Decision 2012

Quote: rdw4potus

Kinda sounds like he voted against what he thought was an unnecessary law.

How can any ban of partial birth be unnecessary? 10
laws banning it aren't enough.

We just had a granddaughter born 8 months ago.
She's the most delightful baby I've ever seen. She
smiles and laughs at everything and anybody would
be glad to have her. How many babies like this have
been murdered because there were no laws to protect
them from monsters.

Quote: rdw4potus

I'm not a liberal,

You're NOT? Coulda fooled me, you defend every
single thing Obama's done and rail against Romney
every chance you get.

Sounds like somebody's in denial to me...

Quote: EvenBob

You're NOT? Coulda fooled me, you defend every
single thing Obama's done and rail against Romney
every chance you get.

Sounds like somebody's in denial to me...

If the people on the left here were more outspoken or brazen, I'd make counter-points against them too. But they're generally more guarded and less reactionary than you are. So their statements require less questioning. What you guys say about Obama is the equivalent of the statement "Mitt Romney is a Mexican immigrant with 52 hidden wives. He's buying this election with the dirty drug money that Bain made from it's illegal offshore "side business." He's probably secretly a robot. He hasn't specifically disproven it. It MUST be true." Just because I think that's ridiculous doesn't mean I hold an equally ridiculous position.

Quote: rdw4potus

Just because I think that's ridiculous

You think EVERY negative comment about Obama is
ridiculous.You never ever agree with any positive
comment about Romney. You're just like every Lib
I've ever known. You hate labels, yet who and what
you are is as obvious as black is from white.

And why do Lib's hate labels so much. I love them,
I'm a right winger and am proud of it. I voted
for Obama because he was the lessor of two Lib
evils, or so I thought. Lib's hide from who they
are, like they can really do that with any success.

Quote: rdw4potus

I'm not a liberal, I'm just also not as conservative as you. There's this HUGE middle, you see...:-)

I have been reading your posts for some time here. You are liberal.

One difference between conservatives and liberals is that when you call a conservative person conservative they take it as a compliment and wear it as a badge of honor. Call a liberal person liberal and nine times out of ten they outright deny it or try to avoid it some other way, such as you have here.

Quote: EvenBob

You think EVERY negative comment about Obama is
ridiculous.You never ever agree with any positive
comment about Romney.

Neither of those statements is true. Also, I'd like to remind you at this time that I've previously warned you that I find the lib label insulting.

Quote: AZDuffman

I have been reading your posts for some time here. You are liberal.

One difference between conservatives and liberals is that when you call a conservative person conservative they take it as a compliment and wear it as a badge of honor. Call a liberal person liberal and nine times out of ten they outright deny it or try to avoid it some other way, such as you have here.

I must be an odd liberal, then. I've voted for more republicans than dems in my life, and it's not close.

Edit: you have to know that you're the most conservative person in every room you walk into. I'm just not like that. You've chosen to be quite extreme, and I don't have the stomach for many of the outlying positions on either side.

Quote: rdw4potus

Neither of those statements is true. Also, I'd like to remind you at this time that I've previously warned you that I find the lib label insulting.

I must have you confused with the other rdw poster.
Yup, all Lib's find being called a Lib insulting, what
else is new. I don't know why, but it sure is true.

Quote: rdw4potus

Neither of those statements is true. Also, I'd like to remind you at this time that I've previously warned you that I find the lib label insulting.

Yet you defend and take every liberal position there is. If there is one you do not share please let us know.

Your statement is more proof the last thing a liberal wants to be called is liberal.

I agree with something said here earlier. Romney
is probably the most qualified person to be president
in my lifetime. He has elected leader cred's, and business
cred's up the wazoo. Just the fact he went to Harvard
Law and Harvard Business at the same time, in his
mid 40's, and graduated in the top 10% of both, is
an incredible feat. Just one of those Harvard schools
is daunting to anybody, just ask Obama. We have no
idea what his grades were, he won't release them.

Quote: AZDuffman

Yet you defend and take every liberal position there is. If there is one you do not share please let us know.

Your statement is more proof the last thing a liberal wants to be called is liberal.

I think Dodd-Frank is crap. Education spending should be as locally controlled as possible, same with infrastructure spending. The EPA is asinine. I'm not big on "green" energy. I'm not wild about Obamacare, but I don't think it's half as bad as some folks seem to and the lies about that program are just silly. I think most programs aimed at the impoverished have the unintended effect of keeping people from helping themselves (I also thought Paul Ryan's speech on the subject was pretty good). Unions are largely outdated, and they hold back the best workers while propping up the incompetent. On unions, I'm not sure how individual performance reviews could be handled and I'd want to see the cost of the union weighed against the cost of the reviews in some fields. A lock-step approach may be warranted, in which case representation is required to negotiate the size of pay increases.

I'm pro gay marriage, but only because I can't think of a legitimate reason to limit freedom. I'm pro-choice, but pretty strongly anti-abortion. There's a difference between what I would do and what I think others should have a right to do, and I lack the ego required to impose my beliefs on them. I'm against voter ID laws, and I'd argue that my position is to the right of yours there. The system just isn't broken (10 voter impersonations in 15 YEARS) and I don't want to add unnecessary regulation and costs to the process.

After Huntsman dropped out of the race, I was all set to vote for Romney (and talked about it quite a bit here) until he decided to make John Kerry look like a stable individual. I do like many of his positions, but he's countered himself too many times. Now it turns out that I can't vote in this election, so its' moot. But, I'd vote for Governor Romney and I might vote for October Romney but June Romney is too far right for me. FWIW, I wouldn't have voted for Obama. I'd either have left the top of the ballot open, or I'd have voted for Johnson. As I said through the summer, on a 10 point scale, Obama was a 3 and Romney was a 2 for me (This would be the June version of Romney) - so Johnson starts to look pretty good pretty fast.

So, my MN ballot would have looked like: (blank), Klobuchar (D-US Senate), Collett (R-US house), R (state senate), R (state house), no to constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage , no to voter ID, yes to school levy. I could see McCollum/Collett going either way, but otherwise this is an extremely common set of choices in my former neighborhood.

I'm less sure about PA, but I do like Tom Smith.

Quote: EvenBob

I agree with something said here earlier. Romney
is probably the most qualified person to be president
in my lifetime. He has elected leader cred's, and business
cred's up the wazoo. Just the fact he went to Harvard
Law and Harvard Business at the same time, in his
mid 40's, and graduated in the top 10% of both, is
an incredible feat. Just one of those Harvard schools
is daunting to anybody, just ask Obama. We have no
idea what his grades were, he won't release them.

I think George HW Bush was at least as qualified. US House, Ambassador to the UN, Envoy to China, CIA Head, 8 years as VEEP. I think he was a great President, too.

Quote: rdw4potus

I think George HW Bush was at least as qualified.

Didn't have the biz education or biz experience. He
was a politician.

Quote: EvenBob

Didn't have the biz education or biz experience. He
was a politician.

Right. The USA has a President, not a CEO.

Quote: rdw4potus

Right. The USA has a President, not a CEO.

Thats kinda the problem right now, isn't it. He
doesn't know jack about anything except running
for office and giving speeches and delegating
all his authority to the 34 Czar's he hired.

Quote: EvenBob

Thats kinda the problem right now, isn't it. He
doesn't know jack about anything except running
for office and giving speeches and delegating
all his authority to the 34 Czar's he hired.

OK, I agree. But that doesn't have anything to do with your claim that Mitt Romney is more qualified to be president than George HW Bush (or anyone else) was. I'd also probably say that LBJ was slightly more qualified to be president. His time in the senate gave him an incredible ability to get things done with Congress.

double post - I thought those were supposed to be impossible now?

Quote: rdw4potus

OK, I agree. But that doesn't have anything to do with your claim that Mitt Romney is more qualified to be president than George HW Bush (or anyone else) was..

Romney has the combination of business and
elected executive experience. So did Carter, he
was very smart and had lots of the same experience
as Romney. Carter's flaw was he was too timid,
too careful, so terrified of making a mistake he
did nothing except sit on his hands all the time.

Quote: EvenBob

Romney has the combination of business and
elected executive experience. So did Carter

So did GW Bush. Let's all hope we're not about to repeat the Bush or Carter administrations...

Quote: EvenBob

Romney has the combination of business and
elected executive experience. So did Carter

So did GW Bush. Let's all hope we're not about to repeat the Bush or Carter administrations...

Quote: rdw4potus

So did GW Bush. Let's all hope we're not about to repeat the Bush or Carter administrations...

Bush isn't in the same league with Carter and
Romney. Carter graduated in the top 10%
of his class at the Naval Academy. He worked
on nukes as officer in the Navy. He took over
the failing family farm and made such a success
out of it he became wealthy. Romney gave away
his inheritance and is a self made man. Bush
did none of that.

Quote: EvenBob

Bush isn't in the same league with Carter and
Romney. Carter graduated in the top 10%
of his class at the Naval Academy. He worked
on nukes as officer in the Navy. He took over
the failing family farm and made such a success
out of it he became wealthy. Romney gave away
his inheritance and is a self made man. Bush
did none of that.

Bush graduated from Harvard and Yale. Sure, every company - including the United States government - that he ever ran turned to shit, but he also definitely "earned" his own money. You cant successfully argue that he did "none of that." He absolutely did some of that.

And Romney's not quite a self-made man. Technically, he only gave away the part of the inheritance that he hadn't already spent. We'd all be better off with a nice house and no debt right from the start...

Quote: rdw4potus

Bush graduated from Harvard and Yale. Sure, every company - including the United States government - that he ever ran turned to shit, but he also definitely "earned" his own money..

If you want Bush in the same league as Romnney and
Carter, go for it. He's not.

Quote: EvenBob

If you want Bush in the same league as Romnney and
Carter, go for it. He's not.

If you want Romney in the same league as Bush senior, go for it. He's not.

Quote: rdw4potus

If you want Romney in the same league as Bush senior, go for it. He's not.

I already said he isn't, what are you talking about.
Bush sr has zero business training or experience.

Quote: EvenBob

I already said he isn't, what are you talking about.
Bush sr has zero business training or experience.

He founded an oil company and made millions before he ran for Congress.

Edit: Haven't you ever been to IAH? There's a whole little creepy shrine...

Quote: rdw4potus

He founded an oil company and made millions before he ran for Congress.

I forgot about Bush in the oil business. Now I've
forgotten the point of the discussion. What are
we trying to prove or disprove?

Quote: EvenBob

I forgot about Bush in the oil business. Now I've
forgotten the point of the discussion. What are
we trying to prove or disprove?

You made (actually, supported) the claim that Mitt Romney is the most qualified candidate for President in your lifetime. I said I thought GHW Bush was more qualified.

Quote: rdw4potus

You made (actually, supported) the claim that Mitt Romney is the most qualified candidate for President in your lifetime. I said I thought GHW Bush was more qualified.

Oh yeah. Yup, I still feel that way. I also like Bush sr,
he was very good as president. He shouldn't have
raised taxes. And he got beat by the most charismatic
candidate in history. Clinton could win again if he
was allowed to run. Clinton even had a sexy wife in
92. Whatever happened to her?

Quote: rdw4potus

So did GW Bush. Let's all hope we're not about to repeat the Bush or Carter administrations...

We have been repeating the Carter Administration since Jan 2009.

Quote: AZDuffman

We have been repeating the Carter Administration since Jan 2009.

Yeah, I think the 10% inflation we've been experiencing over the last 4 years is crushing the economy, said no one ever.

Quote: s2dbaker

Yeah, I think the 10% inflation we've been experiencing over the last 4 years is crushing the economy, said no one ever.

Not sure where you have been, but prices have increased all over. Gasoline to milk. Expect it to get worse until the printing press at the Fed breaks.

Are any of our repub friends worried about third party candidate Virgil Goode in Virginia?? Goode a former US republican congressman from a conservative district in Virginia is known for his strong conservative stances including a very strict anti-immigration stance. He won the district 7 times from from 1996 thru 2008, receiving greater than 60% of the vote each time, before losing by a raiser thin margin of 700 votes in 2010. Even in defeat he managed over 150,000 votes, so he is very popular in that district.

So my question is what if he were to win 5 or 10 thousand votes in his former district and maybe a few more from elsewhere around the state. Mr Goode's district is 86% white (Romney's stronghold) and of course because of Mr Goode's extreme conservative views, you have to assume almost all votes he gets would be at a cost to Romney. This small amount could be real bad news for Mitt Romney in a very tight Virginia race. Anyone worried about this scenario?

What about Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson in Colorado? While Johnson is not from Colorado, he is from neighboring New Mexico. Colorado is one of several states, that has a history of higher vote totals for 3rd party candidates than the national average. Johnson is currently polling at about 2% in Colorado. Unlike Goode, all of Johnson's votes would not come from traditional republican votes, as he is liberal on social issues, but conservative on fiscal issues. Is is thought that more of his support comes from traditional republican type votes than democratic type votes by a 2-1 margin, so again, in a very very close race, like the current 48.2 - 47.8 split (RCP), well who knows. lol It is widely thought that Nader could have been the difference in two different states, Florida and New Hampshire, in 2000, either of which would have given Gore the election.

Quote: AZDuffman

More kind of sounds like he is so pro-abortion that he feels *any* restriction is some kind of path to take away the right of women to vote and send them to the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.

Don't you liberals want more laws and more regulations? How is a baby allowed to die on an OR table going to be able to marry who they choose?

Reading through this thread and got to this point,
before once again finding myself disgusted with the level of discourse.
It is shameless.
What purpose does writing that serve you or anyone who reads it?
Small wonder there is a movement afoot to reclaim this site for Vegas and gambling topics.

There are 6 hard news days left before the election.
Days where there are newscasts and talk radio hosts
that people pay attention to. If Obama is going to
spring an October surprise or a Wag the Dog to save
his ass, he better act soon. There's almost not enough
time for the average voter not to hear about it.

Biden said today that Romney favors a 500 trillion tax
cut for the wealthy. Is this the surprise, that Biden's
a moron? No surprise there..

Quote: EvenBob

There are 6 hard news days left before the election.
Days where there are newscasts and talk radio hosts
that people pay attention to. If Obama is going to
spring an October surprise or a Wag the Dog to save
his ass, he better act soon. There's almost not enough
time for the average voter not to hear about it.

Biden said today that Romney favors a 500 trillion tax
cut for the wealthy. Is this the surprise, that Biden's
a moron? No surprise there..

Well, he started that hurricane that's all over the news in the swing states of Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia. New Hampshire might be next! The whole East Coast is atwitter!

Quote: EvenBob

There are 6 hard news days left before the election.
Days where there are newscasts and talk radio hosts
that people pay attention to. If Obama is going to
spring an October surprise or a Wag the Dog to save
his ass, he better act soon. There's almost not enough
time for the average voter not to hear about it.

Biden said today that Romney favors a 500 trillion tax
cut for the wealthy. Is this the surprise, that Biden's
a moron? No surprise there..

One more manipulated jobs report to go, and then a sunday/monday news cycle to discuss it. Plus he gets to look all presidential while he "helps" storm victims.

And aren't there 7 hard news days left? sunday, monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, sunday, monday.

Quote: rdw4potus

And aren't there 7 hard news days left? sunday, monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, sunday, monday.

Nobody watches news on Sunday. Its church and
football day. If anybody says anything newsworthy
on a Sunday news show, it makes the news on Monday.
Even FoxNews has a yawner lineup on Sunday. A
repeat of Hucklebuck from Saturday, Geraldo, and
a show with that loud mouthed woman judge. Somebody
pinch me.

Quote: EvenBob

Nobody watches news on Sunday. Its church and
football day. If anybody says anything newsworthy
on a Sunday news show, it makes the news on Monday.
Even FoxNews has a yawner lineup on Sunday. A
repeat of Hucklebuck from Saturday, Geraldo, and
a show with that loud mouthed woman judge. Somebody
pinch me.

The sunday news shows exist because people watch them. And the sunday evening news is almost as popular as the weekday broadcasts.

But I suppose we can throw Sunday out. In that case, we'd have to include Fridays to get to your number. You think people watch the news on friday? I think that's hard to do from the theater.

Quote: rdw4potus

The sunday news shows exist because people watch them. And the sunday evening news is almost as popular as the weekday broadcasts.
.

No they're not, you're not even close. If you check
the TV ratings, roughly 3 times more people watch
the news shows weekdays than on Sunday. Thats
why there are so many crappy news shows on
Sunday. None of the big names are working, the
ratings aren't there. You hear about it constantly,
if you're the president and have an embarrassing
story, break it on Friday afternoon at 4pm. It will
get minimal coverage till Monday and by then
nobody will care. The touted Sunday shows are really
fodder for weekly news, they always have been.

Quote: EvenBob

No they're not, you're not even close. If you check
the TV ratings, roughly 3 times more people watch
the news shows weekdays than on Sunday. Thats
why there are so many crappy news shows on
Sunday. None of the big names are working, the
ratings aren't there. You hear about it constantly,
if you're the president and have an embarrassing
story, break it on Friday afternoon at 4pm. It will
get minimal coverage till Monday and by then
nobody will care. The touted Sunday shows are really
fodder for weekly news, they always have been.

OK, then there are 5 and not 6 hard news days until the election. Monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, monday.

Quote: rdw4potus

OK, then there are 5 and not 6 hard news days until the election. Monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, monday.

Sigh.

Quote: EvenBob

Sigh.

I know. It's your own argument and somehow you're still wrong:-)

Quote: rdw4potus

I know. It's your own argument and somehow you're still wrong:-)

Friday is a hard news day. All the news show
lineup's are the same as Mon-Thu. You argue
about the stupidist, most inane things. The
weekend's have never been part of the news
cycle. Ever. They have Sunday morning news
shows like Meet the Press and FoxNews Sunday
so they will have something to talk about Monday.
Otherwise they'd just be rehashing what happened
on Friday.

Quote: EvenBob

You argue
about the stupidist, most inane things.

Christ on a cheeze cracker! LoLoLoLoL etc., to infinity!

Quote: rxwine

Christ on a cheeze cracker! LoLoLoLoL etc., to infinity!

I think you meant

Greetings!

As everyone knows, pursuant to a vote trade, I don't have a dog in the race, but I wanted to correct some erroneous implications being propagated by the Right.

Hannity was on the radio earlier today touting the fact that the early voting in the State of Ohio this year has a closer proportion of Democrats and Republicans voting early than there was in 2008. The obvious implication being made (and also made by his guest, directly) is that this trend clearly favors Romney.

Hannity & Friends are either unaware, or purposefully omitting, the way that the Election process works in the State of Ohio, so I want to attempt to clarify that before anyone goes reading too much into these numbers:

*In the State of Ohio, an individual does not select a party affiliation at such time that said individual registers to vote, therefore (absent actual polls) there is no way to say that x % of Republicans voted for y, or x percent of Republicans voted at all, for that matter.

**The only distinction between Republicans and Democrats in the State of Ohio is based upon what ticket an individual requests at the Primary. If an individual wishes to vote in the Republican primary, then he/she must request a Republican ticket and is therefore considered, by the State of Ohio, to be a Republican for the rest of the year. For example, I voted in the Republican Primary, thus the State of Ohio considers me a Republican, which we know I am not.

***If you request a Republican ticket, then you may not vote in the Democratic Primary and vice-versa.

****Therefore, individuals who may self-identify as Democrats may request a Republican ticket simply becaue they prefer to vote in the Republican Primary that year. The unintended consequence, of course, is that the State of Ohio considers that individual a Republican for the remainder of the year, and vice-versa.

*****Pertinent to the Republican Primary, it is quite possible that Democrats requested Republican tickets (as I did) in order to vote in the Republican Presidential Primary because they could influence that and that Barack Obama was going to win the Democratic Primary this year regardless was a given.

******There may also be other reasons to vote in the Republican Primary, namely, if you wish to vote either for/against any other Republican. In my case, the ability to vote for the Republican Presidential Candidate would not, by itself, have been enough to influence me to request a Republican ticket. However, I also wanted to vote against an individual running for County Sheriff in the Republican Primary because he switched his party allegiance shortly before the Primary because he did not want to go up against one of the Democrats running for the position who ultimately won the Primary. He knew he had absolutely no chance of beating him, at that time, but with work, might be able to take him in the General Election as a Republican running against a Democrat. (Unfortunately, he still managed to win the Republican Primary)

Conclusion

In 2008, you had menaningful Presidential Primaries on both the Democrat and Republican side, so the distribution of tickets (and, therefore, party affiliations) was probably closer to accurate. In 2012, one can assume that the distribution (especially with respect to independents) leaned Republican because it was the only Presidential Primary that could meaningfully be influenced.

I want to point out that I am not specifically saying this is not good news for Romney, or even that it is bad news for Romney, just that it is data utterly devoid of meaning. Regardless of the percentages of early-voting party affiliations, it is impossible to determine whether or not this reflects the actual party affiliations of those voting early.

I should probably clear things up for you regarding Ohio.

Roughly 30% of the people have already voted in Ohio. The early voting has Obama up roughly by ten points 53% to 43%

However, in the remaining 70% of people yet to vote, Romney is up 50% to 45%.

So let's look at the math per 1k voters. In the early voting Obama wins roughly 159 votes to Romney's 129 votes.

However in the remaining 70% of people yet to vote, Romney wins 350 votes to Obama's 315.

The end result: Romney wins 479 votes to Obama's 474 votes per 1,000 votes

The undecided will likely break for Romney, since he out scores the president on other internal polls. Source for the above: Rasmussen

Conclusion: Romney probably wins Ohio.

Quote: Keyser

I should probably clear things up for you regarding Ohio.

Roughly 30% of the people have already voted in Ohio. The early voting has Obama up roughly by ten points 53% to 43%

However, in the remaining 70% of people yet to vote, Romney is up 50% to 45%.

So let's look at the math per 1k voters. In the early voting Obama wins roughly 159 votes to Romney's 129 votes.

However in the remaining 70% of people yet to vote, Romney wins 350 votes to Obama's 315.

The end result: Romney wins 479 votes to Obama's 474 votes per 1,000 votes

The undecided will likely break for Romney, since he out scores the president on other internal polls. Source for the above: Rasmussen

Conclusion: Romney probably wins Ohio.

Wager?

Quote: Keyser

I should probably clear things up for you regarding Ohio.

Roughly 30% of the people have already voted in Ohio. The early voting has Obama up roughly by ten points 53% to 43%

However, in the remaining 70% of people yet to vote, Romney is up 50% to 45%.

So let's look at the math per 1k voters. In the early voting Obama wins roughly 159 votes to Romney's 129 votes.

However in the remaining 70% of people yet to vote, Romney wins 350 votes to Obama's 315.

The end result: Romney wins 479 votes to Obama's 474 votes per 1,000 votes

The undecided will likely break for Romney, since he out scores the president on other internal polls. Source for the above: Rasmussen

Conclusion: Romney probably wins Ohio.

I have a paid membership at RR. I don't see the article you're talking about. do you have the link?