Lots of movies, rallies, parties etc scheduled for tonight
http://www.ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2008-11-03_103278393.html

How late do they expect to stay up? They shouldn't be giving any results until the polls close in each state. That should be well after midnight (if not 2 or 3am) for the first results to start coming in.


I am torn between staying up all night or getting up really early.

I understood that real results don't come in until polls close on the west coast so voters wouldn't be affected by results elsewhere. That means Pacific time, or a good 9 hours' difference.

What will start of course is projections based on exit polls, and after what happened in 2004, I'd guess a bit of caution is in order--everyone thought it was Kerry until final votes were tallied, and what a nasty shock!

Time for celebrating is Wednesday, not Tuesday. Italians and everyone should know better than to jinx it by jumping the gun...

quote:

Originally posted by filomena:
I understood that real results don't come in until polls close on the west coast so voters wouldn't be affected by results elsewhere. That means Pacific time, or a good 9 hours' difference.

What will start of course is projections based on exit polls, and after what happened in 2004, I'd guess a bit of caution is in order--everyone thought it was Kerry until final votes were tallied, and what a nasty shock!

Time for celebrating is Wednesday, not Tuesday. Italians and everyone should know better than to jinx it by jumping the gun...

Well admittedly the well-documented voter suppression is more likely what decided the 2004 election.

In this case the chance to McCain winning the election is so statistically small that if he does win it would put the entire electoral system under extreme suspicion. (Not that it isn't already)


If everyone's vote is counted Obama will have more than 300 electoral votes (and quite likely far more than that)

Well, between voter fraud and disenfranchisement, these discrepancies are probably self-cancelling.

So why are Dems so full of the heebie-jeebies then? Because it ain't over till it's over, and here's a sobering thought: those "undecideds" are joined by some 75-80% of the American public who refused to be polled, so polls aren't exactly representative of the population.

I'm not saying it doesn't look good for Obama, just some cold analysis is in order. A bit of an adult approach to the possibility (albeit extremely remote) of losing might not be a bad idea either: if we are disparaged around the world, it isn't just because of present administration's misdeeds but also because of a part of the electorate that can't accept not getting its way.

I was shocked at the last election, but I didn't throw a tantrum or cast blame everywhere but on my precious self for the outcome: I recognized that I'd grossly misunderstood the vast "flyover", church-going, centre-right population who just didn't want what looked to them like an effete liberal snob running the place.

And one last: most Americans don't vote to please the rest of the world, so what Europe, or Kenya for that matter, thinks is totally irrelevant to the average voter, and if anything might tip them in the opposite direction, it's being told by outsiders how to vote. So if Europe et al. want Obama as the next US President, they'd do well to keep their traps shut until Wednesday.

The voter fraud is a non-issue, it doesn't actually exist as all of the suspect registrations are flagged before they reach the state.

The disenfranchisement is real and has been well covered by many respected news agencies.

They do not cancel each other out.

That said I don't recall many people throwing a tantrum. Most folks were just very disappointed and went on with their lives.

You have to remember that while phone polling is often plagued with inaccuracy exit polling is not. In fact when the United Nations sends in people to monitor elections in so-called 3rd world countries, exit polling is one of the main tools they use to detect fraud.

That doesn't mean George Bush didn't win 2004 but only that it is highly likely that he didn't.

You've just cancelled out your own argument about disenfranchisement! The polls saying Kerry was ahead were exit polls, meaning those people had already voted--how could they also be disenfranchised?

Exit polls are notoriously unreliable, especially if 2004 is anything to go by. Remember, being polled is an option, not a duty, and lots of folks, having killed more time than they'd planned waiting to vote, probably just didn't feel like wasting any more time answering a lot of silly questions: the results would be in soon enough and newspeople would have their answers.

As for tantrums, I seem to recall (and I was in the States at the time) Michael Moore re-drawing the US map, loads of otherwise normal folks planning to move to Canada, and general screaming in the press about another "stolen" election. Lot of pretty silly behaviour.

Evangelicals got out and voted, that's how W was re-elected--no one on the coasts ever gives these people a second thought until whoa, it turns out they aren't certifiably insane, and even if they are, they can and do vote.

quote:

Originally posted by filomena:
You've just cancelled out your own argument about disenfranchisement! The polls saying Kerry was ahead were exit polls, meaning those people had already voted--how could they also be disenfranchised?

Because their votes were thrown out. The point is that if "2004 was anything to go by" is exactly the issue at hand.

Anyway. I don't feel like getting into an argument about it. I feel that the electoral system in the US is highly flawed and should be repaired so that everyone gets a vote no matter who they support. You are free to feel however you'd like to about the US voting system.


EDIT: Oh I almost forgot, if McCain wins I am moving to Europe

I couldn't agree more that the system could use some adjustments, and I don't feel like arguing either, but you have me curious: how and when were votes "thrown out"? It sounds like anyone agreeing to be polled after voting and said they'd voted Kerry had their votes annulled or whatever. How is that possible? Voting is still anonymous, so what did poll workers do: chuck out any votes for Kerry they happened upon? I thought election workers came from both parties and if there was any hanky panky, it came in the form of giving wrong info on the day, refusing to let anyone without photo ID vote, that kind of thing.

But you're saying that any polling stations that showed overwhelming Kerry ballots binned those ballots? Like I said, I happened to be in the US for the last election, and I honestly don't recall anything of that nature being talked about. Do you happen to have any sources?

quote:

Oh I almost forgot, if McCain wins I am moving to Europe

You're already here, aren't you? If Obama wins will you go back?

Yeah I am already here and no I'm not going back.


Here is a pretty funny video about how worked up people are.

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1888086

Perhaps! ;-)

quote:

Originally posted by filomena:

But you're saying that any polling stations that showed overwhelming Kerry ballots binned those ballots? Like I said, I happened to be in the US for the last election, and I honestly don't recall anything of that nature being talked about. Do you happen to have any sources?

No they didn't toss the ballots based on what they said. The questioned the validity of the votes based on previous challenges issued by the republican party based on demographics. Thus forcing those people to cast "provisional ballots". Others were turned away entirely and of course would not have shown up in an exit poll. However the demographics were such that the vast majority of the votes that were challenged were from poor and minority areas. What they were doing was playing the numbers.

Do you remember the US attorney firings scandal? It is directly related to much of the voter caging but that has been brushed under the rug. I think if Obama carries the night we'll see more people going public.

At any rate I will go see what I can still find. I got most of my information originally from the BBC and the Guardian.

Here is something by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

It is from Rolling Stone which isn't exactly the Washington Post but is at least a reputable publication and not internet wackos

I chose this article because it is very thorough in its explanations.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/1

There is even more out there if you find any of this story compelling.

quote:

Originally posted by filomena:
And one last: most Americans don't vote to please the rest of the world, so what Europe, or Kenya for that matter, thinks is totally irrelevant to the average voter, and if anything might tip them in the opposite direction, it's being told by outsiders how to vote. So if Europe et al. want Obama as the next US President, they'd do well to keep their traps shut until Wednesday.

As a representative of that quoted “outer world”, it's probably worth pointing out that the “rest of the world” is not interested in American elections just out of morbid curiosity but rather because we are concerned by America’s own “interests” overseas.
If you lot were wont to stick by your shores, no one here would give a hoot.
See, there’s not as much concern about who’s the next President of Brazil: Brazil is an innocuous jolly good country anyway.

But of course you know this already.

Sorry, Proofy, but Europe cares enormously how America votes because America has been subsidizing EU's welfare system for years.

The EU has been able to foster its incredibly generous welfare thanks to not having to spend more than the token dime on its own defense: those horrid Yanks usually picked up the tab (and think back, which I am assuming is in your lifetime, because if it isn't then I'm dealing with someone still in kindergarten, to the mess in Bosnia and it was Clinton who sorted it, not a US prez known for warmongering).

Get the wrong guy and Europe falls prey to all those nasties who would cut off your heat in a heartbeat. And who is going to install missile defense against a possibly nuclear Iran? Malta?

Europe may think how cool to elect an African American, but they fully expect him to perform on their behalf. That's what US presidents are for!

What’s peculiar when interacting with Americans is that you never know when they’re being ironic or when they are serious, given the sheer number of what I call “USA fundamentalists” for want of a better word. And, to be clear, I get this impression NOT from this forum (where everyone is pretty much sound) but from other fora I occasionally happen to browse.

To the topic, I admit I don't know how to react to "Europe may think how cool to elect an African American, but they fully expect him to perform on their behalf. That's what US presidents are for!"
I was genuinely thinking about posting a winking smiley but then I had a second thought and.... well, whatever.

I personally have a sort of feeling that the US build up a massive “defence” system against alleged enemies that the US themselves contribute to creating. In all earnest, I don't see the "enemies of America" having so many issues with the EU, but I might not know enough.
What seems pretty much accepted is that given the impact the defence industry has on the country economy as a whole, a constant albeit latent state of alert is functional in keeping the country going.

Of course this is an endless discussion and I don’t see this ending with a handshake, so I suggest that you keep your own beliefs and that I keep mine and let’s leave it at that.

Filomena - you might need Malta yet. If the US elect Obama, and he holds true on his promise to knock tens of billions off the defence budget, you all might need to find more creative ways to avoid going to war in the first place. Diplomacy perhaps.

On the other hand, you can console yourself with the wonderful possibility that your tax dollars will go to fund a halfway decent health and welfare system. Sounds good to me...

(Tongue in cheek smiley if I could find one!)

I was up all night, but five of my Italian friends came around noon to drag me off to the terrace of the local bar for toasts of prosecco. Now, I can sleep!

My neighbors saw me and asked if I was contented that Obama had won, and I whooped and pumped my fist in the air. Months ago we told them we were for Obama and they seemed startled- don't know how he was presented in the Italian media, but they seemed to have an unfavorable impression. Now they're cool with him.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bill 2,

The problem you don't acknowledge filomena is that we don't want a missile defence, thank you. The UK and France both have nuclear capability, and that's not popular either. If push comes to shove it won't be us who are the priority for any defence system, and there's much more an appreciation that if matters get to that state there will have been a universal political, economic and probably environmental disaster.

Hopefully Obama will divert spending from the military to alternative energy, for example,so that the US doesn't see its own interests in every corner of the globe. He might struggle to achieve, but at least he's not the puppet of oil interests and Haliburton.

Agreed Sue. When asked to priortize all his programs, Obama put developing alternative energy as Number One. It would mitigate so many corollary issues.

quote:

Originally posted by filomena:
Sorry, Proofy, but Europe cares enormously how America votes because America has been subsidizing EU's welfare system for years.

Whaaa?!?!?!? Europeans paying those high taxes might disagree.

quote:

The EU has been able to foster its incredibly generous welfare thanks to not having to spend more than the token dime on its own defense: those horrid Yanks usually picked up the tab (and think back, which I am assuming is in your lifetime, because if it isn't then I'm dealing with someone still in kindergarten, to the mess in Bosnia and it was Clinton who sorted it, not a US prez known for warmongering).

Ummm, NATO is not just the USA.

Just because we spend more than all the rest of the world combined on "defense" doesn't mean the world would fall apart, nor that the Soviets would have invaded Western Europe, if we didn't mortgage our future in such a fashion.

This is as false as the trope about how we saved Europe from the Nazis. We lost under 500,000 Americans while the Soviets lost 23,000,000 (10+ million in action). Who should the world be grateful to?

quote:

Get the wrong guy and Europe falls prey to all those nasties who would cut off your heat in a heartbeat. And who is going to install missile defense against a possibly nuclear Iran? Malta?

This is total horse-puckey. The Russians have never failed to deliver on their gas contracts to Europe. The only sketchy moment was when the Ukraine didn't like losing the cheap natural gas rates they were getting and threatened to (and may have, I don't recall) tap into the line and take it.

The Ukraine still receives cheaper gas than the market would demand if it got to the EU. The market for NG was deregulated in the UK under Blair and has suffered price hikes due to "privatization", which has caused resentment towards Germany and other countries that where not so short sighted (they still have long term fixed contracts with Russia).

Russia is the new "enemy"; gotta keep the military-industrial complex fed.

We have always been at war with Eastasia. (Orwell reference)

(Regarding Iran, they aren't stupid. They haven't attacked another country in modern history, nor do they want to be obliterated by Israel or the US in the event of a nuclear exchange. This is more warmongering by the neocons.)

quote:

Europe may think how cool to elect an African American, but they fully expect him to perform on their behalf. That's what US presidents are for!

Huh? I think the polls say otherwise... Europe seems tired of the US telling it what to do.