dag hammarsjkold wrote:Electoral College

Obama 325 vs Romney 213

Popular Vote

Obama 58% vs Romney 42%

Todd Aiken = a thrashing, hopefully never to return to Missouri politics to embarrass us again!

That's just wishful thinking.

I think it will be easier for Obama to 'move to the centre' (which is a laugh considering he's pretty much there already it's just that the point where the two parties meet has shifted right) than it was after 2010. Then his mandate was older than that of the Republican majority in the House, and he was playing a defensive game.

If he wins, he'd have a renewed mandate and a bit of a fresh start, and would have the opportunity to deal with a new Congress. That would hopefully make enough members on both sides in the Capitol move away from the pasrtisan brinkmanship of the past few years.

A lot, however, would depend on what the Republican reaction is. It may be 'we were not right wing enough!', in which case hold on - it'll be a bumpy ride...

geojanes wrote:OK, here's my real prediction. I went through and picked the states as I saw them going:

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bqay

NC:Romney
VA:Romney
CO:Romney
FL:Romney
NH: Romney
IA: Romney (but very close)

But he still loses 271-267 because he can't win the upper Midwest. Obama's mandate for a second term: 4 electoral votes.

At least this is reasonable. I would not be shocked if you were right--disappointed, but not shocked.

geojanes wrote:

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Electoral College

Obama 325 vs Romney 213

Popular Vote

Obama 58% vs Romney 42%

Todd Aiken = a thrashing, hopefully never to return to Missouri politics to embarrass us again!

That's just wishful thinking.

Actually, it's pretty insane. Obama will NOT beat Romney by twice what he beat McCain. He would be doing that IF most people thought he had done an excellent job. Even the people who like him, don't like him THAT much.

Furthermore, if he wins the popular vote by that margin, the EC gap will be much wider. Romney would lose FL, VA, NC, and maybe a few more.

If Dag is right, I'm flying to wherever he lives, buying him dinner, sending him home in a Limo and giving $1000 to a charity of his choice.

Yes, it's that crazy.

danivon wrote:If he [Obama] wins, he'd have a renewed mandate...

Not really. He didn't present very much of an agenda for his second term, so the question would be: a mandate to do what? Furthermore, if he wins it will almost certainly be by a much smaller margin than last time, indicating less relative support for his (presumed) agenda than the GOP's.

You could easily defend your statement because the meaning of "mandate" is quite problematic. I'm not so much saying you're wrong as saying there might be more than one way to look at what a mandate is. From reference.com: "a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative." Now if you think about it, this is really quite a nonsensical concept in the context of a US Presidential election. When I vote for a candidate I vote simply to put him in office, not to act in a certain way on a certain matter. I can't vote, "Serve and do X." Anything beyond "serve", as regards my intentions, must be inferred, since there's no place on the ballot for my comments or instructions.

A mandate, as I see it, consists of an inference, by those who matter, of the reasons underlying the votes of the electorate. Who matters? If the opposition party controls at least one house of congress, they matter a lot. It won't do Obama much good for him to infer a mandate if the Republicans in the House don't! In short, whoever can stymie the Prez matters. That might be the press, governors of states, or even other national figures within his own party.

How does one infer the reasons underlying millions of votes? Obama has engaged in micro-targeting of his message this campaign; if one can infer any mandate, one must infer a sort of cloud of a hundred different tiny ones.

Furthermore, for a mandate to be effective, not only must those who matter infer, by a sort of consensus, the content of that mandate, they must care about the consequences of defying the inferred "command or authorization". For instance, if Obama wins, you and I might infer that to imply a mandate to keep the ACA on the books. Now in a very close race the GOP, in general, is unlikely to agree. But for the sake of argument let's say that due to surprising findings of exit polls, even the GOP sees the Obama victory as a vote of support for the ACA. They could decide that bucking that "command or authorization" is still in the interests of their party. After all, they (as individual congressmen) also got reelected.

A Presidential mandate is worth little if enough congressmen see themselves as having contrary mandates.

Because Obama didn't run on a clear agenda, his "mandate" will consist of the following: if/when he proposes some important law or program, public opinion polling at that time will influence the thinking of those who might be inclined to stymie him. If his proposal is popular enough it might pass. But short of a very surprising and unexpectedly large margin of victory tonight, Obama will have no generalized mandate to move the country in any particular direction. Or rather, let me concede that he will have one, but it will be so weak as to hardly matter. Case-by-case conditions will matter much more than the residual power of an election mandate.

I wasn't aware that Obama even had a clear agenda in the first place, so that shouldn't be much of an issue.

Victory for Obama will achieve two things. It'll entrench his healthcare legislation and make it much more difficult to repeal in 4 years time. It should also serve to change the balance of the Supreme Court in a more liberal direction, although this can't be guaranteed. Beyond that it's very difficult to predict, but it does seem likely that the US economy will improve whoever gets elected, so if Obama wins it ought to be good for Democrats generally in that they'll get to share a little of the credit (deserved or undeserved).

Sassenach wrote:I wasn't aware that Obama even had a clear agenda in the first place, so that shouldn't be much of an issue.

Victory for Obama will achieve two things. It'll entrench his healthcare legislation and make it much more difficult to repeal in 4 years time. It should also serve to change the balance of the Supreme Court in a more liberal direction, although this can't be guaranteed.

Your only error here is that the USSC is absolutely guaranteed to move to the Left if Obama is reelected--unless none of the conservatives on the Court retire, die or are incapacitated. The President has shown himself adept at nominating solid Leftist jurists.

Beyond that it's very difficult to predict, but it does seem likely that the US economy will improve whoever gets elected, so if Obama wins it ought to be good for Democrats generally in that they'll get to share a little of the credit (deserved or undeserved).

If Obama is reelected, the economy may experience a very brief upturn. However, once the Obamacare taxes and mandates fully kick in, the economy will be very near, if not in, a recession. Energy prices will continue to rise, depressing the economy. Food prices will continue upward.

If this is not what Obama wants, then he might try to increase energy production rather than trying to stifle it.

I don't really agree. We're at the bottom of a deep global slump and barring anything catastrophic happening in the world to prolong it we're going to see a general economic upswing. That seems almost inevitable in the long term no matter who is in charge

Sassenach wrote:I don't really agree. We're at the bottom of a deep global slump and barring anything catastrophic happening in the world to prolong it we're going to see a general economic upswing. That seems almost inevitable in the long term no matter who is in charge

Factor in the costs of Obamacare at about twice (initially) what was predicted--and it will go up from there. Factor in the additional "investments" Obama wants to make. Factor in the bailouts he will be forced into--probably California and maybe Illinois. Factor in the job suppression inherent in the Obamacare employer mandates and the EPA regulations. Factor in higher investment and income taxes. Factor in higher interest rates (they can't be held down forever).

Yes, we disagree.

Purple wrote:

danivon wrote:If he [Obama] wins, he'd have a renewed mandate...

Not really. He didn't present very much of an agenda for his second term, so the question would be: a mandate to do what? Furthermore, if he wins it will almost certainly be by a much smaller margin than last time, indicating less relative support for his (presumed) agenda than the GOP's.

Well, to answer your first question - be the President. He doesn't have a 2012-2016 agenda as such, but he did have one for 2008 and if anything, it's a mandate to continue as before.

Yes, it will be by a smaller margin. But it's still a vote for him over the Republican. Even if the elections result in a GOP controlled Congress (I think it'll still be split between a Dem Senate and a Rep House), that will be the will of the people, as expressed through your electoral system.

Meaning, he will have been given a mandate to continue.

You could easily defend your statement because the meaning of "mandate" is quite problematic.[snip]

I meant the more common meaning, not the specific one of mandating delegates to do X and Y. I meant that he would have a democratic mandate (as much as any other President re-elected has had), to remain in the job, meaning that the people have said they want him there.

A mandate, as I see it, consists of an inference, by those who matter, of the reasons underlying the votes of the electorate. Who matters? If the opposition party controls at least one house of congress, they matter a lot. It won't do Obama much good for him to infer a mandate if the Republicans in the House don't! In short, whoever can stymie the Prez matters. That might be the press, governors of states, or even other national figures within his own party.

[/quote]If you'd waited to read the last sentence before getting all dictionary and pedantic, you'd note that I do acknowledge that a lot depends on how the Republicans react;

"A lot, however, would depend on what the Republican reaction is. It may be 'we were not right wing enough!', in which case hold on - it'll be a bumpy ride..."

Anyway, I was talking more in terms of the wider USA, you know - the people living in it, not just the politicians. I didn't mean that Obama could infer a mandate in isolation. I meant that there was one there, and it give him the opportunity to moderate and make a move towards the Republicans.

He may not. He may and they may rebuff it. I don't know what will happen, I was just saying a re-election give a chance to make such a move.

Sheesh!

Why not...

Popular vote
50% to 50%

Electoral College
Obama: 286
Romney: 252

p.s.
As a Virginia voter, I predict a Kaine win.

Well, GW Bush barely won an election but governed as if he had a mandate. I think It is doubtful that Obama will win by a sufficient margin that his popularity will intimidate Republicans into working w him. However, I just can't believe Republicans will continue to be as obstructionist. For one thing, Obama has two chips to play--the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent and reducing the corporate tax rate. And there won't be the motivation to stop Obama from bring re-elected.

I'm hearing that turnouthas been really high today, with reports of voters queuing for for 3 or 4 hours (!) just so they could vote. That has to favour Obama surely ?

Possibly. Certainly it's been noted that the African American turnout is high. Virginia results will be delayed because of queues in the Washington suburbs, suggesting high turnouts in the areas where the core Democrat vote is within the state.

It looks like Florida could well go for Obama. If so, my prediction will be woefully short.

Rove is saying something very different. He is comparing turnout numbers in Red vs. Blue districts and believes that Florida, Ohio and Virginia are looking good for Romney. Rove also compares turnout and %s by district relative to the last few elections. I know that Geo thinks that Rove is too biased to be trusted, but I find his analysis to be more comprehensive than what I'm hearing from CNN as I toggle back and forth.