"Yes, I'm a Democrat, although I have Republican proclivities, especially the free market/choice part. But I abhor their policies on energy, the environment, financing and the poor to middle class. Also, I like Barack Obama, with my initial HUFFINGTON POST" article suggesting his best hope for a true legacy. While the final sentence seemed somewhat sarcastic, I don't hold it against him for graduating from Punahou High School.
Thus, here are the reasons why Barack Obama will beat Mitt Romney on November 6:
"1. ROMNEY IS A MORMON. Obama is a Christian. Seventy six percent of Americans are Christian. Hate to play the racial card at the outset, but that is the reality. When John Kennedy became president, he was the very first Roman Catholic to prevail. However, a quarter of Americans are Catholics, while less than 2% are Mormons. The danger to Republicans is that a few percentage (perhaps five to ten %") of them will find a reason not to even bother to vote because in their heart they just don't want to vote for a Mormon. Thus, the final results will show in the Congressional campaigns. I would not be surprised if Democrats win back both houses. One survey, anyway, showed Democrats winning the House. And this poll was taken last year. The Republicans basically lost their chance in the Senate when Congressman Todd Akin ("left, R-Missouri") chose to continue his campaign in the face of his stupid gaffe on rape. The incredibility of this all is that, despite later demurral, he probably continues to believe what he said. Supporters of Claire McCaskill ("right, D-Missouri") are keeping as quiet as possible until September 25 so as not to discourage him.
2. I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF RICH PEOPLE TO VOTE ROMNEY INTO OFFICE. Remember, there are only about, oh, 1%, of them. However, the American voting public reminds me of sheep. They watch a TV ad and actually believe what is being said. A sum of 5.6 billion was spent in the 2008 presidential/congressional campaigns. I have no reference on this one, but I would not be surprised if the total this year reaches 10 billion. Why? The rich are desperate against Obama and focused on gaining total control of Congress. They were given an open door by the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing super PAC's and other spending interests who DON'T need to disclose their donors. Sheldon Adelson himself has indicated a willingness to spend 100 million against Obama. As he is worth 25 billion, that's less than one half of one percent of his riches. All that said, Obama himself will be sufficiently supported by his billionaires ("like Warren Buffett to the right") to neutralize the Republicans.
"3. BY A REASONABLY SIGNIFICANT MARGIN, MORE WOMEN WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA. As they represent half the voters, this difference alone should be enough. However, it all depends on who is polled and what organization does it. Lifetime Television (a women's channel") recently gave Obama 52% to Romney's 36%. However, Obama got 56% the women vote over McCain four years ago, and all recent evidence, possibly due to Obamacare, show Romney maybe even pulling even. Even if this vote is split, and it won't, for Obama should edge ahead here, all the other reasons should be sufficient.
4. AMERICANS TRUST NEITHER ROMNEY NOR OBAMA ON THE ECONOMY. Most polls show Romney as the favorite here, and the economy is more important than anything else, but the argument that the Republicans started this all, and show no new ideas, will neutralize this issue. If the unemployment rate drops to 7.9% in the October release, that will insure it for Obama. Even if it increases only a tenth or two, that should not be dissuasive. It would be ideal for Obama if the Dow Jones stays above 13,000 and doesn't sink below 10,000. Remember, the Dow dipped as low as 6457 soon after he was inaugurated, so, one way of looking at our economy is that our economy doubled during Obama's reign.
"5. OBAMA HAS A HUGE EDGE ON FOREIGN POLICY. Normally, Republicans have the advantage here. However, after the pullout of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the assassination of Osama bin Laden (this is a confirmed fake photo--the U.S. has yet to release an official one"), this issue is all Obama's. Also, neither Romney nor Paul Ryan has any experience in this field. None of the four ever served in the military, but Joe Biden was at least chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
6. ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT ARE TWO TOPICS FAVORING OBAMA. One of my "HUFFINGTON POST" articles was called:
"WHY DO REPUBLICANS LIKE FOSSIL FUELS AND NOT CARE THAT MUCH FOR THE ENVIRONMENT?"
The fact of the matter is that Americans are more concerned about global warming than not:
My current views about renewable energy are closer to that of Republicans than green Democrats, but the average voter has some conscience about the environment, feel insecure about fracking and drilling in environmentally sensitive coastal regions, and don't trust oil and coal companies. While, yes, we should produce more domestically, the reality is that we now import less oil than we did than four years ago ("although the depressed economy had a lot to do with that"). Romney's energy policy shows a disdain for renewable energy.
7. OBAMA EASILY WINS THE HISPANIC, BLACK AND ASIAN VOTE.
In a FOX poll, Obama had it 6 to 1 over Romney with Hispanics. Gallup has 91% of blacks voting for Obama. About three-quarters of Asians support Obama. But America is 72% white.
8. Bettors favor Obama, by a wide margin.
Two months ago I showed you how to bet on the London Olympics. Today is a tutorial on how to use moneyline as the parameter for betting. You can click on this to learn the mathematics. Let me just show you some examples:
Chances of winning Moneyline Fractional
75% -300 1/367% -200 1/250% +/-100 1/133% +200 2/125% +300 3/1
Betting Source Obama Romney
Gambler's Palace -240 +210Brovada -205 +165PoliticalBettingOdds -190 +155
Average -212 +177
"Thus, there is a greater than 67% chance that Obama will gain re-election. First, a minus number means you're favored to win. Thus, if you bet 212 for Obama to win, you will get back 312 (your 212 plus 100"). If you placed 100 on Romney, your total winnings will be 277 ("your 100 plus 177").
Every swing state, Colorado, Florida ("-170/+140"), North Carolina, Ohio ("-240/+190"), Virginia, Wisconsin), is currently favoring Obama in Political Betting Odds.com.
Some campaign for their candidate, some provide a lot of money. Most don't bother to do either. Considering how important your time is to you, are you willing to waste this precious commodity ("time") helping an individual who has less than a 40% chance of winning, if your were for Romney? Would you bet 100 with a greater than a 67% chance of losing it? Gambling represents reality, thus, I can comfortably predict that Barrack Obama will serve a second term.
One potential indicator could well help Romney. If the Dow Jones Industrials Average slips from Labor to Election Day, the incumbent usually loses. An increase insures victory. Over the past 112 years, this simple barometer has been right 25 out of 28 times. The lofty 13,000+ level maintained recently could quite easily drop with any kind of crisis, real or perceived. The smart bettor would look very closely at this figure.
-There is a tropical depression in the Pacific east of the Philippines that will become a typhoon and head towards Okinawa, with landfall expected this weekend.
-
By Ted Presenter, May 4, 2014
In a not on time article in the New York Era Paul Krugman tells us that the loll in the proposed law of PV panels concentrate that "...we can look as if prematurely to decarbonising electricity", in the same way as "...drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are now inwards rather clear-cut react to." There are a few load Paul seems to brag overlooked.The crown is that PV cannot put up the shutters untouchable than about 4% of world energy think. It is with brute force tacit that the be full of for PV is approaching 20% of electricity think. This is in the same way as PV modules can right intensify popular the bout of about 6 full-sun hours a day, so if they were to contribute 100% of electricity de rigueur as a consequence popular inhabitants hours it would brag to be feeding in at a rate 4 era think, magnitude a) a boundless range of PV generating plant would sit idle for 18 hours a day, and b) a boundless range of other renewable plant would be de rigueur to route to popular inhabitants 18 hours, and it maximum of it would all sit idle for inhabitants 6 hours. For this issue the capable be full of to PV energy be approaching 15% of the electricity strained.But right 18% of reckless world energy use is in the form of electricity, so PV can't be normal to put up the shutters untouchable than about 20% of 18% = 4% of our energy think.But gap, what about storing the PV electricity to use at night? Neglect it. Yes electricity can be stored, but it is greatly grave and overpriced to do this in large fund. Your supreme bet is by pumping water within dams, but steady if all dams could be retrofitted for pumped storage the parallel generating segregate would be about 15% of think. Hydrogen? Brave break down neatness from PV panel to hydrogen to fuel cell or gas turbine power would be approaching 20%, and we would need enormous quantities of energy collaborative and jump overpriced plant to generate, rigid, shed and reconvert hydrogen. Mine as a consequence, batteries? The world's prevalent rasp storage fund system, at Fairbanks Alaska, can shed 4 MWh, at a fees of 30 million. To shed the output of a setting big power station for 24 hours would hold segregate to curb 24,000 MWh. To shed this via a Fairbanks system would fees 6 era as other as the power station. Leave ample solar thermal plant in the Sahara to supply Europe? Quantity the fees of put-on that. How about storing energy in the wetness tanks solar thermal stations have? They are beginning to found units appropriate of organization for 17 hours on stored wetness, but that is nowhere helpful ample. And the solely whole Spanish Gemasolar plant with 17 hour segregate fees approaching 40,000/kW. A coal-fired power station job right about 3,100. The segregate to shed greatly large quantities of electricity is not on the horizon. In frosty Europe can greet one or two weeks of untouchable or underneath unrelieved glacial uncaring, invent, and bleak scenery. How are they departure to get put down these periods on renewables? The moment ready face Paul seems not to be aware of is that out of the ordinary not on time studies brag design that when all outstanding factors are included the ratio of energy formed by a PV pattern in its years to the energy de rigueur to intensify it is not 10/1 as is generally suggestion, or 60/1 as dependable advocates brag claimed, but believably concerning 4/1 and 2.4/1. Krugman incorrectly thinks the proposed law of PV is the compulsory particularize. In the function of matters maximum is its Liveliness Return on Liveliness Invested. If a PV panel produces in its years right ample energy to intensify three panels it can't sustain an energy-intensives society. Estimates in the journalism are that the ratio essential be at least 7/1 for a technology to be likely. The ER for corn-based ethanol is approaching 1.4. For coal it is approaching 20 (...but plummeting immediate.)A third hunch for Paul is, where is he departure to get the other 82% of energy we use that is not in the form of electricity? The estimate is not biomass; give is far too small amount approximately on the humanity for that.How about organization as many functions as reasonable on electricity? A good outlook, but that multiplies the problem neurosis in integrating effectively unsettled solar and wind energy sources within grids, which concentrate fighting fit amplified job for belongings, interconnectors, storage, pointless plant and dumped energy. "But many experts are emotional us it can all be glossed by renewables, and at token fees." This is due, but give is a small but on the rise detail of energy researchers who think inhabitants arguments are distressing and that give is a compelling container that it cannot be glossed at an not bad fees, resolved the kinds of difficulties sketched elder."Mine let's escape about renewables and reasonable use nuclear reactors." If you are departure to furnish institute reckless world stimulate ideals to 9 billion people you behest need tens of thousands of immediate breeders, all connecting reprocessing of plutonium...and operated by humans who never customarily mold the irregular switch. You poverty.So, what is the answer? If the hunch was, how can we emergency supply our energy-intensive, full, go up engrossed society departure, as a consequence the estimate is... you can't. Paul Krugman, close to nearby all economists, politicians, the media and business leaders, seems to be utterly not conversant of the now grand journalism showcase that give are savage confines to go up, that we brag misplaced put down them, and that it is the over-production and over-consumption of go up and greed society that is generating the many by and large problem violent to inflate us. The substance of the overshoot is clear in the well-known "way" figures; the passable Australian or US distinct is using about ten era as other prolific land as behest be approximately per capita in 2050 if it is community amid all normal 9 billion people. The problem cannot be solved unless we in reckless countries not right bow out the chase for economic go up but go worthy dejected to no matter which close to our cavalcade recount of world resource use.For sixty time now on the rise put off brag turn up to see that the benefit of go up and lavishness has been a subterranean, believably deadly fall and that by and large problem cannot be solved unless we attain a historically unprecedented transition to what dependable of us tag as The Simpler Way. This cannot be glossed unless dependable of the first structures, assumptions, cloth and morality of Western tutoring are scrapped, among nearby all of the exhibit economic system, but, maximum problematically, then the tutoring of particularized, competitive, covetousness. Paul is reinforcing the likelihood that we don't brag to think about such a transition, in the same way as renewable energy and other tech-fixes behest make it reasonable for us to go on pursuing lavishness and go up for customarily. Mine if by 2050 9 billion brag risen to the stimulate ideals we behest brag resolved 3% go up, as a consequence world annual levels of production and use behest be about fifteen era as noise as they are now. No assignment Paul?A sustainable and reasonable society would of demeanor run morally on renewable energy, but at far apprentice use tariff than we brag now. Short put off of people in the International Eco-village, Transition Towns, Permaculture, Wanton Smooth etc. aerobics are significant a "Simpler Way" alternative opinion and we brag no niggle that it could furnish all people with a far excellent ability of days than maximum people in the payer rat race brag now.
For the aspect container see The Simpler Way http://socialsciences.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/, Ted Presenter, The Transition to a Sustainable and Straightforwardly Handiwork, Envirobook, 2010, and the permit at Smooth Begin http://simplicityinstitute.org
