Predict The US Election 2012

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm kinda the opposite, I think that Romney's results will surprise, I'm not calling for a Romney win at all, but I think that his message has resonated to an extent, I also think that Obama's campaign has been a lot more flaccid then the last one and he doesn't have the same Obama or death voter base happening.

Either way America loses.

I honestly debated putting up a Romney wins prediction. If I did it would've been 287-251, with Romney winning Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Virgina and North Carolina.

I actually think that this is a possibility, and as a Canadian this wouldn't bother me that much. Realistically for Canada I would say that Romney winning would be way better. I know that all of the social stuff, and a lot of things like that that most Canadians don't care for the Republicans....but honestly that has nothing to do with us in a lot of respects. From a pure trade/economy standpoint we're probably better off with Romney!


As Canadians, isn't that what we should care about? I mean honestly, from that standpoint if people vote for certain social rights and norms to go one way or another is basically irrelevant to us as Canadians. We're talking about human rights abuses here; we're talking about people having a different viewpoint on a few issues of little consequence to foreigners. When we look at this from "overseas" (hey, they're not all geography majors either!), we should care more about the economic and trade impacts for us. Pretty clearly that is a huge check mark in the Romney column as opposed to Obama.

<Puts on flame ######ant suit and hunkers down for the firestorm that will likely ensue>

[Senator Clay Davis]

People keep forgetting the one reason Mitt will be awful for Canada...he (biggest donor is Sheldon Adelson, hardcore Israel supporter) and his party in particular are very much ready for war with Iran. The CPC, and Harper in particular, would love to go send our soldiers to fight for Israel (we would have gone to Iraq had they had power then). So a Mitt victory ensures our participation in a war that will ultimately be a waste of lives and resources. I think Obama is less likely to go on a pre-emptive war unlike the chickenhawks of the Republican party, who I would assume will be going to war on Day 1 (since Romney plans on doing everything short of curing cancer on Day 1).

[AR_Six]

Lol at people making predictions ON election day. At least put them in a week or two before.

EDIT: Although I guess this thread was started last week so so much for that.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by Slava

When we look at this from "overseas" (hey, they're not all geography majors either!), we should care more about the economic and trade impacts for us. Pretty clearly that is a huge check mark in the Romney column as opposed to Obama.

If Romney gets a chance to do what he has promised to do (cut taxes again, repeal Obamacare, slash entitlement spending, increase defense spending) he'll hurt the US economy and US economic competitiveness.

That would be bad for Canada. We want our biggest trading partner to have a healthy economy, not an economy crippled by trickle-down economics.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

People keep forgetting the one reason Mitt will be awful for Canada...he (biggest donor is Sheldon Adelson, hardcore Israel supporter) and his party in particular are very much ready for war with Iran. The CPC, and Harper in particular, would love to go send our soldiers to fight for Israel (we would have gone to Iraq had they had power then). So a Mitt victory ensures our participation in a war that will ultimately be a waste of lives and resources. I think Obama is less likely to go on a pre-emptive war unlike the chickenhawks of the Republican party, who I would assume will be going to war on Day 1 (since Romney plans on doing everything short of curing cancer on Day 1).

See I've never really bought into that kind of fear-mongering. Even in Canada with all of my reasons to dislike Harper and the CPC, his being likely to send us to a war isn't really a concern to me. Could he? Sure. I just don't think that anyone is that stupid right now though. The west has just gone through two unproductive wars where sentiments were largely to bring the troops home, not go fight some more!

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Lol at people making predictions ON election day. At least put them in a week or two before.

If you predicted a few weeks ago you missed the hurricane, Gov. Christie endorsing Obama (among other things). Why would you predict early though? People vote today for the most part and the votes are counted today as well.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Slava

I went 358-180 for Obama.

Originally Posted by Slava

I honestly debated putting up a Romney wins prediction. If I did it would've been 287-251

Well, I think it's a fairly safe bet that the actual result will be somewhere within your range.

I've got Obama winning 302-236 with Romney winning (of the states listed in the OP) Florida, Montana and North Carolina plus one vote from Maine.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Lol at people making predictions ON election day. At least put them in a week or two before.

EDIT: Although I guess this thread was started last week so so much for that.

Huh? It's not like people are making predictions with the results in hand.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Lol at people making predictions ON election day. At least put them in a week or two before.

EDIT: Although I guess this thread was started last week so so much for that.

I'm waiting till tonight to make mine

[Slava]

Originally Posted by gargamel

Well, I think it's a fairly safe bet that the actual result will be somewhere within your range.

I've got it Obama winning 302-236 with Romney winning (of the states listed in the OP) Florida, Montana and Arizona plus one vote from Maine.

Ya, in hindsight I really went out on a limb there eh?

I just wanted to make a prediction and came to that first one.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

People keep forgetting the one reason Mitt will be awful for Canada...he (biggest donor is Sheldon Adelson, hardcore Israel supporter) and his party in particular are very much ready for war with Iran. The CPC, and Harper in particular, would love to go send our soldiers to fight for Israel (we would have gone to Iraq had they had power then). So a Mitt victory ensures our participation in a war that will ultimately be a waste of lives and resources. I think Obama is less likely to go on a pre-emptive war unlike the chickenhawks of the Republican party, who I would assume will be going to war on Day 1 (since Romney plans on doing everything short of curing cancer on Day 1).

Go back and read the history of that event. The American's didn't want Canadian Soldiers there at least in terms of conbat roles. Our military was eroded to its furthest point and we would have been a drag on the allies there. Chretien actually sent several senior officers down to a meeting in Florida with members of the U.S. strategic Planning Group to see how Canada could help and we were effectively rebuffed.

America would have been content with materialor even verbal support from Canada for the war on terror or back field logistical support for the war on terror.

Lets not make this out that Chretien knew that we had something to offer and sternly refused it, Chretien was a slick politician who took a negative (Canada's shattered military) and turned it into a positive for him (Heroicly saying no)

And of course Harper took the opposing position, he was in the opposition, but I pretty much would guarantee that even if Harper had offered support we had nothing to offer at the time.

And don't forget that Canada did offer a fairly significant contribution to the war on terror by dispatching repeated battle groups to Afghanistan. We also offered Naval support for the blocade in question

It was the Harper government who made sure that our troops were actually properly equipt to survive that mission.

Edit don't forget that our previous Chief of Defense Staff was heavily involved in cooredinating the U.S./British occupation of Iran in 2004

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

I honestly debated putting up a Romney wins prediction. If I did it would've been 287-251, with Romney winning Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Virgina and North Carolina.

I actually think that this is a possibility, and as a Canadian this wouldn't bother me that much. Realistically for Canada I would say that Romney winning would be way better. I know that all of the social stuff, and a lot of things like that that most Canadians don't care for the Republicans....but honestly that has nothing to do with us in a lot of respects. From a pure trade/economy standpoint we're probably better off with Romney!


As Canadians, isn't that what we should care about? I mean honestly, from that standpoint if people vote for certain social rights and norms to go one way or another is basically irrelevant to us as Canadians. We're talking about human rights abuses here; we're talking about people having a different viewpoint on a few issues of little consequence to foreigners. When we look at this from "overseas" (hey, they're not all geography majors either!), we should care more about the economic and trade impacts for us. Pretty clearly that is a huge check mark in the Romney column as opposed to Obama.

<Puts on flame ######ant suit and hunkers down for the firestorm that will likely ensue>

Thanks for what I think is a very honest post.

I really only care about the impact of the President on the U.S. economy as it effects us.

The other stuff doesn't matter to me or effect me, it effects American's and they have to also decide what effects them the most.

Right now the economy took a front seat because frankly their economy is pretty much a sliding disaster with high unemployment and slowed down economic factors that effect us.

I don't think that the relationship between the Canadian and U.S. government is at a high point and is probably at its lowest point since the Chretien and the repeated slaps in the fact to the U.S.

I don't think that Harper is a big fan of Obama, not from a social agenda point of view, but from Obama's handling of our trade relationship.

From an economic standpoint, the government is probably praying for Obama to be a single term president.

[Canada 02]

280 Obama - Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, NH
258 Romney - Montana, Arizona, Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, NC

[gonzo29]

Of the 8 battleground states

Obama - Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin - 303 EVs

Romney - Florida - 235 EVs

Popular Vote within 1.5%

[Slava]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying there CC, save for the part of the US economy being a "sliding disaster". Its not a partisan point, at least in my opinion, but everything is better than it was four years ago. The stock markets are up, jobs are up, GDP is up. Frankly there isn't a lot to measure that isn't up. The S&P has been an incredibly accurate predictor of the election at about 88% and it clearly shows Obama as winning; the one time it was wrong was 1968.

The thing with the Democrats in the US is that they're much more protectionist than the Republicans. As a Canadian, who at the end of the day only cares about me and fellow Canadians that is the major point. Will Mitt and pals turn back that clock socially? Maybe. Will he be jonesin for a war? I doubt it. I feel bad for my family and friends in the US should Mitt be elected, but as a Canadian I actually don't think that we would be worse off at all.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Go back and read the history of that event. The American's didn't want Canadian Soldiers there at least in terms of conbat roles. Our military was eroded to its furthest point and we would have been a drag on the allies there. Chretien actually sent several senior officers down to a meeting in Florida with members of the U.S. strategic Planning Group to see how Canada could help and we were effectively rebuffed.

America would have been content with materialor even verbal support from Canada for the war on terror or back field logistical support for the war on terror.

Lets not make this out that Chretien knew that we had something to offer and sternly refused it, Chretien was a slick politician who took a negative (Canada's shattered military) and turned it into a positive for him (Heroicly saying no)

So you're saying the Americans and their "Coalition of the willing" didn't want Canada's assistance, but did accept assistance from countries such as El Salvador, Estonia and Moldova? I agree our military was already stretched thin in Afghanistan, but the Americans would take any "willing" country it seems. Simply put Chretien, and every other smart country in the world, didn't want to go without UN approval. As it turns out, pretty brilliant call on that one. Imagine how much worse our country might be with the lives and dollars that would have been wasted there.

Stephen Harper, as evidence from his comments at the UN this year, will gladly fight for Israel, but obviously only if America is there to do most of the heavy lifting. It would indeed be political dangerous (likely suicidal) to go to war with Iran, but at some point Harper will use his majority to make an unpopular decision. Something tells me a Romney victory means this will be that unpopular decision. Romney has 20 or more Bush administration advisors working for him. If it looks like the GWB foreign policy, and it sounds like the GWB foreign policy, well....

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Slava

If you predicted a few weeks ago you missed the hurricane, Gov. Christie endorsing Obama (among other things). Why would you predict early though? People vote today for the most part and the votes are counted today as well.

First, Christie didn't endorse Obama. Endorse implies, among other things, that you will be voting for the guy. Christie will absolutely not be voting for Obama.

Second, you predict early because it's way more impressive when you do. If you predicted a Kings cup win before the playoffs last year, that's much more impressive than if you do it after game 3 of the SCF. Bragging rights, man. Otherwise I'd change my 294 prediction to give Obama Colorado. But no. I'm sticking by my old one.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So you're saying the Americans and their "Coalition of the willing" didn't want Canada's assistance, but did accept assistance from countries such as El Salvador, Estonia and Moldova? I agree our military was already stretched thin in Afghanistan, but the Americans would take any "willing" country it seems. Simply put Chretien, and every other smart country in the world, didn't want to go without UN approval. As it turns out, pretty brilliant call on that one. Imagine how much worse our country might be with the lives and dollars that would have been wasted there.

Canada's military at the time couldn't evern properly coordinate and communicate with the U.S. ground forces, they frankly didn't want any of the sharp end of the stick being made up of Canadian troops. We were pretty firmly rebuffed about that in a military to military meeting.

The UN approval thing was partially a smoke screen by Chretien to save face. Instead we contributed naval elements and key high officers integrated into their command structure.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Stephen Harper, as evidence from his comments at the UN this year, will gladly fight for Israel, but obviously only if America is there to do most of the heavy lifting. It would indeed be political dangerous (likely suicidal) to go to war with Iran, but at some point Harper will use his majority to make an unpopular decision. Something tells me a Romney victory means this will be that unpopular decision. Romney has 20 or more Bush administration advisors working for him. If it looks like the GWB foreign policy, and it sounds like the GWB foreign policy, well....

Good, I'm fine with Harper saying that he would fight for Israel, I don't know what we could really add beyond planes and logistical transport planes.

If Israel is actually attacked by Iran then go fight for them they are an ally. Beyond that didn't Harper also state that he was more interested in a diplomatic solution through global pressure on Iran. He didn't stand up and make a war hawk speech.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Prediction - Obama wins by a slim margin.

However, because the banking/corporate oligarchy runs both the Democrats and Republicans, the country will continue to swirl down the toilet in terms of economics and loss of liberty.

Everyone loses.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

First, Christie didn't endorse Obama. Endorse implies, among other things, that you will be voting for the guy. Christie will absolutely not be voting for Obama.

Second, you predict early because it's way more impressive when you do. If you predicted a Kings cup win before the playoffs last year, that's much more impressive than if you do it after game 3 of the SCF. Bragging rights, man. Otherwise I'd change my 294 prediction to give Obama Colorado. But no. I'm sticking by my old one.

It was near enough to an endorsement!

You can have your bragging rights. Truth be told I got the last time right in a "pool" with some friends. I guess that gives me some bragging rights from that time around, but makes me no more accurate at predicting this time. If anything it statistically probably makes me more likely to get this wrong because its almost pure chance anyway and things should regress to the mean.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Slava

Realistically for Canada I would say that Romney winning would be way better.

If you have any inkling that Romney is going to weaken the buying power of the US middle class, then you are weakening the greatest consumer of Canadian exports.

Yes there would be an immediate boon to the energy industry, but long term I'm not convinced it would be the best for Canada. As the American economy goes we go to a fairly large extent.