The Election's Best Bet

If you're a betting person, like I am, then you're probably wondering, what are the odds for each candidate in tomorrow's election?  Nate Silver, author, statistician and the person behind 538.com, gives President Obama a 92% chance of winning.  I like those odds. 

 

This past year has been a mishmash of polls and so called data pointing to a “dead heat” or a”late night” for the candidates in this year’s election.  While it makes for good internet blogs (ahem) and provides extra fodder for Fox news, the trends and data do not support this.  But, why should that get in the way of a good story?

The facts are thus: Obama leads in, in many cases comfortably, in 5 of the so-called “battleground states”. Also, according to real clear politics (one of the more definitive polling web sites) Obama has not trailed in many of the battleground states such as Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio  since polling began in June of this year.

Granted, Obama will most likely lose North Carolina, Virginia and even possibly the infamous state of Florida, which is probably why they haven’t spent much time lately in North Carolina and Virginia .  But, all Obama has to do is hold onto Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Iowa (all strongholds according to polling data) and hold on to the usual and predictably Democratic states such as New York, California, etc. and “pick up” Ohio.  Bam, that puts him over 270, even if he loses Colorado, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.  

Don’t like real Clear Politics data?  Well, then, Rasmussen has 237 electoral votes “safely” in Obama’s camp (he would need only 33 more electoral votes to win in this scenario).  Throw in Nevada (leaning Obama) , Wisconsin and Iowa (traditionally Democratic states) and you have 22 electoral votes heading to Obama leaving him at 259.  Romney would have to virtually run in the table in Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire (assuming we give him North Carolina and Virginia).  That’s no easy task.  One fun fact; no republican has won an election without carrying Ohio since Abraham Lincoln.  

The media would love to let everyone think the race is much closer than it really is.  In fact, it could be a decisive win for Obama and not the squeaker being predicted.  It won’t be a landslide (landslide elections  are a thing of the past due to the polarization of our red and blue states) but it could be a decisive victory for Obama.  In any event he should win comfortably with at least 300 electoral votes.

All that really matters is the electoral votes (would someone please retire the national polls?).  And, if Obama wins the ”swing states” even by 1 vote (recounts aside) he wins all of their electoral votes.  So, win Ohio by a sliver of votes and there are 18 real bankable votes.  Win Florida by  the smallest of margins and there are 29 votes.   There are just far too many scenarios that spell a Romney loss. 

But, the 2000 election aside, what really helps a candidate win elections is picking up the states with the smaller electoral votes, with the prerequisite solid party states,.  As the republicans can attest, the votes add up.  If you win all of New England, a distinct possibility for Obama, that is 33 electoral votes (29 if you give New Hampshire to Romney).  But, that is the key.  Ohio can’t be considered important and pivotal if Romney doesn’t pick up the lion’s share of the South and Midwest, which he should easily do.  But, should Colorado and/or Nevada go to Obama, then Romney’s job just got much more difficult.  

Bottom line, if I was in Vegas, I would double down on Team Obama.Of course, the best bet for tomorrow's election is that regardless of who wins or loses there is an almost 100% certainty that we will remain in pretty much the same situation that we started in. 

Obamney 2012

Remember Americans; in a matter of weeks you will be asked to make a big decision.  You will be asked to decide to vote for the guy who wants to keep us in Afghanistan for many more years versus the guy who wants to keep us in Afghanistan for many more years.  You will be asked to vote for the guy who wants to implement  the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. “Obamacare”) versus the same guy who implemented essentially the same plan (a.k.a. as “Romneycare”).  You will have to actually decide if the guy who supported the TARP bailout versus the guy who, well you get the point by now.     

In some Frankensteinian step of fortune, we have actually created an election where the “choice” between the two “top candidates” is no real choice at all.  “It’s alive!”  And it’s name is Obamney. 

Anyone who would vote for either the current President or Mitt Romney should have their head examined.  You may as well flip a coin, folks.  

Even on the issues they slightly disagree on such as abortion rights (Romney once identified himself as supporting the law as it is), the likelihood that it will be changed, due to the makeup of Congress, is  slim at best, even if Romney is taken at his word (a reach at best).    In fact, the only real differences between the two candidates are their stances on  taxes (which differ slightly), who they would appoint on the Supreme Court (and remember the body that confirms the judges, the Senate has a Democratic majority) and cuts in entitlements (see earlier parenthetical) . 

Now let’s address how “scared” we are of a Obama or Romney Presidency.   it’s like saying you’re more scared of Jason Vorhees than you are scared of Freddy Kreuger   All of this talk about how “dangerous” President Obama or candidate Mitt Romney is farcical.  Overall, neither candidate is any worse than the other.  It’s like asking for six or half a dozen bagels.  Particularly for most middle class Americans, their policies differ only slightly.  Besides, I suffered through 8 years of W so I can withstand anything.  What it boils down to is most politicians, and these politicians are no different, favor the status quo.  Real change will not happen in the next 4, or even 44, years.  And that is our own fault cause we’re afraid to vote for people who actually demand real change.   

In my short yet auspicious lifetime, I have never seen one side so much against the other side.  The kicker is this: there are more similarities than differences between the two candidates.  I have never seen so much disdain and vitriol for essentially the same thing.  While there may be some differences, the two candidates have identical or similar positions on numerous issues.   

First and foremost, they both believe deeply in the capitalist system that drives our economy, or more pointedly the system that stalls our economy and drives people into squalor.  While they both claim to be capitalists and even their opponents describe each candidate as capitalists.  True, Romney has been considered a “vulture capitalist” and Obama has been described as a “crony capitalist”.  But, they are capitalists nonetheless.  

At the same time, both Romney and President Obama have supported programs that have been considered “socialistic” such as supporting the TAR ( the bank bailout), as well as supporting gun ownership rights.  

Although it’s harder to pinpoint Mitt Romney’s stance on the issues since he doesn’t have a Congressional voting record and his positions seem to be continually “evolving”. Romney has, in an infamous video clip, been quoted as saying he believes abortion should be “safe and legal”.  His opponent during his senatorial campaign, Ted Kennedy called Mitt neither pro-choice or prolife but rather “multiple choice.”  In any event, at one point, not very long ago, Romney and Obama agreed on the issue of abortion rights.  

They also both believe in and implemented a health care system that mirror each other.  They both support a health care plan that mandates you must have insurance and has many other similarities.   Additionally, President Obama  has no immediate plans for a withdrawal from Afghanistan.  In fact, While Romney has been more cagey/vague about his Afghanistan policy, he has no immediate plans to withdraw and his running mate Paul Ryan has indicated he would actually increase our troop involvement in Afghanistan.   

The really troubling part for the Romney/Ryan ticket is while Romney doesn’t have a Congressional voting record and he seems to take all sides of the issues, poor Representative Paul Ryan does have a voting record to drawn upon. And it’s not as rosy as his supporters might think.   Paul Ryan has supported and voted for the following plans that Obama has backed: TARP,  troop presence in Afghanistan,  the death penalty (as do most politicians these days) , a global economic system, gun rights, a tax code that favors the rich and corporations. 

The far overarching point is that they are both different sides of the same coin.  They are only different in party membership alone.  We have tried that before with disastrous results.  To use the most overused quote of all time,  “ Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  It is a tired line but it is also true.  And that is what we have been doing the past 7 decades (since FDR).

 What’s particularly upsetting is that both the President and Romney still support the overall political machine that has caused so much pain, suffering and loss for so many people.  People are still losing their homes while banks make record profits.  War rages on with little vision to an end.  The system we have been using is still turning on the same people that vote for the same candidates that run it.  It’s time to think of doing something substantive different and not just using the phrase as a slogan to inspire the masses.  

This isn’t the first time this has happened.  When Al Gore ran for President in 2000, much to his detriment, he spent more time agreeing with George W. Bush than pointing to their differences.  Ditto for John Kerry.  The reason for this is because there are so few differences.

What’s puzzling is no matter how similar these policies are, people on both sides call the other candidates policy folly and abysmal.   If we really wanted “change and hope” the candidates who were left standing should be Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Stewart Alexander, Jill Stein, et al.   Like them or dislike them, these are real agents of change.  Instead, we’re stuck with 4 more years of the same. 

Of course there is one obvious difference between the two candidates.  But, I wouldn’t hold Obama’s singing ability against him.

Lucky Obama

Barack Obama must have been born under a lucky star, wherever the undisclosed location of his birth may be. First, he runs on hope and change during the most opportunistic times, luring the public into thinking he would be any different from the previous Presidents.

Then, he potentially may run against the weakest and most radical field of Republican candidates since the Clinton Presidency.

What luck indeed. My advice to the President would be to play the power ball.

The Republicans hunger for a candidate so different from Barack Obama, who is little more than a centrist with a few leftist leanings, has brought them to supporting and embracing a field of radical candidates that makes the era of the Red Scare seem measured. They have gone so far off the deep end even Michael Phelps couldn’t save them.

We are after all talking about people who defend the banks, deride homosexuals and wish to ban or limit women’s access to reproductive services and contraception. It’s as though they are living in the ‘50’s; the 1850’s. As if conservatives didn’t have a hard enough time attracting female voters. Yet, Obama’s rivals, particularly Rick Santorum, have taken these stances.

Of course, the truly sad part is there are people who, while struggling to pay for their family’s groceries, want to lower taxes for banks and oil companies while they still scrape by and try to pay their fair share. However, it seems unlikely there will be enough of these types to catapult the Republicans to the White House in 2012.

Obama has also done masterful job of playing both sides. While still making some concessions to the liberal base by signing The Lilly Ledbetter Act, he has also continued the same policies of his conservative predecessor.

It always puzzles me when people call him a “socialist” (as though President Bush who bailed out the banks and revamped the Medicare prescription drug plan while we were in debt, isn’t) or “liberal” on fiscal and political issues. Yes, the same man who proposes reducing corporate tax rates to 28%, proposed the very same health insurance policy Mitt Romney implemented, has continued the Bush tax cuts, continued (in fact increased) drone attacks overseas and the unwarranted surveillance, indefinite detention and in some cases killing of American citizens is a socialist. He also has refused to repeal the defense of marriage Act, although he has ceased to enforce it which is little solace to its opponents.

Additionally, President Obama has done nothing to eliminate or reduce gun ownership rights. In fact, he has extended gun owner’s rights by allowing the transportation of firearms into national parks and on trains. Oh yeah, and he has kept tax rates at the lowest rate they have ever been. Sound “socialist” and liberal enough for you?

But, don’t take my word for it. Even Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican opponent, and Ron Paul have stated that Obama is not a socialist. In fact, Ron Paul has described Barack Obama as a “corporatist” for his support of the automotive bailout and other political stances.

The lackluster field of republican candidates, a slowly decreasing unemployment number and Obama’s campaigning skills should make an Obama victory all but certain.

So, time to take your “Obama countdown clocks” and scrape off your “Herman Cain 2012” bumper stickers and get ready for another 4 years of “socialism” Obama style.