 |
| I'm sure you can do better than this |
States mostly likely to flip from this prediction:
Michigan - to Romney
Iowa - to Obama
Nevada - to Romney
New Hampshire - to Obama
Ohio - to Obama
Wisconsin - to Obama
In other words, Obama could still win. Or it could turn into a bit of a rout. But this his how I see it today.
Meanwhile, it's time resolve an eternal question:
16 comments:
I've got Obama with 286 electoral votes and winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Nevada.
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=HRd
I've got Romney winning 343, picking up places such as Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and even one from Maine. This might seem hopelessly optimistic. Certainly it's not based on present data. But I think, and have thought for the past year, that this will break hard towards Romney. The level of FAIL will lead many to pull the lever for Romney "silently." And the whole preference cascade.
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=HRQ
I keep praying that Illinois will repent of their insanity and go for Romney, too. :^)
Nothing is out of the question. Well, a 50 state sweep is probably unlikely. But the upside is high.
W.P., how do you get one from Maine? The polls there have hugely in favor of Obama. And Illinois going Romney does not have a chance as the last time the state when Repub was 1988. Penn. will go Dem due to Pittsburgh and Phillie. Michigan - possible, but Obama saved them with the auto buyouts. Wisconsin and Nevada are possibilities for Romney though. And yes, you are being VERY optimistic. :)
C.B.
I think we tend to fall into the rut of thinking events have to happen a certain way. For instance, the prevailing wisdom is that this election will be super close. I understand why people think that, but I don't think events will play out that way. The mid-terms were a resounding rebuke. The elections the year before were a rebuke as well. People have been voting against Obama without positioning themselves as being against his person. When they go into the voting booth, I think the inclination to vote against his presidency (as they have already done) will win out over their desire not to reject him personally.
As for Maine and Illinois, I was being a bit silly perhaps. But hey, politics is fun!
Michigan - possible, but Obama saved them with the auto buyouts.
I can't let that statement go unchallenged. Michigan has many, many more industries than automobiles and there remain many parts of the state where unemployment is running very high. It's likely that Michigan will end up in Obama's column, but it's also possible he'll lose it.
As for "saving the auto industry," that's not what happened at all. The deal saved the UAW, but that's about it. Investors and stockholders in GM and Chrysler got royally screwed and that has had a deleterious effect on all sorts of industries since then. The message of the bailout was that this administration is willing to abrogate contracts if it sees fit, which is a huge reason for both continuing unemployment and the unwillingness of institutional investors to put money into new industries. It was a total Juan Peron move and it's had a huge impact.
Hey Boy, didn't Obama also save Solyndra?
Hey K-Rod, still waiting on your answer about how you would have done things differently to end the Great Depression or this Great Recession!
For starters, taking from Peter to give to Paul when he digs a hole and then again when he fills it in was rong.
Next, FDR took away far too many freedoms of farmers to do what they do best, farm! Price and production controls under the heavy thumb of government only prolonged the depression. Sometimes in order to go forward and up up you must take a big step back. Sometimes in order to enjoy the gain you must feel the pain. Life ain't easy and it ain't fair, C boy.
Now about Obama saving companies; don't get too dizzy Boy.
Mr. D., I would have to disagree with you on your view of the auto bailout. Here is a link to Politifact.com that discusses that particular issue: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/06/did-obama-save-us-automobile-industry/
I want to quote a few paragraphs from the article that would contradict your point of view. It also gives kudos to Bush as well and states they both "saved" the industry. Here they are:
Mitt Romney has taken up that claim, saying the bailout was flawed by "crony capitalism." The union counters that the trust fund does not belong to the union and the fund took on the substantial risk of providing healthcare for retirees for all the decades to come. According to the Center for Automotive Research, that shift alone accounted for two-thirds of the labor savings that have made the carmakers competitive.
At the libertarian Cato Institute, Dan Ikenson says no one can know for sure, but he thinks disaster would not have occurred if the companies had been allowed to go through a normal bankruptcy.
"I suspect some assets of both companies would have been sold off to other auto producers," Ikenson said. "And some assets and brands would have remained under the GM and Chrysler names."
A key question for advocates of a conventional bankruptcy is whether private lenders would have come forward to finance any such deal. The view of most analysts is that the private money would not have been there.
The Economist, one of the bastions of free-market thinking, came around to that view. Originally, it favored no government intervention. In April 2010, it offered an apology to President Obama.
"Given the panic that gripped private purse-strings," the magazine wrote in an editorial. "It is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended."
Even Sherk at the Heritage Foundation gives Obama credit for forcing the carmakers to go through bankruptcy and the necessary restructuring that followed. The Economist concludes "by and large Mr Obama has not used his stakes in GM and Chrysler for political ends. On the contrary, his goal has been to restore both firms to health and then get out as quickly as possible."
As we said in the beginning, it is impossible to know if the American auto industry would have fared better without government money, without government ownership, and without strong government intervention. Most likely, that debate would be more robust if the industry were not doing well.
But for the moment, it is. The massive loss of jobs and the disruption to the network of auto parts suppliers did not happen. The shock that might have hit all car makers and the overall economy is not staring lawmakers in the face. Given the tangible reality of today, the view among most analysts is that President Bush kept the carmakers afloat long enough for President Obama to put them on solid footing moving forward. If that matches the definition of a rescue, then both presidents saved the auto industry.
Oh, and Rod - can I call you Rod? Is that all ya' got about what you would have done different during the Depression? Farming? That's OK, I have an article for you to read. Like you said "Life ain't fair" so in this article we both get to win - and lose - regarding our perspectives on whether or not FDR's stimulus really helped America. Enjoy!
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/10/news/economy/yang_newdeal.fortune/index.htm
2 855-7448
BS
Oh my, so the sky would have crashed and we would have been at 40% unemployment if Obama wouldn't have bailed out the UWA!!!! Well, Boy, maybe you just can't be reached.
BTW, I said for starters, you can say it covers it all if YOU want.
In your heart you know I am right.
Rod, It does not look like I can be reached which is probably a good thing.
Hey, if you want to add anything more, I will be waiting with baited breath to see what ya' got!
In my heart all I have is love for you, man. :)
So Obama saved GM and Solyndra?
Post a Comment