• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Mitt Romney the next new leader of the free world!!!

You better have your long-form birth certificate ready ;)

This is the FiveThirtyEight blog in the NYT. Nate Silver has been getting a lot of hate from the right, but those numbers look pretty good for Obama. Hovering at 83% to win his electoral votes... so if Romney wins, it would be a longshot (still a possibility of course).
 
I was listening to John Gizzi on the world service. He claimed to have polling data giving Romney a win with over 300 EC votes, based on likely turnout. However, a little googling brings up a series of articles claiming Romney could get Michigan, ditto Minnesota, Romney closing gap in Iowa, GOP to take Senate, etc.

His claims are so consistently optimistic for the Republicans you have to wonder if there is an agenda, write falsely positive articles to get people enthusiastic. Of course, this is far fetched and he is just being fair and balanced unlike the liberal media.
 
83% chance of Obama victory on the exchanges. I don't think people understand the nuances of the election. It's all about turnout.
 
y3uge8e2.jpg


He has lengthened a little bit
 
The odds from the bookies make me feel a whole lot better about Obama's chances than the endless polls coming out right now. Still can't believe it's even close though.
 
Skinhead in a Suit said:
The odds from the bookies make me feel a whole lot better about Obama's chances than the endless polls coming out right now. Still can't believe it's even close though.
Click to expand...

Me either, but the "momentum" seems to be going in Obama's direction. He's now at ~85% likely to win.

Scientists also massage data to make their results look better. But they still have to stay within the confines of their data; they can't just fabricate brick because their work is peer-reviewed. Political "science" ought to be more science than opinion. The public needs to be educated about this, but there are no shortage of people who shun science because they see it at odds with religion. I never took the bible literally, but it's impossible to inject reason into this discussion. I'm not sure what is preached in churches across America, but it's definitely not compassion in many of them. And isn't praying a form of asking for a hand-out?
 
Still can't believe how abortion is a election issue...surly its a personal choice and nothing to do with the state? ...strange country that seams to be getting stranger and more backwards as the years go on.
 
papaspur said:
Me either, but the "momentum" seems to be going in Obama's direction. He's now at ~85% likely to win.

Scientists also massage data to make their results look better. But they still have to stay within the confines of their data; they can't just fabricate brick because their work is peer-reviewed. Political "science" ought to be more science than opinion. The public needs to be educated about this, but there are no shortage of people who shun science because they see it at odds with religion. I never took the bible literally, but it's impossible to inject reason into this discussion. I'm not sure what is preached in churches across America, but it's definitely not compassion in many of them. And isn't praying a form of asking for a hand-out?
Click to expand...

\o/=D>
 
Notmegov said:
Still can't believe how abortion is a election issue...surly its a personal choice and nothing to do with the state? ...strange country that seams to be getting stranger and more backwards as the years go on.
Click to expand...

Definitely some odd positions. The party that claim to believe in personal liberty and a limited state want to ban the rights of adults (abortion, gay marriage). The pro-lifers cite the Pope for their justification, but believe in the death penalty (ignoring the concept of Christian forgiveness). The party that believes in the free market blames the suppliers rather than those creating the demand (drugs, illegal immigration).

And after years of irresponsible partying by the frat-boy constituency, they want to blame the black kid for not clearing up the mess.
 
Notmegov said:
Still can't believe how abortion is a election issue...surly its a personal choice and nothing to do with the state? ...strange country that seams to be getting stranger and more backwards as the years go on.
Click to expand...

in a country with a seperation of state and religion (granted an arguable point - but on the whole religion isn't a big factor in UK politics) it is not an issue
but US thinking is still blindly dictated by two out dated documents (both of which had good merits - still do in some areas) - the bible and the constitution
 
jts1882 said:
Definitely some odd positions. The party that claim to believe in personal liberty and a limited state want to ban the rights of adults (abortion, gay marriage). The pro-lifers cite the Pope for their justification, but believe in the death penalty (ignoring the concept of Christian forgiveness). The party that believes in the free market blames the suppliers rather than those creating the demand (drugs, illegal immigration).

And after years of irresponsible partying by the frat-boy constituency, they want to blame the black kid for not clearing up the mess.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Absolutely brilliant analogy.
 
monkeybarry said:
but US thinking is still blindly dictated by two out dated documents (both of which had good merits - still do in some areas) - the bible and the constitution
Click to expand...

This is something I've argued elsewhere a few times (with a Republican lobbyist and Man Utd fan), but I don't think the constitution is outdated per se, but the way it is looked at makes it appear so. The original constitution was very short and just outlines the essentials (cf EU Constitution). It got some things wrong (limited suffrage, allowing slavery, counting black people as 3/5ths of a person in the census) but it was designed to allow change. The Bill of Rights amendments are the prime examples. Changes could be made and reversed (prohibition).

Somehow this flexibility has been lost and the original has become sacred. There is no reason the second amendment can't be repealed, now the qualifying statement has become redundant, any more than prohibition couldn't. There is no reason the first can't be modified to take account of changes in propagation of speech. As the document itself can't evolve, the only evolution is in the hands of the judges and somehow early decisions allowing rights to organisations (schools, social organisations) have become the basis of "corporations are people" and can buy politicians through freedom of speech, stretched beyond all recognition by interpretation. The irony is that the written constitution is more vulnerable to interpretation by judges than the English unwritten one that expects interpretation and precedent to play a role. In Britain, parliament can interfere when the judges **** it up or deliberately stir things up (Lord Denning), whereas in the US Congress is effectively powerless to correct the mistakes of judges.
 
jts1882 said:
This is something I've argued elsewhere a few times (with a Republican lobbyist and Man Utd fan), but I don't think the constitution is outdated per se, but the way it is looked at makes it appear so. The original constitution was very short and just outlines the essentials (cf EU Constitution). It got some things wrong (limited suffrage, allowing slavery, counting black people as 3/5ths of a person in the census) but it was designed to allow change. The Bill of Rights amendments are the prime examples. Changes could be made and reversed (prohibition).

Somehow this flexibility has been lost and the original has become sacred. There is no reason the second amendment can't be repealed, now the qualifying statement has become redundant, any more than prohibition couldn't. There is no reason the first can't be modified to take account of changes in propagation of speech. As the document itself can't evolve, the only evolution is in the hands of the judges and somehow early decisions allowing rights to organisations (schools, social organisations) have become the basis of "corporations are people" and can buy politicians through freedom of speech, stretched beyond all recognition by interpretation. The irony is that the written constitution is more vulnerable to interpretation by judges than the English unwritten one that expects interpretation and precedent to play a role. In Britain, parliament can interfere when the judges **** it up or deliberately stir things up (Lord Denning), whereas in the US Congress is effectively powerless to correct the mistakes of judges.
Click to expand...

totally agree!
 
Democrats are also poised to keep the majority in the Senate, which means fudge-all when Republicans can filibuster any motions they find unsavory. This whole system needs to be reformed from the ground-up: it's out-dated and all these teabagger constitutionalists are driving this country brick. If anything, they should be going after the Patriot Act, not crying over whether Obama is going to take their guns away. fudging stupid people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back