Nate Silver's Numbers Indicate Probable Obama Win, World Agrees 881
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. "
I flunked out of electoral college (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I flunked out of electoral college (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
uhh (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:uhh (Score:4, Informative)
Re:uhh (Score:5, Informative)
Nate's aggregate numbers allow for the possibility of systemic bias in the national and state by state polls, based on their historical distribution around the real election results.
Re:uhh (Score:5, Funny)
I think the original poster is saying that an 86.3% chance will come true 97% of the time.
Between him, you, and me, one of us doesn't understand statistics.
Only need 270 to win. (Score:5, Informative)
The combination of the headline and TFS might be construed as "Nate Silver says that Obama's got a 97.7% chance of winning the election," which isn't quite true.
I think it's more accurate to say that Nate Silver predicts an 86.3% chance of Obama winning 270 electoral votes.
97.7% is not Silver's number (Score:5, Informative)
Nate Silver puts the odds at around 87%, largely based on the chance of there being a systematic offset in the polling data. Still looks pretty good for Obama, though. Fingers crossed.
votevotevote.net's Sample Size (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:votevotevote.net's Sample Size (Score:4, Informative)
Population size has nothing to do with the sample size required for statistical significance. Effect size does, and with the votes currently standing at about 85% in favour of Obama, 1000 or so is more than enough, by a very long way. There are going to be strong biases in the sample, but that's a problem of sampling method, not sample size.
But then, most Slashdotters know bugger all about statistics and will mod you up anyway. Complaining about sample sizes is pretty much a guarantee of +5.
Re:votevotevote.net's Sample Size (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Please take it as given that the rest of the world is crying out for Obama to win. Both your parties are crazy, but the Democrats are somewhat closer to being actual human beings.
Um, Nate Silver's own Nov. 4 estimate is 86.3% (Score:5, Informative)
According to today's actual posting from Nate Silver, the same data leads him to conclude an 86.3% chance of an Obama win in the electoral college. Still high, but your "Nate Silver's Numbers Project..." headline is true if parsed carefully, but very misleading. If you want to say "I conclude from Nate Silver's numbers...", well fine.
Silver's Nov. 4 post is at: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/nov-4-did-hurricane-sandy-blow-romney-off-course/ [nytimes.com] (paywall :-( )
As a Canadian (Score:4, Insightful)
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..
Re:As a Canadian (Score:5, Informative)
Romney on the other hand is hard to pin down. He has taken every stance available on every issue.
I'm not crazy about Romney, but Paul Ryan ('Eddie Munster') positively scares the fuck out of me. He really is an odious, red-eyed demon. If Romney wins and decides to delegate a lot of (albeit constitutional) power to Ryan, we could be in for a world of suck.
Re:As a Canadian (Score:5, Informative)
Romney on the other hand is hard to pin down. He has taken every stance available on every issue.
I'm not crazy about Romney, but Paul Ryan ('Eddie Munster') positively scares the fuck out of me. He really is an odious, red-eyed demon. If Romney wins and decides to delegate a lot of (albeit constitutional) power to Ryan, we could be in for a world of suck.
Agreed. Anyone who thinks that highly of Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged needs their head examined.
Even one of the disciples, Alan Greenspan, finally admitted that so much of what he believed for so long about rational self interest didn't pan out in reality.
Re:As a Canadian (Score:5, Interesting)
As Canadians, we tend of overestimate the power of the presidency because we equate it to being the prime minister, and having a friendly congress to having a majority in Parliament. It's similar, but crucially it's without any party discipline. Members of your own party are likely to agree broadly with you in general, but there's no guarantee they'll vote with you, and they can actually be terrible burdens. A big part of what happened to Obama was that Blue Dog Dems, realizing they were swing votes, could command a high price for their support (e.g., Bart Stupak, a centrist Dem from Michigan, trying to add pro-life clauses to the Health Care Reform bill). Had the Dems in Congress shown any kind of unity, they could have steamrolled the Republicans. But while the Republicans have shown more discipline, it's still herding cats.
A Canadian PM with a majority can pass pretty much any legislation that he wants that doesn't cause a PR uproar that threatens re-election. Simple as that. No American president has ever had that much power domestically.
Re:As a Canadian (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:As a Canadian (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
He's probably right. (Score:5, Interesting)
But winning the battle won't win the war. Mr. Obama will be weakened by the divisive campaign; the electorate is bitterly split, and he will find Congress harder to work with. The members of Congress will be acutely aware that 48 or 49% of the popular vote went to his opponent (and he may even lose the popular vote). They will be less willing to go out on a limb to support his policies unless they are from strongly pro-Obama districts, and the average district will be closer to a 49-51 split.
This year's elections reflect a very divided country that is uncertain how to proceed. As the wars wind down, the economy will be the foremost topic on most people's minds, and Mr. Obama has only a minority of the people's support on economic issues. Probably, we will have four years of deadlock and uncertainty followed by the 2016 presidential elections which will either vindicate Mr. Obama's big government approach, or relegate him to the history books.
Just my humble opinions :)
I hope that everyone votes tomorrow, regardless of your choice. The best possible outcome is that everyone votes; that way, the elections more fully reflect the will of the people, so that we can put this nastiness behind us, let bygones be bygones, and move on. Democracy -- gotta love it! The worst possible form of government, except for all the other forms of government (Winston Churchill).
Re:He's probably right. (Score:4, Interesting)
This year's elections reflect a very divided country that is uncertain how to proceed.
Sure its not the opposite? A nearly 50/50 means both sides played well and almost perfectly figured the exact lies to tell to get 51% of the electoral vote.
Using made up numbers, its like the stereotypical Right Left value to get 50% of the vote is exactly 7.1, so the right guy played at 7.095 and the left guy played at 7.105 and its all down to who looks nicer on the camera or whatever. I guess its extremely clear the winner will only be 0.05 off the R/L scale compared to what the electorate wants. I claim this is today's situation.
No idea what to do is when its a blowout. Lets say one side has a professional politician and the other side has the village idiot and the same 7.100 R/L gameplay position will win half the votes. So the pro aims at a 7.105 score and the moron goes for 3.995. Well its probably going to be a blow out win for the pro, but all we know "for certain" about what the population wants, is the aggregate will of the electorate is somewhere between 4.000 and 7.100, who really know for sure. I claim this is like Reagan's second term.
Nearly 50/50 means both sides know what lies the population likes to hear. Its only a blowout when one side has absolutely no idea what lies the population likes to hear.
There is also a temporal anomaly in that at least on the R side you need to go hard core neo to get the nomination and then intense middle ground to have a hope of election... so which lies were true? Is he a complete loon or merely slightly right of center? In other words the challenger is always less predictable than the incumbent because of the nomination process.
What about vote tampering? (Score:4, Informative)
is the election over yet? [*] (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Another (possibly better?) site... (Score:5, Informative)
You won't see this on the major news stations, of course, as they long ago gave up any pretence at objectivity in the election, and besides, if the election were statistically certain going into Election Day (as this one appears to be) it might actually influence the outcome, just as the stations that persist in claiming that Romney HAS a chance, or HAS "momentum" (whatever the hell that means outside of the context of physics in an environment where his polling numbers are almost without exception going down) are trying to influence the election, just as the stations that make the opposite claim for Obama are trying to influence the elections.
The other nice thing about the election analytics site is that it also predicts the cumulative outcome of the Senate and House races. The Senate race currently suggests that Obama will win by enough to have some coattails to catch and help out in close races there, although the House races appear to be a lock at this point. We'll see if any house races end up as surprises -- possible if Obama beats 300 EV by a substantial margin, possible if the fact that the election is "over" in many states and districts causes the Republicans to just stay home and not bother to vote "only" for a congressional candidate where a lot of democrats show up to ride the Obama wave home.
rgb
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Interesting)
But that is politics today: Jean Claude Junker, PM of Luxembourg and longest serving Head of Government in a democracy: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it.”
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Informative)
Google for "Obama's list of achievements" and you'll be surprised.
I know I was.
I'm starting to think that Obama is ropa doping and not really crowing about accomplisments while actually getting a lot done despite opposition from the party of "no".
Even this late in the game I was suprised to here that he put back in "paygo" in 2010.
I felt like obama was ineffective and spineless but apparently he's just wily instead of "testosterone he man" like bush/cheney were.
DADT - crumbs indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:DADT - crumbs indeed (Score:5, Funny)
As a European all I see is the Muppet show with Kermit Obama shouting "Five minutes till curtain" to Mitt Piggy backstage. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are obviously Statler and Waldorf.
Maybe I'm just old.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Exactly! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
honestly Barry didn't deserve it (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Informative)
US voters get exactly the government they deserve.
Jobs?
According to the WSJ (not a left leaning publication), after fixing Bush's failings, jobs under Obama have been going up WHILE he's been reducing gov't head count.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/11/02/tallying-president-obamas-jobs-record/ [wsj.com]
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Informative)
But he's fucking BLACK! Why would you want a BLACK muslim president???
Unfortunately, that's still the predominant teabagger mentality. They simply can't see past their own prejudice well enough to realize that we are better off than 4 years ago, and no one (least of all McCain) could have fixed things in one term even if the republicans weren't constantly obstructing everything just to ensure the president's failure out of pure spite. If your post was meant as satire, then well done.
If by "teabagger" you mean the infantile douches playing FPS who kneel on your dead avatar's head, then you may be right. Their comms are filled with racist diatribes.
If, however, you mean a derogatory term for Tea Party members, then you're utterly wrong. Attend a rally, you'll be surprised.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
His point was that he would fight for positive change and that it could be achieved if we worked for it. Well, half way through his term and all those people who showed up in droves to vote for Obama were noticeably absent in the congressional/gubernatorial election, leaving Obama with perhaps the most uncooperative congress since half the country walked out on Lincoln.
Obama appointed qualified people. That was a positive change. He reformed healthcare, albeit not to the extent he wanted, and that was a positive change. He increased regulation of the financial industries, which is a hugely positive change. But most importantly of all, he kept the office out of the hands of McCain, who would have fought to implement negative change.
You're right that the American people by and large are dumb and got exactly what they deserved, but you're a prime example of that, Mr. AC. Expecting the president to pull through with a bunch of sweeping reforms without a congress to back him up is asinine.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ...
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Funny)
The USS America is a pretty big boat.
Apparently it takes decades to take a minor course adjustment towards the left. But if you want to move to the right, it can turn on a dime.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Interesting)
"After Obama Care .... you can't hardly blame them. Remember Obama didn't run on Obama Care, yet that was the first (and only) accomplishment of BHO."
Er, wait, do you not remember the 2008 election, or do i not remember the 2008 election?
*checks wikipedia* [wikipedia.org] Okay, either you're confused, or wikipedia is lying (always a possibility.)
"Since announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama emphasized withdrawing American troops from Iraq, increasing energy independence (that includes New Energy For America plan[40]), decreasing the influence of lobbyists, and promoting universal health care as top national priorities."
So he spent all his political capital during the 2 months when the Democrats had a majority of both houses pushing through Obama Care, which was one of his platform positions during the election.
"Passed without any Republican help (he didn't want any help)"
Say what? He did it without any Republican help because the Republicans adamantly refused to cooperate with the Democrats on pretty much anything. I'm not sure where you get the idea that he didn't want Republican support. I'm sure he would have loved to get Republican support instead of having to ram it through. (He may certainly have said he didn't _need_ the help, which was A: more or less true, and B: the kind of thing you say when you know you're not going to get any help anyways.)
So yes i'm pissed that Obama didn't manage to get _more_ of his election promises fulfilled, but i'm just as pissed at the Republicans for being willfully obstructionist to any plan that might possibly help as i am at the Democrats for not being more effective at getting around the Republican obstructionism.
Of course i knew going in that there was no way Obama was going to be able to deliver all the Change he promised, but he was still better than the alternative then, and he's still better than the alternative now, and no way in hell am i going to reward the Republicans for trying to hold the country hostage in order to achieve their wacko ideological goals.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Informative)
We have not had a left candidate that I can remember in my life. Surely not in the last decade.
We have right and hard right. You can call that centrist if you like, but I will not.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:4, Interesting)
Regardless, diplomatically, a consistent administration, even if it is not ideal to their interests, is better then a swap out. It is one of the reasons the US state department has such a long history of propping up dictators... even if they are crummy, they represent a diplomatically consistent element to deal with.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
Does everyone really have that short a memory?
How about...
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.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:4, Insightful)
Slightly less dysfunction (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not that optimistic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slightly less dysfunction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
A smaller chance of being "liberated".
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:4, Insightful)
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".
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Interesting)
Lessee...
1. 4 More years of bowing down to other powers in the world, and likely "Apology Tour II: This time we're REALLY Sorry".
Pants on Fire. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/17/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-began/ [politifact.com]
2. Dragging the US down to the same socialistic level so many others in the world are mired in....misery loves company you know.
Like Canada for example? You know the country everyone is currently ass kissing because we're in better fiscal shape than most? (Thanks Liberal Party)
3. Even less of the American "We're #1" groupthink by the country.....so we can just become more meek, less competitive, and just follow the lead of the UN.
I don't know about you but I don't think that if you're the best you need to pat yourself on the back about it all the time. That is called bragging and it gets kind of annoying.
4. An even lower level standard of living for the US...meaning we consume less, leaving more oil for China.
Probably true.. we're in a race to the bottom in the first world because the playing field isn't level. How is that Obama's fault again?
5. The US 4 years closer to financial failure...and rebirth as God knows what...I didn't study as far into Saul Alinsky as those in the Obama administration has, but I think this likely is their early goals they are currently in the midst of establishing:
It has been a long time coming. Sooner or later someone will be left holding the bag and be forced to use their political capital to make the cuts needed or at least rein things in to let growth make up the gap. Again, nothing to do with Obama unless you're going to blame the financial meltdown of the world on him personally.
And I'm not even saying that Obama has done a great job but I think anyone who is reasonable has to agree he came into a heck of a situation.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Informative)
I think we can all agree that you're an idiot.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:4, Interesting)
4. An even lower level standard of living for the US...meaning we consume less, leaving more oil for China.
So that's what all insane gas guzzling is about - using it all up before the filthy Chinese get their hands on any!
Thanks for explaining.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:4, Informative)
So you would rather be the evil empire than one of the good guys, duly noted.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Informative)
Also a President that will "detain" anyone "suspected" of terrorism. If the rest of the world cant' be free, why should America?
... and by "detain," we of course mean "summarily execute with a drone strike"
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
- 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.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:4, Insightful)
We already have that. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:We already have that. (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the degree of failure we see each and every time Keynesian economics is tried through history
Through history? You mean, since the Great Depression.
Sure the evidence is mixed -- like why was there such a huge boom after WWII when the government was repaying so much debt? But there is no conclusive evidence that macroeconomics is wrong, and there is inconclusive evidence that it does work. Such is the murky world of economics.
Trickle-down economics, on the other hand, is known to be junk. We already have a glut of investment money waiting to be parked. Cutting taxes for the rich just allows them to concentrate more wealth and power, and it doesn't trickle anywhere.
Read up on 19thC economic history for why we have the social and political reforms that we do. A true conservative would respect that those laws were put there for a reason, and what to know what those reasons are.
Re:We already have that. (Score:5, Informative)
Keynesianism makes sense. There are times when you need to short circuit the economy to get it moving again. The government needs to put money into people's hands, and rather than just handing it out, why not spend on some infrastructure projects to achieve the upgrading of critical national infrastructure and to get money in people's hands so they can spend.
Of course, there are limits to how much of it you must do before it becomes damaging, but you could say the same about anything really. They key is to make sure that you bank some in the good years (paying down the debt) so that in the bad times, you have good headroom to be able to stimulate the economy.
Guess what the Republicans did during the boom years? The Republican party is not the party of the responsible! They are the party of the tough talkers though!
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Interesting)
Arguably, the US president impacts the rest of the world a whole bunch more than it does US citizens.
Your lives are run by your corporations. The rest of the world is impacted by your wars and international bullying. Therefore, you should vote for your corporations and we should vote for your president.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Everyone loves a winner. (Score:5, Funny)
Obama or Romney, doesn't matter. Drones and indefinite detentions for all suspects.. and the banks get all your money.
In other news - aluminum foil manufacturers see bright future.
It IS geek news (Score:5, Informative)
Nate Silver's use of statistics is geeky. Really. That's about all he talks about -- not politics, but statistics. (Well, and sports, but even there, he's all about the statistics.)
Re:For the love of God All-mighty (Score:5, Funny)
Vote for the Mormon or you'll get the Muslim. Communism is NOT THE ANSWER.
As a Brit, I honestly have no idea whether this is parody or not.
Re:For the love of God All-mighty (Score:5, Interesting)
As a Brit, I honestly have no idea whether this is parody or not.
It's a reference to a church sign seen in rural Texas:
http://gawker.com/5953608/quaint-texas-church-tells-people-to-vote-for-the-mormon-not-the-muslimyou-should-stop-by-and-pray-sometime [gawker.com]
Whether the commenter was taking it seriously, I have no idea.
Re:For the love of God All-mighty (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Taking a hint from the last election (Score:5, Funny)
No (Score:5, Funny)
He ate his dog.
Re:Taking a hint from the last election (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Taking a hint from the last election (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Taking a hint from the last election (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Taking a hint from the last election (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Because the NYT Track Record... (Score:5, Informative)
...is a shining example of nonpartisan analysis, sound statistics, and rational thought.
That's a pretty good description of Nate Silver and why people pay attention to him.
Re:Did you ever wonder why (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Did you ever wonder why (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Assuming everyone can vote? (Score:5, Informative)
-the electronic voting machine will register their vote for someone who is not closely associated with the owner of the machine and software
At least in Ohio, which everyone thinks is the only state that counts, that fear is probably unfounded. The reasons for this:
1. The vast majority of votes will be cast using optical scan machines that were put in place in 2005 (by a Democrat), leave a paper trail, and have been used for several elections already without anything untoward showing up. That means that in order for Romney to win (based on recent polling), he'd need to make 100% of the electronic-only votes go for Romney, which would look a wee bit suspicious.
2. Tagg Romney doesn't have much control [snopes.com].
Re:97.7% (Score:5, Informative)
The 538 website publishes the marginal probabilities of each state's outcome. The random anonymous script that is linked in this story just takes the product of these to compute the joint probability of Obama winning a particular set of states. This is of course a mistake. The probability that Obama wins Pennsylvania and Ohio is not the product of the probability that he wins each state separately, unless those two events are statistically independent. Of course, in reality and in the 538 model, they are not -- if Obama loses Pennsylvania he is also more likely to lose Ohio. I think this mainly accounts for the difference between the 538 prediction and the "prediction" of the random anonymous crap that the story links.
Re:Better... (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.mittromney.com/ [mittromney.com]
Lots of information there on Romney's policies and ideas.
Why not simply inform yourself, rather than repeat these tiresome and slanted charges planted in your mind by partisan news sources?
Because if his website is anything like the public appearances of Romney himself, it changes content based on the state your IP address maps to.
Re:Better... (Score:5, Informative)
His plans, according to his own site, are to peg military spending to 4% of GDP (a $200B/yr increase), and slash taxes in a number of ways that add up to $500B/yr. He promises that he will pay for this $700B/yr deficit by closing loopholes, but steadfastly refuses to say which loopholes. He has offered one idea: capping deductions, which isn't a bad plan, but it won't come close to making up that $700B/yr gap.
That's what people are talking about when they complain he won't share the details of the plan. He's happy to give out the good details: cut taxes here, spend money there. But he refuses to talk about how any of that will be paid for. That's worrisome.
Funny (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who cares what "the world" thinks? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Who cares what "the world" thinks? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.