2012 U.S. Presidential Election

I'm inclined to agree (but I still think Obama takes VA due to trends and demographics). It's a similar election with Romney the new Kerry. I think Iowa is more likely to go red than Nevada at this point though.

This site isn't perfect (and has inverted colors) but is a convenient aggregate of the polls.

That site has far too many polls, as most aggregates do including RCP, from before Romney "clinched" his division. Romney has shot up 20 points among Republicans since Santorum left the race.

Right now, state polls are shitty and the head to head is probably more indicative of the race and Romney has nicked away about eight points there this year. There's probably a pythag formula you can do with the margin to get the "wins" expected.*

The problem with Virginia is that, yes, Obama won there in a strong 2008 as did Warner in 2008 and Webb in 2006, but since then the Democrats have been obliterated. McDonnell won by nearly 20 points (and despite going after abortion still has an approval gap this high), they reclaimed the Senate and went from a bare majority in the House to a veto-proof majority. There's a reason Jim Webb isn't running for re-election and why George Allen thinks he has a good shot at getting his seat back.

Nevada has a good number of mormons but you could be right about Iowa.

Election Atlas has "inverted colors" because of when it started. (1992 I believe) It used to be that "red = challenging party, blue = incumbent party" and all the networks would switch this accordingly. But after the 2000 race the whole red state/blue state meme got so ingrained that they didn't switch in 2004 and here we are. (Even though red is more often associated with "the Left" globally.)

*Using 5 as the exponent:

Code:

2012   294-244   1.7
2008   363-175   7.2
2004   237-301   -2.4
2000   276-262   0.5
1996   388-150   8.5
1992   358-180   5.5
1988   169-369   -7.7
1984   73-465   -18.2
1980   138-400   -9.7
1976   298-240   2.1

Last edited by benji on Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:07 am, edited 2 times in total.

I just saw this.I liked it.

0z1.jpg

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

phpBB [video]

Newt's out, and damn it benji, you've won me over on Virginia (and I had a feeling you'd understand the red/blue thing though I didn't know the change was that recent)

Do you prefer Mitt? I prefer Obama due to social issues (though Mitt's taken both sides on almost all of them) and my own personal economic interests (I made so little last year that I didn't have to file taxes) but I'll probably vote third party because while I'm a nerd and love presidential elections, I'm fairly apathetic about the result (and if Obama loses Washington, he's lost in a landslide)

I prefer Gary Johnson. Though I have a sinking feeling he's not going to get the nomination. The fact it's on May 6th is foreboding.

I can't prefer Obama because I can't think of a single reason he should continue as President. Especially when he campaigned in 2008 as going lenient on medical marijuana, cutting down on civil liberties violations, opposing a individual insurance mandate (he said if it was a good idea we should just mandate everyone buy a house to end homelessness) and stop using executive orders to circumvent checks and balances. Instead as President he has escalated the vile war on drugs, declared it within his powers to murder citizens without due process, signed the abhorrent PPACA and NDAA, openly said that if the other branches resist him he'll simply issue executive orders, on and on.

Unless you're the CEO of GE or some other elite like Warren Buffet your personal economic interests don't align with the stated policy goals of Obama and the Democrats so that's not a case for Obama either.

The problem is like every election Mitt is only slightly preferable. If Obama is a 0.1 then Mitt is a 0.8 who best case scenario might be a 2.0. (In 2008, Obama was a 0.2 who best case could have been a 1.0.)

Michigan is the same situation as Washington, plus voting GOP or Dem is useless, and if Gary Johnson isn't the nominee the Libertarian Party isn't going to get my ballot status vote either. Especially after Bob Barr last time. (They didn't get my ballot status vote in 2008 either for the record.)

Speaking of fucking things up for the establishment:
http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2 ... tion-rules
http://ivn.us/2012/04/26/ron-pauls-secr ... e-working/

Speaking of fucking things up for the establishment:
http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2 ... tion-rules
http://ivn.us/2012/04/26/ron-pauls-secr ... e-working/

He knows the rules and works in the shadows. Ron Paul is like Batman.

Maybe the best quiz yet: http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz

Turn off NoScript if you use it and you can pick more than Yes/No.

Ron Paul - 93%
R. Lee Wrights - 86%
Gary Johnson - 79%
Mitt Romney - 51%
Buddy Roemer - 39%
Jimmy McMillan - 28%
Kent Mesplay - 23%
Fred Karger - 5%
Barack Obama - 3%

Libertarian - 90%
Republican - 44%
Green - 23%
Democratic - 3%
http://www.isidewith.com/results/5504941

Here's a "libertarian" I know: http://www.isidewith.com/results/5505729

Ron Paul 74%
Gary Johnson 66%
Kent Mesplay 59%
R. Lee Wrights 57%
Barack Obama 33%

70% Libertarian
59% Green
33% Democratic
14% Republican

And they told me I was a republican.

Barack Obama 79%
I side with Barack Obama on issues of Science, Social, and Healthcare.

Gary Johnson 73%
I side with Gary Johnson on issues of Domestic policy, Social, and Foreign Policy.

Kent Mesplay 66%
I side with Kent Mesplay on issues of Social, Science, and Immigration.

R. Lee Wrights 65%
I side with R. Lee Wrights on issues of Domestic policy and Immigration.

Ron Paul 65%
I side with Ron Paul on issues of Domestic policy, Foreign Policy, and the Environment.

Buddy Roemer 58%
I side with Buddy Roemer on issues of Domestic policy.

Fred Karger 58%
I side with Fred Karger on issues of Science, Social, and Immigration.

Mitt Romney 54%
I side with Mitt Romney on issues of Domestic policy and the Environment.

Jimmy McMillan 54%
I side with Jimmy McMillan on issues of Social.


So basically, I mostly agree with whatever anyone wants to do with anything.


79% Democratic
68% Libertarian
66% Green
55% Republican


eh

Took it just for kicks.
Though my results are obviously skewed since I'm not a US citizen and some answers might have 'anti-US sentiment' especially in foreign policy.


Where I adjusted the 'how Important is this to you' thing: http://www.isidewith.com/results/5505419
R. Lee Wrights 83%
Ron Paul 81%
Gary Johnson 79%
Kent Mesplay 62%
Mitt Romney 43%
Buddy Roemer 36%
Fred Karger 20%
Jimmy McMillan 13%
Barack Obama 7%

Libertarian 82%
Green 62%
Republican 39%
Democratic 7%


Took it again where 'how important' isn't adjusted, set it all to 'least'. http://www.isidewith.com/results/5553164
Gary Johnson 96%
R. Lee Wrights 89%
Ron Paul 87%
Kent Mesplay 63%
Mitt Romney 56%
Buddy Roemer 51%
Fred Karger 34%
Jimmy McMillan 20%
Barack Obama 5%

Libertarian 94%
Green 63%
Republican 54%
Democratic 5%

Jimmy McMillan 54%
I side with Jimmy McMillan on issues of Social.

THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!

So after a fun day of this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... l?hpid=z10

phpBB [video]

phpBB [video]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-m ... connection

There's good news:

President Barack Obama announced his support for gay marriage Wednesday, telling Robin Roberts of ABC News, "I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

Jay Carney is like the biggest douchebag in history. And Obama's wording is hilarious.

I'll bite on Grin's survey because I find them fun.

http://www.isidewith.com/results/5815805

85% Gary Johnson
78% Kent Mesplay
73% Ron Paul
72% R. Lee Wrights
69% Fred Karger
68% Jimmy McMillan
66% Barack Obama
63% Buddy Roemer
41% Mitt Romney

78% Green
81% Libertarian
66% Democratic
49% Republican

Why do you want to increase taxes 50% on the lowest income earners?

Grin's survey

Why do you want to increase taxes 50% on the lowest income earners?

I chose a couple fiscally leftist options. Which in particular are you referring to?

Grin's survey

Repealing the Obama-Bush Tax Cuts.

We're massively in debt, the richest 50% still get the bulk of the tax breaks and it keeps Capital Gains tax rates at 0%. I'm not against paying taxes (even though I make so little that I don't have to, barring sales tax) even if I don't like where a lot of it goes.

I'd love to be wrong about this though.

the richest 50% still get the bulk of the tax breaks

Richest 50%? You do realize that only 47% of the country even PAYS income taxes right?

and it keeps Capital Gains tax rates at 0%.

lol wat. The current capital gains tax rate is 15%, if you repeal the Obama Tax Cuts it goes up to 35%.

If anything the capital gains rate SHOULD be zero since it's taxing twice and punishes you for inflation happening.

The Obama-Bush Tax Cuts get most of their "revenue" when repealed from the lowest brackets, not the highest. If you repeal them the highest bracket goes up about 13%, the next two highest brackets go up about 10%, the third lowest bracket goes up about 12%.

But the lowest bracket, which is the first $7000 for singles, first $17,000 for married couples and first $12,500 for head of households goes up 50%! From 1990-2001 the lowest bracket was 15% and that was for everything under about $30,000 (now about $35,000) what the then Bush Tax Cuts did was create a new bracket at the halfway point of that which was only 10%.

Repealing all of the Bush Tax Cuts don't even make a dent in the debt, doing so would "bring back" only about $65-70 billion a year, mostly from the middle class and lower, which is about 1/7th of debt payments and 1/20th of the deficit. Plus adding new revenues will just allow for more spending.

We will never be able to tax our way out of our debt without obliterating the middle class. If we confiscated the ENTIRE wealth of every billionaire we could only eliminate the deficit ONCE.

The only way to cut our debt and prevent our collapse is to cut spending. Massively.

You suck at this Lamecock. TAKE STEWARDSHIP OF THE THREAD!

Anyway, my pythag theory is actually working and I hate myself for "discovering" it. Obama has moved up to around 2-2.5 points depending on the day, and there's a bundle of state polls that have moved his projections up to 300-310 EVs, right in line with what the pythag says.

I did notice an odd quirk in the head-to-heads, Romney hasn't been making ground, both him and Obama are dropping slowly. But the margin is keeping. There was some of this in 2004 but Bush maintained and then built himself back up to 50 which is hard to beat.

I didn't study this but did note it back then and there was ample evidence and I think Dr. Seth was fully on board, but my theory was that when Kerry wasn't in the news, he moved up, then he'd get himself in the news and drop. I wonder if there will be a similar effect on Romney, who is basically the GOP Kerry. Just from a casual glance on the Romney campaign, they may realize this. They seemingly avoided anything in the primaries and aren't really trying to involve themselves in any "OMG MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE EVER" the media flits to from day to day.

The hypothesis of the theory was that people didn't like Bush (and don't like Obama) even those who would vote for him if pressed so they're willing to take a shot on someone else, UNTIL they find out about that person. So the more they saw of Kerry the more he was not not-Bush but John Kerry. And they didn't like John Kerry, but they did like not-Bush.

Of course this is all moot, since THIS IS THE AGE OF INDEPENDENTS WHO WILL PROPEL GARY JOHNSON TO VICTORY.

Oh god do I love having someone to vote for.

Too bad the ads are so fucking shitty.

Strange addendum. I'm starting to become a single issue voter of sorts. I've gone from being against it to dripping with murderous vile over the drug war.

I can't vote in the primary unless I am a registered republican.

It doesn't really matter since Romney already has enough delegates.

And I thought you guys switched to a blanket.

Flash

Wonder what the media will do when Ron Paul wins Iowa.

Seems like they're just going to ignore it since Romney's already won.

Dr. Paul won 10 of 13 delegates elected at today’s state convention in addition to having won 11 of 12 delegates elected at last night’s district conventions, for a weekend total of 21 of 25 contestable delegates, all unbound.

Romney 235 | Obama 266 | Toss-Up 37

They've updated this with more/nominated candidates and changed some of the answers, especially the "more answers" options, along with a new "processing" screen rather than instant display of the results:
http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz

I set everything to MAXIMUM IMPORTANCE to increase the standard deviations:

96% Gary Johnson
95% Ron Paul
43% Virgil Goode
27% Mitt Romney
21% Kent Mesplay
13% Jimmy McMillan
12% Jill Stein
9% Barack Obama
7% Fred Karger

96% Libertarian
43% Constitution
17% Republican
9% Democratic

http://www.isidewith.com/results/10899087

If you posted a link before, you can see it "updated" to match the new candidates and stuff. (For example, Lamrock's now has Jill Stein listed as his top candidate.) But it doesn't account for any new/changed answers. (Some of them got rid of old answers.)