Originally Posted by The Rani

The decision to have the marathon reminds me of after 911, when we were all told to "go shopping."
Shows Us where Our values are.

This guy says it well:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/02/us/san...html?hpt=hp_t1

I have heard on the news that some of the proceeds will be donated to hurricane relief efforts, but I didn't see it on the web page for the marathon. If so, then I am all for it. If not, then I agree that it is misguided.

Nov. 1: The Simple Case for Saying Obama Is the Favorite
By NATE SILVER
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...te/#more-37035

If you are following some of the same people that I do on Twitter, you may have noticed some pushback about our contention that Barack Obama is a favorite (and certainly not a lock) to be re-elected. I haven’t come across too many analyses suggesting that Mitt Romney is the favorite. (There are exceptions.) But there are plenty of people who say that the race is a “tossup.”

.....the argument we’re making is exceedingly simple. Here it is:

Obama’s ahead in Ohio.

A somewhat-more-complicated version:

Mr. Obama is leading in the polls of Ohio and other states that would suffice for him to win 270 electoral votes, and by a margin that has historically translated into victory a fairly high percentage of the time.....

Originally Posted by Aramea

I have to say, I do appreciate Mitt Romney for trying to help with a donation. It is possible that this is how Mormons handle situations like this, and I can't fault him for trying.

The one thing that irritates me about the volunteer meme is the failure to evaluate it on its merits. Agreed, no one is forced to volunteer, so anything done has to be better than the alternative. But the lack of criticism ... even constructive criticism ... allows the less-is-more crowd to argue that less is enough. Sorry. No it's not.

Feeding NYC through a food drive is like pumping the water out of the NYC subway system using a small residential pump and a garden hose. You have to appreciate the thought, but the result is predictably inadequate in the extreme.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Duuude ... I'm not sure how this woman voted, but it's a little on the sick side to be politicizing her tragedy:
Brandon And Connor Moore, Missing Staten Island Brothers, Found Dead After Hurricane Sandy
Even if some might call it "stupidity."

Looking at data points is not politicizing, it's analyzing. You making a data point into a person to suggest politicizing is not only attempting to politicize, its being an a-hole.

Anyway, the impact of Sandy, Katrina, or any other natural or man-made disaster needs to be politicized given the lack of federal investment in infrastructure (sea walls, dikes, weather satellites) makes all the difference as to the impact of these things in terms of lives and treasure.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The one thing that irritates me about the volunteer meme is the failure to evaluate it on its merits. Agreed, no one is forced to volunteer, so anything done has to be better than the alternative. But the lack of criticism ... even constructive criticism ... allows the less-is-more crowd to argue that less is enough. Sorry. No it's not.

Feeding NYC through a food drive is like pumping the water out of the NYC subway system using a small residential pump and a garden hose. You have to appreciate the thought, but the result is predictably inadequate in the extreme.

True, but the Romney's give a lot to charity through the Mormon Church. One can assume that the church will be active in relief efforts. I may be that we never know fully how much the Romneys (or the Obamas for that matter) assist with the relief efforts.

Yes, the food drive was a bit ham-fisted, but I would be surprised if he didn't do more.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Looking at data points is not politicizing, it's analyzing. You making a data point into a person to suggest politicizing is not only attempting to politicize, its being an a-hole.

Anyway, the impact of Sandy, Katrina, or any other natural or man-made disaster needs to be politicized given the lack of federal investment in infrastructure (sea walls, dikes, weather satellites) makes all the difference as to the impact of these things in terms of lives and treasure.

Sigh ... and it was such a nice budding romance for awhile ...

Originally Posted by The Rani

As opposed to what's happening now?


http://news.yahoo.com/fuel-scarce-ea...000645293.html

The head of Homeland Security along with her deputy for FEMA is personally visiting Staten today.

Everyone overlooked the Island because of communications have been largely cutoff and alligators are already up to everyone's necks as it was.

It is only a-holes living thousands of miles away from the scene that are trying to find some sliver of a bad response by Obama, the federal govt or whatever that are suggesting otherwise.

Just thought you like to know.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Nah, it's fine. PW thinks that you call people who leave themselves totally helpless unless some Big Daddy comes and takes them by the hand "libertarians". Don't bother arguing with him, though -- you'll put him off his prune oatmeal.

Always easy to lambast Big Daddy from the comfort of an intact home, with power and food, and no bodies floating by.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Sigh ... and it was such a nice budding romance for awhile ...

Would have been nicer still if the bro-mance had been before the storm and more had been invested in infrastructure prior. Nice, and might have saved some lives.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Would have been nicer still if the bro-mance had been before the storm and more had been invested in infrastructure prior. Nice, and might have saved some lives.

Of course, but I guess that is why we are all here on a forum about the fourth turning. "We can feel, but we can no longer collectively do." I suspect as these tragic events keep happening (and they will, of course) it will become obvious that our institutions are broken and the lack of compromise will start causing politicians pain at the polls.

I can hope.

Iv'e heard and read many responses to the devastation that Sandy left in its wake. To me it's a multifaceted solution to alleviate the suffering in these areas. It involves government, prevention, and simply, people helping people.

We can't be dependent solely on government, nor can we always be prepared for the unthinkable, or be so self reliant that we fool ourselves into thinking we can manage any catastrophe by ourselves.

This is how countries achieve greatness. When one area is in trouble, other areas pitch in. In an age when once-in-a-lifetime disasters are starting to happen once a year, it’s more important than ever that farmers, small business owners, families, and all of us, aren’t left to fend for ourselves. When the country as a whole stands together, all are strengthened. ......... Sarah van Gelder

What Climate-Driven Hurricane Sandy Teaches about Cooperation

It's 3 a.m. and the wind’s howling. Do you know your neighbors?

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/11/02

We can do this together.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I think I'll go back to posting photos.

I'll keep that fire extinguisher handy.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Haven't you noticed a lot of Homies are being named "granny" names that we haven't seen since the GIs, Losts, and Missionaries kicked the bucket? Olivia, Ava, Abigail, Sophia, Evelyn, Lillian, Victoria, Scarlett, Stella, Camilla, Audrey, Emma, Aubree, etc.

Oh, I know all those old names are coming back, my cousin's daughter is named Evelyn, after my late grandmother. I've run into tons of little Olivias, Avas, Sophies, Isabels, Emmas, etc. But I have never run into a little Ruth.

I know 2 Millies named Abigail who I went to high school with, one is an '84 cohort and the other is an '87 cohort.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

While we're playing the name game, I remember in the 1970's and 1980's there were all sorts of Jennifers and Jessica. In my growing up years the most popular girls names were the likes of Donna, Linda, and Sharon. How often are these used today? For boys my own name Brian is still very common, and stalwarts like John and Michael never really went away. This is a bit of a diversion from the serious tone of the majority of this thread, IMO. Might add that the names Luke and Laura are still very common today. Makes you wonder if many named their babies after those soap opera characters. Oh yes, and Shirley was another popular name from the 1950's and 1960's. What made me just think of that was Shirley Ellis, who performed the song I references at the beginning of this post. Wonder if she is still around.

The only Millie named Laura I know happens to be a close friend of mine. All other people named Laura I have come across are Boomers and 60's cohort Xers.

I had an ex-girlfriend named Laura, born in 1977.

I have a sister and a stepsister both named Emma, both born in 1976.

If Obama is re-elected, we are headed into extremely dark times economically. The left/Democrat ignorance and dismissal of the private sector lets them believe it will magically get better on its own, and they refuse to accept that their actions have prevented a recovery. Obama clearly will not change course in a second term, which means the economy will not change course. Bill Clinton was an extremely corrupt and dishonest politician, but at least he understood basic economic realities. Obama has been completely sheltered from them, going from the academic world into government. And he has made it clear that his only concern is imposing his notion of "fairness" on America, not getting the economy moving. If he's re-elected, within the next year or two the bottom is going to drop out again. It could happen at the beginning of next year with the "fiscal cliff". No matter what, the looming implementation of Obamacare is going to hold down economic growth and hiring.

If America's mind is so diseased at this point that it will prop up a completely failed president like Obama in the face of an ongoing economic depression, the decline we've all feared is truly upon is. If we haven't hit rock bottom yet on the delusional Boomer world view, I don't know how bad things will have to get before we do. It could be too late.

It's always been the case that the left is willing to sacrifice economic prosperity for economic equality. That is clearly Obama's point of view, which he only half-heartedly denies in public. The left believes that suffering shared equally is better than happiness shared unequally. If a majority of Americans now hold that point of view, the dynamic, inventive, strong, prosperous and free country that we've known in the past is gone.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If Obama is re-elected, we are headed into extremely dark times economically. The left/Democrat ignorance and dismissal of the private sector lets them believe it will magically get better on its own, and they refuse to accept that their actions have prevented a recovery. Obama clearly will not change course in a second term, which means the economy will not change course. Bill Clinton was an extremely corrupt and dishonest politician, but at least he understood basic economic realities. Obama has been completely sheltered from them, going from the academic world into government. And he has made it clear that his only concern is imposing his notion of "fairness" on America, not getting the economy moving. If he's re-elected, within the next year or two the bottom is going to drop out again. It could happen at the beginning of next year with the "fiscal cliff". No matter what, the looming implementation of Obamacare is going to hold down economic growth and hiring.

If America's mind is so diseased at this point that it will prop up a completely failed president like Obama in the face of an ongoing economic depression, the decline we've all feared is truly upon is. If we haven't hit rock bottom yet on the delusional Boomer world view, I don't know how bad things will have to get before we do. It could be too late.

It's always been the case that the left is willing to sacrifice economic prosperity for economic equality. That is clearly Obama's point of view, which he only half-heartedly denies in public. The left believes that suffering shared equally is better than happiness shared unequally. If a majority of Americans now hold that point of view, the dynamic, inventive, strong, prosperous and free country that we've known in the past is now gone.

Why not just tell us that the Mayan Calender ends in December and we're all going to die?

You have provided no facts, no logic, just a rant of conjecture (panic?). This is EXACTLY what you claim, on the other thread, is the modus operandi of the Boomer Left. Your lack of self awareness is simply staggering.

Take any aspect of what you laid out here and attempt a cogent argument for it.

If you do, I can nearly guarantee that you will be proven wrong with fact and clear logic. You will then take that factual and rational debunking of your argument as some nefarious Boomer Left falsehood.

Your problem is you mistake truth for mere opinion, in your eyes, horrible wrong opinion. But truth is truth, your arguments either stand against it or they don't.

So go for it. Let's hear your factual, rational argument for the crap you just posted. There is something wrong with you (and, as evident by the polls, you are certainly not alone). Let's just go through showing that again for the umpteenth time.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Why not just tell us that the Mayan Calender ends in December and we're all going to die?

You have provided no facts, no logic, just a rant of conjecture (panic?). This is EXACTLY what you claim, on the other thread, is the modus operandi of the Boomer Left. Your lack of self awareness is simply staggering.

Take any aspect of what you laid out here and attempt a cogent argument for it.

If you do, I can nearly guarantee that you will be proven wrong with fact and clear logic. You will then take that factual and rational debunking of your argument as some nefarious Boomer Left falsehood.

Your problem is you mistake truth for mere opinion, in your eyes, horrible wrong opinion. But truth is truth, your arguments either stand against it or they don't.

So go for it. Let's hear your factual, rational argument for the crap you just posted. There is something wrong with you (and, as evident by the polls, you are certainly not alone). Let's just go through showing that again for the umpteenth time.

I have you on ignore, but I opened this one post, this one time. What I described above is the last four years. Expecting more of the same is hardly conjecture. It's a safe assumption.

There has been a lot of froth injected into the economy through the Fed and (to a lesser extent) stimulus, which combined with the bailouts (the stimulus was nothing but a bailout of government) has only marginally created an illusion of stability. That stuff is going to come back to earth. And the real economy, which has been on life support for four years, is not going to magically reappear to replace it. If Obamacare remains in place, and if taxes go up as Obama wants them to, those who have been holding out hope that Obama would be thrown out are going to throw in the towel on the U.S. economy. Businesses are not going to grow and expand, they're going to stay locked in a defensive crouch. Unemployment will not improve, and will likely get worse. Energy and food prices will continue to stay stubbornly high in the face of a weak economy because of Obama's anti-fossil fuel energy policy and the Fed's money-printing. Nothing will be done about the national debt and deficits. Another recession is highly likely. We may not have even seen the worst of it.

Here's a short term prediction: if Obama wins, the "fiscal cliff" situation will result in some kind of tax increase, whether a "deal" is struck or not. That alone will be enough to trigger another recession.

If Romney wins, there is a chance, but not a guarantee that things will improve. If Obama wins, nothing is going to change. We are following the path of the Weimar Republic. If the economy tanks again, there will be massive upheaval and a backlash unlike anything we have seen in recent history. People will reach a level of desperation that could produce unimaginable results. The whole system could collapse. At a minimum, the Democratic Party would be destroyed. You'd think I would welcome that outcome, but the suffering that would produce it is not something I want to live through.

Maybe S&H are right, and an apocalyptic scenario is unavoidable. I'd like to think we could get through with a milder "Crisis". But the delusions of "Prophets" may be so powerful that they must reach a point of no return and be destroyed in fire.

Hmm, my reaction to the "Americans for Limited Government" is on par with the rest of the people receiving letters from them.

Get-Out-the-Vote Effort Backfires

A conservative group called Americans for Limited Government has been sending voters letters containing the voting histories of themselves and their neighbors. This information was culled from public records. The letter tells people to visit the group's website, which is highly critical of President Obama. The the real goal, of course, was to let people know that they if they don't vote they will be shamed in 2014 or 2016. By sending the letter only to people expected to vote for Romney, they hoped to increase Republican turnout. When the Orlando Sentinel got wind of this project and began interviewing people about it, they got reactions ranging from "offensive invasion of privacy" to"absolutely despicable."

Here's my source:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Nov02.html#item-8


I'll share what they sent me, andI wrote in response to those f---ers:

Dear Chas:

Thank you for your dedication to voting in past presidential elections. Our American democracy is stronger because of civic-minded citizens like you.

We have conducted an audit of public voting records in your neighborhood, and wanted to present you with findings of past civic participation in your community.

...insert voting history of myself and my neighbors here...

Again, I would like to thank you for your active civic participation. I hope the above vote history record is infromative.

As a further service, we will be updating our records after the expected high turnout for the Tuesday, November 6, 2012 election. We will then send an updated vote history audit to you and your neighbors with the results.

Please be sure to continue your participation and exercise your right and responsibility to vote.

Sincerely,

William A. ...illegible last name...

What I wrote in response (and the heat of the moment):

To Whom it may Concern:

I thank you for your concern on ensuring that people in my local neighborhood are likewise civically inspired to vote in the 2012 presidential election.

However for being an organization that claims to be the bastion of "Limited Government" that our forefathers so established, I cannot help but see the contradictory nature in sharing my personal information with my neighbors, nor sharing their personal information with me. Isn't this an example of the kind of "Big Government" authoritarian nonsense that past generations of Americans have fought to keep from our shores? Please tell me that you too haven't been corrupted by the the "Big Government" Fascist Republicans and Communist Democrats that currently control our country in a two-party duopoly.

Thank you for your consideration but please keep your "Big Government" noses out of my personal information.

Sincerely,

etc.

Translation: F--- off!

~Chas'88

What, other than to knock Nate Silver, can JPT say now to answer him?

My argument... is this: we’ve about reached the point where if Mr. Romney wins, it can only be because the polls have been biased against him. Almost all of the chance that Mr. Romney has in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, about 16 percent to win the Electoral College, reflects this possibility.

Yes, of course: most of the arguments that the polls are necessarily biased against Mr. Romney reflect little more than wishful thinking.

Nevertheless, these arguments are potentially more intellectually coherent than the ones that propose that the race is “too close to call.” It isn’t. If the state polls are right, then Mr. Obama will win the Electoral College. If you can’t acknowledge that after a day when Mr. Obama leads 19 out of 20 swing-state polls, then you should abandon the pretense that your goal is to inform rather than entertain the public.

But the state polls may not be right. They could be biased. Based on the historical reliability of polls, we put the chance that they will be biased enough to elect Mr. Romney at 16 percent.

Current poll averages at about Noon Nov.3 Eastern time:
http://www.philosopherswheel.com/pollaverages.html

state Silver HuffingtonPollster RealClearPolitics
Elect.Coll. 305-233 277-191 201-191
CO +1.5 O +1.6 O +1.0 O
FL +0.4 R +0.2 R +1.4 R
IA +3.1 O +3.5 O +2.0 O
MI no avg +6.7 O +3.5 O
NV +3.9 O +3.9 O +2.7 O
NH +3.3 O +2.2 O +1.8 O
NC +2.5 R +2.2 R +3.8 R
OH +2.9 O +2.9 O +2.9 O
PA no avg. +5.4 O +4.6 O
VA +1.2 O +0.9 O +0.3 R
WI no avg. +4.9 O +5.4 O

If you would like to see my compilation of the juicy pictures, videos and facts about Romney and the election, go to
http://philosopherswheel.com/romney.html

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

There has been a lot of froth injected into the economy through the Fed and (to a lesser extent) stimulus, which combined with the bailouts (the stimulus was nothing but a bailout of government) has only marginally created an illusion of stability. That stuff is going to come back to earth. And the real economy, which has been on life support for four years, is not going to magically reappear to replace it. If Obamacare remains in place, and if taxes go up as Obama wants them to, those who have been holding out hope that Obama would be thrown out are going to throw in the towel on the U.S. economy. Businesses are not going to grow and expand, they're going to stay locked in a defensive crouch. Unemployment will not improve, and will likely get worse. Energy and food prices will continue to stay stubbornly high in the face of a weak economy because of Obama's anti-fossil fuel energy policy and the Fed's money-printing. Nothing will be done about the national debt and deficits. Another recession is highly likely. We may not have even seen the worst of it.

The stimulus did help keep public workers on the job. It started infrastructure projects. It also cut taxes.

The economy is "magically" recovering at a modest pace. A modest pace is good; it keeps inflation low, which it needs to be now or else our deficit skyrockets.

Obamacare will help the economy, because health care costs will go down for people and businesses.

If taxes are raised on the wealthy only, as Obama wants, the wealthy will take home a few dollars less than $250,000 or more. That will not hamper them in the least, and a more-viable government budget will help all of us. Tax cuts ever are at most a mild stimulant, and tax cuts on the wealthy failed to stimulate the economy under Bush. Under Reagan, they only stimulated income for the wealthy themselves; everyone else's "economy" stagnated or declined.

Unemployment will improve as it is already doing. Obama's pro-clean-energy policy will create large numbers of new jobs. Under Romney, the debt would quickly skyrocket to unimagined levels. The economy will continue to recover for at least a year or two no matter who wins Tuesday.

Here's a short term prediction: if Obama wins, the "fiscal cliff" situation will result in some kind of tax increase, whether a "deal" is struck or not. That alone will be enough to trigger another recession.

Let's hope we get the minimal tax increase, and if we do, it will help and not hurt the economy, as it did under Clinton, because government deficits will decline, and domestic spending won't have to be cut as much. Government spending on domestic programs puts far more money in people pockets than any tax decrease to the wealthy does.

Maybe S&H are right, and an apocalyptic scenario is unavoidable. I'd like to think we could get through with a milder "Crisis". But the delusions of "Prophets" may be so powerful that they must reach a point of no return and be destroyed in fire.

Prophets are the ones who need to be listened to in times of crisis, just as they were in the days of old Israel.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I have you on ignore, but I opened this one post, this one time.

Well, thanks for nothing.

You haven't provided any attempt at a factual and cogent argument whatsoever - just more fear mongering that reveals hysterical panic.

Get a grip.

First Christie's bro-mance

And then Bloomberg going all in with Barak.

Now it's the man himself!

Romney makes the case for another 4 years for Obama!




Amazing, hey?

No, not really.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The stimulus did help keep public workers on the job. It started infrastructure projects. It also cut taxes.

The economy is "magically" recovering at a modest pace. A modest pace is good; it keeps inflation low, which it needs to be now or else our deficit skyrockets.

Obamacare will help the economy, because health care costs will go down for people and businesses.

Indeed every American manufacturer faces a comparative disadvantage to foreign competition because of the world's highest costs of health care. Bad habits of Americans? Except for obesity, drug use, and alcoholism we do well. We smoke less than almost any other people in the industrialized world. We just have a cost-loading system.

If taxes are raised on the wealthy only, as Obama wants, the wealthy will take home a few dollars less than $250,000 or more. That will not hamper them in the least, and a more-viable government budget will help all of us. Tax cuts ever are at most a mild stimulant, and tax cuts on the wealthy failed to stimulate the economy under Bush. Under Reagan, they only stimulated income for the wealthy themselves; everyone else's "economy" stagnated or declined.

The heyday of small business in America was the 1950s -- a time of high taxes on the few with very high incomes for 'unearned' income. Does anyone think that we could go back to living standards of the 1950s but with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in force, more gender equity, improvements in technology, LGBT rights, and more ethnic and religious diversity? That's how life could be around 2025. The cars would be smaller, safer, and more fuel-efficient and they would be driven on safer roads. We would probably have high-speed trains that allow people to go across country at 300 mph and avoid the callow service of current airlines (really a terribly-inefficient means of getting somewhere over any but the longest distances, and probably priced out of range for all but those who really need to get around fast. Just think of the prospect of fast trains that can get one from Miami to Tokyo over route of the Mikhail Gorbachev Bridge across the Bering Strait and some other bridge between a unified Korea and Japan (name to be determined). That assumes that we are up to the big projects characteristic of a 4T and that so are others. A 4T has plenty of competent or at least trainable workers capable of doing the unimaginable that later seems inevitable. What will be true about America will be true about peoples who are on the same timeline -- like the Russians.

The 1950s house was austere by current standards. We might not be able to fill our houses with schlock from dollar stores because (1) we might be priced out of it, and (2) a sensible economic policy will be to promote thrift and investment.

Unemployment will improve as it is already doing. Obama's pro-clean-energy policy will create large numbers of new jobs. Under Romney, the debt would quickly skyrocket to unimagined levels. The economy will continue to recover for at least a year or two no matter who wins Tuesday.

The difference will be whether President Obama takes us on a moderate course or Mitt Romney tries to accelerate economic growth by huge give-aways to special interest with, one presumes, intensified inequality and more corruption with potential for another crash. I'll take slow, steady, and reliable over mad, inequitable, and destructive anytime. Mitt Romney offers 3T economics -- enrichment of elites at the expense of everyone else, degradation of the environment for quick profits, and the creation of low-paying jobs (just look at the net effect of job 'creation' with Bain Capital).

Let's hope we get the minimal tax increase, and if we do, it will help and not hurt the economy, as it did under Clinton, because government deficits will decline, and domestic spending won't have to be cut as much. Government spending on domestic programs puts far more money in people pockets than any tax decrease to the wealthy does.

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. (Luke 12:48)

There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.

-- Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945), U.S. president. acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia (June 27, 1936)

Prophets are the ones who need to be listened to in times of crisis, just as they were in the days of old Israel.

...and the baser drives of human nature must be kept in check.

Here is an analysis of how the 2012 election can go. Only 9 states are allegedly up for grabs, and if it is not a simple question of coin-tosses because the states are unequal in electoral votes, there are 512 possible results with those nine states (alphabetically CO (9), FL(29), IA (6), NV(6), NH (4), NC (15), OH(18), VA(13), WI (10) ) They obviously are not equal. We can count out some from consideration -- President Obama is not going to win Arizona without also winning Colorado and Nevada, he's not going to win Georgia without also winning Florida and North Carolina, and he is not going to win Indiana without also winning Iowa, Ohio, and Wisconsin. He is also not going to lose Michigan, Minnesota, or Pennsylvania without losing about every state in this list.

With these nine states, there are 512 possible results by random chance alone. President Obama has 431 outright wins, 76 outright losses, and 5 ties that would depend on how the House delegations vote. The Republicans would likely win those, so consider 'ties' losses. Random chance alone gives President Obama about an 84% chance of winning.

Florida encompasses 256 of those results, and of those, only one puts Mitt Romney in the White House. That requires him to win all eight other 'iffy' states.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ite-house.html

You can play little games with this tool. One is to make adjustments for states spiraling away from one or the other candidate. Recent polling shows Nevada and Wisconsin rapidly spiraling out of reach of Mitt Romney. That leaves one fourth the possibilities, but a 119-9 advantage for President Obama -- about a 93% chance of winning. With neither Nevada nor Wisconsin available to Mitt Romney, Romney wins both Florida and Ohio or loses outright.

OK -- but I say that President Obama has no reasonable chance of winning North Carolina without also winning Virginia. Such then raises the opportunity of a Romney chance to 8 in 64 -- and President Obama has 'only an 87.5% chance of winning. But also consider that a recent university poll that I find reliable gives President Obama an unassailable 9% lead... and Mitt Romney has to win all of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and one of either Colorado and Iowa. President Obama then has 29 ways of winning in 32 possible results and a 90% chance of winning if one assumes North Carolina either irrelevant or a sure loss.

You can use this tool as the election returns come in. For the individual states, closing times are (all times EST):

Colorado (9) 9:00p
Florida (29) * 8:00p
Iowa (6) 10:00p
Nevada (6) 10:00p
New Hampshire (4) 8:00p
North Carolina (15) 7:30p
Ohio (18) 7:30p
Virginia(13) 7:00p
Wisconsin (10) 9:00p

* Florida straddles the Eastern and Central time zones, and Florida results will not be released until the polls close in the Central Time Zone an hour after those in the Eastern Time Zone.

Closing times for all states here.

Of course we will not be getting results from the states in alphabetical order, so by closing times:

Virginia(13) 7:00p
North Carolina (15) 7:30p
Ohio (18) 7:30p
Florida (29) * 8:00p
New Hampshire (4) 8:00p
Colorado (9) 9:00p
Wisconsin (10) 9:00p
Iowa (6) 10:00p
Nevada (6) 10:00p

Some states close surprisingly early (Virginia) -- and late (Iowa closes at 9PM CST/ 10PM EST) -- at the same time as Nevada two time zones to the west. Some states count their votes faster than others and get reliable results earlier than others. Example: Ohio uses optical scanners to count completed ballots, an extremely-efficient system. Virginia uses paper ballots with a manual count, and final results come in last from urban districts last. In 2008 the media called Ohio less than two hours after polls closed and Virginia more than four hours after polls closed despite President Obama winning Virginia by a larger margin than Ohio.

You can then count the odds after one after another state is called on Election Night. So let us suppose that New Hampshire is called early because results look like those of 2008. Chances for President Obama then go from 431-81 (ties going to Romney) -- an 84.1% chance for President Obama -- to 221-35, an 86.3% chance for President Obama. Four electoral votes can make a difference at that point. But suppose that North Carolina seems to not be going as well for President Obama and is called for Mitt Romney soon after New Hampshire is called. President Obama's chance of being re-elected then goes down to 100 in 128, or 78.1%. Fifteen electoral votes can make a bigger difference.

Paul Ryan has done little to "deliver" Wisconsin, so if the Governor doesn't muck things up and it looks as if Wisconsin is going to President Obama in the high single digits, it will be a quick call. The chance for an Obama re-election then rises to 55 in 64. The chance of a second term for President Obama then goes to nearly 86%. President Obama then wins the election if he wins Florida, either Ohio or Virginia and anything else in the group, or the combination of Colorado, Iowa, and Nevada.

That's as far as I dare for aside from suggesting this video in the event that President Obama wins re-election:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqsT4...eature=related

...or with more talent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA8Om...eature=related

For Republicans, there is a very different (German) version of the song... very different in meaning (Weekend and Sunshine, with no political context):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlGcm...eature=related