.

After the Conventions: Who Will Win the 2012 Presidential Election, Obama or Romney?

Now that the Democratic and Republican delegates have officially chosen their nominees, Patch wants to know: Who are you betting on to win?

It's official: With President Barack Obama's acceptance speech Thursday night in Charlotte, the Republicans and Democrats have formally chosen their nominees for the 2012 presidential election. Let the real race begin.

Much can change between now and Nov. 6: Gaffes, scandals or even major international news events could shift the dynamics of the campaign.

The latest Gallup Polls show registered voters preferring Obama to Mitt Romney by just one percentage point, 47 percent to 46 percent. A USA Today/Gallup poll taken before the party conventions found American voters think Obama is more likeable, but they trust Romney more to handle the economy.

Pundits have been busy for months handicapping the major-party candidates on various factors: incumbent advantage, fundraising clout, even religion.

Patch wants to know: Regardless of your choice of candidates for president, who do you think will actually claim victory in November?

Erin Conners September 22, 2012 at 05:59 PM
Let me ask a question first. What do you think "downsizing America" means? Like I said before, colonialism did a lot of really bad things. If you study African history, every country on that continent has a reason to be really pissed off at the Western world. The western world has actively kept these countries from participating as equals in international trade or developing their own industry for _centuries_. So how does "downsizing" improve the rest of the world? Centuries worth of harm has devastated these nations. Downsizing to me means, we take our economic interests out of these countries. This means we can only altruistically assist which will benefit every other nation's economies eventually. right now we give money to a corrupt leader that we put in place (usually over a leader that did not want to hand over all of their countries raw resources for a single payout because that does not sustain an economy). This is not an easy subject and there is no good answer. But this movie states O wants to downsize america and repair damages from colonialism like it's an evil, unpatriotic catastrophe. It is not blasphemy to say that this country should be equal to others, and if we don't get on board with international equality, we will overextend and go down in flames. This country has never been able to own up to the damages it has done in the name of resource domination and multinational interests blending with govt interests.
Erin Conners September 22, 2012 at 06:18 PM
My main point is that bc of past historical tragedies a lot of African countries try to work on socialistic government or trust Russia and Cuba (cuba was the only country that would help S. Africa/Zimbabwe/Namibia/Angola militarily during Apartheid while ppl were just getting massacred). You have to remember that our idea of socialism comes from the Red Scare and commies and nukes and cold war, et al. Africans often see socialism really as more of a democracy independent of international control...We just call it socialism for whatever reason. (Lumumba in Cuba again is a good example). So Obama, and anyone with a minor education in history, understands this and are not afraid of Socialistic threats that are often no more commie than we are. Political systems are constantly redefined anyways. So this movie can take a brief statement or support of an African with socialistic ideals in an economically devastated country that is so devastated largely bc of the western world, and turn it into flag burning and covert commie activity from within the white house. Does that make sense? Just a little contextual perspective is needed, and if you don't have it, this movie will exploit that misunderstanding to a shameful degree. Anyways, imagine if Cuba came knocking on our door and said "I am here to liberate you." We would tell that person to go to heck bc it isn't the American way. Do you think justifiable nationalism does not exist in any other country?
Bob Howard September 24, 2012 at 01:13 AM
Erin, I like and appreciate your statement that “just a little contextual perspective is needed, and if you don't have it, this movie will exploit that misunderstanding to a shameful degree.” I could not agree more. However, when you then suggest that “... this country (America) should be equal to others, .....” are you telling me that Western civilization and the American experiment in individual freedom should be judged as equal with tribalism and its repulsive treatment of its enemies, women, and children? Only with the rise of Western Civilization and especially the Judeo-Christian philosophy have children and women been valued. Prior to its rise children were routinely “exposed” and especially the female gender. Prior to the rise of Western Civilization women where “owned” by tyrants and enslaved by the victors for the rest of their lives. This does not mean that the execution of this philosophy has been without error but to equate the rise of Western Civilization and the American experiment to rest of the world seems to lack more than a little contextual perspective. America has had to build fences to keep people out. It is very difficult to discuss and reset three thousand years of history in this discussion. For some perspective I would suggest “The Five Thousand Year Leap” , “7 Tipping Points that Saved the World” by Chris Stewart and Ted Stewart, and read of Exodus, Samuel, Job, and the Gospel of Mark. Good luck. I enjoyed the conversation.
Bob Howard September 24, 2012 at 01:25 AM
Exactly how will taxing the rich help the middle class and the poor? The rich do not keep this money under their mattress. Their money is invested in thousands of businesses across America. These businesses are making products that people want to buy and creating the jobs that we need. It may sound great to the uninformed, but how does it make sense to take this money out of these businesses via higher taxes “on the rich” and take that money to Washington to be re-distributed by the political class to their buddies and those who help get them re-elected? The politics of “class warfare” and the demands to make someone else pay is a far cry from what created the world’s largest and most successful middle class and made America the envy of the world. The political re-distribution of wealth creates less wealth and damages the poor and the middle class the most. To fall into this trap means that you will destroy small busineses (and the middle class) leaving you with only a larger government and more multiple multi-nationals with extensive lobbyists and tax breaks. (GE for example) Is that really what you want?
Erin Conners September 24, 2012 at 01:45 AM
Oh absolutely not. I really do not mean to offend, but that is the opposite of contextual information and international perspective. That kind of statement about the Western world is very ethnocentric and has been disproved over and over again. There have been examples of the legal fair treatment of women since...what is the furthest example that I can think of...Hammurabi's Code in Ancient Babylon...That is a Middle Eastern civilization. Ancient Egypt (obviously N. Africa). Man...Thanks for appreciating what I had to say, but you have floored me with your comment, and unfortunately I am super busy right now and cannot respond fully, which is probably for the best because I disagree 100% with everything that you said and with the sources that you offered up as being appropriate for gaining international perspective and contextual knowledge. Oh goodness. You hurt my heart with that one. :) Good luck to you as well though, and I fully recommend picking up any books on African history written in the last decade. (Apartheid only ended in 1994 and before that there was a lot of government interference in texts concerning the colonization of africa for political purposes). Are you aware of how we treated women, minorities, and children early on in this experiment? Genocide? & I believe it was 1840 that we slowly roasted african american slaves in the middle of new york city because of a _rumor_ of an uprising started by an indentured servant. NYC!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »