Obama General Discussion, vol. 4

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Jeez, and he endorsed Santorum at one point? And is a birther?

Oh yeah, he's an idiot.

The far left has moron conspiracy theorists, too. They're called truthers.

 

[corianderstem]

Are they very truthy?

 

[PhilsFan]

The far left has moron conspiracy theorists, too. They're called truthers.

Are there any "truthers" who held elected office?

And it should be noted that one of the main proponents of the "birther movement" was also a "truther."

 

[BVS]

Yeah I think the Truther movement is one of those rare movements that comes full circle and encompasses extreme right and extreme left.

 

[deep]

Obama shifts to Ryan education plan

By JIM KUHNHENN and PHILIP ELLIOTT
Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- President Barack Obama charged rival Mitt Romney with being oblivious to the burdens of paying for college on Tuesday, telling young voters in battleground Ohio that his opponent's education policies amounted to having students borrow from their parents or "shop around" for the best deal.

"That's his plan. That's his answer to young people who are trying to figure out how to go to college and make sure that they don't have a mountain of debt," Obama said at Capital University in Columbus. "Not everybody has parents who have the money to lend. That may be news to some folks."

Actually that is very good advice. Obama still has a chance to lose my vote.

 

[BVS]

Yeah, all those kids who have the grades good enough to break the cycle of poverty but don't live in a college town or have parents that can lend the money, that is excellent advice.

Yay to ignorant trickledownism

 

[deep]

K - 12 education is something that should be provided at public costs.

Workers, taxpayers should not be required to pick up the tab for higher education. I chose an inexpensive college and worked 2 jobs when I went to college. Granted my grades were not very good. I also chose to pretty much stay away from the students loans they kept encouraging me to take out. I just did not want the debt.

 

[BVS]

Yeah, that's pretty much my response to Bernie everytime.

This guy has no right to talk bias and the fact that politics is dirty is nothing new. His connections are weak at best, but that's where he makes his living...

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Re: Romney's "ask your parents and shop around" for money for college-oh, THAT'S all I had to do? Gee, why didn't I think of that before, it's so simple!

Oh, wait, maybe 'cause my parents couldn't afford to give me that kind of money. Dumbass.

As for Obama running a dirty campaign...I absolutely LOVE how the Republicans have absolutely no problem getting as dirty and offensive as possible in their political tactics-Obama wasn't born here, he's got terrorist/communist ties, he's a secret Muslim who's going to destroy America. And they even do it to their own side-see the whole "McCain fathered an illegitimate black child" thing from years back.

But the moment the Democrats dare try and play the same game with them (or appear to play the same game): "Waaaaaah, they're being mean to us! They're not playing fair! They're not being honest!"

I'm not saying I've agreed with everything the Obama campaign has done so far-I certainly want them to dig in and criticize the Republicans, but on legitimate issues (and lord knows they have plenty of examples). I don't want them to stoop to the nasty levels of the Republicans and distort the truth.

But still, quit your whining, GOP. You have no moral high ground here.

 

[Axver]

K - 12 education is something that should be provided at public costs.

Workers, taxpayers should not be required to pick up the tab for higher education.

I'm curious: why consider tertiary to be distinct from primary and secondary education?

I must admit, the tertiary education debate in the US comes across as kind of strange to me. There's only one true private university in Australia, and none in New Zealand.

 

[deep]

I know from different countries it may seem odd.

But a K - 12, ages 5 through about 17-18 is all that is required.
Any more education beyond that is voluntary.

My whole life, I knew if I wanted to go to college I (or my family) would have to pay for it. I knew some kids got scholarships based on grades or sports, but my grades ans sport skills would not help me.
I also knew rich kids that could afford very expensive private colleges. They also had other privileges, brand new sport cars, expensive vacations abroad, etc.
The way of the world, those that have more money, have more advantages.

 

[maycocksean]

Actually that is very good advice. Obama still has a chance to lose my vote.

I was at that speech today. It was pretty good!

At any rate, the problem with Romney's statement is not that it is poor advice per se. It just shows a lack of compassion and a kind of tone-deafness about the tough choices many prospective college students have to make. The point Obama was trying to make--and he was definitely politicking, no doubt it and I know that is horrifying and unacceptable in a presidential candidate -- was that he understands what it is to be a struggling student in a way that Romney doesn't.

Ask your parents is the epitome of out of touch. Not everybody's dad is George Romney.

Shop around is perhaps a more acceptable piece of advice, but again suggests that students carrying on about the cost of college education are just whiners unwilling to work, or settle for a less desirable but cheaper school, or are seeking to take out the most loans they can and then be excused from paying it back. If I'm a college student hearing that argument, I'm offended. If I'm someone who long ago finished college and sees the current generation as a bunch of lazy whiners, that argument resonates.

So feeling that Romney has given "good advice" which Obama has dismissed to me is not the strongest reason to reconsider voting for him. If you disagree with Obama's policies regarding higher education. . .that's another matter. But would expect more of you than to be taken in by the cheap politicking that both candidates are displaying on this topic.

I also find it interesting that we feel that K-12 should be publically funded, but not college. Isn't that a rather outmoded idea that no longer reflects the world we live in? After all, there was a time a century or so ago when you could get by with an 8th or even 5th grade education. Times changed, and our expectations of what should be considered basic education changed too.

 

[Axver]

I know from different countries it may seem odd.

But a K - 12, ages 5 through about 17-18 is all that is required.
Any more education beyond that is voluntary.

My whole life, I knew if I wanted to go to college I (or my family) would have to pay for it. I knew some kids got scholarships based on grades or sports, but my grades ans sport skills would not help me.
I also knew rich kids that could afford very expensive private colleges. They also had other privileges, brand new sport cars, expensive vacations abroad, etc.
The way of the world, those that have more money, have more advantages.

Down here, there is similarly no compulsory education beyond high school level (the school leaving age varies between 15-17 in New Zealand and Australia's states), but I agree with Sean's point about how times have changed; university is increasingly becoming a key component of education, even if it remains voluntary. For many careers, a tertiary education is simply essential.

My whole life, I knew that if I wanted to go to university, I (or my family) would have to pay for it too. I don't see too much difference there. The days of free university are unfortunately gone and not in a hurry to come back (though the Australian government effectively pays most full-time PhD candidates to do their studies). But we certainly don't experience the crushing debt that seems so common in the US and acceptance is based on academic merit alone; nobody can buy themselves into a better tertiary education than a more talented but poorer person. Or at least that's the theory - being able to afford a private high school education, living in a rural area, and other socio-economic factors obviously make that sort of claim a bit questionable.

I guess a lot of this comes down to divergent histories. The US had the private capital to fund private universities. In Australia and especially New Zealand, private capital was very limited in the 19th century and the state was expected to pursue development. This included universities, which were basically beyond the means of local capital. Hence New Zealand actually had a national tertiary education system a few years before it had a national primary or secondary education system.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

So, the election will come down to this.....

1 - Romney will automatically flip Indiana from the Obama column. Nobody is doubting this. It's not a swing state, it's totally red, and the Obama camp knows it's fruitless to try to flip it back.

2 - Romney needs Florida, North Carolina and Ohio. There is no getting around this. You can come up with scenarios where he loses North Carolina and wins by nabbing Virgina, but that makes no sense since North Carolina is redder, etc.

3 - If Romney wins all three of those major swing states, he's still 11 electoral votes short of victory. The only paths to the win from there are to either nab Virginia or get the less likely combo of Colorado and Iowa.


If Romney loses any of Florida, North Carolina or Ohio on election night, it's automatically over. If he gets all three, he'll win with Virginia. If he loses Virginia, we won't know the result until he loses Iowa or loses/wins Colorado (after winning Iowa).

It still seems extremely unlikely that we'll suffer a Romney presidency based on the polling so far this year and strong leads that Obama has managed to hold onto in states like Ohio. However, Romney is starting to trend upward in key swing states and one wonders if his huge advertising advantage will clearly start paying off real soon.

 

[deep]

that is pretty much how I see it
and I expect to see things stay pretty much as they are

of course some October surprise planned or not could shift this 3-5 points and shake thing up.

I think it is more likely that would break Obama's direction more than Romney/ Ryan's way. I've been watching Ohio closely, I can't see how Romney takes that state. And without Ohio, all the other stars and planets would have to line up perfectly.

I think it is possible Obama could win, the GOP keep the House and the Senate could flip GOP with Akin in MO eeking out a win.

 

[INDY500]

3 - If Romney wins all three of those major swing states, he's still 11 electoral votes short of victory. The only paths to the win from there are to either nab Virginia or get the less likely combo of Colorado and Iowa.

Wisconsin is now in play.

 

[deep]

like I said

all the other stars and planets would have to line up perfectly.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Wisconsin is now in play.

No, it's not. The only polls with a Romney lead are partisan and give him a 1% advantage over Obama whereas the rest of the polls have Obama winning by 3-6%. Compounding things further is that the polls recently conducted with Romney in the lead come right after the usual VP bounce of a few points.

However, I don't think it's impossible that Romney wins in Wisconsin, but I think the other key swing states would fall first in that scenario, making Wisconsin an unnecessary win. On top of it, the GOP isn't going to waste much time or money on that state when the ones I mentioned earlier are do-or-die.

 

[deep]

it is kind of funny
when one starts flipping the so called 7-8 undecided states
all Obama needs is FL and OH and it is over
they could have two or 3 of the leaning states wrong, MN could go GOP

but then if you play around with it a bit you can end up at a pretty close electoral election, and there are a couple of scenarios where it could be 269-269,

which most likely would flip it to Romney

 

[digitize]

In the case of 269-269, I think there's somewhat of a chance that Romney could be president and Biden could be VP, which would be fun.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

In the case of 269-269, I think there's somewhat of a chance that Romney could be president and Biden could be VP, which would be fun.

Obviously, Republicans will hold the house regardless and Romney would be elected President. But what the hell happens if it's 50-50 in the Senate? It says that the sitting Vice President can't be the tie-breaking vote....

Regardless, while the odds of the senate being 50-50 after this election are extremely high, the 269 to 269 scenario is pretty unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

On top of this, while the House is supposed to immediately vote for President, if the Democrats simply refused to show up, they could avoid the vote taking place. Under that scenario, the Vice-President elect from the Senate would become Acting President.

Theoretically....

1) 269 tie

2) Democrats refuse to vote in House

3) Senate votes for Biden by 51-49 vote

4) Biden becomes "President"

Of course, the House would eventually be forced to vote on the President before anything else. And Romney would get his way.

 

[digitize]

Obviously, Republicans will hold the house regardless and Romney would be elected President. But what the hell happens if it's 50-50 in the Senate? It says that the sitting Vice President can't be the tie-breaking vote....

What says that? The twelfth amendment, which outlines election procedure, says "a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to [for?] a choice". I'm not sure if that would support allowing Biden to vote or not in the case of 50-50. If it's stuck at 50-50, and can't get un-stuck... well, who knows?

Unfortunately, Democrats can't boycott a vote in the House to effectively prevent a quorum. The POTUS is chosen by the house in an Electoral College tie, but not in the form of a straight vote. Rather, representatives from each state get together, choose a POTUS (who knows what would happen in a tie?), and each state casts a ballot. Each state's vote is equal in this, and I'm almost positive that there's no chance of that not going GOP, though I haven't looked into numbers. Two thirds of states must be present in this final vote, but the constitution says that only one representative is necessary from each state. So the Democrats could only effectively boycott in states where they control all of the representatives, which I doubt is a third of states. Also, even if it was doable, it would stink of disgustingly played politics and cheating the system, even worse than 2000. Even as an Obama supporter and someone who would much rather see Biden in the White House than Romney, I would be against that sort of maneuver.

We need an instant runoff popular vote system. Badly.

 

[digitize]

However...

Not implausible, but not really likely either. I'd prefer a Romney presidency to what hell would break loose in the weeks following a 269-269 split.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Man, I hope Iowa doesn't go red.

(Says the girl whose favorite color, ironically, is red.)

 

[Irvine511]

Wisconsin is now in play.

This week.

 

[digitize]

For those interested in a map, this is where things are currently sitting:

The data for this are from Real Clear Politics's current polling averages. This map, of course, looks really rosy for Obama, but it doesn't tell the whole story. A lot of states have gotten somewhat tighter in the past few weeks, I believe. A lot of the polls averaged into this are several weeks old (the oldest I see are late July), and newer polls tend to point a little more favorably to Romney than do older polls. However, most of the newest polls averaged in are from Rasmussen and Purple Strategies, which trend to the right of reality.

 

[U2DMfan]

Rasmussen was the most accurate in both the 2004 and 2008 Presidential elections. Almost exact predictions. Can't deny that.

Intrade has it 57 to 42, Obama. Wow.

Florida is not going Blue. At least I don't think.
Romney needs 64 electoral votes according to that map. +29 for Florida.
35 is a much easier path.
Iowa, Colorado and Ohio is 33 and doable.
Could Romney get New Hampshire for 4 more?
Virginia is going to be huge as well but I suspect it goes Blue.

ETA
Apparently Obama up +6 in NH according to one recent poll.
Romney +2 in FL and statistical tie in OH according to Rasmussen.

 

[digitize]

I'm not overly familiar with polling companies; I've just heard that Rasmussen tends to skew right of reality, not just right of other polls. But if they are more reliable, this is a map based on their current numbers:

They don't have recent polls for Pennsylvania, but I just shaded it blue because... it's gonna be blue. Ohio and Colorado are ties right now according to them. Obama would win under this scenario with just Ohio. Romney would need both Ohio and Colorado to win outright. Obama winning Colorado and Romney winning Ohio would be another 269-269 tie (ugh).

 

[trojanchick99]

In 2008 I thought FiveThirtyEight was the most accurate. I like that he collects data from the various polls.

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com