An honest question for both sides...

[Sklar]

If your candidate ends up NOT winning, will you acknowlege the other as the President of the United States?

Just some rules for this thread, please:

1) No terms such as rePUBnicans or DEMONcrats.

2) No name calling or insults. All I want is a thoughful discussion on why you will or won't support the next President.

For my part, if Sen. Obama is elected President, I will acknowlege him as the President.

I won't whine about voter fraud (unless it's proven by fact/evidence that there was fraud). I may be vocal in opposing what he is doing, but I won't oppose the fact that he was legally and duly elected.

What about everyone else?

Sklar

 

[killerb]

If my candidate doesn't win, I'll have no choice but to "acknowledge" the winner as president...

However, if my candidate doesn't win, I will vacate this country ASAP.

 

[JP0724]

If your candidate ends up NOT winning, will you acknowlege the other as the President of the United States?

Just some rules for this thread, please:

1) No terms such as rePUBnicans or DEMONcrats.

2) No name calling or insults. All I want is a thoughful discussion on why you will or won't support the next President.

For my part, if Sen. Obama is elected President, I will acknowlege him as the President.

I won't whine about voter fraud (unless it's proven by fact/evidence that there was fraud). I may be vocal in opposing what he is doing, but I won't oppose the fact that he was legally and duly elected.

What about everyone else?

Sklar

If Mr. Obama legitimately wins the election and is sworn in, then yes he is the President of the United States and I think he deserves to be called Mr. President. I will always be vocal about what I can only assume is going to be a disaster of an administration. That's what happens when a community organizer is running the free world.

but yes, to answer your question, I will address him as President Obama.

 

[RedScrotum]

whoever wins will be the President and will have a rough time ahead of them...they will need our support.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Of course I will acknowledge him.

 

[Principessa]

No, I can't honestly say that I will. I still have trouble acknowleging that man from Texas as being our current President. :irked:

I 've already voted and it wasn't for McCain/Palin or Barr/Root. There is already evidence of voting machine error in my state and at least one other. In addition it's difficult to swear fealty when you don't believe in anything that they hold dear. When your beliefs and that of your illustrious leader are so diametrically opposed it is not unusual to openly express disdain and disbelief.

 

[1BiGG1]

I would of course acknowledge Obama if he wins but I truly fear what will happen if he doesn’t as I think we may see shenanigans from the left that make the Rodney King thingy look like a cakewalk.

Potential threats from the lunatic-fringe-left aside, :unitedstates: Go McCain! :unitedstates:

 

[mindseye]

As both a political nut and a professional mathematician, I think it's fair to say that I've got an unusually deep quantitative understanding of this year's upcoming election. I'm not just following what the polls say -- but I've looked at voter registration numbers, areas of population growth and decline, early voting statistics, ballot layout issues, PVIs. I authored a published paper on the change in voting patterns in Virginia between the 2004 presidential election, and the 2006 Congressional elections.

That said, I've seen enough evidence to convince me that Barack Obama has a 'floor' of 286 electoral votes. Polls currently show him further ahead than that (electoral-vote.com, for example, has him at 364 electoral votes; pollster.com has him at 306 electoral votes; electionprojection.com has him at 375 electoral votes). But even accounting for demonstrably real things like margin of errors in polls, overvote and undervote rates on the various types of voting machines used, and unproven voter behaviors like the "Bradley effect", there's no reasonable scenario in which Obama receives fewer than 286 electoral votes. (Specifically, the Kerry states plus Iowa, Virginia, Colorado, and New Mexico.)

So, when you ask, "If your candidate ends up NOT winning, will you acknowlege the other as the President of the United States?", I'd honestly say by now, probably not: For that to happen, "unreasonable scenarios" would have to take place. I wouldn't give a definite answer without knowing the details of those scenarios, but I'm convinced of a winning floor for Obama in a way that I wasn't convinced, say, seven weeks ago.

 

[B_Nick8]

If I pass him on the street, I will certainly nod.

 

[No_Strings]

I don't have a "side", but I made an agreement with my partner long ago, that if Romney, Huckabee or Palin get into office, we will not continue to live in the United States.

 

[1BiGG1]

As both a political nut and a professional mathematician, I think it's fair to say that I've got an unusually deep quantitative understanding of this year's upcoming election. I'm not just following what the polls say -- but I've looked at voter registration numbers, areas of population growth and decline, early voting statistics, ballot layout issues, PVIs. I authored a published paper on the change in voting patterns in Virginia between the 2004 presidential election, and the 2006 Congressional elections.

That said, I've seen enough evidence to convince me that Barack Obama has a 'floor' of 286 electoral votes. Polls currently show him further ahead than that (electoral-vote.com, for example, has him at 364 electoral votes; pollster.com has him at 306 electoral votes; electionprojection.com has him at 375 electoral votes). But even accounting for demonstrably real things like margin of errors in polls, overvote and undervote rates on the various types of voting machines used, and unproven voter behaviors like the "Bradley effect", there's no reasonable scenario in which Obama receives fewer than 286 electoral votes. (Specifically, the Kerry states plus Iowa, Virginia, Colorado, and New Mexico.)

So, when you ask, "If your candidate ends up NOT winning, will you acknowlege the other as the President of the United States?", I'd honestly say by now, probably not: For that to happen, "unreasonable scenarios" would have to take place. I wouldn't give a definite answer without knowing the details of those scenarios, but I'm convinced of a winning floor for Obama in a way that I wasn't convinced, say, seven weeks ago.

"DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" LOL! :biggrin1:

 

[Calboner]

If your candidate ends up NOT winning, will you acknowlege the other as the President of the United States?

Either I don't understand the question or it is a pointless question. Whoever gets sworn in next January is the 44th President of the United States -- end of story. Even if he gets there by personally stealing or stuffing a million ballot boxes (or whatever is the up-to-date equivalent of such acts), he's still the president, in law and in fact, after he is sworn in. I don't understand how there is room for any personal "acknowledgment" or refusal thereof in the matter.

 

[tripod]

I will move to Canada within his first year of holding office and will never come back.

 

[Principessa]

If I pass him on the street, I will certainly nod.

Well yes, of course, I would nod. It's not like saying I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.

Either I don't understand the question or it is a pointless question. Whoever gets sworn in next January is the 44th President of the United States -- end of story. Even if he gets there by personally stealing or stuffing a million ballot boxes (or whatever is the up-to-date equivalent of such acts), he's still the president, in law and in fact, after he is sworn in. I don't understand how there is room for any personal "acknowledgment" or refusal thereof in the matter.

That is because you are being too literal rather than perhaps ethereal. I know you understand exactly what the OP meant you are simply choosing to be obtuse.

I have a friend who is at best a conservative Democrat, though really more Green Party. She won't allow the current Presidents name to be spoken in her home or in her presence. She turns off the tv if he comes on. I haven't discussed the election with her; but if McCain wins I fear she may become completely unhinged.:frown1:

 

[D_Marazion Analdouche]

One of the largest issues with this country is in the OPs thread.

"Both" sides. We need a real 3rd party option to keep both sides in check.

 

[mindseye]

"DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" LOL! :biggrin1:

Kerry chooses Gephardt.

There are so many reasons that "Dewey Defeats Truman" doesn't apply here.

• "Many of the supposedly reliable polls of voter's preferences in the race had been based on phone surveys—which, in 1948, produced a biased sample of affluent voters (who could afford telephones and also maintain a stable address). These voters were more likely to support Dewey." (source)
  
  Today, it's much easier to eliminate sampling bias.
• In 1948, there was a strong third-party candidate (Strom Thurmond) that skewed the results. There is no strong third-party candidate this year.
• In 1948, three large states -- California, Illinois, and Ohio (totalling 78 electoral votes, enough to change the outcome) were all decided by less than 1% of the vote. This year, none of the largest states -- California, New York, Texas -- are even close. The two largest states that are close, Florida and Ohio, aren't states that I included in the 286 electoral vote floor I mentioned: in other words, both of them can swing in McCain's favor without affecting the outcome of the election.

Any other bons mots?

 

[vince]

If my candidate doesn't win, I'll have no choice but to "acknowledge" the winner as president...

However, if my candidate doesn't win, I will vacate this country ASAP.

If Mr. Obama legitimately wins the election and is sworn in, then yes he is the President of the United States and I think he deserves to be called Mr. President. I will always be vocal about what I can only assume is going to be a disaster of an administration. That's what happens when a community organizer is running the free world.

but yes, to answer your question, I will address him as President Obama.

I think it's interesting that most of the posters so far, do not appear to be willing to even give the President they didn't vote for a chance. I can understand a healthy dose of skeptism, but I think that in troubled times, an attempt at unity and respect would not be a bad thing.

It says a lot about the cynical, polarized nature of politics in the U.S. today. Couldn't judgment be held off for a couple of months to see how it goes?

 

[killerb]

I think it's interesting that most of the posters so far, do not appear to be willing to even give the President they didn't vote for a chance.

Couldn't judgment be held off for a couple of months to see how it goes?

I didn't vote for the current president...

he was given more than a chance & more than a couple of months...

 

[1BiGG1]

Kerry chooses Gephardt.

There are so many reasons that "Dewey Defeats Truman" doesn't apply here.

• "Many of the supposedly reliable polls of voter's preferences in the race had been based on phone surveys—which, in 1948, produced a biased sample of affluent voters (who could afford telephones and also maintain a stable address). These voters were more likely to support Dewey." (source)
  
  Today, it's much easier to eliminate sampling bias.
• In 1948, there was a strong third-party candidate (Strom Thurmond) that skewed the results. There is no strong third-party candidate this year.
• In 1948, three large states -- California, Illinois, and Ohio (totalling 78 electoral votes, enough to change the outcome) were all decided by less than 1% of the vote. This year, none of the largest states -- California, New York, Texas -- are even close. The two largest states that are close, Florida and Ohio, aren't states that I included in the 286 electoral vote floor I mentioned: in other words, both of them can swing in McCain's favor without affecting the outcome of the election.

Any other bons mots?

I think these guys are better at math & reasoning then you are …


TippOnline.com - Welcome to America's Most Accurate Pollster

 

[mindseye]

I think these guys are better at math & reasoning then you are …


TippOnline.com - Welcome to America's Most Accurate Pollster

You're citing a pollster. I've already stated that I'm looking at factors besides polling.

You're citing a pollster who's predicting the nationwide popular vote -- which counts diddly-squat (alas!).

You're citing a pollster who's engaging in push-polling by asking respondents, "Agree or disagree: The U.S. is evolving into a socialist state?"

You're citing a pollster who shows Obama in the lead, so, um, their analysis doesn't significantly differ from my own.

You're citing a pollster who uses an outlying partisan breakdown of 32% Democrats; 31% Republicans; 36% Independent/Other. That's only a 1% gap between Democratic and Republican weightings. No other major pollster uses such a small gap: Rasmussen uses 5.5%, Gallup uses 9%. Even FOX uses a 7% gap. Unless TIPP knows something these other pollsters don't, they're underreporting Democratic response by a few percentage points.

I award you zero points, and may God have mercy on your soul.