Slashdot Mirror
Nate Silver's Numbers Indicate Probable Obama Win, World Agrees
An anonymous reader writes "The state-by-state election outcome probabilities today on Nate Silver's 538 imply a 97.7% probability for Obama to win 270 or more electoral college votes this coming Tuesday. A site that allows anyone but U.S. citizens vote seems to indicate that the rest of the world hopes these numbers are accurate. "
4 years of not having to deal with Mitt Romney.
I got here through a series of tubes
we get the devil we know. Romney's stance on anything is shifting way too rapidly. but i think the US deserved better than what is on offer.
Compared to Romney, Obama is likely to be somewhat less friendly to hedge funds and private equity companies, since they drive up prices and reduce jobs and wages for the profit of individuals. Full employment in the US, more middle class spending power, and lower commodity prices are better for everybody. More money in the hands of the very few is bad for everybody else. Romney is a representative of exactly those very few.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
A site that allows anyone but U.S. citizens vote seems to indicate that the rest of the world hopes these numbers are accurate.
Okay so you're talking about roughly six and a half billion people. As of the writing of this post, votevotevote.net's page says:
1050 VOTES have been received
Furthermore can someone point me to, say, a Chinese version of votevotevote.net's page? I mean, surely you'd want to represent the largest population of the world or are you simply relying on the rest of the world to speak English? And you're going to then utilize that as evidence that the rest of the world hopes that Obama wins? Surely this site isn't even worth mentioning in a news context.
My work here is dung.
A smaller chance of being "liberated".
Quite a few things, for example less sword rattling in the Iran/Israel region (A war would reduce US purchasing power and affect global economy just like Iraq did). Less of a "trade war" with China (calling them a "currency manipulator on day one" certainly doesn't help trade & relations.
Apart from these things that actually may affect me, I'd enjoy seeing that the greatest power in the world can hold an election that can't be bought or stolen by special interests. Would also be refreshing to see that the greatest democracy in the world have policies on reproduction/abortion/education/science that can't be mistaken for Taliban policies. That, and watching Fox News pundits heads explode for a week.
What's in it for the rest of the world if Obama wins?
An American President who isn't xenophobic and war-crazy. It's not that complicated.
Visit the
What's in it for the rest of the world if Obama wins?
A president that engages with leaders around the world, actively involves them in decisions, generally works with them as partners rather than unilaterally starting wars. Compare Libya to Iraq...
- Small-scale and covert actions in the Middle East rather than massive invasions with hundreds of thousands killed.
- The US remaining a viable trading partner.
- A president that knows basic geography ("Syria is Iran's route to the sea")
I mean, I think a lot of it boils down to this: Mitt Romney isn't all that smart. He got to where he was by being born rich and being very good at lying. Obama, for all his many faults, is at least not a complete moron.
I am officially gone from
Taking a hint from the last election, if the news outlets all say that Obama will win, then everybody will vote for Obama because everybody loves to vote for the winner.
I know conspiracy theories are fun, but it is possible to measure this stuff. The aggregate polling data has pretty consistently shown Obama ahead for the entire election. The news media are currently overstating Romney's chances by calling it a toss-up (and indeed, they are still doing so). They had no qualms about reporting Romney's huge gains after the first convention. Poll aggregators have actually been drawing flack from mainstream pundits who like to pretend there's a neck-and-neck horse race when there isn't. The media's interest is in a close race where they have something to talk about.
Visit the
Agreed - "on offer" - but I wonder if Obama was all like, "I'm gonna come to Washington and kick. some. ass!" and then he found out that reality is different from idealism. Maybe it'll be different the second time around, and he'll actually deliver on the "change" promise, now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election. One can hope.
I identified the things that, if they happened to the US economy, would be a net benefit to the rest of the world. I do not expect that they will necessarily happen if Obama returns. But I can be fairly sure that under Romney the corporate rape of the American middle class would get worse, not better.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
More like grownups?
Total refusal to compromise is acting like grownups.
Not a one of their candidates said he would take a 10 to 1 ratio of budget cuts to tax increases.
That is how a toddler acts, not a grownup.
Well.. tons of anecdotal evidence (whatever that's worth). Lots of people say they won't vote Libertarian or Green because it would be "throwing their vote away." They say it's throwing-away because polls always indicate the person they'd like to vote for, is very likely to lose (so they vote for someone else who has higher polling numbers, instead).
Apparently the thinking is like this: if you vote for someone who lost, then your vote "doesn't count." From that I conclude that since all the losers' votes votes didn't count, the winner is always unanimously elected. You can't get a stronger mandate than that, so it's our way of telling the winner that 100% of America agrees with them on 100% of issues.
For reasons I don't understand, after the election, though, over half the people say they don't agree with whoever won. It's very strange, almost as though they don't really believe that losing is the same as not counting. Go figure.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I used to drive a car, and I almost died in one when it crashed! Cars are horrible things - I'm glad we still have horses!
Oh please. If Romney were elected it wouldn't be the end of the republic (tho he'd return to the rapid deficit spending increases we saw under bush and reagan based on his policies).
When Obama is elected, it won't be the end of the republic either. Don't overreact.
With opposite parties, spending will be held down.
Obama has taken us from losing 800,000 jobs per month under Bush to creating about 150k jobs per month.
And it doesn't matter who is president, the economy is going ot get much better (CBO and BLS project over 3% in 2015 and 2016) plus retiring/dying boomers are going to tighten up the job market tremendously (just retiring boomers alone are enough to lower us from 8% to 6%). BLS projects 10.6% more jobs but only 6.8% larger labor force by 2016.
---
And the parent poster isn't a troll. He's just a republican who's overreacting a bit.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
On a pure geopolitical level, one would expect "other countries" citizens to hope that the guy will win who'll weaken the US as an international competitor.
It may come as a surprise, but a good chunk of the world does not want a weak US. What it does want is a strong and friendly US. The guy who has a big stick, but uses it only when it's actually warranted, not just charging in shouting "yeee-haw!" at the nearest guy with villain-looking mustache. Obama has more or less provided that.
Yet the last 4 years have been nothing if not the "US Apologia World Tour 2012" in which our president has repeatedly apologized for US conduct and stressed multilateralism - and I don't see that anything's really improved.
That's because you haven't been looking. It has improved considerably compared to where it was with Bush, at least in Europe.
I mean honestly, why would we?
On a pure geopolitical level, one would expect "other countries" citizens to hope that the guy will win who'll weaken the US as an international competitor.
Your problem is that you think of international relations as a zero-sum game. It's not. Everyone can have a better life, if our nations support each other. Obama seems to me more in favour of international cooperation than Romney.
I believe that Obama naively did not expect the Republicans to dedicate themselves to stopping him from getting reelected. Right off the bat, they actually came out and said that their top political goal was to stop Obama from getting elected to a second term. Instead of trying to fix the economy, reform our banking system to become more robust, or to end the wars, the Republicans said that they were going to stop Obama from winning. Witness, the debt crisis.
Also, I don't think anyone expected the Republicans to declare war on reality. The entire meme that there is a "liberal media" that is out to get them, and that Fox News is the only "real" media source is one of the greatest scams in political memory. Facts simply do not matter anymore. Obama is a secret Muslim! Obama hates America! The drones over Benghazi were armed and ready to shoot the bad guys but Obama stopped them from engaging! All the polls are skewed towards Obama, and Romney will definitely win by a landslide once you correct for the oversampling of Democrats! But if he loses, it's because of voter fraud!
The right wing, driven by the Tea Party, has become so detached from reality that it has become a political threat to think. Pregnancy by rape is divine will! Really, that's insane.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Everyone I know who voted for him is dissapointed in him. He should be relatively easy to throw out of office.
After the 1972 election, film critic Pauline Kael allegedly said that she couldn't believe that Nixon had won, since no one she knew voted for him. Though that quote is apparently apocryphal, it does accurately depict the hazard of judging a presidential contest on the basis of personal anecdotes rather than polls.
To to begin things, I did not vote for Obama 4 years ago, I voted for Nader. The main reason is that I did not believe the hype, therefore my expectations were not high.
That being said, I'm going to vote for Obama tomorrow. I'm in Ohio and I think it's important my vote counts toward something that matters in this election. No, I'm not overly impressed with his resume but I think that has quite a bit to do with a hostile Republican controlled congress the last 2 years. They made their intentions very clear that their only goal was to make him a 1 term president. This lead to virtually nothing getting done the past two years other than something that benefits both parties, stripping away our rights.
It's just that Romney and Ryan scare me. Putting them in office moves us that much closer to a Theocracy. Some of my friends give me a puzzled look when I tell them if I wanted my laws to be governed by what God said, I'd move to Iran.
I hate not having a major candidate that represents most of what I believe and am definitely having to settle for Obama this campaign. It's more of a strategic move than anything else.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Does everyone really have that short a memory?
How about...
I can go on and on.
Yes, Obama and his team have not done a good enough job explaining these things, which is why Bill Clinton's otherwise obvious logic had such an impact at the Democratic convention.
Yes, there has been very little from Obama on what exactly he plans to do differently in the next four years - I think mainly because whomever wins will have to make difficult decisions and neither side is willing to "go first" and illustrate just how they would inflict the inevitable pain.
Yes, the core of both parties are hopelessly corrupted by the now billions of dollars spent on elections.
But just about every election is a choice between two flawed individuals. In this case I am going to choose the individual who seems most likely to do what he says and has some grounding the same kind of life I do. Obama has not lied per se. I believe he just greatly underestimated what he would face when he took office. In fact, NO ONE knew what he would face when he was nominated as the Democratic candidate, and very few really understood what he would face even as he was sworn in.
The first term is always the learning period. I believe Obama has learned his lesson (in no small part because he has stopped talking uniting and started talking about getting things done). I believe he will make better decisions in the next four years, and I simply do not trust Romney to do the same.
I don't think Obama knew how polarizing of a figure he would be. Republicans never like a Democrat, but they positively hate Obama. He didn't anticipate the lengths they would go to make his presidency look weak. Like blocking the Veterans Jobs Bill.
It takes a lot of chutzpah to say that military spending is ok and shouldn't be defunded, start two wars under the last Republican president, and then block a bill to take the survivors of those very same wars and deny them aid. And then claim Obama isn't keeping his promises!
It honestly boggles me how anyone can vote for these people.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Dude... they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 just for not being George W Bush .
Think about that.
The guy fucked everybody's shit up so much that they gave some other guy a Nobel Peace Prize just for not being him.