Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[Rainsford]

I feel the exact opposite. Obama is a disaster and the fact that Romney isn't up by huge numbers is the biggest problem with our country. We're going to have to go broke before we can make the changes we need to make it seems.

If Obama does in fact when, that's going to be why. The whole Republican argument for years (at least it seems like years) has been that Obama has been a horrible disaster as President, taking a once prosperous country into an economic free fall that we will be lucky if we recover from.

And it's an effective campaign strategy, if you can prove it. The problem is that Republicans HAVEN'T done a good job proving it. Laying all our recent economic problems at Obama's feet is something that's incredibly hard to sell (because people remember when this all started and why). And saying he's made it worse hasn't really worked either. Attacking the slow recovery might have been effective if people weren't slowly gaining confidence in the economy again and if Republicans didn't spend at least half the time arguing we're not recovering at all.

To be honest though, I think the real issue is the national debt and spending argument. When you're having trouble finding a job and can't get health care, arguments about long-term national debt sound like a bunch of accounting bullshit you couldn't care less about. And I agree that we should work on getting our national debt under a bit more control, but grinding the government to a halt to do so or making it our only priority doesn't seem like a tremendously smart idea to me when the economy is still shaky. Attacking the national debt with 400% enthusiasm will do absolutely nothing for our economy in the short term and beating the national debt drums hasn't helped the Republicans at all with people worried about the economy NOW.

Romney may win tomorrow, you never know. But if he does lose, blame it on overreach. Making the argument that things are worse than ever and Obama is destroying our country is a pretty big claim, and one that I don't think Republicans sufficiently backed up. Going for less would have been a better strategy, in my not at all expert opinion. The Tea Party did (sort of) good in 2010, I don't think they're a long term winner for the Republicans.

I'm way too liberal to even consider voting Republican (with a few exceptions). But I have friends who lean Republican on economic issues who are voting Obama because of the ridiculous way Republicans have approached economic issues this election...and because of their social issue position that they can't quite escape.

 

[Fern]

Hey Fern,

I don't know a lot about how these sorts of things are tabulated but am very interested in them -- could you perhaps expand on the above? I'm wondering how it is that the first could be changed but the second could not be.

Thanks,
Screech

In my state we have separate lists that track who votes, has nothing to do with the machine. When voting regularly the poll worker just resets the machine. (S)he doesn't know who I am or what my name is. (Unlike with early voting when all your data is input so they can coordinate with my precinct to make sure I don't show up to vote again.)

I.e., I don't believe they are generating the D vs. R ratio with the machines here.

Also, the voter turnout info we first get comes from exit polling. It may not be 100% accurate but it usually isn't too far off.

Fern

 

[shortylickens]

Bush got elected twice for the same reason Obama will be elected twice:

For all the whining they do the American public has an incredibly short term memory.

 

[Jhhnn]

First thing to look at is voter turnout. There is a lot of disagreement on the right ratio of D's vs. R's.

If the ratio is the close, unlike many models predicting an Obama win, then a Romney win wouldn't likely be fraud, just an underestimate of R participation in many polls. Given the higher enthusiasm level for the R's it wouldn't be surprising if they were under sampled.

OTOH, if the D's do have a big turnout advantage yet Obama loses one should be suspicious. It would mean D's voting for Romney.

A machine can change your vote, but cannot change your party affiliation, so we should know the correct turnout ratio no matter what.

Fern

Party affiliation in Ohio is determined by which ballot you selected in the primary. Given that primary turnout is quite low, it's impossible to determine party affiliation of most voters.

Installing experimental non-certified software this close to the election is unbelievably arrogant & highly suspect, to say the least.

Coming from strict voter ID "election integrity" advocates, it's utterly shameful. The perps belong in jail, even if the changes are benign.

 

[Doppel]

Bush got elected twice for the same reason Obama will be elected twice:

For all the whining they do the American public has an incredibly short term memory.

This says you are retardedly ignorant.

 

[TraumaRN]

FWIW in Michigan state election officials are predicting 66% voter turnout....the same as in 2008.

If that kind of turnout happens nationwide in the swing states it'll be over quite quickly for Romney.

 

[First]

AFAIK all voting machines are inspected postmortem anyway via software audit, so the whole issue seems a bit nonsensical anyway. It's really not hard to forensically compare election copies of software to verified, original versions. You can probably do it with Encase, though I haven't in years so I'm talking out of my ass.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Party affiliation in Ohio is determined by which ballot you selected in the primary. Given that primary turnout is quite low, it's impossible to determine party affiliation of most voters.

More than that -- how many people would have preferred to vote in the Democratic primary over the GOP one this year? Not many.

 

[Jhhnn]

Bush got elected twice for the same reason Obama will be elected twice:

For all the whining they do the American public has an incredibly short term memory.

Not that short. Many of us still remember how deregulated free market banking in the Ownership society & innovative financial products crashed the economy. We remember two pointless & fruitless wars w/ fatcat taxcuts accompanying them.

Romney just wants to give us an encore...

 

[Jhhnn]

More than that -- how many people would have preferred to vote in the Democratic primary over the GOP one this year? Not many.

Quite true, making determination of party affiliation even less likely.

 

[Jhhnn]

AFAIK all voting machines are inspected postmortem anyway via software audit, so the whole issue seems a bit nonsensical anyway. It's really not hard to forensically compare election copies of software to verified, original versions. You can probably do it with Encase, though I haven't in years so I'm talking out of my ass.

It's not about the voting machines themselves, but rather about the computers that tabulate the results from all the voting machines, the mother ships of computerized voting.

 

[First]

It's not about the voting machines themselves, but rather about the computers that tabulate the results from all the voting machines, the mother ships of computerized voting.

I'm not sure that is controlled by partisans though, and I'd be appalled if there wasn't some auditing in place that assured election database computers were up to snuff, be it older SAS70 or SSAE 16 certifications. And while those basic certs don't guarantee software wasn't tampered with, it does add another layer of security that would make it unlikely someone went through the trouble to circumvent last second. It would have to be an inside job basically, not a partisan directive at the state or local officials level.

 

[buckshot24]

Yes but the reason you're saying this is because you're part of the problem. Clearly highly uneducated and unintelligent and a sheep who believes things that Rush Limbaugh tells you.

Rush Limbaugh didn't tell me to tell you to go fuck yourself.

You are unable to make independent decisions or read sources of information that differ from right wing talk radio.

I just told you to go fuck yourself on my own.

When numbers stare you in the face you pretend that they aren't real and make up excuses about how different numbers should be in their place because you "feel" like they should.

Ignore the conflicting data if you want, but I feel no obligation to do so.

You use words like "disaster" about Obama when things are better today than they were 4 years ago. I'm not saying Obama is good since I don't believe that at all but "disaster" is a really ignorant thing to say.

Maybe in another thread I'd be happy tell you what is so disastrous about this president but not here.

Vote for a 3rd party candidate if you don't like Obama. I'm all for that. Get their numbers higher so they can get some monetary support in 4 years. However voting for a tragic example of a political candidate like Romney is clearly self destructive.

Thank for the advice. I have some advice for you. Go make sex with your self.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sam Wang now has Obama at 98.2%.

 

[shortylickens]

This says you are retardedly ignorant.

My points have history to back them up, yours are just opinions.

 

[Jhhnn]

It would have to be an inside job basically, not a partisan directive at the state or local officials level.

Of course. That's the real concern, obviously.

 

[Jhhnn]

Maybe in another thread I'd be happy tell you what is so disastrous about this president but not here.

When you can't substantiate an assertion, merely say that you refuse, tell the guy who asked for it to go fuck himself.

Helluva argument.

 

[shortylickens]

Not that short. Many of us still remember how deregulated free market banking in the Ownership society & innovative financial products crashed the economy. We remember two pointless & fruitless wars w/ fatcat taxcuts accompanying them.

Romney just wants to give us an encore...

Those banks took risks because they were supported by the government. They need to be allowed to fail for their stupidity.

 

[Doppel]

My points have history to back them up, yours are just opinions.

Of course, what you said is demonstrable fact

 

[monovillage]

Rush Limbaugh didn't tell me to tell you to go fuck yourself.

I just told you to go fuck yourself on my own.

Ignore the conflicting data if you want, but I feel no obligation to do so.

Maybe in another thread I'd be happy tell you what is so disastrous about this president but not here.
Thank for the advice. I have some advice for you. Go make sex with your self.

That was a hilarious response to randomrouge's little diatribe.

 

[Engineer]

Sam Wang now has Obama at 98.2%.

Link: http://election.princeton.edu/

 

[Dari]

Do all these pollsters factor in the fact that nearly 2/3rd of all voters may have already voted?

 

[buckshot24]

When you can't substantiate an assertion, merely say that you refuse, tell the guy who asked for it to go fuck himself.

Helluva argument.

I wasn't presenting my judgement that Obama is a disaster as a topic of debate. Furthermore I respond to smugness and arrogance with the level of discourse it deserves.

Besides, maybe he'd enjoy making sex with himself.

 

[buckshot24]

Party affiliation in Ohio is determined by which ballot you selected in the primary. Given that primary turnout is quite low, it's impossible to determine party affiliation of most voters.

Party affiliation that we're talking about is not registration but self declared. So you missed the entire point of what was being discussed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Those banks took risks because they were supported by the government. They need to be allowed to fail for their stupidity.

Quite the contrary. They need to be denied the opportunity to fail spectacularly, which was the whole point of New Deal banking regulation in the first place. We need sound banking & a truly healthy financial sector to have a sound economy. As we've seen, failure in the financial sector cascades into the rest of the economy.

It worked for 70+ years, until Repubs convinced us that we could do without it...