2012 Presidential Election

Originally posted by Oliver North
but a lot of those are more like "Obama didn't live up to the impossible expectations his campaign set in 2008" than anything else.

This is another good point. It is my major complaint. If there are nerds, you check my posts from 2008 that says something similar. I said if Obama even lived up to half of the promises he made, he'd be the best president in US history.

The Obameter shows 38%. And Obama broke the biggest promises he made....the ones I wanted him to keep.

A note on Keynesian economics: strictly speaking, the huge American war budget flies against Keynes's position on what government should spend money on. He believed that government should spend for peaceful purposes.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Like, imagine a Paul presidency. How much of a mandate, in the house/senate, among both parties, among lobbiests, would he have to be given to end the drug war or go back to the gold standard? It is nearly impossible the way things are set up.

I think his presidency would be easy to figure out.

He'd push tons of initiatives and only get a dozen or so through. And he'd set the record for greatest number of vetoes from a president.

He'd probably succeed in ending the war on drugs and POSSIBLY dismantling the DEA. That'd be the greatest feat from a US President in a long long time, though. So, I do not see a Ron Paul presidency being all that bad despite the obvious impotence.

Other than that, not much worth responding to in this thread since they are arguments had over and over again. We all know Ron Paul would have to appease quite a few elements, that he currently does not like, if he wanted to actually become president. Let us be glad he doesn't.

Share your map predictions:

Go to this map, here, and fill out your states as you think the voting lines will fall:

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=jHR

Here is my prediction map:

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bbXU

279 Obama
259 Romney

I'd give NM to Romney.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'd give NM to Romney.

New Mexico is showing a strong support for Obama: enough that it is beyond a 7 point lead.

Originally posted by dadudemon
New Mexico is showing a strong support for Obama: enough that it is beyond a 7 point lead.

I am fully anticipating Her Majesty annexing the US and throwing these two men into the tower...

Originally posted by dadudemon
New Mexico is showing a strong support for Obama: enough that it is beyond a 7 point lead.

Well **** me sideways then.

The only predictions I have is an overall Obama win with a possible Romney popular vote win.

Obama will take Nevada.

Obama will squeak by with a very narrow electorial margin. I'm not even guessing at the popular vote except it will be very close. Either way, nothing changes, big corporations still run the country.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Share your map predictions:

Go to this map, here, and fill out your states as you think the voting lines will fall:

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=jHR

Here is my prediction map:

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bbXU

279 Obama
259 Romney

Mine was 286-252 in favor of Obozo but Romney is definitly taking Florida and Virginia

Originally posted by dadudemon
Share your map predictions:

Go to this map, here, and fill out your states as you think the voting lines will fall:

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=jHR

Here is my prediction map:

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bbXU

279 Obama
259 Romney

Interesting picks. Why do you have Ohio for Romney and Virginia and Florida for Obama when polls are showing the opposite at the moment? WHAT DO YOU KNOW!?

Originally posted by BackFire
Interesting picks. Why do you have Ohio for Romney and Virginia and Florida for Obama when polls are showing the opposite at the moment? WHAT DO YOU KNOW!?

I thought OH was polling with Romney in the lead by 3%. It's the opposite.

And for Virginia, the polls mean shit because one shows Romney with 5% and 3 others show Obama by 2, 2, and 3%. So my guess was Obama as I am just blind guessing (intuitive guessing is what I'd like to say).

And I think the very small 1% margin going for Romney will turn out to be in favor of Obama due to the polling methods and the massive latino support for Obama that they are not "polling" in their supposed scientific polls. The margin of error is 3%. I would rather give 2% to Obama and 1% to Romney to make them tied. Then take into account that rich white people do absentee ballot voting more often than others (confirmed? Source?). So I think Florida goes to Obama by a smidgen.

So, yeah, I screwed up on Ohio but I think I'm right with Virginia and Florida.

unemployment down to a seasonally adjusted 7.4%. but dont let that stop you from pretending that obama wrecked the economy

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158483/unadjusted-unemployment-down-october.aspx

It was 7.8% when he was inaugurated. So really, Obama's only 0.4% effective as President after 4 years. Ergo, do you want to take a 0.4% chance on America!?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
unemployment down to a seasonally adjusted 7.4%. but dont let that stop you from pretending that obama wrecked the economy

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158483/unadjusted-unemployment-down-october.aspx

That's the U-3 measure which some (including myself) consider to not be an accurate representation.

They go with another measure called "true unemployment" which is the U-6 measure.

It is supposedly around 14.9%:

http://bermudasun.bm/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=135&ArticleID=61459

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48468748/Real_Unemployment_Rate_Shows_Far_More_Jobless

"Consider: Nevada's U-6 rate is 22.1 percent, up from just 7.6 percent in 2007. Economically troubled California has a 20.3 percent real rate, while Rhode Island is at 18.3 percent, more than double its 8.3 percent rate in 2007."

"Only three states — Nebraska (9.1 percent), South Dakota (8.6 percent) and North Dakota (6.1 percent) — have U-6 rates under 10 percent, according to research from RBC Capital Markets."

So what is the U-6 measure?

"The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over."

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

and this contradicts the recovering trend how exactly?

start of bush's term: jan 2001.......7.3%
end of bush's term: dec 2009.....17.1%
under obama: sept 2012..........14.7%

conclusion: lol stop blaming bush its obama's fault

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

I just want this to be over...why can't it be over 🙁. I'm already doomed to 4 years of butt****ing from either Romney or Obama so getting my hopes up for something better will only make things worse for me. Besides its not like Congress is going to change much...unless I'm missing something.

Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
I just want this to be over...why can't it be over 🙁. I'm already doomed to 4 years of butt****ing from either Romney or Obama so getting my hopes up for something better will only make things worse for me. Besides its not like Congress is going to change much...unless I'm missing something.

the same baseless apathy was spoken about bush/gore

what did we get? the great recession and two wars instead of some escalated irritating e.p.a. laws. yeah they're all the same, man. *bonghit*

Originally posted by focus4chumps
the same baseless apathy was spoken about bush/gore

what did we get? the great recession and two wars instead of some escalated irritating e.p.a. laws. yeah they're all the same, man. *bonghit*

It's not apathy since I still care about who wins, though I admit to not specifying that, its just that I really wish there were a definite candidate to pick instead of the "Pick the lesser of two evils" that we are getting now. I'm more mad at both than apathetic I guess 😐

And regardless of who's president, w/o a functional Congress that the masses seem to ignore we'll just get something else that is horrible. Besides both are more than likely to indirectly screw something up that will make the next four years hell.