Obama Vs Romney

TheUsual

MistyCheese wrote: »

I am too engrossed in the upcoming Nepalese election on November 22nd. C'mon Sushil Koirala!!!!

Gotta love Sushil's blaming the Maoists .. a master stroke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2HosYobqo0

brimal

I will definitely be staying up to watch it. I have been following this very closely.

Delighted to see the polls are now favouring Obama again.

Conmaicne Mara

Hope Romney wins.

Paully D

closing_bell wrote: »

were it not for sandy , romney would have won , he still might but i doubt it

Will it not help Romney, given that the areas affected by Sandy were largely Democratic strongholds and the last thing on their minds will be to get out and vote?

Tom_Cruise

Its pretty obvious that Obama is going to win it,but i am intrigued by it all the same.

Remmy

Yep! Im sad enough to admit that It will be the highlight of my week too:D.

coffee_cake

emer_b wrote: »

How is it that for the size of the country they only have 2 candidates running for leadership? I know there's only 2 major parties but talk about not having much choice. Doesn't make for the most interesting campaign when they only have one opponent each to slag off.
I know they have a complicated system of preliminary voting aswell but I still think a 2 horse race is rather dull!

They have more than 2, but they rig it so that only 2 will be the main ones. If Johnson gets 5% this time, he will break the system and be a major candidate for the next go round

Midlife Crashes

Tom_Cruise wrote: »

Its pretty obvious that Obama is going to win it,but i am intrigued by it all the same.

Remmy

Midlife Crashes wrote: »

I know, right? Romney has impeccable hair.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

what's the point in staying up

The results already came out a fortnight ago. .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNTlc3hmgRY

http://digitaljournal.com/article/335286

Who got the other 17%? When those aren't the results will you admit that you're full of ****?

Shryke

closing_bell wrote: »

were it not for sandy , romney would have won , he still might but i doubt it

Complete rubbish and a poor excuse for Romney losing, one you're freely making before the election has happened, which I think says enough in itself. There's always a chance he might win but he probably won't, and it won't be because of a natural disaster, it will be because American people aren't so stupid that they don't see through him.

jupiterjack

oh man just love it, stayed up til 4am last time, could be late sitting next week id say, lucky enough all the swing states are near to the east coast so if results for Ohio and Florida are in early and Obama wins those he has it in the bag, will head to bed then..

closing_bell

Paully D wrote: »

Will it not help Romney, given that the areas affected by Sandy were largely Democratic strongholds and the last thing on their minds will be to get out and vote?

a good point but assuming people will be able to make it to the voting booths , presidents usually get a bounce in the aftermath of national emergencys , that the republican mayor of new jersey has been so flattering towards obama, only adds to the obama bounce

closing_bell

Shryke wrote: »

Complete rubbish and a poor excuse for Romney losing, one you're freely making before the election has happened, which I think says enough in itself. There's always a chance he might win but he probably won't, and it won't be because of a natural disaster, it will be because American people aren't so stupid that they don't see through him.

whoever wins this election , this will be seen as one which the republicans should have won , no president has ever won with unemployment so high

it the economy stupid as bubba once said

Shryke

closing_bell wrote: »

whoever wins this election , this will be seen as one which the republicans should have won , no president has ever won with unemployment so high

it the economy stupid as bubba once said

Someone should have told Obama not to bother at all.
It's a good thing you've got it pegged because a hell of a lot of people who live and breath this stuff wouldn't give you a straight answer. Trends don't dictate specific results. Results create trends.
Some call Romneys campaign the worst in recent history, and it has been a joke for all the world to see. He was in no way a shoe-in before Sandy and still isn't. I can see Romney followers in their droves blaming Sandy for a loss now. Ridiculous.

Celly Smunt

I'll watch ohio and then go to bed.

ConfusedLepton

Any political system without a transferable vote is destined to always devolve to a two-party system. If there are three candidates, A, B and C where A and B are moderate and C is really conservative and popularity of each candidate is 35%, 25% and 40%. This means that 60% of people will vote for a moderate candidate but a conversative candidate, who only got 40% of the overall vote will win. In the next election, the 25% who voted for B last time will vote for A and B will be no more. If you had a transferable vote, i.e. when B is eliminated you get to specify who you'd prefer of the remaining candidates, you can have a viable multi-party system.

Da Shins Kelly

I probably won't be able to stay awake for all of it, but I'll watch a bit of it. Hope Obama takes it. Don't like that Romney.

wp_rathead

Tom_Cruise wrote: »

Its pretty obvious that Obama is going to win it,but i am intrigued by it all the same.

wish I'd your optimism

..America is a straaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaange place

Son Of A Vidic

Shryke wrote: »

I can see Romney followers in their droves blaming Sandy for a loss now. Ridiculous.

Sandy has done the Romney camp no favours and the endorsement Obama got from New Jersey's Republican Governor Chris Christie's was also a blow. But it is important to remember that the states affected by Sandy are Obama states. If turnout is affected by this, then it could really benefit Romney in an already very close race.

K-9

The Irish tallymen usually call their election correct, more than US TV Networks, BBC and all their fancy devices calling theirs.

I think it will be tight but the Obama Presidential reaction to the storm maybe the deciding factor.

RADIUS

Randy Anders wrote: »

2 parties that try and act like they have polar ideas and policies to each other when in actual fact they are pretty much the same. Elusion of choice really

So no, I wont be staying up to watch it!

How are they the same?

Here are some examples of their difference's:

Romney wants to tell China how to run it's economy and sees Russia as the USA's number one enemy . He also wants to invest in a massive navy and start mining coal in the USA like there is literally no tomorrow.

Obama doesn't. He has managed to coax Putin out of the cold war mentality and at least some of the way into 21st century thinking with the nuke deal and knows how to talk brass tax with China without rocking the superpowers boat. He is interested in future energy. Most importantly he knows how to tow the line between idealism and reality. He has done wonders in restoring USA's international image. Anyone who can clean up Bush's catastrophic mess deserves another run.

The two are poles apart. Romney is an opportunistic tycoon stuck in the 80's and Obama is a pragmatic realist with a strong moral compass.


For all their rhetoric, I think It's Obama who is the safe bet who will make sensible decisions and pursue careful reform. If Romney gets elected he's gonna make dramatic bullheaded changes that will see USA at odds with the rest of the world again.

dttq

Couldn't be bothered staying up. I know for a fact I'll be waking up (happily) the morning after the election in the knowledge that Obama is on his 2nd term.

rossie1977

closing_bell wrote: »

no president has ever won with unemployment so high

not true, fdr won re-election with unemployment at 16.6%

reagan won re-election at 7.2%, will be interesting to see figures on day of election given they should come out on monday or tuesday (currently 7.8%)

rossie1977

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Sandy has done the Romney camp no favours and the endorsement Obama got from New Jersey's Republican Governor Chris Christie's was also a blow. But it is important to remember that the states affected by Sandy are Obama states. If turnout is affected by this, then it could really benefit Romney in an already very close race.

sandy means next to nothing really, new york, pa, nj etc will all be blue either way, bookies have been in no doubts about this election for the last 3 months, you could get obama at 1/7 before the debates, he is 1/4 with nearly everyone atm.

Spread

K-9 wrote: »

The Irish tallymen usually call their election correct, more than US TV Networks, BBC and all their fancy devices calling theirs.

I think it will be tight but the Obama Presidential reaction to the storm maybe the deciding factor.

Not according to Vegas. You can get Romney at 2/1. Obama is about 1/3.
Get you dosh on the Irishman

mikemac1

Gary Johnson ftw

Excellent candidate and the big two parties both deserve a kicking

the groutch

K-9 wrote: »

I think it will be tight but the Obama Presidential reaction to the storm maybe the deciding factor.

I was thinking that too, with Sandy being so close to the election, the last thing in alot of people's minds will be how Obama dealt with the aftermath or not, and all the debate/policies may well go out the window.

An Coilean

Paully D wrote: »

Will it not help Romney, given that the areas affected by Sandy were largely Democratic strongholds and the last thing on their minds will be to get out and vote?

Dosen't matter, they are democrat strong holds, even if less people go out to ote, the majority will still be democrat so Obama still takes those states.
Remember given Americas f*cked up eletrocal system, it dosen't matter how many people actually vote for you as long as you get a majority in enough states.

yermandan

Romney = Mick McCarthy with Just for Men