ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => News and Politics => Topic started by: slothpomba on November 06, 2012, 06:45:40 pm
-
(http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/4f15af6369beddb773000008-650/nyt-cartoon-romney.jpg)
The US Presidential election is coming up tomorrow (our time). Coverage starts from 10:30 AM our time on ABC24/ABC2. Tonight's episode of the drum also mentioned it a fair bit and there's a special foreign correspondent episode on ABC at 8 tonight about the USA election and how they vote (machines over paper, etc).
The real clear politics average of polls points towards a very, very narrow obama victory, with a margin of +0.7%.
Who do we all think is going to win? Is anyone here actually rooting for romney?
Time for some funny campaign videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TiXUF9xbTo&feature=g-logo-xit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=ltCIEbLMaQg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTCRwi71_ns&feature=related
Coverage
Everyone likes their own varying news sources obviously but i think a few recommendations would be good. Took me awhile of hunting to find anything that's accessible (and easily) to us aussies, so, i thought i'd share it along.
---> ABC is covering it. ABC24(even got a news story on him, right now) will have live streaming coverage both on their website and on TV starting 10:30 AM tomorrow - http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/us-election-2012/.
---> Al Jazeera is probably one of my favourite news sources. I don't know if they'll have live streaming video coverage (they do have free live streaming news around the clock though) but i know they'll have a live blog and their page is absolutely stuffed to the brim with articles and previous videos and shows made about it - http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/us2012/ .
---> Slate is an American news magazine. They also have some very good articles and will probably have some form of live coverage. Plenty of interesting articles on other stuff too - http://www.slate.com/ .
---> Huffington Post is another great news site to check out - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ .
-
I'm not rooting for Romney, but I have bets on him :P LOL!
-
I'm not rooting for Romney, but I have bets on him :P LOL!
Should of used intrade (http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743475). It's sort of like a share market but you trade "shares" on whether an event will happen or not.
Each share is up to a maximum of $10.00 .
Romney is being sold for $3.22, so, if you bought a single share in Romney at the current price of $3.22 you'd get $10.00 if he won.
If he lost, the person selling you the share would keep your $3.22.
So, you'd win roughly triple which is probably better than what the bookies are offering right? What price did you get it for?
---------
Here's a quiz that figures out which candidates you stand with most and on what issues - http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz .
It works a lot better if you answer the option questions and don't just tick yes or no but have a look at the views under "Choose another stance".
-
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
^ says a lot imo.
And king, I got Jill Stein on the link you gave me :P. What about you?
-
So, you'd win roughly triple which is probably better than what the bookies are offering right? What price did you get it for?
Ahh, I'm getting paid $4.40 for Romney with Luxbet (who are pretty reliable because I've won like $240 bets from them before). Obama's current price is $1.20, so the reality is, I don't know if Romney will win or not, but he's definitely good value at $4.40 when the polls + political analysers all think he has a pretty decent chance of winning.
In terms of betting with shares though, the thing is, I don't think equity is the same as cash in hand :P
-
(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/v/P/4/Show-Me-the-Romney.jpg)
-
In terms of betting with shares though, the thing is, I don't think equity is the same as cash in hand :P
Not betting with shares, i said it's like *buying* shares in the candidate. Once the results are in, you either win or lose your cash, like a regular bet.
Here are my results for that quiz ----- > http://www.isidewith.com/results/217878053
The other one or two times i took it (they update questions though) i sided much more with the greens/jill stein it seems.
-
Interesting :). I'm relatively similar I think.
Here's mine: http://www.isidewith.com/results/217891732
-
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
That's just one dudes subjective opinion though.
Look at his other political compass charts, they're fairly off i reckon.
Greens are only very marginally left while labour is almost no longer center right, they're right wing (http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2010).
I'm not sure what standards his using, right wing by Australian standards (i don't really think so).
Even if you overlay the USA chart on the aussie one, labour aren't far from the democrats. Labour is clearly far more left than any of the major two parties in the USA system, so, i think his charts are kind of broken and wrong.
Oh, look, its gratuitous photo o'clock:
(http://i.qkme.me/3r6wbm.jpg)
(http://boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/1065cbCOMIC-hh-american-dream.jpg)
(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6452/33779635323455808730017.jpg)
(http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/5237/56127550506025618668145.jpg)
(http://i42.tinypic.com/ic1ll2.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/nAhBg.jpg)
-
3rd party master race
http://www.isidewith.com/results/217974063
(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/v/P/4/Show-Me-the-Romney.jpg)
(http://www.charliehiphop.com/files/images/RMONEY.jpg)
-
Lol at obama with the hair
-
Another thing to remember about the USA is their voting system is totally screwed up.
Electoral College
You don't vote to elect the president. You vote to elect a member of the electoral college. The members of the electoral college then get together and cast their vote for the president, which, hopefully, mirrors your vote. Of course, if you vote democrat, they'll choose a hardcore democrat person to represent you in the electoral college and same for republican. Some states have laws to punish electoral college voters that don't vote the way they were elected.
This goes all the way back to the founding of the USA. They're really big on having checks and balances on the government. George Washington and all the founding fathers thought democracy was good of course but they wanted it to be overseen by a group of elders (eg. the electoral college) to make sure the people in exercising their democracy dont vote for someone totally insane or ineligble. We also have to remember a lot of this was layed down pre-internet, pre-phone. News traveled on horseback and things like that. It's another reason why you elect a member of the electoral college, because, he can then travel on and make his vote.
Each state is given a certain number of electoral college voters depending on population.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Electoral_College_2012.svg/350px-Electoral_College_2012.svg.png)
In some states, the winner of the most votes, wins every electoral college seat. So, if Obama got 49% of the votes in California and Romney got 51%, he would get all the 55 seats. Obviously, this isn't very democratic in representing the people, 49% of the people are totally unrepresented in their views. In some states, its a bit more proportional, they do it on a district by district basic.
So, its not done on sheer number of votes. Even if a candidate gets a million more votes, they can still lose if the other guy gets more electoral college seats.
This happened in 2000 with George Bush and Al Gore. Al Gore was the choice of the people, purely on number of votes, Bush however, won more seats and thus the election. Gore had ~500 000 more votes and still lost. Some people think we might see this but in reverse this election, with Romney getting the majority of votes but Obama winning on the electoral college. In-Trade, a website where people bet against each-other on the outcomes of events has this at 22.8% chance of happening, if peoples money is at stake to be won and lost, people tend to do their homework.
There are plenty of problems with how their ballots are even structured and how voting is done too.
-
The Ballot
Another stark difference between Australia & the USA is the facts of how they vote.
Here, we have instant run off voting. You list your candidates in order of preference:
[1] Greens
[5] DLP
[2] Labour
[3] Family First
[4] The Australian Democrats
Your vote is put in a pile with all the other green votes, as it is your first preference. If it becomes clear from numbers that the greens aren't one of the top two piles, your vote is redistributed to your second, labour, if it becomes clear once again that labour isn't in the top 2, your vote is redistributed to your third choice...and on and on.
It is a good system because you vote for the party you truly believe in and like the most, even if they are unlikely to win.
In the USA, it is different. You only have one preference. So, if you vote for a party that isn't Democrat or Republican and they don't win, you are literally throwing your vote away. This is one of the reasons the two party system is so entrenched there. People are scared of wasting their vote. Since voting isn't compulsory, those that do vote, usually want their vote to have some action behind it.
(https://lh3.ggpht.com/_t2Ry7I5DNuQ/TSrNvbCGVzI/AAAAAAAAGI8/ba9TZ2-V-9c/s1600/AV%2BVote%2BBallot%2BPaper.jpg)
I've seen some grassroots movements though. In area's where obama is hugely favoured to win, people are voting for one of the 3rd parties to send a message first of all but secondly, if you get over 5% of the popular votes in this election, in the next one, you are eligible to have the public fund your campaign (if you dont you have to pay for it yourself, which limits the 3rd parties even further). If it is close between Obama and Romney and you are an Obama supporter, since there are no preferences, you clearly should vote Obama and vice versa.
Sometimes, third parties can do very well. This is incredibly rare.
Ross Perot got ~19% of the popular vote in 1992(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992) but 0 electoral college seats. This is another problem with the electoral college. It's still amazing how many voted for him despite the risk of throwing your vote away.
CGP Grey does a great job of explaining all this (using animals) in his video series - https://www.youtube.com/course?list=EC7679C7ACE93A5638&feature=plcp
Considering how this topic can get, its fairly non-boring too.
(https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3j86n1l2Q1rtpxdeo1_500.jpg)
-
Obama and I have something goin on, ladies form a line
http://www.isidewith.com/results/218547770
Thanks kp, for all the information!
-
Thanks for the information Kingpomba, cleared up my vague idea of the electoral colleges.
As for the test, Jill Stein and I are 93% compatible ;)
http://www.isidewith.com/results/218583083
-
http://www.isidewith.com/results/218659900
Guess I vote Obama then to not "throw away my vote" :P
-
http://www.isidewith.com/results/218583083
Wow, By far the least romney of us yet.
I have a little joke i heard - a conservative, a moderate and a liberal walk into a bar, the bartender says "Hi, what can i get you mitt?". Kinda lame but i think it sums up a shitload in one line haha.
He was actually a decent governor in Massachusetts. He was pro-choice, fairly liberal and even implemented a more reformed healthcare system which later served as the prototype for obamacare. All of these things which he's changed his mind on. My theory is that he needed to move waaay to the right to gain nomination to the republican party. To win the election though, he needs to move back to the center again so the average public will also vote for him. He's already given up some of his more extreme positions and ideas during the course of the campaign. His father was relatively liberal for a republican too, so, that gives you an idea of his pedigree.
Obama and I have something goin on, ladies form a line
Remember how rove used to do that who would you turn gay thing for? Obama has to be in lists out there
I also added some links that'll have live coverage into my first post.
(https://awesomedc.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/obama-sexy.jpg)
-
Even though Romney is quite liberal and centre for a Republican candidate, I'm just thinking about his running mate Paul Ryan, who's probably one of the most right vice presidential candidates to have ever run, not that that's a bad thing - but I notice that ATARNotes members tend to be left-inclined.
-
Paul Ryan? You mean this dude?
(http://au.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2012911/reg_1024.paulryan.mh.101112.jpg)
Also, Romney isn't liberal or centre, even for a Republican candidate. Huntsman is far closer to being a centrist than he'd ever be
-
Al Jazeera does indeed have live coverage, it's what i'd recommend (http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/), ABC24 is also looking quite good right now.
This is the latest of what Al-Jazeera says:
Nothing unexpected so far:
(http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/8746/aljazeerat.jpg)
And here's what happened in 2008
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/ElectoralCollege2008.svg/500px-ElectoralCollege2008.svg.png)
It's been a long campaign for everyone, they've been at it for months and months now. Traveling around the country, campaigning almost every day, everyone is absolutely exhausted.
Obama, not normally known for showing emotion even shed a tear last night during a campaign stop
(http://mjs.merlinone.net/THUMBS2012/TDIR42411/X022_14E1_9.JPG)
Florida right now is only down to 2000 votes as well, very close as always.
-
YAY Obama!
(:
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/3926_4101811743332_1558968040_n.jpg)
-
You know what i find hilarious? Al-Jazeera reported earlier that Mitt Romney didn't write a concession speech, he only wrote a victory speech. Imagine how awkward that'll be now..
-
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md3janhDXT1qzuwb2o1_1280.png)
-
OBAMA WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D (highlight of my day)
-
You know what i find hilarious? Al-Jazeera reported earlier that Mitt Romney didn't write a concession speech, he only wrote a victory speech. Imagine how awkward that'll be now..
Obama won't deliver his victory speech till Romney concedes
-
It looked like Obama would win the electoral college but lose the popular vote (just like what happened to bush) and might not be considered legitimate.
Earlier there was a gap of 1 million votes between Obama and Romney, then 500 000 and finally, Obama is up by about 30 000 now.
-
USA! USA! USA!
-
OBAMA WON :D
-
(http://i.imgur.com/L6LIx.jpg)
-
Mitt Romney is the physical manifestation of Satan himself. I'm glad that scumbag wasn't elected.
#2termz #Obama4UrMama
-
OBAMA. That's all. :)
-
In other news the
People's Republic of China's presidential election is up and coming.
*smirk*
-
Both the candidates sucked, and that's coming from someone who supports the Republicans more than the Democrats.
Unlike Romney, other good candidate would have beaten Obama considering he's done nothing in his first 4 years except for killing Osama Bin Laden. The unemployment rate in the United States is a big concern with it actually rising under Obama and the United States are still in a massive debt.
-
I don't know anything about Politics/USA/whatever
But I'm just going to leave this here
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
-
Hmm, Mitt Romney gets more hate than he deserves, it's because of what Obama's campaign has painted him out to be. Have a read about him and the things he stands for, he's not an indecent human being, like I surely don't agree with all his beliefs, but then and again, I don't agree with all of anyone's beliefs, we all have different values. If you look at Romney, he does have credentials, he's experienced in politics, having been Governor, as well as having come from a lineage of politicians. He's a business strategist who understands the economy and if you listen to him debating Obama, you'll see that he's a knowledgeable, well-spoken and decent person.
He might not have the charisma of Obama, but he's by no means what many make him out to be.
-
I don't know anything about Politics/USA/whatever
But I'm just going to leave this here
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
I dont know if thats supposed to be sarcastic- that site, because that seems to me that he's done a lot.
I think the thing with Obama is that we had high expectations of him and what he could do with his visions but at the end of the day he's only human and he could only do so much in 4 years. His changes may be subtle but according to that site at least, I think he's achieved a lot
-
The more the Republican party is influenced by the tea party and other right wing religious crazies the stupider their policies become. Romney mightn't have been such a bad candidate if he wasn't pulled so far to the right by his republican colleagues, but ultimately the portrayal of him as a "flip-flopper" is scarily accurate and I think voting Republican in today's society is a huge mistake irrespective of its leader.
-
The more the Republican party is influenced by the tea party and other right wing religious crazies the stupider their policies become. Romney mightn't have been such a bad candidate if he wasn't pulled so far to the right by his republican colleagues, but ultimately the portrayal of him as a "flip-flopper" is scarily accurate and I think voting Republican in today's society is a huge mistake irrespective of its leader.
I agree, I think that the tea party movement is a bad thing, but objectively, if you read up on what Romney stands for, you'll see that he's not actually that bad.
Guess who implemented a health care scheme in his state before Obamacare, that's right Mitt Romney.
Other examples as well - but just read for yourself - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney
Btw, Romney isn't the leader of the Republican party, the American government isn't a parliamentary system like in Australia, or even in countries like Germany (which doesn't have a monarch). Its President is both the head of government and head of state. He is completely separate to Congress, which is the two houses - the Senate and the House of Representatives. A president can be Republican or Democrat, regardless of who has the majority in the Senate and the House - in fact, you can have a Republican president even with Democrats holding the majority in both houses and vice versa.
-
Do I really care about the individual when he's planning to introduce bad policies?
-
^I think the problem with Romney was more that nobody had any idea about what kind of policies he was actually going to introduce to begin with. The man had too many faces and no consistency. Of course, there were moments where he did actually seem somewhat legitimate as an alternative to Obama, but they were outweighed by everything else - paraphrasing The Economist (which did endorse Obama this year), "We would have endorsed the Mitt Romney we saw in the first Presidential Debate over Obama generally...if that were the only Mitt Romney that existed".
I am really glad Obama won his second term though. I do hope he does a bit more obvious stuff in his second term though - we'll have to wait and see (although I would be most of all interested in what history has to say about Obama in thirty years time!).
-
I am really glad Obama won his second term though. I do hope he does a bit more obvious stuff in his second term though - we'll have to wait and see (although I would be most of all interested in what history has to say about Obama in thirty years time!).
He'll probably be remembered for who he was rather than what he did, just like JFK will always be remembered for being the first Roman Catholic President of the United States, over his many achievements. I think it will probably be similar for Obama, being remembered as the first African-American President, over his actual achievements.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ-DKR4sQC4
Awkward.
-
The more the Republican party is influenced by the tea party and other right wing religious crazies the stupider their policies become. Romney mightn't have been such a bad candidate if he wasn't pulled so far to the right by his republican colleagues, but ultimately the portrayal of him as a "flip-flopper" is scarily accurate and I think voting Republican in today's society is a huge mistake irrespective of its leader.
I agree, I think that the tea party movement is a bad thing, but objectively, if you read up on what Romney stands for, you'll see that he's not actually that bad.
Guess who implemented a health care scheme in his state before Obamacare, that's right Mitt Romney.
Other examples as well - but just read for yourself - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney
Btw, Romney isn't the leader of the Republican party, the American government isn't a parliamentary system like in Australia, or even in countries like Germany (which doesn't have a monarch). Its President is both the head of government and head of state. He is completely separate to Congress, which is the two houses - the Senate and the House of Representatives. A president can be Republican or Democrat, regardless of who has the majority in the Senate and the House - in fact, you can have a Republican president even with Democrats holding the majority in both houses and vice versa.
Romney doesn't stand for anything - that's the point - he has changed his stances on so many things since winning his primary that he isn't running on the same platform as the one in which he ran for governor of Massachusetts.
It's funny that you mention that Romney implemented the "original" Obamacare because his official position was that Obamacare is bad and should be repealed, which encapsulates his utter hypocrisy.
I didn't actually say Romney is the leader of the GOP, I said people shouldn't be voting Republican full stop - whether it's for congress or the white house.
-
I am really glad Obama won his second term though. I do hope he does a bit more obvious stuff in his second term though - we'll have to wait and see (although I would be most of all interested in what history has to say about Obama in thirty years time!).
He'll probably be remembered for who he was rather than what he did, just like JFK will always be remembered for being the first Roman Catholic President of the United States, over his many achievements. I think it will probably be similar for Obama, being remembered as the first African-American President, over his actual achievements.
I thought JFK was remembered for dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis/Bay of Pigs Invasion and for being assassinated?
-
I thought JFK was remembered for dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis/Bay of Pigs Invasion and for being assassinated?
Well I'm not sure how much of the general public actually know about the Cuban Missile Crisis though, I know that amongst my friends, not many would be aware of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Being assassinated, well, I don't like to remember someone for being assassinated. It's kinda sad really, but yeah, I think the public will be more aware of him being assassinated than the Cuban Missile Crisis.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/305660_10151144669078386_252559782_n.jpg)
-
I thought JFK was remembered for dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis/Bay of Pigs Invasion and for being assassinated?
And for starting the US's space program.
-
I thought JFK was remembered for dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis/Bay of Pigs Invasion and for being assassinated?
Well I'm not sure how much of the general public actually know about the Cuban Missile Crisis though, I know that amongst my friends, not many would be aware of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Being assassinated, well, I don't like to remember someone for being assassinated. It's kinda sad really, but yeah, I think the public will be more aware of him being assassinated than the Cuban Missile Crisis.
And more aware of the Cuban Missile Crisis itself than the Bay of Pigs Invasion.