Electoral College Guess

• gut

  Obama isn't in big trouble. That's why Obama isn't already pulling all nighters campaigning still with 13 days to go.
• Ty Webb

  

  All I know is......a Republican stratigist was on CNN today and said if they keep seeing the same numbers they are seeing on internal polls for Romney....it's over for the Govenor
• like_that

  

  LOL. I was wondering where Gibby was with his delusional posts.
• pmoney25

  

  Well the Obama campaign sent my wife an email (She voted for him in 08, thank god not this time around) asking if she would host a few people at our house so they can stay here for a couple weeks since they are volunteers from out of state. So Obama must be a bit worried about Ohio.
• se-alum

  

  Ty Webb;1303737 wrote:All I know is......a Republican stratigist was on CNN today and said if they keep seeing the same numbers they are seeing on internal polls for Romney....it's over for the Govenor

  Link? Video?
• Ty Webb

  

  pmoney25;1303744 wrote:Well the Obama campaign sent my wife an email (She voted for him in 08, thank god not this time around) asking if she would host a few people at our house so they can stay here for a couple weeks since they are volunteers from out of state. So Obama must be a bit worried about Ohio.

  Pmoney.....that practice is very common is the last weeks of a campaign. I know my neighbor is hosting a Romney staffer from Minnesota. They send staffers from states where they aren't campaigning anymore
• pmoney25

  

  Ty Webb;1303751 wrote:Pmoney.....that practice is very common is the last weeks of a campaign. I know my neighbor is hosting a Romney staffer from Minnesota. They send staffers from states where they aren't campaigning anymore

  
  Oh I know, I am just saying Obama must not feel too comfortable about Ohio.
• sleeper

  

  Oh Christ Gibby. Could you be any more delusional?
• like_that

  

  sleeper;1303835 wrote:Oh Christ Gibby. Could you be any more delusional?

  Yes.
• elitesmithie05

  ccrunner609;1303846 wrote:I heard Obama is up in ohio by something like 12% of all the early voters. That worries me.

  He was up 22 percent this time last election....
• IggyPride00

  

  gut;1302516 wrote:What's interesting is the bailout has been effective at hurting Romney, particularly in OH and MI (obviously). But that's been one of the more gross mischaracterizations of Romney's views.
  
  However, if you were going to turn back the clock on that one, it's probably an equally effective (and accurate) tactic to say under Romney the UAW would have gotten a lot less.
  
  What a kick in the nuts that, after 4 years of this economic malaise, what could tip the election is paying off the UAW all the way back in 2009.

  Under Romney's bankruptcy scenario for GM/Chrysler no one would have gotten anything other than a few pennies on the dollar from a straight liquidation, which is what would have ended up happening.
  
  The reason the government had to step in was the world was falling apart and there was zero private capital available to provide DIP financing to guide them through bankruptcy.
  
  Neither company would have made it out of bankruptcy had we done it the normal way that Romney advocated. The government was the only avenue available to provide them the financing needed to get through bankruptcy.
  
  Letting them go bankrupt likely would have taken Ford under as well as their supplier network is so intertwined with the other 2 that the failure of them would have had a cascading effect that would have crippled the American auto industry.
  
  I detest government bailouts, but in that case there was no one in the private sector able or willing to provide financing to get them through a bankruptcy. It would have led to a liquidation of both companies which would have been an unmitigated disaster for this country.
  
  If it was just a union bailout Bush would have never authorized the first round of money to GM/Chrysler. He did it because he knew neither would make it through bankruptcy if he didn't, and that their failure would have wiped out everyone down the chain and likely Ford as well as a consequence.
  
  Romney has never been able to provide a scenario in which either company survived through bankruptcy without government support, which is why he has been hurt so bad in Ohio/Michigan.
  
  In a normal year he should be up by 5-8 points in this state, but between the autoworkers and those in the supplier food chain there are alot of people in this state whose livelihood is still there only because the government stepped in. Without that financing we would have been looking at nothing but a big auction for all GM/Chrysler's assets and unemployment down the food chain would have spiraled out of control.
  
  Alot of bad decisions were made during that time, but saving the auto industry turns out to have been a good one. People on both sides get too wrapped up in the union stuff, and lose sight of hte bigger picture supplier network (including many small businesses) that we saved because GM/Chrysler didn't fail. Union workers were actually small potatoes in the bigger picture of the entire industry.
• gut

  There wasn't going to be a liquidation. I don't know how it can be explained any more clearly. Romney did not oppose the govt as the DIP financier of last resort. He did oppose govt taking ownership and the subsequent cramdown - that's where he differs from how it was handled. And, again, GM was losing money largely because of its pension overhang and uncompetitive wages - the assets had PRODUCTIVE value post-restructuring so a liquidation was simply never going to happen because it's worth far more as a going concern as opposed to scrap metal.
  
  Read the article instead of taking talking points on faith. And, truthfully, we don't know if other investors would have materialized because once the govt signaled it was going to give priority to the union investors wouldn't even waste their time. Plenty of foreign companies would have had interest in GM as a going concern (post bankruptcy). Internationally, there was money and capital available on the sidelines. Heck, Chrysler found a foreign buyer.
• IggyPride00

  

  gut;1303956 wrote:There wasn't going to be a liquidation. I don't know how it can be explained any more clearly. Romney did not oppose the govt as the DIP financier of last resort. He did oppose govt taking ownership and the subsequent cramdown - that's where he differs from how it was handled. And, again, GM was losing money largely because of its pension overhang and uncompetitive wages - the assets had PRODUCTIVE value post-restructuring so a liquidation was simply never going to happen because it's worth far more as a going concern as opposed to scrap metal.
  
  Read the article instead of taking talking points on faith. And, truthfully, we don't know if other investors would have materialized because once the govt signaled it was going to give priority to the union investors wouldn't even waste their time. Plenty of foreign companies would have had interest in GM as a going concern (post bankruptcy). Internationally, there was money and capital available on the sidelines. Heck, Chrysler found a foreign buyer.

  How do you provide $60-100 Billion dollars in DIP financing without taking ownership of the company? There is not an entity on earth that puts up that kind of money without getting control of the place.
  
  Romney argued only for loan guarantees to any private company willing to put up the financing, not the government itself. He knows no one had the money to lend at that time though. His solution was not feasible.
  
  His argument is that he didn't advocate liquidation, but his solution was 100% unworkable. That is not talking points or faith, but reality.
  
  I don't see how government puts up all the financing and then doesn't get to take control of the company. It goes hand in hand.
  
  Loan guarantees were not going to work because someone other than government had to have the $60+ billion to loan. No one did.
  
  They didn't do anything that private equity wouldn't have done as far as cramdowns, firings, and restructuring.
• sleeper

  

  So Iggy, why are we propping up failed companies? You pretend that if GM and Chrysler go belly up that no entrepreneur would not see a massive opportunity to buy up their infrastructure and hire their talented workforce to build a new car company. Instead, let's just kick the can down the road until GM needs another bailout because at its core its a piss poor company, run poorly by Harvard MBAs(a joke of a school), with a broken labor model. Fuck 'em.
• Belly35

  

  Step one to saving manufacturing in America: Dump the Union :laugh: don't need bailout when you can cut your biggest drain for making profit
• se-alum

  

  ccrunner609;1303846 wrote:I heard Obama is up in ohio by something like 12% of all the early voters. That worries me.

  I wouldn't worry about that, let's be honest, early voting is primarily made up of African Americans the Obama campaign busses to the polls.
• derek bomar

  

  I think Obama wins Ohio. Just got this tingling feeling in my leg about it.
• fish82

  

  derek bomar;1304041 wrote:I think Obama wins Ohio. Just got this tingling feeling in my leg about it.

  I think Ohio might end up being disturbingly close. Like, "here come the lawyers" close.
• QuakerOats

  pmoney25;1303744 wrote:Well the Obama campaign sent my wife an email (She voted for him in 08, thank god not this time around)

  
  And THAT is exactly why obama will lose. All that is needed is 1 in 20 votes switching, and from what I am seeing, it will be at least 1 in 20 votes that switches.
  
  Thank to the Mrs.
• Belly35

  

  QuakerOats;1304085 wrote:And THAT is exactly why obama will lose. All that is needed is 1 in 20 votes switching, and from what I am seeing, it will be at least 1 in 20 votes that switches.
  
  Thank to the Mrs.

  
  As I have stated a few weeks ago, after attending my neighbor (Black Retire Executive) family cook out. (Note: I smoked the ribs so that makes me unofficially family). The family got into a conversation, bottom line was all voted for Obama in 2008 however 2012 is a 50/50 split. What seemed to be the difference is one group still voting color and party and the other group voting based on economics and political agenda.
• gut

  IggyPride00;1303957 wrote:How do you provide $60-100 Billion dollars in DIP financing without taking ownership of the company? There is not an entity on earth that puts up that kind of money without getting control of the place.

  For starters, you don't need anywhere near $60B+. That's not DIP, that's a capitalization. DIP financing is to pay the bills during a re-org. GM's cash burn was more like $1-$2B a month.
  
  And there is a difference between priority debt (which the gubmit shit all over) and taking ownership. Happens all the time.
• gut

  IggyPride00;1303957 wrote: His argument is that he didn't advocate liquidation, but his solution was 100% unworkable. That is not talking points or faith, but reality.

  Reality is you have no idea. You have no idea because the union dug in their heals waiting for Obama to come riding in to pay them off. Investors aren't going to waster their time. And then you seal the deal by cramming a pre-pack that shits all over bankruptcy law because of a sense of urgency you and the union cronies manufactured so you could steal from shareholders and taxpayers to pay for your union votes.
• Ty Webb

  

  http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/oct-24-in-polls-romneys-momentum-seems-to-have-stopped/
• Ty Webb

  

  http://www.nationalmemo.com/is-the-race-in-ohio-already-over/
• Con_Alma

  ????
  
  
  Nate Silver is telling us what momentum "ought to be"...according to him as opposed to what it is, how it's used and what it means to the public.
  
  "...Let me tell you what I think it ought to mean: that a body in motion tends to stay in motion...."
  
  
  Infinitely? That means that momentum couldn't exist as it relates to polls. The can't climb forever.