It's 7:35pm PST (10:35pm EST).
With the preliminary results in, I'm calling it for Obama.
Romney's got Virginia and North Carolina.
Obama's had Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania called.
The situation is like this now: Obama can win in one of these minimal scenarios:
Ohio Plus One of the three (Colorado, Nevada, Iowa)
The Trio together: Colorado, Nevada, Iowa
Romney's path is much less certain now.
Iowa and Ohio called for Obama. Colorado leaning Obama, Florida possibly leaning for Obama.
I'm surprised you put this much effort into this. Does it really matter who wins? I think not.
I'm a political news junkie.
No, it doesn't really matter in the long-term who wins in terms of the decline of America.
That said, why are you "surprised". Did you have a different impression of me than what you had previously, which has thus led to this surprise?
I called it for Obama months ago. It was a no-brainer. The election was a mere formality. The good (or bad) thing is, the descent will be more rapid under the Obamination.
This election will have some significant, perhaps fundamental impacts. I think economically the election was basically a coin toss. Neither one of them fleshed out a coherent economic program.
In terms of civil liberties and social values, there are wins and losses that would likely have been different if Romney had won.
With up to three Supreme Court picks, Obama can halt the rightward trajectory of the Court for a generation or two.
This election was perhaps the first loud and clear recognition of the demographic changes in the US. Future politicians of whatever stripe won't be able to win without substantial Hispanic support. It may be the last gasp of the old South.
Unless you are expecting us to descend into Mad Max, these things matter.
My use of the word surprise was not intended to be about your belifes Poet. Sorry for the confusion.
The election system is no longer a true reflection of the wishes of the people. First there are too many ways for fraud to alter the results. No proof of citzenship is the best example that cannot be argued. Another way is for a progam to switch the votes, may sound a little out there but check out this link.
Regardless of all this there is still very little difference in our choices. Both candidates support the fedgov abusing the constitution and our rights. They both support massive defense spending and unending foreign wars. They both support taxing the middle class to poverty. They both support and are guided by wall street and multi-nationals. They both support centralized planning at all levels of government. Worst of all they both support the entitlement mentality and neither believes in liberty or personal responsibility.
I do not think our vote counts any longer. If it did it would still be outweighed by the masses voting for bread and circuses.
Why does it have to be Mad Max? There thousands of other possibilities. Civic disobedience first. States finaly electing people that will stand up to the feds next. State seceding may not be far behind. Financial collapse weaking the feds and the economy making it all but impossible to crack down. Energy depletion will also effect their ability to enforce those laws. Juries realizing they have the power to nullify laws. I am certainly no expert but it does not have to be one way or the other. I think we are seeing a massive overreach by the feds and they will not be able to sustain it and the harder they try the worse it will get for them. They will probably be able to keep control of the population centers through the use of EBT cards, socialised medicine and free phones. They will find it much more difficult everywhere else.
I use "Mad Max" as short hand for a state of collapse in which our gov't, the Constution and our way of life have been jettisoned. I don't see that happening.
Anyone who pays attention to state politics - and I studied it as part of working on a documentary about corruption - knows that state politics are often as much or more a hotbed of corruption and inhumanity as Federal politics - whether your complaint is the inappropriate power of public unions, budgets that are a utter, end-over-end joke, or the full-money ramjobs of corrupt legislation that work to jam GMO's, fracking, or giant pigsh*t farms down the throats of local communities that have literally voted those companies or products out of their jurisdiction, states have it in spades. In Mississippi and elsewhere, they have a whole, sick private prison industry that pays by the incarerated citizen and is doing a booming business putting in and keeping people perpetually in jail based on trumped up, nothing charges, as you may know. For them, a human in prison paid for by taxpayers is kind of like owning a stock or a bond. They just collect their return and hold their BarBQues after a round of golf while their assets rot in jail. People who don't care about the rights of their fellow citizens or about human decency are likely to be next up on the menu for the King Rats of greed and not caring around the world.
Throughout history, it's always been about the potential inappropriate domininance of either money and power - the mafioso families du jour - or the dominance of people wanting something for nothing, for no effort - in some ways, they're the same: they want something they don't deserve. It seems to me, both those forces have to be fought >continuously< while maintaining strong values of fairness, freedom and human decency. The problems have always gotten worse when people >don't< fight powerfully for these things politically, by civil disobedience when necessary, by fighting vote fraud, fighting vote access denial, fighting denial of individual civil rights and by participating in democracy and making it real instead of pretending democracy >ever< has been real without people forcing it to be - nationally, at the state level, or in your local town. Anyone who thinks we'll one day have a wonderful Republican, Democratic, Libertarian or Green world, state or town without having to fight the same continuing fight is living in a pipe dream.
Doug, as my post said there are other possibilities. It does not have to be one way or another. You don't leave room for anything in between.
Kelvinator. I completely agree with your post. Which is why I said "when the states start electing people who will stand up to the feds". Part of the problem is that most of our taxes go to the federal level first and then (after a healthy cut) get redistributed to the states. The only way for the states to get the money back is to play ball with the feds. I am certainly not saying everything will be peaches and cream if we had more state control but I do believe things would be better. It would lead to a smaller fedgov, something we all want.Second it would leave more money in the state to use as the state wished. Who knows maybe we would even pay less in taxes considering the fed wouldn't get its cut (probably not ). At lease my taxes wouldn't be used to support buying cell phones and ebt cards for people in those big unsustainable cities (I live in Idaho, biggest city is Boise 210,000). One of the best things about going back to greater state control is that voting with your feet would mean something again. Like minded people would tend to gather and they could have the laws and rules they want at a local level.
Until the people wake up and smell the corruption nothing will change for the better, just get gradually worse.
Place to find the latest trends and tutorials about how to make it in the startup world.
Emily's interests and research
For people in and around Austin, TX who are interested in working together to increase resiliency for ourselves and our communities
Group for people looking to connect in Alberta Canada