Post: #26

Obama is gonna win 100%. Media makes it seem close to draw in viewers ($$$).

Post: #27

I'm voting for the one who looks more like me. If I am not for myself, who will be? An Obama win just fuels the right wing more though. Might see some real nasty politics in the next decade when the Republicans have realized they can't win the white house anymore.

Post: #28

It sucks not living in a possible swing state. My vote wont matter either way.

Post: #29

I was a professional gambler a few years ago and I have several thousand dollars on this election. Below I have listed the sites I use to base my conclusion (Obama win) on:

First, the sites the bookies use to base their odds on:

Odds Checker

http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/poli...ion/winner

= Has Obama at a decimal rating of 1.44 to win. This equals a 69.44% chance to win.

Bet Fair

http://sports.betfair.com/politics/marke...20election

= Has Obama at a decimal rating of 1.45 to win. This equals a 68.97% chance to win.

Second, the online trading exchange market, Intrade:

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contra...tId=743474

= Has Obama at a 62.4% chance to win.

Third, Nate Silver's fiveeightythree blog:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

= Has Obama at a 72% chance to win.

The reason I trust Nate Silver's methodology over that of individual polls is because he uses a conglomeration of all available polls and due to the fact that in the 2008 election he predicted 50 out of 50 states right with only ONE electoral college vote incorrect; and in 2010 he predicted 49 out of 50 states right in the general election. Also, his methodology of collecting stats has been adapted by both MLB and the NFL.

A lot of people very confident about a Romney win (including on this site) but very few willing to put their $ where their mouth is.

By the way, I'm still open for bets.

Post: #30

You want the gloves off?

Here are the gloves off.

Barack Obama is a narcissistic, petulant, not-very-bright hypocrite, who utters vacuous and substance-less platitudes. The suit couldn't be emptier if the guy dressed in outer space (though he does look good in a suit, 40 long is my guess; he has a post political career as a Ralph Lauren or Benneton model).

Like most leftists, he has zero understanding of economics and business reality. He has never run anything -- and, sorry, being President of the Harvard Law Review doesn't count. The only thing he has accomplished in his life is to write two books about his favorite subject -- himself.

He has no idea how to be a leader or an executive. He caricatures and demonizes the other side, and fails to address their arguments, instead demonizing the opposition, as he does in this interview and with his snarky, mocking remarks, superficial sarcasm and overall campaign of dispositives.

His favorite rhetorical trope is the straw man/false choice. He lies, his misleads, he mischaracterizes, he demagogues.

Bottom line, he is a tiny small man, a hack Chicago politician. who not only has no business being President, but no business being, say, the chairman of a county mosquito abatement board.

Post: #31

Its entertaining how Fox and MSNBC differ on how they see the race.. From watching Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews you would be convinced Obama has already been re-elected by the polls they showed.. just watched the replay of Hannity and he is equally confident the polls indicate Romney... I guess there are just a ton of polls that you can pick and choose from that support your narrative

Post: #32

(10-25-2012 09:41 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  I was a professional gambler a few years ago and I have several thousand dollars on this election. Below I have listed the sites I use to base my conclusion (Obama win) on:

First, the sites the bookies use to base their odds on:

Odds Checker

http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/poli...ion/winner

= Has Obama at a decimal rating of 1.44 to win. This equals a 69.44% chance to win.

Bet Fair

http://sports.betfair.com/politics/marke...20election

= Has Obama at a decimal rating of 1.45 to win. This equals a 68.97% chance to win.

Second, the online trading exchange market, Intrade:

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contra...tId=743474

= Has Obama at a 62.4% chance to win.

Third, Nate Silver's fiveeightythree blog:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

= Has Obama at a 72% chance to win.

The reason I trust Nate Silver's methodology over that of individual polls is because he uses a conglomeration of all available polls and due to the fact that in the 2008 election he predicted 50 out of 50 states right with only ONE electoral college vote incorrect; and in 2010 he predicted 49 out of 50 states right in the general election. Also, his methodology of collecting stats has been adapted by both MLB and the NFL.

A lot of people very confident about a Romney win (including on this site) but very few willing to put their $ where their mouth is.

By the way, I'm still open for bets.

If you are thinking of me, let's get one thing straight. I am not "confident" about a Romney win, though I think his odds are better than 33-66.

Oh, by the way...ex-professional gambler, will you give odds? Say 3-1? That might be interesting.

Nate Silver -- the darling analyzer of the east coast elite -- love it.

So I take it you don't look at these guys.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/20...university

Post: #33

(10-25-2012 11:02 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  Bottom line, he is a tiny small man, a hack Chicago politician. but no business being, say, the chairman of a county mosquito abatement board.

So, a guy who isn't qualified to catch mosquitoes was able to catch and kill Bin Laden, while the last Republic president spent 7 years trying to catch him and eventually just gave up saying that OBL wasn't that important anyway? OK. I guess that says a lot about the competence of Republicans.

Post: #34

(10-25-2012 11:25 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 11:02 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  Bottom line, he is a tiny small man, a hack Chicago politician. but no business being, say, the chairman of a county mosquito abatement board.

So, a guy who isn't qualified to catch mosquitoes was able to catch and kill Bin Laden, while the last Republic president spent 7 years trying to catch him and eventually just gave up saying that OBL wasn't that important anyway? OK. I guess that says a lot about the competence of Republicans.

I'd love to see the video of him jumping out of the helicopter storming the bin Laden compound.

Post: #35

[quote='Roosh' pid='294567' dateline='1351217173']
Obama is gonna win 100%. Media makes it seem close to draw in viewers ($$$).
It ain't over till the fat lady sings............oh wait I forgot Ilive in the US. Carry on

Post: #36

(10-25-2012 11:42 PM)Katatonic Wrote:  I'd love to see the video of him jumping out of the helicopter storming the bin Laden compound.

You mean like Bush in his flight suit with a Mission Accomplished banner behind him?

OBL was killed on Obama's watch. You can spin it how ever you want. Bush couldn't do it, Obama did.

Post: #37

(10-25-2012 11:45 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 11:42 PM)Katatonic Wrote:  I'd love to see the video of him jumping out of the helicopter storming the bin Laden compound.

You mean like Bush in his flight suit with a Mission Accomplished banner behind him?

OBL was killed on Obama's watch. You can spin it how ever you want. Bush couldn't do it, Obama did.

The Obama cheerleading is looking rather pathetic now. Both candidates are liars. Lot's of shit happens on a president's watch. It doesn't mean they had much to do with it.

Post: #38

Obama is right, Romney is a bullshitter. Just being a politician is a qualifier of bullshittery. Problem is that Obama is a big bullshitter himself. Let's take a look back at his 2008 campaign and list a few of the promises he had made:

He pledged to fight pork-barrel spending, and go line by line through any bill he signs. He broke that immediately with the Omnibus bill which was packed with earmarks.

He promised an immediate withdrawal of our troops in Iraq, then promised one within 6 months, then decided to stick to the Bush administrations plan, and now to this day we have nearly 20,000 mercenaries in Iraq who we're footing the bill for. Yes fellas, Obama is paying a corporation to fight his wars.

He promised to stop one form of cronyism by ending no-bid contracts, which he now happily hands out to his donors. He was real vocal on his soapbox about that one(which he should've been), so too bad he can't take his own advice.

Promised to restore public trust by running a transparent administration. There are non-partisan watchdog groups saying his administration is the least transparent in memory. If you doubt that, take a look at the Benghazi debacle unfolding right now.

Speaking of Libya. Obama rightfully accused Bush of wantonly starting wars of aggression, yet attacks a sovereign nation, and supplies weapons to Islamic militants, who then turn around and use those weapons against us. I guess Fast and Furious imparted no lessons to his administration.

I could go on and on. Just to be honest though, I'm not voting for Romney either. We don't need more of the same bullshit.

Post: #39

(10-25-2012 11:58 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 11:45 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 11:42 PM)Katatonic Wrote:  I'd love to see the video of him jumping out of the helicopter storming the bin Laden compound.

You mean like Bush in his flight suit with a Mission Accomplished banner behind him?

OBL was killed on Obama's watch. You can spin it how ever you want. Bush couldn't do it, Obama did.

The Obama cheerleading is looking rather pathetic now. Both candidates are liars. Lot's of shit happens on a president's watch. It doesn't mean they had much to do with it.

If it bothers you, ignore it. Nobody is forcing you to read or reply to these threads.

Post: #40

(10-25-2012 04:14 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 03:52 PM)Scarlet_Terror Wrote:  Hugo Chavez is a corrupt shitbag who is destroying his country's ecnomy with his massive nationalization schemes. Figures the left would idolize a dictator like that. Prez4life.

That's why he keeps winning legitimate elections that are cleaner, fairer, and more verifiable than US elections.

Our system--where corporations own everything and everyone in the government--is far more corrupt. Especially because we live under the illusion that it's the paragon of "freedom."

Venezuela was a money-concentrated-in-a-few-hands shithole before Chavez came around--basically an extreme version of the way the US is going. Ain't nothing wrong with spreading the wealth a bit for the betterment of society as a whole (no one, for example, benefits from a bunch of sick-ass people in the street). You can't impose your North American, right-wing celebration of plutocracy on South American, post-colonial realities.

All of the anti-Chavez propaganda originates from these powerful and vocal former oligarchs, who remain rich, but whose cash flow slowed down slightly. US elites, meanwhile, are becoming increasing anxious of the growing ascendancy of South American republics. I love how presidents in this country call Chavez a dictator, when he was more legitimately elected than they were--with bigger mandates and margins.

Stop repeating the shaky-or-no-evidence anti-Chavez propaganda. You're doing the bidding of elites who are pissed their 500-year golden age is coming to an end.

Having spent some time in Venezuela, I have never seen a place more corrupt. At the ground level at least. Police and military are corrupt as shit, with no punishment for abusing their power. I don't know about the governments corruption, but Venezuela is going downhill hard. Their crime is skyrocketing. Who else can be blamed for that other than the man who has been in office while all this has happened. Venezuela used to be a really nice place.

Post: #41

Obama has the media by the balls again. This article shows that by the way they were focusing on Obama more than Romney himself. And thats a good thing.

People want to tag Obama as beta because of how he usually acts. You can't be Alpha all the time. You can't expect him to win by expressing that he's a man. And especially when you're trying to run a country filled with fat feminists and Betas all around.

But then again who in politics doesn't bullshit?

Who cares, vote for Obama so I can keep having financial aid.

Post: #42

(10-26-2012 01:01 AM)Rosca Wrote:  Obama has the media by the balls again. This article shows that by the way they were focusing on Obama more than Romney himself. And thats a good thing.

People want to tag Obama as beta because of how he usually acts. You can't be Alpha all the time. You can't expect him to win by expressing that he's a man. And especially when you're trying to run a country filled with fat feminists and Betas all around.

But then again who in politics doesn't bullshit?

Who cares, vote for Obama so I can keep having financial aid.

Seriously, get it while you can. It's going to be Monopoly money soon anyway.

Post: #43

(10-25-2012 11:18 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  Nate Silver -- the darling analyzer of the east coast elite -- love it.

So I take it you don't look at these guys.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/20...university

You know what's so annoying about you people? Your fragile egos cannot cope with not having the last the word. And you all act like a bunch of 23 year old bitches when you let your rationalization hamsters run wild. Case in point. The segment of your post that I just quoted. You dismiss Nate Silver and act though he lacks credibility. WTF don't you understand about the fact that this guy's predictions have been shockingly accurate for 3 or 4 election cycles now? Who gives a fuck if the media likes the guy? Well, who else besides you and the rest of your magic underwear worshiping ilk? Seriously dude, who gives a fuck? Does it change the fact that the guy is accurate probably over 90% of the time? Please answer. Please let your hamster run free.

And who the fuck are these people from the Univ. of Colorado? You link one fucking article without a single table, graph, chart, etc, and decide that it's better than a guy who's maintained a website for several years and updates his info 2-3 times daily during the peak of the campaign season? Where can I find proof of past accurate predictions they've made? What you posted isn't weak sauce, it's just weak. Did you find this source courtesy of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck?

Post: #44

Obama is going to win and he should. He's better, but that doesn't mean he's good. Obama is both the product and the servant of a fucked up system. Elections are a sham. And he's a mere figure. Corporations call the shots and they decide who goes where and when, which is part of the reason Obama is powerless to fix all of the problems like people want him to. Even if he did want to, and was capable of doing it, he's up against 535 other guys who have their own corporate masters.

The system's true genius doesn't lie there, though. It lies on us distractedly fighting over Romney-Obama, or complaining about food stamps and other petty shit, while the mega wealthy (and their inside-men in congress) continue to rob us blind and ship our jobs abroad and spend your precious tax dollars on bullshit. "Obama's a socialist-fascist-muslim Manchurian anti-Christ." Keep talking, that's what the .01% want you distracted with while they continue to clean up.

I'm not talking about no "small business" (who gets fucked like the rest of us), I'm talking about the mega-rich. This country and economy ain't for you. It's designed to have you pay into a system to benefit them.

STOP. BLAMING. OBAMA. He's not the problem. It's much-much bigger than that.

Post: #45

(10-25-2012 04:14 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 03:52 PM)Scarlet_Terror Wrote:  Hugo Chavez is a corrupt shitbag who is destroying his country's ecnomy with his massive nationalization schemes. Figures the left would idolize a dictator like that. Prez4life.

That's why he keeps winning legitimate elections that are cleaner, fairer, and more verifiable than US elections.

Our system--where corporations own everything and everyone in the government--is far more corrupt. Especially because we live under the illusion that it's the paragon of "freedom."

Venezuela was a money-concentrated-in-a-few-hands shithole before Chavez came around--basically an extreme version of the way the US is going. Ain't nothing wrong with spreading the wealth a bit for the betterment of society as a whole (no one, for example, benefits from a bunch of sick-ass people in the street). You can't impose your North American, right-wing celebration of plutocracy on South American, post-colonial realities.

All of the anti-Chavez propaganda originates from these powerful and vocal former oligarchs, who remain rich, but whose cash flow slowed down slightly. US elites, meanwhile, are becoming increasing anxious of the growing ascendancy of South American republics. I love how presidents in this country call Chavez a dictator, when he was more legitimately elected than they were--with bigger mandates and margins.

Stop repeating the shaky-or-no-evidence anti-Chavez propaganda. You're doing the bidding of elites who are pissed their 500-year golden age is coming to an end.

Two Questions.

If the U.S. elections are, by your admission, so dirty, crooked, and unverifiable in comparison to the great, free and prosperous nation of Venezuela, then you must admit that Obama cheated to get elected the first time. Therefore, since you are an ardent Obama supporter, are you not, a supporter of dirty, crooked elections/politics?

How many elections/years have you lived through under Chavez (and previous regimes for comparative purposes) to base your opinon that (a) elections are so free and fair in Venezuela, and (b) Chavez has been a good thing for Venezuela?

Post: #46

Yeah, I don't get that.

For instance, Chavez's strangle-hold on the media meant that he received enormous amounts of face-time on TV, whereas his opponent received very little time.

Yet, in spite of all the efforts of Chavez to prevent it, he still won a decent size of the vote.

30 opposition parties united to oppose Chavez's socialist party.

Chavez spends his time trying to get Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua, Russia and other dubious leaders to unite against the United States - for its own sake.

The only reason Venzuela has not collapsed is because of huge oil revenues. Yet in spite of the best possible circumstances to improve the social well-being of venezuelas poor, Venezuela's economy has been on a downward trajetory for years with a fiat currency that is under increasing pressure.

It's really amazing that a guy who could figure out how to maximize his chances with women and improve his game can reach such a mind-boggling illogical and stupid conclusion on the merits of Chavez. Even if I agree with the need for more redistribution of wealth, I can see that the way they do it in Latin America is not a good way to do it.

As for Nate Silver's model...

I'm not so sure. He for instance underestimated the scale of the Republican landslide in 2010 by 16 percent. In addition, there has been criticism of his model weights. It seems arbitrary.

It seems to boil down to whether Obama can energize his base. If he suceeds, Obama could carry Ohio and win. So it hinges on Ohio. I'd still say Obama's the favorite, but it's going to be close - and the odds against Romney are so high in betting scenarios, if I did have cash, I'd definitely bet a few hundred on a Romney victory - fuck, I should've bought his stock back when he was down at 20 percent chance on InTrades.

Post: #47

Obama is a center-left candidate and Romney is a center-right candidate. One of the reasons that the rhetoric is dialed up so high right now is that the actual policies of both parties are pretty close to each other.

This is Coke vs Pepsi. I'm a little surprised that so many people here buy into this whole "most important election in forever" bullshit that partisans are peddling. The next four years will look pretty much the same no matter who wins.

As for the idea that this is not a real democracy, what does a real democracy look like? There's a logical fallacy at work here. It goes something like this. Democracy is good. Democracy gives is good results. We are not getting good results. Therefore, we must not have a real democracy.

Our democracy functions pretty much how a democracy ought to function. Corporations don't call the shots, but they do get involved in politics. When the government passes so many laws that can either hurt or help a business, of course corporations are going to show up in Washington and try to influence the outcome. It is perfectly rational. If you want less corporate influence in politics, give the government less money and less influence.

Post: #48

Im also a little surprised about he support for Chavez, who is unequivocally a scumbag. This guy is a "socialist," because w came to understand a long time ago that socialism was his ticket to power. I'm sure that he doles out a lot of money and services to the poor, but in the process he is using public money to promote himself. Brazil has a lot of social spending, but Lula didn't use it to turn himself into a virtual dictator.

Post: #49

http://www.thenation.com/blog/170843/oba...irst-time#





3/10 would not BANG

Post: #50

(10-25-2012 11:58 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 11:45 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 11:42 PM)Katatonic Wrote:  I'd love to see the video of him jumping out of the helicopter storming the bin Laden compound.

You mean like Bush in his flight suit with a Mission Accomplished banner behind him?

OBL was killed on Obama's watch. You can spin it how ever you want. Bush couldn't do it, Obama did.

The Obama cheerleading is looking rather pathetic now. Both candidates are liars. Lot's of shit happens on a president's watch. It doesn't mean they had much to do with it.

Speaking of Obama Cheerleading