Who will it be Romney or Obama?

purch

Generali wrote: »

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.

Yes, a year before the election it was considered a foregone conclusion, and after Bush the Moron got the nomination that opinion only strengthened.

It was only Bush going ultra conservative on many issues, including crucially abortion, and the "panicky" response from Gore to these moves that even made it a contest.

If Gore had just stayed his own course he would have won without all the fuss.

robin_banks

purch wrote: »

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

He's in his 60's, he must be exhausted tbh.

grizzly1911

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

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".

At least we got it right.:D

vivatifosi

Interesting FT article on why the Republicans lost. Some good (as well as some plain stupid) comments at the bottom too.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f626b54a-2895-11e2-a335-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2BTPUoOkc

Wookster

An interesting election indeed.

Good article Viva.

I think Republicans lost because they have extreme and entirely unpragmatic positions for example, the anti-abortion stance is just extreme by today's standards. Similarly, very very few people think that tax cuts for the super rich, whilst increasing defence spending and cutting benefits for the poorest in society is the answer to the economic woes of the US. Furthermore the lunatic right (the tea party) and their totally uncompromising nature make it hard for moderates to succeed. This applies to both parties in the UK, the lunatic right in the Tory party and the lunatic left in the Labour party.

The state of US party politics is quite similar to that of the UK where views have diverged to such a degree that it is questionable if it just 2 parties are enough to represent the spectrum of views, especially with the lunatic fringes of the parties.

How sad that there isn't a pragmatic, fiscally conservative opposition to the Democrat government as that is what the US (and indeed the UK) badly needs.

sabretoothtigger

Not sure it matters much either way, they were both for overspending and I think in the end it will be outside factors that shape USA not their own choices

Only someone or a set of people like Ron Paul would really have represented a true change to set events. Obviously pulling the handbrake is pretty unlikely, I see no scenario where that occurs voluntarily
In 2 years theres more elections meanwhile they'll borrow then spend and talk a bit
Is any policy now going to significantly alter anything from the past.

I reckon they should have free enterprise zones out in desert or something. Basically do your business (within reason) with no hassle or taxes for 5 or 10 years. The employees would still pay tax and the business could snowball. Ive not heard any candidate say that, maybe its possible but never heard it. Radical but required?

Obama lost the popular vote

He got the majority apparently. Thats not the issue, its that democracy is slightly broken while the consequences of policy can be delayed indefinitely via longterm large cheap debt

Theres a path of least resistance and we naturally follow that regardless of the names on the chairs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

vivatifosi

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

I reckon they should have free enterprise zones out in desert or something. Basically do your business (within reason) with no hassle or taxes for 5 or 10 years. The employees would still pay tax and the business could snowball. Ive not heard any candidate say that, maybe its possible but never heard it. Radical but required?

AIUI they are doing something like this already in Wyoming. IIRC it has the lowest taxes in the States and something along the lines of no income or corporation tax. However you also have to have a business reason for setting up in Wyoming, as opposed to somewhere else, which can't help.

Wookster

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

Radical but required?

That's the problem in the world today. We are in desperate need of pragmatic radical solutions yet no one, anywhere in the world is really offering such solutions.

Thrugelmir

Wookster wrote: »

I think Republicans lost because they have extreme and entirely unpragmatic positions for example, the anti-abortion stance is just extreme by today's standards. Similarly, very very few people think that tax cuts for the super rich, whilst increasing defence spending and cutting benefits for the poorest in society is the answer to the economic woes of the US. Furthermore the lunatic right (the tea party) and their totally uncompromising nature make it hard for moderates to succeed.

Also has a lot to do with demographics. With the white population down to around a third.

BobQ

A._Badger wrote: »

That is a stunning display of misinformation, ignorance or mendacity, even for you.

Calling me a liar says more about you than it does me. Your definition of ignorance seems to be that the facts do not agree with your extreme right wing views.

What I have stated is not misinformation. A reputable US broadcaster CNN broadcast the information to the English speaking world. You might not believe them but that is your problem.

Even the US left doesn't dispute that the corruption in US elections is mostly centred around Democrat supporting unions.

Your authorative source for this remark is where?

Right now Matt Drudge is reporting that UN Inspectors are shocked that IDs aren't required for voting in US elections: (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/06/foreign_election_officials_amazed_by_trust_based_us_voting_system

And who opposes voter mandatory ID most strenuously? The Democrats.

Of course there should be identity checks, I never said any differently. But whatever effect these "features" of the US system have on the outcome it cannot be good for the US to be the butt of such comments on a reputable US television channel.

In this country we occasionally hear stories of people queuing outside polling stations, but queues of 4 hours are surely not healthy. Were this to happen in another nation we would criticise it as being unacceptable.

It might help if you gathered some of your information about the USA from sources other than the BBC/Guardian.

And of course CNN is equally unreliable not being the Daily Telegraph.

I guess the Washington Post is a left wing conspiracy too?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/11/06/roundup-voter-irregularities-2/