Kilmer17s non confrontational election prediction-

[Redskins Diehard]

:

Well, Bovada has the odds at

-220 for Obama

+180 for Romney

100 bucks on Obama will get you $45.45

100 bucks on Romney will get you $180

There's a betting breakdown for states if it interests you

http://sports.bovada.lv/sports-betting/political-props.jsp

Are you saying bet on Romney and if he wins you'll have a more prosperous economic future?

[The Sisko]

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"...

...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?

Probable cause might work but the money thing would be a joke. What's a few million in fines/legal fees when you've already forked over billions to buy the election. And yes, I think that applies to both sides, though one a bit more than the other.

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'll add Georgia's Sec. of State to the list. The bastidge put the POTUS BELOW RMoney on the ballot. Shameful.

I don't' want to derail your thread further with my kibitzing, but I often like to imagine many well-know members as mods and envision the tumult and chaos that likely would follow.

Then I'd be loved and appreciated, even as the turrible turrible human bean I am (every staff needs one).

Please cease and desist with your folly!

I think a Romney win will get the left wing into a blustering rage. However, I think he has a good chance of actually working with Democrats in the House and Senate. Why? Simply put, a great many of them will be from States and or districts that Romney would have had to carry to win in the first place.

If Obama wins, the right wing nutbags will continue to become stronger in the party, and the loss will be blamed on having a moderate as the nominee. The GOP Senators and House members wont have any incentive to work with Obama, and the stale mate will continue.

This is precisely why I think it's so important that Obama wins. I want the GOP to run the farthest far-right wack job they can find next time around so we can finally be shut of this foolishness.

Considering they haven't completely address all the problems that caused the last one; I don't think the economy will get better. I think there's another crash regardless of who gets elected; probably in the not to distant future. That will be the true recession. I'll hold off on my final election prediction until next Tuesday, LOL. 8 days in, I see Obama winning reelection via the Electoral College and Romney winning the popular vote. Dems get revenge finally, for 2000.

I certainly hope it shakes out with Obama winning the EC and RMoney the popular vote. It should help produce the result I mentioned above. Regardless I think the OP is spot on. This thing most likely won't be decided until days after the election.

However I don't buy what you said about another crash...yet. I agree that we haven't done nearly enough to fix the issues that caused this latest one but I don't think we'll have another crash for a few more decades. At least I certainly hope not. :paranoid:

[skinsmarydu]

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.)

Hubby and I went out to lunch today, and discussed this same topic, I swear. If that's the only reason for my vote(as some fox news hahas)those who are stupid should not even begin to challenge why I vote the way I do.

Upon reading that, it almost makes sense, but I'm not gonna edit. Git Er Done OBAMA2012

[Kilmer17]

Im going to ask again nicely that everyone backs off of the blatant partisan crap and let this be a thread about the mechanics of the vote and the process.

[Larry]

I'll add Georgia's Sec. of State to the list. The bastidge put the POTUS BELOW RMoney on the ballot. Shameful.

Just pointing out that M comes before O, alphabetically.

And I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's been written into law, probably a long time ago.

[Monte51Coleman]

Just pointing out that M comes before O, alphabetically.

And I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's been written into law, probably a long time ago.

What does M before O connote?

My ballot in Broward also has Romney listed first.

[LadySkinsFan]

Apples and oranges, this initial thing on the ballot.

Mitt Romney. Republican Barak Obama Democrat However you list it, first name, last name, party name, the President should be listed first on the ballot.

[Larry]

What does M before O connote?

OK. Duh.

Still, I bet the order on the ballot is fixed, by law. Maybe it's set by which Party got the most votes, last time, or some such.

And, in any case, I don't think that's nearly as partisan as trying to set different election days for Republican and Democrat counties, or for Republican or Democrat demographic groups.

[The Sisko]

Still, I bet the order on the ballot is fixed, by law. Maybe it's set by which Party got the most votes, last time, or some such.

And, in any case, I don't think that's nearly as partisan as trying to set different election days for Republican and Democrat counties, or for Republican or Democrat demographic groups.

Well, the Google is your friend. I looked it up and it is done that way by law....in descending order according to the party that wins the most recent gubernatorial election. Total nonsense.

[Hersh]

Let me add to my prediction that is getting much love: Within 10 minutes of begrudgingly declaring Obama has been re-elected, fox news will begin to talk about who will be running for the Republican nomination for 2016 and who the favorite would be. Within 10 minutes of celebrating an Obama victory MSNBC will say that this sets up Hillary Clinton for 2016 since Bill Clinton worked so hard for Obama to get Obama's full support in campaigning for the next election.

[Thiebear]

Hersh: You are excited and hopeful for "forward": but you fail to read the details and went opposite style in this topic.

[skinsforlife101]

I am going outside the box here Mitt Romney loses in Ohio but wins Pennsylvania and Florida

[deejaydana]

I'm not sure how the election results play out. I suppose we could have a re-run of Florida maybe in Ohio where the population isn't outlandishly large and hence it may come down to a close end result. Perhaps if there really is a furor over who won we could see some litigation and a drawn out time to see who really wins in the end. America has a great history in peaceably handing over power from one party to the next but hey, if some drama comes from it maybe it will finally allow us to bring our voting mechanics (that is combatting fraud) up to speed. It would be cool if we could keep this from becoming partisan but this is the Tailgate so good luck with that dream.

[nonniey]

From Gallup

"Fifteen percent of registered voters nationwide have already cast their ballots in this year's election, according to Gallup Daily tracking for the week ending Oct. 28. That is up sharply from 5% a week earlier. The overall percentage either having already voted or planning to vote before Election Day has also increased -- to 33%, from roughly 25% in each of the prior three weeks......

The percentage of likely voters who have either already voted or plan to vote early is now 36% -- indicating that this will probably be the percentage of early voters in the actual electorate.....

By 19% to 15%, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats have already voted. When those who intend to vote before Election Day are factored in, the gap is similar: 37% of Republicans vs. 33% of Democrats.

However, when one looks at the voting intentions of likely voters according to candidate support, the political impact for the two candidates appears to be roughly equal. Of Barack Obama's supporters, 15% have already voted and a total of 33% indicate they will vote early. Of Mitt Romney's supporters, the figures are 17% and 34%, respectively.......

Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate.

Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney's 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup's Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158420/registered-voters-already-cast-ballots.aspx

[mjah]

Well, at least Gallup can say their polling methodology is consistent with... itself...

[Veretax]

I've worked the polls in West Virginia, so my knowledge is of WV law, but when we are talking about contested or challenged ballots there are a few things you have to consider.

Reasons a ballot could be challenged

1. Person voting in incorrect precinct or district

2. Person has moved/changed address recently to another county, and the registration change was not completed expeditiously

3. Person isn't found in the poll book, but claims to live in the area covered

4. Someone showed up to vote who wasn't actually eligible to vote

In any of those cases they had to vote a provisional. I recall a story once about a teenager under 18 casting a provisional. Why? because we were told not to turn voters away. The canvasing process is supposed to sort that out. Those votes go into a different 'tally' with ballot tracking that the voter can track if it was counted.

Now there might be other reasons why a ballot might be challenged, and each state may be different, but in WV, once the vote is cast there is nothing linking the ballot to the voter (no ID or anything) unless its a provisional. I'm thinking that may include absentees. Early voters might also have a tracking number, but again, I don't think it tracks to any given machine, so once a vote is cast, fraudulent or not, there's not much you can do about it :/

That's why the efforts for Voter ID, and the work the Secs of State do to keep rolls clean is so important.

[deejaydana]

^^^^ great informational post. Thanks!

[Hersh]

Hersh: You are excited and hopeful for "forward": but you fail to read the details and went opposite style in this topic.

I'm not sure what you mean

[Veretax]

Apples and oranges, this initial thing on the ballot.

Mitt Romney. Republican Barak Obama Democrat However you list it, first name, last name, party name, the President should be listed first on the ballot.

I think you guys are taking this the wrong way. I don't know how every state does it, but many states determine the slotting by random draws. This is how my former home state of WV does it. And really there's nothing shady about it IMO.

[Hersh]

Hersh: You are excited and hopeful for "forward": but you fail to read the details and went opposite style in this topic.

I'm not sure what you mean

[Veretax]

As far as predictions go, I'm picturing one where the majority of media pundits look wrong. Ohio will end up being close, but not the deciding factor. Before Sandy hit, I honestly felt momentum swinging Romney's way. Now, you have to wonder how Obama looks like in this crisis, some of the areas hit were largely blue states, but that's not to say that would have much of an effect.

I'm not going to predict who the winner will be, because its a fluid race at this point, but I can tell you that Things did feel like they were trending away from Obama before this storm. After Sandy? Who knows.

[Hubbs]

I'm with Kilmer here. Regardless of who ultimately wins, I would absolutely bet on this thing dragging out for days, if not weeks. (That said, I'll still probably be up at 3 AM on election night. ) Both sides are saying that this is the Biggest, Most Important Election EVAR, much more important than any other election that we've ever electionated. Granted, they say this every four years, but this time they seem to be buying into their own hype, and, hell, I think I am as well, at least from the standpoint of "I can see why this year would be even more important to each side than most other years I can think of." And you don't give up on the Biggest, Most Important Election EVAR unless you're convinced that you can't even win if you connect on a Hail Mary or three. I don't expect either camp to be convinced of that before the sun rises the next day.

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.)

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

Interesting.

Europe has a combined GDP that's greater than ours, a financial system that's more leveraged, more opaque, and several times larger—several times larger—than ours, and cannot repair its unsustainable structural imbalances without wiping out every major bank in the region, dragging a good number of countries into outright default along with them. Meanwhile, the global financial system is more interconnected than it was in 2008, which, of course, makes it more interconnected than it's ever been.

If we're speaking in strict terms of long-term political cynicism and the pure partisan calculations of the indirect "blame/credit" that will come with merely being in power/out of power when historic events happen, I'm nowhere near convinced that, 20 years down the road, we won't look back and say that it actually would have been better to lose this election, kind of like how I think we'd all agree that Bush wishes his second term had ended in January of '08 rather than '09.

[nonniey]

What assumption does the board have on the voter turn-out?

Do you believe Republicans will have a lower turnout vice the Democrats than in 2008?

I dug into a couple of polls, in Ohio for example Gravis, Purple Strategies, and PPD use that assumption. Was going to check Rasmussen but couldn't get the detailed info (Available only to platinum members).

[Veretax]

What assumption does the board have on the voter turn-out?

Do you believe Republicans will have a lower turnout vice the Democrats than in 2008?

I dug into a couple of polls, in Ohio for example Gravis, Purple Strategies, and PPD use that assumption. Was going to check Rasmussen but couldn't get the detailed info (Available only to platinum members).

A lot of the polls have been using a dated model of turn out, based on what they think party identification should be. That's going to skew most of the polls that use them.

[JimboDaMan]

What assumption does the board have on the voter turn-out?

Do you believe Republicans will have a lower turnout vice the Democrats than in 2008?

I dug into a couple of polls, in Ohio for example Gravis, Purple Strategies, and PPD use that assumption. Was going to check Rasmussen but couldn't get the detailed info (Available only to platinum members).

My assumption is, it's a complete waste of time. Somebody will be right and somebody will be wrong, but it won't have anything to do with their predictive capabilities. They just get to thump their chests, until the next time when somebody else guesses correctly.

It's kind of like the football pool. Those nail-biters where a last-second score decides the game? If you got it right, you "knew" all along. If you got it wrong you got unlucky.