POLL: Who Is Going To Lose In The US Election Today?

Who is going to lose today?

  • Obama

    Votes: 7 25.9%
  • Romney

    Votes: 20 74.1%

  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
This statement sort of depends on whether or not the Titanic had already hit the iceberg or not. If before, it may have made a difference.


 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
That is sage advice.

What the US (and Canada) really needs right now is a leader (notice that I didn't use the word 'politician') that is prepared to be a one term President and get the nation back on track.. Make all of the unpopular decisions, but do what needs to be done and be beholden to no one.

A fantasy, for sure - but one that is needed

Good luck getting elected by promising to do what is right instead of what is popular.
 

TeddyBallgame

Time Out
Mar 30, 2012
522
0
16
- Since I already predicted a Romney win by 2-4% of the popular vote and with 310-330 electoral seats in my thread about the Grecian Formula election, it will surprise noboy here that I voted in the poll for Obama to lose.

- If Obama wins which is the consensus view in the MSM and in the polls (except for Gallup and Rasmussen which both give Romney a razor thin 1% lead), then Romney loses and so does Canada.

- It continues to amaze me as to how uninformed or simply stupid or stunningly shallow Canadains have to be to support BO by about 80% to 20% because it is clearly more in Canada's interests to have Romney in the White House rather than management trainee Obama. Presumably, the same canucks who will vote for part time high school teacher Justin Trudeau in the next federal election here becuase of his heavenly hair and dreamy eyes are the same morons supporting Obama in today's election.

- While I have written about this on this board before, here is a sound and timely article in today's National Post concerning the some of the advantages for Canada of having Romney as president instead of talk-show-guest-in-chief Obama:

Michael Den Tandt: Canada offers Obama its unrequited love

Nov 5, 2012 8:25 PM ET

We love Barack Obama, don’t we? Canadians, I mean. Yes, we surely do. It’s because, as the U.S. president himself once said at one of those comedy roasts he handles so perfectly, he’s just “too awesome.”

From a Canadian point of view, Obama is simply too fantastic not to adore. He’s charming. He’s smart. He’s funny. He has the cachet of being America’s first black president. He’s an internationalist. He would never thumb his nose at the French, or eat a freedom fry, or use bad grammar, or go to war without UN approval. Indeed Obama is as different from his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as it is possible to be. Consistently, polls show Obama winning about 80 per cent of the popular vote among Canadians, if we could vote in this U.S. election, which judging by the recent radio chatter most of us wish we could.

Now, here’s the truly intriguing thing about the phenomenon: A dispassionate look at the rival platforms clearly shows that an Obama win would be worse for Canada – significantly worse – than a Romney win. It’s not even an argument. It’s a slam-dunk.

For evidence I turn first to my Postmedia colleague, Lee Berthiaume, who published an excellent piece over the weekend highlighting the differences between the two contenders, from a Canadian policy perspective. I won’t go through the whole article, other than to note a few its most salient facts.

To start, if Obama wins, U.S. military spending drops substantially as the 2nd term Democratic president – assuming he keeps his promises, that is – beats swords into ploughshares. Good idea? Absolutely. But any decline in U.S. defence spending from its current level of four per cent of GDP (Canada spends just over one per cent) will put pressure on our government to spend more – or stop pretending we can participate in international efforts such as the Libyan campaign, Haitian earthquake relief, and the like.

Health care: Obamacare is projected to create a massive doctor shortage south of the border – to the tune of 63,000 by 2015. Hmm, let’s see: Where will lavishly generous, for-profit U.S. health care firms go to find all those excellent doctors? Well, they’ll come here, to Canada. So much for reduced wait times.

Of course there’s energy: Romney loves the Keystone XL pipeline, intended to ease the passage of Alberta oil to the Gulf coast. Obama may approve it post-election despite his reservations, or he may not. And that has follow-on consequences. For one thing, a speedy go-ahead for Keystone would relieve some market pressure behind Enbridge’s plan to push its own Gateway pipeline across B.C. to the Pacific. Gateway has already caused tension between Alberta and B.C. and the chosen route has riled environmentalists, people who live along the route, as well as aboriginal groups.

Then there’s the bridge in Windsor-Detroit, as former ambassador to the U.S. Derek Burney pointed out in a splendid rant on Rex Murphy’s Cross-Country Checkup. How is it that Canada fronts the entire $4-billion cost of this new span, deemed integral to furthering the world’s greatest bilateral trading relationship, and has been forced to negotiate with the state of Michigan, which may in fact scuttle it Tuesday in a plebiscite, Proposal 6, attached to the presidential ballot? As Burney points out: Where is the U.S. government in all this?

And there’s Obama’s oft-noted yen for protectionism: ‘Buy America’ and the like. Congress being Congress, there will never be an end to U.S. protectionist twitches. But Burney and others point out that, in a Romney presidency, we’ll likely see less of them. Burney also notes that Canada was a wallflower in initial negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (though we are joining now). How does that happen when your best friend and biggest trading partner is hosting the dance?

In fact, Obama has never – not a single time, that I know of – appeared to care a jot about Canada’s economic interests, in any way. His interests, as one might expect, are his own, and his concerns domestic. Good on him – but that doesn’t mean the two sets of interests, his and ours, coincide. They often haven’t.

Finally, there’s the single dominant issue of this campaign – the economy. The United States, of course, buys 70 per cent of Canada’s exports. If their economy fails, so does ours. With that in mind, check out this U.S. national public debt clock widget. It’s now $16 trillion and rising, at a rate too dizzying to watch. Divided by the U.S. population, roughly 314 million, that yields a tab of just under $52,000 for every man, woman and child in America.

Now consider: Which candidate, based purely on their personal experience, seems to have a better grasp of bottom-line, dollars-and-cents issues? Community organizer and all-round nice guy Obama, or balance-sheet warrior Romney?

It’s not a conclusion many Canadians will wish to draw. I don’t particularly wish to myself, because I like Obama. But if you drill into the policy differences just a bit, the result is clear: It’s a good thing Canadians can’t vote in this election. If we could, we’d be acting overwhelmingly against our own interests.

National Post
 

TeddyBallgame

Time Out
Mar 30, 2012
522
0
16
I vote for neither, as I simply don't care. What I do care about is for this fk'n election to be over with so the forums can stop being spammed by the same two jokers over this crap. Cripes, you'd think it'd have some sort of impact in their lives depending on who won, when in reality it'll have little impact on Americans regarding who wins because nothing is going to change for the majority of their lives, let alone some US wannabe forum dweller. .

- Praxius ... While I really can't be bothered to undertake the hopeless task of educating you as to why US presidents do matter not only to Americans but to Canadians who, among other things, depend on a healthy US economy for some 35% of their jobs, let me ask you a question. I presume I am one of the two jokers you cite as having spammed this board over the US election (although I have no clue who number two spammer is unless it is locutus) so please tell me how the two aforementioned villians are "spamming" the forum? Surely forum members and lurkers are free to read and/or respond and/or ignore the posts of these alleged spammers. Probably, these posts are actually generating more reads and responses than any of your tedious twaddle and you are simply jealous. In any case, kindly enlighten me as to the identity of these dasterdly spammers, the nature of their spamming and why you don't simply ignore said spamming until they give up and go away.
 

TeddyBallgame

Time Out
Mar 30, 2012
522
0
16
Teddy: Got your crow cooking yet or are you going to eat it raw?
.
- TS ... If necessary, I am prepared to eat a succulent cornish hen with wild rice and portabello mushrooms as my penance Do you have any inteiigent and relevant comments to make on the column I just posted?
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Teddy: Got your crow cooking yet or are you going to eat it raw?

I have a bunch of ravens penned up outside ready for him, just wondering if he likes them rare or well done! (Enough for a smorgasbord for him, Walter and Eaglesmack!)
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
The poll is missing an option. The biggest loser in todays election will be the American people. Another corporate shill who cares little for the average citizen will be elected president and the people will have again been fooled into thinking it matters which one.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,362
14,510
113
Low Earth Orbit
TeddyBallgame

Crowish hen with wild rice and portabello mushrooms
Add lots of garlic and it'll go through you like **** through a goose.....and smell like it too for the first few hours.