Who Will Win the US Presidential Election

[estesbob]

losnlee02;9976719:

1. Education for all either rich and poor.
2. The "real "Republican Party has been taken over by knuckle draggers and those who don’t believe in science.
3. Medicare. Medicare. Medicare
4. I have a 28 year old who had 2 heart surgeries at age 25. When she graduated from law school and lost her health insurance she was denied 5 times for new insurance. On the last denial letter was an insert for those living in California with pre-Exsisting conditions. She applied to the California Pre-Exsisting Health Insurance Plan and was accepted. She pays a large deductible and $250 a month, but it saved her from moving to the UK where she would have full coverage. This plan was mandated by the AHCA and federal funding for underwriting comes from taxes on cigarettes.
5. Educated ( and non educated) women have enough of a glass ceiling without having those who need extraordinary help with binders of extraordinary resumes from women to help populate their cabinets.
6. I am not a one issue voter, I look at the big picture then add into the equation who holds social justice stances close to my own.

Now show us where the church has either endorsed or opposed either Candidates approach to dealing with these issues? OTH we have blunt and unequivocable statements like this to go by:

*Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

Read more: blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2008/08/while-cardinal-george-the-pres.html#ixzz2BNWydOlK*

Archbishop Charles Chaput
N**o, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion," ***

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone,”

Cardinal burke

 

[CatholicGuy22]

So just because you don’t like to hear that there are non-negotiable things and prudential things, we should call them all the same and throw them out the window? That’s irresponsible. See the post of properly formed conscience forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9976885&postcount=171.

Voting for a canidate that supports those things are not evil in it self. I don’t for Obama because he supports abortion in the same way you dont for Romney because he supports the death penalty.

 

[iloveangels]

Other than CMatt actually had a bishop’s answer to the question posed by the poster.

Suuuuure, he did. From the bishop who’s obviously sitting right there at his side with nothing better to do than answer his questions on the day before a presidential election.

Show me a press release on the subject dated today, CMatt, and I"ll believe what you have to say. Otherwise,

 

[Ridgerunner]

losnlee02;9976719:

1. Education for all either rich and poor.
2. The "real "Republican Party has been taken over by knuckle draggers and those who don’t believe in science.
3. Medicare. Medicare. Medicare
4. I have a 28 year old who had 2 heart surgeries at age 25. When she graduated from law school and lost her health insurance she was denied 5 times for new insurance. On the last denial letter was an insert for those living in California with pre-Exsisting conditions. She applied to the California Pre-Exsisting Health Insurance Plan and was accepted. She pays a large deductible and $250 a month, but it saved her from moving to the UK where she would have full coverage. This plan was mandated by the AHCA and federal funding for underwriting comes from taxes on cigarettes.
5. Educated ( and non educated) women have enough of a glass ceiling without having those who need extraordinary help with binders of extraordinary resumes from women to help populate their cabinets.
6. I am not a one issue voter, I look at the big picture then add into the equation who holds social justice stances close to my own.

The only one of the above that is in any manner connected to obama is #4. One might think, however, that your daughter’s dilemma could have been solved in a much less costly and intrusive fashion either by states increasing their own “assigned risk” pool funding or by federal contributions to those pools. We didn’t need to turn the whole medical world upside down, put 17 more million people into Medicaid, violate conscience, create very odd “corners of extreme liability” that are almost certain to drive many manufacturers overseas. There is no possibility, of course, of paying for all of Obamacare with cigarette taxes. That’s why it contains all kinds of additional taxes and fines and takes 700 billion out of medicare funding.

Of course, studies have shown that, all things being equal, women in the work force earn more than men do in the same jobs. It is only when women take time out in their careers to raise children that the 'glass ceiling" comes into play, because they lose out on career-building time.

When it comes to “social justice”, where is the “social justice” in subsidizing wealthy people to buy new cars, as in “cash for clunkers”? Where is the “social justice” in making orders of nuns to buy contraceptive and abortifacient coverage for themselves (or pay a fine) just because they don’t discriminate in the people they aid?

Where is the “social justice” in making the cost of healthcare increase?

Where is the “social justice” in making prosthetic devices more expensive?

Where is the “social justice” in cutting back on reimbursement for patients with chronic conditions and adding to it for “well care” that studies now show do not affect health outcomes?

 

[estesbob]

Sooo What?!? It’s not like Romney going to do anything about it anyway. One issue voting is wreckless. Why do we value some life more than the poor or marginalized in society?

We dont. Its not and either or proposition. But food and shelter and a decent job mean nothing to those who been denied the right to life.

 

[pete_29]

Sooo What?!? It’s not like Romney going to do anything about it anyway. One issue voting is wreckless. Why do we value some life more than the poor or marginalized in society?

Just what have the Democrats done for the poor? Welfare that keeps them slaves of the state? Rotten schools where their children don’t get an education?

 

[rlg94086]

Voting for a canidate that supports those things are not evil in it self. I don’t for Obama because he supports abortion in the same way you dont for Romney because he supports the death penalty.

…even though the latter doesn’t hold the same gravity in Catholic teaching…

Ignoring abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc. because neither party/candidate is perfect is pretty astonishing. I have a lot more respect for my third party or non-voting friends than I do those who completely ignore intrinsic evil.

 

[_Abyssinia]

According to the 538 Blog written by Nate Silver, there is an 87% chance that the President will be re-elected. His analysis is based on mathematical statistics using data from all polls considered valid from the entire country. The main element is the Electorial College, although the national vote is also included. Yes, this is published in the NY Times, BUT, after reading his analysis and protocol, I tend to believe that his method has been validated.

fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Yes, I’m a Catholic and voting for Obama/Biden.

(Just my 2 cents worth)

Nate Silver was accurate in 2008 because he was given internal poll data by the Obama campaign

www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/04/tarnished-silver-assessing-the-new-king-of-stats

It is also worth pointing out that Silver built a forecasting model for the 2010 UK election, which did turn out to be structurally unusual because of the strong Lib Dem/Nick Clegg performance. Silver got into squabbles with British analysts whose models were too simple for his liking, and the whole affair was an exemplar of what Silver’s biggest fans imagine his role to be: the empiricist hard man, crashing in on the pseophological old boys’ club and delivering two-fisted blasts of rugged science. It did not go well in the end, as his site’s liveblog of the returns records:

10:00 PM (BST). BBC exit poll predicts Conservatives 307, Labour 255, LibDems 59.

10:01 PM (BST). That would actually be a DROP for Lib Dems from the last election.

10:02 PM (BST). BBC nerd says: “The exit polls are based on uniform behavior”, a.k.a. uniform swing. So we haven’t really learned anything about whether uniform swing is the right approach; it’s baked into the projection.

10:07 PM (BST). We would obviously project a more favorable result than just 307 seats for Conservatives on those numbers. Calculating now.

10:11 PM (BST). If the exit polls are right but the seat projections are based on uniform swing, we would show a Conservative majority on those numbers.

10:13 PM (BST). Here is what our model would project… [Cons 341, Lab 219, Lib Dem 62]

The final result? Conservatives 306, Labour 258, Liberal Democrats 57. The BBC’s projection from exit polls, using simple uniform-swing assumptions to forecast the outcome of a very wrinkly three-sided race, was so accurate as to be almost suspicious. And how was Silver’s performance after being basically given the national vote shares for the parties? Perhaps it’s best to draw the veil of charity over that

Which, in fact, seems to be what has happened. Lucky thing for Silver’s reputation!—but then, he has always been lucky

Nate Silver’s predictions for the 2010 midterms and model:

State polling averages were wrong in Alaska (they said Joe Miller would be elected), wrong in Colorado (they said Ken Buck would be elected), and embarrassingly wrong in Nevada (they said Harry Reid would be involuntarily retired). FiveThirtyEight incorrectly forecast the winner in each of those states, perfectly reflecting the inaccurate information contained in the state polls.

Thus, of the five major state races in which polls were wrong over the last four years, Silver only got one right. I’m no baseball scout, but batting .200 when it counts won’t get you into the big leagues, let alone the All-Star game.

…

I spent a few hours re-building Nate Silver’s basic Monte Carlo poll simulation model from the ground up. It is a simplified version, lacking fancy pollster weights and economic assumptions and state-by-state covariance factors, but it contains the same foundation of state poll data that supports Nate Silver’s famous FiveThirtyEight model. That is, they are both built upon the same assumption that state polls, on average, are correct.

After running the simulation every day for several weeks, I noticed something odd: the winning probabilities it produced for Obama and Romney were nearly identical to those reported by FiveThirtyEight. Day after day, night after night. For example, based on the polls included in RealClearPolitics’ various state averages as of Tuesday night, the Sean Davis model suggested that Obama had a 73.0% chance of winning the Electoral College. In contrast, Silver’s FiveThirtyEight model as of Tuesday night forecast that Obama had a 77.4% chance of winning the Electoral College.

So what gives? If it’s possible to recreate Silver’s model using just Microsoft Excel, a cheap Monte Carlo plug-in, and poll results that are widely available, then what real predictive value does Silver’s model have?

dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/is-nate-silvers-value-at-risk

 

[estesbob]

Voting for a canidate that supports those things are not evil in it self. I don’t for Obama because he supports abortion in the same way you dont for Romney because he supports the death penalty.

Of course it is. you cant vote to empower evil and then try and wash your hands of the results.

BTW-Obama supports the death penalty and the church does now and always has allowed recourse to it. as pope benedict clearly stated there is no mo\ral equivalnce between supporting abortion and supporting the death penalty:

3.* Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.*

 

[CatholicGuy22]

Just like the same way that abolishing abortions would mean nothing to those hungry and no where to sleep.

 

[jediliz]

Sooo What?!? It’s not like Romney going to do anything about it anyway. One issue voting is wreckless. Why do we value some life more than the poor or marginalized in society?

Preborn children in the womb are just as vulnerable as the single mom that has to work at McDonalds AND a grocery store to make ends meet because the dad is a deadbeat and doesn’t send any child support or he is in prison.

Think of every child, born AND UNBORN, as a mini Christ…DO UNTO OTHERS! LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR as YOURSELF!

Life is NOT “one issue” it is a BIG ISSUE! It covers abortion, euthanasia/doctor assisted suicide, sterilization, using HUMAN embryos for research, etc.

Social Security is nearly bankrupt and there have been 55 MILLION abortions (more if you county chemical ones that happen by using contraceptives) since 1973. If even HALF of those who were aborted were alive today, and working…would we have this problem?

The president will be appointing at least ONE new justice…and if its Obama, you can bet they will be pro abortion and young, which means another 40 years before we have a chance to overturn Roe Vs Wade. With Romney, we have a better chance of getting justice(s) that strictly interpret the constitution and don’t find things like abortion or gay marriage hidden in the language.

 

[CatholicGuy22]

…even though the latter doesn’t hold the same gravity in Catholic teaching…

Ignoring abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc. because neither party/candidate is perfect is pretty astonishing. I have a lot more respect for my third party or non-voting friends than I do those who completely ignore intrinsic evil.

Every life is precious!!! The most evil man in world life means just as much than a small innocent baby.

 

[rlg94086]

Every life is precious!!! The most evil man in world life means just a small innocent baby.

Not according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible and teaching of the Magisterium. The Death Penalty and Just War are allowed in extraordinary cases, whereas abortion and the purposeful killing of any innocent life are never allowed.

 

[CatholicGuy22]

Of course it is. you cant vote to empower evil and then try and wash your hands of the results.

BTW-Obama supports the death penalty and the church does now and always has allowed recourse to it. as pope benedict clearly stated there is no mo\ral equivalnce between supporting abortion and supporting the death penalty:

3.* Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.*

This statement is not infallible and the Pope was not speaking from his office.

 

[estesbob]

Just like the same way that abolishing abortions would mean nothing to those hungry and no where to sleep.

No one is advocating letting people go hungry and sleep on the streets. One candidate and his party, OTH, are advocating unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand.

 

[rlg94086]

Just like the same way that abolishing abortions would mean nothing to those hungry and no where to sleep.

So…if those who are hungry and have no where to sleep wish to kill someone to obtain those things, you are okay with that from a moral perspective? Which is the greater evil?

 

[estesbob]

This statement is not infallible and the Pope was not speaking from his office.

So we ignore the pope and embrace the Democrat party platform?

 

[CatholicGuy22]

Not according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible and teaching of the Magisterium. The Death Penalty and Just War are allowed in extraordinary cases, whereas abortion and the purposeful killing of any innocent life are never allowed.

Wow. So Jesus would only be with the rightous and innocent but totally forget others? Every life is precious and must be respected.

 

[CMatt25]

You may feel differently if you had a Church and it was being threatened.
Either way, I’d watch the smugness. I’ve seen you post in borderline hysterics over bad polls earlier.

If Romney wins tomorrow, or if a Republican wins in 2016, remember your attitude about the sky falling.

I have a Church. Mine is called His entire Body of Christians, the entire Body of Christ.

And FYI though I voted Obama in the poll, I’m not going to offer to bet Rick Perry $10,000 on it. I do believe Romney could win. He may need OH or PA. Though there is a path for Obama even if he loses OH. FL, and VA.

But if Romney wins with a Tea Party House and if Republicans were to take the Senate, my attitude will be the sky could fall on America.

 

[CatholicGuy22]

So we ignore the pope and embrace the Democrat party platform?

I hate politics and i wish i didnt have to vote but my mind is more open and i want to vote on all the issues. The church has no business telling how to vote. We are not mindless sheep. I love my church but i dont worship her.