Based on 2008 years performance? If one party is winning by a certain A percentage when a certain B percentage is counted?
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1285
Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
![]()
wunsun
Canada622 Posts
Based on 2008 years performance? If one party is winning by a certain A percentage when a certain B percentage is counted? | ||
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On November 07 2012 11:59 Count9 wrote: I'm just glad someone named Angus King won a senate seat, don't know who he is but I would totally vote for him for anything if he appeared on my ballot. Former governor of Maine, fairly close to center, has not said who he will caucus with yet. | ||
Rotodyne
United States2263 Posts
On November 07 2012 12:01 revel8 wrote: Romney now out to 17 to win the Presidency! Obama down to 1.02 ro retain it! Basically that is Romney being up against a maxed out BL Infestor army and only having Zealots and being supply blocked on 20 supply and having no more bases! If you think Romney has any chance of being President this election, you put 10 bucks on him to win at 17 and you win $160 profit! 10 bucks on Obama's 1.02 returns 20 cents profit! According to the Bookies that means this is over as a contest. Obama has won. That made me laugh :D and makes me happy. | ||
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
Ian Ian Ian
913 Posts
On November 07 2012 12:01 revel8 wrote: Romney now out to 17 to win the Presidency! Obama down to 1.02 ro retain it! Basically that is Romney being up against a maxed out BL Infestor army and only having Zealots and being supply blocked on 20 supply and having no more bases! If you think Romney has any chance of being President this election, you put 10 bucks on him to win at 17 and you win $160 profit! 10 bucks on Obama's 1.02 returns 20 cents profit! According to the Bookies that means this is over as a contest. Obama has won. Why would they still take bets? Seems kind of dumb with Obama so blatantly going to win. I could bet $100k right now and make 2000? That's so stupid.. | ||
revel8
United Kingdom3022 Posts
| ||
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
Edit: thats why the bets are so low | ||
TheSwedishFan
Sweden608 Posts
| ||
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
same | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
Yeah, this shit is over. If Brown wins, there is no way that Obama loses. | ||
julianto
2292 Posts
On November 07 2012 12:01 jpak wrote: Juicy, juicy hamburger. Sponsored by BURGER KING! Sounds like the final boss of Whimsyshire. | ||
Amnesty
United States2054 Posts
| ||
Count9
China10928 Posts
![]() | ||
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
No, not the election as a whole — the stakes are huge: whether near-universal health care finally comes to America, whether we get any kind of tightening of financial regulation after the bankers destroyed the world economy. But there are a couple of trivial things I probably shouldn’t care about given the really important stuff, but can’t help thinking about. One is the battle of the nerds versus the traditional pundits. The outpouring of Hate for Nate has been awesome to watch; much of it is coming from the right, but a fair bit also from mainstream pundits who rely on their ineffable sense of “momentum” or whatever rather than polls. Obviously I side, professionally and temperamentally, with the nerds here — not just Nate Silver, but Sam Wang, Drew Linzer, Pollster, and more. I’d like to think I’d be on their side even if the numbers were pointing the other way. The point is that relying on data rather than hunches is my style; I’d hate, professionally, to see the voices in the air people get this right, simply because the polls were wrong. The other trivial stake involves economic analysis. I’ve written a lot about freshwater versus saltwater, but that’s not on the ballot today. What is on the ballot, sort of, is the attempt by a number of Romniac economists — economists who have a basically saltwater, Keynesian view of macroeconomics — to deny that there’s anything special about economies trying to recover from a severe financial crisis that pushes monetary policy up against the zero lower bound, to insist that if only Obama weren’t looking at business funny we’d be having a recovery just like the recovery from the Fed-induced recession of 1981-2. This seems to me to be an obviously cynical move; basically, I think these guys have to know better, since their own textbooks should at the very least tell them that the zero bound matters a lot. And I’d hate to see this kind of cynicism rewarded. Trivial stuff compared with the tens of millions who will have to live — and, in a number of cases, die — without health insurance if the polls are wrong. But I never said that I’m free from petty motivations. Source: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/trivial-stakes/ The anti-intellectualism of those who rejected Nate Silver can how eat shit. | ||
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 07 2012 12:03 wunsun wrote: Since the actual count is not over until pretty late, or even tomorrow morning. How do the decide 'when they call it'. Based on 2008 years performance? If one party is winning by a certain A percentage when a certain B percentage is counted? Usually one of the candidates concedes the race before it's completely counted. | ||
ey215
United States546 Posts
On November 07 2012 11:58 Deathmanbob wrote: youll have to wait for democrats to grow balls before that happens They have balls (or at least Pelosi does) the obstructing has been coming from both sides. Until both sides slay their ideological dragons we'll stay in this same place. I think the smart thing for the President to do would be to get a deal to avert the fiscal cliff (kick the can down the road) and then go after bipartisan tax reform. With a little momentum after that he might be able to get Medicare/Medicaid/SS reform and then immigration reform done. What he shouldn't do is what Bush did after 2004. After 2004 Bush went after private accounts in SS first. That fight spoiled a shot at bipartisan immigration reform (He and Kennedy had been working on it). I guess we'll see. | ||
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
| ||
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On November 07 2012 12:04 Mindcrime wrote: The Ohio senate race has been called for Brown. Yeah, this shit is over. If Brown wins, there is no way that Obama loses. Josh Mandel is like a giant man-boy who can't answer a single question without looking like he's about to piss himself. Watching him get questioned on rape terminology was hilarious. | ||
Hrrrrm
United States2081 Posts
On November 07 2012 12:03 PolskaGora wrote: ![]() Alright updated photo with 15% additional precincts reporting from my last one. The lead has increased, if it continues and can pull FL off, we will easily coast to victory. However, I wouldn't hold my breath since the precincts in Santa Rosa or Okaloosa haven't reported in yet and they will almost surely swing towards Romney. They don't matter with 50% of Miami Dade left and Obama at least going to get 60% of 400k+ votes. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 07 2012 12:03 PolskaGora wrote: ![]() Alright updated photo with 15% additional precincts reporting from my last one. The lead has increased, if it continues and can pull FL off, we will easily coast to victory. However, I wouldn't hold my breath since the precincts in Santa Rosa or Okaloosa haven't reported in yet and they will almost surely swing towards Romney. okaloosa is already 90% counted | ||
| ||