Does the Obama vs. Romney debates matter?

[Frostwulf]

It seems to me that vast majority of people have their minds made up, and that these debates will have very little effect on the actual election. My thought is that there are very few people that have not chosen a candidate and these people are not enough to make a difference in the election. You may get a few to sway their votes as well, but this number would be insignificant. Do you agree or disagree?

[Claudius Gothicus]

By now? they do not... Romney screwed up too damn hard on the ''taliban economics'' speech. By now only a major political fall-out could be able to turn down the tides.

If, on the other hand, the numbers where close and dynamic the debates would be tremendously important: but then we would also see a Barack Obama who's actually interested in debating(and back in '08 we have seen the guy is quite able at it).

[Himster]

There is an under-dog phenomenon that may have influence: Because it's so well known that Romney is incredibly unpopular many people may feel sorry for him and vote for him, particularly the sentimental swing state of Ohio.

[Dragus]

To some extent, every aspect of an election is important, at least in some small degree. However, at this stage (barring any major unexpected developments or gaffes) the debates' impact will not be as crucial to the election's outcome as much as perhaps by what margin the president wins. Even the most optimistic possible electoral projections for Romney at this point in time have Obama winning by just over 290 electoral votes.

[Col. Tartleton]

To some extent, every aspect of an election is important, at least in some small degree. However, at this stage (barring any major unexpected developments or gaffes) the debates' impact will not be as crucial to the election's outcome as much as perhaps by what margin the president wins. Even the most optimistic possible electoral projections for Romney at this point in time have Obama winning by with just over 290 electoral votes.

I think the indications are IMO Romney has the popular vote but Obama has the electoral college ATM.



Don't forget, Romney's got Winter Olympic experience. Come December 17th (election day) expect a miracle on Ice.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I think the indications are IMO Romney has the popular vote but Obama has the electoral college ATM.

If Obama wins John Quincy style, I hope it might at least bring the flawed nature of the Electoral College up for debate. Individual districts ought to carry electoral weight individually instead of the current winner-take-all system. Right now I believe Nebraska and Maine are the only "fair" states in the electoral college

Ex. In Nebraska, all of the districts vote red except for the easternmost one, which always votes blue. In Nebraska, the blue district is counted as it should be; whereas in most states, if the majority of districts vote one way, so goes the whole state. Ridiculous miscarriage of popular sovereignty

[Col. Tartleton]

If Obama wins John Quincy style, I hope it might at least bring the flawed nature of the Electoral College up for debate. Individual districts ought to carry electoral weight individually instead of the current winner-take-all system. Right now I believe Nebraska and Maine are the only "fair" states in the electoral college

I like the Electoral College as a general idea. Popular vote is unwieldy. Makes people feel like their vote counts. The wrong kind of voters that is.

I think the Congressional Districts should be altered so each district cast a vote directly plus 2 votes to the party which wins the majority of congressional districts in each state (advantageously given the fact it's 2 votes per state it is split in the case of a tie) As the Capital District has 3 votes it would automatically work the same way, it's just that the one district has the bonus 2 state equivalent votes.

Is that that you're saying?

Or we could just call a Joint Session the after the congress is sworn in and they could elect the POTUS, then the Senate could elect it's President, and the House could elect it's Speaker. Then they just need two special elections for the winning congressmen.

Same really.

I'm supposing Romney is winning the popular vote because he's polling about equal or above Obama right now and that probably means he's got a better lead than is suggested.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I like the Electoral College as a general idea. Popular vote is unwieldy. Makes people feel like their vote counts. The wrong kind of voters that is.

I think the Congressional Districts should be altered so each district cast a vote directly plus 2 votes to the party which wins the majority of congressional districts in each state (advantageously given the fact it's 2 votes per state it is split in the case of a tie) As the Capital District has 3 votes it would automatically work the same way, it's just that the one district has the bonus 2 state equivalent votes.

Is that that you're saying?
.

I think so. I would like the Congressional District Method to be applied to all states. On another note, I would also like to repeal the 17th amendment and return the election of Senators to state legislatures.

[Jedi1]

I like the Electoral College as a general idea. Popular vote is unwieldy. Makes people feel like their vote counts. The wrong kind of voters that is.

The wrong kind of voters, what exactly is that supposed to mean?

[GrnEyedDvl]

There is an under-dog phenomenon that may have influence: Because it's so well known that Romney is incredibly unpopular many people may feel sorry for him and vote for him, particularly the sentimental swing state of Ohio.

If he was "incredibly unpopular", none of the polls would show him even close.

I think the indications are IMO Romney has the popular vote but Obama has the electoral college ATM.

That seems to be the case, but polling is notoriously inaccurate at times. Especially when you consider what the turnout was in 08 compared to what the turnout was in the midterms of 2010.

I'm supposing Romney is winning the popular vote because he's polling about equal or above Obama right now and that probably means he's got a better lead than is suggested.

In some areas I suspect hes a lot further ahead than the polls presume. In others, hes probably further behind.

The way they run polls is a bit complicated, and almost all of them are skewed in one way or another. Some intentional, some unavoidable.

To get a true feel for a particular district, you need to look at the last election and see what the voter turnout was, and try to poll a similar number of people so you can get the mythical "likely voter" poll.

[chilon]

I think the indications are IMO Romney has the popular vote but Obama has the electoral college ATM.

Lol huh?

What indications are there that Romney has the popular vote?

I would love to place a bet on that!

In this race and at this point, the one debate so far has mattered a great deal. Before that first debate Obama lead in every national poll by 3 to 5 points, now a week later Romney is ahead or tied in every national poll. If the election were tomorrow Romney would be the favorite.

And comments like this are why I pay no attention to polls. The idea that Romney is the favorite if election was tomorrow is a bit silly.

The markets don't agree.

Intrade still has Obama likelihood of winning at 62.5 % chance.

IEM Vote Share has Obama up 53- 47
IEM Winner Take All has Obama up 63-37

So yes, Romney made some gains after the election but not nearly enough to be considered the current favorite.

[Col. Tartleton]

Lol huh?

What indications are there that Romney has the popular vote?

I would love to place a bet on that!

I bet you a vote of Reputation. If he gets the popular vote you rep me, if Obama gets the popular vote I rep you.

Closest thing we have to wagering on this forum.

[chilon]

I bet you a vote of Reputation. If he gets the popular vote you rep me, if Obama gets the popular vote I rep you.

Closest thing we have to wagering on this forum.

Sounds fair to me. Consider this a handshake

[TheDarkKnight]

Of course...Those WASP bastards...

[SLN445]

Romney is defintaly going to lose in my Opinion, its just a matter of by how much.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Romney is going to lose, not under a landslide of Blue Voters... but still going to lose.

[TheDarkKnight]

The only poll that matters is the one made on November 6th.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Romney is defintaly going to lose in my Opinion, its just a matter of by how much.

Romney is going to lose, not under a landslide of Blue Voters... but still going to lose.

I think you guys are projecting what you want to happen, and opining that it will happen that way. Maybe it will, maybe it wont. I personally think Romney has a better chance than most news polls give him. In fact Pew currently has him ahead by 4 points or so in the 11 swing states. We will see what happens.

If you want some historical facts, here is one that not many people mention or have even heard.

The only Democrat president to be reelected since Roosevelt was Bill Clinton. This notion that its extremely hard to defeat a sitting president is a myth. Going back all the way to Jackson which was when the Dem/Rep parties were formed, there have been 35 presidents. Only 9 were reelected.

The only poll that matters is the one made on November 6th.

Exactly.

[Col. Tartleton]

The only poll that matters is the one made on November 6th.

Or December 17th when people actually vote for the president...

Yeah! Representative Democracy.

[SLN445]

It may be what i want but its still what i think is going to happen , very few places that ive seen that actualy give him a good chance and as an outside person i can only go by what i see/hear