Talk Elections

???

The latter. I feel personally invested at this point (partially thanks to Atlas Forum, actually) and I'm of delicate health.

I think at this point, I'd much prefer a Romney victory.

Easy Obama win, so he can have a mandate.

Comfortable Obama victory, so I can laugh at the pissed off Tea Baggers.

A close election (as long as Obama wins :P)

A comfortable Romney win so I don't have a heart attack on election night. If I knew for certain Romney will lose, I think I'd rather have it be a moderate win than a close one for the sake of my nerves.

Sorry, I gotta go for close and exciting.

I'm not in this for the policy and the legislation. I'm in this because American elections are the only sport I truly enjoy watching.

As for me? I used to care about this stuff pretty deeply. Not so much now. So I'd rather it be amusingly close, I think, for maximum entertainment value.

Can't bring myself to care that much about the results so I'll go with the close race. Should be fun to try to predict close states based on county results.

My current running theory is that Obama and Romney are actually the same person.  That one person is the same trickster god Joseph Campbell used to tell stories about.  The god wore a hat that was colored differently on different sides, and walked back and forth through the village and had everybody confused about who he was, and when the villagers came to blows over his real identity and were brought before the judge, the trickster god showed up, laughed at everyone, and confessed, saying: "spreading strife is my greatest joy."  So, I'm hoping for a razor-thin election night, lasting until the wee hours of the morning, leaving everybody mad and exhausted and accusing one another of high treason, and when a winner is finally declared, the concession speech and acceptance speech will actually be the same one event, and the one guy who has played the part of both Romney and Obama, wearing a hat with a corporate logo on one side and a community organizer logo on the other, will saunter up to the podium, point at the audience smartly, and say: "made ya look!"

Obama landslide, so we can maximize Congressional wins

Landslide so I can post mocking comments on Facebook

We need a "like" button.

A comfortable Romney win, so he will have a mandate, and so the nation will be saved from disaster.

Any Johnson win would be a close one, so that's really the only option.

With whom?

I thought the GOP was opposed to man dates, and anyway isn't Mitt in love with his wife?

and

We already have had a toady of Karl Rogue, and he was a gigantic disaster.   

Either one, but since Romney has little chance of winning by a very comfortable margin (thanks to the EVs from CA, IL, and NY being almost sure bets for Obama and the nature of the campaign), I expect it to be close.  But of course, just because one candidate wins easily doesn't mean that it isn't close in the end.

Razor-thin margin lasting until just a few hours before sunrise Wednesday with a close Romney victory as the result.

Comfortable Obama win.

Close margin. I'm in it for fun and I'll have bragging rights as long as Mitt wins. Even if its a close win I expect the moaners and gripers to be more or less the same.

Since I can't post what I would really prefer, I'll just say the Obama landslide thing.

About Wed 03.00 CET (= Tue 09.00 p.m. E.T.) I will be very tired
so I hope that the election is decided at this time
and I can go to bed. If it comes to Nevada I will see ...

A close election where recounts in OH, VA, IA determine Romney wins

2008-esq.

I want an election similar to that of 2004, where we were here until early Wednesday morning.

I want an election like the Super Bowls I grew up with. Over early. With Obama playing the role of the NFC team that destroys Mitt Bronco Bill Romney.

I see you must have grown up in the 90s, eh?  I'm supporting Romney, but I can understand that mentality.  But close elections (ala 1960 or 2000, though there have been plenty of more recent presidential elections that have either been close of decided by a modest margin) are always the most exciting, even if your candidate loses (but it's still WAY more exciting when they win).  I don't care that much how close the election is, just as long as my candidate (Romney) wins.  I know you support Obama, but I think you get my point.  But, just for the sake of it, I would LOVE an election like Super Bowl XIV in 1980 (Steelers vs. Rams), where the lead changed places seven times before the Steelers finally won.  If Romney could win an election like that, I would stay up until he got to 270 EVs.  Then again, I'm planning on staying up until a winner on either side is declared.  Ironically enough, the Super Bowl and Election Night are the two TV nights I never want to miss.

Those are no fun, though.  I don't want to go to bed before midnight.  That is midnight, MST, mind you (2:00 EST).  I'm a political junkie and I need at least 6-9 solid hours of nail biting coverage. :)

The one where I set sail for the Bahamas that day.  I'll have to remember to get my absentee but will be quite happy to pretend this election season doesn't exist otherwise. I'm sure I'll still watch the debates and conventions but the daily mud slinging from campaigns and supporters has grown tiresome for me.

Look, I've watched election nights since 1992. So I only know from 2 things, Dems win big or GOP wins close. If Obama is called the winner at 3 AM by a margin of 272-266, great. But I'd rather know early. We can stay up late for the US senate races. Let Tammy Baldwin win by 5000 votes.

Unfortunately, that is true from what I've seen. 

I want the only questions being whether Michigan and Connecticut, states like that, are going to Romney. In other words, I want this over as soon as the polls close in the Midwest. I want it to be such a landslide that enough Democrats in California go home before the polls close there that Romney pulls off the upset.

Of course, Election Night and the Super Bowl are the only real must-see TV events.

Well, it was the other way around for the five elections between 1972 to 1988, so that might not be the case this year.
But I'd be pessimistic about Obama's chances if the race is too close to call. I think it's more fun to stay up late to watch down-ballot races anyway.

I can tell you right now and spare you the trouble.

Guess what? They're not. Especially not CT and CA.

Wow, that's really cool. How's the weather on November 6th?

Not going to be a 100 degrees in Iowa, just like Romney is not going to be winning California or Connecticut.

The key difference being, it's never been 100 degrees in Iowa in November, but Republicans have one in a landslide plenty of times.

Scenarios exist that could put Romney at 300+ electoral votes. And yes--he could be close in CT and CA. On the flipside, Obama could win in a landslide too. The fact is, it's too early to discount anything.

Yeah, and I want a fifty state sweep for Rocky Anderson!

I'm undecided.

A close and exciting election night would be fun (as long as Obama wins), but a large Obama win would be probably more satisfying in the long run ;-)

A relatively quick night where Obama pops off 180+ EVs east of the Mississippi before 11PM, so I can get my drink on and go relieve myself outside the local Republican HQ.

That and the bragging and rubbing it in on Facebook.

Remember the parties going on everywhere when he won last time? I can't imagine it'll be anything like that this time.

No, a win for Romney in CT and CA can be discounted just like Obama isn't going to win SC or ND. Of course I don't see how this conflicts with the statement that Romney can get more than 300+ electoral votes. He has plenty of ways to do that without involving CT or CA.

Sunny here in St. Petersburg.

It was only eight years ago when a mere five points taken from the Democrats and given to the Republicans would have put California in the GOP column. If Romney is declared president-elect when the polls close in the Midwest, a lot of Obama supporters in California will leave their polling station or not bother going out to vote at the last minute. The perfect storm could put California in the Romney column.

Of course I would prefer an comfortable win for my candidate over high drama.

Obama 2008 is like "Caddyshack" whereas Obama 2012 is "Caddyshack II."

Brace yourselves!

Here. Romney won every single state that could possibly be interpreted as a swing state, including a few he simply will not win (Wisconsin, Michigan, ME-02). You still can't call it till you get to Montana.

()

Michigan, yes.  Connecticut and California, no.  Michigan is a swing state, but all the indications are that the election will be close, so they will probably stay in Obama's column.

You're not planning on doing something special for election night?

There's literally no way that the election can be called for Mitt Romney in time for it to affect the morale of Obama voters in California unless he somehow wins by like 20 points.

Politico, please take some medication now. You're going to need plenty of it by Nov. 6.




As to me, polls close at 7:00: Vermont, Virginia called for Obama...landslide from there...

It seems Illinois will also close at 7 ET, so Romney won't get that early lead.

I'm inclined to think it's more like The Godfather Part 2 and Part 3; Part 3 is actually still considerably better than most films, just undeniably disappointing relative to Part 2.

Illinois usually closes at 8 ET.  Are they thinking about changing it for this election?

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G12/closing.phtml?format=gc

Why'd they do that? So the polls are going to close at 6 their time? That makes no sense.

It costs money to keep the polls open later.  Illinois has both early voting and no-excuse absentee voting, so there is no particular need to keep the polls open late.

So basically, if you're a "low information voter" who just plans on voting right after you get out of work, you're screwed.

How many of those are there? It's not as if you'll be able to learn anything about the candidates while at work.  Besides, it not the voting booths that get locked at closing time but the doors.  Anyone working a traditional 9 to 5 job will still be able to get to the polls in time to vote even if they do decide to procrastinate.  It's possible that they'll ding some people this time who didn't notice the change in the closing time despite what I would expect to be heavy media coverage of the change.

Besides, for all we know Illinois may have also decided to open the polls an hour earlier, tho I doubt that.

Serious answer: B. I'd be content with the excitement that might accompany close Senate elections in, say, Arizona and North Dakota.

Not-so-serious answer: Rocks fall, everyone dies. I'd totally do it if I were DMing this campaign.

That would make Kerry/Edwards 2004 The Godfather, which means your analogy is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

If Michigan, Ohio and Florida are called for Romney after closing, going to the polls to vote for Obama in California will be a complete waste of time.

And like I said, none of those states are going to be called for Romney right after closing unless he wins in a landslide.

Add Ohio and you're there.

Not literally after closing, but they will make a projection 20-30 minutes after closing if the models show a huge probability of a greater than five point victory. If I recall correctly, Ohio was called just after 6 PM PST last time. If that happens this time for Romney, hundreds of thousands of folks voting after work in California will already know that Romney is president-elect.

I'm honestly hoping for a pretty convincing Romney win. I think that in itself would set people off in a way that rocks this f[Inks]ed up system enough to make a mild change at least in the short-run. Enough to make things amusing. A reelection would just be a disappointment in this cracked out political system at this point. That and my Romney-hack mode just won't die. :P

Quite frankly, I'm tired of being on edge 100% of the time over elections. I wouldn't constantly worry about it if one of the major parties wasn't so singularly bad. So I'd prefer a relaxing election night in which the better candidate wins easily. (The way things are going, he probably will.)

I shouldn't even have to be fighting this, but 1994 normalized extremism. America has not been the same since, and somebody needs to tell the truth about it.

Tight one as I'm not personally vested in the election.