Election Day 2012

[Tekir]

This election is gonna be so damn close
Obama 47.8
Romney 47.4

Considering the error value for polls and how anything could happen at the last minute, those two will sure be on the edge of their seat when the votes will be counted.

[TheLionPrince]

If Romney ends up in office, then I'm done with this country. I'll start looking into making a move to Canada.

Sounding a bit overconfident, but

For all the economic figures you post, you ignore the most basic fact: jobs continue to be added to the economy steadily. It will recover. 2% was well over what was projected. We are on a trajectory, even your deficit numbers agree with it (although I concede that one increase). Besides, with Romney's $2 trillion dollar unasked defense increase, he won't be shrinking much of any deficit. No expert backs his plan--they say it's too vague to judge. And mathematically impossible. But that doesn't seem to worry anyone. Yes, there are many unemployed Americans. You know as well as me the state of the economy he had coming in. You know the trend it's on. Do you deny that the economy is on a positive trend? Do you think it's a good idea to deregulate and return to policies that destroyed our economy ? It wasn't five hundred years ago.

I do not deny that ever since the unemployment rate hit over 10% back in October 2011, the private sector has been slowly creating jobs since then on. My problem with this is that the economy is not recovering fast enough for most Americans who want to work, and the Obama administration's economic forecasts in 2009 do not match up with what is happening now. The Wall Street Journal reported:

After contracting at a 1.2% rate in 2009, a more modest drop than the Congressional Budget Office and Blue Chip Consensus forecasts assume, the White House sees growth domestic product growth snapping back by 3.2% next year and then 4% or higher the three years after that.

The last time the economy preformed that well was the New Economy heyday of the late 1990s.

The 2010-2013 forecasts are slightly more optimistic than CBO but much rosier — in some cases by well over one percentage point — than what the Blue Chip Consensus calls for. A separate private-sector gauge, the Survey of Professional Forecasts, also projects a much weaker economy this year and next.

As a result, the unemployment rate at the end of President Barack Obama‘s term in 2013 will be just 5.2%, according to the White House.

In my previous post, I posted that the economic growth rate was at 2% in the second quarter of 2012. This is NOT what was projected by the White House, and the unemployment rate currently sits at 7.9%.

If you are implying that deregulation was one of the reasons behind the recession, you are wrong. I told you before that President Bush actually increased economic regulations; over 300,000 regulations according to this source. If anything, the regulations were either midguided or weren't directed at preventing the real problem: mortage companies loaning money to people that couldn't afford to pay it back. I will admit that some economic regulations is good, but I oppose regulations that act in a bureaucratic way (i.e. red tape).

To address healthcare, Americans disagreed mostly with the mandate, which I think is by far the most important part. So I suppose I'm not much good to argue there.

Okay, I'll give you that.

I will post a New York Times article tomorrow morning on Obama and Romney I found compelling. If you guys could maybe post an article or explanation of what really compels you about Romney, that would be cool. :]

Well, it is the middle of the evening where I am, and none of your posts have a link to this article, but I would love to read it.

[Regulus]

I'm going to be sitting on the edge of my seat all night tomorrow.

...after I vote for Obama in a highly contested state. My vote is more important than yours, DGF. Take that.

Thank you, state level government.

[DGFone]

I live in California, Regulus. Specifically, 60 miles from San Francisco, AKA Pothead central. You think everyone around me are going to vote for anyone but Obama? You must be mistaken. I know my vote is going to be neutralized 10X over.

But if you don't vote for Romney, you're voting for Obama.

[Regulus]

^ Uh, yeah, exactly. Chances are, Obama wins California no matter who you vote for. That's the kind of democracy we have: your vote only counts if you live in a swing state, basically. Which I do.

[TheLionPrince]

According to CNN, 7 out of 8 national polls show a dead heat race. I predict we'll all go to bed tomorrow not knowing the winner, because it will be that close. Might not even know for a few days.

[DGFone]

What I would really like to see is this: When you vote for the president, your vote determines who goes to the electoral college to actually vote for the president (I think each state gets 2 reps, it might be 1, I don't remember). Now get this:

The electoral college representative can vote for the other nominee that they were told to vote for, if they believe it will help the U.S.

And it's been done before, too.

So I wouldn't mind a few Obama guys switch to Romney and let him win.

[Tora]

So I wouldn't mind a few Obama guys switch to Romney and let him win.

*chants* 4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years! *chants*

[TheLionPrince]

What I would really like to see is this: When you vote for the president, your vote determines who goes to the electoral college to actually vote for the president (I think each state gets 2 reps, it might be 1, I don't remember). Now get this:

The electoral college representative can vote for the other nominee that they were told to vote for, if they believe it will help the U.S.

And it's been done before, too.

So I wouldn't mind a few Obama guys switch to Romney and let him win.

Actually, that's very wrong. They are called electors and each state gets their number of them are determined by the number of House Representatives and Senators combined. For example, Louisiana gets 9 (7 in the House + 2 in the Senate). For a grand total of 538 in the US, with 270 needed to win.

In each state, the winner of the state popular vote gets the entire amount of electors (except Nebraska and Maine who give their electors to whoever wins the individual county)

And electors who vote against who they were suppose to vote for are called faithless electors. Various states have laws against this. And it's not going to happen. The last time it occurred was in 1968 when a racist North Carolina elector changed his vote for Nixon to George Wallace because he promised to keep segregation in place.

[Regulus]

What I would really like to see is this: When you vote for the president, your vote determines who goes to the electoral college to actually vote for the president (I think each state gets 2 reps, it might be 1, I don't remember). Now get this:

The electoral college representative can vote for the other nominee that they were told to vote for, if they believe it will help the U.S.

And it's been done before, too.

So I wouldn't mind a few Obama guys switch to Romney and let him win.

Actually, that's very wrong. They are called electors and each state gets their number of them are determined by the number of House Representatives and Senators combined. For example, Louisiana gets 9 (7 in the House + 2 in the Senate). For a grand total of 538 in the US, with 270 needed to win.

In each state, the winner of the state popular vote gets the entire amount of electors (except Nebraska and Maine who give their electors to whoever wins the individual county)

And electors who vote against who they were suppose to vote for are called faithless electors. Various states have laws against this. And it's not going to happen. The last time it occurred was in 1968 when a racist North Carolina elector changed his vote for Nixon to George Wallace because he promised to keep segregation in place.

I hardly ever agree with what you say, but I have to admit:

Pwn'd!

Gee, DGF, don't you know how your own government works?