HotStockMarket › Forums › Community › Politics › 2012 Presidential Election - Projecting the Electoral Map
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2012 Presidential Election - Projecting the Electoral Map

post #1 of 246
Thread Starter 
This is not meant to be a political debate thread, although I'm not ignorant enough to believe I can ask to keep politics out and have that happen. So comment however you like. I personally do not like the option of voting for either candidate, so let me start with that.

Looking at data, probabilities, etc. through an objective filter, I have believed Obama will be re-elected for at least the last 12-18 months. I believe his chances are better than 65% likely. Here is my current projection of the electoral map, with four states too close and/or uncertain to project. Notes and link to exercise below map:



Project your own map here: http://electoralmap.net/2012/myPrediction.php

Notes: Of the states projected, a few seem somewhat uncertain. Iowa has been consistently blue in recent elections, and is friendly to same-sex marriage, thus I am projecting it blue based on existing polling. North Carolina could conceivably flip to blue, but if it did, it would likely be in a very large Obama victory, so I am leaving it red for this exercise, at least for now. Pennsylvania could flip to red, but like NC it would only do so in a big Romney victory, which IMO seems unlikely at this point. Also, PA is where in 2008 Obama really fired up his primary campaign. Florida could flip blue, but most of FL is very red, and Rubio has a chance to be the nominee. I expect Romney to spend whatever it takes in any scenario to keep FL as IMO he has 0% chance of winning without carrying these 29 EVs. MO, WI, and MI could be in play down the road, but right now they appear to be likely to remain their customary colors. Romney needs tons of traction with economic debate points to bring WI and MI into play, and Ryan does not like how Romney has campaigned, so the Ryan effect is muted thus far in WI.

Again... just looking at probabilities here... it appears all Obama has to do in order to retain the presidency is to either win Ohio, or win Virginia with either Colorado or New Hampshire as well. Romney MUST win all of Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina to have ANY shot at unseating the incumbent.

I welcome anyone who has a map with even one difference to go over their view on what the most probable outcomes are. I may vote for someone other than these two turds, even though I am in PA which could be a tossup state. Lastly, remember, there is a huge difference in this thread between wanting a candidate to win, and actually analyzing the data and concluding that he is likely to win.
post #2 of 246
Thread Starter 
Virgil Goode is polling as high as 8% per some polls in Virginia. Pundits generally think this puts quite a bit of pressure on Romney in VA.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-campaign-sees-3rd-party-candidates-as-potential-help-to-the-president-in-key-states/2012/07/31/gJQAfCfHNX_story.html
post #3 of 246

candidates have been lack luster in the past 3 elections nothings changed.

pick the lesser evil basically. 2 sacks of shit, outcome will be shit ..

We need a 3rd party which is endorsed and recognized.

 

I think Florida will tip Republican.. due to medicare and other benefit issues.

post #4 of 246
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjoke View Post

candidates have been lack luster in the past 3 elections nothings changed.
pick the lesser evil basically. 2 sacks of shit, outcome will be shit ..
We need a 3rd party which is endorsed and recognized.

I think Florida will tip Republican.. due to medicare and other benefit issues.

Agreed 100% with all your points, especially about third party. Florida darn well should go red, if not Romney is getting steamrolled 370-170 or so just like McCain. The current polls showing Obama way ahead in FL and OH are joke polls with over-representation of Democrats, and Pew has done massive cell phone polling and Dems are way more subscribed to smart phones than Reps, so I have read.

I would vote for Paul, but I'd rather vote for an official third party candidate to make more of an "official" statement. If PA is decided, I will think long and hard about my vote, otherwise I'll vote Obama since my social views are more liberal, and I would rather see him replace Ginsberg with a moderate or liberal than another Roberts/Scalia/Thomas bloc member. Hell... Breyer and even Kennedy could possibly step down, the others look good to go for a while, despite Scalia's age he will be thinking circles around most of us when he is 90. For that matter, I'd rather see Congress add one member to SCOTUS so we saw more 5-5 votes to let the lower court ruling stand... but I seeerioously digress.
post #5 of 246

Romney is an idiot... he should relinquish his American citizenship and run in the Israeli elections...

post #6 of 246
I'm voting for libertarian Gary Johnson. smile.gif
post #7 of 246
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoJobRob View Post

I'm voting for libertarian Gary Johnson. smile.gif

Yeah, I took a quiz at www.isidewith.com and Johnson is the one I agree with on the most issues, including Paul. Jill Stein also was over 70% for me but to me green issues are not as big a priority in a presidential vote, compared to personal liberties, which puts the Libertarian party in my sights.
post #8 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by rando View Post

Yeah, I took a quiz at www.isidewith.com and Johnson is the one I agree with on the most issues, including Paul. Jill Stein also was over 70% for me but to me green issues are not as big a priority in a presidential vote, compared to personal liberties, which puts the Libertarian party in my sights.

That site put me at 85% with Jill Stein, who I have actually never heard of.

 

700

 

Edit: I find it hard to believe my answers matched up 80% with Obama. He is much more conservative than I. I assume this site weighs talk more than actions.

post #9 of 246

I like the Green party too. Ralph Nader is awesome. I think the Green party is what the democratic party should be, and the Libertarian party is what the republican party should be. Then we could at least be having intelligent dialogue in this country, instead we have the corporate sponsored demobrats and republicant's pitting the American people against each other, and the simpletons fall for it hook, line, and sinker. It's sad.

post #10 of 246
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoJobRob View Post

. I think the Green party is what the democratic party should be, and the Libertarian party is what the republican party should be. Then we could at least be having intelligent dialogue in this country, instead we have the corporate sponsored demobrats and republicant's pitting the American people against each other, and the simpletons fall for it hook, line, and sinker. It's sad.

Fantastic post, as for the bolded part, it's sort of my litmus test for people, and whether I can expect to have a fruitful political conversation with them... if they don't believe it is true, my expectations are for a pointless conversation, or better yet I avoid talking to them altogether. I'm not interested in the right and left pointing at each other and determining who is at fault based on who can yell the loudest. I did that when I was ten years old at the dinner table.
post #11 of 246
Thread Starter 
Johnson 88
Paul 77
Obama 70
Stein 69
post #12 of 246

Seems about right, though I'm surprised Jill Stein didn't make my top 4. I watched her on C-Span Video Library last night and really liked her. 

 

1000

post #13 of 246

remove the lobbyists.. that will solve it.

No corporate involvement.. except appeals to laws, instead of bribes in other ways..

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoJobRob View Post

I like the Green party too. Ralph Nader is awesome. I think the Green party is what the democratic party should be, and the Libertarian party is what the republican party should be. Then we could at least be having intelligent dialogue in this country, instead we have the corporate sponsored demobrats and republicant's pitting the American people against each other, and the simpletons fall for it hook, line, and sinker. It's sad.

 

 

and i love Paul,

post #14 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjoke View Post

remove the lobbyists.. that will solve it.

No corporate involvement.. except appeals to laws, instead of bribes in other ways..

 

 

and i love Paul,

 

I agree that lobbyists are a huge part of the problem. I don't think lobbying itself is bad, but I do support getting money out of politics. Take that out of the equation and I think things would start shaping up pretty quick. Yeah I love Paul too. When him and Ralph Nader were talking about joining forces I was ecstatic. But that obviously didn't happen. Maybe the libertarian and green parties should join forces and push a platform that would try and make the changes they both want, which are actually quite numerous, despite the fact that libertarians are more fiscally conservative. When it comes to the critical issues though, like political corruption, civil liberties, and the military industrial/national insecurity complex, they are two peas in a pod. They could call it the Benevolence Party. biggrin.gif

post #15 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjoke View Post

remove the lobbyists.. that will solve it.

No corporate involvement.. except appeals to laws, instead of bribes in other ways..

 

 

and i love Paul,

 

 

do that and you'll have a democracy...

post #16 of 246

This polling site says I'm 85% Romney

but he's just a RINO version of BHO ...

 

Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney 85%

on economic, domestic policy, immigration, social, healthcare, and environmental issues. 

Ron Paul
 Ron Paul 82%
my REAL choice on economic, domestic policy, foreign policy, immigration, healthcare, and environmental issues. 

 

6600944.png
Jill Stein 27% ...
I side the most with Jill Stein on science issues

Who you side with by party...

100% Informed Independent!

90% Republican

77% Libertarian

27% Democratic

15% Green

 

post #17 of 246
We need a multi-party system again in the US. We should have socialists (I'd never vote for them), super conservatives (that I'd go with), liberals, conservatives, independent party, republican, democratic, green party, etc. This two party system looks like a dictatorship the way it is right now. I think that the repubs want Obama reelected so they can have 4 more years of doing their deals and not getting flack about it from the public and then the dems would get eight years to do their business and attack repubs.
If it weren't for a select few republicans in Washington, like Jim Demint for example, this country would be in hell and run by crazy left-wing socialists. When we've got cry-babies like Boehner and do nothings like McConnell being the leaders of the opposition party (which in my opinion is non-existent which is why Obama's been able to get away with so much) the future doesn't look very bright.
post #18 of 246

well 3 parties would solve the issue.. technically there is 3 but they choose not to recognize the independents as their own affiliation.

I endorse a 3 party system and something more like the house of commons where they can talk smack to each other.

 

Now that would be fun. Speaking of fun, im going to try that test now lol.

post #19 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjoke View Post

well 3 parties would solve the issue.. technically there is 3 but they choose not to recognize the independents as their own affiliation.

I endorse a 3 party system and something more like the house of commons where they can talk smack to each other.

 

Now that would be fun. Speaking of fun, im going to try that test now lol.

 

 

3 party system and a house of commons... hmmm... the more you try to convince me that being an American is better than being a Canadian, the more you sound like you wish you were Canadian... can't have it both ways! bwahahaha!

post #20 of 246
Thread Starter 
Thread topic is about projecting the electoral map, which candidate you agree with, and our system of government can have a direct effect on the outcome. Licking our nethers like a dog self-cleaning about which country is best is better left for the pointless off-topic hooligan forum.

Here is one other thing affecting the electoral map these days... Obama's team is clearly guiding the election narrative. Can Romney find anything to talk about other than the economy? If not Obama just needs to fight on that topic to something approaching a draw and he will collect 300-350 EVs with ease. Discuss.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Politics
HotStockMarket › Forums › Community › Politics › 2012 Presidential Election - Projecting the Electoral Map