I'd have bet on the popular vote. I think the polls being shown by the Republicans are using demographics which mean they're no longer as accurate a sample of the whole country as they could be, and I think incumbent governments in general enjoy a 1-2% boost as the day gets closer and voters who previously threatened to go somewhere else "come home".

 

I think it'll be close, but Obama will win the popular vote by 1 or 2%.

 

Unless Obama does something drastically wrong today or tomorrow, or unless Mitt Romney finds proof he is actually God amongst us, the EC is as good as decided already. Romney simply hasn't made enough progress in swing states he needs to win.

So just to confirm, ItsASpork. We're wagering our signatures for the two months following the election - from November 7th to January 7th. I'm betting that Mitt Romney will receive more total votes than Barack Obama, and you're betting that Barack Obama will receive more total votes than Mitt Romney. Keep in mind the signature must follow forum rules.

[hide]

2.4 - Signatures and Avatars

Forum Signature Limits are 500 pixels wide by 250 pixels high by 150Kb file size. There is a 10 image limit to a signature, but the combined dimensions/file size of all the images may not exceed 500 x 250 pixels x 150Kb. Avatar limits are 100 pixels wide by 100 pixels high, by 100Kb file size. Images in hide tags are still subject to our size restrictions. For signatures with images (regardless of size or how many) there will be a limit of 4 lines of text or 10 lines of text if you put them inside a hide tag. Each use of quote tags counts as one line of text in addition to the number of lines being quoted. In the case of signatures without images, please exercise common sense with the amount used. Excessive text in an imageless signature and other excessive or disruptive images or text will be removed at a moderator's discretion.

 

We do not permit religious, racial or sexual references/proclamations in signatures or avatars, this includes images and text. Quotes made by religious figures are allowable in signatures if the name is removed and the content of the quote does not promote or demote any religion. Religious, racial and sexual orientation content is permitted in the About Me section of profiles only, as long as the content is not bashing another religion/race/sexual orientation or advertising conversion.

 

All other Tip.it Forum Rules apply in signatures, avatars and profiles (including the About Me section). However, the board Administrators reserve the right for final authorization and may approve, request you to change, or outright remove any image or text regardless of size, especially if it's deemed inappropriate.[/hide]

• 
   
  

I'm going to ask that you post your signature on Tuesday, and I'll do the same. Let me know if there's any other conditions you'd like on the bet.

 

 

 

Also Range, are you willing to take me up on the avatar bet?

I think people like Ron Paul because he's different. I don't necessarily agree with his policies but I think it would be interesting to have a radically different president.

 

It's a moot point anyway, it wouldn't surprise me if RP retires completely before 2016.

I would also bet on Mitt Romney winning.

http://cafehayek.com/2012/11/whos-going-to-win.html

On the subject of polls...

 

BTW, I feel like a vote for people who have no chance of winning is wasted.

I kind of agree, but when you have so many voters one vote is so insignificant that you might as well vote for who you actually like.

This brings up the question:

 

If you're voting for either Obama or Romney simply because you consider both of them to be "evil," but the one you're voting for is the lesser of two evils... then does it make more sense to vote for a candidate who isn't "evil" in the first place and therefore quit supporting the ridiculous two-party winner-take-all system?

I really want to know who in their right mind wants to be a Third Party candidate. :?

 

 

This brings up the question:

 

If you're voting for either Obama or Romney simply because you consider both of them to be "evil," but the one you're voting for is the lesser of two evils... then does it make more sense to vote for a candidate who isn't "evil" in the first place and therefore quit supporting the ridiculous two-party winner-take-all system?

Or just not vote, like I did.

I don't vote either :P

This brings up the question:

 

If you're voting for either Obama or Romney simply because you consider both of them to be "evil," but the one you're voting for is the lesser of two evils... then does it make more sense to vote for a candidate who isn't "evil" in the first place and therefore quit supporting the ridiculous two-party winner-take-all system?

 

Well, it depends how much "lesser" the "lesser" is - and how much of a chance the "greater" has of actually being elected.

Well in this case, do you think that there will really be much of a difference depending on who's elected?

I think electoral reform is what's required to get closer to democracy, and that who you vote for will have little impact on that.

If I were a betting person, my money would be on Obama winning the popular vote and presidency both. It should be close, but I don't really have any doubts anymore that Obama is going to win.

 

Thinking 52-54% for Obama.

This is not a two-party system, it's just that the majority of people do not vote for other candidates. In the 2012 election, we have the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and Justice parties as well as the Democratic and Republican parties. The ideologues in those parties scare me more than most Democratic or Republican candidates.

If I were a betting person, my money would be on Obama winning the popular vote and presidency both. It should be close, but I don't really have any doubts anymore that Obama is going to win.

 

Thinking 52-54% for Obama.

 

Not if us Bob Doleans can help it. Bob Dole.

This is not a two-party system, it's just that the majority of people do not vote for other candidates. In the 2012 election, we have the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and Justice parties as well as the Democratic and Republican parties. The ideologues in those parties scare me more than most Democratic or Republican candidates.

It's effectively a two-party system because you might as well not vote if you're going to vote for the smaller parties, so people settle. Transferable voting would be better.

For the most part, the people I run into that are apathetic because they don't like the R or D candidates complain and never actually do anything about it. Essentially they say, "yeah it's [bleep]ed up," and leave it at that; coming out once every two or four years to express their disdain for the electoral process. Every political system is flawed and I don't think that ours is broken to the point of total overhaul.

You have to wonder whether those people are really that disdainful of the two main parties, or whether they've simply failed to engage with politics at all, and refused to accept that governing itself entails compromise because you need to work with people, not against them. I've not yet come across a political manifesto that's been completely fulfilled--I vote for the party whose manifesto best reflects my personal views, in full knowledge they probably won't be able to carry those promises out to their entirety, but will probably follow them in that general direction.

I think there's some difference between obama and romney....not that I'd vote for either. Canadian ftw :D

For the most part, the people I run into that are apathetic because they don't like the R or D candidates complain and never actually do anything about it. Essentially they say, "yeah it's [bleep]ed up," and leave it at that; coming out once every two or four years to express their disdain for the electoral process. Every political system is flawed and I don't think that ours is broken to the point of total overhaul.

At what point is a system flawed enough to require overhaul then?

I'm not sure I can come up with an arbitrary list of things that need to happen before our government is labelled a total failure. I don't know if anyone can in good faith--although I bet some Tea Party activists would say we are in the days of Armageddon. Besides, if the situation is bad enough for total overhaul, it must also be bad enough for small reform. I believe more in small reform than wholesale change.

 

By the way, I got to see former president Bill Clinton speak at my University last night. I waited two hours in line to see him, but he was absolutely exceptional. One of the last great orators left.

On September 12th, 2012, Obama refused to call the attack a terrorist attack.

CBS just released previously editted footage from 60 minutes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50134495n

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cbs-releases-previously-withheld-60-minutes-interview-segment-in-which-obama-refuses-to-call-benghazi-a-terrorist-attack/

If you dislike the two-party system and couldn't care less which of the two candidates wins(though I don't see how you couldn't care at all), you should still vote for some candidate. Assuming enough people are doing the same thing, it would lead to more discussion about the system and potentially lead to a reform.

 

Not voting does nothing. Are you really that indifferent about what happens to your government?

^

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/economist-gordon-tullock-makes-the-case-for-not-voting/

 

In any case I can't vote, be it in the US or in Canada.

 

I'm not sure I can come up with an arbitrary list of things that need to happen before our government is labelled a total failure. I don't know if anyone can in good faith--although I bet some Tea Party activists would say we are in the days of Armageddon. Besides, if the situation is bad enough for total overhaul, it must also be bad enough for small reform. I believe more in small reform than wholesale change.

Fair enough, I'm not opposed to that. I don't know exactly what you mean by "small change", so we might even be on the same wavelength.

I think there's some difference between obama and romney....not that I'd vote for either. Canadian ftw

I think I'd prefer Obama to Harper.

 

It will be bad enough for an overhaul when the people rise up and seize power by force, because that is probably the only way it will ever happen. I am going to guess that since the founding fathers went out of their way to create a democratic system without the power of an actual democracy, that they probably installed some kind of legal barrier to government reform, though I'm not sure about electoral reform. Besides, you can have as many parties as you want (that isn't something that needs changing), you just don't vote for them. You can't exactly legislate that (at least not if you want to be democratic about it).

 

If you ask me, you need to change your system to acknowledge air travel. There is no reason it still needs to take 6 months, because the candidates no longer visit every state by horse.