Who will it be Romney or Obama?

Generali

ampersand wrote: »

We have the privilege/right[earned?]of expressing diverse views here. Golden Dawn anyone? I think not. Nor, for me, the deluded GOP denial spokesman, Karl.

For me it's a part of freedom of speech: I might not agree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it.

That is rapidly being lost as an ideal. Freedom is easy to give up but expensive to regain.

Kennyboy66

Generali wrote: »

To be fair, I wrote when Obama was a fair way behind in the popular vote and looked set to lose it while winning the actual contest at hand.

I think a general criticism of the BBC's coverage of US politics is fair. They try to portray leftist Democrats (by US standards) as the mainstream and everyone else as dangerous lunatics when it just isn't so. I enjoyed The West Wing but the main problem it had with credibility is that there is no way that America would vote in a Socialist like President Bartlet any more than they'd vote in Sarah Palin. In the BBC's universe, Jed Bartlet would be mainstream. In most Americans' universe, Jed Bartlet is a communist that should be prevented from holding power by all available means.

What's The West Wing got to do with the BBC ?

Its just great fiction like Homeland, The Wire or Deadwood (US dramas and comedies knock spots off UK TV in last decade).

The BBC seems more critical of republican social issues, than economic issues - banning abortion ain't a mainstream viewpoint for women and neither is the homophobia that seems to infect Republicans.

Romney would have made a decent President, economically probably better than Obama as he would get things done in a pragmatic way - the trouble is that the GOP party has been hijacked by tea partyers who really want Ron Paul.

It's like militant taking control of Labour.

purch

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Romney would have made a decent President, economically probably better than Obama as he would get things done in a pragmatic way - the trouble is that the GOP party has been hijacked by tea partyers who really want Ron Paul.

Yes, Romney is far more "liberal" than he has been portrayed, or as was the case had to portray himself in order to get the nomination to run.

The whole political landscape in the U.S. is getting more and more extreme by the year. At the rate it is developing the voting split will end up as Republican White, and Democrat Hispanic/African American and all other minorities with the liberal whites holding the swing vote within a few decades. (or maybe it is like that already)

Not an appetising situation.

Daedalus

Daedalus wrote: »

I predict;
320ish for Obama
210ish for Romney

I gave myself +/- 10 margin of error. so 332 - 206 is just out, bah. LOL at all the people who were going around 'it is too close to call' not knowing the first thing about how the electoral college works.

Generali

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

What's The West Wing got to do with the BBC ?

Nothing, I use it as an avatar of the way that the BBC likes to portray US politics.

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

The BBC seems more critical of republican social issues, than economic issues - banning abortion ain't a mainstream viewpoint for women and neither is the homophobia that seems to infect Republicans.

Really? I remember lots of articles on the BBC about the tent cities that were springing up under US Freeway intersections in 2008 that were about to become the way poor Americans lived as a result of the 'Compassionate Conservative' welfare that came out of 90s US politics.

Romney didn't stand on banning abortion, he stated his views as best he could in the current febrile climate in the USA: he doesn't agree with abortion but he wouldn't ban it. That's not an unreasonable stance to take IMHO.

purch

Daedalus wrote: »

LOL at all the people who were going around 'it is too close to call' not knowing the first thing about how the electoral college works.

What an idiotic comment.

It is precisely because of HOW the electoral college works, that it is/was too close to call.

The electoral college votes that mattered in this election, from Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Colorado were all too close to call, and the final results in those states will be extremely close, but Obama will win most of them, just.

Winning most of them means he get's all the electoral college votes from the wins.

A small swing to Romney in all those States that mattered would have given all those collage votes to him, which would have left the final result much closer.

You really should make sure you understand stuff before making a fool of yourself.

You are basically saying that you understand this stuff more than the highly experienced pollsters and campaigners from both sides who have taken part in elections in the U.S. for decades.

They were all saying it was too close to call, yet you think you know better than them.

Kennyboy66

Generali wrote: »

Nothing, I use it as an avatar of the way that the BBC likes to portray US politics.



Really? I remember lots of articles on the BBC about the tent cities that were springing up under US Freeway intersections in 2008 that were about to become the way poor Americans lived as a result of the 'Compassionate Conservative' welfare that came out of 90s US politics.

Romney didn't stand on banning abortion, he stated his views as best he could in the current febrile climate in the USA: he doesn't agree with abortion but he wouldn't ban it. That's not an unreasonable stance to take IMHO.

10 years ago Romney was pro choice and fairly emphatically so (but then again Massachusetts is fairly liberal).

Subsequently (when planning to stand as presidential candidate) he has said it should be a state issue rather than federal (a back door way for the pro lifers).

In this campaign stated he wouldn't legislate on abortion, his spokesman said he would.
Romney also said he wanted to put judges in supreme court to overturn Roe v Wade.

If you judge people on what they do, he is a decent man and fairly liberal.

If you judge people on what they say, he is an opportunist taking positions to suit his audience (hardly unique).

My suspicion is that GOP won't field a pro choice (or status quo) candidate and insist on a pro life stance. Romney was the best candidate but then has to bend (or reverse) his views to get nominated.

3 (more) states voteed to approve same sex marriage and 2 voted to legalise cannabis.

Florida voted against banning public funding for abortion.

Unless Republicans learn that socially conservative views won't win enough votes, they won't win the Presidency.

Kennyboy66

purch wrote: »

What an idiotic comment.

It is precisely because of HOW the electoral college works, that it is/was too close to call.


They were all saying it was too close to call, yet you think you know better than them.

I think in fairness - polling over the last 10 days suggested that Obama was strongly likely to win. Nate Silver had him at 72% - 88% for the last fortnight, and it got stronger as polling day approached (90% by monday).
The largest market (betfair) had similar odds if not as extreme.

Nate Silver called every state correct bar Florida. He consistently had Romney as a roughly 55-60% favourite in Florida until monday when he went 50% both candidates.

The media have a large interest in making out that the election is "too close to call".

Generali

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

10 years ago Romney was pro choice and fairly emphatically so (but then again Massachusetts is fairly liberal).

Subsequently (when planning to stand as presidential candidate) he has said it should be a state issue rather than federal (a back door way for the pro lifers).

In this campaign stated he wouldn't legislate on abortion, his spokesman said he would.
Romney also said he wanted to put judges in supreme court to overturn Roe v Wade.

If you judge people on what they do, he is a decent man and fairly liberal.

If you judge people on what they say, he is an opportunist taking positions to suit his audience (hardly unique).

My suspicion is that GOP won't field a pro choice (or status quo) candidate and insist on a pro life stance. Romney was the best candidate but then has to bend (or reverse) his views to get nominated.

3 (more) states voteed to approve same sex marriage and 2 voted to legalise cannabis.

Florida voted against banning public funding for abortion.

Unless Republicans learn that socially conservative views won't win enough votes, they won't win the Presidency.

I basically agree with what you say.

If you look at Romney's record rather than his promises then he's a Centrist in the Republican party. He even introduced something very similar to Obamacare in MA.

Then he goes to the Republican Party and says, 'Vote for me to stand against the Democrats, I'm one of you'. He tells them that he believes in this and that and says a bunch of stuff that I don't think he thinks is right for an nanosecond.

Then he has to stand before the electorate as a whole and say the things that they want to hear. At that moment Romney is a flip-flopper. He's done one thing in MA, another in the Primaries and another to try to get elected as President.

The problem the Republicans have is where to go to from here. They've tried two leftist candidates so do they go for someone next time to energise the base? Someone who wants no abortion, wants to put lawyers into the bedroom, maybe someone who wants to push the limits of secularism versus theocracy in the US system. Someone who can stand proudly before the Party and the Country.

It makes me shiver TBH but it is quite possible. I doubt that such a person would be electable but given a rubbish enough opponent anything is possible. As an example, I cite Al Gore's p1ss poor attempt in 2000. Hanging chads should never have been an issue. Gore would have romped home but for his only big weakness: him.

purch

Watching Romney on TV giving his concession speech, he looks quite RELIEVED to have lost.