.
Feedback

After the Conventions: Who Will Win the 2012 Presidential Election, Obama or Romney?

Now that the Democratic and Republican delegates have officially chosen their nominees, Patch wants to know: Who are you betting on?

It's official: With President Barack Obama's acceptance speech in Charlotte Thursday night, both the Republicans and Democrats have formally chosen their nominees for the 2012 presidential election. Let the real race begin.

A lot can change between now and Nov. 6: Gaffes, scandals or even major international news events could shift the dynamics of the campaign.

The latest Gallup Polls show registered voters preferring Obama to Mitt Romney by just one percentage point, 47 percent to 46 percent. A USA Today/Gallup poll taken just before the party conventions found American voters think Obama is more likeable, but trust Romney more to handle the economy.

Pundits have been busy for months handicapping the major-party candidates on various factors: incumbent advantage, fundraising clout, even religion.

Patch wants to know: Regardless of who you support for President, who do you think will actually claim victory in November?

_______________________________________________________________

Read more about the conventions.

_______________________________________________________________

Vote in our poll below, and let us know your reasoning in the comments.

Energy Guy September 12, 2012 at 10:31 am
Source:
http://www.dividedstates.com/list-of-failed-obama-green-energy-solar-companies/
reg September 12, 2012 at 11:10 am
You should check your own sources before posting them as "Obama Energy Blunders", Energy Guy. And should also learn what Chapter 11 is, too - for example:
Amonix Solar - your source says "Amonix received $6 million in federal tax credits for the North Las Vegas plant and a $15.6 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy in 2007 for research and development." Obama took office when? Oh, yeah - 2009 Solar Trust - did Chapter 11, and because its foreign majority owner filed bankruptcy in its country; as your source says - "filed for bankruptcy protection after its majority owner began insolvency proceedings in Germany." But you blame Obama. Bright Source: your source says it was part of the Chapter 11 liquidation of Solar Trust (see above) ... and Obama had what to do with that? Your source doesn't verify one word of your claim, or even mention it. LSP Energy - been around since '96; filed Ch. 11 because one of its three generators broke, and it needed to liquidate to fund replacement. Your source says it had $214.85 million in debt; this one (http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/fb85347ff9484d01bb2233f656c13882/MS--LSP-Energy-Bankruptcy) says it just sold for $286 million. that's 33.1% profit. And you say Obama has "fault" in this, though, which is yet another one of your cites that has nothing to do with fed gov period, let alone Obama
Dr. John September 12, 2012 at 11:47 am
Nope,
Stats are from IRS.gov and reflect only indviduals who are reporting income. Does not reflect anyone who is a child or not in the work force. 2009 is the most recent data provided by IRS at this time. Sad but true 50% of americans don't pay federal income tax.
reg September 12, 2012 at 11:57 am
Energy Conversion Devices - been losing money consecutively since 2007 - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577222991181931050.html - but you blame Obama.
Abound Solar - it received $400 million in 2010 - paid back all but $70 million in less than two years. Has liquid capital of $136.1 million, so that's ....IN-THE-CLEAR! http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2012/09/11/bankrupt-abound-solars-equipment-to.html?page=all But you say Obama's grant (which was done by DoE, not Obama) is a loss??? Sun Power - has since regained (by 24.2%, in fact)....and not once missed on paying its loan. Beacon - still owed 39.1 mil at time of liquidation, had liquid assets over $72 mil .... LOAN PAID http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-31/beacon-power-backed-by-u-s-loan-guarantees-files-bankruptcy.html ECOtality - the new company took in $115 mil in DoE loans, alright; and quickly got contracts that produced $230 mil http://www.ecotality.com/featured/ev-project/ - now has a new contract with VW, too A123 - your source lists a drop in its stock value; 10 days later, it was up 20% http://www.streetinsider.com/Insiders+Blog/A123+Systems+(AONE)+Rips+Higher+Following+New+Energy+Storage+System+Contract/7593705.html filed for bankruptcy? nope UniSolar - your source says it got money when it opened in 2006 ... doesn't mention Obama or DoE - and it's losing to China http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/06/uni-solar-energy-economy-greenville-biello
reg September 12, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Azure - your source says it's a Canadian company (tip: Canada uses the dollar as its currency, too) - IT RECEIVED NO FUNDS FROM US DoE
Evergreen - RECEIVED NO FUNDS FROM US DoE - please cite some source for this "$527 million from Obama" claim, because your own source doesn't say that. Ener1 - you claim it received "more than a $100 million" - but your source says the company only got $55 million. And let's go over what Chapter 11 is again - payment arrangements for full debt without liquidation. It's not Chapter 7 (which you are hoping everyone else will assume).
stanley seigler September 12, 2012 at 12:20 pm
@Energy Guy
re: Source. http://www.dividedstates.com/list-of-failed-obama-green-energy-solar-companies/ you cudda saved some ink by just posting the above source...but guess you were thinking, 'if i throw enough stuff at the wall some will stick...' some prespective 'It is said that up to 50% of businesses fail within five years of inception. http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-worst-business-failures-in-history/ not sure one can/should call all energy company failures 'BO's blunders'...BTW anyone know what tax breaks for big oil cost, ie, adds to the deficit...bet cost of so called 'BO blunders' pale by comparison to what might be called 'GOP blunders'...also, what do oil spills, due to lax regulations, cost the economy/envirorement...can these be called GOP blunders...also/BTW/and; can 1929 and 2008 be called GOP blunders...seems 'BO blunders' become paler and paler by comparision.
reg September 12, 2012 at 12:21 pm
In general, there are two reasons for the recent difficulties in solar and non-fossil fuels: corporate resistance and foreign competition. On corporate resistance, see Who Killed the Electric Car - http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/ Motor companies and oil companies have driven that one into the toilet; to hell with consumers, they say. On foreign competition, Bush policy on trade with China came close to burying solar power here - US companies send the materials to China, let them build the final products, then send them back to sell here. Seriously hurting that development here in the U.S. One of your own sources cites company officials blaming GOP trade policy with China for their near downfalls.
And one crucial piece of advice: consider your primary source on all of these. "Divided States" is a scam site - doesn't even list who owns/operates it. (The owner is one Jonathan Cooper with office on 5th Ave in NYC, though.....and the company he pays to host that site is Canadian! How hypocritical of him, dontcha think?)
reg September 12, 2012 at 12:25 pm
nope, duck - the source itself says that the figure was calculated as "percentage of people" - NOT percentage of income earners. Common trick of the Heritage Foundation, which has been called out on using this tactic before.
JoSCh September 12, 2012 at 12:50 pm
And again, do you believe that the 50% that don't pay taxes is because the tax code was written that way or because the job creators failed to live up to their end of the deal where America extended their near record low tax break? If over a decade of near record low tax rates aren't enough, what is? They're extorting America, holding their promised jobs hostage until we give them... everything?
stanley seigler September 12, 2012 at 12:52 pm
@Dr. John
...true 50% of americans don't pay federal income tax... and what is the point...assume they followed same IRS rules/regs as mitt and other 1%-ers...they came up with a 0% rate and mitt came up with a 15% rate. is anyone saying the rules should be changed for the 50% (whatever) and not for the 1%...
JoSCh September 12, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Well said stan and reg regarding him needing to simply post the one link. Why the deceptive tactics Energy Guy?
Did you know in many states you can get solar power at a fixed monthly rate far lower than you pay a legacy power provider? Sort of shoots the whole "solar industry which has NEVER proven to produce a single working product. Like Socialism, no evidence ot works" regressive talking point from your biased source right in the face.
John H September 12, 2012 at 01:51 pm
To Reg; Here’s the link from the CBO. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2Wzr4_cemD5OTJKbWlpX01SeVU/edit?pli=1
As I read a little of the supporting document, I would revise the reported 49.5% of *people* paying no taxes at all. The report indicated that the lowest quintile (assuming one fifth equal 20%) of *household*incomes pays 0.3%. This I found in the summary on page 4. See the notes on the Definition page for an explanation of a household, before tax income, and taxes as the chart compares the two latter. Does the 49.5% report include all members of those households? Stated another way, does the lowest 20% of taxpaying households contain half the population of the US? I think something is wrong with the 49.5% number or the two are comparing apples to oranges. Data is only available thru 2009. Supplemental reports indicate that the gap is widening in 2010 and 2011. Also found on page 4.
John H September 12, 2012 at 01:52 pm
The main point I am making the fact that so many households are too poor to pay taxes or contribute significantly extending to the 2nd and middle quintiles.
My assessment is Romney’s plan is to heap more on the red bar on the highest quintile of households while granting reprieve on capital gains vs. Obama’s plan to return to 1990’s taxation rates starting at $250,000.00 to distribute the tax burden on a portion of households in the other quintiles maybe just the 4th. Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center indicates that a single person household would make the top 20 at a $74,000 per year salary, $104,000 for a two person, and $148,000 for a four person?? Is this where child labor becomes an issue? (sarcasm).
Energy Guy September 12, 2012 at 03:39 pm
Valence Technology, Battery Maker, Files Bankruptcy
"Founded in 1989, Valence develops lithium iron magnesium phosphate rechargeable batteries, according to its website. Its products are used in hybrid and electric vehicles, as well as hybrid boats and Segway personal transporters." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-12/valence-technology-battery-maker-files-bankruptcy.html
reg September 12, 2012 at 03:53 pm
Yet another sample from Energy Guy that has absolutely nothing to do with the president or the DoE funds
stanley seigler September 12, 2012 at 07:59 pm
@reg
'...absolutely nothing to do with the president or the DoE funds' SOP for some PATCH posters... irrelavent cherry picking aside...it is difficult to evaluate 'DOE loan program'...the following CLIP seems reasonable: [CLIP] An independent review of the DOE loan program [enguy's bo blunders], headed by former Treasury official Herb Allison, also “failed to turn up the waste and incompetence that critics said riddled the programs,” the Los Angeles Times noted, though it did call for better oversight after companies are awarded contracts. The review also concluded the program could lose as much as $2.7 billion on loans to green-energy companies, but that was actually less than the $10 billion anticipated by Congress... The Allison report was criticized by some Republicans as incomplete, particularly since the panel did not evaluate Solyndra [so add $500M to $2.7B] as part of its review. [end clip] http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys-solar-flareout/
stanley seigler September 13, 2012 at 02:14 pm
PS
re: 'Yet another sample [of misc bankuptcies]' just wondering if people know the difference between bankruptcies in general and the relative few with DOEn loans... if they know the difference, why do they purposely mislead... never mind i know...
Gramps Pupany September 19, 2012 at 04:01 pm
Tea Party and GOP corruption starts with Romney & Ryan and lies they told us about who they'll serve and who they won't. Lies of "omission", like hidden budget cuts, are equal to lies of "commission", like telling the rich one thing and the rest of America another.
They're up to his necks in The Lying Game. What they say is all part of the larger GOP strategy. Believe me, Ryan "takes direction" in order to "stay on" the Republican message. He must "sing the GOP song" to be a GOP candidate. All across the nation, millionaires are backing these liars. They want full control in order to create the final divide between rich and poor. "Us and them". Their misjudgment? A lot of that 47% they despise is part of working America; students working their way through college, single moms restarting their lives with their first job since high school and truly poor mothers, working while the kids are at school, just to buy fuel oil for this winter and food for the day. These are proud Americans. Romney has just stolen their pride, their will power and more...their dignity. Men like Romney, Ryan and Republican candidates for Congress have no place in the seats of government (at any level) making decisions for "all Americans". They only have experience with the "jet set" and their "country club" members. That's okay, if you're running for Prom Queen, but the responsibilities here are far reaching and their vision does not include all Americans, as we've just found out.
martin, bob September 19, 2012 at 07:20 pm
Poll Results
Who do you think will win the 2012 U.S. presidential election? Mitt Romney 282 (50%) Barack Obama 267 (48%)
JoSCh September 19, 2012 at 07:31 pm
That should terrify the GOP that these are the results from SC.
reg September 19, 2012 at 07:48 pm
um, bob? This is not a scientific poll. This is a reader poll from one concentrated region, and the demographics of which are not proportional to the demographics of registered voters. Thus, this poll you cite is in no way reflective on the upcoming election.
Dr. John September 19, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Gramps,
I bet a lot of that 47% are "bitter clingers" or maybe even catholics who feel like their religious freedom was trampled on recently. Just remember, the question was who do you think will win, not who are you voting for.
JoSCh September 19, 2012 at 11:33 pm
True enough. It's too bad they vote not for whom would be best for their and their countries interest, but who they've been convinced by outright lies and propaganda to be afraid of. I wish someone in the GOP would demand a stop to the lies; the ones that stand idly by are now complicit in America truly having only one rational choice.
Lucky me, I get to burn my vote on Gary Johnson.
JoSCh September 19, 2012 at 11:34 pm
*but against who they've*
Edit button Patch!
stanley seigler September 20, 2012 at 12:37 am
in SC:
Mitt Romney 282 (50%); Barack Obama 267 (48% this should terrify the GOP that these are the results from SC [josch] if jim crow voterID laws are ruled unconstitutional...BO will win SC...and; renew faith in my beloved SC...and my 'kingdom by the sea'...summerville.
Dr. John September 20, 2012 at 04:00 am
Stanley,
I rarely get involved in "party politics". That is GOP/DEM battles . I try to stay based on ideology, but I agree with you. It is about time we get the white southern democrat Jim Crow laws off of the books for good
brian September 22, 2012 at 06:44 am
Personally i think a president that can't even make a public speech with out screwing it up shouldn't be reelected. Yeah he is trying to reform are healthcare by making everyone that don't accept his healthcare pay a fine so we have to accept his decision or get penalized. When he was elected he stopped drilling in the gulf but when reelection is up drill drill drill. He just preaches what he wants the public to hear not what he is going to give us. Which is basically what anyone that is trying to get elected does. But what has obama really done for the country. Just because bin laden was killed it wasn't because of him he was just in office don't give him credit for it we need change period.
reg September 22, 2012 at 03:02 pm
what, exactly, was this public speech you refer to, brian? And as for this "fine" - you mean how no one can join a private insurance group immediately before a needed surgery, then drop out right after, meaning everyone else pays for that coverage? You also don't know what you're talking about on offshore drilling - he's reminded companies of offshore opportunities since late 2009, and without any modifications to existing restrictions. And who gave the orders on bin laden, brian? Shoot, Bush called it off and said it wasn't a goal - now, the terrorist is out. You're a clear example of a troll; you pursue old stories to post last minute comments that are all false.
JoSCh September 22, 2012 at 03:31 pm
Trolls post things that are at the very least provocative. I'm afraid brian isn't a troll, just a partisan liar.
http://www.trollingacademy.org/
carol October 3, 2012 at 01:39 pm
totally agree

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Simpsonville Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something