US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Tyrannical]

Ironically, Ron Paul would bring chaos to that tabulation. Obama wouldn't even carry California over the medical marijuana issue. Would be fun to watch the anti-war protestors picket Obama.

You mean if he was Romney's running mate? Not likely, and that'll never happen anyway (feel free to quote me). If you're suggesting that Obama vs Paul would throw the electoral map up in the air, I would counter-suggest that such a contest would result in Obama winning all 50 states.

Paul is competitive compared to Mittens, sometimes even more so. Paul does well with independents, and with certain key traditional Democrat demographics like the youth, hippie pot heads, and anti-war protestors.

A debate between the two would be interesting, given that Paul is intelligent with a sharp memory and Obama can barely make a coherent point without a teleprompter.

[Warren Dew]

Some electoral math…

Here are the states I expect are solidly safe for Obama: California, Connecticut, D.C., Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts (sorry, Governor), Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington. Total electoral votes: 218
(People always talk about Pennsylvania being a battleground state, and thanks to the backwoods mountain people living in the center of it there always seems to be some hope for Republicans to take it. But in the end it’s a blue state, end of story.)

And ones that are still likely for Obama, but might be a fight: Wisconsin, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico. Total electoral votes: 39

Here are the states I expect are solidly safe for Romney: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana (yes, Obama won it last time, but that was something of a fluke), Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Mississippi, Nebraska, N. Carolina (same comment as Indiana) N. Dakota, Oklahoma, S. Carolina, S. Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming. Total electoral votes: 170

And ones that are still likely to go to Romney, but might be a fight: Arizona, N. Carolina (same comment as Indiana). Total electoral votes: 26.

And the true battleground states: Iowa, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia. Total electoral votes: 91

Adding the first two paragraphs together (218 + 39) and Obama can consider 257 electoral votes to be pretty reliable. Romney can feel safe about 196 (170 + 26). Remember that 270 are needed to win.

Any thoughts on how some of these battleground states are likely to break? Any contentions with some of the “likely” or “safe” red or blue states?

Your math doesn't add up. Or rather, it adds up to 544 electoral votes, which is wrong. You double counted North Carolina, among other things.

[Ian]

Oops. Okay, it was a bit rough, but the numbers still aren't too far off (I'd put North Carolina in the "likely" Romney column, not the safe one). Discuss the states and your own electoral math. How do you see it adding up?

[Tyrannical]

Anyone due the math if for some reason no one gets a majority of the electoral college vote?
It then goes to the House, but only one vote per State.

[Tyrannical]

Almost time to drive to my State convention and cast my delegate vote.
County voting is not until after 4:00, but when the Chair is elected at around 10:00 we should know who is going to win by that vote count.

[Tyrannical]

Interesting video claims delegates aren't bound. So those "bound" delegates from Massachusetts that went to Paul supporters might just vote for Paul anyways at the convention. All bets could be off if enough delegates can be stolen.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oops. Okay, it was a bit rough, but the numbers still aren't too far off (I'd put North Carolina in the "likely" Romney column, not the safe one). Discuss the states and your own electoral math. How do you see it adding up?

I think N.C. will pretty much go Romney. 61% for that gay marriage ban? It's a southern state, too, with lots o' those rednecks you've mentioned before. They're dumb, fat and racist, so no way would they vote for Obama.

Here's a likely scenario for a Romney win; He needs to win Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and Ohio, and one of these:: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico or Iowa. A win in Pennsylvania or New Hampshire – both of which went “blue” in 2004 – plus the original four would also work.

And, here is another possibility -- Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana go Romney. He picks up two states carried by George W. Bush in 2000/2004 – Florida and Ohio; and then picks up one of eight states, many of which were considered Republican before 2008 – New Hampshire, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

A third possibility is Romney would need to hold onto to all the states carried by John McCain, and carry Nevada, Indiana, Colorado, Iowa and Ohio, and then North Carolina and Florida. Colorado is probably the toughest of those states for Romney to carry but if he lost Colorado, the same scenario would work by substituting in Virginia.

Any scenario becomes a tad bit easier if he carries the traditionally Blue states of PA and WI, which is possible.

[Coito ergo sum]

Anyone due the math if for some reason no one gets a majority of the electoral college vote?
It then goes to the House, but only one vote per State.

Could you imagine the mess...

....both candidates would sue for recounts all over the country to try to shift the electoral results... hundreds of lawyers...many emergency appeals...petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court like in 2000.... votes contested....one side trying to put the vote through the House because they think they've got the votes, and the other trying to delay it....imagine -- the House votes, electing a President, then after that the appeals go through to SCOTUS who changes the electoral map to give the other guy the victory....

I think it would be fun to watch, but it could break the back of the Constitution.

[Warren Dew]

Anyone due the math if for some reason no one gets a majority of the electoral college vote?
It then goes to the House, but only one vote per State.

Could you imagine the mess...

....both candidates would sue for recounts all over the country to try to shift the electoral results... hundreds of lawyers...many emergency appeals...petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court like in 2000.... votes contested....one side trying to put the vote through the House because they think they've got the votes, and the other trying to delay it....imagine -- the House votes, electing a President, then after that the appeals go through to SCOTUS who changes the electoral map to give the other guy the victory....

You forgot the part where the military steps in and the military government is welcomed because nobody wants either one of the candidates any more.

Fortunately that doesn't seem to be in the cards this year because there's no viable third party candidate.

[Ian]

Anyone due the math if for some reason no one gets a majority of the electoral college vote?
It then goes to the House, but only one vote per State.

Could you imagine the mess...

....both candidates would sue for recounts all over the country to try to shift the electoral results... hundreds of lawyers...many emergency appeals...petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court like in 2000.... votes contested....one side trying to put the vote through the House because they think they've got the votes, and the other trying to delay it....imagine -- the House votes, electing a President, then after that the appeals go through to SCOTUS who changes the electoral map to give the other guy the victory....

I think it would be fun to watch, but it could break the back of the Constitution.

Maybe we'd finally get to see some tanks in the streets of downtown DC.
That's something that was sorely lacking after the 2000 election.

[Coito ergo sum]

LOL -- I hope that is an emotional and not a rational comment on your part.

[Ian]

LOL -- I hope that is an emotional and not a rational comment on your part.

It was neither emotional or rational.

Sometimes I think DC could use a good armed insurrection, with a smattering of militias and military factions duking it out in the streets. And to the victor go the charred ruins spoils.
Just kidding, of course.

[Warren Dew]

Sometimes I think DC could use a good armed insurrection, with a smattering of militias and military factions duking it out in the streets. And to the victor go the charred ruins spoils.

I've thought that ever since I found out what the capital area was like three decades ago.

The problem is doing it in a way that doesn't mess up the rest of the country.

[JimC]

Oz will have an election sometime soon. The Labour Party will suffer a horrible defeat, having shot itself in the foot with a multitude of incompetent actions, and a nasty little man called Abbott will be the next PM...

[Clinton Huxley]

LOL -- I hope that is an emotional and not a rational comment on your part.

It was neither emotional or rational.

Sometimes I think DC could use a good armed insurrection, with a smattering of militias and military factions duking it out in the streets. And to the victor go the charred ruins spoils.
Just kidding, of course.

We could deploy some redcoats as a "peace-keeping" force if that would help.....