Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Stats United States Politics

Nate Silver's Numbers Indicate Probable Obama Win, World Agrees 881

Posted by samzenpus
from the popularity-contest dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The state-by-state election outcome probabilities today on Nate Silver's 538 imply a 97.7% probability for Obama to win 270 or more electoral college votes this coming Tuesday. A site that allows anyone but U.S. citizens vote seems to indicate that the rest of the world hopes these numbers are accurate. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nate Silver's Numbers Indicate Probable Obama Win, World Agrees

Comments Filter:
  • by Ostracus (1354233) on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:42AM (#41880949) Journal

    What's in it for the rest of the world if Obama wins?

  • by Reverand Dave (1959652) on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:44AM (#41880967)
    4 years of not having to deal with Mitt Romney.
  • What happened? (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:44AM (#41880975)

    God, I miss Slashdot. I read it for so many years and now it's gone. Just another political propaganda site and day old news.

  • by siddesu (698447) on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:45AM (#41880979)
    we get the devil we know. Romney's stance on anything is shifting way too rapidly. but i think the US deserved better than what is on offer.
  • by brian0918 (638904) <brian0918@g m a i l .com> on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:45AM (#41880993)
    More central bank bailouts and foreign aid, at least in theory. In practice, I don't think Romney will do anything differently in that regard.
  • by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:48AM (#41881041)
    Compared to Romney, Obama is likely to be somewhat less friendly to hedge funds and private equity companies, since they drive up prices and reduce jobs and wages for the profit of individuals. Full employment in the US, more middle class spending power, and lower commodity prices are better for everybody. More money in the hands of the very few is bad for everybody else. Romney is a representative of exactly those very few.
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:49AM (#41881053) Journal

    A site that allows anyone but U.S. citizens vote seems to indicate that the rest of the world hopes these numbers are accurate.

    Okay so you're talking about roughly six and a half billion people. As of the writing of this post, votevotevote.net's page says:

    1050 VOTES have been received

    Furthermore can someone point me to, say, a Chinese version of votevotevote.net's page? I mean, surely you'd want to represent the largest population of the world or are you simply relying on the rest of the world to speak English? And you're going to then utilize that as evidence that the rest of the world hopes that Obama wins? Surely this site isn't even worth mentioning in a news context.

  • by TBedsaul (95979) on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:49AM (#41881061)

    A smaller chance of being "liberated".

  • by Alkonaut (604183) on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:52AM (#41881121)

    Quite a few things, for example less sword rattling in the Iran/Israel region (A war would reduce US purchasing power and affect global economy just like Iraq did). Less of a "trade war" with China (calling them a "currency manipulator on day one" certainly doesn't help trade & relations.

    Apart from these things that actually may affect me, I'd enjoy seeing that the greatest power in the world can hold an election that can't be bought or stolen by special interests. Would also be refreshing to see that the greatest democracy in the world have policies on reproduction/abortion/education/science that can't be mistaken for Taliban policies. That, and watching Fox News pundits heads explode for a week.

  • by AdamHaun (43173) on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:52AM (#41881127) Journal

    What's in it for the rest of the world if Obama wins?

    An American President who isn't xenophobic and war-crazy. It's not that complicated.

  • by sribe (304414) on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:53AM (#41881141)

    What's in it for the rest of the world if Obama wins?

    A president that engages with leaders around the world, actively involves them in decisions, generally works with them as partners rather than unilaterally starting wars. Compare Libya to Iraq...

  • As a Canadian (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bravecanadian (638315) on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:53AM (#41881147)

    I can only hope that Nate is correct.

    I'm not saying that Obama has done a great job. I think he squandered a lot of the extreme level of public goodwill that he had coming into office. However, he did drag the US kicking and screaming into the first world by passing healthcare reform (even if it didn't end up single payer thanks to campaign contributions to even his own party) and he did manage to blunt some of the economic disaster he was left with.. on the other hand he definitely should have thrown a ton of the wall streeters into jail instead of inviting them right back into the White House, but that is how the game is played now. It is the golden rule. Those with the gold make the rules.

    Romney on the other hand is hard to pin down. He has taken every stance available on every issue. For the slashdot crowd, the fact that his numbers just don't add up should be a big red flag as well. In his desperation to get elected he just tells whatever crowd he is in front of exactly what they want to hear.. facts be damned.

    The polarization, name calling, and divisiveness in politics is at an obscene level in the USA right now and unfortunately Canada isn't far behind. Truth seems to have gone right out the window.

    The spending on elections is disgusting.

    I'm so glad it will be over either way..

  • by dkleinsc (563838) on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:54AM (#41881159) Homepage

    - Small-scale and covert actions in the Middle East rather than massive invasions with hundreds of thousands killed.
    - The US remaining a viable trading partner.
    - A president that knows basic geography ("Syria is Iran's route to the sea")

    I mean, I think a lot of it boils down to this: Mitt Romney isn't all that smart. He got to where he was by being born rich and being very good at lying. Obama, for all his many faults, is at least not a complete moron.

  • by clickclickdrone (964164) on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:55AM (#41881185)
    A country that's not ruled by someone who believes in a crazy religion? Alas, it really is a case of not so much wanting Obama as *really* not wanting more religious-right wing nut jobs in the White House.
  • by Lucas123 (935744) on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:56AM (#41881201) Homepage
    Why is it we need to be told over and over who will win the election before the voting even takes place?
  • Re:It IS geek news (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:57AM (#41881231)

    Ya know what's geek news? The slain CIA agent in Benghazi who reported his fears for being killed on Eve. Which was one of the first snippets of info to come out that showed they knew something was up while the Obama administration ignored them.

    Funny I didn't see that article on slashdot...

  • by AdamHaun (43173) on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:58AM (#41881239) Journal

    Taking a hint from the last election, if the news outlets all say that Obama will win, then everybody will vote for Obama because everybody loves to vote for the winner.

    I know conspiracy theories are fun, but it is possible to measure this stuff. The aggregate polling data has pretty consistently shown Obama ahead for the entire election. The news media are currently overstating Romney's chances by calling it a toss-up (and indeed, they are still doing so). They had no qualms about reporting Romney's huge gains after the first convention. Poll aggregators have actually been drawing flack from mainstream pundits who like to pretend there's a neck-and-neck horse race when there isn't. The media's interest is in a close race where they have something to talk about.

  • by clickclickdrone (964164) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:00PM (#41881261)

    but Obama has just been awful for our country, for international relations,

    No, that was the last one. Obama repaired a *lot* of the damage Bush did. His 'kill list' is less than smart though and on paper, his domestic policies haven't been great but then he's been hamstrung by the Republican's trying to block him at every turn, effectively paralysing his ability to function. Whilst the US system is pretty good, it can be really misused and this last 4 years is a textbook example of how to do that.

  • by joaosantos (1519241) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:02PM (#41881289) Homepage
    Obama is slightly less likely to do things like starting a WW3. Besides that in most of the world Obama would be seen as a right wing politician, so do your math to find where that would put Romney.
  • by evil_aaronm (671521) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:02PM (#41881295)
    Agreed - "on offer" - but I wonder if Obama was all like, "I'm gonna come to Washington and kick. some. ass!" and then he found out that reality is different from idealism. Maybe it'll be different the second time around, and he'll actually deliver on the "change" promise, now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election. One can hope.
  • by Thud457 (234763) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:03PM (#41881305) Homepage Journal
    This shit is ridiculous. In this age of modern speed-of-light communications, it takes TWO YEARS to choose a president. In George Washington's time, it took less time to visit every town on horseback and make his case.


    Oh, and thanks to Florida's genius governor, Rick Scott, cutting early voting short, you've got a good chance of another six weeks of court battles an recounts.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:04PM (#41881307)

    to be fair Obama still believes in a crazy religion (Christian religion, not Islam, not that i would care either way), its just a matter of degrees, but i agree, i would rather not have someone who thinks god is informing his policy therefore it is without fault. Obama may or may not think this way privately but at least he doesn't show it publicly.

  • by evil_aaronm (671521) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:05PM (#41881327)
    Re: "religious right wing nut jobs," I'm really puzzled by how so many people don't get this. Like it was such fun the other times round?
  • by CreatureComfort (741652) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:05PM (#41881331)
    I think the US is getting exactly what it deserves.

    It's just my misfortune to be part of the apparent minority that would prefer a fact-based, non-dramatic, non-populist intelligent choice between two similarly valid, well reasoned world views with well articulated plans for future goals and methods.

    The majority of mouth-breathing, drooling, sycophants with no knowledge or interest beyond their personal prejudices, greed, and entertainment... are getting exactly what they deserve.
  • by stox (131684) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:08PM (#41881389) Homepage

    PLEASE VOTE!!!!!!

  • by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:08PM (#41881395)
    I identified the things that, if they happened to the US economy, would be a net benefit to the rest of the world. I do not expect that they will necessarily happen if Obama returns. But I can be fairly sure that under Romney the corporate rape of the American middle class would get worse, not better.
  • by h4rr4r (612664) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:09PM (#41881399)

    There are lot of factors that lead to this. The Media being a big deal. So is first past the poll and our unlimited campaign money.

    If the debates were proper formal debates that would go a long way. I don't think enough americans care about that sort of thing though.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:09PM (#41881415)

    What's in it for the rest of the world if Obama wins?

    we keep Romney's cadre of neoconservative foreign policy whack jobs out power preventing them from reinstating the Bush doctrine and starting wars with false rationales saving hundreds of thousands of lives, 100s of billions of dollars and avoiding regional mayhem and impacts that would take a generation from which to recover

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:10PM (#41881427)

    He was a Senator from Illinois. He knew exactly how Washington works. The fact he sold the US population on smoke and mirrors and they were dumb enough to believe it is what is laughable.

    US voters get exactly the government they deserve.

  • by wvmarle (1070040) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:11PM (#41881435)

    I've heard that sentiment before: hope he can deliver now, as he doesn't have to be re-elected.

    The sad thing of this statement is that apparently if a politician fulfils his actual campaign promises, that his re-election is in jeopardy. That's a direct contradiction. A politician is elected on a certain platform, and fulfilling those promises should actually help a re-election - it means the politician is a man of his word, and that he does what he promises to do.

  • by h4rr4r (612664) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:18PM (#41881547)

    Because it is a good news story? It interests people?

    There is no conspiracy, if anything the media is making it look like a far closer race than it is. Again because that makes for a good story.

  • by h4rr4r (612664) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:22PM (#41881623)

    Lets look at this a sane way.
    1. Diplomacy
    2. Taking care of our people like a first world nation should.
    3.More reasonable self image, so we can improve our faults instead of ignoring them. Maybe we can even go back to patriotism instead of just nationalism.
    4.Crazy talk. We are consuming more oil now
    5. More gibberish from a nutter. If you have evidence you would link that instead of these rantings.

  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:24PM (#41881657)

    A smaller chance of being "liberated".

    Really?

    Tell that to Afghanistan, or Libya...

    Perhaps you meant to say "A smaller chance of being SUCCESSFULLY liberated".

  • by h4rr4r (612664) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:26PM (#41881679)

    More like grownups?
    Total refusal to compromise is acting like grownups.
    Not a one of their candidates said he would take a 10 to 1 ratio of budget cuts to tax increases.

    That is how a toddler acts, not a grownup.

  • by publiclurker (952615) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:26PM (#41881681)
    I think the problem is that he actually thought that the current batch of Republicans would be more interested in fixing the country than playing party politics.
  • by N0Man74 (1620447) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:27PM (#41881709)

    I don't know how much of it was idealism, and how much was politics. I imagine there was a little bit of both. However, I suspect that even he may have underestimated the incredible degree of opposition and lack of cooperation from the right (even on things that they had previously supported) in order to make him as ineffectual as they possible.

  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:28PM (#41881727)

    A country that's not ruled by someone who believes in a crazy religion?

    Given the degree of failure we see each and every time Keynesian economics is tried through history, I'd say we very much have a country ruled by a group with a crazy religion.

    The difference between Mormonism and Keynesian is that at times Mormons have actually helped people.

  • by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:29PM (#41881745) Journal

    Yes, a government that won't allow the US repudiate its debt, that continued and expanded programs that saved some of the United States' largest manufacturing jobs from disappearing, a government who is actually seeing some modest improvements in the domestic economy even as the Eurozone drags the global economy down the tubes.

  • by Sloppy (14984) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:34PM (#41881841) Homepage Journal

    Now does anyone have data on whether the forecasting of a win discourages the supporters or opponents of the projected winner from actually voting?

    Well.. tons of anecdotal evidence (whatever that's worth). Lots of people say they won't vote Libertarian or Green because it would be "throwing their vote away." They say it's throwing-away because polls always indicate the person they'd like to vote for, is very likely to lose (so they vote for someone else who has higher polling numbers, instead).

    Apparently the thinking is like this: if you vote for someone who lost, then your vote "doesn't count." From that I conclude that since all the losers' votes votes didn't count, the winner is always unanimously elected. You can't get a stronger mandate than that, so it's our way of telling the winner that 100% of America agrees with them on 100% of issues.

    For reasons I don't understand, after the election, though, over half the people say they don't agree with whoever won. It's very strange, almost as though they don't really believe that losing is the same as not counting. Go figure.

  • Re:As a Canadian (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shutdown -p now (807394) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:36PM (#41881873) Journal

    I used to drive a car, and I almost died in one when it crashed! Cars are horrible things - I'm glad we still have horses!

  • by DrXym (126579) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:36PM (#41881877)
    What's in it for the rest of the world if Obama wins?

    A sane president.

  • War Crazy Obama (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall (25149) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:39PM (#41881933)

    An American President who isn't xenophobic and war-crazy.

    Well that would obviously be Romney.

    Because Obama has:

    Kept Gitmo open.
    Greatly accelerated drone killings
    is the president who used assassination openly against a leader of an opposing military force.
    Used U.S. military forces to liberate Libya without asking Congress for permission (wow if only Bush had thought of that first imagine what he would have gotten done!)
    Put a huge surge of troops into Afghanistan

    No, Obama is TOTALLY DIFFERENT. He's worse...

  • by Hentes (2461350) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:40PM (#41881957)

    What's in it for the rest of the world that cares about American politics if Obama wins?

    FTFY. People who vote on a site like that are heavily biased.

  • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:40PM (#41881965)

    Oh please. If Romney were elected it wouldn't be the end of the republic (tho he'd return to the rapid deficit spending increases we saw under bush and reagan based on his policies).

    When Obama is elected, it won't be the end of the republic either. Don't overreact.

    With opposite parties, spending will be held down.

    Obama has taken us from losing 800,000 jobs per month under Bush to creating about 150k jobs per month.

    And it doesn't matter who is president, the economy is going ot get much better (CBO and BLS project over 3% in 2015 and 2016) plus retiring/dying boomers are going to tighten up the job market tremendously (just retiring boomers alone are enough to lower us from 8% to 6%). BLS projects 10.6% more jobs but only 6.8% larger labor force by 2016.

    ---
    And the parent poster isn't a troll. He's just a republican who's overreacting a bit.

  • Re:As a Canadian (Score:1, Insightful)

    by khallow (566160) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:40PM (#41881973)
    It puzzles me how someone can confuse the recent health care law with "health care reform". It increases the stuff that insurance companies have to cover, it eliminates existing condition (a huge increase to insurer costs right there), it throws in a large, expensive subsidy (though probably not big enough to compensate for the its other boosts to health care costs), it's unconstitutional in at least two different ways, and there's a couple thousand pages of crap in a bill that probably should have been a tenth the size.

    And afterward, the Obama administration handed out over a thousand waivers for Obamacare provisions that kick in now to Democrat allies.

    My view is that this "reform" will make all of the negative parts of US health care (such as its high cost and lack of coverage issues) considerably worse. And those who still won't be able to afford coverage will get to pay an additional regressive tax. And most of these provisions kick in a couple years after this election, so Obama doesn't risk having his legislative masterpiece torpedo his campaign.

    I will vote for Romney. He might be "hard to pin down". But compared to Obama? I'm willing to take that chance.

    The polarization, name calling, and divisiveness in politics is at an obscene level in the USA right now and unfortunately Canada isn't far behind. Truth seems to have gone right out the window.

    When we face tyranny, sometimes we get polarization and divisiveness from those who would take away our freedoms.

  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:41PM (#41881995) Journal

    On a pure geopolitical level, one would expect "other countries" citizens to hope that the guy will win who'll weaken the US as an international competitor.

    It may come as a surprise, but a good chunk of the world does not want a weak US. What it does want is a strong and friendly US. The guy who has a big stick, but uses it only when it's actually warranted, not just charging in shouting "yeee-haw!" at the nearest guy with villain-looking mustache. Obama has more or less provided that.

    Yet the last 4 years have been nothing if not the "US Apologia World Tour 2012" in which our president has repeatedly apologized for US conduct and stressed multilateralism - and I don't see that anything's really improved.

    That's because you haven't been looking. It has improved considerably [gmfus.org] compared to where it was with Bush, at least in Europe.

  • by DrXym (126579) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:42PM (#41882011)
    I think it is fairly obvious that Obama would have accomplished far more if he hadn't faced outright hostility from a house determined to ensure he did not enjoy a second term. It was one standoff after another. Even under those circumstances he still still achieved substantial change.
  • by slim (1652) <john@hartn u p .net> on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:44PM (#41882031) Homepage

    I mean honestly, why would we?

    On a pure geopolitical level, one would expect "other countries" citizens to hope that the guy will win who'll weaken the US as an international competitor.

    Your problem is that you think of international relations as a zero-sum game. It's not. Everyone can have a better life, if our nations support each other. Obama seems to me more in favour of international cooperation than Romney.

  • by Hatta (162192) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:44PM (#41882041) Journal

    What radical changes has Obama even tried to implement? The most radical change Obama has implemented has been his health care reform. Reform that is so conservative it makes a Republican from 40 years ago (Nixon) look liberal.

    The reality of the situation is that Obama is a center right president. Corporate authoritarian just like every other D and R. Turn off the talk radio.

  • by Alomex (148003) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:45PM (#41882047) Homepage

    The media are in the business of selling advertisements, not informing the public. The better venues will start with a sensationalist headline and admit to the truth somewhere near the end of the article, the average ones will stick to the half truths and never clarify that they are hyping up the story to keep the eyeball count up.

    One can find such sensationalist pieces in pretty much all subjects, ranging from politics to sports to science to business.

  • by darkmeridian (119044) <william.chuang@noSpAm.gmail.com> on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:46PM (#41882067) Homepage

    I believe that Obama naively did not expect the Republicans to dedicate themselves to stopping him from getting reelected. Right off the bat, they actually came out and said that their top political goal was to stop Obama from getting elected to a second term. Instead of trying to fix the economy, reform our banking system to become more robust, or to end the wars, the Republicans said that they were going to stop Obama from winning. Witness, the debt crisis.

    Also, I don't think anyone expected the Republicans to declare war on reality. The entire meme that there is a "liberal media" that is out to get them, and that Fox News is the only "real" media source is one of the greatest scams in political memory. Facts simply do not matter anymore. Obama is a secret Muslim! Obama hates America! The drones over Benghazi were armed and ready to shoot the bad guys but Obama stopped them from engaging! All the polls are skewed towards Obama, and Romney will definitely win by a landslide once you correct for the oversampling of Democrats! But if he loses, it's because of voter fraud!

    The right wing, driven by the Tea Party, has become so detached from reality that it has become a political threat to think. Pregnancy by rape is divine will! Really, that's insane.

  • by Revotron (1115029) on Monday November 05, 2012 @12:48PM (#41882099)

    A president that engages with leaders around the world, actively involves them in decisions, generally works with them as partners rather than unilaterally starting wars.

    Wow! Why didn't that guy run for president?

  • by ynp7 (1786468) on Monday November 05, 2012 @01:00PM (#41882383)

    People already take the Libertarians far too seriously. Jokers, cranks, and lunatics, every one of them.

  • by Hatta (162192) on Monday November 05, 2012 @01:02PM (#41882423) Journal

    Yeah, I'm surprised by the number of people falling for this bullshit [washingtonmonthly.com].

    Health care reform -- Republican idea, fucked over single payer advocates.
    Stimulus Act -- No better than Bush.
    Wall Street Reform -- Which failed to reinstate Glass Steagal, and besides fraud is already illegal and he hasn't bothered to prosecute any bank CEO.
    Ended the War in Iraq -- On the date set by Bush.
    Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan -- Do or do not, there is no try.
    Killed Bin Laden -- Symbolic victory at best.
    Turned around US Auto Industry -- I'll give them that. Good job Obama. Cash for Clunkers was still a boondoggle though.
    Recapitalized banks -- Without ensuring that those banks would turn around and lend the funds.
    Repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell -- A Civil Rights win, sure, but one that affects a percent of a percent of the population.
    Toppled Muamar Gaddafi -- while violating the War Power's Act.

    I could keep going. But I think I've hit the major accomplishements so far. Obama is pretty much Bush III, but he throws us liberals crumbs like repealing DADT. I'm not satisfied with crumbs, and neither should you be.

  • by JDG1980 (2438906) on Monday November 05, 2012 @01:03PM (#41882451)

    Everyone I know who voted for him is dissapointed in him. He should be relatively easy to throw out of office.

    After the 1972 election, film critic Pauline Kael allegedly said that she couldn't believe that Nixon had won, since no one she knew voted for him. Though that quote is apparently apocryphal [wikipedia.org], it does accurately depict the hazard of judging a presidential contest on the basis of personal anecdotes rather than polls.

  • by Ogive17 (691899) on Monday November 05, 2012 @01:16PM (#41882663)
    To to begin things, I did not vote for Obama 4 years ago, I voted for Nader. The main reason is that I did not believe the hype, therefore my expectations were not high.

    That being said, I'm going to vote for Obama tomorrow. I'm in Ohio and I think it's important my vote counts toward something that matters in this election. No, I'm not overly impressed with his resume but I think that has quite a bit to do with a hostile Republican controlled congress the last 2 years. They made their intentions very clear that their only goal was to make him a 1 term president. This lead to virtually nothing getting done the past two years other than something that benefits both parties, stripping away our rights.

    It's just that Romney and Ryan scare me. Putting them in office moves us that much closer to a Theocracy. Some of my friends give me a puzzled look when I tell them if I wanted my laws to be governed by what God said, I'd move to Iran.

    I hate not having a major candidate that represents most of what I believe and am definitely having to settle for Obama this campaign. It's more of a strategic move than anything else.
  • by ubermiester (883599) * on Monday November 05, 2012 @01:16PM (#41882667)

    Does everyone really have that short a memory?

    How about...

    • When Obama and Congressional leaders (from both parties) sat around and discussed "alternatives" to the healthcare overhaul which had already passed with a normal majority but was being held up by filibuster in the senate?
    • When the Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell saying that their top priority - in the face of crippling financial collapse caused in no small measure because of his own parties policies - was to "make him a one term president"? Which was then acted on...
    • When the House held up passing a quite standard extension to the debt limit in the hope of making Obama look weak and in favor of "increasing the debt" in the name of - as Paul Krugman puts it - summoning the confidence fairy? Which of course resulted in the rest of actually starting to question the ability of the US political system to deal with the problem.
    • When Tea Party affiliated candidates started turning the Republicans against themselves in the name of some idealized and quite fictional "good ol days" when the government didn't do anything more than ensure that the harbors were safe and contracts were enforced? The effect of which has been to scare all Republicans from being at all reasonable with regard to taxes?
    • When every single Republican candidate said they would not accept even a 10-1 ratio of tax cuts to new revenue?

    I can go on and on.

    Yes, Obama and his team have not done a good enough job explaining these things, which is why Bill Clinton's otherwise obvious logic had such an impact at the Democratic convention.

    Yes, there has been very little from Obama on what exactly he plans to do differently in the next four years - I think mainly because whomever wins will have to make difficult decisions and neither side is willing to "go first" and illustrate just how they would inflict the inevitable pain.

    Yes, the core of both parties are hopelessly corrupted by the now billions of dollars spent on elections.

    But just about every election is a choice between two flawed individuals. In this case I am going to choose the individual who seems most likely to do what he says and has some grounding the same kind of life I do. Obama has not lied per se. I believe he just greatly underestimated what he would face when he took office. In fact, NO ONE knew what he would face when he was nominated as the Democratic candidate, and very few really understood what he would face even as he was sworn in.

    The first term is always the learning period. I believe Obama has learned his lesson (in no small part because he has stopped talking uniting and started talking about getting things done). I believe he will make better decisions in the next four years, and I simply do not trust Romney to do the same.

  • by Firethorn (177587) on Monday November 05, 2012 @01:17PM (#41882687) Homepage Journal

    Yeah, I view Obama as a slightly more liberal Bush, kind of like how Romney would have been a slightly more conservative Obama.

    liberals crumbs like repealing DADT

    Not gay. However, I've gotten the briefings on the effects of ending DADT. The end of DADT means one, and only one thing - you can no longer be tossed out of the military for declaring yourself gay.

    However, because of the continued presence of DOMA and other laws, said gay military member can get a state recognized marriage yet the best treatment they can hope for their spouse from the military would be the same as for a friend - IE 'nadda'. No dependency status, no base housing, no married rate BAH, family seperation pay, medical, etc... Especially if the gay member is junior, they can be assigned unaccompanied housing in a barraks/dorm room.

    If the member is transferred overseas, no passport/visa assistance, no benefits back home, etc... Even if the member is being sent to a 'gay friendly' country in Europe*.

    It's not my fight, but I couldn't help but think that while repealing DADT is a step in the right direction, the system still screws such couples royally.

    *Let's face it, there are some countries in the world where the US Military has permanent bases that you wouldn't want to advertise.

  • by rhsanborn (773855) on Monday November 05, 2012 @01:51PM (#41883339)

    I pretty much see Romney as saying what he has to, to try to get elected. I don't honestly think he would do the harm to the economy as Obama has and will continue to do.

    So what you're saying is that you have absolutely no evidence of what Romney will actually do. You can't imagine he'll do the things he says he'll do. But you hope he'll do good things, so, let's make a decision based on that ...

  • by Man Eating Duck (534479) on Monday November 05, 2012 @02:42PM (#41884239)

    What's in it for the rest of the world if Obama wins?

    Nothing, really. The Obama adinistration is far to the right politically speaking. Romney is even further to the right, *and* a religious nut which will need to pander to his religious nutcase supporters. Personally I'm afraid that he is more willing to wage external wars in order to curb internal dissatisfaction. This is bad for the rest of the world (and, incidentally, for the U.S.).

    Not comparable to war, but he's also liable to give corporations even freer reign over your diplomatic resources. They are already employed in order to threaten sovereign nations into adopting U.S. legislation (see Spain and copyright law), this will be worse under Romney, since he advocates even more corporate power.

    But Obama already *does* do all of this, so the U.S. will continue to be the bully in the world schoolyard no matter which one you elect. The rest of the world just can't win with the current direction of U.S. administrations.

  • Re:As a Canadian (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Monday November 05, 2012 @03:28PM (#41885041) Journal

    because we have been raised in a country that has historically been pretty suspicious of government.

    We're only suspicious of government when it wants to help people. When it wants to kill people, Americans love government.

  • by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Monday November 05, 2012 @03:40PM (#41885223)

    I am sympathetic to most libertarian positions on personal liberties, but I find the economic positions to be quite fantastic and very unlikely to be workable.

  • Exactly! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Weaselmancer (533834) on Monday November 05, 2012 @04:05PM (#41885547)

    I don't think Obama knew how polarizing of a figure he would be. Republicans never like a Democrat, but they positively hate Obama. He didn't anticipate the lengths they would go to make his presidency look weak. Like blocking the Veterans Jobs Bill. [businessinsider.com]

    It takes a lot of chutzpah to say that military spending is ok and shouldn't be defunded, start two wars under the last Republican president, and then block a bill to take the survivors of those very same wars and deny them aid. And then claim Obama isn't keeping his promises!

    It honestly boggles me how anyone can vote for these people.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05, 2012 @04:15PM (#41885655)
    Dude... they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 just for not being George W Bush .

    Think about that.
    The guy fucked everybody's shit up so much that they gave some other guy a Nobel Peace Prize just for not being him.
  • Re:As a Canadian (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Cruciform (42896) on Monday November 05, 2012 @04:36PM (#41885937) Homepage

    I don't agree with your decision to vote for Romney, but I must commend you on being the first person I've seen to say they are doing so in a reasonable tone while presenting your own thought out explanation for such.

    It beats the "take America back!" "out with the Muslim" "stop Commie america!" "Obama kills unborn babies!" crap that dominates the right wing side of the intertubes.

  • Re:As a Canadian (Score:4, Insightful)

    by radtea (464814) on Monday November 05, 2012 @04:59PM (#41886199)

    Agreed. Anyone who thinks that highly of Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged needs their head examined.

    That's true, but I don't know what it has to do with Ryan, who hates pretty much everything Ayn Rand stood for and argued for in Atlas Shrugged. He's a deeply religious social conservative who would deny what Rand described as one of the most fundamental rights, the right a woman to control her own body.

    There's an old joke about how you can tell when a politician is lying: their lips are moving. Ryan's supposed views of Rand are an example of that.

There are running jobs. Why don't you go chase them?

Working...