Post: #1

Which state will fuck up the election

1) FL
2) OH
3) CO
4) VA
5) Other

Post: #2

Should have made a choice for:

"all of the above".

Post: #3

Here is intrade as of 9:30pm cdt, I will update tomorrow morning around 9am cdt

Post: #4

If it's any state at all it's most likely gonna be Ohio. It's the decisive state in 50% of the 538 simulations. If this thing ends in a recount OH will probably be ground zero for the ensuing shitstorm.

I think it's more likely that Obama will win with some EVs to spare though. Maybe not too many but the most likely scenario is that he takes IA, VA, NH and CO once OH has already gotten him to 270 which would give Barry 303 EVs. If the polls are systematically biased against Romney by about 3 points, though, this could get real ugly real fast in Ohio.

Post: #5

(11-05-2012 10:36 PM)chyamor Wrote:  Here is intrade as of 9:30pm cdt, I will update tomorrow morning around 9am cdt

Don't believe the hype. Romney will win.

Mark Twain, "If you don't listen to the media you are uninformed, if you do listen to the media you are misinformed." The mainstream media always pushes the illusion of an inevitable Democrat victory.

Post: #6

I am over remote desktop so cant do a screen shot but CO is now light blue with a 72% change of obama winning tonight

Post: #7

Florida and Ohio. lol

Post: #8

Democrats lead early polling, then the Republicans get off work.

Post: #9

Also, Florida is gonna screw up their election. Their Governor is a crook and most of the people are too functionally illiterate to understand the 11 constitutional amendments on the ballot.

Post: #10

So, what is your prediction as to the time we will know who won?

Should know by 12:00AM EST.

Post: #11

All the swing states are in the Mid-West or EST.

So I'm thinking around 1AM we have a pretty clear idea, maybe even 12AM.

Post: #12

Every state that has a Republican SOS. These guys are fascist assholes.

Post: #13

I'm surprised this forum has so many sniveling nanny-staters considering that's the ideology of feminists and man-haters.

Post: #14

(11-06-2012 12:38 PM)Scarlet_Terror Wrote:  I'm surprised this forum has so many sniveling nanny-staters considering that's the ideology of feminists and man-haters.

Really?

I am surprised this forum has so many male cheerleaders, male cheerleader lovers, and conservative closet homosexuals.

Not to mention people from shit hole, worthless red states.

Consider us both surprised.

Post: #15

Quote:many male cheerleaders, male cheerleader lovers

What does that have to do with feminism and PUA stuff? My comment was germaine.

Quote:shit hole, worthless red states.

Agreed.

Post: #16

(11-06-2012 12:41 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(11-06-2012 12:38 PM)Scarlet_Terror Wrote:  I'm surprised this forum has so many sniveling nanny-staters considering that's the ideology of feminists and man-haters.

Really?

I am surprised this forum has so many male cheerleaders, male cheerleader lovers, and conservative closet homosexuals.

Not to mention people from shit hole, worthless red states.

Consider us both surprised.

G...u crack me up man. your lyrical stylings and poetic beatdowns never cease to give me a chuckle.

+1 clack a grit.

Post: #17

(11-06-2012 12:41 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Really?

I am surprised this forum has so many who think it's a badge of honor to believe in the party of Femcunts like Nancy Pelosi and Stephanie Cutter, and actually vote for characters who cheer on the emasculating nanny state whose sole purposes are to (a) satisfy the barren emotional needs of beta dependents and (b) "empower" women.

Not to mention people from shit hole, worthless and bankrupt BLUE states.

Consider us both surprised.

Here ya go...fixed.

Post: #18

looks like we have issues in PA

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/watch...ction.html

Post: #19

Are we really playing this game again? Let's just clear this up.

1. BOTH parties have supporters we could consider less than tolerable, so playing the "you're on the same side as (insert intolerable sect here)" game is not productive.

On the left, you have hardcore gender feminists and extreme, idealistic progressives with no touch on reality.
On the right, you've got racists and traditional-conservatives who pedestalize women, would strongly disapprove of sites like these and are also distanced from reality.

You can point to the left and say "look, there are sniveling liberal nanny-staters on your side!", and lament the fact that somebody would vote on that side.
Then you can point to the right and say "look at all the racists and delusional religious wingnuts on your side!", and lament the fact that somebody would vote on that side.

Nobody wins, and who you prefer is simply a matter of which kind of intolerable folk you dislike less. Folks will come out on different sides of the aisle as they take this into account and make their own call, but nobody has a moral high ground.

2. Tenderman, the reality is that those Blue states host most of the economic centers in this country. If you divided the USA into two nations today (blue vs. red), the blue nation would be the much wealthier and more developed one, and red states would be in some serious financial trouble.

Granted, this does not mean that all red states are the "worthless, bankrupt shitholes" that G called them, but it certainly precludes any notion that the Blue states are worthless.

Post: #20

what happens to Romney if he losses? Can he go back into politics? Run for governor? ?

Post: #21

(11-06-2012 02:03 PM)chyamor Wrote:  what happens to Romney if he losses? Can he go back into politics? Run for governor? ?

I think he is done with politics if he loses. I mean, he could go back into politics but I seriously doubt it.

Post: #22

(11-06-2012 01:50 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  Granted, this does not mean that all red states are the "worthless, bankrupt shitholes" that G called them, but it certainly precludes any notion that the Blue states are worthless.

Yes it does.

Name one decent city that is red?

The only decent cities in red states are Blue ie New Orleans, Miami, Austin etc.

And the only part of blue states that suck are red ie the shitty parts of CA, the shitty parts of FL, the shitty parts of PA, the shitty parts of...

Would you ever choose to go to a red state or red city for vacation? Of course not.

How are the beaches and the waves in red states?

(11-06-2012 02:03 PM)chyamor Wrote:  what happens to Romney if he losses? Can he go back into politics? Run for governor? ?

Male Cheerleader for the Utah Jazz.

Post: #23

(11-06-2012 11:44 AM)ManAbout Wrote:  Every state that has a Republican SOS. These guys are fascist assholes.

This. Support whomever you want, but these Republican SOS have been up to some shady business. I'm really interested in how things will play out in Ohio with Jon Husted. You can tell by looking at the man he's got bad intentions.

Post: #24

(11-06-2012 01:50 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  Are we really playing this game again? Let's just clear this up.

1. BOTH parties have supporters we could consider less than tolerable, so playing the "you're on the same side as (insert intolerable sect here)" game is not productive.

On the left, you have hardcore gender feminists and extreme, idealistic progressives with no touch on reality.
On the right, you've got racists and traditional-conservatives who pedestalize women, would strongly disapprove of sites like these and are also distanced from reality.

You can point to the left and say "look, there are sniveling liberal nanny-staters on your side!", and lament the fact that somebody would vote on that side.
Then you can point to the right and say "look at all the racists and delusional religious wingnuts on your side!", and lament the fact that somebody would vote on that side.

Nobody wins, and who you prefer is simply a matter of which kind of intolerable folk you dislike less. Folks will come out on different sides of the aisle as they take this into account and make their own call, but nobody has a moral high ground.

2. Tenderman, the reality is that those Blue states host most of the economic centers in this country. If you divided the USA into two nations today (blue vs. red), the blue nation would be the much wealthier and more developed one, and red states would be in some serious financial trouble.

Granted, this does not mean that all red states are the "worthless, bankrupt shitholes" that G called them, but it certainly precludes any notion that the Blue states are worthless.

Two things.

First, the leftist wing of the Democratic Party, which is the wing that has taken over, are generally speaking ashamed of the USA and generally anti-business/anti-capitalist, are fiscally irresponsible, and buy into decadent social viewpoints such as feminism, and nanny statism. On the other hand, the Republican party at least has SOME individuals who believe in fiscal responsibility, are in fact proud of the USA and capitalism in general, even as a certain wing of the party contains social troglodytes.

Given that equation, which side is the better choice? Especially given the fact that a lot of the "progress" in gender terms, and real progress in racial terms, can't be undone? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Second, the two bluest states in the Union are California and Illinois. Even though each has great urban centers, both states are effectively bankrupt. Why? Blue policies.

QED.

Post: #25

(11-06-2012 04:06 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  Two things.

First, the leftist wing of the Democratic Party, which is the wing that has taken over, are generally speaking ashamed of the USA and generally anti-business/anti-capitalist, are fiscally irresponsible, and buy into decadent social viewpoints such as feminism, and nanny statism.

And the reverse:

The right wing of the Republican Party, which is the wing that has taken over, are generally speaking anti-diversity, anti-female choice (read: bad news for many guys like us), anti-game, and buy into outdated social viewpoints based on outdated religious principle, xenophobia and racism.

See how easy that was?

It isn't hard to paint each side with a shit-covered brush.

Quote:On the other hand, the Republican party at least has SOME individuals who believe in fiscal responsibility, are in fact proud of the USA and capitalism in general, even as a certain wing of the party contains social troglodytes.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party at least has SOME individuals who believe in diversity, are tolerant of different racial/ethnic groups, and concerned about social welfare/justice and the less fortunate among us, even as a certain wing of the party contains delusional ideologues and hedonists.

See, I did it again!

Quote:Given that equation, which side is the better choice? Especially given the fact that a lot of the "progress" in gender terms, and real progress in racial terms, can't be undone?

Not so sure I buy that last bit there. Given the right circumstances it wouldn't be too difficult to roll back many aspects of gender/racial progress. Some would argue that it has happened already.

Quote:Seems like a no-brainer to me.

The bolded is crucial, as your entire perspective depends on how heavily you weigh certain issues (ex: fiscal/business/patriotism vs. social/religious/cultural/racial).

An individual can come along and reverse your perspective and still have a valid point. There's nothing strictly objective here, and there are no winners beyond the individual scale.

Quote:Second, the two bluest states in the Union are California and Illinois. Even though each has great urban centers, both states are effectively bankrupt. Why? Blue policies.

Don't forget their subsidization of the rest of the (mostly red) country.