The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Got em? tell em?

My prediction is for a high chance of mud in the air.

I predict it will end with THUNDERDOME!

Obama defeats Romney - just the same as i predicted the day after the '08 election(sure did).
In '16 it will be Warren over Rubio. Archive this.

Peace & out,
Nostra-dumbass

My prediction is that either of the current parties will be gone and
Replaced by a new party. It doesn't really matter which one.

Romney wins, decides Obamacare is the perfect compliment to his own health care policies while Governor of MA and ends up being more Liberal than Obama.

Obama wins 2012 election, proclaims he really isn't American, and puts America under sha'ria law and socialism.
At the same time.
( Actually, there are a lot of RKBA forums where this isn't a joke. ).

US has low voter turnout. Obama won because he convinced a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise vote that they should vote. That's why he will lose.

hagagaga wrote:US has low voter turnout. Obama won because he convinced a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise vote that they should vote. That's why he will lose.

I will be happy to bet you one thousand US dollars that Obama wins the election.

Want in?

goosekiller wrote:Obama defeats Romney - just the same as i predicted the day after the '08 election(sure did).
In '16 it will be Warren over Rubio. Archive this.

Peace & out,
Nostra-dumbass

Elizabeth Warren?!?! Holy shit you're optimistic! That would kick total ass.

In all seriousness I think this is going to be a battle of getting your base to turn out and vote for you and not the third party. Obama's got some image problems with people who don't groupthink, but then again, he has incumbent advantage. Romney has a base that is united in defeating the "kenyan, muslim, socialist [insert subtle derogatory phrase here]" But he also does not have incumbent advantage, and still has to shake off the taste of bush. This healthcare ruling will be in Obama's favor so for the time being I think Obama has a slight actual lead. Now if romney does takes up some centrist or moderate positions between now and then but distances himself from Obama he might be able to take a majority of the centrist vote. he's also outspending obama, but at these finance levels the actual difference doesn't matter much as long as you have the money to play.


but in the end, I know EXACTLY who will win: Goldman sachs and the corporate elite.

goosekiller wrote:

hagagaga wrote:US has low voter turnout. Obama won because he convinced a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise vote that they should vote. That's why he will lose.

I will be happy to bet you one thousand US dollars that Obama wins the election.

Want in?

The bet should clear.
The bet has to be paid on the win. But if there's a big cheat,
like Bush V Gore. And Romney gets appointed. The bet still gets paid.
No squirming out.
I'll hold the money.

goosekiller wrote:

hagagaga wrote:US has low voter turnout. Obama won because he convinced a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise vote that they should vote. That's why he will lose.

I will be happy to bet you one thousand US dollars that Obama wins the election.

Want in?

what odds you giving goose?

rolandson wrote:

goosekiller wrote:

hagagaga wrote:US has low voter turnout. Obama won because he convinced a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise vote that they should vote. That's why he will lose.

I will be happy to bet you one thousand US dollars that Obama wins the election.

Want in?

what odds you giving goose?

well if you want to go by statistics and congressional elections, 94% of those that outspend their opponent win. Right now mitt romney is winning the finance war. so ....

Fear of Obama will get folks out better than love for Mittens.

rolandson wrote:

goosekiller wrote:

hagagaga wrote:US has low voter turnout. Obama won because he convinced a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise vote that they should vote. That's why he will lose.

I will be happy to bet you one thousand US dollars that Obama wins the election.

Want in?

what odds you giving goose?

Even.

goosekiller wrote:

hagagaga wrote:US has low voter turnout. Obama won because he convinced a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise vote that they should vote. That's why he will lose.

I will be happy to bet you one thousand US dollars that Obama wins the election.

Want in?

I'm not going to bet. The odds seem too close for me.

gendoikari87 wrote:

rolandson wrote:

goosekiller wrote: I will be happy to bet you one thousand US dollars that Obama wins the election.

Want in?

what odds you giving goose?

well if you want to go by statistics and congressional elections, 94% of those that outspend their opponent win. Right now mitt romney is winning the finance war. so ....

But incumbents also win the majority of the time.

A lot of variables that aren't always in play, some variables may interact in unforeseen ways.

Sure, incumbency is teh hawt. But they've sent out emails declaring that they will be outspent:

I will be the first president in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign, if things continue as they have so far.

I'm not just talking about the super PACs and anonymous outside groups -- I'm talking about the Romney campaign itself. Those outside groups just add even more to the underlying problem.

Sure, 94% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most, but it's not (yet) money that is counted - it's votes by actual people.

Sure, there have been a number of voter suppression schemes put in place, but then again there are millions of people pissed off about how badly they've been economically cornholed recently.

Sure, more people will get to the polls, but it's not a popular vote, it's an electoral college.

Sure, swing states mean more than safe red/blues... But the same way a general rise in sea temp allows storms to form outside of the normal 'storm track', the general rise in voter attention allows electoral storms to form outside of the normal 'swing state' track - meaning we may have new swing states just like in 08.

Lots of not-run-of-the-mill shit going on this time around. Hell, it was a shocker that a conservative on the scotus acted in a manner that seems to respect rule of law. It's almost bizarro world out there.

Romney wins in a landlside. The Rethugs retake both houses of Congress. The ACA is repealed, unemployment shoots up to 20%, revolution, the country breaks apart, the South turns into the giant sewer that it is, allows cousins to marry, nuclear war, 99% of the human race perishes, a new race crawls out of the toxic sludge and begins anew--hopefully with better results.

Van wrote:Romney wins in a landlside. The Rethugs retake both houses of Congress. The ACA is repealed, unemployment shoots up to 20%, revolution, the country breaks apart, the South turns into the giant sewer that it is, allows cousins to marry, nuclear war, 99% of the human race perishes, a new race crawls out of the toxic sludge and begins anew--hopefully with better results.

I hate to break it to ya, but we already allow that.

Van wrote:Romney wins in a landlside. The Rethugs retake both houses of Congress. The ACA is repealed, unemployment shoots up to 20%, revolution, the country breaks apart, the South turns into the giant sewer that it is, allows cousins to marry, nuclear war, 99% of the human race perishes, a new race crawls out of the toxic sludge and begins anew--hopefully with better results.

I like it. It's nice to finally have a plan.

I've spent more than a decade as a political flak and I can tell you, barring an unforeseen circumstance, Obama is going to win and Republicans are going to lose some seats in the House.

Too early to see if Obama's coattails are long enough to hold the Senate or take back the house. Those are the key questions that no one can answer right now. Even trying to predict that now would be like trying to pick the winner of the 2016 Super Bowl (maybe the future L.A. Roughriders).

Polls and conventional wisdom don't mean shit at this stage. Remember how Hillary was supposed to face-off against Romney? Remember how Meg Whitman was going to destroy Jerry Brown? How'd those work out? Remember all the conventional wisdom about the Supreme Court ruling?

Also, national polls (especially at this early stage) don't mean jack shit -- just ignore that noise. Oh, and NEVER listen to DC journalists or talking heads tell you about what is happening on the ground in any state other than Virginia or New York. Speaking from experience, those stupid fucks can't even get basic facts right about California politics, which is only the biggest state in the country. You think they are going to show any more insight into Oregon, Nevada (which most of the can't even pronounce), Iowa, etc?

All the anti-Obama people don't add-up to enough electoral votes to get Romney elected unless voter turnout is low. The fight will be for independents and turning-out the base. Republicans actually have more problems with the base than Dems, with much of the Tea Party hating him, plus the likelihood that Republican women will defect to Obama. Oh, and that almost all of Mittens electorate will be over 30, White protestants/evangelicals.

Last, in high profile elections, an incumbent's support is considerably "harder" than that of the challenger. Can you think of one viable attack on Obama that hasn't already been saturating the media for weeks, months or years? Can you say the same about Romney?

There is NO liberal media bias. But there are plenty of media biases centered around laziness, ineptitude, misplaced egotism, corporate nepotism and an over-reliance on a heard-like conventional wisdom group-think.

Just chill and go volunteer for some good local Democratic candidates (who are hopefully no rabid anti-gun freaks) and trade complaining for kicking ass.

goosekiller wrote:

rolandson wrote:

goosekiller wrote: I will be happy to bet you one thousand US dollars that Obama wins the election.

Want in?

what odds you giving goose?

Even.

if i were a gambler, i wouldn't touch it. somehow, it just feels like it's a rigged race...

All the anti-Obama people don't add-up to enough electoral votes to get Romney elected unless voter turnout is low.

yeah, about that....