It's almost over - less than 60 hours. Plus, my predictions!!!!

There’s a little more than 48 hours to go, but less than 60. I can’t wait until this shit is over.

My prediction? Well, I don’t fucking know. How’s that?

I don’t trust any of the polls cited in this forum. They are generally cherry-picked by die-hard partisans from either side. Some polls discuss the national opinion, which makes no real difference. That will mostly affect the popular vote, not the electoral vote. A lot of individual state polls are skewed by bad sampling. Every time I see a poll released, it generally takes less than 24 hours until problems with its methodology are pointed out.

Let’s assume Obama has a slight edge in the polls on Romney right now. A couple of things may happen that will surprise folks on both sides.

On the pro-Obama side, a lot of folks who are dissatisfied with the rate of recovery and may be inclined to give Romney a try may get cold feet at the last minute. The economy is dragging, they may think, but at least it is headed in the right direction. Romney may upset the apple cart and things could take a turn for the worst. And Romney gives people plenty of cause to be suspicious of him. So, better to stick with the devil they know, than the devil they don’t. Can’t blame them for thinking that. That is one of the advantages of incumbency. So, Obama wins by a bigger than expected margin.

On the pro-Romney side, a lot of folks who voted for Obama the first time may be unwilling to say they are going to change their vote. For one, that would seem to be an admission that they were wrong the first time. No one likes to do that – just look at the posters on this board. Second, there is the Bradley effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect. A lot of people who are polled before an election may say that they support a minority candidate even if they actually prefer his or her white opponent, out of fear of being labeled a racist. But, when they are alone in the voting booth, they vote for the candidate they really prefer.

The first time around, Obama got the benefit of a lot of “feel good” support among Americans because they thought it was a long overdue good thing that a black man was finally a serious candidate for POTUS. This was especially true among young people, who heavily supported Obama in 2008. Well, the novelty factor is gone now. Obama now has a record that can be analyzed. And a lot of people are disillusioned, especially young people who are not expected to turn out as much this time as last time. Being jobless can have that affect. So, while they may say they still support him, they may do so to avoid being labeled a racist by their cohort. But, in the booth, they may pull the lever for Romney. Thus, Romney wins in a slight upset.

I have no clue if either of those will happen. Or Obama may squeak through in accordance with the polls. Any one of those thinks has a pretty good chance of happening. Which is why all the chest-thumping on this board about the polls is ridiculous.

Now, what do I hope will happen? Well I don’t care for either candidate. But if forced to choose, I think it might be best if we have divided government. So, I hope Obama wins and the Republicans maintain control of the House and/or pick up seats in the Senate. If that happens, then we may have at least some chance that spending will be reduced because neither side will want to give the other side money for their programs.

The last time we had divided government, Clinton was President, the Republicans held Congress, and spending was held in check. The result was that for one year, the budget actually got balanced. Unfortunately, however, it was balanced because the dot-com bubble was superheating the economy. We don’t have a booming economy now. Still, divided government may be a step in the right direction.

So I may vote Obama for President and them pull all the rest of the levers for Republicans.

Gridlock is good.

And if the popular vote goes one way and the Electoral College goes the other way, I hope like hell that it is Obama that wins the Electoral College.

If the Republicans win the Presidency by Electoral College only again, there will be endless howling from the ignorant base of Dem voters that the system has somehow been rigged by the Republicans to disenfranchise the downtrodden masses, blah, blah, blah.

If Obama wins the same way Bush won in 2000, then all the conspiracy theory mongerers on the left will be forced to shut up.

Although there is little doubt SEE3772 will STILL post some Chicken-Little links.

Romney isn't going to win the Electoral College. He may eke out a win in the popular vote but not the EC.

The bigger question is how much squealing will come from the tea baggers when Obama wins without the popular vote?

We got fucked with Bush twice. We're used to the GOP electoral shennanigans.

though I believe Obama will win with both popular and EC, I am interested in seeing how the bubble dwellers will react if Romney loses EC but wins popular.

And if the popular vote goes one way and the Electoral College goes the other way, I hope like hell that it is Obama that wins the Electoral College.

If the Republicans win the Presidency by Electoral College only again, there will be endless howling from the ignorant base of Dem voters .... Originally Posted by ExNYer

Let them howl. The Electoral College is the only reason the Democratic Election Officials in NYC, Chicago and LA aren't stealing the Presidency. The Dems know this, they just feign ignorance. Those who aren't feigning ignorance are just stupid. *ahem008*

If Obama wins the same way Bush won in 2000, then all the conspiracy theory mongerers on the left will be forced to shut up. Originally Posted by ExNYer

How is that? The Dims are going to again come up with a butterfly ballot that confuses their constituency? Not Likely. NOT!

Now, what do I hope will happen? Well I don’t care for either candidate. But if forced to choose, I think it might be best if we have divided government. So, I hope Obama wins and the Republicans maintain control of the House and/or pick up seats in the Senate. If that happens, then we may have at least some chance that spending will be reduced because neither side will want to give the other side money for their programs.

The last time we had divided government, Clinton was President, the Republicans held Congress, and spending was held in check. The result was that for one year, the budget actually got balanced. Unfortunately, however, it was balanced because the dot-com bubble was superheating the economy. We don’t have a booming economy now. Still, divided government may be a step in the right direction. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Our history over the last decade certainly suggests that giving either of our dysfuctional parties all the levers of power is a little like handing over a 500HP muscle car to an overtestosteroned high school kid. Just look at what the Republicans started doing about ten years ago, and the Democrats in 2009. Both parties showered favored constituencies with hundreds of billions of dollars when they had the opportunity.

Divided government worked in the 1990s because Bill Clinton wisely moved to the center. I hope Obama will finally realize that he needs to do the same, but I'm doubtful. Remember, spending as a percentage of GDP fell by about three percentage points during the last half of the 1990s. Yes, the productivity and tech boom was largely responsible, but political leaders wisely cooperated to control spending growth.

I'm not sure whether the parties can compromise today since there are so many dogmatic ideologues on both sides. In my view, we'll just hurtle toward destructive gridlock if those in the center-left and center-right don't fend off the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Tea Party.

I saw a short column on The Dallas Morning News website arguing that real reform or a "grand bargain" can only get done if a number of key players are willing to "play within the 40-yard lines", as he puts it. Here's a key excerpt:

There’s no doubt that folks on the left and right ends of the political spectrum are going to be very annoyed if their party loses Tuesday. But most important is how people “within the 40-yard lines” respond. Folks on the center/right and center/left are the ones who usually move legislation, work out solutions, find common ground, etc.

So, how will they deal with Tuesday’s aftermath? The Lamar Alexanders and Michael Bennets in the Senate are the ones that I am interested in watching. If moderate Republicans and Democrats moan or gloat too much, it will set a bad tone for the lame-duck session slated for mid-November. The tone with which they approach the results also will influence the start of the next Congress.

I worry that we have fewer center/right and center/left leaders in Washington. But they will be key to what happens after Tuesday. They are the ones who play within the 40-yard lines and make the system work.

(End of excerpt.)

I think the author makes a couple of pretty good points.

Gridlock is good. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Nice. This furthers the belief that you are anti-American, Whineman.

Hope everybody gets where you're coming from.

Some might even label comments like that as traitorous. I know guys like Rick Perry would.

When you have a President pushing us toward totalitarianism, having others in authority stopping him is good, and patriotic. Hence, gridlock is good.

though I believe Obama will win with both popular and EC, I am interested in seeing how the bubble dwellers will react if Romney loses EC but wins popular. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The "bubble dwellers" as you call them will have no problem with it. Unlike so many of the rank and file in the Dem party, the folks in the GOP know how the EC works, or at least remember how it works from 2000.

I have heard lots of people speculating about an EC/popular vote split, including Tea Party members. NONE of them had a problem with it. Folks who support Constitutional limits on power and understand how a republic works have no problem if there candidate loses the EC while winning the popular vote. That is how the system works.

Stop projecting your own reaction onto others.

Nice. This furthers the belief that you are anti-American, Whineman.

Hope everybody gets where you're coming from.

Some might even label comments like that as traitorous. I know guys like Rick Perry would. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Why is hoping for gridlock anti-American.

If you think that both parties will mishandle the situation if they pursue their respective agendas, and that forcing compromise is better than either alternative, then gridlock is a good thing - at least to you.

What makes you think that pursuing one party's agenda is somehow more American than forcing them to split the difference?

At this point, gridlock is not only desirable -- it's necessary.

Over the last ten years, neither party has shown itself capable of doing anything other than preventing the other from cramming through a ruinous agenda.

What else could eventually force a workable and lasting compromise?

gridlock sucks we elected these fools to represent us not block and sit on their ass.It has become party first people second and get reelected.

Gridlock is bullshit; the political divide that currently exists needs to play itself out....either we get back to the Constitution, or swing farther left.......................oth erwise, the Progressive agenda will keep marching Forward.

I would think that Libertarian thought would be on the side of gridlock being busted up.....otherwise the LP cause has no hope of winning...

Besides, if you want gridlock, then LPers like COG should be voting for it, NOT 3rd party.

We had gridlock the past several years and you still got your NDAA......

"Gridlock is Good"....it is a bullshit slogan that sells the masses on the status quo 2 party rule that has fucked things up.

Also, the gridlock you describe isn't anything like the gridlock we will get with an imperial presidency under a 2nd Obama regime. He doesn't respect the constitution, he doesn't respect American Exceptionalism, he uses America divide to accomplish his Marxist agenda, not bring America together.

BTW, do your homework. For six of the eight years Clinton was president we had a truly divided government (Rep controlled house and senate)......that isn't what we will get with an Obama 2nd term.

And where are your predictions ExNyer ??????????? I don't see any, although you clearly state you were going to give them.

BTW, do your homework. For six of the eight years Clinton was president we had a truly divided government (Rep controlled house and senate)......that isn't what we will get with an Obama 2nd term.

And where are your predictions ExNyer ??????????? I don't see any, although you clearly state you were going to give them. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Now, did you NOT read my opening post at all? Or did you read it and have lousy comprehension?

And where are your predictions ExNyer ??????????? I don't see any, although you clearly state you were going to give them. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Re-read my post again. Pay particular attention to the second and eighth paragraph.

BTW, do your homework. For six of the eight years Clinton was president we had a truly divided government (Rep controlled house and senate)......that isn't what we will get with an Obama 2nd term. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I did do my homework. But you didn't do your reading.

I specifically said that when Clinton was in office we had divided government and we had a balanced budget (for one year anyhow) - because spending was restrained.

I'm hoping for that again. You have a problem with that?