.

---------- Post added October-29th-2012 at 02:00 PM ----------

I pretty much agree with the OP almost to the letter.

Good to have you back

~Bang

Not back into the muck. Just fascinated with the machine.

You got it, K17. And I think (surprising myself a little given how I felt up until this last week) that hersh may be closer to the reality. I know the networks are playing to their investment, too. And I really agree with the handsome genius's speculation, being one myself.

---------- Post added October-29th-2012 at 11:05 AM ----------

I predict GOPers will discover a newfound hatred for the electoral college after Romney wins the popular vote and loses the election handily.

As the OP, and now an antisocial moderator, has said, this post is being used an example of what to keep out of this tread.

I dont know who will win - I do hope that it ends like this:

Romney 269

Obama 269

House votes in Romney

Senate votes in Biden

That would be so freaking cool in a historical type thing....

Here's a quandry.

The NEW House and Senate would vote int eh event of a tie. Which will easily mean a Romney victory in the House (projected to be 29-21). But if the Senate ends in a tie, things become murkier. There is no precedent to say how that tie is broken after the 12th amendment passed. It's assumed that the CURRENT VP would break the tie, but it's not expressly stated that way. I'd expect legal challenges like none we have ever seen if that were to happen.

Not back into the muck. Just fascinated with the machine.

Until you take back your "this place is no different than the Democratic Underground" I'm keeping you firmly registered as "in the muck" :evilg:, and am not even mentioning any details of the part about "the moderators."

You got it, K17. And I think (surprising myself a little given how I felt up until this last week) that hersh may be closer to the reality. I know the networks are playing to their investment, too. And I really agree with the handsome genius's speculation, being one myself.

---------- Post added October-29th-2012 at 11:05 AM ----------

As the OP, and now an antisocial moderator, has said, this post is being used an example of what to keep out of this tread.

I've always been antisocial. But when do I get my cool Mod pullover?

I've said (a few weeks ago) that O will get 290+ in EC votes.

I'm still stubbornly sticking with it.

Here's a quandry.

The NEW House and Senate would vote int eh event of a tie. Which will easily mean a Romney victory in the House (projected to be 29-21). But if the Senate ends in a tie, things become murkier. There is no precedent to say how that tie is broken after the 12th amendment passed. It's assumed that the CURRENT VP would break the tie, but it's not expressly stated that way. I'd expect legal challenges like none we have ever seen if that were to happen.

Here's to never finding out.