HOW SANDY STORM COULD AFFECT THE ELECTION TRAIL?

HOW SANDY STORM COULD AFFECT THE ELECTION TRAIL? 

 [NOTE FROM  Hugo Adan (October 31). 

To me: if one person one vote is the essence of democratic elections, then considering that many people won’t be able to vote in affected areas of the storm Sandy (they face the dilemma: where to vote for one of the super-pack financed candidates running in this election vs. where to get money to repair the house damaged by the storm knowing that most home insurances do not cover natural disasters) the CONCLUSION is that NATIONAL ELECTION SHOULD BE POSTPONED. 

It is clear that postponing elections only in the affected areas will create political problems of unpredicted magnitude. The effects of the Sandy storm are many and difficult to predict; in any case, it will affect mainly to the incumbent president. Postponed for one month (at least) will also favor the candidate Romney who now needs more time to overcome the lagging behind of the GOP at national level. Meanwhile, Obama is visiting the devastating areas as part of his campaign while Romney is visiting key swing States in his campaign strategy. Meaning: they do not really care for the victims of the storm and the victims will became anti-Obama, his bla-bla won’t contain their frustration]    

--------------------  

T-MINUS 363 DAYS TO ELECTION 2012: WELCOME TO THE SIGNAL [PREDICTOR]

HERE SOME EXTRACTS

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/t-minus-363-days-election-2012-welcome-signal-000451089.html

By David Rothschild, Yahoo! News | The Signal – Mon, Nov 7, 2011   Email him at thesignal@yahoo-inc.com

Read David Pennock companion art A Signal mission: Putting a number on uncertainty. By David Pennock | The Signal – Mon, Nov 7, 2011.  IN: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/signal-mission-putting-number-uncertainty-235526823.html

Check also: http://news.yahoo.com/elections/

---------------- 

As voters head to the polls today for the 2011 elections, we are a little less than a year away from selecting the next President of the United States. As of this morning, there's a 67.3 percent chance that Republican Mitt Romney will challenge Democratic incumbent Barack Obama in the 2012 general election. Rick Perry, at 10.4 percent, is the second likeliest Republican nominee for President, with Newt Gingrich (8.3 percent) following closely behind. Barack Obama's likelihood of prevailing and winning reelection for a second term is slightly better than a coin flip; Obama has a 50.5 percent likelihood of victory.

These predictions, of course, are based on the best estimate of the dynamics in the presidential race between now and November 2012--which are certain to change in the 12 months ahead. During that time, countless factors could affect the prospects for Obama's reelection. The economy could recover or get worse, some hot-button social issues could come to the fore in the race, and others may recede. More conflicts may arise overseas--while present ones could work themselves out. And there is of course the ever-present chance that scandals--some big, some small, some real, and some contrived--will erupt.

So what does this 50.5 percent likelihood really mean, then? Imagine if the world were to accommodate one thousand scenarios--each equally likely to happen; imagine further, that among those, one such scenario were randomly selected to represent how things play out on Election Day. And in this randomized array of likely presidential-election outcomes, our modeling suggests that Obama wins re-election 505 out of 1,000 occurrences, while losing in 495. 12 months from Election Day, the outcome of the presidential contest is just about as undecided as any future event can be.

As of now, we compute these estimates by taking an average of the prices listed on prediction markets Betfair and Intrade. A prediction market is a place where political handicappers back up their convictions with real money. The price is determined by how much money users are willing to invest up front in order to win back one dollar if they are right. If a 90-cent investment is required to win one dollar, users think the candidate is likely to win. If, on the other hand, only a few pennies investment is required to win one dollar, users are saying the candidate is a longshot. Users from around the world act based on any information they have, including well-known central signals of upcoming events like polls and past results, as well as less obvious, more disaggregated indicators. Many academic papers have confirmed the value of prediction markets in forecasting upcoming events; for politics elections, prediction markets have proved been meaningful from late 19th and early 20th century elections through the 2008 election.

Obama's likelihood of being reelected President has hovered around 50 percent since Labor Day, declining slightly throughout September before rebounding in October.

============= 

A SIGNAL MISSION: PUTTING A NUMBER ON UNCERTAINTY

[A COMPANION TO THE PREVIOUS ART]

HERE SOME EXTRACTS

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/signal-mission-putting-number-uncertainty-235526823.html

By David Pennock | The Signal – Mon, Nov 7, 2011

Uncertainty means being unsure, at least a little, about the outcome of some event in the future. Who will win the Super Bowl in 2012? Who will be our President in 2013? I don't know. No one knows. Anyone who says they know with conviction is either lying, delusional, or has inside knowledge that I believe — well, with 99.9% surety — that no one in the world has.

Most people are happy to acknowledge that uncertainty exists: it's a part of life. We buy insurance precisely because we realize that the unexpected can happen. Many things are unpredictable, from Arab uprisings to Apple stock. But few go beyond admitting they are unsure to say exactly how uncertain they are, quantifying their doubt with a number, say 50.5% sure that Obama will prevail. What does it means to be "50.5% sure" of something? Part of our mission at The Signal is to report on predictions like this from all around the web, explain what they mean in straightforward terms, and encourage our readers, and leaders, to think more, and more clearly, about uncertainty.

===========  

INTERESTING COMMENT BY MAGGIE THE GEEK

In the past few months the political ads from both the Democrats and the Republicans have promoted that every vote counts and we all need to get out and vote. Well, here’s the chance for the Democrats and the Republicans to prove to us that every vote really does count; in light of the devastating destruction throughout our country, throughout Democratic and Republican and “undecided” states, millions and millions of potential voters have not only had inconvenient  set-backs but devastating and forever life changing events and will not be in position by November 6th to make that vote that counts! In lieu of the devastation, politics seem petty and even the two men running for President obviously know that but neither are in the position to suggest that we postpone the scheduled November 6th vote. Most in office politicians probably don’t want the fall out and/or blame of suggesting America put politics and votes on hold. Certainly, the Republican and Democratic headquarters are trying to decide whether postponing the vote is in their best interest or not; however, it is no one’s best interest to pretend this devastating aftermath won’t have a bearing on a November 6th election. Hurricane Sandy has been an equal opportunity offender; her damage has not discriminated against any political party nor can any political party really benefit from this storm’s devastation. If elections are held on Tuesday, November 6th, no matter which parties’ candidates win or lose, their wins and losses will either be credited or blamed upon the storm and never be considered a valid vote. We’ve already had one presidential election that had to be decided by the courts, let’s learn from our own history and not go through that, again! Over the limit - read more at

http://maggiethegeek.com/blog/could-a-hurricane-like-sandy-postpone-the-presidential-election-the-atlantic/

===========  

ONE MORE NOTE TO READ  for Wednesday, October 31, 2012

www.abcnews.com  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/the-notes-must-reads-for-wednesday-october-31-2012/

PRESIDENTIAL TRAIL / HURRICANE SANDY: [Here some extracts]

ABC News’ Ariane Devogue and Lauren Pearle: “Could Election Day Be Postponed?” Superstorm Sandy has given rise to suspensions in campaigning by both President Obama and GOP contender Mitt Romney, but could it actually delay Election Day?  In theory, yes, but in all likelihood, no. LINK  The Constitution leaves the "times, places and manner" of holding a federal election up to each state, but says that Congress may at any time make or alter such regulations. Election Day, which is set by Congress, for all federal offices is the Tuesday following the first Monday in November.

The New York Daily News’ Jonathan Lemire: “Hurricane Sandy plunges presidential race into uncertainty” Hurricane Sandy plunged the presidential campaign into an unprecedented period of uncertainty, leaving both sides scrambling to grasp the right tone for voters coping with a historic natural disaster. The monster storm, likely the biggest “October surprise” in history, left both campaigns without a script, forcing them to make uncharted, and potentially politically-damaging, decisions on the fly. Some campaign rallies were cancelled, while others were rebranded as hurricane fundraisers. LINK

================= 

OBAMA AND ROMNEY CONCUR ON WAR, ASSASSINATION AND REACTION

OBAMA AND ROMNEY CONCUR ON WAR, ASSASSINATION AND REACTION

By Bill Van Auken .  23 October 2012

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/oct2012/dabe-o23.shtml

In their debate on foreign policy Monday night, President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney voiced nearly identical positions in support of war, illegal killings and imperialist intervention across the globe.

With just two weeks until the election, this third and final presidential debate made it clear that the US political establishment is laying the groundwork for new military interventions in the aftermath of November 6, and that the American people will have no means of expressing at the ballot box their opposition to an escalation of global militarism.

While both Obama and Romney threw in empty rhetoric about “nation-building at home” and bringing back “good jobs and rising take-home pay,” the overwhelming theme of this third debate was US imperialism’s determination to utilize its military superiority to counter the decline of American capitalism’s position in the world economy and offset the deepening crisis that began with the Wall Street meltdown of 2008.

In what can only be described as a degrading and filthy political spectacle, both the questions posed by the moderator and the answers provided by the candidates of the two major capitalist parties began with the premise that US imperialism has the unassailable right to defend its interests by inflicting death and destruction on anyone or any country that is deemed an obstacle.

No attempt was made to probe the broader interests of American capitalism underlying the wars, occupations and assassination campaigns that have dominated world affairs over the past decade. The impression was promoted that opposing these policies is beyond the pale of American politics, at once forbidden and futile.

At times, both men sounded more like Mafia dons than candidates for high office. In his first statement in the debate, Romney offered his congratulations to Obama for “taking out Osama bin Laden,” while lamenting that “we can’t kill our way out of this mess.”

For his part, Obama boasted that his policy in Libya had included “taking out” the country’s former leader, Col. Muammar Gaddafi, in order to achieve the goal of regime-change. Chiding Romney for questioning this policy, Obama insisted that he was determined to “make sure that Gaddafi didn’t stay there… we were going to make sure that we finished the job.” The result was the savage lynching of Gaddafi a year ago.

Among the most chilling parts of the debate were those related to Iran, with both candidates once again putting forward nearly identical policies of aggression and unconditional support for Israel in the event it launches an unprovoked war.

Obama boasted that his administration’s unilateral sanctions were “crippling their economy.” He noted approvingly: “Their currency has dropped 80 percent. Their oil production has plunged to the lowest level since they were fighting a war with Iraq 20 years ago. So their economy is in a shambles.”

That such policies mean suffering and deprivation for tens of millions of Iranian working people was clearly of no concern to anyone on the platform. Neither was there any questioning of the legality of this deliberate economic strangulation of another country, which represents an act of war and a gross violation of international law.

Obama stressed his readiness to order direct US military intervention, repeating the threat that his administration would not “take any options off the table” in dealing with Iran, and that “the clock is ticking” down to another US war of aggression.

Romney had nothing to add, outside of his insistence that he would have introduced even more punishing economic sanctions, and sooner than Obama had.

In the segment of the debate dealing with Syria, what emerged most clearly from the responses of both candidates is that, behind the pretense of concern over human rights and democracy, Washington is engaged in a campaign for regime-change, stoking a bloody sectarian civil war in order to advance its strategic interests in the region.

Romney stated this clearly, declaring the bloody conflict in Syria “an opportunity for us because Syria plays an important role in the Middle East, particularly right now.” He continued, “Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world… And so seeing Syria remove Assad is a very high priority for us.”

For his part, Obama insisted that Washington is playing “the leadership role” in the Syrian events and that “we’re doing exactly what we should be doing to try to promote a moderate Syrian leadership and an effective transition so that we get Assad out.”

Needless to say, neither candidate was asked to clarify how Washington could be allied with Al Qaeda and other Islamist militias in the wars for regime-change in both Libya and Syria, while simultaneously claiming that these same forces represent the greatest threat to national security. Probing this contradiction is impermissible, as it would explode both the “war on terror” pretext for US global aggression over the past decade and the current pretense of promoting democracy and human rights in the Middle East wars for regime-change.

Both candidates were once again in agreement on the question of drone assassinations, which are now being carried out on a regular basis in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, and have been used to carry out the extra-judicial murders of American citizens, such as the New Mexico-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and his son.

“I believe that we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world,” declared Romney, effectively threatening millions with preemptive assassination. “I support that entirely and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology,” he added.

Among the unasked questions in Monday night’s debate was how Obama, who was swept into office on a wave of popular anger over the militarist aggression and attacks on democratic rights under his predecessor, George W. Bush, had come to head an administration that has continued and deepened these policies.

Posing such a question would have only underscored the inescapable conclusion flowing from the entire debate: the impossibility of opposing war and imperialist reaction within the framework of the capitalist two-party system.

=============