Election Predictions

[goinbroke2]

 

"And fat girls need love too!"

 

"And it never has to be the same crack twice."

 

 

 

And THAT your honor is when I just shut the computor off and left the office.....LOL!

 

 

Seriously...EEWWWW

[RangerM]

If you're old enough, you might remember.......

 

[partsisparts]

Mitt Romney: Whatever It Is I'm For It...Or Against It...Either Way...Or Both.

As Bill Maher said Romney invented a new term. He is Forgainst it.

[partsisparts]

Some election predictions:

 

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/election-predictors-obama-romney

[xr7g428]

This election will come down to who actually votes. If Obama can get his constituency to show up at the polls, he can win. If they blow it off, he will lose.

[FiredMotorCompany]

It has begun.....

 

 

Harry Reid thinks it's laughable that the Senate would work with Romney...

 

Where is the cry of Gridlock against the Senate?

 

 

We'll see.......4 more years or 4 more days................................................................................................

[grbeck]

Again, a distinctly American perspective, and not one that everyone shares. Last time I checked, thats not why art, philosophy, and anthropology majors go into the disciplines.

 

These degrees still cost money, and students work for them with the expectation that they will lead to a job in that field. If the people who earn these degrees cannot land a job that will enable them to pay for said degree, I'd say that there is a problem somewhere.

 

If they are choosing those majors with the goal of expanding their horizons, or merely studying something for fun, that is great, but they'd better have a large bank account to pay the tuition and fees that they will rack up along the way.

 

The idea of studying a particular field for those reasons worked for scions of wealthy families in the 18th and 19th centuries, when a university education was as much about acquiring "polish" and strengthening social connections, as it was about learning anything useful for a career. Even if the student earned what were politely called "gentleman's Cs," he could still expect a job at daddy's firm (or a friend's business) after graduation. Most people today do not have those connections or wealth.

 

When my daughters tell me what they want to study and where they want to study it, I will sit them down and ask them these questions:

 

1. Have you determined how much it will ultimately cost to obtain this degree at your chosen college or university?

2. Will you have to take out any loans for it, and what will be the monthly payments after graduation?

3. What type of jobs are available in this field?

4. How much do they pay?

5. How many of these jobs are there?

6. Are these jobs located in urban areas with a high cost of living?

7. If so, how will the cost of living in these areas affect the money you have left over after meeting expenses?

8. When will you start working on developing a network and connections to land an internship?

9. How will said internship lead to a paying job?

10. Are the jobs typically only available to the top few students in the field?

11. If so, are you prepared to study very hard and earn top grades to stand out from your peers (i.e. your competitors), even if it means sitting at home on quite a few weekends instead of partying?

 

If asking those questions, gives me an "American perspective," I'd say that more than a few students need to adopt that perspective. And these questions definitely need to be asked for the majors you listed.

 

Arguable, and hardly fact.

 

Sadly, it's too often true. And not just with those mean, "narrow-minded" conservatives. Some of the most parochial and close-minded people I've meant have been liberals from large cities (Philadelphia, for example). They have no clue as to what life is really like beyond City Line Avenue.

 

And republicans only measure result is dollars earned? That would be very, very sad indeed. I think we are spending enough on education, but the system is broken. Scott represents another reason why I couldn't vote republican. Anti-science, pro government dictating what you should study in college. He is a dinosaur.

 

For grades kindergarten through 12th grade, the result should be an increase in student achievement in return for an increase in dollars spent.

 

At the university level, students can study what they want, but when they then join the Occupy Movement and whine that their degree in gender studies or photography or puppetry (I'm not making that last one up - a member of Occupy Wall Street in New York City was complaining that he could land a job after obtaining a master's degree in puppetry), I'd ask why they didn't check out job prospects in that particular field BEFORE embarking on a course of study.

 

Scott represents another reason why I couldn't vote republican. Anti-science, pro government dictating what you should study in college. He is a dinosaur.

 

Here is exactly what Governor Scott has proposed, according to the October 24, 2012 edition of the Orlando Sun Sentinel:

 

If you want to save money at Florida's universities, you may soon have to choose biology over ballet or engineering over English.

 

A state task force created by Gov. Rick Scott has released its preliminary recommendations on how to revamp higher education. The proposals end the one-size-fits-all way of funding universities.

 

Highly distinguished universities, such as the University of Florida and Florida State University, could charge more than others. Tuition would be lower for students pursuing degrees most needed for Florida's job market, including ones in science, technology, engineering and math, collectively known as the STEM fields.

 

The committee is recommending no tuition increases for them in the next three years.

 

But to pay for that, students in fields such as psychology, political science, anthropology, and performing arts could pay more because they have fewer job prospects in the state.

"The purpose would not be to exterminate programs or keep students from pursuing them. There will always be a need for them," said Dale Brill, who chairs the task force. "But you better really want to do it, because you may have to pay more.''

 

Joanna Mandel, a theater student at Florida Atlantic University, said it would straddle students with debt they might not be able to repay.

 

"Theater majors or English majors are not guaranteed to make a lot of money," said the 22-year-old from Pembroke Pines. "Doctors and scientists, they make a lot of money. If anything, they should be paying more."

 

Some universities do charge more for STEM degrees, because they are typically more expensive to run. But Brill said that goes against the general market principles of supply and demand.

 

Governor Scott isn't "dictating" what a student should study. His task force has proposed that certain majors charge more for tuition at state-affiliated institutions. The rationale is that students who pursue them are more likely to leave the state, and thus not benefit Florida after graduation. The task force is also attempting to weed out those who are studying it for fun, or because they don't really know what they really want to do, and are thus likely to end up burdened with debt and working at Starbucks.

 

Even if this proposal is adopted, a student can still pursue any of those majors.

 

Nor is this "anti science," as it would ENCOURAGE students to pursue one of the STEM majors.

 

I agree that that is a hamfisted approach. On the other, his task force is trying to address a real problem. I'm not seeing where encouraging naive high-school graduates to "do what you love," and rack up a lot of debt and get a degree that will most likely not result in them landing a decent job, is doing them any good.

 

A dinosaur? Hardly...that describes someone wedded to the status quo. He is proposing one solution and shaking up the status quo. I'm not sold on his proposal, but I'm also not sold on, "There is no problem, so let's keep doing what we're doing, but with more money in the state budget for our universities." Which, based on prior experience, is what his opponents will propose.

 

I don't know of too many left-leaning people that measure it that way.

 

Come to my office during the budget-drafting process, and you'll see a veritable parade of them.

Edited November 2, 2012 by grbeck

[NickF1011]

Updated prediction possibilities:

 

Another 4 years and hundreds more pages on the "Obama's Failures" thread or 4 years and hundreds of pages in a new "Romney's Failures" thread. Either way, half of America is going to remain bitter.

[grbeck]

Despite winning the closest election in history, George W. Bush simply declared that he had won and had Political Capital to spend. I don't agree that President Obama would have no mandate without a landslide. I also believe that the President has learned a lot over the past three years about moving his party. He's also learned to use the bully pulpit more effectively.

 

President Bush won that close election for his FIRST term. He was a newcomer to the office. President Obama is the incumbent candidate, and he used the "I won" card for his first term, too. He isn't going to be able to claim a mandate after winning by a slim margin for his second term. The election is, to a large extent, a referendum on his first term. Both Bush and Gore would have been new to the office in 2000.

 

At any rate, President Reagan won by a landslide in 1984, and President Bush convincingly won in 2004, but both had much rougher second terms than the first. I doubt that it will be much different for President Obama, if he is the victor this coming Tuesday.

 

I doubt that if you gathered 100 random Democrats more than 2 would be able to identify Camile Paglia of Glenn Greenwald. President Obama has proved that he is willing to make decisions that are unpopular with the left wing of the base.

 

I know exactly who Camille Paglia and Glenn Greenwald are, and have read Paglia's columns for years. You're pulling the rug out from under those who claim that liberals are smarter than those dumb old conservatives with that post.

 

I cite those two individuals as leading indicators of this trend. Watch for it to spread to others if the president wins, as they no longer have to worry about his election to a second term.

 

President Obama made decisions that were "unpopular with the left wing of his base" because conservative Democrats wouldn't go along with him (closing Guantanamo Bay, ending the Bush tax cuts, for example), not because of any principled strategy on his part. I watched the president's press conference on the decision regarding the Bush tax cuts - he bascially came across and petulant and angry. The feeling definitely wasn't, "I've reviewed the situation and decided that not letting these tax cuts expire is the best avenue at this time."

 

You didn't address the second part of Clinton's point. What would keep Romney from capitulating to the right wing of the GOP. It seems obvoius to me that he has no core beliefs on any of the major issues. He has flip flopped so many times he's taken every side of every issue.

 

His record of governing Massachusetts? Which, you will remember, was why many conservatives were AGAINST him during the primaries. They knew his real record. He has now won the nomination, and people are going to stick with him. Most of them are smart enough to realize that not voting for him, either by switching to the Libertarian candidate, or simply staying home, is effectively another vote for President Obama.

 

You also do remember that President Clinton ran as a "centrist" during the 1992 campaign, but the word was that he planned to "talk center and govern left," and when he did just that after winning, the Congressional Democrats suffered major losses in the 1994 elections? And within two years we had welfare reform and the repeal of the national 65 mph speed limit? Both of which were initially Republican positions? And he had signed off on both of them? And he was happy to cite his record on those issues in 1996?

 

Isn't that ultimately flip-flopping, too? But, today, President Clinton is remembered for his...political dexterity and flexibility. Hmmm...

 

Please give me one instance of Romney's Sista Souljah Moment where he stood up to the right wing of the party? Even McCain had his in the town hall meeting where he corrected the woman who insisted Obama was a Muslim Arab and in keeping a lid on Palin.

 

Has President Obama had a real Sister Souljah moment? Has he really stood up to the left wing of his party in a very public way, as opposed to grudgingly going along with something because Congressional Blue Dog Democrats forced him back from the left fringes?

 

I think Mitt is far more susceptible to pressure from the far right than Obama is from the left. Take 100 random Republicans and I'll bet that 99 can identify Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. They carry far more power in Republican policy debates than the left wingers do with Democrats. Romney would be worried about a challenge from his right flank in 2016 if he doesn't stay ideaologically pure.

 

Of course they can identify those people. That is because they have become celebrities. Rush Limbaugh was a punch line on Modern Family last week, when Ed O'Neill complained about his pregnant wife's snoring in bed. The writers would not have included that line if they didn't think that the audience would know exactly who Limbaugh is.

 

That doesn't mean that they follow everything Limbaugh or Hannity says or does. From what I've seen and experienced firsthand, both of them latch on to issues that are bubbling up from below, and like to claim credit for bringing them to the forefront. But said issues would never come to the forefront in the first place if they hadn't resonated with the public. Shouting "Limbaugh!" or "Hannity!" is an attempt by the opposition to either dodge the issue, or paint it as something only of interest to the far right.

Edited November 2, 2012 by grbeck

[GaryG]

I did early voting today in Palm Beach County and word is the Repubican Party has pissed off the Dems so bad with this voter ID thing that the Dems are 70% early voting. Republican leaders here are saying they are getting kill here in PBC. Lines were two hours long all week here and very few left the lines to vote on Tuesday. Rick Scott repeated he was not going to allow early voting on Sunday when the Blacks vote from church busses. Rick Scott will be a one term Gov. for sure.

[the_spaniard]

These degrees still cost money, and students work for them with the expectation that they will lead to a job in that field. If the people who earn these degrees cannot land a job that will enable them to pay for said degree, I'd say that there is a problem somewhere.

 

I don't have a problem with someone getting a degree in underwater basket weaving, provided they can pay for their student loans. For the record, many people are having problems paying for their loans due to two additional factors: the ridiculous cost of education (from that broken system) and the current economy.

 

If they are choosing those majors with the goal of expanding their horizons, or merely studying something for fun, that is great, but they'd better have a large bank account to pay the tuition and fees that they will rack up along the way.

If they can pay their financial aid loans, I don't care.

 

The idea of studying a particular field for those reasons worked for scions of wealthy families in the 18th and 19th centuries, when a university education was as much about acquiring "polish" and strengthening social connections, as it was about learning anything useful for a career. Even if the student earned what were politely called "gentleman's Cs," he could still expect a job at daddy's firm (or a friend's business) after graduation. Most people today do not have those connections or wealth.

My dad (a truck driver from Appalachia - hardly rich) told me to follow my dreams, whatever they may be. As a result, I have loved nearly all my jobs, had a decent living, and don't consider my current field as "work" but a lot of fun I happened to get paid to do.

 

When my daughters tell me what they want to study and where they want to study it, I will sit them down and ask them these questions:

These are all great questions responsible parents should ask their children. As I mentioned before, you can make a living with degrees in music, anthropology, philosophy, etc with answers to those questions.

 

If asking those questions, gives me an "American perspective," I'd say that more than a few students need to adopt that perspective. And these questions definitely need to be asked for the majors you listed.

The American perspective I mentioned is valuing everything in life in dollars and allowing your job define who you are.

 

 

Sadly, it's too often true. And not just with those mean, "narrow-minded" conservatives. Some of the most parochial and close-minded people I've meant have been liberals from large cities (Philadelphia, for example). They have no clue as to what life is really like beyond City Line Avenue.

Oh I agree with that, but beware of blanket statements.

 

At the university level, students can study what they want, but when they then join the Occupy Movement and whine that their degree in gender studies or photography or puppetry (I'm not making that last one up - a member of Occupy Wall Street in New York City was complaining that he could land a job after obtaining a master's degree in puppetry), I'd ask why they didn't check out job prospects in that particular field BEFORE embarking on a course of study.

As I hate Occupy as much as I loathe the TP, I agree. Again, you can make a living with any degree provided you are willing to compromise. If I have a philosophy degree and want to live in Manhattan, I'm probably not being realistic. And yeah it cooks my grapes when those guys advocate wealth redistribution (or hell, anyone - but those in particular). If you want a stable job with those degrees, you have to be willing to teach, and you have to be willing to make some sacrifices.

 

And here is what Scott said in 2011:

"So I want the money to go to a degree where people can get jobs in this state. Is it a vital interest of the state to have more anthropologists? I don't think so." Later in the interview Scott, whose daughter majored in anthropology at the College of William and Mary, said: "It's a great degree if people want to get it. But we don't need them here."

That isn't an anti-science standpoint to residents of his state?

 

Governor Scott isn't "dictating" what a student should study. His task force has proposed that certain majors charge more for tuition at state-affiliated institutions. The rationale is that students who pursue them are more likely to leave the state, and thus not benefit Florida after graduation. The task force is also attempting to weed out those who are studying it for fun, or because they don't really know what they really want to do, and are thus likely to end up burdened with debt and working at Starbucks.

 

Even if this proposal is adopted, a student can still pursue any of those majors.

So based on what I want to study, it should cost more for me to pursue my dreams in that state? What other state has ever advocated that? It also wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he is a TP candidate and most of the people in social science fields tend to vote say, non-conservative?

 

Nor is this "anti science," as it would ENCOURAGE students to pursue one of the STEM majors.

Social sciences are sciences. It's anti-social sciences, it is anti-science.

 

Usually those that don't see the value of social sciences are staunch conservative, white, bible-thumping people with old ideals....dinosaurs. Lets check his beliefs for a moment:

Tea-party conservative.

Anti-abortion: rooted in religious belief.

Religious belief: Christian, but claims non-denominational

A far-from-spotless political/ethics career.

AKA, A dinosaur.

 

As a scientist I'll always be an advocate for the social sciences, but I concede that if you want to pursue the field you have to make compromises. While I have had a bit of success, I'm not married, didn't want children, and have structured a portion of my life around career-related travel. I think a lot of young people get chained down with the responsibility of a family (too early) and then expect to live in a certain area, have a certain house with a B.A. degree in a social sciences. You have to get an advanced degree and teach (getting tenure) to have that level of stability.

 

I may not have a mansion in the Hamptons, but I do have a job that doesn't make me a cubicle slave, work a gazillion hours a week, I get to work outside (or underwater!) or in a lab with cutting edge equipment (SEMs, XRFs Laser transits and site-scanners). I'm not saying it's easy work, but I love it so it doesn't fee like work at all.

Edited November 2, 2012 by the_spaniard

[jpd80]

Poor Mitt Romney, many a good contender has been knocked out by circumstances beyond their control,

 

Obama by a storm

[Cocheese]

Some election predictions:

 

http://www.motherjon...rs-obama-romney

 

Do you know what Mother Jones is?

 

Why do you bitch and moan about Fox, then turn around and post this?

 

Honestly, are you that stupid, or do you think others are that stupid?

[FiredMotorCompany]

I did early voting today in Palm Beach County and word is the Repubican Party has pissed off the Dems so bad with this voter ID thing that the Dems are 70% early voting. Republican leaders here are saying they are getting kill here in PBC. Lines were two hours long all week here and very few left the lines to vote on Tuesday. Rick Scott repeated he was not going to allow early voting on Sunday when the Blacks vote from church busses. Rick Scott will be a one term Gov. for sure.

I am hearing the "Early Voting" of the democrats has boosted the polls for Obama leading into the final days.The problem is they "shot their wad" too soon. Republicans are laying back in wait for Nov. 6 and likely will far exceed any perceived advantages Obama has enjoyed thus far.

[the_spaniard]

I did early voting today in Palm Beach County and word is the Repubican Party has pissed off the Dems so bad with this voter ID thing that the Dems are 70% early voting. Republican leaders here are saying they are getting kill here in PBC. Lines were two hours long all week here and very few left the lines to vote on Tuesday. Rick Scott repeated he was not going to allow early voting on Sunday when the Blacks vote from church busses. Rick Scott will be a one term Gov. for sure.

 

If I were a Floridian, he would certainly not get my vote. I am really surprised his law made it into play, given that Federal judges concluded it would suppress black voters right to vote.

The federal government also contends the voter purge violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act because the procedures used to identify potentially ineligible voters have not been reviewed by the Justice Department. Florida must secure approval for changes in voting procedures because five counties are still covered by the law because of a past history of discrimination.

 

And I don't have a problem with someone requiring US ID to vote.

[FiredMotorCompany]

And I don't have a problem with someone requiring US ID to vote.

 

I could drink a beer bought by a guy that agreed with me on that!

[GaryG]

If I were a Floridian, he would certainly not get my vote. I am really surprised his law made it into play, given that Federal judges concluded it would suppress black voters right to vote.

 

 

And I don't have a problem with someone requiring US ID to vote.

 

Never in my life have I've seen a candidate's sign with a goostbuster sign. Allen West has more than plenty signs to for him, but just as many buster signs were at the Polls today. Never seen this kind of negative signs in my life .I guess all those Republican Lies are adding up!

[the_spaniard]

I could drink a beer bought by a guy that agreed with me on that!

 

Well honestly how hard is it to come up with an ID if you are a U.S. citizen? I would think that would be something both democrats and republicans should be on the same page with. In some states if I am pulled over by the cops and don't have ID to verify my identity the police can take me into custody until my identity can be verified.

[napfirst]

Parts, you keep asking for this, so here you go:

I told parts this right after the first debate......let him stay ignorant

[Trimdingman]

Well honestly how hard is it to come up with an ID if you are a U.S. citizen? I would think that would be something both democrats and republicans should be on the same page with. In some states if I am pulled over by the cops and don't have ID to verify my identity the police can take me into custody until my identity can be verified.

 

Who are illegals likely to vote for? Democrat. Who is against ID proof for voting? Democrats. They are basicly dishonest. In Canada we have to show photo ID to vote. No problem. Liberals in Canada fought for and won the right to vote for prison inmates. Again, they virtually all vote Liberal. The left is made up of low-lifes, stupidos, artsy types, and loafers living on inherited wealth. The right is made up of the industrious, entrepreneurial, intelligent, scientific minded, logical, mathematically inclined, moral, fair, and honest.

[Ron W.]

The left is made up of low-lifes, stupidos, artsy types, and loafers living on inherited wealth. The right is made up of the industrious, entrepreneurial, intelligent, scientific minded, logical, mathematically inclined, moral, fair, and honest.

 

LOL

You do post some funny shit, generalize much ?

[Marginal Economist]

Well honestly how hard is it to come up with an ID if you are a U.S. citizen? I would think that would be something both democrats and republicans should be on the same page with. In some states if I am pulled over by the cops and don't have ID to verify my identity the police can take me into custody until my identity can be verified.

But not in Arizona. That would be profiling.

[Trimdingman]

LOL

You do post some funny shit, generalize much ?

 

Think about it. Oh, I forgot; lefties are not allowed to think.

 

There are exceptions, but generally, what I said is correct. If you are on welfare, who do you vote for? If you own your own small business, who do you vote for if you have any sense? If you have enough scientific and mathematical skills to see through the lies, who do you vote for? If you are so indoctrinated that you religiously refuse to see the evidence of corruption, who do you vote for? Don't say "Look in the mirror", because we on the right think for ourselves. If you learn a whole textbook full of left wing indoctrination so that you can repeat it by heart, that doesn't mean that it is true, but you have too much invested to think otherwise. Alarm bells should go off if something becomes too wordy or convoluted. A simple thing like the unemployment rate or the inflation rate can be calculated within one or two percentage points of the correct figure very easily. When they make it complicated, and then come up with a figure that is way out of proportion to what you observe, they are lying. It is as simple as that. They are printing money to give the illusion of a recovery. Only indoctrinated zombies think that this is working.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Trimdingman

[the_spaniard]

The left is made up of low-lifes, stupidos, artsy types, and loafers living on inherited wealth. The right is made up of the industrious, entrepreneurial, intelligent, scientific minded, logical, mathematically inclined, moral, fair, and honest.

 

Trim, I almost fell out of my chair with laughter on that one. Scientific-minded? Less than 10% of all scientists are conservative. How about being moral, fair and honest? Exhibit A: One of the most public conservative personalities, Rush Limbaugh. For conservatives crying "Clinton" I give you "Nixon". The list goes on and on.

 

 

 

Thanks.

Edited November 4, 2012 by the_spaniard

[Langston Hughes]

Who are illegals likely to vote for? Democrat. Who is against ID proof for voting? Democrats. They are basicly dishonest. In Canada we have to show photo ID to vote. No problem. Liberals in Canada fought for and won the right to vote for prison inmates. Again, they virtually all vote Liberal. The left is made up of low-lifes, stupidos, artsy types, and loafers living on inherited wealth. The right is made up of the industrious, entrepreneurial, intelligent, scientific minded, logical, mathematically inclined, moral, fair, and honest.

 

You've obviously never read anything about the US republican party then. the last 7 don't apply to them very often.