Re: Supporting da "Prez?"
In California, and all other "Blue" "Safe" States, The Obamanator has a distinct lead over Romnification and is guaranteed all of the Electoral College votes. In all "Red" "Safe" States that's the case for Romnification.
So, a vote for The Obamanator in a Blue State or Romnification in a Red State is a vote for the status quo.
Since The Obamanator has consistently led in the polls (in spite of what we're told on the MSM, unless you pay close attention to the provisos) while it's too soon to call it for him, it's his race to lose.
After the scripted commercials, aka "debates", that's the time to really look at the independent polling. This is a good source, that I only recently discovered (Silver's been calling it for The Obamanator for months, and he's highly respected. I'm not a sports fan, but the movie, "Moneyball", is about Sabremetrics. Silver is the statistician who has applied Sabremetrics to Psephology, aka the study of elections.):
https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
So, to express my values and goals, I'll be voting for Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala. Knowing my vote isn't an endorsement of business as usual, and is no "risk" to The Obamanator.
If I lived in a "Swing" State, one of the contested "battleground" states, my choice would be more complicated. I'd still probably vote for my party of twenty-five years, but I understand that if someone is voting in one of those states, they might have a different calculus.
In California The Obamanator is projected to win by 17-30%. A vote for Stein is no "threat" to him, and allows you to help keep the Green Party on the ballot, hold the sellout Democratic Party's feet to the fire, and vote for someone with integrity and excellent values.
Of course she won't "win", that's not the point. She carries a message, an important one. Check her and us out:
www.jillstein.org
I'm not interested in a tit for tat point scoring contest over the efficacy of third party efforts. Been here, done that. For those not familiar with the landscape, here's some homework, specifically about the Green Party vs. Democratic Party. Although the issues are applicable generally as well:
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...097#post157097
Re: Supporting da "Prez?"
Here is the link to the Gallup polling company:
www.gallup.com
Today, the president has only a 3 point lead, hardly enough to feel comfortable about, except for the most cynical. About a month ago or so they were both tied at 46% for most of the summer. Resting on our laurels is deadly and being overconfident can gift us with a Romney White House.
So please be careful about "swapping votes." I'm voting for Obama again this election cycle. I don't know what the polls say about California but I'd be really careful and at least be very well informed before voting for another candidate that is no Obama.
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
In California, and all other "Blue" "Safe" States, The Obamanator has a distinct lead over Romnification and is guaranteed all of the Electoral College votes. In all "Red" "Safe" States that's the case for Romnification.
So, a vote for The Obamanator in a Blue State or Romnification in a Red State is a vote for the status quo.
Since The Obamanator has consistently led in the polls...
Re: Supporting da "Prez?"
Edward,
Did you peruse the "FiveThirtyEight" blog link I provided in my previous post? Because the reporting on polling in the MSM has been highly deceptive. For months. 538 is the number of Electoral College votes, by the way. Took me a while to look that up, thought I'd save others the time.
Here's something I wrote, about the polling results that have seemed consistently fishy, on FB yesterday afternoon.
My interest in the polling, has more to do with the disconnect between the numbers reported on MSM news shows and in the PD (which as of last Monday, I no longer get delivered, just never got around to reading much of it, and times are tight, I'll miss some of the comics, not the rage engendered by most of the letters to the editor) and the comments from insiders I see here, and on those same shows.
(Sorry for the bold font in the following text. It's some kind of embedded formating from the copy/paste.)
It's been consistently reported that The Obamanator and Romnification were "neck and neck" up until the last couple of weeks. With Romnification "ahead" after the Repub primaries. Yet all the candid insider and neutral observer stuff I was reading, since early last spring at least, consistently showed The Obamanator in the lead.
Add in the near hysteria about the threat of Romnification, from the Pragmatic Liberal Incrementalist Apparat and their acolytes, plus the delusional crowing from the Right Wingnuts, and I wanted to figure out how much of the, "it's close folks, we have to mobilize and crush all opposition", is just cheerleading, for the troops, featherbedding by the commentariat who need to emphasize the drama in order to justify their paychecks, real partisan concern, just cynical alarmism to keep eyeballs on the screen for the Corporate Dollah, and honest but biased observation from the pundits and journalists.
Cause there's been a real disconnect, that I'm curious about. Also, because I advocate for Stein/GP, I want to make sure, as sure as possible in the fog of political war, that my repeated claim that The Obamanator has a lock in the Blue States (man do I hate that term, legacy of the 2000 Debacle, but it's the current shorthand) are "reality" based. I try to fight with facts as my ammunition, not fantasy. Since the Independents in the Swing States will be the "deciders", where they might fall down is key.
Romnification hasn't popped out of the Toaster yet. But it's looking good for a satisfying but non-nutritious breakfast of overcooked white bread on 11/6.
By the way, if you don't know who Nate Silver is, and Sabremetrics, google him. I didn't know until just recently, other than vague recollection from my news monitoring. I'm not a Math fan, but I like to know who the heavy hitters are, in any field. Especially from those areas that impact our lives.
Back to Waccovia (damn formatting carrying over, F'it) you wrote:
"So please be careful about "swapping votes." I'm voting for Obama again this election cycle. I don't know what the polls say about California but I'd be really careful and at least be very well informed before voting for another candidate that is no Obama."
This completely ignores the fact that Democratic Party experts on the MSM have consistently said that The Obamanator will get all Electoral College votes in California.
Most of us reading this are voting in Cali? And for those who aren't, Safe States vs. Swing States, don't believe the, "lumping all votes in the U.S. together as if each state was the same", hype!
Even the partisans of the duopoly will admit that that's grossly inaccurate, when they're not oversimplifying for the sake of cheerleading.
The most pessimistic say he will win by at least a 17% lead over Romnification here in Cali Some of my more candid and even-handed Democratic Party Partisan/Apparatchik friends say that 30% is a very good possibility.
"Swapping Votes" is a myth made up by partisan psephologists to game the propaganda game. It may apply in the Swing/Battleground States, although that's a far more complicated debate. It is B.S. in the Red and Blue States. A proverbial "Red Herring".
Re: Supporting da "Prez?"
I did see it.
And I focus on the popular vote, which shows clearly that the current occupant of the White House is only 3 points ahead of Romney. That could easily change in a few weeks time, especially with the Embassy attacks. And if Obama falls one point, that gives Romney a point and it would be 50% v. 49%.
Not very comforting numbers at all. Romney has a serious chance of winning the presidency even though Obama is slightly ahead. Resting on one's laurels is deadly and the 2000 election is painful proof of that.
I am voting again for Obama and I hope that everyone else will too. We don't need any repeats of the 2000 debacle and the US Supreme Court's 5 conservative judges choosing another Republican again.
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Edward,
Did you peruse the "FiveThirtyEight" blog link I provided in my previous post? Because the reporting on polling in the MSM has been highly deceptive. For months. 538 is the number of Electoral College votes, by the way. Took me a while to look that up, thought I'd save others the time...
Re: Supporting da "Prez?"
The popular vote doesn't decide. Except state by state, with two exceptions. Do you know which two? I didn't until last week.
So, essentially you're saying that details don't matter, you are only motivated by the highest level of generalization in psephology.
I just read Nate Silver's latest article on FiveThirtyEight. He specifically addresses the aggregate numbers you cite. He's a very interesting guy who I only knew about, vaguely, until last week. I recommend his wiki.
It's true that at the most abstract, it's still The Obamnator's race to lose. But Las Vegas bookies just raised his odds from 72% to 75%.
You're voting in California, don't "throw" your vote away on a sure thing! That result is a certainty.
You have the luxury of sending a message by voting Stein/Honkala, and still your guy will get the same result!!
That way you get to do two good things, instead of the problematic single one!!!
How can any self-respecting Pragmatic Liberal Incrementalist resist such a great bargain!!!!
As for the lie/myth about 2000. Demonstrably false:
https://www.disinfo.com/2010/11/debu...2000-election/
Keep up!
Oh, and the Supreme Court Red Herring? Details matter there as well:
https://www.correntewire.com/the_bra..._talking_point
Apologies for the insulting language. I didn't write it or it would take a less combative tone. The argument is sound, in spite of the alienating hyperbole.
P.S. The Supreme Court does not "choose" its new members. They have no say in the matter at all. (I suppose, theoretically, they could speak out against someone they think unfit. But it's never happened.) The Administration proposes candidates, when a seat on the bench becomes available. The Senate Judiciary Committee vets them a second time, and the Senate has to confirm that. As the Correntewire piece describes in more detail.
Re: Supporting da "Prez?"
My cynical reference to the US Supreme Court was that 5 judges chose Bush Jr. in 2000 as our president. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
In any case, I support Obama for POTUS, not a Green Party candidate. And I sincerely hope that in such a tight race we all team up and support Obama's re-election with our votes and keep out Romney, a wealthy, people-hating elitist who will further ruin this country just like Bush Jr. did for 8 years.
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
The popular vote doesn't decide. Except state by state, with two exceptions. Do you know which two? I didn't until last week...
P.S. The Supreme Court does not "choose" its new members. They have no say in the matter at all. (I suppose, theoretically, they could speak out against someone they think unfit. But it's never happened.) The Administration proposes candidates, when a seat on the bench becomes available. The Senate Judiciary Committee vets them a second time, and the Senate has to confirm that. As the Correntewire piece describes in more detail.
Re: Supporting da "Prez?"
Romnification is toast. He proved it in front of Latino voters a couple of days ago. All electoral votes in California are The Obamanators. Over-generalization for the sake of propagandizing is a very common tactic. But it doesn't make it rational.
https://ivn.us/2012/07/17/100-ways-m...-barack-obama/
Re: Supporting da "Prez?"
Do you remember the old story of the race between the tortoise and the hare? Who won that race? The turtle did!
Let's not make the same mistake because this is reality, not just a bedtime story for children. And A LOT is riding on it. Many human lives and human rights, the general well-being of the Republic and its people.
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Romnification is toast. He proved it in front of Latino voters a couple of days ago. All electoral votes in California are The Obamanators. Over-generalization for the sake of propagandizing is a very common tactic. But it doesn't make it rational.
https://ivn.us/2012/07/17/100-ways-m...-barack-obama/
