Who will it be Romney or Obama?

wymondham

Always nervous of new presidents as you don't know how trigger happy they are. Romney makes me nervous for no reason i just keep thinking of the Dead Zone!

Generali

wymondham wrote: »

Always nervous of new presidents as you don't know how trigger happy they are. Romney makes me nervous for no reason i just keep thinking of the Dead Zone!

Democrats start wars, not Republicans as a rule. History tells us that.

Democrats took the US into both WW1 and WW2 plus also Korea and Vietnam.

Kennyboy66

Generali wrote: »

Democrats start wars, not Republicans as a rule. History tells us that.

Democrats took the US into both WW1 and WW2 plus also Korea and Vietnam.

Its probably fairer to say that USA was dragged into both WW1 & 2.

Neutral until 1917 (despite the sinking of the Lusitania) and same until 1941 and Pearl Harbor.

You might like this graphic to show how states have switched from democrat to GOP and back over the years.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/15/us/politics/swing-history.html

PaulF81

vivatifosi wrote: »

I think Obama will win too and voted such in the poll. However I never forget 2000. I was in the eastern US when America went to vote. When I went to bed I was sure that Gore was President - the exit polls and pundits told me so. When I woke up the following morning Bush had won. This one isn't as close, but with regard to delusion, I always have in the back of my mind the ability of the Republicans to do a quarterback sneak.

On this subject, I've seen it mentioned that for some Americans Romney is a bit like smoking when you're a teenager, or pretending you don't pay for Sky TV round here... Because he is a Mormon and from a different background, some are saying he is unusually a "guilty secret" type of vote. I don't know how true that is, but that's the kind of thing that will never show up in polls. We'll see soon enough though and I still want Obama to win.

There are a hell of a lot of Mormons in the us, particularly in the military.

Personally, I don't trust anyone who won't have a drink.

Generali

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Its probably fairer to say that USA was dragged into both WW1 & 2.

Neutral until 1917 (despite the sinking of the Lusitania) and same until 1941 and Pearl Harbor.

You might like this graphic to show how states have switched from democrat to GOP and back over the years.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/15/us/politics/swing-history.html

Fascinating. The kicker is the South of course because the Democrats went from being the party of the slave owners and later segregation to the party of the Civil Rights movement.

I found this interesting too, with a slightly longer historical perspective. I can't vouch for it's accuracy but it makes me want to study US political history:

http://xkcd.com/1127/

It's a bit hard to follow but worth persevering with. Finally for political junkies:

robin_banks

Generali wrote: »

Democrats start wars, not Republicans as a rule. History tells us that.

Democrats took the US into both WW1 and WW2 plus also Korea and Vietnam.

That's something of an over-simplification.

purch

This looks like deja vu all over again (2000) :eek:

robin_banks

purch wrote: »

This looks like deja vu all over again (2000) :eek:

Can't see it tbh, Obama will win but not as convincingly as last time.

danothy

Generali wrote: »

AIUI, what you say is correct but misses one vital point: just because you say you're going to vote a particular way when you reach the electoral college, doesn't mean you have to.

You can bet that bribery and blackmail would be on the cards. DAK what happens if a member of the Electoral College dies (by accident or on purpose) between their election and vote? A Coup d'Etat would be simple to arrange in that way:eek:

Last time I checked there was essentially a contractual obligation for the electoral college vote to go the way of the party that won the state ... so I presume this would roll over to a new appointment too. It is worth noting however that the conflict between being contractually obliged to vote a certain way and the constitutional right to vote freely has never been tested in court yet.

GeorgeHowell

Obama will probably win by a small margin, mainly because he has the advantage of incumbency, and no doubt many Americans are fearful of change and the unknown the same as everywhere else.

Obama is probably better for them because he may not lead them into so much trouble abroad as Romney might. Democrats also don't have so much of a dog-eat-dog approach to domestic politics (though a lot of Americans think that approach is advantageous).

But from our point of view Romney might be better because generally speaking Republican presidents are more interested in us. Carter wasn't very interested in the UK, and nor was Clinton. Obama clearly isn't either. Nixon and Reagen were though. With Dubya it was strange, because he was interested in the UK, but we don't know how much that was because he could exploit Blair's performance as a total doormat.