The metric that predicted 14 of the last 15 elections says Obama in a landslide.

[Troke]

http://danieldrezner.com/blog/

Alan Abramowitz, a politics scholar at Emory University, has shown that summer head-to-head polls convey almost no information about the forthcoming election. (Subsequent head-to-head polls are not much better.)

Instead, he has a simple “electoral barometer” that weighs together the approval rating of the incumbent president, the economy’s economic growth rate and whether the president’s party has controlled the White House for two terms (the “time for a change” factor). This laughably simple metric has correctly forecast the winner of the popular vote in 14 out of 15 postwar presidential elections.

The only exception is 1968, when the barometer (calibrated to range between +100 and –100) gave Hubert Humphrey a wafer-thin advantage of +2; he lost, with a popular vote deficit of less than 1 percentage point. The barometer not only picks winners but pretty accurately points to winning margins, too. In 1980, Jimmy Carter had the biggest postwar negative reading (–66); Ronald Reagan beat him by nearly 10 percentage points.

President George W. Bush’s net approval rating (favourable minus unfavourable) is currently –40; the economy grew at a 1 per cent annual rate in the first quarter; and Republicans have had two terms in the White House. Plugging the numbers into Mr Abramowitz’s formula gives the Republican candidate a score of –60, about as bad as it gets: second only to Mr Carter’s in the annals of doomed postwar candidacies. The barometer says Mr Obama is going to waltz to victory.

 

[wanderer]

I expect Obama will be elected. I believe he to be an even worse president than Jimmy Carter.

 

[Txkstew]

This election is unlike any other before.
People will hold their nose, at the last minute and vote. I don't think it will be for O'bummer.

 

[Dennis Olson]

It doesn't matter. If Ron Paul isn't the next president, the US is doomed.

 

[Chocolatier]

It doesn't matter. If Ron Paul isn't the next president, the US is doomed.

Even if he is, it won't be pretty...

Choc

 

[Phlatulance]

It doesn't matter. If Ron Paul isn't the next president, the US is doomed.

I think RP has the best chance to correct problems, but even that isn't a sure thing.

 

[Palmetto]

It doesn't matter. If Ron Paul isn't the next president, the US is doomed.

Spot on. McCain and Obama would lead us further down the road toward a socialist nation. Both parties are on the Highway to Hell. The only difference is that Obama is driving in the passing lane.

God Save the Republic

P

 

[Kalliope]

Spot on. McCain and Obama would lead us further down the road toward a socialist nation. Both parties are on the Highway to Hell. The only difference is that Obama is driving in the passing lane.

God Save the Republic

P

Ya'll still haven't explained - so? Norway and other Scandinavia countries are Socialist Democrat's, and they are considered the best countries to live in.
Without name calling, finger pointing, can ya'll rationally tell us why we shouldn't adopt a mixed economy too? The free market ain't, it's killed way too many people worldwide along with inpoverishing them.

I have yet to have seen a true intellectual rebuttal as to why socialism is wrong. (Don't bring in Russia, that really wasn't a true socialist country - I'm talking Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc.)

 

[Chocolatier]

Ya'll still haven't explained - so? Norway and other Scandinavia countries are Socialist Democrat's, and they are considered the best countries to live in.
Without name calling, finger pointing, can ya'll rationally tell us why we shouldn't adopt a mixed economy too? The free market ain't, it's killed way too many people worldwide along with inpoverishing them.

I have yet to have seen a true intellectual rebuttal as to why socialism is wrong. (Don't bring in Russia, that really wasn't a true socialist country - I'm talking Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc.)

I'll give it a try. As far as I know (don't have links to back me up) the countries you mention are bankrupt. The difference between them and the US, which is also bankrupt, is the tax rates in those countries are far higher. It's the worst of both worlds. Socialism looks good on paper but I can't see where it ever plays out that way in practice. The social programs always cost more than is taken in. I think that's true for just about any government program.

 

[Oilpatch Hand]

I have yet to have seen a true intellectual rebuttal as to why socialism is wrong.

Because in order to finance a socialist state, you must institute a kleptocracy with which to steal the property of the "undeserving," so as to be able to confer benefits upon those whom the state deems to be more "deserving."

And stealing is wrong. Even if you're using the government to steal from law-abiding, productive people for the purpose of giving the proceeds to the non-productive. Theft is wrong. Always has been.

And now you know.

 

[UncurledA]

Troke - great find from a general knowledge standpoint ! Wow ! Hard to argue against a metric with that kind of record ! I never saw anything even close, even the "carries Ohio" predictor has a lot of conditions ! Too bad we get stuck with Obama, but beyond that, or maybe because of it, this predictor truly does show we get the president we deserve !

There's still the possibility we don't make it to "real" elections, though, a possibility strongly considered by myself and many others. I guess that would mean no Obama......

 

[American Rage]

What he did was design a formula that answered the winner of 14 of 15 previous elections and then applied that formula to the upcoming election.

All I know is that if you listened to the media, no Republican would have won the White House since Lincoln.

We'll see in November.

Rage

 

[Enid Puceflange]

Because in order to finance a socialist state, you must institute a kleptocracy with which to steal the property of the "undeserving," so as to be able to confer benefits upon those whom the state deems to be more "deserving."

And stealing is wrong. Even if you're using the government to steal from law-abiding, productive people for the purpose of giving the proceeds to the non-productive. Theft is wrong. Always has been.

So taxation is theft and wrong? Seems to me that any government of any stripe does this, so this particular metric does not define why socialism is wrong...nor would broad measures of economic prosperity, such as those for Sweden from the CIA world factbook here

GDP - real growth rate:
2.6% (2007 est.)
GDP - per capita (PPP):
$36,500 (2007 est.)
Unemployment rate:
6.1% (2007 est.)
Population below poverty line:
NA%
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 3.6%
highest 10%: 22.2% (2000)
Inflation rate (consumer prices):
1.7% (2007 est.)
Investment (gross fixed):
18.9% of GDP (2007 est.)
Budget:
revenues: $253.4 billion
expenditures: $240.5 billion (2007 est.)
Public debt:
41.2% of GDP (2007 est.)

 

[Be Well]

Ya'll still haven't explained - so? Norway and other Scandinavia countries are Socialist Democrat's, and they are considered the best countries to live in.
Without name calling, finger pointing, can ya'll rationally tell us why we shouldn't adopt a mixed economy too? The free market ain't, it's killed way too many people worldwide along with inpoverishing them.

I have yet to have seen a true intellectual rebuttal as to why socialism is wrong. (Don't bring in Russia, that really wasn't a true socialist country - I'm talking Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc.)

I guess you haven't read much news about Scandinavian countries lately. For one thing, the cradle to grave thing isn't working out so well anymore, and Sweden in particular is having verrrry nasssty problems with Muslim immigrants, crime and so on. I guess some of the Scandinavians are also getting tired of having more than 50% of their income taken away by the gov.

 

[Rams82]

This election is unlike any other before.
People will hold their nose, at the last minute and vote. I don't think it will be for O'bummer.

I agree

 

[RobinYyes]

Ya'll still haven't explained - so? Norway and other Scandinavia countries are Socialist Democrat's, and they are considered the best countries to live in.
Without name calling, finger pointing, can ya'll rationally tell us why we shouldn't adopt a mixed economy too? The free market ain't, it's killed way too many people worldwide along with inpoverishing them.

I have yet to have seen a true intellectual rebuttal as to why socialism is wrong. (Don't bring in Russia, that really wasn't a true socialist country - I'm talking Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc.)

Who considers them the best countries to live in? I certainly don't.

 

[blueridge]

"...The barometer says Mr Obama is going to waltz to victory..."


No doubt the Mephisto Waltz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mephisto_Waltz

"...a 1971 American horror film..."

 

[OddOne]

I have yet to have seen a true intellectual rebuttal as to why socialism is wrong.

I'll take a stab at it now I suppose...

Socialism is an attractive idea on paper, and works pretty well in small, tight communities such as small towns. But it also is a governance system that does not consider the propensity people have toward the accumulation of wealth and power. Although most Socialist systems start with the noble ideals of equal dissemination of resources, what always happens is a degrading toward the idea of an unequal dissemination of resources toward the central power points in the system, and away from the general populace. A "resource" in this context is basically any asset or intangible that could benefit someone, and can include literal items such as food or wealth or intangibles such as authority (power).

Essentially what happens is that the leaders of any Socialist system quickly realize that as leaders they can grant themselves a disproportionate amount of the resources under their control, whatever those resources may be. Then the system begins to fail as the leaders route more and more of the resources to themselves that should go evenly to everyone in need, and eventually the one-way flow of resources collapses the generation of those resources, generally by either choking off supply routes feeding the creation of said resources or by alienating the workers producing them to the extent that they stop doing so. Once the production of resources stops, the entire machine stops in response.

Communism, which is Socialism's kissing cousin, also fails similarly. Neither system compensates for the more negative aspects of human behavior in a governance situation.

oO

 

[Calrissian]

It doesn't matter. If Ron Paul isn't the next president, the US is doomed.

True, of course.

I'm glad it never worked out. I wouldn't want a nice man like Ron to get the blame for what is to come over the next 4 years.

 

[kozanne]

I don't see anything written anywhere that says I have to be a socialist or live in a socialist government. I have a contract with my government and they have one with me, called the Constitution of the United States.

There is no logic in saying that America should move to a socialist system of government simply because the rest of the world is. Who cares what they think?

Having said that, to my horror, I am afraid that Hussein will become POTUS. It makes me sick inside, because our great nation is going to lose its sovreignity [the 2004 elections were monitored by an outside agency, so it's already begun], the motivation and drive that founded this nation and took it thru history is going to be squashed, and its people will be forced [yes, forced] to pay for third worlders who are impoverished by the corruption of their own governments.

Hussein is sponsoring a global tax bill that is moving thru the US Senate. Hard working Americans paying over $4/gal for gas are going to be taxed in order to feed nations where people exist on less than $1/day. This is your next president.

 

[Amazed]

All I know is that if you listened to the media, no Republican would have won the White House since Lincoln.

Isn't that the truth.

 

[homepark]

Ah, the 'but in that case it wasn't a true socialist state' argument. Not much has changed for socialism's apologists.

Socialism is anti-American in the sense that it replaces the individual with the collective. This is seen very clearly in our failed attempts at social engineering via our welfare programs.

 

[CygnusXI]

I absolutely believe BHO will win.

Seriously. Look at all he's said and been associated with and yet his numbers go nowhere negative.

Just last week speaking at La razza (or w/e) he decried our ICE agents "terrorizing" their neighborhoods.

He could pick satan as his running mate and only get a 5% bump..

Hail BHO!!!!

 

[kytom]

I expect Obama will be elected. I believe he to be an even worse president than Jimmy Carter.

remember bush sucked before the second term. if gays cant get married believe me obama wont make it. hell lose by the electoral college just like albert did in the first term. the same ones will turn out to make sure this doesnt happen. alot of people in my city are for osama(with a s or a b does it matter?) but leave and go into the rural areas and its alot different. its not even good to bring up obama as a president. but i live in crackerville,usa.

 

[Sebastian]

Ya'll still haven't explained - so? Norway and other Scandinavia countries are Socialist Democrat's, and they are considered the best countries to live in.
Without name calling, finger pointing, can ya'll rationally tell us why we shouldn't adopt a mixed economy too? The free market ain't, it's killed way too many people worldwide along with inpoverishing them.

I have yet to have seen a true intellectual rebuttal as to why socialism is wrong. (Don't bring in Russia, that really wasn't a true socialist country - I'm talking Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc.)

the free market never killed anyone ever.

how could it?

The free market to the extent we have one is the reason you live past the age of 29 and nine out of ten of your children do not die before the age of five.

Its the reason you don't bow and scrape before the nobles - you can tell who is king because he hasn't got sh!t all over him (monty python)

A lot of folk manly republicans in this incarnation of reality have been yelling free enterprise while establishing corpoatism (see benito musilini)

I suggest you start with reading a little Rothbard or bette ryet Paul's "The Case for Gold"

to get a clue

You are mistaking one form of socialism and calling for another as its cure.

 

[cjoi]

Because in order to finance a socialist state, you must institute a kleptocracy with which to steal the property of the "undeserving," so as to be able to confer benefits upon those whom the state deems to be more "deserving."

Never saw it stated so perfectly, Oilpatch Hand.

 

[buff]

the only pole i listen to is my mom.

 

[skip8]

It doesn't matter. If Ron Paul isn't the next president, the US is doomed.

Then we're doomed as doom can be...

 

[BaywaterRoss]

...correctly forecast the winner of the popular vote in 14 out of 15 postwar presidential elections...

So what? The popular vote doesn't matter. Only the electoral vote does.

-Ross

 

[Yours Truly]

What I'd like to know is "who is behind Obama?" Certainly there are some pretty heavy-hitters moving him along. Who are they??

 

[rafter]

What I'd like to know is "who is behind Obama?" Certainly there are some pretty heavy-hitters moving him along. Who are they??

I've been wondering this also. He came from no where. Who's puppet is he?

 

[Kalliope]

I'll take a stab at it now I suppose...

Socialism is an attractive idea on paper, and works pretty well in small, tight communities such as small towns. But it also is a governance system that does not consider the propensity people have toward the accumulation of wealth and power. Although most Socialist systems start with the noble ideals of equal dissemination of resources, what always happens is a degrading toward the idea of an unequal dissemination of resources toward the central power points in the system, and away from the general populace. A "resource" in this context is basically any asset or intangible that could benefit someone, and can include literal items such as food or wealth or intangibles such as authority (power).

Essentially what happens is that the leaders of any Socialist system quickly realize that as leaders they can grant themselves a disproportionate amount of the resources under their control, whatever those resources may be. Then the system begins to fail as the leaders route more and more of the resources to themselves that should go evenly to everyone in need, and eventually the one-way flow of resources collapses the generation of those resources, generally by either choking off supply routes feeding the creation of said resources or by alienating the workers producing them to the extent that they stop doing so. Once the production of resources stops, the entire machine stops in response.

Communism, which is Socialism's kissing cousin, also fails similarly. Neither system compensates for the more negative aspects of human behavior in a governance situation.

oO

Okay, nothing ya'll have said supports your reasons - from wiki

Views of social democrats today
In general, contemporary social democrats support[citation needed]:

A mixed economy consisting mainly of private enterprise, but with government owned or subsidized programs of education, healthcare, child care and related services for all citizens.
Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers, consumers and fair competition.
Advocacy of fair trade over free trade.
An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by democratic socialists or other socialist groups), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
Moderate to high levels of taxation (through a value-added and/or progressive taxation system) to fund government expenditure.
Social democrats also tend to support:

Environmental protection laws (although not always to the extent advocated by Greens), such as combating global warming and increasing alternative energy funding.
Support for immigration and multiculturalism.
A secular and progressive social policy, although this varies markedly in degree.
A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
As well as human rights, social democrats also support social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.

The prime example of social democracy is Sweden, which prospered considerably under the leadership of Olof Palme[15]. Sweden has produced a strong economy from sole proprietorships up through to multinationals (e.g., Saab, Volvo, Ikea, and Ericsson), while maintaining one of the longest life expectancies in the world, low unemployment, inflation, infant mortality, national debt, and cost of living, all while registering sizable economic growth[16].

Others also point to Norway as an example of a social democratic nation[17], where the Norwegian Labour Party played a critical role in Norway's recent political history by making social democratic reforms after WWII. In Norway, progressive taxation was introduced and the public sector greatly increased in size. Recently, Norway's economy has experienced an acceleration in economic growth, aided, in part, by the exploitation of oil deposits.

Another prominent example is the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, which has been politically dominated by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and its successor the New Democratic Party since 1944. While in office the CCF and NDP have nationalized major industries, initiated wide ranging public works, and introduced generous social services such as universal health care (later implemented nationally in Canada), as well as the establishment of public automobile insurance. Today, however, while retaining its social democratic philosophy, the Saskatchewan NDP is no longer as far to the left as it once was, in comparison with the federal NDP.

To a lesser extent, the Canadian Province of Manitoba is viewed as social democratic, with nationalized businesses such as Manitoba Hydro. However the Manitoba NDP is also more moderate in comparison to the Federal NDP. Generally speaking, the provincial wings of the NDP that are major contenders for government (British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba & Nova Scotia) tend to be more in the modern Third Way mould of social democracy, as opposed to the federal party and smaller provincial wings that still follow the older style of democratic socialism (reminiscent of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation).

now the flip side

Social democracy has been criticized both from the right, by economic liberals and conservatives, and from the left, by socialists and communists[citation needed]. The majority of contemporary criticism comes from economic liberals, who advance the following arguments:

The regulations placed on the market by social democracy tend to limit economic efficiency and growth.
Social democracy limits indivdual rights to reach its societal goals.
Social democratic programs sometimes entail large government outlays, which can result in sizeable budget deficits.
State provision of education, health care, childcare and other services limits individual choice. Even where private alternatives are available, some liberals would argue that it still limits individual choice, since it requires that an individual effectively pay twice for a service (to the state and the private provider).
It has been argued that social democracy tends to tax the working class more than the rich who can resort to tax evasion through sophisticated accounting, therefore impeding the efforts of the working class to build wealth.

 

[Kalliope]

The people of the countries were asked about happiness, etc., and the Scandinavian countries were the highest ranked, I think the US was around 30 something. Kinda sad that if we are suppose to be a super power but the people aren't happy, it seems that something is wrong.

 

[kozanne]

I've been wondering this also. He came from no where. Who's puppet is he?

George Soros for one.

 

[Warthog]

Disaster!