Reg, It seems highly unlikely that Obama wins by more than he did in '08--if he wins at all. I think you could get good odds on that in Vegas.

Disagree, Shawn. With more specificity - In popular vote, the percentile difference between Obama and McCain was 7.2. This year, the percentile difference will be closer to, if not over, 8. A contributing factor will be that some who ordinarily vote GOP won't be voting due to disappointment in Romney; some traditional GOP voters will also be voting for a third party, too.

Reg,

I look at polls all day. i have not seen one with an Obama lead of 8 points. You're making two assumptions "disappointment in Romney" and "GOP voters will also be voting for a third party" that have not been reflected anywhere and may be an indication of your biases. Again, I think the folks in Vegas will be happy to give you odds on that.

Mitt Romney may love the market, but it doesn't love him. On one exchange, he trails Obama 2-to-1 -- a larger margin than opinion polls suggest.

...the Iowa Electronic Markets, an academic program that allows betting on political outcomes. The IEM shows that winner-take-all popular vote chances for Barack Obama still are at about 2-to-1 over Mitt Romney.

In Britain -- where betting on U.S. elections is legal -- bookies give about the same odds. These odds held in London even after a £40,000 bet on Romney. A spokesperson for the leading bookmaker, Ladbrokes, said on September 12:

William Hill Plc., a British bookmaker updated its odds after the 'first' of three debates...dropped the odds on Romney to win the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 6 from 4-1 to 11-4. President Barack Obama's re-election went from 1-7 to 1-4...
http://www.lvrj.com/business/william-hill-drops-odds-on-romney-presidential-chances-172744861.html

Those two terms I describe have not been included in the national surveys, but only in separate studies. (Also, the national surveys are not adequately inclusive of registered independents, of which there are more in the U.S. than registered Republicans.) The separate studies, which aren't conducted as polls, show that a chunk of white male seniors who voted GOP in '08 (the demographic that gave the highest proportion of its vote to McCain, too) are now supporting Obama. The basis of the switch is their reception to Romney on issues of social security, veterans/vet benefits, and Medicare. (Some also include religion as a basis, but not many.) Republican leaners under 25 years are swaying to the Libertarian candidate, according to other research. GOP-favoring voters will not have the same percentage of turnout as they did in '08, either, in other findings. As one who does surveys and survey evaluations, I know that many of the national ones reported do not constitute scientific surveying (and a couple show results they hope will influence voters). They will begin showing more accurate results to save face in the last week.

PS
the statements in my post are clips...not original...but i like the odds...

@Stanley...winning is one thing...winning by a margin larger than last time is something else.
@Reg...I'd like to see those studies...the proposition that older white males who voted McCain in '08 are now jumping to Obama strains credulity.

@Shawn - can't paste the raw data, but here's a summary of the point on older white male who voted McCain. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/21/us-usa-campaign-mccain-poll-idUSBRE89K02120121021 It's ranging from 5 to 9% 'defection,' with MOE below 3.5. that demographic gave McCain the highest margin in comparison other sex/age/ethnicity groups, and could be as much as 4% gain in popular vote for Obama.
@stanley - your link is from a couple of weeks ago. The odds have improved for Obama recently - going from 1-4 to 2-5 http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/g/9036/Next-US-President.html

Reg, Thanks for the links. Reuters is a respected news organization, but I still find their numbers hard to believe. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it.
As far as the odds of Obama winning, they haven't changed much even after his poor performance in the first debate. And that's because of his support in the Great Lakes/Industrial States. He's given some ground there, and he could lose a couple of them, but he still leads and I doubt that will change much after last night's debate.

wow. you must have very long arms.

lol @ reg

If anyone thinks there is any real difference between Obama and Romney, they are sadly mistaken.

/applause

Amen to that! Two sides of the same coin. The sad part is that Democrats actually think Obama has done things differently than George W bush, and that Republicans actually think Romney would do things differently than Obama (even though Romney invented Obamacare). It's cognitive dissonance, I believe.

re: Dr. Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson kicked Obama's and Romney's butts. [sue edward]

thank for bringing this to our attention

[CLIP]

ROCKY ANDERSON: These two parties, Republicans and Democrats, have a stranglehold on our democracy. They are depriving people around this country not only of being able to get on the ballot; they’re denying all of us of our freedom of choice.

DR. JILL STEIN: We have a state of emergency, I think, at the national level. And to silence the only hope of an opposition voice in this election, when so much is at stake, I think, would be just a terrible loss for the American people.

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2012/10/4/expanding_the_debate_watch_democracy_nows_full_three_hour_special

IT IS a terriblr loss...

re: let the Israeli's move here...give them Camp Pendelton...

GREAT IDEA...except give them a strip along the USA/Mexican border...they would turn it into the garden of eden and stop the flow of illegals...the massad would eliminate the cartels...

if i were king dilly, dilly...

Related to that...why on earth do our two big political parties think it should be in their platforms to designate Jerusalem the capital of Israel? Is that any of our business? Maybe the Israelis should decide that issue, and if they have to negotiate it with Palestinians, then it is up to them to do so. We have destroyed enough countries, and have alienated ourselves from too many others. Time to get over it; we are not the only people in the world who want self-determination! We are surprised at terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan...how would Americans react if Russian or Chinese tanks patrolled our streets and dominated our political process?

@Robert Kelly. Do you live in America, a country that for 200+ years treasured the scriptures as our 'daily bread'? Goodness, Robert, do you want to throw out all we have been for these centuries? Without 'Zion' as the CENTER of Judeo / Christian priemises of our constitution, let's all go to a cave and await gloom and the abyss.

Jim,
I think you were speaking tongue in cheek, but nonetheless, thank you for one thing. I actually did not realize "Zion" is Jerusalem. After I read your note, I looked it up. I have seem all these churches named "Mt Zion" or using "Zion" in some other manner, but never thought to question exactly where Zion is. Thanks for the piece of information. Time to go back to my cave.

this is probably the biggest sham of your many false posts here, Janet. The medications included are not used for specific purposes you cite, but for many others - for example, birth control meds are also used to treat other medical conditions such as hormonal conditions and menstrual disorders (just like anticonvulsants are also used as antidepressants and sinus meds are also used for COPD). What's really hypocritical is that the same companies that don't want to cover such meds in their insurance ALREADY HAVE FOR YEARS - and only suddenly now (at the request of GOPests) make that claim. And even though those same companies also gladly include Viagra in their Rx insurance plans, too. MOREOVER - according to law, every employer has to recognize Christmas and pay employees time and a half labor for this and other Christian holidays. ..... stop copying/pasting those silly posts, Janet.

re: forced by the Federal Government to violate their religious beliefs or pay penalties. How can this happen in America?

if the use of contraceptives violates one religious belief. dont use them...what the issue/problem...assume no Catholics use them...

FYI

October 04, 2012
[CLIP] Last week, a federal district judge in Missouri dismissed a case against the HHS mandate, ruling that forcing Catholics to pay for contraception and abortion-inducing drugs does not violate their faith, because they remain “free to exercise their religion, by not using contraceptives.”

In her ruling, Judge Carol E. Jackson contended that the mandate does not prohibit a business owner’s religious worship or personal decision not to use contraceptives, echoing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ contention that the new mandate does not “affect an individual woman’s freedom to decide not to use birth control.” [end clip] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2940423/posts

[CLIP] HHS is allowing exemptions from the mandate for institutions that have as their primary purpose the inculcation of religious values and that mainly employ and serve people sharing the same religious beliefs as the institution.

[to be contd]

mo contraceptives FYI stuff

[CLIP] Most women in the United States receive health insurance coverage through private plans, and a Kaiser Family Foundation 2010 survey of employers reports that 85 percent of large firms cover prescription contraceptives in their largest health plans. Federal law requires insurance coverage of contraceptives for federal employees and their dependents, allowing a few religious insurers exemption from the requirements. [end clip]

institutions opposed to contraceptives should not hire 'sinners' who use them...

or and a little less factious: institutions could inculcate their employees...ie, schedule frequent instruction (prayer meetings) to instill in their employees that the use of contraceptives is sinful...

problem solved.

OTOH
the reduction of contraceptive use would increase women's heath issues and increase legal/illegal abortions...

opine: the mandated contraceptive coverage is an improvement in woman’s healthcare…it’s practical and called progress…another step to universal health care (socialized medicine)…yeah I know progress and socialism are dirty words in the GOP vocab…

Of course, included in that "debt" is the money that was actually deposited into Social Security and Medicare (since they're future expenses, some goofs try to convince us that these are "debts" even though they're current assets). Janet is also hoping we'll over look that $1.3 billion of debt attributed to Obama actually came from the 2009 FY budget that was introduced the previous year of 2008 by Bush. She doesn't want you to know that Bush had losses for EIGHT consecutive years - every year of his presidency - and she only lists three. She doesn't mention that a majority of US debt came from that one president, and that him, his father and Reagan alone are responsible for about 70% of all US debt. Either she is one of the trolls promoting this false information, or is a pawn of those trolls. And what not one of them will ever admit is that these financial circumstances all began when Reagan cut taxes on wealth by 40%, even though we already had lowest taxes on wealth of all developed nations since 1964, and then raised taxes on every one else (making us the only country on the planet that taxes poverty). Misdirection, smoke and mirrors .... and a very bad attempt to mislead, too

it was very apparent that you were copying/pasting from other sites each of these recent postings, and that each was from some political organization pretending to have non-partisan and religious foundation. *This one above, though, makes that even clearer, Janet.* It also makes it quite clear that you're out of tune with the facts. For example, your sympathetic hanky waved around for the billionaires ignores the fact that US has lowest taxes on wealth of all developed nations (and is only one that taxes poverty). You list that tax rate to be 30%, but it's actually higher (and not high enough...).

Actually, Janet, Obama lost quite a bit of support from liberals for the modifications he accepted to the Affordable Care Act. As for it being "rammed" - can you cite any example of that, please? I mean, over a year of debate and changes and conservative modifications ... ain't exactly "ram." It wasn't opposed by more than half, either - moreover, this isn't a majority-rule country; don't forget that minorities came here and founded the US to escape majority rule.

Janet, your synopsis is awesome. Thanks for all your effort! Is it not sad that in four years all that anyone over 50 comprehended America to be; our tenets and historical socio-economic foundations in ALL avenues have been systematically destroyed? The level of powered presidential destruction is truly incomprehensible.

All fair points Janet. But Paul Ryan has very little room to complain about government spending. As he admitted during the second debate, he gladly took tens of millions of dollars in stimulus money for his home district because he said the money helped create jobs.
And more recently, he got nearly $1 billion for a highway project that (coincidence) happens to run through his district and benefits some of his largest donors (just another coincidence). Hypocrisy is nothing new in a politician.
When you complain about federal spending even though you and your wealthiest donors benefited from it, but now want to cut federal spending for the people who need it most (Medicaid, for example), that is, some might say, very rich with irony. Some others might call it heartless.
(All of the references to Ryan and spending are in the Aug. 6 New Yorker and not refuted by him or the local businesses he helped)

C'mon Jim, not all avenues. We still have the largest military budget and the most nuclear weapons. You can comfort yourself with that.

"I am certainly not an advocate for for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Thomas Jefferson. A trimmed down version of this passage is inscribed in the Jefferson Memorial.

Actually, Janet, Democrats do not "control" the senate; Having more Dems than GOP there does not mean "control" unless you have at least 60 senators there - they do not, thus "control" is non-existent. Also - Senate Dems *have* proposed budgets - every year, too; only difference is that they are called "budget control acts" in the senate. GOP tells folks that senate dems proposed no "budget," but apparently hopes its voters are too out of touch with government to know this senate format of "budget control act." Here's just one of them: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s365enr/pdf/BILLS-112s365enr.pdf On Ryan: if his budget proposal were so sound, then how do you justify cutting billions from VA healthcare and benefits while increasing funding for military items that the DoD itself says it does not need? How moral is that, Janet? Cutting from the healthcare for the men and women who risk their lives to save us and our freedom, but giving MORE to the big companies that overbill our government for items we dno't need? (I've already disproven your energy claims/costs on another page of this site.)

If only homophone confusion were your most egregious error.

I'm surprised there is any sky left, given the amount of it that's fallen the last 4 years...

To keep the conversation together reply to your post that I replied to. For instance, to to reply to my homophone comment you should reply to your paring/pairing comment. Also, paring and pairing are homophones, words that sound the same but are spelled differently. I didn't call you a homophobe.

It's interesting that you bring up the terms progressive and liberal that way, as if they are pejorative terms. What is the opposite of progressive liberal to you? To me, and this is because I'm an American and English is my first language, is regressive authoritarian. Would you consider yourself a supporter or regressive authoritarianism?

Anyway, to your anecdote; you apparently said something to someone that prompted them to label you a homophobe. How does somebody not knowing of an act that denies basic rights to a minority group relate to your being a homophobe?

Also, proof read more carefully, both what you say and what you're replying to. Have a great day, I'll be Octoberfesting like a heathen!

Josch, you're such a phonophobic

Drat! Foiled again! You won't stop my efforts to get the Lions Club commemorative Amero, though!!!

lolpanamerican union