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.
More central bank bailouts and foreign aid, at least in theory. In practice, I don't think Romney will do anything differently in that regard.
Now does anyone have data on whether the forecasting of a win discourages the supporters or opponents of the projected winner from actually voting?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
The link to FiveThirtyEight says Silver predicts an 86.3% chance of an Obama victory. The "97%" link is to an anonymous python script and output at a different site. Could we get some context here?
The combination of the headline and TFS might be construed as "Nate Silver says that Obama's got a 97.7% chance of winning the election," which isn't quite true.
I think it's more accurate to say that Nate Silver predicts an 86.3% chance of Obama winning 270 electoral votes.
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
Bwah? 97.7%? I'm only seeing an 86.3% chance.
Or is the "Chance of winning" sidebar item incorrect?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
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."
Nate Silver puts the odds at around 87%, largely based on the chance of there being a systematic offset in the polling data. Still looks pretty good for Obama, though. Fingers crossed.
Visit the
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.
Nate Silver's use of statistics is geeky. Really. That's about all he talks about -- not politics, but statistics. (Well, and sports, but even there, he's all about the statistics.)
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
A smaller chance of being "liberated".
Vote for the Mormon or you'll get the Muslim. Communism is NOT THE ANSWER.
As a Brit, I honestly have no idea whether this is parody or not.
According to today's actual posting from Nate Silver, the same data leads him to conclude an 86.3% chance of an Obama win in the electoral college. Still high, but your "Nate Silver's Numbers Project..." headline is true if parsed carefully, but very misleading. If you want to say "I conclude from Nate Silver's numbers...", well fine.
Silver's Nov. 4 post is at: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/nov-4-did-hurricane-sandy-blow-romney-off-course/ (paywall :-( )
Please, share your anecdote about how bad President Obama has been for you personally. Did he kick your dog?
America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt, 1936
On the one hand though, if somebody votes for a candidate solely on the basis that they think the candidate is more likely to win, then that person is an impressionable idiot, and was probably going to vote for that candidate anyway.
Just sayin'.
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
He ate his dog.
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...
I can only hope that Nate is correct.
I'm not saying that Obama has done a great job. I think he squandered a lot of the extreme level of public goodwill that he had coming into office. However, he did drag the US kicking and screaming into the first world by passing healthcare reform (even if it didn't end up single payer thanks to campaign contributions to even his own party) and he did manage to blunt some of the economic disaster he was left with.. on the other hand he definitely should have thrown a ton of the wall streeters into jail instead of inviting them right back into the White House, but that is how the game is played now. It is the golden rule. Those with the gold make the rules.
Romney on the other hand is hard to pin down. He has taken every stance available on every issue. For the slashdot crowd, the fact that his numbers just don't add up should be a big red flag as well. In his desperation to get elected he just tells whatever crowd he is in front of exactly what they want to hear.. facts be damned.
The polarization, name calling, and divisiveness in politics is at an obscene level in the USA right now and unfortunately Canada isn't far behind. Truth seems to have gone right out the window.
The spending on elections is disgusting.
I'm so glad it will be over either way..
Is this based on polling data where everyone assumes
-they will not be told they lack sufficient ID to exercise their right to vote
-they will not be told they failed to register through the proper procedure
-the polling location was open during normal business hours
-their eligibility to vote has not been challenged by "Americans for Happy Fun Love" funded by conservative activists to accuse voters of being felons and therefore unable to vote
-they have not been notified via a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard' that they weren't able to vote for some other reason
-the electronic voting machine will register their vote for someone who is not closely associated with the owner of the machine and software
-other reasonable-sounding assumptions that may not be safe assumptions?
- 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
But winning the battle won't win the war. Mr. Obama will be weakened by the divisive campaign; the electorate is bitterly split, and he will find Congress harder to work with. The members of Congress will be acutely aware that 48 or 49% of the popular vote went to his opponent (and he may even lose the popular vote). They will be less willing to go out on a limb to support his policies unless they are from strongly pro-Obama districts, and the average district will be closer to a 49-51 split.
This year's elections reflect a very divided country that is uncertain how to proceed. As the wars wind down, the economy will be the foremost topic on most people's minds, and Mr. Obama has only a minority of the people's support on economic issues. Probably, we will have four years of deadlock and uncertainty followed by the 2016 presidential elections which will either vindicate Mr. Obama's big government approach, or relegate him to the history books.
Just my humble opinions :)
I hope that everyone votes tomorrow, regardless of your choice. The best possible outcome is that everyone votes; that way, the elections more fully reflect the will of the people, so that we can put this nastiness behind us, let bygones be bygones, and move on. Democracy -- gotta love it! The worst possible form of government, except for all the other forms of government (Winston Churchill).
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
A country that's not ruled by someone who believes in a crazy religion? Alas, it really is a case of not so much wanting Obama as *really* not wanting more religious-right wing nut jobs in the White House.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
...is a shining example of nonpartisan analysis, sound statistics, and rational thought.
That's a pretty good description of Nate Silver and why people pay attention to him.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Why is it we need to be told over and over who will win the election before the voting even takes place?
better the devil you know than the devil who won't tell you anything substantial about his devious plans, if they even exist.
No, the dog was securely strapped to the car's roof.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
Does this model account for any direct or indirect vote tampering?
giggity
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
Vote for the Mormon or you'll get the Muslim. Communism is NOT THE ANSWER.
As a Brit, I honestly have no idea whether this is parody or not.
As a foreigner having been living legally in a Southern American State for quiet a few years, I can inform you that it is sadly not a parody. It is frankly a very scary belief by many.
No, that was the last one. Obama repaired a *lot* of the damage Bush did. His 'kill list' is less than smart though and on paper, his domestic policies haven't been great but then he's been hamstrung by the Republican's trying to block him at every turn, effectively paralysing his ability to function. Whilst the US system is pretty good, it can be really misused and this last 4 years is a textbook example of how to do that.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Obama or Romney, doesn't matter. Drones and indefinite detentions for all suspects.. and the banks get all your money.
In other news - aluminum foil manufacturers see bright future.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
As a Brit, I honestly have no idea whether this is parody or not.
It's a reference to a church sign seen in rural Texas:
http://gawker.com/5953608/quaint-texas-church-tells-people-to-vote-for-the-mormon-not-the-muslimyou-should-stop-by-and-pray-sometime
Whether the commenter was taking it seriously, I have no idea.
Visit the
For a long while I thought Mitt's official twitter account was a parody account.
Obama is slightly less likely to do things like starting a WW3. Besides that in most of the world Obama would be seen as a right wing politician, so do your math to find where that would put Romney.
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.
This shit is ridiculous. In this age of modern speed-of-light communications, it takes TWO YEARS to choose a president. In George Washington's time, it took less time to visit every town on horseback and make his case.
Oh, and thanks to Florida's genius governor, Rick Scott, cutting early voting short, you've got a good chance of another six weeks of court battles an recounts.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
to be fair Obama still believes in a crazy religion (Christian religion, not Islam, not that i would care either way), its just a matter of degrees, but i agree, i would rather not have someone who thinks god is informing his policy therefore it is without fault. Obama may or may not think this way privately but at least he doesn't show it publicly.
Re: "religious right wing nut jobs," I'm really puzzled by how so many people don't get this. Like it was such fun the other times round?
I think the US is getting exactly what it deserves.
It's just my misfortune to be part of the apparent minority that would prefer a fact-based, non-dramatic, non-populist intelligent choice between two similarly valid, well reasoned world views with well articulated plans for future goals and methods.
The majority of mouth-breathing, drooling, sycophants with no knowledge or interest beyond their personal prejudices, greed, and entertainment... are getting exactly what they deserve.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
PLEASE VOTE!!!!!!
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
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."
There are lot of factors that lead to this. The Media being a big deal. So is first past the poll and our unlimited campaign money.
If the debates were proper formal debates that would go a long way. I don't think enough americans care about that sort of thing though.
What's in it for the rest of the world if Obama wins?
we keep Romney's cadre of neoconservative foreign policy whack jobs out power preventing them from reinstating the Bush doctrine and starting wars with false rationales saving hundreds of thousands of lives, 100s of billions of dollars and avoiding regional mayhem and impacts that would take a generation from which to recover
I've heard that sentiment before: hope he can deliver now, as he doesn't have to be re-elected.
The sad thing of this statement is that apparently if a politician fulfils his actual campaign promises, that his re-election is in jeopardy. That's a direct contradiction. A politician is elected on a certain platform, and fulfilling those promises should actually help a re-election - it means the politician is a man of his word, and that he does what he promises to do.
We could cut it in half and still be the biggest on the planet by far.
The info graphic that shows all the world's aircraft carriers is especially illuminating.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
That is probably a big part of it. Something many governments find frustrating about dealing with the US is how rapidly our politics can shift as we swap out leaders every 4 or 8 years, it makes getting a consistent behavior difficult. It does not help that the US has a long (though obviously not unique) history of going back on deals made by previous presidents.. not that even within a term or party they are that good at keeping their word.
Regardless, diplomatically, a consistent administration, even if it is not ideal to their interests, is better then a swap out. It is one of the reasons the US state department has such a long history of propping up dictators... even if they are crummy, they represent a diplomatically consistent element to deal with.
Seeing as younger voters tend to vote democrat, and the fact that younger voters are also more likely to be on slashdot (and this voting site) than older voters, combined with the fact that his total vote count is only about 1200, I would hardly consider this a good sampling.
I disagree and I'm not trying to fight about it. I just think it wasn't laughable, it was sad. "Hope and Change" sound good to a lot of people and I suspect that more people know that their government is fucked up than many of us think. They just don't know what to do about it. Red or Blue, pick your poison. Neither party is offerring any real solutions. Obama just played the outsider well enough to win the election last time and then proceeded to be just like everyone else whose run for President in the last decade or two. Everyone I know who voted for him is dissapointed in him. He should be relatively easy to throw out of office.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Supplies!
Enjoy your back-patting based on "informed guesses" that rest atop an eight percent response rate.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Lets look at this a sane way.
1. Diplomacy
2. Taking care of our people like a first world nation should.
3.More reasonable self image, so we can improve our faults instead of ignoring them. Maybe we can even go back to patriotism instead of just nationalism.
4.Crazy talk. We are consuming more oil now
5. More gibberish from a nutter. If you have evidence you would link that instead of these rantings.
Lessee...
1. 4 More years of bowing down to other powers in the world, and likely "Apology Tour II: This time we're REALLY Sorry".
Pants on Fire. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/17/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-began/
2. Dragging the US down to the same socialistic level so many others in the world are mired in....misery loves company you know.
Like Canada for example? You know the country everyone is currently ass kissing because we're in better fiscal shape than most? (Thanks Liberal Party)
3. Even less of the American "We're #1" groupthink by the country.....so we can just become more meek, less competitive, and just follow the lead of the UN.
I don't know about you but I don't think that if you're the best you need to pat yourself on the back about it all the time. That is called bragging and it gets kind of annoying.
4. An even lower level standard of living for the US...meaning we consume less, leaving more oil for China.
Probably true.. we're in a race to the bottom in the first world because the playing field isn't level. How is that Obama's fault again?
5. The US 4 years closer to financial failure...and rebirth as God knows what...I didn't study as far into Saul Alinsky as those in the Obama administration has, but I think this likely is their early goals they are currently in the midst of establishing:
It has been a long time coming. Sooner or later someone will be left holding the bag and be forced to use their political capital to make the cuts needed or at least rein things in to let growth make up the gap. Again, nothing to do with Obama unless you're going to blame the financial meltdown of the world on him personally.
And I'm not even saying that Obama has done a great job but I think anyone who is reasonable has to agree he came into a heck of a situation.
I think we can all agree that you're an idiot.
A smaller chance of being "liberated".
Really?
Tell that to Afghanistan, or Libya...
Perhaps you meant to say "A smaller chance of being SUCCESSFULLY liberated".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Arguably, the US president impacts the rest of the world a whole bunch more than it does US citizens.
Your lives are run by your corporations. The rest of the world is impacted by your wars and international bullying. Therefore, you should vote for your corporations and we should vote for your president.
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.
I think the problem is that he actually thought that the current batch of Republicans would be more interested in fixing the country than playing party politics.
4. An even lower level standard of living for the US...meaning we consume less, leaving more oil for China.
So that's what all insane gas guzzling is about - using it all up before the filthy Chinese get their hands on any!
Thanks for explaining.
No sig today...
I don't know how much of it was idealism, and how much was politics. I imagine there was a little bit of both. However, I suspect that even he may have underestimated the incredible degree of opposition and lack of cooperation from the right (even on things that they had previously supported) in order to make him as ineffectual as they possible.
A country that's not ruled by someone who believes in a crazy religion?
Given the degree of failure we see each and every time Keynesian economics is tried through history, I'd say we very much have a country ruled by a group with a crazy religion.
The difference between Mormonism and Keynesian is that at times Mormons have actually helped people.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yes, a government that won't allow the US repudiate its debt, that continued and expanded programs that saved some of the United States' largest manufacturing jobs from disappearing, a government who is actually seeing some modest improvements in the domestic economy even as the Eurozone drags the global economy down the tubes.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's hard to win a war you're not fighting. If anything, both parties are deeply enmeshed in the resistance movement. There's no white horse waiting to gallop over the horizon to rescue America from two-party gridlock politics. It's not an accident that the equilibrium is carefully titrated to minor victories. How much does it cost to achieve a landslide? An extra half billion dollars? What's the marginal return of a landslide victory over squeaking into office?
The trailing candidate can usually find a divisive issue to rally support from some hard-line group or another. It will keep the polls close enough that a major stumble by your adversary down the stretch could propel you over the bar (at which point you'll regret your small constituency hard-line allies and will immediately busy yourself with the unctuous politics of handing out Associate Producer credits to your purported entourage to mollify and distract). In short, if you aren't getting any, you can always sleep with the fat girl, then hope like hell to shake her loose if your fortunes improve. When image matters, nobody goes without.
The hardest promises to keep are the mutually incompatible promises to hard-line cliques you're ass kissing to remain respectable in the polls. Centrist candidates chew off fewer arms the morning after.
Rootstrikers is one of a number of organizations actually fighting this war against divisive, bitterly-split government. It begins with campaign finance reform, and continues with the diminishment of lobbyism.
If you think the current electoral process is about making America governable, you're smoking a crack pipe.
Let me try to modify your position a little bit. First Past the Post should create what you are looking for – 2 centralist candidates – and in the US has mostly done so – until recently.
Which is where I come back to agree with you. Big money from narrow interest groups are pouring into the primaries. Thus hard left/right are dominating in recent cycles, causing more extreme candidates to win. Then, build on the fact that it is easier and safer to energize one’s core base then try to persuade the center.
So you would rather be the evil empire than one of the good guys, duly noted.
Google for "Obama's list of achievements" and you'll be surprised.
I know I was.
I'm starting to think that Obama is ropa doping and not really crowing about accomplisments while actually getting a lot done despite opposition from the party of "no".
Even this late in the game I was suprised to here that he put back in "paygo" in 2010.
I felt like obama was ineffective and spineless but apparently he's just wily instead of "testosterone he man" like bush/cheney were.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Bad you for personally? Really? I got a check in the mail from my insurance provider because they charged too much under the rules of "Obamacare". That certainly helped me, and will most likely help the rest of the nation, including you. Other than flatlining the previous 8 years of deficit increase, he hasn't been able to do much since the republicans will never. ever. ever. vote for any bill with a (D) on it.
So, as other people have asked: Why don't you give some examples of how he's been just awful for our country? Until then, I will just assume you are another mindless R-tard who votes with his gut rather than through critical thought and analysis.
An American President who isn't xenophobic and war-crazy.
Well that would obviously be Romney.
Because Obama has:
Kept Gitmo open.
Greatly accelerated drone killings
is the president who used assassination openly against a leader of an opposing military force.
Used U.S. military forces to liberate Libya without asking Congress for permission (wow if only Bush had thought of that first imagine what he would have gotten done!)
Put a huge surge of troops into Afghanistan
No, Obama is TOTALLY DIFFERENT. He's worse...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
But that is politics today: Jean Claude Junker, PM of Luxembourg and longest serving Head of Government in a democracy: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it.”
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
We survived eight years of George W. Bush, you will survive eight years of Barack Obama.
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
What's in it for the rest of the world that cares about American politics if Obama wins?
FTFY. People who vote on a site like that are heavily biased.
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.
Also a President that will "detain" anyone "suspected" of terrorism. If the rest of the world cant' be free, why should America?
... and by "detain," we of course mean "summarily execute with a drone strike"
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
We have not had a left candidate that I can remember in my life. Surely not in the last decade.
We have right and hard right. You can call that centrist if you like, but I will not.
You're oversimplifying a bit. Obama's electoral college is is probably fait accompli at this point, but even Silver's own site demonstrates that the popular election is pretty close (Obama has been consistently ahead, but currently by a mere two percentage points).
Congress is the "first among equals" in the three branches of US government; who is actually sitting in the White House is less important than the Congress the president must work with. US presidential elections are more important as a national political referendum to gauge the American public's opinion of current politics and to decide who does and does not have political legitimacy and political capital to spend.
It's the "soft power" bestowed by the popular vote that's more important rather than the hard numbers of the Electoral College. And so the popular vote should be getting more media attention than electoral math.
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.
What radical changes has Obama even tried to implement? The most radical change Obama has implemented has been his health care reform. Reform that is so conservative it makes a Republican from 40 years ago (Nixon) look liberal.
The reality of the situation is that Obama is a center right president. Corporate authoritarian just like every other D and R. Turn off the talk radio.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The media are in the business of selling advertisements, not informing the public. The better venues will start with a sensationalist headline and admit to the truth somewhere near the end of the article, the average ones will stick to the half truths and never clarify that they are hyping up the story to keep the eyeball count up.
One can find such sensationalist pieces in pretty much all subjects, ranging from politics to sports to science to business.
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/
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.
The general perception is that Romney says whatever he thinks is most opportune at the moment. I think it is at least marginally better to look at actions rather than words. Based on that I agree that Romney is more likely to wage war on Iran because his chief foreign policy advisor is BFFs with some only-good-muslim-is-a-dead-muslim types. But I disagree with you on china because he's done business with china through Bain - personal experience tends to give one a more nuanced understanding of related issues.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.
Wow! Why didn't that guy run for president?
This? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm
No, they are not exempt. But above and beyond innumerable loopholes, the government has simply declined to even try to enforce existing regulations.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRS_CHURCH_POLITICS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME
every time I refresh the page everything changes.
A quick read of the source code suggests that the author is assuming each state's outcome is independent of the other states, which is highly suspect. There's a reason Nate's prediction is much lower than 97.7%. Romney's chances are better than 2.3% because if he wins (for example) Ohio, then he is likely to have also won Florida and Virginia.
People already take the Libertarians far too seriously. Jokers, cranks, and lunatics, every one of them.
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.
Well, it isn't just Obama in this equation. Not only does he not have to worry about being reelected, but also that the opposition in Congress doesn't have to worry about him being reelected. Now Congress just needs to worry about being reelected themselves. It is a substancial change in dynamics no matter who wins.
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.
US voters get exactly the government they deserve.
Jobs?
According to the WSJ (not a left leaning publication), after fixing Bush's failings, jobs under Obama have been going up WHILE he's been reducing gov't head count.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/11/02/tallying-president-obamas-jobs-record/
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I know people who really think Obama is the anti-christ. What the hell kind of anti-christ would he be if he couldn't even get re-elected?
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.
Yeah, I view Obama as a slightly more liberal Bush, kind of like how Romney would have been a slightly more conservative Obama.
liberals crumbs like repealing DADT
Not gay. However, I've gotten the briefings on the effects of ending DADT. The end of DADT means one, and only one thing - you can no longer be tossed out of the military for declaring yourself gay.
However, because of the continued presence of DOMA and other laws, said gay military member can get a state recognized marriage yet the best treatment they can hope for their spouse from the military would be the same as for a friend - IE 'nadda'. No dependency status, no base housing, no married rate BAH, family seperation pay, medical, etc... Especially if the gay member is junior, they can be assigned unaccompanied housing in a barraks/dorm room.
If the member is transferred overseas, no passport/visa assistance, no benefits back home, etc... Even if the member is being sent to a 'gay friendly' country in Europe*.
It's not my fight, but I couldn't help but think that while repealing DADT is a step in the right direction, the system still screws such couples royally.
*Let's face it, there are some countries in the world where the US Military has permanent bases that you wouldn't want to advertise.
I don't read AC A human right
Still, even THOSE spending policies...would be better than BHO's....who has spent WAY more than that...in only 4 years (vs. Bush's 8 years).
Apparently, your calculator is broken.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
We are not talking about dealing with children, we are talking about adults making deals.
We both want to lower the deficit, I want to increase taxes you want budget cuts. The simple answer really is to decide on the ratio. Anything else is being a petulant child.
Actually, "y'all" is singular. The plural is "All y'all."
He was a Senator from Illinois. He knew exactly how Washington works. The fact he sold the US population on smoke and mirrors and they were dumb enough to believe it is what is laughable.
US voters get exactly the government they deserve.
His point was that he would fight for positive change and that it could be achieved if we worked for it. Well, half way through his term and all those people who showed up in droves to vote for Obama were noticeably absent in the congressional/gubernatorial election, leaving Obama with perhaps the most uncooperative congress since half the country walked out on Lincoln.
Obama appointed qualified people. That was a positive change. He reformed healthcare, albeit not to the extent he wanted, and that was a positive change. He increased regulation of the financial industries, which is a hugely positive change. But most importantly of all, he kept the office out of the hands of McCain, who would have fought to implement negative change.
You're right that the American people by and large are dumb and got exactly what they deserved, but you're a prime example of that, Mr. AC. Expecting the president to pull through with a bunch of sweeping reforms without a congress to back him up is asinine.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
The USS America is a pretty big boat.
Apparently it takes decades to take a minor course adjustment towards the left. But if you want to move to the right, it can turn on a dime.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The restructuring of General Motors would have happened had the government stepped in or not. Plenty of corporations have went through a restructuring bankruptcy plenty of times and came out stronger on the other side. Ever flown on an Airline? Every major US carrier except southwest has gone through bankruptcy proceedings and kept operating, and rarely do employees lose their jobs. When I left the Air Force and went to work for American Eagle they had just filed bankruptcy and everyone I worked with had years of seniority... hmm. Somehow had General Motors gone through a chapter 7 restructuring they would be better off today than they would be under their current situation, especially considering they owe the U.S. Treasury billions still, and the Treasury is sitting on millions of shares....
And that's the problem with politics, maybe these people should start worrying about what is best for the country, and stop worrying about how to get re-elected.
Obama, for all his many faults, is at least not a complete moron.
When did we go from Professor at a world class university to "not a complete moron." The man is genius level, at least when it comes to scholastics. Maybe not quite that level when it comes to politics, but he's smarter than most self professed nerds on this site.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
I pretty much see Romney as saying what he has to, to try to get elected. I don't honestly think he would do the harm to the economy as Obama has and will continue to do.
So what you're saying is that you have absolutely no evidence of what Romney will actually do. You can't imagine he'll do the things he says he'll do. But you hope he'll do good things, so, let's make a decision based on that ...
I've been tracking http://electionanalytics.cs.illinois.edu/ for some time now -- a University managed site that uses Bayesian analysis of all of the available polls to come up with their estimates. I tend to think that Universities are less likely to biased in their poll meta-analysis in the first place, and of course I'm a big fan of Bayesian analysis for large multifactorial problems with many levels of conditional and marginal probability. Anyway, this site is a lot less ambiguous -- it currently calls it for Obama at the level of 99.6% probability, with an expected electoral vote count of almost 303 for Obama (where "EEV" isn't an integer valued function but rather reflects the expected mean outcome of many "elections" held assuming that there is some sort of unbiased iid process underlying the poll noise). Romney's numbers are dropping, fairly rapidly, over the last week -- it looks like Obama is very likely to be 99.9% likely to win going into the actual election on Tuesday.
You won't see this on the major news stations, of course, as they long ago gave up any pretence at objectivity in the election, and besides, if the election were statistically certain going into Election Day (as this one appears to be) it might actually influence the outcome, just as the stations that persist in claiming that Romney HAS a chance, or HAS "momentum" (whatever the hell that means outside of the context of physics in an environment where his polling numbers are almost without exception going down) are trying to influence the election, just as the stations that make the opposite claim for Obama are trying to influence the elections.
The other nice thing about the election analytics site is that it also predicts the cumulative outcome of the Senate and House races. The Senate race currently suggests that Obama will win by enough to have some coattails to catch and help out in close races there, although the House races appear to be a lock at this point. We'll see if any house races end up as surprises -- possible if Obama beats 300 EV by a substantial margin, possible if the fact that the election is "over" in many states and districts causes the Republicans to just stay home and not bother to vote "only" for a congressional candidate where a lot of democrats show up to ride the Obama wave home.
rgb
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
It amazes me that so few people have any understanding of how the actual government of the US works.
For the final two years of Bush's term the congress was controlled by the Democrats (hence his inability to pass tighter controls on mortgage policies which he along with several other Republicans were pushing for). It's understandable that you don't know that since they seem to always forget to mention the fact that the very same people sitting in power now were also the same people sitting in power then.
For those not familiar with the roles of the parts of the United States government, it is the congress, not the President, who introduces and passes bills into law and controls all spending. The President's only true power is that of the symbolism of the office and the power to veto. Symbolism can only get you so far in pushing your agenda and the veto pen, while powerful, cannot be abused too much without completely destroying your credibility.
A strong President knows how to use both to work with congress to get his agenda moving, even if it requires some compromise to work with the other side whereas a weak President will try to force his agenda down Congress's collective throats and end up accomplishing nothing when they decide to flex their actual powers.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
He's going to eliminate Obamacare on day 1? It's going to be an uphill battle to do it at all unless the gop take the senate too. Doing it on day 1? Dream on.
He won't do it at all - his ideas on healthcare are remarkably similar to Obama's.
Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
What's in it for the rest of the world if Obama wins?
Nothing, really. The Obama adinistration is far to the right politically speaking. Romney is even further to the right, *and* a religious nut which will need to pander to his religious nutcase supporters. Personally I'm afraid that he is more willing to wage external wars in order to curb internal dissatisfaction. This is bad for the rest of the world (and, incidentally, for the U.S.).
Not comparable to war, but he's also liable to give corporations even freer reign over your diplomatic resources. They are already employed in order to threaten sovereign nations into adopting U.S. legislation (see Spain and copyright law), this will be worse under Romney, since he advocates even more corporate power.
But Obama already *does* do all of this, so the U.S. will continue to be the bully in the world schoolyard no matter which one you elect. The rest of the world just can't win with the current direction of U.S. administrations.
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
"After Obama Care .... you can't hardly blame them. Remember Obama didn't run on Obama Care, yet that was the first (and only) accomplishment of BHO."
Er, wait, do you not remember the 2008 election, or do i not remember the 2008 election?
*checks wikipedia* Okay, either you're confused, or wikipedia is lying (always a possibility.)
"Since announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama emphasized withdrawing American troops from Iraq, increasing energy independence (that includes New Energy For America plan[40]), decreasing the influence of lobbyists, and promoting universal health care as top national priorities."
So he spent all his political capital during the 2 months when the Democrats had a majority of both houses pushing through Obama Care, which was one of his platform positions during the election.
"Passed without any Republican help (he didn't want any help)"
Say what? He did it without any Republican help because the Republicans adamantly refused to cooperate with the Democrats on pretty much anything. I'm not sure where you get the idea that he didn't want Republican support. I'm sure he would have loved to get Republican support instead of having to ram it through. (He may certainly have said he didn't _need_ the help, which was A: more or less true, and B: the kind of thing you say when you know you're not going to get any help anyways.)
So yes i'm pissed that Obama didn't manage to get _more_ of his election promises fulfilled, but i'm just as pissed at the Republicans for being willfully obstructionist to any plan that might possibly help as i am at the Democrats for not being more effective at getting around the Republican obstructionism.
Of course i knew going in that there was no way Obama was going to be able to deliver all the Change he promised, but he was still better than the alternative then, and he's still better than the alternative now, and no way in hell am i going to reward the Republicans for trying to hold the country hostage in order to achieve their wacko ideological goals.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
If you haven't noticed, the bombs have been dropping for over a decade now. Obama even started dropping them directly on US citizens. These things are life and death, and we've been choosing death in election after election.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Let's see who's talking in Romney's camp: Evangelical Christians who believe the earth is a couple thousand years old. Then there's Mormons, who refer to their church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" so the evangelicals don't realize that they're Mormons. There's the KKK and other racists. The Koch brothers and Karl Rove. People who believe that spending money is an exercise of free speech. The Ayn Rand fans who believe that altruism is a sin. Need I go on? Not really the best can of worms for you to open up.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
But just about every election is a choice between two flawed individuals.
No sir. There are at least four other individuals you can choose from, most of which have fewer flaws than the two you refer to. Make a real choice on Tuesday. Tell the oligarchy you've had enough.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I've found some interesting statistics. Start with Nate Silver's article today. Note that if Romney wins even 0.55% more of the popular vote than Obama, Nate gives Romney a 50-50 chance of winning. Now go to Intrade, which currently is being massively manipulated, but ignore the popular Obama and Romney markets, and look at the Romney/Obama wins by more than 0.5% of the vote market. It's currently showing 42% for Romney and 57% for Obama, meaning they can't predict within 1% where the vote will land with more than 15% probability! Even the pollsters are confused.
So, I'd rather be Obama than Romney at this point, but with such crummy ability to guess how people are going to vote, Romney's odds aren't bad. That would help explain why Intrade is giving around 66% chance of Obama win, rather than anything like the probabilities Nate is giving him. I think if Nate took this into account properly, he'd be more in line with Intrade, even if Intrade is being manipulated.
There are really two very interesting races going on here. I'll watch the Romney/Obama results tomorrow eagerly, but there's also the Gallup/Nate Silver race. If Gallup is right about the popular vote (Romney by 5%), Romney wins by a landslide, Nate loses, and Gallup will become the only pollster of any worth. If all the other pollsters are right, Obama wins, Nate's status grows, and Gallop is surely run by worthless fools. It's really Gallup sticking their neck out, and I'm going to enjoy seeing if it gets chopped off or not.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
Crazy religion is redundant. I'd love to have a country that's not ruled by someone who believes in a crazy religion. But as atheists are consistently polled as one of the least liked groups, that's not likely to happen in my lifetime.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Except he believes it should be a state-by-state series of programs, not a federal one. Difference is in who has control.
But he's fucking BLACK! Why would you want a BLACK muslim president???
Unfortunately, that's still the predominant teabagger mentality. They simply can't see past their own prejudice well enough to realize that we are better off than 4 years ago, and no one (least of all McCain) could have fixed things in one term even if the republicans weren't constantly obstructing everything just to ensure the president's failure out of pure spite. If your post was meant as satire, then well done.
If by "teabagger" you mean the infantile douches playing FPS who kneel on your dead avatar's head, then you may be right. Their comms are filled with racist diatribes.
If, however, you mean a derogatory term for Tea Party members, then you're utterly wrong. Attend a rally, you'll be surprised.
I have an eclectic set of friends, that span Libertarian, Right Wing (Tea Party), Left Wing (Green/Peace Freedom) , Middle of the Road, and everything in between.
My observations are, Obama and Romney Bots are useless to talk to. Green/Peace Freedom types are usually just nuts and or naive. Tea Party isn't what the left portrays them, but aren't much better than Green/Peace Freedom types.Libertarians are often dope smokers who like prostitutes (disclaimer: I'm Libertarian, but don't really care about pot or whores). Most of the middle roaders don't care about politics, leftwing/right wing, they just want to live their lives and be left alone .... That is, until the one issue they care about is involved, and then they side with the party that has that issue (varies person to person) .
Most of the time, I am the only Libertarian these people know, which gives me access they don't normally show to others outside their group.
All of that being said, I haven't a clue who is gonna win this election. I think there is a huge enthusiasm gap between the (R) and (D) right now, and I am not sure how that is going to actually play out tomorrow. However, I'm going to ask that people who STILL don't know who to vote for, to please vote third party, especially if it is for Gary Johnson, who actually has a chance at affecting future Presidential races. 15% is all he needs to be included in future debates (in 4 years).
If you're sick of the current two parties (who isn't??) please consider not voting for either one.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
After the fiasco of the Bush Years, Obama hasn't fixed anything. The jobs growth is less than that of the workforce growth (anemic) and people on Food Stamps have increased by 75 per job Obama has "created". So, it all depends on what job growth statistic you are looking at. Let me just say, that if there was an (R) after Obama's name, no (D) would vote for him (all things equal).
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
...jobs under Obama have been going up WHILE he's been reducing gov't head count.
The vast majority of decline in government jobs have been at the state and local level. The Federal government had been on a huge hiring binge and has only recently made some tiny reductions. It should go without saying that President Obama does not control state and local government hiring.
Federal employment drops after years of explosive growth
Federal employment has fallen for seven of the last eight months, the longest sustained drop in more than a decade. The decline is tiny: Just 9,900 fewer workers in May compared with a year earlier, excluding postal and temporary Census workers, reports the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's a fraction of the 2.2 million civilian federal workforce. . . .
Federal employment grew 13% — 250,000 jobs — from the recession's start in December 2007 to a peak last September. During that time, private employment fell 5% and state and local governments cut staffs by 2%.
The coming collapse in the state budgets
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
30 million plus people have or are about to get health care, that didn't have it before--and wouldn't have it if McCain had won. The most obviously mind-bogglingly stupid part of the U.S. that the rest of the world just can't get--that you don't have UHC--and Obama and the Dems put a big dent in it against a unified Republican party dedicated to killing anything and everything Obama did.
Playing false equivalency is a juvenile way to avoid having a real opinion.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Debatable. Obama allowed them to go through a Chapter 11 the exact same they would have even if the government hadn't intervened. However, the government's intervention did have one substantial effect, namely a gigantic handout of taxpayer money to the UAW: http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-myth-of-auto-bailout-jobs/article/2512555
Much like the bank bailouts, this president believes in rewarding failure.
As noted above, the law does reduce payments to insurers and to some health care providers -- by an estimated $716 billion over the coming decade
Done.
These are dollars removed from the program. If the "projected savings that are supposed to offset these reductions" do not materialize (which I suspect they will not...), this is a Medicare cut. It's like cutting taxes by 2 trillion dollars and calling it revenue neutral because it will grow our economy by 2 trillion dollars. The latter claim is a myth, a fiction, something that hasn't happened. The former is reality.
At least Obama got his before he failed.
Yup, I don't have facts. Of course, you'll protest Forbes as being "right wing" ... and HuffPo is unbiased .. right?
That opinion article was written by someone actually working on Romney's campaign, a week before the election. It goes way beyond "biased".
Fanatically anti-fanatical